Negotiations on Framework Programme 10 (FP10), the successor to Horizon Europe, are entering a decisive phase in the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. What is at stake is not merely the structure of the next research programme, but how Europe will organise its innovation capacity over the next decade in a context of major geopolitical shifts, intensifying global competition and constrained public budgets.
Looking ahead, despite ongoing political and geopolitical turbulence, one choice clearly stands out in shaping Europe’s direction: it intends to lead the clean energy transition as a backbone of competitiveness, decarbonisation, resilience and strategic autonomy. Central to this ambition is placing research and innovation at the heart of the strategy. The debate is therefore no longer about whether to invest in R&I for the clean energy transition, but about how — balancing long-term vision with short-term pressures, coordinating EU and national priorities, and maintaining scientific excellence while supporting industrial needs.
Clean energy technologies alone will require trillions in global investment over the coming decades to become a reality. Without robust upstream research, Europe risks becoming primarily a market for technologies developed elsewhere rather than a leader in their design and production, thereby creating and reinforcing dangerous dependencies. Achieving the clean energy transition and the economic, industrial, and strategic benefits it brings depends on sustained, well-directed R&I.
To meet these goals, Europe must strengthen the elements of its innovation system that deliver real impact. Collaborative research, particularly in the clean energy field, has long been central to Europe’s added value. Under Horizon Europe, Pillar II demonstrated the power of structured cross-border cooperation, pooling expertise across participating countries and disciplines to tackle complex system-level challenges. Weakening this dimension would reduce Europe’s capacity to integrate knowledge at a time when systemic solutions are essential.
This is why the future of Pillar II matters. As the backbone of collaborative research and industrial scale-up, its projected reduction in relative share, from 56% under Horizon Europe to 43.4% in FP10, raises legitimate concerns. Maintaining, or ideally increasing, its share to around 60% of FP10 would safeguard cross-border cohesion, support system-level innovation and reinforce long-term competitiveness.
The same concern applies to thematic priorities. Clean energy, climate and mobility research account for approximately 14.5% of the proposed FP10 budget, compared with around 16% under Horizon Europe. At a time when the clean energy transition sits at the centre of Europe’s economic and strategic agenda, this downward shift warrants careful reconsideration. If Europe is serious about accelerating deployment on these technologies, it must ensure that the research foundations underpinning that acceleration remain strong.
Faster industrial uptake and resilient value chains are indeed crucial, but acceleration must build on the upstream knowledge base rather than replace it. FP10 and the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) should therefore operate as complementary instruments: one focused on excellence, cooperation and long-term capacity, the other on scale-up and deployment, within a coherent and balanced framework, neither subordinated to the other.
Such complementarity must be underpinned by a clear strategic orientation. In particular, the competitiveness elements of the newly proposed Pillar II should be closely connected with the four ECF policy windows. In this respect, the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET Plan) provides a ready-made framework linking research priorities to deployment pathways for low-carbon energy technologies. Systematically using it to guide FP10 and ECF actions would reduce fragmentation, align EU-level investment with national and private R&I, and reinforce Europe’s clean energy and industrial ambitions.
At the same time, discussions on FP10 must not lose sight of the need for the clean energy transition to be socially accepted and inclusive. More systematic and strategic integration of social sciences and humanities alongside technological and industrial research will address societal, behavioural, economic and governance dimensions, ensuring equitable outcomes and maximising real-world impact. This is essential to achieving a transition that is not only technologically effective, but also socially supported and beneficial across society, even in a context dominated by short-term pressures.
Finally, ambition must be matched by resources. FP10 must be adequately funded to underpin Europe’s technological leadership, support climate neutrality by 2050 and strengthen resilience. The €175 billion currently on the table is a welcome starting point, but reaching the €200–220 billion range proposed by Draghi and Heitor in their respective reports is necessary to match the scale of Europe’s ambitions. Credibility depends not only on political declarations, but on sustained and sufficient investment.
The negotiations now underway are about more than structure or budget. They concern with whether Europe chooses coherence over fragmentation, continuity over short-term adjustments, and sustained investment in knowledge as the foundation of competitiveness, resilience and strategic autonomy. The decisions made in the coming months will shape Europe’s innovation landscape for the next decade. EERA stands ready to contribute its expertise and the collective experience of Europe’s energy research community to ensure Europe is prepared to lead.
