The future budget for EU research and innovation remains caught in the wider negotiations over the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), after EU affairs ministers met in the General Affairs Council on 22 September with significant differences among Member States still unresolved. Until the overall size and financing of the next EU budget are agreed, uncertainty will remain over the resources ultimately available for FP10 and other European R&I programmes. 

While uncertainty therefore continues to loom over FP10’s final price tag, negotiations over the shape of the programme are moving forward in parallel. Over the coming weeks, a dense calendar of meetings, consultations and votes will advance both tracks. Beyond the budget, two issues of particular relevance to EERA are coming into sharper focus: the future European Partnerships portfolio and the governance of FP10’s Pillar 2. 

On the wider MFF, divisions among Member States concern both the size of the future budget and the priorities it should accommodate. Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria and Finland have set out a joint position calling for budgetary restraint, while arguing that spending should focus more strongly on areas including competitiveness, innovation and security. Spain, by contrast, has argued for a larger and more ambitious common budget. The tension is clear: competing priorities are placing increasing demands on the EU budget, from competitiveness and security to the green and digital transitions, while several Member States want to keep both the overall budget and national contributions under control. 

This makes the revenue side of the equation increasingly important. In her State of the Union address on 16 September, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reiterated that “any modern budget needs new own resources”, referring to additional sources of EU revenue that would reduce the pressure on national contributions. The Commission’s proposal for the next MFF includes new sources of revenue expected to generate around €58 billion annually, building in part on earlier proposals to channel revenues from the Emissions Trading System (ETS) and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to the EU budget. 

For the future of European research and innovation, the implications are significant. European Parliament MFF co-rapporteur Siegfried Mureșan has warned that without additional EU revenues it will be difficult to secure the level of funding sought for programmes such as FP10 and the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF). He has also warned that, if the overall budget is squeezed, Member States may be more inclined to protect funding allocated directly to them than programmes such as Horizon Europe, where funding is awarded competitively at European level. Parliament’s ambition for a €200 billion FP10 could therefore become harder to achieve as the wider MFF negotiations tighten. 

The next political milestones are quickly approaching. The General Affairs Council will return to the MFF on 13 October, ahead of the European Council on 15–16 October, where EU leaders are expected to discuss a revised negotiating box — the document bringing together the issues requiring political direction and compromise from EU leaders. The objective is to reach a political agreement before the end of 2026, leaving 2027 for the formal adoption of the MFF and the individual programmes before the new financial period starts in January 2028. This is an ambitious timetable: the MFF requires unanimity among Member States, while the own resources decision is subject to the same requirement, followed by approval according to national constitutional laws. 

Meanwhile, the shape of FP10 itself is still being negotiated. The Council reached a partial negotiating position on key elements of the future Horizon Europe and European Competitiveness Fund in June, while leaving financial and horizontal questions to the wider MFF negotiations. In the European Parliament, a vote in the Industry, Research and Energy Committee (ITRE), originally planned for 10 September, was postponed as Parliament works to reach agreement on the Performance Framework Regulation, which will establish common spending rules for programmes under the next MFF. The ITRE vote on FP10 is now expected on 10 November. 

Within this debate, one key question is how the consolidation already envisaged for the European Partnerships landscape will translate into a concrete portfolio under FP10. The direction towards a more consolidated portfolio is not new, but the choices are becoming increasingly concrete. The Commission is reportedly considering three scenarios that would reduce the current portfolio of around 60 Partnerships to 18, 24 or 28 larger initiatives, including by grouping existing activities into broader thematic areas. The aim is to create fewer, larger and more strategic Partnerships capable of mobilising greater investment and critical mass around key EU priorities. 

The Commission is currently consulting stakeholders on the future thematic priorities and structure of the portfolio, with a public consultation open until 16 October. In parallel, the priority areas for European Partnerships under the next Framework Programme are expected to be discussed on 12–13 October by the European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC), which brings together representatives of Member States and the European Commission. 

Another issue under particular scrutiny is the governance of Pillar 2. Christian Ehler, Parliament’s lead rapporteur on the Horizon Europe Framework Programme, originally proposed two expert councils — one focused on competitiveness and another on societal challenges — intended to bring scientific and technological expertise into the definition of research priorities and the preparation of future calls. The Commission has opposed the model on the grounds that it risks adding complexity and coordination costs, while negotiations within Parliament have also raised questions over the councils’ powers, accountability, potential conflicts of interest and geographical balance. The latest compromise under discussion reportedly replaces the two councils with a single expert body, accompanied by stronger safeguards on transparency, conflicts of interest and Commission oversight. Negotiations are continuing over how far such a body should be involved in shaping FP10 priorities and calls. 

A new element has also entered the Pillar 2 discussion, with MEPs considering whether the programme should make more room for longer-term, bottom-up research. The proposed “sectoral plans” would allow groups of research institutions to compete for longer-term funding to pursue research agendas they define themselves, rather than working exclusively through conventional calls with more narrowly prescribed topics. Initially proposed under Pillar 1, the plans are now likely to move to Pillar 2, with René Repasi, Parliament’s lead rapporteur on the Horizon Europe Specific Programme, pointing to budget constraints in Pillar 1 as the main reason for the shift. The idea is still taking shape, including how such funding would relate to existing collaborative instruments and how to ensure that European funding complements rather than replaces national support for research institutions. 

For EERA, these evolving negotiations touch directly on several priorities it has been advocating throughout the FP10 debate. Having called for an FP10 budget of €200–220 billion, EERA will continue to advocate a level of funding commensurate with this ambition, including in the wider MFF negotiations that will ultimately determine the resources available for the programme. Such investment will be essential if Europe is to help close the innovation and investment gaps highlighted in the landmark 2024 Draghi report and translate its competitiveness ambitions into technological leadership. 

On European Partnerships, EERA advocates a coherent but flexible portfolio that reduces fragmentation while responding to the needs of different R&I ecosystems. This should preserve continuity across the R&I chain, with Horizon Europe and the ECF playing complementary roles from research to innovation and deployment rather than being separated by a rigid division according to technology readiness levels. More broadly, the choice of instruments should follow the needs of R&I ecosystems, and not the other way round, ensuring the continuity, critical mass and long-term collaboration that European research communities require. EERA is currently preparing its contribution to the Commission’s public consultation closing on 16 October, building on its earlier response to the call for evidence. 

The ongoing discussions on Pillar 2 governance are equally relevant. EERA has consistently called for greater involvement of research communities in shaping European R&I priorities, a strong role for collaborative research and an FP10 that builds on Europe’s existing R&I ecosystems. In its reaction to the Ehler Report in April, EERA welcomed the objective of bringing greater scientific and technological expertise into FP10 governance, but questioned whether new expert councils were the best mechanism to achieve it, emphasising instead co-creation and effective engagement with existing research communities. The emerging discussion on sectoral plans will also be important to follow closely as the proposal develops, particularly for its potential implications for pan-European research communities and longer-term collaborative research agendas. 

As the negotiations advance, EERA will continue to advocate its broader priorities for FP10, including an ambitious budget, a strong collaborative dimension and meaningful involvement of Europe’s research communities in shaping and implementing research priorities. Decisions on the budget, Partnerships and Pillar 2 governance are increasingly interconnected: they will determine not only how much Europe invests in research and innovation, but also how that investment is organised and how research priorities are shaped. 

The final shape of the programme will matter well beyond the research community itself. At a time when Europe is seeking to strengthen its competitiveness, security and capacity to decarbonise in an increasingly contested geopolitical and technological landscape, the choices made on FP10 will ultimately show whether Europe is prepared to invest in the research and innovation needed to underpin all three ambitions, turning them into reality.