On 15 April, the European Parliament’s Budgets Committee adopted its negotiating position on the 2028-2034 EU budget – or Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) – marking a new step in the progress of the negotiations. Meanwhile, both the European Parliament and Member States are progressing in reaching their own positions on specific parts of the MFF, including Framework Programme 10 (FP10), and the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), drawing strong reactions from stakeholders, co-negotiators, observers, and the European Commission, hinting at potentially challenging negotiations ahead.

The European Parliament’s interim report, drafted by co-rapporteurs Siegfried Mureșan (Conservative, EPP) and Carla Tavares, (Socialist, S&D), includes a 10% increase compared with the Commission’s initial proposal, meaning the budget would represent 1.27% of EU Member States’ Gross National Income (GNI). Ahead of the plenary vote on the report, planned for 29 April, many already foresee tense negotiations with EU Member States, usually more reluctant to increase the EU budget. Siegfried Mureșan, the European Parliament’s co-rapporteur on the MFF, notably declared trilogues would not start before there is an agreement on the budget and certainty on the amounts, which could effectively bring interinstitutional negotiations to a deadlock.

Breaking down the amounts the European Parliament proposes to allocate to each EU funding programme, Horizon Europe would benefit from an extra €25 billion (from €175 to €200 billion); the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF), from an additional €30.05 billion; the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), from €9.86 billion; and Erasmus+, from €6.56 billion. MEPs declared this was the minimum amount of money needed for the EU to meet its commitments, and address major challenges, including the competitiveness gap and the worsening climate and biodiversity crises. 

Increasing the EU budget and funds attributed to research and innovation (R&I) also lies at the heart of Chrisitan Ehler’s parallel draft report on the regulation establishing FP10, presented on 13 March, and advocating for an even higher €220 billion budget for the EU’s flagship R&I programme. However, the lead rapporteur’s proposal, which introduced significant changes to the European Commission’s initial publication, has sparked a flurry of mixed reactions, notably within the European Commission.

After Marc Lemaître, the Commission’s Research and Innovation chief, on 30 March, Maive Rute, Deputy Director General of DG GROW, the Commission’s department for internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs expressed doubts surrounding the Parliament’s draft report, declaring that the European Parliament had “misread” the connection between Framework Programme 10 and the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF). Ehler’s draft report had proposed a stronger division between both instruments, calling for separate work programmes, while the European Commission had proposed to establish a stronger connection between the two.

Still, many regard the new report as a useful first step towards clarification, by proposing a governance model complementing the European Commission’s proposal, which had remained rather vague on the functioning of the interconnection between the ECF and Horizon Europe. Maive Rute indicated that the Commission also intends to provide more clarity on how both programmes will work together in an upcoming document called the “competitiveness coordination tool”, but its publication date, pushed back several times, remains unknown.

Meanwhile, negotiations are also continuing at the member state level on the European Competitiveness Fund. According to Euractiv, which accessed a draft of targeted amendments prepared by the Cyprus Presidency, Member States intend to place a “commitment to excellence” at the core of the ECF, with emphasis on the principle reinforced throughout the text. This has notably become one of the most contentious issues in the negotiations, with poorer countries fearing this would benefit richer countries, and calling for “geographical balance” and “inclusion” to play a larger role in the attribution of funds.

Against this backdrop, EERA will continue to monitor the developments surrounding the MFF, FP10 and the ECF, advocating for the recognition of the role collaborative research has to play in accomplishing the clean energy transition and in building a decarbonised, more resilient, competitive and secure energy system.