Universities welcome member states' and European Parliament’s united call for a stand-alone FP10

Meeting at the informal Competitiveness Council, they endorsed unanimously the Warsaw Declaration, reaffirming the strategic role of the future EU R&I framework programme and calling for FP10 to be built on the legacy of self-standing framework programmes​. Also on 11 March, the European Parliament adopted a report calling for FP10 to be maintained as an independent programme.

The European University Association (EUA) welcomes this decisive stance from both institutions and urges the European Commission to heed this call in its upcoming proposal for FP10. As recently communicated, the Association’s view is that the integration of FP10 into the proposed European Competitiveness Fund could threaten the stability, predictability and core mission of the programme.

The EU’s R&I Framework Programme is not merely a funding instrument; it is the backbone of Europe’s research and innovation landscape. As highlighted in EUA’s vision for FP10, the programme plays a fundamental role in fostering research mobility, capacity-building and collaboration within Europe and internationally, making it an invaluable asset to Europe’s competitiveness. Given its critical function, the Framework Programme must continue to exist as an individual entity with its own identity and community, ensuring that it remains a strong, independent driver of European research and innovation​.

While EUA supports efforts to enhance synergies between EU funding instruments, integrating FP10 into a broader Competitiveness Fund poses risks that could undermine its core mission and effectiveness in boosting EU’s competitiveness:

• A broader funding structure would make FP10 vulnerable to shifting political priorities and funding reallocations. Research and innovation require long-term, predictable funding, yet the proposed structure could prioritise flexibility over stability, making it easier to divert funds to short-term political objectives. This would jeopardise the continuity of research projects, discourage participation and hamper Europe’s ability to attract and retain top research talent​. Therefore, FP10 must be maintained with its own ring-fenced budget.
• Placing FP10 within a politically driven structure risks undermining Europe’s ability to support basic research. Both the Council of the EU and the European Parliament stress the importance of maintaining space for curiosity-driven research, yet a focus on short-term priorities could sideline this essential support. Europe’s long-term competitiveness depends on scientific excellence, which cannot be sustained if FP10’s agenda is dictated by immediate economic or political concerns. Consequently, FP10 should preserve and further reinforce its bottom-up funding components, including the European Research Council, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions and European Innovation Council Pathfinder Open​.
• Stronger emphasis on industrial competitiveness could restrict international collaboration. The Framework Programme has been instrumental in strengthening Europe’s global position, providing a platform for collaboration with countries worldwide. The likely industrial focus of the Competitiveness Fund could impose restrictions on open collaboration, potentially limiting partnerships with associated countries and other third countries and reducing Europe’s influence in global R&I. To prevent this, FP10 must continue operating as a stand-alone programme that prioritises open international collaboration.
• Key horizontal priorities such as the European Research Area (ERA) and widening participation could be deprioritised. The current horizontal pillar advances inclusivity, excellence and collaboration across Europe, yet under a broader fund, these objectives could become secondary to industrial and economic priorities. FP10 has been also instrumental in promoting Open Science, FAIR data principles and gender equality. These cross-cutting priorities may not seamlessly integrate into a broader fund that focuses on industrial competitiveness, risking a step backwards on key policy commitments. FP10 must retain a strong focus on these horizontal priorities to ensure they remain integral to its strategy.
• An exclusive focus on competitiveness risks marginalising Social Sciences, Humanities, and the Arts (SSHA). These disciplines are essential for addressing societal challenges and informing policy, yet an industrially focused funding model could sideline interdisciplinary research and reduce opportunities for SSHA integration. It is vital that FP10 maintains a balanced funding approach that fully incorporates SSHA.
• Efforts to streamline funding rules could instead lead to increased bureaucracy and administrative burden. Beneficiaries have consistently called for continuity and stability in FP10’s structure, yet the attempt to create a single set of guiding rules for all competitiveness-related programmes risks being highly complex. Any restructuring should focus on enhancing efficiency rather than introducing additional administrative barriers.

FP10 is Europe’s most powerful tool for driving research excellence, fostering global collaboration, and ensuring long-term competitiveness. Merging it into a broader Competitiveness Fund would weaken its impact and threaten Europe’s position as a global R&I leader. In view of these risks, EUA urges the European Commission to maintain FP10 as a stand-alone programme, ensuring it continues to serve as a catalyst for scientific excellence, knowledge, innovation, and long-term societal progress.