Sensitive budget talks are eyeing the EU’s administrative machinery and global funding as the most likely targets for deep cuts. But the delegation network is already being reorganised, and small European countries, as well as companies, rely on it heavily.
European governments are locked in tense negotiations over the bloc’s next long-term budget, with the administrative costs of EU institutions abroad and the global programme the most likely casualties. But small countries have much to lose if the EU’s global diplomatic network shrinks.
A coalition of so-called “frugal” countries, including Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, is pushing to cut the proposed size of the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the EU’s budget for 2028-2034, by several hundred billion euros.
According to the ongoing discussions, there is broad consensus among member states on cutting spending dedicated to the EU institutions, while the Global Europe Fund also faces significant reductions from the levels the European Commission proposed.
These cuts are raising the prospect of scaling back the network of EU delegations worldwide, which would be highly problematic for small EU countries, according to four EU officials who spoke to Euronews on condition of anonymity.
“Small member states with few embassies rely heavily on the network of EU delegations,” an EU diplomat from one of the smaller member states concerned said, speaking anonymously to discuss sensitive issues freely.
Global diplomatic network
According to the European External Action Service’s (EEAS) 2025 report, the EU’s diplomatic arm, the bloc runs 145 delegations and offices, employing almost 6,000 people for a budget of around €1bn a year.
The delegations aren’t staffed by the EEAS alone: they also work with the Commission departments for international partnerships and for civil protection and humanitarian aid, while hosting seconded diplomats from national ministries and employing local agents.
Supporters of the network point out that its cost is relatively modest given the global reach it offers smaller EU member states that have no diplomatic presence of their own in many countries.
“Most costs for delegations do not come from staff but from security and facilities, which is the same reason why some member states cannot afford a diplomatic presence there,” a second EU official told Euronews.
According to this official, the idea that the next budget might cut the delegations, politically unlikely, stems from an ongoing power play by the Commission to take fuller control of the EU’s diplomatic service.
All the more so since the delegations are already undergoing a “modernisation” drive.
Ongoing modernisation
Since 1 September, the delegations have been undergoing a modernisation reform that has already brought significant cuts to administrative staff, prompting opposition from several EU civil service unions.
The plan centralises administrative tasks, finance management and contracts at headquarters and at regional hubs overseeing clusters of countries. The hub in South Africa, for instance, also covers Botswana, Mauritius, Madagascar and Comoros.
Local delegations, meanwhile, have been left with smaller, sometimes minimal, diplomatic representation to maintain political dialogue with local authorities, companies and stakeholders.
“The result has been a centralisation of power, weakening delegations that in the past, especially when headed by a diplomat from a large member state, could act far more independently from Brussels,” a third EU official said.
At the same time, officials point out that EU countries with their own diplomatic presence often duplicate the delegations’ work, and are not always aligned with how Brussels is now engaging with third countries.
From development to partnerships
During Ursula von der Leyen’s first term, the Commission renamed its directorate-general for international cooperation and development (DG DEVCO) as the directorate-general for international partnerships (DG INTPA).
The change was far more than a rebrand: it marked a wholesale shift in the bloc’s engagement with third countries, away from development aid and towards backing European companies on major infrastructure projects in strategic areas such as critical raw materials, connectivity and energy.
The Australian mining company Viridis, for example, signed a letter of intent with the Belgian chemical company Solvay to supply Brazilian rare earths for processing at Solvay’s plant in France.
In other words, in line with von der Leyen’s “geopolitical” approach, the Commission has all but dropped development projects in favour of initiatives that help European companies compete abroad with their Chinese and American rivals.
According to EU officials, when these projects are successful, they manage to help Europe’s private sector win contracts far larger than the EU’s own contribution, to the point that several European companies have started collaborating with the Commission much more closely.
In the new budget, the intent is also to make global funding allocation more flexible, earmarking it by macro-region, such as Latin America and Africa, rather than by individual country, so the EU can better seize opportunities such as commercial contracts or trade agreements.
“The delegations are key to managing projects with local partners; there are certain tasks that simply cannot be moved to headquarters,” a fourth EU official said.