Every seven years, the European Union negotiates the rules of its own multiannual budget. The next Multiannual Financial Framework, still under negotiation, could reshape the availability of funds and the rules by which businesses, administrations and implementing bodies will access funding for seven years. The scope is still open: let's take stock of where things stand and what room for manoeuvre still remains.
MFF 2028-2034: the negotiation gets underway
The European Council of 18 and 19 June 2026 did not produce a final agreement, but it set the roadmap: the Irish presidency, which takes office on 1 July, is tasked with advancing the Negotiating Box by the October summit, with a view to a final agreement by the end of the year(1). If the agreement were to slip beyond 2026, sectoral legislation could not be adopted in 2027, which would in turn delay beneficiaries' access to funds in January 2028(2). Three issues remain open: the overall size of the budget, the architecture of the structural funds, and the new sources of revenue. And in the background, there is a reform that could profoundly change the way European resources are programmed and spent.
A proposal that redesigns everything, not just the numbers
On 16 July 2025, the European Commission presented its proposal for the MFF (Multiannual Financial Framework) 2028-2034: €1.763 billion at 2025 prices (around €1,984.8 billion at current prices).
The Commission proposes going from 52 programmes to 16, and from 7 spending headings to 4(3), with related consequences, including a greater concentration of powers and a shift towards national level governance, with member states becoming Brussels' main counterpart in fund management.
The four headings of the new budget
The figures below are expressed at 2025 prices, consistent with the Commission's proposal.
Heading I, Cohesion, agriculture and reforms: concentrates €946 billion (53.7% of the total(4)), of which €149 billion is earmarked for repaying the NextGenerationEU debt, making it the single largest item in the EU budget. At its core are the National and Regional Partnership Plans, worth €771.3 billion, which merge CAP and cohesion policy funding. While dedicated resources for farmers and less developed regions are maintained, the overall weight of agriculture and cohesion falls compared to the current MFF. The heading also includes €149.3 billion for repaying NGEU related debt.(5)
Heading II, Competitiveness, resilience and security >: with an allocation of €522 billion (29.6%), includes the new European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), which merges 14 programmes.(6) €154.9 billion is the new figure for Horizon Europe, a 63% increase compared to the current cycle.(7)
Heading III, Global Europe: with an allocation of €190 billion, or 10.8% of the proposed MFF, this heading supports the EU's external action. Its main instrument is the Global Europe Fund, which merges seven existing programmes into a single structure worth €176.8 billion, organised by geographic area and global thematic priorities. Funding grows by 37.9% compared to current programmes.
Heading IV, Administration: with an allocation of €104.5 billion, or 5.9% of the proposed Multiannual Financial Framework, this heading covers the EU's administrative expenditure, including salaries, pensions, buildings, European schools and other operating costs.(8)
In addition, there is the Ukraine Reserve, a special instrument outside the MFF ceilings, designed to support Ukraine through grants or budget guarantees, activated as part of the annual budget procedure.
The sticking point: Partnership Plans
The most contentious point of the negotiation is not so much the overall size of the budget as the new architecture of Heading I. At the centre of the proposal are the National and Regional Partnership Plans, intended to redefine how cohesion, rural development, fisheries and social policy funds will be programmed and managed.
The Commission proposes a single Plan for each member state, approved at European level, replacing the current fragmentation of programmes with an integrated national strategy. The stated goal is simplification: moving from roughly 540 programming documents to 27 Plans, based on a common set of rules and greater coherence between investments and reforms.(9)
It is precisely this design, however, raises the main concerns. The model closely resembles the experience of the NRRP (Italy's Recovery and Resilience Plan), with more centralised governance and a system that could be more burdensome in terms of milestones, monitoring and reporting.
Regions and local authorities fear a reduced role in setting priorities, while the European Committee of the Regions and the European Parliament have already voiced strong reservations about the "one Plan per member state" approach.(10)
The operational consequence is significant: if a sectoral priority were not included in the national Plan, there might no longer be an alternative Operational Programme to fall back on. For businesses, implementing bodies and beneficiaries, it therefore becomes crucial to get involved during the Plan's drafting phase, before it is approved.
The scope of this reform is still open. A significant part of the rules, tools and room for manoeuvre that Managing Authorities, territories and beneficiaries will have from 2028 onward will depend on the outcome of this debate.
New own resources: the real test
Beyond the overall size of the MFF, the negotiation revolves around a central question: who pays? The Commission proposes five own resources, three of which are new (e-waste, a tobacco excise duty/TEDOR, and the CORE contribution for companies with turnover above €100 million) and two of which were already put forward in the past, linked to the ETS and CBAM. Overall, the estimated revenue is around €58.5 billion a year, at 2025 prices.(11)
The goal is twofold: to ease the burden on national contributions and to ensure repayment of the NextGenerationEU debt without squeezing the resources allocated to operational programmes. On this point, however, resistance remains strong from Germany, Austria, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands, which are calling for rebates to be maintained and consider the overall size of the budget excessive.(12)
Italy's position in the negotiation
Italy combines two significant profiles in the MFF negotiation: on one hand, it is among the main net contributors to the European budget; on the other, it is one of the largest beneficiaries of structural funds.
Regarding the new own resources, the Italian government's position does not appear to be one of opposition in principle, but rather one focused on assessing the distributive and fiscal effects of each individual proposal. The stated criterion is that any new revenue for the EU budget should not entail additional costs for businesses, citizens or national public finances.
Within this framework, options such as a tax on cryptocurrency profits or a European digital tax appear more viable.(13)
What negotiating progress has the government reported? In its communications to Parliament on 11 June 2026, ahead of the European Council of 18 and 19 June, the Italian government highlighted several elements that emerged in the discussion on the next Multiannual Financial Framework. These include the possibility of strengthening funding for the Common Agricultural Policy, greater attention to the role of regions in the architecture of structural funds, specific safeguards for SMEs under the European Competitiveness Fund, and a reference to the principle of technological neutrality in industrial decarbonisation pathways.(14)
These elements are presented by the government as negotiating progress and as a result of Italy's engagement at European level. At this stage, they do not represent a settled framework enshrined in legislation, but rather significant political indications during the process of shaping the new financial framework. This is why staying engaged in the discussion remains essential: priorities that gain traction during the negotiation phase are more likely to translate into the tools and rules applicable from 2028 onward.
Operational implications for the 2028-2034 programming cycle
For administrations, implementing bodies, businesses and financial advisory operators, the negotiation on the next MFF signals a possible discontinuity compared to the current programming cycle. The changes under discussion could affect not only funding allocations, but also programme structures, governance mechanisms and the way resources are accessed.
The introduction of national and regional Partnership Plans could affect the predictability of implementation tools, especially in the early phase of the 2028-2034 cycle. Experience from the 2021-2027 programming period shows that the timing of programme approval and launch can affect the continuity of measures and beneficiaries' ability to plan investments and projects.
A further aspect concerns the evolution of the environmental criteria applicable to investments financed with European resources. In the 2021-2027 cycle, and particularly within the NRRP, the "Do no significant harm" principle has played a central role in assessing whether interventions are compatible with the EU's environmental objectives. From this perspective, any strengthening of environmental requirements in the next cycle could affect the eligibility of certain categories of investment, changing the scope of what can be funded compared to the current programming period.
In this context, the negotiation phase is also relevant for operators. Following the evolution of the institutional debate and contributing where possible, through trade associations, territorial representative bodies or technical forums, can help anticipate changes and adjust positioning, programming and fund access strategies in good time.
Reporting and monitoring: a paradigm still to be defined
Another aspect to watch concerns the evolution of reporting and monitoring mechanisms. The Commission's proposal refers to administrative simplification goals, including through a reduction in the number of programming documents and the introduction of a more integrated set of rules. However, it is not yet possible to precisely assess the practical effects for Managing Authorities, implementing bodies and beneficiaries.
A possible shift towards models more focused on objectives, indicators and results, also in light of the experience gained with the NRRP, could change the type of information required during implementation. From this perspective, the issue is not just the volume of compliance requirements, but also their nature: alongside expenditure documentation (or in place of it), the ability to demonstrate progress against targets and expected results could become more important.
Several issues therefore remain open:
• the level of detail required for reporting obligations;
• the relationship between financial reporting and results based reporting;
• the role of controls and how the burden is distributed between administrations and final beneficiaries.
Experience from the NRRP shows that systems based on milestones, targets and indicators can create different organisational demands compared to traditional reporting models, especially in terms of monitoring and coordination between institutional levels, but can also streamline the administrative burden during reporting. It will be up to the implementing regulations and subsequent national choices to clarify whether the new system will bring genuine simplification or, on the contrary, new operational complexities.
MFF 2028-2034: what is the best stance for operators to take?
The next MFF does not just rewrite the numbers: it redesigns the rules by which businesses, administrations and implementing bodies will access European resources for seven years. The scope is still open, and a proactive approach can make the difference.
For example, the ability to work with objectives, indicators, timelines and monitoring systems is set to become an increasingly important element in designing and managing interventions in the next cycle.
Those who enter the 2028-2034 programming period already aware of the direction of travel (which priorities will be included in the Plans, how reporting will change, which investments will remain eligible) start with a real advantage. Those who wait for the implementing regulations to understand it are playing catch up.
Want to understand how your sector and your projects fit into the new Multiannual Financial Framework? Let's talk: we can help you read the negotiation and prepare your fund access strategy in good time.
Notes
(1) European Council, Conclusions, EUCO 8/26, 18-19 June 2026, §§35-36.
(2) European Council, Conclusions, EUCO 8/26, op. cit., §36.
(3) EPRS, PE 782.646, op. cit.; European Commission, pp. 4
(4) EPRS, PE 782.646, op. cit. The figure of €946 billion includes the €149 billion for repaying the NextGenerationEU debt; the operational component of Heading I amounts to around €797 billion.
(5) European Commission, Q&A, op. cit. National Partnership Plans (NRPPs) are approved by the European Commission, not by the EU Council of Ministers.
(6) Council of the European Union, press release no. 494/26, "European Competitiveness Fund: partial general approach," 16 June 2026.
(7) EPRS, PE 782.646, op. cit. The €154.9 billion corresponds to a 63% increase compared to the Horizon Europe allocation in the 2021-2027 MFF.
(8) EPRS, PE 782.646, op. cit.
(9) European Commission, Q&A, op. cit.
(10) EPRS, PE 782.646, op. cit. The European Committee of the Regions has formally expressed reservations about the centralised model; the European Parliament explicitly opposes the "one plan per member state" set up.
(11) European Commission, Q&A, op. cit. The five proposed own resources are: the ETS system, the CBAM mechanism, the e-waste resource, the tobacco excise duty (TEDOR), and the CORE corporate resource (threshold: net annual turnover above €100 million). Estimated revenue: around €58 billion a year at 2025 prices. The European Commission's Q&A of 16 July 2025 explicitly states "approximately EUR 58.5 billion per year (in 2025 prices)"; the text uses "around €58 billion" as a rounded figure. For comparison, the Opinion of the European Court of Auditors (OP-2026-MFF-2028-2034) indicates around €66 billion at current prices.
(12) EPRS, PE 782.646, op. cit. The composition of the "frugal" group varies depending on the negotiating context. The Chamber of Deputies Dossier of 2 March 2026 (pp. 32-35) identifies the main frugal countries in the 2028-2034 MFF negotiations as Germany, Austria, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands. Denmark benefited from a correction mechanism (rebate) until 2027, but is not listed among the frugal countries in the ongoing negotiation according to the same source.
(13) Meloni communication.
(14) Meloni communication.
.png)
.png)