Towards a new balance for Horizon Europe?

The Council of the European Union’s adoption of its Partial general approach on the future Horizon Europe 2028–2034, agreed last week, provides the first clear political signal of the type of framework programme that Member States want to develop over the next decade. Although the budget remains subject to negotiations on the next Multiannual Financial Framework, the tenth Framework Programme – FP10 – is emerging as an instrument more closely integrated into Europe’s competitiveness strategy, while formally preserving the principles that have shaped the EU’s research and innovation funding policy.

The key questions concern who will shape the programme, how it will be coordinated with other European instruments, and to what extent it will preserve sufficient space for research driven by scientific excellence. The Council’s document seeks to strike a balance between these objectives while also foreshadowing some of the institutional debates that will shape the negotiations in the coming months.

A stronger role for Member States

The first significant change concerns governance. The Council proposes strengthening the role of the European Research Area and Innovation Committee and the strategic configuration of the Programme Committee in defining Horizon Europe’s overall priorities. Both bodies will issue recommendations on the programme’s strategic direction and coordinate their work with the future General Committee of the European Competitiveness Fund.

As a result, Member States could gain greater influence over FP10’s strategic programming. The European Commission will retain responsibility for implementing the programme, but national governments will have greater political influence during the stages at which the direction of future calls for proposals is determined.

This shift is reinforced by extending the examination procedure to virtually all FP10 configurations, with the sole exception of the European Research Council (ERC) Work Programme. This exception preserves a space specifically dedicated to excellence-based research. Across the rest of Horizon Europe 2028–2034, if the Programme Committee does not deliver a favourable opinion, the European Commission will not be able to adopt the corresponding implementing act. The result is a more intergovernmental governance model, with stronger political oversight of FP10’s implementation.

A Pillar II more closely aligned with the European Competitiveness Fund

Pillar II represents the most significant innovation in the Council’s proposal. Dedicated to collaborative research and addressing major societal and industrial challenges, it is to be brought into a much closer relationship with the future European Competitiveness Fund, which is intended to strengthen Europe’s technological and industrial competitiveness.

The change is not merely administrative. It embeds Pillar II’s strategic programming within a broader framework that links research, innovation and industrial deployment. The aim is to ensure that Horizon Europe does not operate in isolation from other European instruments and to strengthen its contribution to the technological priorities of the EU-27.

The key challenge, however, will be to preserve the framework programme’s distinct identity. To this end, the text establishes an explicit balance between bottom-up calls, driven by the scientific community, and calls targeting predefined strategic priorities. This distinction will be essential to ensure that collaborative research does not become subordinated exclusively to short-term industrial objectives.

From a research and innovation policy perspective, FP10’s value will depend precisely on this combination: the capacity to respond to Europe’s strategic needs while retaining sufficient scope to generate disruptive knowledge that cannot be anticipated through institutional programming.

More strategic European Partnerships

The European Partnerships are also being reshaped with a stronger strategic focus. The Council proposes strengthening the role of Member States in defining their priority areas and introduces a requirement to ensure greater coherence with other European Union programmes, particularly for deployment activities funded outside FP10.

The objective is not only to improve coordination but also to avoid fragmentation between funding instruments. The Partnerships remain an important component of Pillar II, but they will need to fit more effectively within a broader European architecture supporting research and innovation, from collaborative research through to industrial deployment.

The adoption of a life-cycle approach reinforces this vision. The creation, monitoring, transition and eventual conclusion of the European Partnerships will be subject to a more structured framework. In addition, the introduction of a cap on the proportion of the Pillar II budget that may be allocated to these instruments is intended to preserve a balanced mix of funding mechanisms. The Council is advocating more strategic Partnerships, but not a framework programme that is excessively centred on them.

Security, defence and strategic technologies

The proposal also reflects a more pronounced geopolitical dimension. The Council introduces a new framework for research security, makes more explicit references to dual-use technologies, provides stronger support for deep-tech innovation, and places greater emphasis on research linked to defence and Europe’s technological resilience.

These changes position FP10 in line with priorities that have become increasingly central to the European agenda: open strategic autonomy, economic security and industrial competitiveness. Horizon Europe 2028–2034 therefore emerges not only as a programme for funding science and innovation, but also as a tool for strengthening Europe’s strategic capabilities.

The challenge will be to integrate this dimension without weakening the elements that have made the framework programme distinctive: openness, transnational cooperation and scientific excellence. Research security is becoming more prominent, but it will need to coexist with a European research ecosystem that depends on its ability to attract knowledge, talent and collaboration.

The first points of divergence with the European Parliament

The Council’s position opens what is likely to be a complex negotiation with the European Parliament. The Parliament’s initial reactions point to two particularly sensitive issues.

The first concerns the removal of explicit references to the freedom of scientific research. For several Members of the European Parliament, this principle is intrinsic to the identity of the framework programmes and should not be diluted in favour of a more strategically driven approach.

The second concern relates to the growing integration between Pillar II and the European Competitiveness Fund. Parliament fears that excessive coordination could gradually shift Horizon Europe away from a model based on scientific excellence towards one more heavily shaped by industrial policy and competitiveness objectives.

As a result, the negotiations between the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission will not focus solely on the size of FP10’s budget. The debate will also be institutional and conceptual: how to strengthen the programme’s contribution to European competitiveness without undermining its scientific autonomy or its capacity to fund frontier research.