MEPs must fight back - and vote - to protect EU aid budget this month

As the new European Parliament gears up for another term, MEPs face one of their most important tasks: voting on the EU’s aid budget for 2025.

We, presidents and European directors of 13humanitarian NGOs, urge MEPs to reflect the opinion of their constituents and defend aid to the most vulnerable.

While many topics spark division within Europe, Europeans are united in one thing: the belief that the EU has a responsibility to show global solidarity via European aid.

Yet, heads of state and politicians are increasingly seeking drastic cuts to official development aid and scaling back on humanitarian aid pledges. Despite these pressures, EU politicians must remember the clear voice of citizens when they are given the choice to cut or increase Europe’s aid budget this month.

Over nine-in-10 Europeans think it is important that the EU funds humanitarian aid globally. In some EU countries almost everyone agrees, with Portugal, Greece, Cyprus, Malta, Slovenia and Ireland boasting 97-percent approval rates for European aid. Denmark, Latvia, Sweden and Finland had over 10-percent increases in the number of people who believe European aid is very important since the question was posed to them in 2020.

Such a strong consensus should be a gift to policymakers. It is clear. Citizens want to continue seeing the EU use taxpayer money to support people facing critical level-crises.

The consensus reflects the urgent reality: in 2019 when the last group of MEPs took their seats 131 million people needed humanitarian assistance. Today, that number is at 308 million due to conflicts, climate emergencies and economic factors.

Yet budgets are tight and need to be used wisely.

Salami-slicing the budget by €2bn

As NGOs, we — and the communities and organisations we partner with — have seen the number of complex protracted crises soar in recent years. Avoiding costly ongoing humanitarian responses to those protracted crises requires investment in addressing root causes and long-term solutions.

Cutting long-term development spending to contexts like Myanmar, Mali and Burkina Faso now is not a wise way to save money. Providing aid today is more effective than having to address spiralling humanitarian needs tomorrow. Withdrawing a lifeline to millions of people will have a direct and outsized impact with the fallout being far more costly if these fragile contexts descend into deeper or protracted crises.

Ensuring this continued investment and commitment to development funding requires a U-turn in the EU and member state approaches, as earlier this year, EU leaders announced nearly €2bn in cuts and redeployments to existing programmes for health, education, human rights, peace-building and other development priorities to enable investment in migration control.

Cutting long-term development spending to contexts like Myanmar, Mali and Burkina Faso now is not a wise way to save money

In addition to taking the difficult choices to maintain long-term investment, politicians and donors need to prioritise putting into action nexus commitments by linking humanitarian, development and peacebuilding activities. A proactive approach to flexible funding will ensure that communities and organisations responding to development challenges and humanitarian crises can flexibly manage funds and deliver on their commitments.

To avoid a perpetual humanitarian cycle, Europe cannot give up on supporting investment across the SDGs and peacebuilding.

The EU reserves are empty after years of responding to Covid domestically and internationally, the Ukraine war and multiple global crises, European citizens want these reserves to be rebuilt. As the preparations for and negotiations of the next EU’s long-term budget (MFF) start up in the next months European leaders will have the opportunity to clearly demonstrate the political commitment of the EU towards people in need globally. MEPs can and should hold them to account.

When Europeans are asked about how they feel when it comes to Europe as a global leader in humanitarian aid more than eight-in-10 feel pride, satisfaction and enthusiasm. In times of division, policymakers would do well to associate themselves with policies that inspire pride and enthusiasm rather than be viewed as responsible for ending European leadership on one of its most popular policies.

A policy disconnect is fast approaching. Europeans are committed to give aid while European policymakers are committed to reducing it. MEPs have a unique opportunity to bridge this divide and represent their citizens by proposing and voting for an increased humanitarian and development aid budget. Cutting aid budgets when millions rely on them and when European’s believe in them would be reckless policymaking.