CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: horizon europe fp10

  • EOSC Association Membership Tiers Explained

    The EOSC Association is the Brussels-based non-profit that governs the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) on behalf of its research-community stakeholders, operating alongside the European Commission and the EOSC Steering Board under a tripartite governance model. Membership is organised into legal tiers — full Member, Observer, and country-level Mandated Organisation — each carrying different voting rights, obligations, and access to the Association’s Task Forces and General Assembly.

    The EOSC Association is defined by the European Commission as “an international non-profit organisation under Belgian law that aims to provide a single voice for advocacy and representation of the broader EOSC stakeholder community.” Understanding exactly what membership confers — and what it does not — matters now because the Association’s funding relationship with the European Union is itself under review ahead of the next multiannual research framework.

    What is the EOSC Association?

    The EOSC Association was formed on 29 July 2020 by four founding members and has since grown to around 250 Members and Observers. It exists to jointly deliver the objectives set out in the Memorandum of Understanding signed with the European Union on 30 July 2021, which formally established the EOSC as a co-programmed European Partnership.

    Its remit is representation and coordination, not service delivery. The Association does not operate the EOSC’s technical infrastructure itself — that role sits with the EOSC EU Node, procured by the European Commission and launched in October 2024 as the reference node of the wider EOSC Federation. The Association instead channels stakeholder input, steers investment priorities through its Task Forces, and holds a seat in the tripartite governance structure alongside the Commission and the EOSC Steering Board.

    What are the EOSC Association membership tiers?

    Membership is not a single status. The Association’s statutes define distinct categories with different rights, and institutions considering joining need to know which one applies to them before they apply.

    Tier Voting rights Who it suits Example
    Member Yes — one Delegate per Member in the General Assembly Research-performing, research-funding, or service-providing organisations with a substantial stake in EOSC ETH Zürich, CSIC, Inria
    Observer No — one Representative, non-voting Organisations building a relationship with EOSC before committing to full membership, including some outside the EU/Associated Country area Emerging national research infrastructures
    Mandated Organisation Yes, as national representative One Member per EU Member State or Horizon Europe Associated Country, appointed to represent national interests; EIROforum may also mandate one representative SURF (Netherlands), CESNET (Czech Republic), DeiC (Denmark)

    To qualify for any tier, an applicant must be a legal entity constituted under national law or an intergovernmental organisation under an international treaty — government departments and ministries are explicitly excluded. Applicants must also:

    • Confirm in writing that they embrace the Association’s vision and values;
    • Demonstrate a substantial and significant interest in, or contribution to, EOSC;
    • Fall into at least one of four categories: research-funding organisation, research-performing organisation, service-providing organisation, or other organisation;
    • Hold a presence in an EU Member State, a Horizon Europe Associated Country, or another Framework Programme-associated country (Members only — Observers may sit outside this area).

    How is the EOSC Association governed?

    The General Assembly is the supreme authority of the Association, composed of one voting Delegate per Member and one non-voting Representative per Observer. It elects the President and Board of Directors at its annual meeting, and a Secretary General runs day-to-day operations through the Secretariat.

    Above the Association itself sits the EOSC tripartite governance structure, which meets roughly twice a year and comprises three parties: the European Commission, the EOSC Steering Board (drawn from EU Member States and Horizon Europe Associated Countries), and the EOSC Association representing the research community. This structure is currently addressing what the European Commission describes as “options for the governance, operations and financing of EOSC after the end of the current funding framework” — a direct signal that post-2027 continuity is not yet settled.

    Recent EOSC Steering Board opinion papers add texture to this picture: a 17 December 2025 paper on strengthening European sovereignty in research data called for reinforcing the EOSC Federation and embedding legal and operational clarity, while a 26 November 2025 paper addressed FAIR-object quality assessment and protection against data pollution and intrusion. Neither changes membership mechanics directly, but both signal where the Association’s Task Forces are likely to focus next.

    How does EOSC Association membership interlock with Horizon Europe and FP10?

    Horizon Europe’s open-science provisions require funded projects to make research data findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable — the FAIR principles that EOSC is built to operationalise as a shared federated environment rather than a patchwork of institutional repositories. Being an EOSC Association Member or Mandated Organisation gives an institution a formal channel to shape how those FAIR obligations are implemented in practice, through Task Force participation and General Assembly votes, rather than simply complying with requirements set elsewhere.

    This channel matters more, not less, as the European Commission negotiates the successor to Horizon Europe — provisionally referred to as FP10 — for the 2028-2034 multiannual financial framework. Because EOSC’s Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA, version 1.3, finalised in 2024) and its funding partnership were built around the Horizon Europe programming period, the tripartite governance’s own post-2027 financing review is effectively a preview of what FP10 negotiations will need to resolve for EOSC specifically. Institutions weighing membership now are, in effect, weighing a seat at that table before the terms of the next framework are fixed.

    The EOSC Federation itself continues to expand independently of this funding question: fourteen new candidate nodes joined in the most recent expansion round, broadening the Federation’s thematic and geographic coverage beyond the original EOSC EU Node.

    Common questions about EOSC Association membership

    What does EOSC stand for?

    EOSC stands for the European Open Science Cloud, an EU-recognised initiative to build a federated, multi-disciplinary environment where researchers can publish, find, and reuse data, tools, and services under FAIR principles. The EOSC Association is the legal body that governs it on behalf of the research community, distinct from the technical infrastructure itself.

    What is the EOSC Federation?

    The EOSC Federation is the network of interconnected data repositories, research infrastructures, e-infrastructures, and service providers — organised into “nodes” — that collectively deliver EOSC’s technical capability. The EOSC EU Node, launched in October 2024, is its reference node, with additional candidate nodes joining in successive expansion rounds.

    Who can join the EOSC Association?

    Any legal entity — a research-performing, research-funding, or service-providing organisation, or an intergovernmental body — with a substantial interest in EOSC and a presence in an EU Member State or Horizon Europe Associated Country can apply. Government ministries and departments are explicitly excluded from membership.

    What do EOSC Association members actually get?

    Full Members get a voting Delegate in the General Assembly, eligibility to stand for the Board of Directors, and direct participation in Task Forces that steer EOSC investment priorities. Mandated Organisations additionally carry formal national representation, giving their country a single coordinated voice inside the Association’s governance.

    What this means for institutions considering membership

    For research-performing institutions, service providers, and funders in the EU or a Horizon Europe Associated Country, EOSC Association membership is a governance decision, not a technical one: it buys a vote in how the federated data infrastructure your researchers already have FAIR obligations under gets built and funded. The Mandated Organisation route matters specifically for institutions in countries where no organisation currently holds that national seat — it is a single-per-country allocation, so timing and internal coordination with national research-funding bodies is a real constraint, not a formality.

    The open question institutions cannot outsource is the financing one. Because the tripartite governance is actively reviewing EOSC’s operating model beyond the current Horizon Europe funding period, and because FP10 negotiations for 2028-2034 are unresolved, the practical value of a Board seat or Task Force role secured today depends partly on decisions still to be made in Brussels. Institutions with a genuine stake in EOSC’s direction have more reason to secure that seat before those decisions are finalised than after.

    For research administrators coordinating an institution’s broader participation in EU-funded infrastructure and standards work, see CASRAI’s research administration resources.

  • Horizon Europe Proposal Won’t Survive at €175bn

    The European Commission’s €175 billion Horizon Europe proposal for 2028–2034 (FP10) is unlikely to survive Council negotiations intact. Every prior Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) research settlement — including the current Horizon Europe programme, whose original €100 billion opening bid was cut to €95.5 billion — has been reduced during Council bargaining, and the Cyprus Council presidency has already tabled a lower figure. Research administrators building multi-year horizon europe proposal pipelines should plan around a materially smaller settlement, not the headline number.

    The Multiannual Financial Framework is the European Union’s seven-year budget ceiling, negotiated unanimously by the Council of the EU and agreed jointly with the European Parliament, within which programmes such as Horizon Europe and its successor, FP10, receive their funding envelope.

    What Does the €175 Billion FP10 Proposal Actually Contain?

    On 17 July 2025, the European Commission published its legislative proposal for FP10 — the tenth EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, running as “Horizon Europe” from 2028 to 2034. The headline figure is €175 billion, roughly double the €95.5 billion allocated to the outgoing 2021–2027 programme.

    That number sits inside a larger structure. According to the Commission’s own published breakdown, FP10’s €175 billion is nested within a €410 billion European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), alongside €234 billion for other schemes. The programme is organised into four pillars: Excellent Science (covering the European Research Council and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions), Competitiveness and Society, Innovation (the European Innovation Council), and a strengthened European Research Area pillar.

    Crucially, €175 billion is a Commission opening bid, not an agreed budget. Interinstitutional negotiation between Parliament, Council and Commission — the trilogue process — has only just begun, and a final MFF agreement is not expected before the end of 2026, ahead of the programme’s planned January 2028 launch.

    What Does MFF Precedent Say About Opening Bids?

    Every MFF research and innovation envelope in living memory has been negotiated down from the Commission’s opening figure. The pattern is consistent enough to build a forecast on.

    Framework programme Commission opening bid Outcome Change
    Horizon Europe (2021–2027) €100 billion (2018 Commission proposal) €95.5 billion final agreed budget, including a €5.4 billion NextGenerationEU top-up -4.5% net; at one point during the July 2020 European Council summit the figure was pushed as low as €80.9 billion before partial restoration
    FP10 / Horizon Europe (2028–2034) €175 billion (July 2025 Commission proposal) Not yet agreed. The Cyprus Council presidency has tabled €167.9 billion (April 2026) -4% on the Council’s opening counter-offer, against a European Parliament push for at least €200 billion

    The direction of travel is identical across both cycles: the Commission proposes a large increase, the European Parliament pushes for more, and the Council — which represents net-contributor member states with competing fiscal priorities — trims the figure during trilogue. FP10 is already following that script four months into formal negotiation, with the Cyprus presidency’s €167.9 billion counter-proposal landing before the Parliament has even finalised its own position.

    Why Is the €175bn Figure Already Shrinking?

    Three structural pressures point the same direction. First, the Council negotiates the overall MFF ceiling as a zero-sum allocation across cohesion, agriculture, defence and competitiveness spending — Horizon Europe/FP10 competes directly against those other headings, not in isolation. Second, several large net-contributor states have historically resisted MFF increases regardless of programme performance; this held even after Horizon Europe’s own interim evaluation found that every euro of EU contribution generates up to €11 in GDP gains by 2045 and that the programme had funded over 15,000 projects worth more than €43 billion as of January 2025.

    Third, FP10’s link to the European Competitiveness Fund creates a new negotiating lever that did not exist in the FP9 round: Council delegations can trade the research envelope against the wider €410 billion ECF total rather than negotiating Horizon Europe’s budget as a standalone line. That structural change makes a cut easier to justify politically, because ministers can present a smaller Horizon Europe figure as reallocation within a still-large competitiveness package rather than as a straightforward science-budget reduction.

    What Does This Mean for Grant-Pipeline Forecasting?

    Institutional research offices, EARMA and ARMA-affiliated grant teams, and funder relations units that are building multi-year FP10 pipeline models on the €175 billion figure are working from a number that has already moved once, before formal Council conclusions have even been reached. Practical implications include:

    • Model a range, not a point estimate. Use €167.9 billion (current Council presidency position) as a working floor and €175 billion as a ceiling until trilogue concludes, rather than planning around the Commission’s original figure.
    • Expect pillar-level reallocation, not uniform cuts. Past MFF rounds have shown cuts land unevenly across pillars; Excellent Science and EIC allocations have historically been better protected than collaborative-project envelopes.
    • Anticipate a later call-schedule start. With final agreement not expected before end-2026 and launch set for January 2028, first-wave FP10 call texts are likely to be finalised later in 2027 than institutions may be assuming.
    • Track the European Parliament position separately from the Council’s. The Parliament’s push for €200 billion is a genuine counterweight in trilogue, so the final figure could land above the Council’s current €167.9 billion offer — plan for a range, not a single downside scenario.

    For institutions coordinating this work through research administration functions, the practical response is to build FP10 revenue forecasts as scenario bands tied to the trilogue calendar, and to revisit those bands each time a Council presidency publishes a new negotiating box.

    Answer-First Q&A

    What Is the Budget for Horizon Europe?

    The outgoing Horizon Europe programme (2021–2027) has a final agreed budget of €95.5 billion, including a €5.4 billion NextGenerationEU top-up. The Commission has proposed €175 billion for its successor, FP10 (2028–2034), but that figure is an opening bid still subject to Council and Parliament negotiation.

    What Is the Budget of the Horizon Europe Pillars?

    FP10 is structured across four pillars: Excellent Science, Competitiveness and Society, Innovation, and the European Research Area. The Commission has not yet published final per-pillar allocations for FP10; these will be set through the same trilogue process determining the overall €175 billion headline figure.

    How Much Does the UK Pay Into Horizon Europe?

    The UK associated to Horizon Europe from January 2024 under a bespoke deal negotiated after the Windsor Framework, paying a contribution linked to UK GDP with a correction mechanism if UK entities draw significantly less funding back than they contribute. Exact annual figures are published periodically by UKRI rather than fixed in the framework regulation itself.

    What Is Horizon Europe Funding?

    Horizon Europe funding supports research and innovation projects across the EU and associated countries, covering frontier science (European Research Council), collaborative research addressing societal challenges, and innovation support (European Innovation Council). FP10 will continue this structure while adding closer integration with the European Competitiveness Fund.

    Conclusion: Plan for Less Than €175bn

    The evidence points one way. FP9’s opening bid fell by 4.5% net — and by nearly a fifth at its lowest negotiating point — before final agreement. FP10’s Council presidency has already tabled a 4% cut just months into formal talks, with a full trilogue still ahead. Research administrators, institutional finance offices and funder-relations teams should treat €175 billion as a ceiling, build FP10 grant-pipeline models around the €167.9–175 billion range the Council and Parliament are currently contesting, and revisit those forecasts as each successive Council presidency publishes its negotiating box through to the expected end-2026 agreement.

  • UK Association to Horizon Europe: 2026 Status

    UK association to Horizon Europe remains in force through 2026: the UK has participated as a fully associated country since 1 January 2024, UK-based applicants can lead consortia and receive grants directly from the European Commission, and — because association status legally treats UK grantees as equivalent to EU institutions — those grantees are bound by the same immediate open-access and data-management obligations as any beneficiary in an EU member state.

    Horizon Europe is the European Union’s research and innovation funding programme, running from 2021 to 2027 with a budget of €95.5 billion; UK association is the bespoke agreement, effective 1 January 2024, that lets UK-based researchers, universities and businesses participate in it on equivalent terms to EU member states.

    Where does UK association actually stand in 2026?

    The UK’s association to Horizon Europe is not provisional or under renegotiation — it is a settled, operating arrangement. The UK and EU signed the Joint Statement on UK association on 7 September 2023, and association took legal effect on 1 January 2024, according to both the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the European Commission’s own country page for the United Kingdom.

    All Horizon Europe calls from Work Programme 2024 onward are covered directly by association. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) confirms this remains the case in its guidance updated 9 February 2026: UK applicants “are eligible to receive funding directly from the European Commission” for calls issued between 2024 and 2027, the remaining lifetime of the current programme.

    According to Universities UK’s analysis published 27 May 2026, the first full year of association reversed a multi-year decline in UK research funding that followed the post-Brexit interruption — a data point that matters for institutional strategy, not just headline status.

    How UK grantees access funding: guarantee scheme vs direct EU payment

    UK-based institutions currently sit across two distinct funding mechanisms depending on when their grant was awarded, plus one narrow exclusion. Research offices managing legacy awards alongside new Horizon Europe grants need to track which regime applies to which project.

    Funding route Applies to Paid by Status in 2026
    UKRI Horizon Europe Guarantee Work Programmes 2021–2023 UK government (UKRI) Legacy; over £1 billion awarded as of April 2023, per UKRI
    Direct EU association funding Work Programmes 2024–2027 European Commission Active — current default route for new UK awards
    EIC Accelerator (equity/blended finance) Innovation Council fund N/A — excluded UK entities remain excluded from this specific fund, per the European Commission

    The exclusion is narrow and frequently misunderstood: it applies only to the equity and blended-finance component of the European Innovation Council (EIC) Accelerator, not to Horizon Europe participation generally. UK organisations remain eligible for EIC Accelerator grant-only funding and for every other pillar of the programme.

    HM Treasury’s 2021 Spending Review earmarked £6.9 billion (roughly €6.5 billion) to cover Horizon Europe association costs through 2025 — spanning both the transitional guarantee scheme and subsequent association-fee payments — a figure widely cited by pan-European research-advocacy analysis of UK reassociation costs.

    What open access and data rules apply to UK grantees?

    Because association is legally equivalent participation rather than a side arrangement, UK-based grant holders sign the same Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement as any EU beneficiary, and Article 17’s open science conditions apply without modification. There is no “UK variant” of the mandate.

    • Immediate open access — peer-reviewed publications must be deposited in a trusted repository and made openly accessible at the moment of publication, with no embargo period permitted.
    • CC BY licensing — publications must carry a Creative Commons Attribution licence (or equivalent), with alternative CC licences permitted for long-form outputs such as monographs.
    • Trusted-repository deposit — a machine-readable copy of the accepted manuscript or published version must be deposited, independent of the journal’s own access model.
    • Data management and sharing — funded projects must maintain a data management plan aligned with FAIR principles and include a data-access statement in resulting publications.

    For UK research offices, the practical consequence is that Horizon Europe compliance sits on top of — not instead of — UK funder open-access policy (UKRI’s own OA policy) and REF-related outputs guidance. Grant agreement terms take precedence for Horizon Europe-funded outputs specifically, so institutions need workflows that flag Horizon Europe grants for the stricter, no-embargo standard even where a parallel UK funder policy would tolerate a delay.

    Answer-first Q&A

    Is the UK associated to Horizon Europe?

    Yes. The UK has been a fully associated country since 1 January 2024, under the Joint Statement signed with the EU on 7 September 2023. Association covers the remainder of the current programme, through 2027, and UK applicants participate on equivalent terms to EU member-state institutions.

    When did the UK join Horizon Europe?

    The UK’s association took legal effect on 1 January 2024, though eligible UK researchers had already been receiving guaranteed funding for successful Work Programme 2021–2023 bids via the UKRI guarantee scheme while the formal agreement was finalised.

    How much does the UK contribute to Horizon Europe?

    The UK government’s 2021 Spending Review earmarked £6.9 billion (around €6.5 billion) to cover Horizon Europe association costs through 2025, funding both the transitional guarantee scheme and the ongoing EU association-fee payments now in effect.

    Can UK organisations lead Horizon Europe project consortia?

    Yes. Under association, UK entities can coordinate and lead Horizon Europe consortium bids, not merely participate as partners — a right that was not guaranteed during the pre-2024 transitional period and is a material change for UK research administrators structuring proposals.

    What’s next: implications and the FP10 outlook

    For institutional leaders, the near-term implication is operational stability: association funding, eligibility and open-access terms are fixed for the remaining lifetime of Horizon Europe, so 2026–2027 planning can proceed on settled rules rather than provisional guidance. Research offices should treat any Horizon Europe award as automatically subject to immediate-OA and FAIR data-management terms, and audit existing compliance workflows against the Model Grant Agreement rather than domestic OA policy alone.

    The longer-term question is the successor programme, informally referred to across the sector as “FP10,” covering the EU’s next multiannual research cycle from 2028. The UK’s current association agreement is specific to Horizon Europe and does not automatically roll forward; continued UK participation in whatever follows will require a fresh negotiation, and institutions with multi-year projects spanning the transition should watch for European Commission and UKRI guidance on successor-programme terms as they emerge.

    For research administrators, the compliance takeaway is unambiguous: UK-based status does not create a lighter open-science obligation. Horizon Europe grantees in the UK operate under identical publication, licensing, repository and data-sharing terms to their EU-based collaborators, and that parity — not exemption — is what UK association was negotiated to secure.

  • Moonshots in Horizon Europe FP10: A Guide for Applicants

    Moonshots in Horizon Europe FP10 are large-scale, technology-led projects the European Commission proposed on 16 July 2025 to replace the current Missions model, pooling funding from Horizon Europe and the new European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) to push research through demonstration into real-world deployment. Unlike the five citizen-facing Missions running under Horizon Europe 2021-2027, moonshots are framed around strategic technological leadership rather than societal challenge boards, which changes what evaluators will look for in a proposal.

    A Horizon Europe moonshot is a cross-cutting, pooled-funding project — spanning EU, national and private investment — designed to move a strategic technology from research to market deployment within a defined field such as fusion energy or next-generation AI.

    What are the FP10 moonshots?

    On 16 July 2025, the European Commission published its proposal for Horizon Europe 2028-2034 (FP10), the tenth EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, alongside the wider EU long-term budget (Multiannual Financial Framework). The Commission proposed a standalone FP10 budget of €175 billion, structured around four pillars, and stated that the programme would be “tightly connected” to the newly proposed European Competitiveness Fund.

    Within that structure, the Commission introduced the capacity to launch “moonshot projects”: pooled-funding initiatives combining Horizon Europe, ECF, national, public and private sources, explicitly designed to carry promising research through demonstration and into real-world deployment rather than stopping at publication or proof of concept.

    How do moonshots differ from Horizon Europe’s current Missions?

    The current programme runs five EU Missions, launched in 2021 under Pillar II, each with a Mission Board, citizen-engagement mechanisms and a fixed 2030 target: climate adaptation across at least 150 regions, improving outcomes for 3 million cancer patients, restoring ocean and inland waters, 100 climate-neutral smart cities, and a soil deal covering 100 living labs. Moonshots are pitched differently: technology- and competitiveness-led, tied to the ECF’s strategic priorities, and judged on progress toward deployable capability rather than a citizen-facing societal target.

    Feature Horizon Europe Missions (2021-2027) Proposed FP10 Moonshots
    Primary orientation Societal challenges (climate, cancer, oceans, cities, soil) Strategic technological and industrial leadership
    Governance Mission Boards, citizen co-design Streamlined, closely linked to ECF industrial policy
    Funding source Horizon Europe Pillar II Pooled: Horizon Europe, ECF, national and private capital
    End state sought Measurable societal outcome by a fixed year Demonstration and real-world market deployment
    Status as of July 2026 Live, operating under the current MFF Commission proposal; subject to Parliament/Council negotiation

    Notably, the European Parliament has pushed to make moonshots more than a funding label — arguing for formal Member State commitments and measurable objectives, closer to the political weight Missions already carry, rather than a looser industrial-policy instrument.

    Which moonshot themes has the Commission proposed?

    The Commission’s official 16 July 2025 announcement names ten candidate moonshot areas. These are Commission-proposed fields, not yet legally adopted programme lines:

    • Future Circular Collider (fundamental physics infrastructure)
    • Clean aviation (next-generation, lower-emission aircraft)
    • Next-generation AI
    • Data sovereignty
    • Automated transport and mobility
    • Regenerative therapies
    • Fusion energy
    • Space economy
    • Zero water pollution
    • Ocean observation

    This list is contested. In a November 2025 response, The Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities argued the Commission’s draft leans too heavily on technology and proposed four counter-moonshots grounded in social science and humanities research — ethical leadership on climate transition, equitable healthcare governance, universal digital literacy, and managing demographic and migration change. That pushback signals that the final theme list, and the balance between technological and societal framing, remains open during interinstitutional negotiation.

    What evaluation criteria should applicants anticipate?

    No FP10 evaluation criteria have been formally adopted; the Regulation and Specific Programme proposals are still moving through the European Parliament and Council. Based on the Commission’s own framing, however, research administrators preparing pipelines should anticipate a shift in emphasis:

    • Deployment pathway, not just excellence. Moonshot bids will need a credible route from research output to demonstrator or market-ready capability, not only scientific merit.
    • Co-funding readiness. Because moonshots pool EU, national and private capital, applicants — and their institutions’ research administration teams — should expect requirements to evidence matched or leveraged funding commitments.
    • Strategic alignment with ECF priorities. Proposals in clean tech, AI, defence-adjacent “dual use” technology, or space are more likely to map onto moonshot funding windows than single-discipline basic research.
    • Cross-pillar consortium design. Interim evaluation of the current programme (Draghi, Letta and Heitor reports) pushed the Commission toward simplification and fewer, larger topics, so consortia may need to be broader and more cross-disciplinary than a typical current-cycle Missions project.

    The Commission’s interim evaluation of the running programme found that every euro of EU contribution is estimated to generate up to €11 in GDP gains by 2045, and that Horizon Europe has funded over 15,000 projects worth more than €43 billion as of January 2025 — figures the Commission has used to justify scaling ambition through moonshots rather than retaining a Missions-only model.

    Common questions from research administrators

    What is a Horizon Europe moonshot project?

    A Horizon Europe moonshot is a pooled-funding, technology-focused project proposed for FP10 (2028-2034) that combines Horizon Europe, European Competitiveness Fund, national and private investment to carry strategic research from demonstration through to real-world deployment, rather than funding discovery research alone.

    Will Horizon Europe’s existing Missions continue under FP10?

    The Commission’s proposal keeps EU Missions within Pillar II alongside moonshots rather than abolishing them outright, but the political and budgetary emphasis is shifting toward moonshots and the European Competitiveness Fund, so Missions’ relative weight and independence within the programme are expected to narrow.

    Can UK researchers participate in FP10 moonshots?

    UK eligibility depends on associating to FP10, as the UK did for Horizon Europe in 2024. The UK’s 2025 Spending Review allocated funding to associate for FP10’s first two years, per Science Minister Lord Vallance, with later-year funding subject to the next Spending Review.

    When will the first FP10 moonshot calls open?

    FP10 is not due to start until January 2028, and the Commission expects final agreement between Parliament and Council late in 2027, so no moonshot call texts exist yet; applicants should track the Regulation and Specific Programme negotiations rather than expect near-term calls.

    Implications for institutions and applicants

    Research administration teams should not wait for adopted legal texts before acting. Grants offices can start now by mapping existing pipeline projects against the ten proposed moonshot themes, identifying which principal investigators already hold demonstrator-stage or translational work suited to a deployment-oriented evaluation model, and flagging co-funding and industry-partnership gaps early.

    Institutions should also monitor the Parliament’s push for firmer Member State commitments on moonshots: if adopted, that would create obligations closer to national co-investment duties than the softer coordination Missions currently require, with knock-on implications for institutional cost-sharing and overhead recovery planning.

    What happens next in the FP10 timeline?

    FP10’s budget and legal texts are not final. The European Parliament and Council must jointly agree amendments to the Commission’s Regulation and Specific Programme proposals, alongside the wider Multiannual Financial Framework negotiations, before adoption — expected late in 2027 for a January 2028 start. Until that agreement lands, the ten named moonshot themes, their governance model and their evaluation criteria remain proposals, not commitments. Institutions that begin portfolio-mapping and co-funding preparation now will be better positioned once the Specific Programme text — and the first moonshot call topics — are finalised.

  • Horizon Europe Pillars vs FP10: Four vs Three

    Horizon Europe currently runs on three pillars; the European Commission’s FP10 proposal — published 16 July 2025 as “Horizon Europe 2028-2034” — restructures the programme around four pillars, adding a dedicated European Research Area pillar and shifting roughly €80 billion in additional funding toward competitiveness-linked research. For research administrators, the practical task is mapping existing pillar-based compliance workflows onto this new architecture before the programme’s expected 2028 start.

    Horizon Europe is the European Union’s current €95.5 billion research and innovation framework programme (2021-2027), organised into three pillars plus a horizontal strengthening-the-ERA strand. Its proposed successor, provisionally branded Horizon Europe 2028-2034 and widely referred to by its sequence number as FP10 (the EU’s tenth framework programme since 1984), would roughly double that budget and reorganise it into four pillars.

    What is the current Horizon Europe pillar structure?

    Horizon Europe’s three pillars separate funding by research logic rather than by discipline. Pillar I, “Excellent Science,” funds bottom-up frontier research through the European Research Council (ERC) and researcher mobility through Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA). Pillar II, “Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness,” is the largest pillar, funding collaborative research across six thematic clusters — health; culture, creativity and inclusive society; civil security; digital, industry and space; climate, energy and mobility; and food, bioeconomy and environment. Pillar III, “Innovative Europe,” supports market-creating innovation primarily via the European Innovation Council (EIC).

    A horizontal strand, “Widening Participation and Strengthening the European Research Area,” sits outside the three numbered pillars and funds capacity-building in lower-performing research systems — a structural detail that FP10’s proposal absorbs into a new, standalone pillar rather than leaving as a side strand.

    How does FP10’s proposed pillar structure differ?

    The Commission’s proposal keeps the “Horizon Europe” brand but restructures the programme into four pillars, according to the Commission’s own 16 July 2025 announcement and its accompanying Multiannual Financial Framework factsheet. Pillar I remains “Excellent Science” largely intact. Pillar II is renamed “Competitiveness and Society” and reoriented around four “competitive” research themes — clean transition and industrial decarbonisation; health, biotech, agriculture and bioeconomy; digital leadership; and resilience, security, defence and space — plus three “society” themes covering global societal challenges, the New European Bauhaus Facility, and EU Missions. Pillar III becomes “Innovation,” with an expanded EIC that adds dedicated support for defence and dual-use start-ups. The structural headline is Pillar IV: “European Research Area,” an entirely new pillar funding research and technology infrastructure and a “single, borderless market for research, innovation and technology across the EU.”

    Current Horizon Europe (2021-2027) Proposed FP10 / Horizon Europe 2028-2034 Proposed budget
    Pillar I: Excellent Science Pillar I: Excellent Science (largely unchanged) €44.079bn
    Pillar II: Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness (6 clusters) Pillar II: Competitiveness and Society (4 “competitive” + 3 “society” themes) €75.876bn (+41.8%)
    Pillar III: Innovative Europe Pillar III: Innovation (EIC expanded, adds defence/dual-use focus) €38.785bn
    Horizontal strand: Widening Participation & Strengthening ERA Pillar IV: European Research Area (new standalone pillar) €16.262bn

    The Commission also proposes tying Horizon Europe more tightly to a new European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), enabling joint “moonshot” projects that move research through to real-world deployment. Named moonshot candidates include:

    • The Future Circular Collider
    • Clean aviation
    • Next-generation AI
    • Data sovereignty
    • Automated transport and mobility
    • Regenerative therapies
    • Fusion energy
    • Space economy
    • Zero water pollution and ocean observation

    What are the budget and legislative timeline changes?

    The Commission’s proposal totals €175 billion for Horizon Europe within a €410 billion European Competitiveness Fund envelope, of which €234 billion covers other funding schemes, per the European Commission’s official 16 July 2025 news release. That compares with Horizon Europe’s current €95.5 billion allocation for 2021-2027 — close to a doubling in nominal terms.

    Neither the FP10 proposal nor the wider EU long-term budget (MFF) is final. Both require the ordinary legislative procedure, meaning the European Parliament and the Council of the EU must jointly agree amendments before adoption. The House of Commons Library reports that a final agreement is expected late in 2027, synchronised with the broader MFF negotiations, ahead of a planned 2028 programme start.

    The Commission’s interim evaluation of the current programme — cited in its own press materials — states that every euro of EU contribution is estimated to generate up to €11 in GDP gains by 2045, and that Horizon Europe had funded over 15,000 projects worth more than €43 billion as of January 2025. That evaluation, alongside the Draghi and Letta competitiveness reports, forms the explicit policy rationale the Commission cites for the pillar restructuring.

    Horizon Europe pillars: answer-first Q&A

    What is Horizon Europe Pillar 1?

    Pillar 1, “Excellent Science,” is Horizon Europe’s frontier-research pillar, funding investigator-led work through the European Research Council and researcher mobility through Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions. Under the FP10 proposal it keeps its name and structure, with earmarked funding rising to €44.079 billion.

    What is Horizon Europe Pillar 2?

    Pillar 2 is currently “Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness,” Horizon Europe’s largest and most application-oriented pillar, spanning six thematic clusters. FP10 proposes renaming it “Competitiveness and Society” and raising its budget to €75.876 billion, a 41.8% increase, with roughly €68 billion co-managed alongside the new European Competitiveness Fund.

    What is the Pillar 3 of Horizon Europe?

    Pillar 3, “Innovative Europe,” funds market-creating innovation chiefly through the European Innovation Council. FP10 renames it “Innovation” and proposes €38.785 billion, expanding EIC support to include defence and dual-use start-ups alongside its existing scale-up mandate.

    What should research administrators do now?

    The proposal is not yet law, so no institution needs to rebuild compliance workflows immediately. But three planning actions are worth starting now:

    1. Map current pillar-owned processes (ERC/MSCA eligibility checks, cluster call monitoring, EIC scouting) against the proposed four-pillar labels, since Pillars I and III largely preserve existing scope while Pillar II absorbs new “society” themes and Pillar IV is genuinely new.
    2. Track the legislative timeline rather than the July 2025 proposal text as final — amendments through the European Parliament and Council are expected through 2027, and pillar names, budgets and cluster groupings may still change.
    3. Watch association status for non-EU institutions. The UK’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said in September 2024 it was “interested in potentially associating to FP10,” and the UK’s 2025 Spending Review allocated funding to cover the programme’s first two years of association, per parliamentary reporting.

    Institutions that already organise grants administration around Horizon Europe’s pillar logic — rather than around individual instruments like the ERC or EIC — will find the FP10 mapping more mechanical: three of the four proposed pillars are renamed continuations of existing pillars, and the one genuinely new pillar, European Research Area, formalises work (widening, infrastructure) that many research administration offices already track as a distinct compliance category today.

  • Horizon Europe Budget: Parliament’s €200bn Push Against FP10’s €175bn Plan

    The European Parliament is demanding a €200 billion Horizon Europe budget for FP10 (2028-2034), €25 billion above the European Commission’s €175 billion proposal, while the Council’s Cypriot presidency has floated a lower €167.9 billion opening figure. With trilogue negotiations running through 2026 alongside the wider EU Multiannual Financial Framework talks, research offices planning Horizon-scale pipelines face a genuine funding-envelope range, not a confirmed number.

    FP10 is the working name for the tenth EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, the successor to Horizon Europe, covering the 2028-2034 spending period. The final horizon europe budget figure will not be settled until the Parliament, Council and Commission conclude trilogue negotiations on the broader Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), a process expected to continue through 2026 and potentially into 2027.

    Where does the FP10 budget standoff stand right now?

    Three EU institutions currently hold three different numbers. The European Commission’s 16 July 2025 proposal set Horizon Europe’s FP10 budget at €175 billion for 2028-2034, nested inside a much larger €410 billion European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) envelope that also covers industrial, digital and defence-related spending. The European Parliament has rejected that figure as too low. The Council of the EU, representing member states who ultimately vote the budget through, has pushed in the opposite direction.

    Institution Proposed FP10 budget (2028-2034) Position, as of mid-2026
    European Commission €175 billion Original proposal, published 16 July 2025
    European Parliament €200 billion Formal negotiating position, led by rapporteur MEP Christian Ehler
    Council of the EU (Cypriot presidency) €167.9 billion Lower counter-figure floated during the presidency’s first-half-2026 term
    Outgoing Horizon Europe (2021-2027, for reference) €95.5 billion Confirmed, includes €5.4bn from NextGenerationEU

    The gap between the Council’s and Parliament’s positions is roughly €32 billion — comparable to the entire current budget of Horizon Europe’s Pillar 3 innovation programme. That spread is the single biggest source of uncertainty for any institution trying to model FP10-era grant income today.

    Why does the European Parliament want €200bn, not €175bn?

    MEPs argue that the Commission’s proposal, while a nominal near-doubling of the outgoing programme, does not keep pace with Europe’s stated ambitions on strategic autonomy, the green transition and competitiveness with the US and China. Parliament’s lead negotiator, MEP Christian Ehler, has described the €200 billion demand as “clear and firm.”

    A second, structural objection sits alongside the topline number. Parliament has raised concerns that folding a large share of Horizon Europe’s Pillar 2 collaborative-research funding into the new European Competitiveness Fund ties scientific excellence too closely to industrial-policy objectives, potentially crowding out curiosity-driven, frontier research in favour of pre-defined competitiveness priorities.

    How would the money split across Horizon Europe’s four pillars?

    Under the Commission’s July 2025 proposal — the baseline both Parliament and Council are negotiating against — the four Horizon Europe pillars would be reshaped as follows:

    • Pillar 1 (frontier research): rises from €25 billion to €44 billion, funding the European Research Council (ERC) and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) — a near-76% increase.
    • Pillar 2 (collaborative research): rises from €53.5 billion to €75.8 billion, split into €68.2 billion for “competitiveness” (managed jointly with the ECF) and €7.6 billion for “society” themes such as migration, democracy and social cohesion.
    • Pillar 3 (innovation): nearly triples, from €13.6 billion to €38.7 billion, mainly funding the European Innovation Council (EIC) for start-up and equity funding.
    • Pillar 4 (research policy): rises from €3.4 billion to €16.2 billion, absorbing research-infrastructure funding moved from Pillar 1 and a boost to the Widening programme, from €3 billion to €5.3 billion.

    Two notable casualties sit outside the headline growth. The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) does not appear by name in the Commission’s proposal, and Horizon Europe’s five current Missions are funded only until 2030 under the plan as published.

    What does the standoff mean for research office planning?

    Research administrators cannot wait for a final MFF signature before adjusting institutional strategy. Grant pipelines that assume Horizon-scale funding continuity into 2028 need contingency planning now, because the range on the table — €167.9 billion to €200 billion — is wide enough to change call volumes, success rates and priority-area weighting regardless of which figure prevails.

    • Model a range, not a point estimate. Build FP10 income projections against both the Council floor and the Parliament ceiling, not just the Commission’s midpoint proposal.
    • Track the Pillar 2/ECF split closely. Because collaborative-research funding is being partly absorbed into the European Competitiveness Fund, eligibility and priority-area alignment for consortium-based grants may shift more than the topline number suggests.
    • Watch the Missions and EIT decisions. Institutions with active Mission-funded projects or EIT Knowledge and Innovation Community involvement should flag the 2030 funding cliff and the EIT’s absence from the current proposal as live risks.
    • Re-check association terms for non-EU partners. The UK, associated to Horizon Europe since January 2024 under its bespoke agreement, has no formal vote in the FP10 trilogue but will need to renegotiate its own contribution rate once a final MFF figure is agreed — a step that historically lags the EU-internal settlement by months.
    • Time major FP10 proposal investment to the 2026 MFF milestones rather than to the Commission’s original proposal date, since work-programme detail cannot be finalised until the budget envelope is fixed.

    For institutions building broader research-administration capacity around Horizon-scale funding cycles, this is also a useful moment to revisit internal grant-pipeline governance — see CASRAI’s research administration resources for related planning frameworks.

    Answer-first Q&A on the FP10 budget fight

    What will happen to Horizon Europe after 2027?

    Horizon Europe’s current 2021-2027 programme will be succeeded by FP10, running 2028-2034. The Commission has proposed a €175 billion FP10 budget, but the final figure depends on trilogue negotiations between the Commission, Parliament and Council, expected to conclude in 2026 as part of the broader Multiannual Financial Framework agreement.

    Has the Horizon Europe budget doubled?

    Nominally, yes: the Commission’s €175 billion FP10 proposal is roughly 84% higher than the outgoing programme’s confirmed €95.5 billion (2021-2027) budget. Whether that increase survives negotiation intact depends on the outcome of the Parliament-Council standoff, where positions currently range from €167.9 billion to €200 billion.

    What is the successor to Horizon Europe?

    FP10 is the working name for Horizon Europe’s successor programme, covering research and innovation funding for 2028-2034. It restructures the current four-pillar model and links a large share of collaborative-research funding to the new European Competitiveness Fund, a broader €410 billion instrument proposed alongside it.

    How much does the UK pay into Horizon Europe?

    The UK has been an associated country to Horizon Europe since January 2024 under a bespoke association agreement, paying a contribution calibrated to its participation level rather than full EU membership rates. Its FP10-era contribution will need fresh negotiation once the EU-internal horizon europe budget figure is finalised.

    Whichever figure the trilogue eventually lands on, the direction of travel is clear: FP10 will be larger than Horizon Europe, more tightly coupled to industrial-competitiveness priorities through the European Competitiveness Fund, and slower to finalise in operational detail than institutions may be assuming. Research offices that build planning ranges now, rather than waiting for a single confirmed number, will be better placed when the 2028 work programmes eventually open.