Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions – The road to the next multiannual financial framework (COM(2025) 46 final)
Date: 2025-04-30
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU financial instrument, budgetary procedure, budgetary reserve (EU), commitment of expenditure, financial management, general budget (EU), multiannual financial framework








C_202503202EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/3202


2.7.2025






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions – The road to the next multiannual financial framework


(COM(2025) 46 final)


(C/2025/3202)


Rapporteurs: 
                  Elena-Alexandra CALISTRU


Konstantinos DIAMANTOUROS


Stefano PALMIERI







Advisors


Samuel CORNELLA (to the rapporteur)




Referral


European Commission, 5.3.2025




Legal basis


Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion




Adopted in section


15.4.2025




Adopted at plenary session


30.4.2025




Plenary session No


596




Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)


202/4/5




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) underlines the strategic importance of the next multiannual financial framework (MFF), since the upcoming negotiations on the post-2027 long-term budget of the EU will take place at a crucial time, with an unprecedented convergence of crises, creating acute tensions between the EU’s strategic objectives and its budget’s size and allocation.












1.2.


The EESC points out the necessity to ensure that the MFF remains strong and ambitious, sharing Enrico Letta’s view that without ‘a unified financial framework that encourages the flow of investments into sustainable and innovative sectors of the real economy, the ambitions for a green, digital, and fair transition are unattainable’. This requires not merely incremental adjustments but a fundamental reconceptualisation of the EU budget as an investment vehicle able to convey its priorities and deliver European public goods (EPGs).












1.3.


For all these reasons the EESC believes that the level of the next MFF – as a percentage of GNI – should not decrease in real terms and in fact must substantially increase to deal with the growing challenges at EU level. Moreover, it is also necessary to review the current rules for adjusting it to future inflation pressures.












1.4.


The EESC hence calls for a significant increase of the MFF in real terms in order to address the huge challenges faced by the EU. In addition, the mechanism to adjust the MFF to inflation, which has traditionally capped the annual increase in contributions to the budget at 2 % should change to preserve the real spending power of the MFF.












1.5.


The EESC suggests a simplification of the current rules, as well as streamlining the current coexistence of too many programmes with overlapping objectives, which cause significant bureaucracy for public administrations, civil society and companies, making it hard to scale up and achieve well-targeted priorities, as stated in the Draghi report. The utilisation of funds must become more efficient for organisations implementing projects at local level.












1.6.


Funding should be targeted at larger programmes with a higher development footprint, and investment must also contribute to integrating peripheral, island and outermost regions into pan-European industrial value chains. At the same time, the European Social Fund (ESF), the European Social Fund+ and Just Transition Fund should not be neglected, but rather reinforced and streamlined to implement the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan.












1.7.


The EESC suggests progressively moving away from the current predominant model of strictly linking financing with expenditure towards a new model based on the expected performance and impact of programmes. The Committee therefore calls for a comprehensive review of administrative procedures, focusing on genuine simplification rather than mere consolidation of existing rules, while ensuring the appropriate utilisation of funds.












1.8.


The EESC encourages a rethinking of the approach to Europe’s defence policy within the MFF considering the European Council conclusions on European defence released on 6 March 2025. Increasing investment in defence and reflecting on a true common European defence, including through new financing tools capable of improving the level of technological development in the military sector, has become crucial after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the growing reluctance of the USA to guarantee Europe’s security.












1.9.


At the same time, the EESC deems it important that the new MFF fully consider the issue of EPGs and the role they can play in the future of the EU and its social cohesion. It is important that the EU play an active role in the production and preservation of EPGs so that its involvement brings about economies of scale, positive externalities and EU added value.












1.10.


The Innovation Fund, which is financed through emissions trading system (ETS) revenues, has provided much-needed finance to help decarbonise EU industrial production. However, calls under the Innovation Fund are massively oversubscribed, showing a huge difference between supply and demand. The EESC therefore calls for the Innovation Fund to be financed with more resources, since only a very small percentage of ETS revenues actually go to the Innovation Fund.












1.11.


The EESC calls for a co-financing element to be introduced in the next MFF for important projects of common European interest to promote industrial development across the EU for all Member States. In addition, the EESC considers that resources for research and development (Horizon Europe) and transport and energy interconnections (TEN-T and TEN-E) must be enhanced.












1.12.


The EESC acknowledges that joint EU debt issuance was pioneered successfully as an innovative instrument during the pandemic and could be repeated in order to finance the sustainable competitiveness and resilience of the single market in the future. The Committee notes that areas of clear European common interest, such as health security, defence capabilities and critical cross-border infrastructure, may occasionally require financing solutions that optimise the EU’s collective borrowing capacity. Any such mechanisms should be considered on a case-by-case basis with appropriate safeguards, governance frameworks and a clear focus on investments with demonstrable European added value that cannot be efficiently delivered through conventional funding channels.












1.13.


The EESC stresses the importance of duly supporting the common agricultural policy within the new MFF to ensure food security and quality, as well as viable farm incomes, in the interest of both EU society and farmers.












1.14.


Recognising the need to invest in water resilience in all areas of society, the Committee urges the EU to adopt water as a strategic priority in the next MFF. A Blue Transition Fund should be established as a single access point for EU water investments, combining public investment with innovative financing.












1.15.


The EESC underlines that the successful implementation of the next MFF will require a fundamentally different approach to performance and accountability, building on lessons learned from both traditional programmes and the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). The experience of recent years has shown that, while performance-based funding offers new opportunities, it must be accompanied by adequate administrative capacity and meaningful stakeholder involvement.












1.16.


The EESC believes that a mainstreaming approach is vital for setting priorities in the next MFF because mainstreaming is about social transformation. Obligations to spend minimum proportions of the budget on mainstreamed goals (e.g. competitiveness, climate change, preservation of biodiversity, water resilience, gender equality, youth, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)) should be proposed for the next MFF. Assessing mainstreaming means looking at longer-term results and impacts on society. This would require improved monitoring.












1.17.


Lastly, the EESC calls for the next MFF to strengthen the EU’s role as a guardian of democratic values through a consolidated ‘Democracy Shield’ framework with three pillars: i) greater funding for civil society organisations promoting the rule of law, human rights and social protection through streamlined access to the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) Programme, the ESF+ and Creative Europe; ii) dedicated support for independent media, watchdog organisations and civic initiatives, particularly in response to the diminishing global funding in this area; and iii) the extension of these resources to both Member States and candidate countries with sufficient funding levels.












1.18.


The EESC stresses the need to implement the comprehensive package on the next generation of own resources presented in 2021 and adjusted in 2023 by the European Commission and joins the request of the Commission to call on the Council ‘to resume work on the issue of new own resources as a matter of urgency, in line with the Interinstitutional Agreement from 2020 and the Budapest Declaration on the New European Competitiveness Deal’. The EESC also believes that own resources should not undermine competitiveness.




2.   Background and context









2.1.


On 11 February the Commission published the Communication The road to the next multiannual financial framework (MFF), highlighting the policy challenges for the next MFF and announcing ‘a simpler, more focused and more impactful budget’. The Communication also focuses on possible ways to finance the new budget, outlining the next steps towards the presentation of the upcoming MFF in July 2025.












2.2.


When presenting its annual work programme, the Commission also called for a new long-term budget ‘better aligned with EU priorities and objectives targeted to where EU action is most needed in a flexible way. It will be simpler in the way it works and more impactful and will make better use of our budget to leverage further national, private and institutional financing’.












2.3.


In this opinion, the EESC will put forward observations and suggestions on behalf of EU businesses, workers and civil society, underlining some of the most relevant and strategic issues related to the next MFF.




3.   The need for a strong MFF at a crucial time









3.1.


The EESC underlines the strategic importance of the next MFF, since the upcoming negotiations on the post-2027, long-term budget of the EU will take place at a crucial time of increased tensions between EU strategic objectives and its budget’s size and allocation.












3.2.


Moreover, in addition to the enormous challenges related to a just twin green and digital transition and geopolitical tensions, the EU is confronted with additional pressure on EU funding, together with the need to repay the debt issued under Next Generation EU (NGEU).












3.3.


The current crises require – in order to be addressed – the contribution of adequate economic resources that are currently not present in a marginal MFF that is perpetually based on ‘one point something’ of the GNI of the 27 Member States and where the sterile and petty logic of ‘just return’ prevails.












3.4.


The EESC therefore points out the necessity to ensure that the MFF remains strong and ambitious, sharing Enrico Letta’s view that without ‘a unified financial framework that encourages the flow of investments into sustainable and innovative sectors of the real economy, the ambitions for a green, digital, and fair transition is unattainable’ (1).












3.5.


The EESC deems that the next MFF must increase significantly in real terms to address the scale of the challenges faced by the EU, taking into account new priorities and the fact that the upcoming MFF should also cover the repayment of the NGEU loans. For all these reasons the EESC believes that the level of the next MFF – as a percentage of GNI – should not decrease in real terms and in fact must substantially increase to deal with the growing challenges at EU level. It is also necessary to review the current rules for adjusting it to future inflation pressures.












3.6.


The existing share of the EU budget earmarked for cohesion policy should not be reduced in the next MMF, but should instead be increased, as the EU’s cohesion policy, and particularly the European Social Fund+, have proven vital for investing in people, creating jobs and reinforcing the European social market economy model.












3.7.


In order to focus on concrete ways to fund the new MFF, the EESC stresses the need to duly consider the comprehensive package on the next generation of own resources first presented in 2021 and then adjusted in 2023 by the European Commission, which called on the Council ‘to resume work on the issue of new own resources as a matter of urgency, in line with the Interinstitutional Agreement from 2020 and the Budapest Declaration on the New European Competitiveness Deal’ (2). The EESC also believes that own resources should not undermine competitiveness.




4.   General comments

4.1.   A more targeted and simplified MFF









4.1.1.


The EESC supports greater simplification of the current rules in line with the Commission’s general simplification objectives and notes that there are currently too many programmes with overlapping objectives. Such a situation causes significant bureaucracy for public administrations, civil society and companies, making it hard for them to scale up and achieve well-targeted priorities. As stated in the Draghi report (3), the ‘EU budget is fragmented across close to 50 spending programmes, preventing EU financing from reaching sufficient scale for larger pan-European projects’.












4.1.2.


The EESC notes that previous efforts to simplify the administrative processes for companies, civil society organisations and authorities have failed to produce any tangible results. Simplification does not mean placing existing rules under a single document, but rather it entails a simplification of guidelines, control systems and burdens on beneficiaries, while ensuring appropriate checks and balances to prevent fraud and misuse for all beneficiaries.












4.1.3.


There should be greater focus on larger programmes with a higher development footprint, without prejudice to smaller programmes such as Erasmus+ that are particularly effective at reaching civil society actors at local level. Investments must also contribute to integrating peripheral, island and outermost regions into pan-European industrial value chains.












4.1.4.


At the same time, the ESF and Just Transition Fund should not be neglected but maintained as stand-alone instruments in the next MFF with increased funding, especially considering the substantial changes underway, with rising inequalities and the cost-of-living impact, especially for energy and housing, affecting the most vulnerable parts of the population, such as people with disabilities. In this respect, training opportunities for workers in declining industries should be duly considered in order to minimise the shortage of skilled workers in emerging sectors.












4.1.5.


In this respect, the EESC suggests progressively moving away from the current predominant model of strictly linking financing and expenditure towards a new model based on the expected performance and impact of programmes. This transition must carefully balance the need for predictability with the drive for results. The EESC emphasises that these frameworks must keep in mind the need to devise specific tools in favour of SMEs and small mid-caps, ensuring they are not excluded by overly complex requirements.












4.1.6.


While more flexibility and simplification in the EU budget should be used to enhance competitiveness, a fair green transition and social justice, they should not jeopardise predictability. The MFF, the funds’ designs and State aid rules should hence be properly aligned in order to ensure certainty and the overall consistency of the system.












4.1.7.


The Committee therefore calls for a comprehensive review of administrative procedures, focusing on genuine simplification rather than mere consolidation of existing rules, while ensuring the appropriate utilisation of funds. This should include harmonised implementation rules across funds where possible, standardised data requirements and integrated IT systems that reduce the burden on beneficiaries while maintaining proper control and offering transparency for taxpayers.












4.1.8.


The EESC notes that, while the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) introduced innovative approaches to performance-based funding, its implementation has revealed major limitations. The Committee observes that milestone-based disbursement often leads to an emphasis on procedural compliance rather than substantive change.




4.2.   Cohesion policy still at the heart of the EU and its MFF









4.2.1.


As stated by Jacques Delors, ‘if European policies jeopardise cohesion and sacrifice social standards, the European project has no chance of winning the support of European citizens’ (4).












4.2.2.


In this vein, the EESC reiterates that cohesion policy is and must continue to be a cornerstone of the EU’s mission and of the MFF chapters, balancing the need for social, economic and territorial convergence with competitiveness, for a fair distribution of income and wealth between and within regions and Member States. In this context, the EESC also emphasises the key role of social economy enterprises in strengthening territorial and social cohesion, enhancing regional competitiveness and promoting inclusive and sustainable economic development.












4.2.3.


The EESC deems it crucial that cohesion policy remain at the heart of the MFF, since it helps ensure that the benefits of the internal market are fully distributed among all citizens and the various regions of the EU (the so-called freedom to stay in the place where one has chosen to live). In order to ensure genuine cohesion across the EU, it is becoming clear that services of general economic interest (SGEIs) (5) have a direct role to play in ensuring the freedom to stay, as pointed out in the Letta report.












4.2.4.


The EESC believes that regional GDP per capita must remain the main criterion for regional categorisation and advocates stronger involvement of social partners and civil society in order to better consider private sector priorities and needs, while also aligning with national budgets and ensuring fiscal consolidation. However, the Committee strongly cautions against centralisation, emphasising that enhanced performance monitoring must respect the principle of subsidiarity and preserve the primary role of regions in implementation.












4.2.5.


Taking as a given the need to increase the EU’s overall competitiveness, the EESC also calls for reflection on the territorial dimension of competitiveness, as described in detail in the EU Regional Competitiveness Index 2.0 published last year by the European Commission (6). This index is focused on the need to analyse EU competitiveness at territorial level, which will be key to carrying out many of the actions suggested by the Letta and Draghi reports and funding them under the MFF.




5.   Specific comments

5.1.   The MFF and defence









5.1.1.


Based on recent geopolitical developments, the EESC stresses the importance of implementing a real European defence strategy through the next MFF, including through new financing tools capable of improving the level of technological development in the military sector.












5.1.2.


In its work programme, the Commission rightly pointed out that ‘strengthening Europe’s crisis preparedness and defence readiness is therefore a matter of urgency with the EU and its Member States facing multi-dimensional, complex and cross-border threats and crises’. The Committee notes that achieving a whole greater strategic autonomy requires a coordinated approach that bridges EU defence with EU foreign policy trade and industrial policies, research and innovation, full interoperability among Member States and joint or coordinated defence procurement.












5.1.3.


The new MFF should also provide for financing for defence and preparedness that recognises the dual-use nature of many critical technologies. The Committee calls for an integrated approach that: i) better aggregates and coordinates demand at EU level to increase economies of scale, including through joint procurement; ii) immediately implements the European Defence Industrial Strategy (EDIS); iii) rapidly adopts the European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP); iv) creates synergies between civilian and military research and innovation; v) ensures recognition and support for the role of civil society in the ‘Preparedness Union Strategy’.












5.1.4.


The EESC emphasises that defence investments must be accompanied by robust oversight mechanisms and transparent reporting, ensuring accountability while protecting legitimate security interests. The Committee calls for structured involvement of social partners and civil society in monitoring the socio-economic impacts of defence investments.




5.2.   The MFF and public goods









5.2.1.


The EESC believes it is important that the new MFF fully consider the issue of European public goods (EPGs) and the role they can play in the future of the EU and its social cohesion. If it has become important to invest in defence and security, resilience and preparedness in light of the geopolitical situation, it is also important that the EU play an active role in the production and preservation of EPGs in order to bring about, with its involvement, economies of scale, positive externalities and EU added value.












5.2.2.


The 2028-2034 Multiannual Financial Framework should therefore include specific funds aimed at ensuring adequate investment in EPGs. The EESC therefore hopes that the quantitative allocations of the next MFF will allow the EU to pursue strategic priorities in areas such as education, transport, public health, social progress, strategic autonomy, environmental protection and climate change.












5.2.3.


Given the positive results produced during the COVID-19 crisis, an EU tool akin to SURE should be launched in order to cope with any contingent shocks, as well as to provide support for upskilling and reskilling and to make the twin digital and green transitions both socially sustainable and just.












5.2.4.


The next MFF should also ensure the effective implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights and equality for all people in the form of equal rights and opportunities for all, as requested in the European Council conclusions of 21 July 2020. With strategic use, a stronger European Social Fund can uphold human rights, strengthen social cohesion, build a better skilled workforce, improve long-term economic sustainability and foster productivity and innovation – ensuring thriving regions and enhancing Europe’s global competitiveness.




5.3.   Innovation and Research, Industrial Collaborations and Networks









5.3.1.


The EESC notes that the EU’s energy-intensive industries are facing a permanent cost differential compared to their international peers because of high energy prices and EU climate policies (emissions trading system (ETS)). The Innovation Fund, which is financed through ETS revenues, has provided much-needed finance to help decarbonise EU industrial production. However, calls under the Innovation Fund are massively oversubscribed, showing a huge difference between supply and demand (7).












5.3.2.


The EESC calls for the Innovation Fund to be financed with more resources, since only a very small percentage of ETS revenues actually go into the Innovation Fund. A twofold way to increase the budget for the future would be: i) for Member States to allocate a higher percentage of such revenues to the Innovation Fund; ii) to include a dedicated budget devoted to activities under the Innovation Fund within the MFF.












5.3.3.


In the mission letter to Commissioner Piotr Serafin, the President of the European Commission stated that the next MFF should include a European Competitiveness Fund with ‘an investment capacity that will support strategic sectors critical to the EU competitiveness, including research and innovation, and Important Projects of Common European Interest’. In that context, the EESC again stresses the importance of new own resources that nevertheless do not undermine competitiveness.












5.3.4.


The EESC acknowledges that joint EU debt issuance was pioneered successfully as an innovative instrument during the pandemic and could be repeated in order to finance the sustainable competitiveness and resilience of the single market (8).












5.3.5.


The EESC points out that the Draghi report identifies boosting private and public investment as one of the main tools for boosting EU competitiveness. As such, the next MFF needs a strong competitiveness fund to leverage investment in the green and digital transitions by reinforcing the EU’s value chains and Europe’s open strategic autonomy, supporting all types of enterprises in the EU, from large business groups to SMEs and social economy enterprises. Such a fund should be based on new public resources, avoiding the simple repackaging of existing programmes.












5.3.6.


Important Projects of Common Interest (IPCEIs) are key to supporting the EU’s industrial development.












5.3.7.


However, until now, IPCEI financing has been solely dependent on national funding, creating discrepancies as well as hindering the integration of many countries and regions into the EU’s industrial value chains. The EU institutions should therefore establish strategic priorities and agree on a standard co-funding formula for new IPCEIs, at least from 2028, thus enabling more equal and balanced participation of companies across the EU.












5.3.8.


Given that the EU still has not achieved the target of spending of 3 % of its GDP on research and development and has been overtaken by its main competitors, the next MFF must increase the budget dedicated to Horizon Europe.












5.3.9.


Last but not least, the next MFF should enhance the resources for completion of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) and the Trans-European Energy Network (TEN-E) to ensure a high-quality, coherent and multimodal transport infrastructure and better energy interconnections across the EU.




5.4.   Mainstreaming in the next MFF









5.4.1.


Mainstreaming is a means of ensuring that key political priorities are given due prominence and are applied across all sectoral policy areas. Its purpose is to emphasise long-term societal transformations and to embody such goals in all stages of the budgetary policy process. Mainstreaming currently covers action on climate change, preservation of biodiversity, water resilience, gender equality and the SDGs. Obligations to spend minimum percentages of the budget on mainstreamed goals should be proposed for the next MFF and must also include competitiveness, democracy and EU values.












5.4.2.


Monitoring is a vital tool for verifying the success of mainstreaming, but it needs careful attention, especially when progress is slow or fragmented or when the changes sought are measurable in qualitative terms – and need qualitative indicators – rather than through quantitative indicators.




5.5.   The MFF and the next Common Agricultural Policy









5.5.1.


The EESC emphasises the importance, in the interest of both EU society and farmers, of duly supporting the common agricultural policy within the new MFF to ensure food security and food quality, as well as viable farm incomes.












5.5.2.


Rural areas are home to 30 % of the EU population, yet they often receive less attention than urban areas, while playing a crucial role in the EU’s green and digital transitions, food security and social cohesion. The next MFF must therefore ensure that rural areas receive adequate funding to prevent disparities and support economic cohesion (9).




5.6.   Water resilience as a strategic funding priority for Europe









5.6.1.


Recognising the need to invest in water resilience in all areas of society, the Committee urges the EU to adopt water as a strategic priority in the next MFF.












5.6.2.


A Blue Transition Fund should be established as a single access point for EU water investments, combining public investment with innovative financing.




5.7.   Transparency and democratic accountability









5.7.1.


The EESC underlines that the successful implementation of the next MFF will require a fundamentally different approach to performance and accountability, building on lessons learned from both traditional programmes and the RRF. The experience of recent years has shown that, while performance-based funding offers new opportunities, it must be accompanied by adequate administrative capacity and meaningful stakeholder involvement.












5.7.2.


The EESC therefore emphasises that meaningful involvement of civil society and social and business partners must go beyond consultation. Their participation should be structured and they should be given suitable resources from the earliest planning stages to implementation and monitoring. This involvement is not merely procedural, but essential for ensuring that funding effectively addresses the real economic and social needs on the ground.












5.7.3.


The EESC calls for the development of more sophisticated impact assessment methodologies that can adequately capture the complex effects of EU funding. This requires moving beyond traditional indicators to incorporate both qualitative and quantitative measures of long-term impact, while ensuring that data collection and reporting requirements remain proportionate and manageable for beneficiaries.












5.7.4.


The Committee underlines that the implementation of the next MFF must be supported by robust governance mechanisms that combine strategic direction with operational efficiency. This includes strengthened coordination between EU institutions, national authorities and regional bodies, supported by adequate technical assistance and capacity building measures.












5.7.5.


The EESC emphasises that effective monitoring and evaluation systems must be fundamental components of the new MFF rather than auxiliary features. These systems should enable continuous learning and adjustment while ensuring transparency in implementation. The Committee underlines that such frameworks must strike a careful balance between comprehensive oversight and practical feasibility.












5.7.6.


The Committee underlines that transparency must serve a dual purpose: ensuring proper oversight, while demonstrating the concrete impact of EU funding on citizens. This requires moving beyond formal reporting toward real-time, accessible information on implementation and results. The EESC emphasises that such transparency is essential for maintaining citizens’ trust and countering Eurosceptic narratives.












5.7.7.


Social partners and civil society organisations must have a clearly defined role in monitoring and oversight. The EESC calls for their involvement to be properly resourced through technical assistance and supported by access to comprehensive data and monitoring systems. However, the Committee emphasises that increasing transparency requirements must not create additional administrative burdens that could hinder effective implementation.












5.7.8.


To further ensure this meaningful involvement, and where relevant, the next MFF should try to better integrate the EU Youth Check when designing and implementing future funding programmes to ensure that the voices of youth civil society are heard and the MFF designed with young people and future generations in mind.












5.7.9.


The EESC underscores the critical role of civil society organisations in safeguarding and advancing the European values of the rule of law, democracy, human rights and social protection. To strengthen this vital pillar of European democracy, the Committee calls for a substantial increase in funding through programmes like CERV, the ESF+, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), Erasmus+ and Creative Europe, with specific allocation targets and streamlined access mechanisms for smaller organisations working at grassroots level.












5.7.10.


In light of the diminishing global support for democratic institutions, the EESC urges the EU to significantly expand its role as a guardian of democratic values by establishing a robust funding framework for independent media, watchdog organisations and civic initiatives. The Committee endorses the proposed ‘Democracy Shield’ initiative and recommends that it be given sufficient resources to effectively protect EU values, providing for a central role for civil society organisations.






Brussels, 30 April 2025.


The President


of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE
               





(1)  Enrico Letta, 
Much more than a market report, April 2024.

(2)  See also 
OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 7.

(3)  Mario Draghi, 
The future of European competitiveness
, 2024.

(4)  Enrico Letta, 
Much more than a market report, p. 101.

(5)  See Article 14 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Protocol 26 annexed to the Treaty on European Union.

(6)  Dijkstra, L., Papadimitriou, E., Cabeza Martinez, B., de Dominicis, L., Kovacic, M., (2023) 
EU Regional Competitiveness Index 2.0
 – 2022 edition. Revised May 2023. Working Papers 1/2023. European Commission – Regional and urban Policy.

(7)  In the 2023 call, the fund received 337 applications, amounting to over EUR 24 billion, which is an oversubscription of six times the earmarked budget of EUR 4 billion.

(8)  EESC opinions on The recovery plan for Europe and the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (
OJ C 364, 28.10.2020, p. 124) and on The new economic governance rules fit for the future (OJ C, C/2023/880, 8.12.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/880/oj).

(9)  The EESC opinion on Fostering sustainable and resilient food systems at times of growing crises (OJ C, C/2025/117, 10.1.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/117/oj) states that ‘The EESC regrets the EU decision to cut EUR 105 million from the current EMFAF for the period 2025-2027 and requests an increase in resources for the next financial period. In addition, in order to ensure effective price support and crisis management instruments, funding for the agricultural reserve (set at EUR 450 million per annum) needs to be set at a significantly higher level and be multi-annual.’ See also the EESC opinion ‘Ensuring sustainable food production and a fair income for European farmers in the face of market, environmental and climate challenges’ (OJ C, C/2025/2016, 30.4.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2016/oj), and the EESC opinion on Towards a greater involvement of Member States, Regions and Civil Society actors in the implementation of the Long-Term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas (OJ C, C/2024/4055, 12.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4055/oj).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3202/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)