Audrey WILLIAMS

Programme Officer, European Affairs, European Institute of Peace

At the April 2025 FEPS roundtable on funding for conflict prevention, I emphasised that dialogue and peace-making are central to Europe’s resilience and security. As the EU prepares its next multiannual financial framework, it faces a defining choice: will Europe reaffirm its commitment to being a global leader on peace?

Europe finds itself at a crossroads, caught between its founding identity as a peace project and the pressing need to respond to mounting security threats amidst a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape. In recent years, Europe has witnessed a proliferation of high-level defence initiatives – such as the Strategic Compass and the Schuman Forum – and taken significant steps to bolster collective security, including through Readiness 2030. Yet there has been no comparable emphasis on peace-making. While enhancing Europe’s military preparedness is undoubtedly important, there is a real risk that this focus comes at the expense of the very tools that make peace possible and sustainable. Too often, efforts to prevent, resolve and sustain peace are perceived as at odds with deterrence. But this does not have to be the case: peacebuilding, dialogue and mediation can – and should – go hand in hand with collective security measures.

As Europe scales up defence spending – including as part of NATO’s recent 5 per cent commitment – it must not forget that dialogue, diplomacy and mediation are essential components of comprehensive security and resilience for both the EU and its partners. A purely securitised approach is insufficient: even the most effective military deterrence needs to be accompanied by credible efforts to facilitate dialogue, support inclusive political processes, and engage affected communities to address their underlying concerns. Neglecting this balance risks prolonging crises, sowing the seeds of future instability, and undermining Europe’s credibility as a global peace actor.

Dialogue may not always provide an immediate solution, but it is always worth pursuing. Resolving conflicts through dialogue or mediation is far less costly – both in terms of human lives and financial resources – than resorting to military escalation. By keeping communication channels open, what seems impossible today may become possible tomorrow.

As Europe prepares to negotiate its next multiannual financial framework (MFF), it should explore ways to ensure that investments in peace-making and dialogue stand alongside defence and deterrence as indispensable pillars of a credible and comprehensive European security posture.

The current funding environment 

The waning political support for dialogue is reflected in the funding environment for conflict prevention and peace-making work, as resources are incrementally diverted to hard security and crisis response. This trend has been exacerbated by the withdrawal of USAID, creating a significant funding gap that European governments are struggling to fill. At the same time, as the United States retreats from its traditional role as Europe’s primary security guarantor, EU member states are left scrambling to safeguard both domestic and Ukrainian security interests – with a knock-on effect on already diminished development budgets. Peace practitioners across Europe and beyond already feel the impact of shifting priorities. The funding environment is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate, and we find ourselves competing over ever-shrinking funds.

As a result, many peace organisations are under immense strain. While we have not yet seen widespread closures in Europe, it may only be a matter of time. Numerous organisations have already been forced to make painful staffing cuts. The UN Secretariat also faces significant financial challenges, with looming workforce reductions likely to undermine its ability to effectively sustain international peace and security. Reading the wave of Linkedin posts of former colleagues and counterparts over the years, what has struck me is that even as they face the loss of their own livelihoods, which for us is not just a job, but a vocation and a life purpose, practitioners have overwhelmingly expressed more sorrow over the disruption to the work itself and loss of hard-won momentum.

Local mediators and civil society organisations have been hit particularly hard by the funding crisis. Many grassroots organisations in conflict affected regions – which are often led by highly skilled professionals with deep contextual knowledge and community ties – have already been forced to shut down. When they disappear or move to other sectors, so does a vital link in the peacebuilding chain.

The next MFF and peace-making

Within this environment, the ambitious European Commission proposal for the Global Europe instrument under the MFF provides some hope. Unlike many other traditional donors, the EU is making clear that foreign policy lies at the heart of its priorities, and it is increasingly asserting itself as a global leader in these difficult times. The draft text of the MFF also includes numerous references to peace-making and crisis response. Yet, past experience shows that funding for external action is usually one of the first areas to be cut during negotiations, as member states often prioritise their own national or sectoral interests. Protecting the proposed Global Europe budget will therefore be the main challenge for peace advocates. Delegates participating in the MFF negotiations should prioritise Global Europe early, rather than leaving it until the end, as in past processes, since delaying external action makes it especially vulnerable to cuts as other instruments absorb available resources.

The latest MFF draft introduces a significant move toward greater flexibility by merging several existing external financing instruments – the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) ‘Global Europe’, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) and Humanitarian Aid (HUMA) – to allow the Commission more room to adjust funding allocations. While flexibility is important for responding to unexpected crises and urgent conflict prevention needs, flexibility must complement – rather than replace – predictability. Effective mediation and dialogue require steady, long-term investment. Too much emphasis on flexibility risks favouring short-term, high-profile emergencies over the slower, incremental work of building peace. Without safeguards, peacebuilding and conflict prevention are likely to slip through the cracks. Furthermore, as the EU increasingly focuses on projects under the Global Gateway Initiative, it should ensure that international cooperation funding continues to be allocated to conflict-affected and fragile contexts.

Finally, the draft proposal provides a starting point for addressing peace-making and crisis response. In particular, it will be important to preserve article 23(4), which provides essential flexibility for reconciliation and mediation activities. However, the language needs to be stronger and more consistent. Peace, mediation and dialogue should not be tucked away in annexes or non-programmable envelopes, but instead woven into the main body of the legal text and across both geographic and global funding streams. Embedding these priorities throughout the instrument would create multiple entry points for funding and policy support. A dedicated provision for peacebuilding and peace-making would help anchor them as core elements of EU external action, and help to ensure that they cannot be diverted to serve shifting, short-term political interests at the expense of a longer-term investment in peace. 

As someone who has worked across humanitarian aid, development, conflict resolution and peacebuilding, I can say there is something uniquely meaningful about supporting divided societies in healing their wounds – rather than simply placing a bandage over them. As peace practitioners, we see the impact of our work firsthand. But we do not always do a good job of making the case for it to policymakers – the decision-makers who shape funding priorities at the highest levels. Part of the challenge is that much of our work requires a high degree of discretion, which is essential to building trust and doing this work effectively.

In my current role at the European Institute of Peace, I have had the privilege of sitting at the table as we built bridges between southern Yemeni political groups, fostering consensus on the deeply divisive issues driving tensions in the country. Every day, I hear stories from colleagues working across the globe to engage hard-to-reach actors, mediate between conflict parties, resolve emerging political crises before they escalate into violence, and support the United Nations, the European Union, and other regional organisations in designing and implementing sustainable peace processes.

This type of work requires enormous patience and engagement over the long term to build trust and cultivate meaningful relationships with partners on the ground – often extending well beyond political or funding cycles. It is also what is at stake in the ongoing discussions around the MFF.

Photo credits: Shutterstock.com/Olha Solodenko