Plans for Horizon Europe 2028-34 (FP10) are moving forward. Since the Commission’s proposal in July 2025 (see UKRI’s article on Commission FP10 proposal), Parliament published their draft reports on 16 March 2026 by MEPs and co-rapporteurs of FP10, Christian Ehler and René Repasi. While the Parliament’s reports remain subject to negotiation, Ehler’s draft report on the FP10 regulation and Repasi’s draft report on implementation provide a strong indication of the European Parliament’s priorities for FP10. On 26 June 2026, the European Council has also agreed its Partial General Approach (PGA) – so called because it excludes horizontal and financial issues.
Trilogue negotiations between the European Parliament, the Council, and Commission will start later this autumn. With developments gathering pace, this article reviews the state-of-play as we get closer to the agreement on FP10, ‘Horizon Europe 2028-2034’.
The Budget: determining FP10’s scope and ambition
The budget is a heavily contested element of the negotiations. The Commission has proposed a €175bn budget for FP10. MEP Christian Ehler proposes increasing the budget to €220bn, alongside a detailed allocation across programme components. The Council, under the Irish Presidency, put forward a budget of €158bn (in current prices), which is ~10% lower than the Commission’s proposal.
Governance
There are significant differences between the Commission, Council and Parliament on how FP10 should be governed. The European Council favours a stronger advisory role for Member States in strategic priority setting with the European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC) to inform a new multiannual strategic document. The strategic configuration of the Programme Committee would provide recommendations on FP10’s strategic direction and coordinate their work with the future General Committee of the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF).
The European Parliament has proposed a markedly different governance model, arguing it is necessary to safeguard FP10’s independence. Parliament propose establishing two dedicated expert councils for Pillar II: a Council for European Competitiveness Research and a European Council for Global Societal Challenges Research. These bodies would each comprise at least 15 experts from science, industry, innovation and civil society.
The Commission has proposed that FP10 will be ‘tightly connected’ to ECF by the ‘Competitiveness’ element of Pillar II. However, it remains unclear how this relationship would operate in practice, particularly from a governance perspective.
Pillar I, ‘Excellent Science’
Parliament and the Council strongly value and defend the autonomy of the European Research Council (ERC). Proposals include increased budget from the current Horizon Europe, and safeguards for the independence of the ERC Scientific Council. The Commission proposed to cut the term of the ERC President to two years, however Parliament and Council’s proposals reinstate the four-year mandate. Repasi also proposes a new six-year ‘Sectoral Plan’, which is a bottom-up instrument featuring pre-allocated budgets and collaborative projects involving at least two institutions.
The idea of a new bottom-up collaborative funding instrument is gaining traction in discussions on the future of Horizon Europe. The Council has endorsed the principle that ‘bottom-up actions may also be supported through large-scale and researcher-driven collaborative initiatives’. Several versions of such an instrument have been proposed, including long-term support for pan-European research networks, a dedicated funding scheme for multi-institutional collaborations, and support for researcher-led, curiosity-driven collaborative frontier research. If implemented, it is likely to be administered outside the ERC, and potentially within Pillar II, reflecting the ERC’s existing responsibilities and limited capacity for additional funding schemes.
The Council and Parliament acknowledge that some strategic top-down steer may happen. The Council state that Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) targeting will only be allowed ‘in duly justified cases, if specific needs arise and additional funding becomes available’. This move towards strategic targeting has attracted criticism from stakeholders who fear it could weaken the programme’s open and researcher-driven ethos.
MEP Ehler introduced a new ‘Fast Track to Excellence’ instrument intended to support small-scale, bottom-up collaborative research and high-risk, blue-sky science. However, questions remain about where in the programme this will sit.
The connection between Pillar II of FP10 and ECF
In the Commission’s proposal, Pillar II would continue to support both global challenges and industrial competitiveness, but through separate ‘Society’ and ‘Competitiveness’ components. The structure of the ‘Competitiveness’ component would mirror the ECF four policy windows: (1) clean transition and industrial decarbonisation; (2) health, biotechnology, agriculture, and the bioeconomy; (3) digital leadership; and (4) resilience and security, defence industry, and space.
The Council broadly supports the Commission’s proposal for shared governance between the ‘Competitiveness’ component of Pillar II and ECF. It recommends that call topics form part of the ECF work programme to ensure FP10’s contribution to the technological priorities of the EU. The Council also proposes that the Strategic Programme Committee would meet with its ECF counterpart for the purposes of Pillar II, Competitiveness. The ECF multiannual strategic document would be discussed through joint strategic meetings.
However, Parliament opposes the Commission’s proposal for a single work programme covering both Pillar II of FP10 and the ECF, arguing that FP10 would become subordinate to wider industrial policy objectives. Instead, the Parliament suggest Horizon Europe Pathway Actions – a dedicated mechanism to support deployment, commercialisation and scale-up activities based on FP10 research results.
Strategic priority setting in Pillar II of FP10 is therefore a key outstanding issue that will be discussed during the trilogue negotiations.
European Partnerships in Pillar II
Parliament and the Council agree that European Partnerships will remain an important funding and delivery mechanism for challenge-led research in Pillar II, and a key tool for supporting the EU’s competitiveness objectives through the ECF. There are currently 50 partnerships in Pillar II. For FP10, Parliament recommends fewer, larger partnerships, arguing that they should only be used where they deliver outcomes that could not be achieved through standard funding mechanisms.
The Council supports the Commission’s aim to streamline the partnerships portfolio, and places greater emphasis on the role of Member States in defining priority areas. Akin to the Commission, the Council adopts a lifecycle approach (i.e., partnerships should run for the duration of FP10, starting in 2028 and concluding in 2034). The Council has also increased the proposed minimum participation requirement from five to ten Member States.
However, there are differing views on how Partnerships should be structured. MEP Ehler proposes that Partnerships should, by default, be established as institutionalised partnerships (Joint Undertakings) based on contractual arrangements. Ehler believes these are best suited to support large-scale initiatives. By contrast, both the Commission and Council favour a tripartite model in which the EU, national authorities (Member States and Associated Countries), and private or other stakeholders jointly support a shared programme of activities. The tripartite model has received criticism from stakeholders, who argue that it could create a two-tier system in which only organisations from nations that contribute additional funding would have access to the work programme from the partnerships.
The Commission originally proposed a ‘Central Financial Management’ (CFM) mechanism, however this has been widely criticised. The Council suggest that implementation should be through centrally managed single award procedures, but Member States remain responsible for their financial contributions in line with national regulations.
Several important questions therefore remain unresolved. These include how the partnerships portfolio will be streamlined, which thematic areas will be prioritised, how governance and financial management arrangements will operate, and how partnerships will align with the ECF to drive European competitiveness.
Currently, many organisations are advocating on European Partnerships, welcoming the proposal for simplification whilst calling to improve the transparency, openness and accessibility of partnerships and ensure they have a demonstrable added value. See Science Europe’s statement on preserving key values of European Partnerships in FP10
Pillar III, ‘Innovation’
Both the Council and Parliament support maintaining the autonomy of the European Innovation Council (EIC), while retaining a mix of bottom-up funding opportunities and strategically targeted challenge-based funding aligned with broader European competitiveness objectives. The Council’s proposal places a strong emphasis on deeptech innovation.
The Council has also confirmed that the EIC should be able to support dual-use (research that may be applicable to civilian and defence settings) and defence-related applications, in close coordination with the Defence ECF policy window.
Member States have additionally proposed a capped allocation for defence spending. The Council also limits participation in EIC defence-related projects to entities that are eligible to participate in ECF defence activities.
The future of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) in FP10 remains unclear. The Commission conducted a consultation on EIT in autumn 2026, and Member States await a separate legislative proposal from the Commission, which is expected before the end of 2026.
Pillar IV, ‘European Research Area’
Establishing a fourth pillar is one of the key innovations in the FP10 proposal. It represents a structural reorganisation that brings together several cross-cutting, enabling and policy-focused activities. Research Infrastructures would move from Pillar I to Pillar IV, sit alongside the Widening Participation programme and European Research Area (WIDERA). The Council propose strengthening and simplifying Europe’s research infrastructures, improving coordination between EU and national governments, and contributing up to 20% of the construction or major upgrade costs. However, beyond these high-level changes, little detail has emerged on the content of Pillar IV.
Association to FP10
International collaboration remains a priority for both proposals. As with Horizon Europe, the proposed PGA regulation sets out criteria for association or partial association, including: a good capacity in science, technology and innovation; commitment to a rules-based open market economy; and active promotion of policies to improve the economic and social wellbeing of citizens. For FP10, the Council expands the criteria by explicitly stating that association should consider the respect of human rights and compliance with relevant Union and international law.
Both the Council PGA and the draft regulation from Ehler suggest that the allocation of the financial contributions from associated countries should reflect their participation levels across the programme.
In the context of geopolitical considerations, the Council did recognise like-minded countries, commenting that the EU should ‘actively and more strategically deepen collaboration with trusted like-minded countries to the benefit of both parties’. Several MEPs submitted two amendments to the draft FP10 regulation recommending a new ‘trusted partner’ category to improve the predictability of like-minded countries’ participation.
Whilst it is not a legal requirement in the PGA, associated countries can be observers in Programme Committee meetings; advocacy is underway to ensure that in any transitional arrangements prior to association agreements being finalised, that associated countries would be able to observe in such meetings.
Other notable proposals
- The Council adopts a nuanced approach on lump-sum funding – rejecting a one-size-fits all model. It supports the use of lump-sum funding ‘where relevant’ and actual eligible costs should remain possible, where justified.
- Both the Council and Parliament adopt a risk-based, proportionate approach to research security. The Council proposes that the Commission provide a framework, procedures, guidance and support for the application of research security. Work Programme eligibility restrictions may be imposed to ensure research security and in line with Article 10(3) ECF.
- The PGA proposes a dual-use by design rather than dual-use by default approach – in practice this might mean all calls being open to research that could be deployed in civilian and military settings (but note – this is not a requirement!) see the Commission’s white paper on enhancing dual-use research for how the Commission understand dual-use in the context of research and innovation.
- MEP Ehler proposes a European Fellowship Scheme for Researchers at Risk, linked to broader commitments to academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
What Happens Next?
Several important issues remain unresolved, including the future of European Partnerships, how the proposed close relationship between FP10 and the ECF will operate in practice, and, ultimately, the size of the FP10 budget.
The European Parliament’s position is also still evolving. More than a thousand amendments have been tabled to the draft FP10 reports. Following a postponement, the Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) Committee is expected to vote on the amendments on 10 November, with a plenary vote on the final reports anticipated on 23 November.
Once Parliament has adopted its final position, trilogue negotiations between the Commission, Council and Parliament can start.
The UK welcomes the proposals for FP10 and is enthusiastic to pursue discussions on FP10 association, but we are keen to ensure we can access the programme on equal and open terms right from the outset. See the UK position on EU’s Research and Innovation Framework Programme – GOV.UK