The Coalition's Urgent Warning on FP10 and ECF Integration

European universities have raised alarms over proposals that could create a 'de facto hierarchy' in the upcoming 10th EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP10), potentially subordinating long-term scientific discovery to short-term industrial priorities. A joint statement released on February 25, 2026, by seven leading university associations representing over 900 institutions, calls for immediate revisions to ensure the independence of FP10 from the massive European Competitiveness Fund (ECF). This development comes amid intense negotiations for the EU's next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) covering 2028-2034, where research budgets are set to expand significantly but face risks of misalignment.

The Framework Programmes, starting from the First Framework Programme in 1984, have evolved into cornerstone instruments for fostering collaborative research across Europe. Horizon Europe, the current ninth edition (FP9), with its €95.5 billion budget from 2021-2027, has funded over 15,000 projects worth more than €43 billion by mid-2025, driving breakthroughs in climate, health, and digital technologies while supporting universities that capture 50-60% of funds. FP10 aims to double this to €175 billion, but close ties to the €409 billion ECF—designed to leverage private investment for strategic sectors like AI, quantum, and defense—threaten to invert this model.

Key Players: The Seven University Associations Unite

The coalition includes the League of European Research Universities (LERU), European University Association (EUA), The Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities, CESAER (Council of Rectors of European Universities with a focus on Technology), Coimbra Group, EU-LIFE (alliance of research institutes), and Young European Research Universities Network (YERUN). These groups represent elite research powerhouses like KU Leuven, University of Helsinki, and newer risers such as Radboud University, ensuring a broad spectrum from traditional leaders to emerging talents.

LERU Secretary-General Kurt Deketelaere emphasized that they 'will not accept a token FP10,' hinting at potential legal action under Article 182 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to enforce research autonomy. EUA's Kamila Kozirog highlighted the need for separate association processes for non-EU countries to avoid delays, as seen with the UK's 2024 re-association after Brexit exclusions cost opportunities.

This unity builds on prior efforts, like a July 2025 open letter from over 100 universities opposing FP10 weakening and December 2025 joint amendments by EUA, CESAER, and others.

What is FP10? Building on Horizon Europe's Success

FP10, formally proposed by the European Commission on July 17, 2025, as part of the MFF 2028-2034, promises to be 'twice bigger, simpler, faster, and more impactful.' It retains Horizon Europe's three-pillar structure: Excellent Science (including €17 billion for European Research Council (ERC) grants in prior cycles), Global Challenges & European Industrial Competitiveness, and Innovative Europe.

Key pillars like Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) have trained over 150,000 researchers since 1996, boosting mobility and careers—vital as 30% of EU PhDs emigrate per OECD data. ERC, with its bottom-up, investigator-driven approach, funds high-risk frontier research, yielding 20% patent growth for recipients. Universities like KU Leuven lead with billions in grants.

Yet, the Widening pillar, aiding less research-intensive regions (e.g., Eastern Europe), struggles with success rates below 10%, highlighting inequalities that a hierarchy could exacerbate.

The European Competitiveness Fund: A Double-Edged Sword

Inspired by Mario Draghi's 2024 competitiveness report identifying an €800 billion annual investment gap, the ECF allocates €409 billion across windows like clean tech (€150bn), defense/space (€131bn), and digital. It aims to 'amplify' innovations via scaling, deployment, and private leverage, complementing FP10's 'generation' role.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen assured in May 2025 that FP10 remains 'self-standing,' but proposals for a 'single rulebook' and shared work programmes risk importing ECF's timelines and metrics into FP10, stifling curiosity-driven work.

For researchers, this means potential shifts from open calls to mission-oriented funding, as in Draghi's push for ARPA-like models where industry drives priorities.

Core Concerns: Why a 'De Facto Hierarchy' Spells Trouble

The primary fear is FP10 becoming subordinate, serving ECF's short-term goals over excellence. 'Ill-fitting constraints' like stricter timelines could hinder high-risk projects, where ERC success relies on 18-month evaluations without industrial mandates.

• Subordination risk: FP10 as feeder for ECF, inverting innovation chain (discovery first).
• Bureaucracy: Single rulebook favors Commission efficiency over beneficiary needs.
• Inequality amplification: Elite unis dominate now (e.g., top 5% get 50% funds); smaller ones sidelined further.
• Brain drain: Delayed UK/Swiss access cost €1bn+; exclusion harms competitiveness.

Smaller universities, reliant on Widening (e.g., University of Tartu leading Estonia with 141 projects), face barriers like partner mismatches and low success rates.

Universities' Roadmap: Safeguards and Synergies

The coalition proposes:

1. Legal ringfencing: Min €200bn for FP10, protecting ERC (25% share), MSCA.
2. Role clarity: FP10 'bridge generator,' ECF 'amplifier.'
3. Governance: Separate strategic boards with researcher input, Commission coordination.
4. Fast-tracks: Seamless researcher mobility between programs sans reapplication.
5. Openness: ECF/FP10 to associated third countries on par with EU states.

These echo ALLEA/ECIU calls, promoting non-linear innovation where universities contribute across stages.

Stakeholder Views: Commission, Industry, and MEPs

The Commission stresses complementarity, with ECF filling Draghi's gap without subsuming FP10. Industry backs scaling but supports autonomy to avoid silos. MEPs like Christian Ehler seek details ahead of ITRE hearing. CESAER's Orla Feely pledges collaboration with legislators.

For research jobs in Europe, balanced funding ensures diverse opportunities from postdocs to faculty positions.

Real-World Impacts: Lessons from Horizon Europe

Horizon has boosted patents 20%, trained thousands via MSCA (€1.25bn in 2026 calls), and integrated UK post-2024 (jobs, collaborations surged). Switzerland's 2025 deal unlocked full access, preventing further losses. Yet, Widening challenges persist: Eastern unis struggle with consortium building, risking hierarchy entrenchment.

Example: ERC proofs-of-concept successfully bridged to industry without subordination, a model to preserve.

International Angles: UK and Switzerland's Stake

Post-Brexit UK exclusion delayed projects; 2024 association restored parity, benefiting quantum/space calls. Switzerland, hit by €1bn losses, joined 2025. Coalition urges ECF openness to maintain 'unprecedented scale.'

This fosters global talent flow, crucial for Europe's edge vs. US NSF/DARPA.

Future Outlook: 2026 Negotiations and Beyond

2026 is pivotal for trilogues; agreement by year-end offers stability. Optimism for strengthened ERC/MSCA, AI missions. Risks include budget cuts if MFF stalls.

For academics eyeing higher ed career advice, monitor FP10 for mobility grants boosting CVs.

Photo by Jonas Stolle on Unsplash

Career Implications and Actionable Insights

Researchers should prepare dual proposals, leveraging ERC for discovery, ECF for scale-up. Unis: Build consortia early, focus Widening. Explore higher ed jobs in research-intensive roles.

Check Rate My Professor for insights on EU unis. Positive resolution positions Europe as innovation leader, creating thousands of positions.

In summary, while ECF promises scale, safeguarding FP10 autonomy is key to sustained excellence. Stay engaged via Europe higher ed resources.