Regional Director of the Gender Budget Watchdog Network, Dr. Marija Risteska, addressed the Committee on Budgets at the European Parliament in Brussels:
Distinguished Members of the Committee, dear colleagues,
It is an honour to take part in Gender Equality Week and to contribute to this timely discussion on how the next Multiannual Financial Framework can finally make gender-responsive budgeting the rule—not the exception—across the European Union.
I speak today on behalf of the Gender Budget Watchdog Network, a coalition of more than one hundred civil-society organisations, originating from Western Balkans. We are united with and share the views of the experts of the European Gender Budget Network and the European Women’s Lobby regarding the MFF, and the importance of implementing GRB in the EU. Our mission is simple: to make public budgets respond to the different needs women and men have and be a tool for furthering equality.
The European Union has repeatedly affirmed that gender equality is a fundamental value and a guiding principle, yet, despite many commitments—from the Gender Equality Strategy and the Gender Action Plan III to the Women, Peace and Security Agenda—EU budget still remains gender-blind. The new MFF for 2028–2034 provides an opportunity to change that. As the Commission has said, this is a budget designed for a more resilient and secure Europe. These are legitimate goals. But resilience and security must be inclusive and integrate a gender perspective. They should not create inequality, which breeds insecurity.
The first message I would like to convey is that financing equality is not optional; it is a treaty obligation and a prerequisite for effective governance.
Across the Union, women continue to face structural inequalities—in pay, in care responsibilities, in access to finance and decision-making. We must therefore invest in people the real foundation of Europe’s competitiveness and security. Funding that strengthens social inclusion, education, and care infrastructure directly contributes to the EU’s strategic autonomy, because a fair, cohesive society is the best defence against instability, extremism, and poverty. To this end, the MFF must include gender objectives and indicators that measure how budget programs are closing gender gaps as tracked by the Gender Equality Index of EIGE.
Second, we need to institutionalise gender-responsive budgeting across all EU-funded programmes.
The efforts put so far are not enough. Innovation is not much needed, as tools already exist, these are grounded within the PEFA Gender Framework, a tool that the EU itself promoted and the SDG 5.c.1 to which the EU committed. Both tools encompass measures that allow budgeting to be based on gender analysis, made public and track gender-related spending to enforce accountability. Yet these same standards are not consistently applied within the EU’s own budget. This should be corrected.
In this MFF the emphasis we understand is put on simplification that will make budget users maneuver easily. But simplification is not enough. Every programme under the new MFF should require:
- Ex-ante gender impact assessments, to analyse who will benefit from public spending and who will be left behind. This is just good planning;
- Gender-equality objectives and indicators, clearly stated in regulations and work programmes;
- Ex-post impact assessments and gender audits, so we can measure results rather than intentions.
Embedding these mechanisms does not add bureaucracy—it adds value. It ensures that each euro spent delivers measurable progress toward equality, transparency, and effectiveness.
Third, transparency must be built into the system from the start. Data should be available in clear formats.
Today, data on the gender impact of EU expenditures remain scattered, inconsistent, and hard to link to actual costs or outcomes. Without reliable data, accountability and effectiveness suffer—and citizens lose trust. The GBWN has researched the gender budget execution in Western Balkans and Moldova where laws exist that are not implemented, and budgets are not realized but are transferred to other lines without much discussion, transperancy or accountability. We therefore recommend that the Commission and Parliament require the MFF simplification not to decrease transparency and accountability. All beneficiaries of EU funding to report on how it closes gender gaps through digital platform accessible to citizens and researchers alike.
Imagine a system where anyone can see, in real time, how EU money contributes to closing gender gaps in employment, education, or participation. This is not just transparency—it is democracy in action.
Fourth, the EU’s leadership in gender equality should not stop at its borders.
As global aid budgets shrink and women’s rights organisations face existential cuts, the EU’s external financing instruments must lead by example. Targets for gender-related official development assistance need to meet not only numbers but also quality—ensuring that funds reach the grassroots organisations that drive change on the ground.
In the Western Balkans and other enlargement regions, where I work most closely, gender budgeting has proven transformative: it enhances transparency, combats corruption, and builds citizens’ trust in institutions. The EU should sustain and expand such practices within its Global Europe financing, including pre-accession and neighborhood funding, demonstrating that without enhancing equality, enlargement and development are impossible.
We are calling for the EU’s clear commitment that 85% of all external financing will have a gender equality objective per EU commitments to gender mainstreaming, 20% will support efforts targeting gender equality, and at least 25% of gender equality principal investments (G2) are channeled through women’s rights entities. This would result in 5% of total bilateral ODA flowing through them, supporting their important work, towards democracy, equality and an end to violence.
Let me be clear: a budget that invests in arms and missiles for our common defense but underfunds wellbeing is not a budget for security. True security begins with human security.
If we neglect social infrastructure, care systems, and equal opportunities, we risk deepening inequalities that fuel polarisation and distrust. The increased defence budget planned in the MFF comes at a cost to social programs and it risks reinforcing gender imbalances, sidelining gender-responsive security analysis, and leading to superficial, “window-dressing” reporting practices.
That is why we, at the Gender Budget Watchdog Network, call on this Parliament—and in particular this Committee on Budgets—to ensure that gender-responsive budgeting is made a binding requirement in all future EU programmes. We urge you to ask three simple but powerful questions for every line in the budget:
Who benefits?
Who looses?
And does it close or widen the gender gap?
Honourable Members of the budget committee,
Budgets are more than financial plans—they are statements of political will and moral choice. The upcoming MFF can either entrench existing inequalities or become the engine of a fairer, more resilient, and truly equal Europe.
If the EU mainstreams gender in its budget as seriously as it does in its treaties and strategies, we will not only deliver on our obligations—we will reaffirm the Union’s global leadership in equality, democracy, and peace.
Let us make sure that the next MFF tells a story not of numbers, but of people—and that it stands as proof that Europe really does invest in what matters most: people.
Thank you.
Watch the full speech here:
