Summer Guide to the Future of European ERA and EEA Policy – FP10

Discover how negotiations on the next Multiannual Financial Framework and the EU's key research and education programmes have evolved over the past year.

As the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for the period 2021–2027 is approaching its end, preparations for the next budgetary cycle are well underway. The coming months will be crucial, as Member States must reach agreement on the future long-term EU budget for 2028–2034. At the same time, interinstitutional negotiations will begin, during which the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament will need to agree on the final legislative texts governing the individual components of the next long-term budget.

Among the programmes concerned are FP10, the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), Erasmus+, and the newly proposed AgoraEU programme. To help readers navigate the development of these proposals and their forthcoming legislative processes, we have prepared a summer series of articles that will gradually guide you through each of these research and education programmes, as well as the key elements of the positions taken by the European institutions. The first article in this series focuses on the 10th Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, Horizon Europe 2028–2034 (FP10).

Background to the FP10 proposal

Throughout 2024, several high-level reports were published containing recommendations on the future of European research, competitiveness and education. Prepared by expert groups chaired by Enrico Letta, Manuel Heitor and Mario Draghi, these reports have significantly shaped the policy debate. They placed competitiveness at the heart of the EU agenda, contributed to initiatives such as the Competitiveness Compass, and influenced both the European Commission's legislative proposal and the negotiating positions of the European Parliament and the Council on FP10.

Discussions on the future architecture of FP10 intensified following the appointment of the new College of Commissioners and the allocation of portfolios in 2024. As unofficial drafts of the Commission proposal began to circulate, Member States, research organisations and relevant stakeholders published position papers calling for the framework programme to remain a standalone instrument with an ambitious budget.

The debate became particularly intense after one leaked draft suggested integrating the Framework Programme and other EU funding programmes into the proposed European Competitiveness Fund (ECF). The objective was to provide greater flexibility in reallocating resources, simplify implementation, harmonise funding rules and reduce administrative burden. Other key issues under discussion included the future pillar structure, the role of the social sciences and humanities, and the continuation of the Widening instrument and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT).

In July last year, the Commission published its proposal for FP10, confirming that the Framework Programme would remain legally separate from the ECF. The proposal preserves the current pillar structure but does not yet specify how FP10 and the ECF would interact under Pillar II. This remains one of the key outstanding issues in the negotiations, reflecting the differing positions of the Council and the European Parliament.

The link between FP10 and the ECF

The Council and the European Parliament take different approaches to the link between FP10 and the ECF.

The Council's negotiating position provides for closer alignment between the two instruments through a multiannual strategic document and enhanced coordination of their respective governance structures. The European Parliament, by contrast, argues that the governance of the two programmes should remain separate. Under its proposal, coordination would instead be ensured through the Council for European Competitiveness Research, acting in an advisory capacity, together with regular meetings of the relevant programme committees.

Overall, the Parliament favours a stronger role for scientific expertise in setting strategic priorities, while the Council places greater emphasis on the involvement of Member States in the governance of both programmes.

The institutions also differ on the proposed financial envelope. The Commission proposed a budget of €175 billion, while the European Parliament calls for an increase to €220 billion. The Council, on the other hand, supports a budget of approximately €168 billion. For comparison, Mario Draghi recommended a budget of €200 billion for the next Framework Programme.

The future of the Widening instrument

Following initial concerns regarding its future, the Widening instrument has been retained in the Commission proposal. At the same time, the Commission underlines that Widening was originally conceived as a targeted capacity-building instrument aimed at reducing disparities in research and innovation performance across Member States rather than as a permanent alternative to excellence-based funding.

To better reflect different levels of research and innovation performance, the Commission proposes dividing eligible countries into two categories: the Widening group, which continues to include the Czech Republic, and a new category of Transition countries. According to the Commission, this approach would better distinguish between countries requiring continued structural support and those progressing more rapidly towards stronger research performance.

During negotiations, the Council examined this proposal in detail. Its compromise text largely preserves the Commission's approach, including the introduction of the two categories, while placing greater emphasis on measurable progress. The overall objective is to strengthen national research and innovation capacities and enable countries to gradually reduce their dependence on targeted Widening support.

ERC, EIC and European Partnerships

Differences between the institutions are equally evident with regard to the European Research Council (ERC), the European Innovation Council (EIC) and the European Partnerships.

The Commission's proposal preserves the autonomy of both the ERC and the EIC, while also providing for stronger links between the EIC and the ECF. The Council broadly supports this approach but again calls for a stronger strategic role for Member States. The Parliament takes a firmer position, advocating not only the preservation of the autonomy of both bodies but also reinforcing science-driven governance and decision-making.

The institutions also differ in the extent to which the EIC should be integrated with the ECF. While the Commission envisages close links between the two instruments, the Council argues that Member States should play a greater role in defining strategic priorities. The Parliament, in line with its broader preference for separate governance structures for FP10 and the ECF, adopts a more cautious approach and further develops the concept of managing the EIC according to an ARPA-inspired model designed to enhance the coordination and effectiveness of breakthrough innovation funding.

European Partnerships remain another area where institutional positions diverge. The Council advocates stronger involvement of Member States in their establishment, governance and strategic planning, whereas the Parliament supports greater flexibility, transparency and a stronger role for the scientific community. Both institutions, however, agree on the need to further harmonise funding mechanisms and introduce regular evaluations.

Next steps

The European Parliament and the Council will now seek to reach agreement on the final shape of FP10 through the trilogue process, bringing together representatives of the Commission, the Council and the Parliament in a series of interinstitutional negotiations.

These discussions will be crucial in reaching a final compromise on the legislative proposal before it enters into force alongside the next Multiannual Financial Framework for the 2028–2034 period. Trilogue negotiations could begin as early as this autumn, once the Parliament formally adopts its negotiating mandate during the plenary session currently scheduled for 5 October.

Although many of the core elements of the future Framework Programme have already emerged, the negotiations remain ongoing. Given the legislative timetable, the interaction with other legislative files and the possibility of political developments during the negotiations, further amendments to the final text remain possible. Such adjustments are a normal part of the EU legislative process and frequently continue until the final stages of adoption.

Nevertheless, the main policy direction has now been established, and the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union is expected to prioritise the swift conclusion of negotiations in order to ensure the timely adoption of the legislative package.