AgoraEU Updates: What Are the Council and Parliament Preparing?

Ahead of the Cultural Deal for Europe Policy Conversation on 3 February 2026, dedicated to culture’s place in the next EU budget, Culture Action Europe is sharing the latest updates on the AgoraEU negotiations. 

As a reminder, you can read our previous analysis of AgoraEU here.  

In July 2025, the European Commission proposed its next EU long-term budget (Multiannual Financial Framework 2028–2034, MFF), including a new programme called AgoraEU, which would merge the Creative Europe and CERV Programmes (Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values).  

The total proposed budget is €8.6 billion in current prices, structured around three strands: Creative Europe – Culture, MEDIA+, and CERV+. 

Despite the merger, the Creative Europe – Culture strand appears to have preserved its autonomy. Its current budget stands at €820 million, while the proposal puts it at €1.8 billion in current prices, a significant rise even when accounting for inflation. 

The European Commission made the proposal, and the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, representing Member State governments, negotiate and ultimately adopt the final budget. 

In practice, each institution assigns the legislative file to the relevant bodies, such as parliamentary committees or Council working parties. These bodies draft opinions and reports, which are then translated into amendments to the Commission’s proposal and adopted by the institution as a whole. 

The Council’s position on AgoraEU  

The Council’s Presidency compromise text of 12 January 2026, leaked by Contexte, largely maintains AgoraEU’s three-strand structure; no major departures here. 

1. One notable addition, however, is the introduction of a definition of the ‘cultural and creative sectors’ that excludes the audiovisual sector. In parallel, the Council proposes a separate definition for ‘media industries,’ under which the audiovisual sector, including film and video games, is now grouped alongside journalism. 

Below are the definitions as set out in the Council text: 

We understand the logic behind this separation. Under the new programme structure, the audiovisual sector is placed in the MEDIA+ strand alongside the News objective. The Council seems to be trying to draw a clearer line: the Creative Europe – Culture strand would support the ‘cultural and creative sectors,’ while MEDIA+ would support ‘media industries.’ 

However, this arranged marriage should not lead to a narrow understanding of the cultural and creative sectors that excludes audiovisual creation altogether. Film, series, documentary, video games are not only industries; they are also artistic and culturally significant forms of expression. 

The wording also risks creating new ambiguity. The definition of ‘media industries’ refers to distribution through ‘theatrical exhibition’ and ‘print and online publishing,’ which overlaps with areas that are commonly understood as part of performing arts and publishing. 

The definitions provided by the Council need further clarification. As drafted, they risk adding confusion precisely where the text is meant to provide operational clarity. 

2. As far as the Culture strand is concerned, the Council’s proposed changes to its objectives are marginal. They mostly fine-tune and clarify the wording but do not add new objectives.  
3. The Council pays closer attention to an issue Culture Action Europe flagged earlier: the future of the Programme Desks (now referred to as Creative Europe Desks). In the Commission proposal, the desks are mentioned as a horizontal priority (Article 10), but their funding is left unclear. The Desks are currently financed under the Cross-Sectoral strand, which is absent from the new AgoraEU structure. The Council provides more detailed references to the Desks in Article 10 and adds a mention in recital 36 regarding ‘appropriate resourcing for Programme Desks or their equivalents within the Programme.’ Still, the core question remains unanswered: under which strand would that funding sit? 
4. On third-country participation, the Council proposes a shift in terminology: ‘associated countries’ would become ‘participating countries’—non-EU states that can join the programme under specific conditions (for example, Moldova or Ukraine). Participation requires concluding and ratifying an agreement with the EU, prior legal alignment, and a financial contribution. 

The Council adds a more cautious framing: new language suggests that third-country participation should ‘ensure the protection of the financial and security interests of the Union’ (recital 36a). 

For MEDIA+, participation in the News objective would require the country to align its legislation with the European Media Freedom Act. 

Finally, the text reiterates that entities from non-participating third countries may be funded only exceptionally and should bear their own costs. This remains sensitive in certain contexts—for example, in European projects addressing colonial legacies, where asking partners from affected countries to self-fund can reinforce the imbalance the project is meant to challenge. 

5. The Council reintroduced a Programme Committee (a body composed of representatives from 27 Member States that assists and supports the European Commission and provides an opinion on the Creative Europe Annual Work Programmes) with the possibility of strand-specific configurations. 
6. On AgoraEU funding, the Council’s draft negotiating box still does not include concrete figures for the programme. Work is expected to continue under the Cyprus Presidency. 
7. The Council remained surprisingly silent on the absence of sector-specific funding lines inAgoraEU (e.g. for music, books, etc.), and did not mention the need to include an annex specifying the programme’s funding lines. 

Overall, the Council’s position on AgoraEU and on the Creative Europe – Culture strand in particular largely preserves the status quo, with only marginal adjustments. Several major questions remain unanswered, and the Council’s position on the programme’s budget is still unclear. The Council typically adopts a more frugal stance in budget negotiations, given that the MFF is funded by Member State contributions. 

The European Parliament’s position 

There are two files to watch: the MFF interim report and the AgoraEU report. 

The MFF interim report is led by the Committee on Budgets (BUDG). It sets out Parliament’s position on the overall architecture and principles of the next MFF, alongside the main budget figures. In its draft, Parliament proposes additional €880 million for AgoraEU, however, it is not yet clear how this increase would be distributed across the programme’s strands. 

Meanwhile, the Committee on Culture and Education (CULT, rapporteur: Helder Sousa Silva, EPP, PT) has presented its draft opinion on BUDG’s MFF interim report. In it, Sousa Silva proposes to raise AgoraEU’s budget to €12 billion in 2025 prices and stresses the need for clear earmarking and a detailed budgetary nomenclature within each strand of AgoraEU. He also calls for a clear separation between the Audiovisual and News objectives within MEDIA+. The report emphasises the need for stronger integration of education and culture across Heading 2 ‘Competitiveness, prosperity and security’ of the MFF, whether through dedicated clusters or stronger synergies. 

In parallel, other political groups are tabling their own amendments to the CULT’s opinion report. The Greens, for example (shadow rapporteur: Diana Riba i Giner, Greens/EFA), propose €17.5 billion for AgoraEU. They also call for allocating 2% for culture in the National and Regional Partnership Plans, and for research, innovation and competitiveness in the cultural and creative sectors to be supported through the European Competitiveness Fund and Horizon Europe — a proposal Culture Action Europe strongly supports and encourages other MEPs to back. 

While CULT’s opinion on BUDG’s draft MFF interim report is not yet finalised, the direction is clear: stronger funding ambitions, clearer earmarking, and culture mainstreaming. The draft will still be debated in the committee ahead of the final vote on CULT’s opinion, after which it will be up to BUDG to decide which proposals are ultimately taken forward. 

The MFF interim report is expected to be adopted on 8 April 2026 in BUDG and then put to a vote in plenary in Strasbourg in May. The text adopted in plenary will form the European Parliament’s mandate for negotiations with the Council. 

Finally, the European Parliament has begun substantive work on the AgoraEU file. CULT and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) are leading the process, with Emma Rafowicz (S&D, France) as CULT co-rapporteur and Alice Kuhnke (Greens/EFA, Sweden) as LIBE co-rapporteur. Emma Rafowicz has spoken publicly on several occasions about the need to preserve a sectoral approach within the Culture strand. 

CULT shadow rapporteurs are: Zoltán Tarr (EPP, Hungary), Diana Riba i Giner (Greens/EFA, Spain), Birgitte van den Berg (Renew, the Netherlands), Mario Furore (The Left, Italy), Catherine Griset (PfE, France), Ivaylo Valchev (ECR, Bulgaria), Zsuzsanna Borvendég (ESN, Hungary).  

According to preliminary information, the draft report is expected to be presented in CULT on 3–4 June 2026. The deadline for tabling amendments is 11 June 2026. A committee vote is currently expected in October, followed by a plenary vote in October or November. 

At this stage, Culture Action Europe reiterates our key demands: 

• use digital fines to top up the AgoraEU budget; 

• ensure clear earmarking for each strand; 

• maintain a balanced sectoral approach in the Culture strand, covering not only books, music and architecture, but also performing arts, visual arts, crafts and design; 

• create a rapid-response scheme to protect artistic freedom and support artists at risk, and introduce a fast-track micro-grant scheme for first-time applicants, emerging artists, and socially engaged arts; 

• ensure social conditionality and fair pay under simplified funding proposed in AgoraEU, potentially tying the Regulation into the EU Artists’ Charter;  

• clarify the financing of Programme Desks, not only their role.  

Culture Action Europe calls on civil society organisations to remain engaged and reach out to rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs to ensure AgoraEU is designed in the best interests of the cultural sector. 

The information in this article is accurate as of 2 February 2026 but reflects an ongoing negotiation process that is subject to change.