This blog is part of the series “Quo vadis Europa?”, hosted by the European Economic Policy program at Polis180.
Horizon Europe, the EU’s flagship research and innovation programme, expires in 2027. To launch its successor, the 10th framework program for research and innovation (FP10), negotiations are now in full swing. For the first time, this originally exclusively civilian research funding programme is opening up to the defence sector, a major paradigm shift that raises unprecedented policy questions. As such, the FP10 development process offers a window into the quiet, early groundwork that shapes EU legislation long before it reaches a wider public.
A blog post by Anna C. Kierner
Breaking with Precedent
Launching in January 2028, FP10 will fund and promote research and innovation in the EU for the following seven years. Unlike its predecessors, FP10 is set to open EU research funding to dual-use research, and potentially certain defence-related activities. It will further be linked to the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), a parallel funding programme designed to strengthen Europe’s industrial competitiveness. These new elements are expected to expand funding possibilities and drive technology transfer while responding to geopolitical realities. Despite the common interest in defence readiness and competitiveness among the member states, the European Parliament, and the European Commission, diverging interests remain over FP10’s policy design. At the heart lies a fundamental question of governance: who sets priorities in the sensitive fields of research, security and industrial competitiveness?
Whose Agenda sets the Priorities?
A look at the intended FP10 structure helps to better explain the current discussions. FP10 is built, just like Horizon Europe, on four pillars, ranging from excellent research to widening and strengthening the European Research Area (ERA). Most structural changes are expected in pillar II: competitiveness and society. The competitiveness components are now to be matched with the four thematic clusters of the ECF which are clean tech, AI & digitalization, biotech and defence. Linking FP10 with the ECF, however, raises issues of agency. The European Commission suggested a joint governance of both programmes, but several member states were concerned that the proposed design could weaken the FP10’s autonomy and research-driven orientation.
A First Agreement, but still far from the Finish Line
The Council has now agreed on its first response to these challenges. On June 26th, the member states confirmed the so-called Partial General Approach (PGA), that will set the Council’s negotiation position during the upcoming negotiations with the European Parliament. Regarding Pillar II, the member states support a close link to the ECF, but insist on a separate governance structure, albeit closely aligned. Other questions, including the overall budget, were left to be discussed once the negotiation processes are more advanced. The PGA unites all European governments behind a common negotiating position and represents an important milestone, yet the FP10 still has a long way to go. The main legislative negotiation, the trilogue, with the European Parliament and the European Commission is planned for autumn 2026. The European Parliament is still finalizing its internal position, but disagreements on several points were already communicated.
Shape Policy Early or Watch From the Sideline
The renewal of the EU’s research framework programme is a rare and consequential moment that only takes place once in a decade. Beyond its policy relevance, the FP10 also illustrates a broader pattern in EU policymaking. Negotiating parties shape their positions long before the formal stage of the EU legislative negotiations. This early phase is where key political positions are formed, yet it often unfolds with little public attention outside Brussels. The debates over defence-related research, programme structures and the ECF-link illustrate how much of the political groundwork is laid during this stage.
Beyond the Trilogue: Where Decisions Take Shape
What does this mean for stakeholders seeking to bring their perspectives into the debate? Visibility and advocacy efforts must begin long before formal negotiations do. Once institutional positions have been established, as it is now the case with the Council’s PGA, introducing new demands or revisiting earlier decisions becomes highly unlikely. Stakeholders such as universities and industry associations therefore publish position papers months before the Council and the European Parliament finalise their negotiating positions. For civil society groups seeking to contribute recommendations, the window of opportunity is therefore much earlier than the formal negotiations themselves. FP10 serves as a reminder that in EU policymaking, many of the most consequential choices are shaped long before the formal negotiations begin.
With academic training in International Relations and International Business Studies spanning Spain, Austria, and the United Kingdom, Anna C. Kierner writes for Polis180 on democracy, European research policy, and the interplay of international trade and economic resilience.
The Polis Blog serves as a platform at the disposal of ‘Polis180’s & ‘OpenTTN‘s members. Published comments express solely the ‘authors’ opinions and shall not be confounded with the opinions of the editors or of Polis180.
Zurück