German MEP Christian Ehler, lead rapporteur for Framework Programme 10 (FP10), has urged the European Commission to provide urgent clarity on the €175-220 billion research funding architecture, warning that critical details on the relationship between FP10 and the new European Competitiveness Fund remain dangerously undefined. Research stakeholders and parliamentary committees have echoed these concerns, highlighting risks to scientific autonomy, budgetary independence, and the future of collaborative research under Horizon Europe’s successor programme.
MEP Christian Ehler Demands Urgent Clarity on FP10 Architecture
As reported by multiple sources including Science|Business and the European Parliament’s ITRE Committee documentation, German Conservative MEP Christian Ehler, serving as lead rapporteur for Framework Programme 10 (FP10), has issued a stark call for the European Commission to fill critical gaps in its proposal for the €175 billion successor to Horizon Europe.
Speaking during the ITRE Committee hearing on the future of FP10 in February 2026, Ehler acknowledged that the overall framework proposed by Research Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva was “good” but warned that
“too many crucial points are unclear”
and would require substantial intervention from co-legislators to “fill the many white spaces” in the text.
The central point of contention, according to Ehler’s statements covered by APRE and Science|Business, is the proposed connection between FP10 and the newly established European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), particularly regarding how the ECF will be governed and how it will interact with collaborative research activities under Pillar 2 of the Framework Programme.
Concerns Over European Competitiveness Fund Integration
The relationship between FP10 and the ECF has emerged as the most contentious issue in parliamentary debates, with research stakeholders and MEPs expressing fears that centralised control could undermine scientific excellence and blue-sky research.
As reported by Science|Business, European People’s Party MEP Christian Ehler echoed concerns raised across the research community, stating:
“The devil is in the details. Self-standing can mean a lot of different things and certainly is not safeguarding the budget.”
While he acknowledged that the Commission’s position represented “clearly a step in the right direction,” Ehler emphasised that practical implementation remained dangerously vague.
In his draft report on the future Horizon Europe Regulation, presented on 13 March 2026, Ehler called for a fundamental redesign of the link between the ECF and Horizon Europe, aiming to ensure that “each programme delivers its strengths” while maintaining clear separation between governance structures. The report insists that comitology for Horizon Europe Work Programmes should be based exclusively on the Horizon Europe Regulation, while allowing for joint meetings with ECF configurations.
Budgetary Ambitions and Programme Independence
A central pillar of Ehler’s position, shared by a majority in the European Parliament according to EERA-SET reporting, is the defence of a substantially increased budget for FP10, reaching between €200 billion and €220 billion, in line with recommendations from the Draghi and Heitor reports.
As documented in the European Parliament’s official press release from February 2025, Ehler stated unequivocally:
“With this report, I, along with a strong majority of the ITRE Committee send a clear message to the Commission to uphold the Treaties and keep FP10 as an independent Union Programme. I want to especially underline that including FP10 in the announced Competitiveness Fund would mean a focus of R&I funding on short-term policy ambitions. This would be detrimental to fundamental and blue-skies research.”
The draft report, as covered by the Austrian ERA platform, calls for a clear breakdown of the proposed €220 billion Horizon Europe budget by individual programme, with 3.3 per cent earmarked specifically for Widening Participation initiatives. The report also proposes including the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) in the Regulation, at least until a “radical decision” on future Framework Programme funding is taken.
Governance Reform and Expert-Led Implementation
Ehler’s draft report introduces significant changes to the European Commission’s initial proposal, including a fundamental restructuring of how collaborative research would be governed under FP10.
As reported by EERA-SET, the draft seeks to establish a clearer governance structure through the creation of two councils within Pillar II: one on industrial competitiveness and technology, and another on societal challenges, both appointed for five-year terms. These councils would oversee expert teams composed of four to six specialists from academia or industry for each broad thematic research priority, with responsibility for drafting calls and managing project portfolios.
This proposal builds on a concept developed by a group of 15 experts led by former Portuguese science minister Manuel Heitor, calling for the placement of the majority of Framework Programme management in the hands of experts rather than the European Commission. Ehler highlighted during ITRE meetings that R&I experts should be placed “at the forefront” of the next research framework programme, promoting a more agile, bottom-up model relying on expert leadership.
ERC and EIC Autonomy Under Threat
The draft reports from both Ehler and his colleague MEP René Repasi, rapporteur for the Specific Programme implementing FP10, advocate for greater independence and autonomy for the European Research Council (ERC) and the European Innovation Council (EIC), which Ehler considers essential to fostering disruptive innovation.
However, as noted by Kurt Deketelaere in analysis published on LinkedIn, there appear to be inconsistencies in some positions regarding thematic focus on the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions and ERC. Deketelaere observed that these stances “appear inconsistent” with Ehler’s own point elsewhere in his report that the implementing legislation for FP10 should not modify the essential elements of the work being led by the rapporteur.
Nevertheless, Deketelaere emphasised that another suggestion from Repasi—to make the ERC a fully independent legal entity—would be a “major step forward” and could “overshadow the report’s more questionable elements”. Overall, he concluded that the reports “provide a strong and constructive starting point” for negotiations.
Research Community and Stakeholder Reactions
The Young European Research Universities Network (YERUN) welcomed both draft reports as “fundamental contributions to shaping the European Parliament’s vision for the design and ambition of the future Framework Programme”. YERUN particularly highlighted Ehler’s clarity on the relationship between FP10 and the ECF, underlining that “the Framework Programme must remain independent and should not be subordinated to broader industrial policy frameworks”.
EURASHE, the association of universities of applied sciences in Europe, published a statement in April 2026 welcoming progress achieved, including the draft reports and their call for a separate work programme and committee structure distinct from the ECF. The statement also highlighted new instruments such as the Fast Track to Innovation as positive developments, while raising concerns about the potential creation of costly research councils for collaborative research and insufficient integration of a place-based dimension.
However, not all reactions have been uniformly positive. As reported by Science|Business, some MEPs on the ITRE committee have objected to proposals to double funding for the ERC and EIC, warning this could result in cuts to pre-competitive research and innovation projects under Pillar 2. EARTO, an association of Europe’s leading research and technology organisations, warned that
“the recommendation to allocate 50 per cent of the FP10 budget to the ERC and the EIC seems arbitrary and overlooks the crucial role of pre-competitive collaborative and applied research”.
Defence Research and Civilian Programme Protection
A significant element of Ehler’s draft report, as covered by the Austrian ERA platform, is the proposal that all defence research should be financed via the ECF, thereby preserving FP10’s civilian nature. This position aligns with broader concerns about maintaining the distinction between civilian scientific research and defence-related activities.
Timeline and Next Steps
The draft reports have now been submitted to the European Parliament Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) for amendments, with a compromise currently expected in September 2026 and the European Parliament plenary vote scheduled for 5 October 2026.
As noted by the League of European Research Universities (LERU), amendments to the draft reports are possible until 9 April 2026, with discussions scheduled at the ITRE Committee Ordinary Meeting on 23-24 March 2026.era-learn+1
Commission Response and Continuing Uncertainty
Despite parliamentary pressure, the European Commission has yet to provide comprehensive detail on key elements of the FP10/ECF proposals. As reported on LinkedIn by sector observers, DG Research and Innovation has not been able to offer clarity on critical elements since mid-July 2025, primarily due to disagreement between DG R&I and DG GROW, with DG R&I “rightly so protecting and defending its FP for R&I”.
Research Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva, according to Science|Business reporting, has asked the research community to continue its “support” for the Commission so that
“we still have a really strong standalone [programme] with a doubled budget”
when negotiations conclude in 2027.
As DG Marc Lemaitre conceded during recent discussions, there is
“the need for further clarity and discussions”,
with promises of detail “in the coming weeks”—promises that, as observers note, were also made for November 2025 and February 2026 without materialisation.
The research community now awaits concrete proposals that will determine whether FP10 emerges as a truly independent, excellently-funded programme capable of maintaining Europe’s position at the forefront of global scientific research, or whether it becomes subordinated to short-term industrial policy objectives at the expense of fundamental research autonomy.
