Science|Business: Widening, ECF links and priority setting top list of Horizon Europe sticking points

Science|Business article by Martin Greenacre, 02 March 2026

EU governments have key questions to resolve if agreement on the next EU research programme is to be reached in May

EU research ministers are hoping to reach an agreement on key aspects of the next Horizon Europe programme for 2028-34, known as a partial general approach, at their next meeting on May 29, but there are major questions that must be resolved first.

The main outstanding issues relate to priority setting and governance, including links between Horizon Europe and the future Europe Competitiveness Fund (ECF), as well as the future of Widening measures for countries with less well-developed research systems.

During the Competitiveness Council meeting on February 27, ministers urged the European Commission to clarify the processes for identifying joint priorities in the ECF and Horizon Europe and for selecting the topics of future research partnerships with industry. EU governments are eager to ensure they have a key role in priority setting.

“Without further clarity and shared understanding on these structural and governance aspects, moving towards a partial general approach in May may prove premature,” warned Slovakian state secretary Ján Hrinko.

Following the main debate, ministers discussed a note from ten national delegations calling for the Council to intensify discussions on priority-setting mechanisms and governance structures.

Nevertheless, Nicodemos Damianou, deputy minister for research and innovation for Cyprus, which currently holds the Council presidency, said EU member states were broadly aligned, for example on the need to connect the ECF and Horizon Europe and to form a coherent cycle from basic research to industrial deployment. “We are starting from a fundamental agreement, so I’m confident that we will find the solutions to resolve those concerns,” he told a press conference following the meeting.

Significant progress towards an agreement has been made in other areas, including Horizon’s overall four-pillar structure, and the instruments of Pillar 1 supporting basic research, including the European Research Council and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions.

On the chances of achieving a partial general approach by May, “everything is possible,” said one EU diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. But a full Council agreement on Horizon Europe is also dependent on wider negotiations over the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the EU’s long-term budget. This means that, even if governments can strike a broad agreement on Horizon Europe by the summer, it is unlikely to include budget figures, the diplomat said.

Zaharieva reassures research community

Several ministers called for the Commission’s wish for flexibility within the ECF, in order to fund emerging priorities, to be balanced with long-term predictability. Latvian state secretary Jānis Paiders said additional safeguards are needed to prevent Pillar 2 in Horizon Europe, which will support collaborative research and will be most closely tied to the ECF, from being used as a “piggy bank for implementing other EU policy priorities,” with funds for collaborative fundamental research reallocated to applied research and deployment.

Last week, the research community put forward its own recommendations for the ECF and its links to Horizon Europe. In a joint statement, seven research associations warned that Horizon Europe risks becoming “subordinate to short-term priorities.”

During the press conference, research Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva acknowledged concerns from scientists and governments that if the second pillar and the Competitiveness Fund are programmed together, “the money for industry somehow will absorb the money for research and innovation.”

However, she said this was the opposite of the Commission’s intention. The objective is to provide scientists and businesses with the instruments they need to develop their research results and bring them to the market, while the money for Horizon Europe will be ringfenced, she said.

Addressing the scientific community, Zaharieva added, “I understand your worries, but there is no reason, because we proposed instruments that will help to develop your projects further.”

Widening back on the table?

Research ministers have yet to hold a formal debate on the future of the Widening programme, after the Danish presidency of the Council last year placed the relevant section of the Horizon Europe proposal in brackets, meaning it would be discussed elsewhere as part of broader negotiations on the next MFF.

During the meeting, numerous ministers urged the Cypriot presidency to take Widening out of the brackets. “As research ministers, we must take responsibility for our field and address difficult and sensitive issues,” said Estonia’s Kristina Kallas. “Without meaningful discussion on Widening, it will be hard to reach a partial general approach by the May Council.”

Czech minister of education Robert Plaga agreed that Widening should be discussed in the Competitiveness Council and in the research working party, a preparatory body composed of diplomats representing research ministries, which he argued is “the only body with relevant expertise.”

Damianou said the presidency had heard the message from the other governments. The next step will be to “talk to our fellow MFF group and discuss this matter and see how we can untangle this issue,” he said. 

Ahead of last week’s meeting, the EU diplomat said they believed Widening would be put back on the agenda of the research working party, “if not during the Cypriot presidency, then probably under the Irish presidency” which will begin on July 1. “To which extent is another question,” they said.

Defence research

The Commission’s proposal to make Horizon Europe dual-use by default, meaning projects with civil and military applications will be eligible across the programme, also requires further discussion, with governments highlighting the need for a clear definition of dual use.

Meanwhile, there are conflicting views on the proposal to allow the European Innovation Council to finance purely defence projects.

Governments also called for further discussion around maintaining international collaboration, while balancing this with the security needs resulting from dual-use research.

Commission wants urgency

During the meeting, Zaharieva called on governments to show “urgency, pragmatism and ambition” during negotiations. “2028 cannot be a year of lost momentum for European research and innovation,” she said. “As the Commission, we are preparing so that the first calls can be launched in January 2028.”

The current Horizon Europe programme got off to a bumpy start due to last-minute political haggling, with the main work programme for the first two years only published in June 2021, five months behind schedule. This time, Europe cannot afford uncertainty and must adopt the Horizon Europe legislation in 2027, Zaharieva said.

The commissioner urged EU governments to focus on the core aspects of the programme that must be decided now. “Let’s not block the decisions on what can be determined at programming stage, where member states will have a role to play,” she said.

Zaharieva later expanded on this point during the press conference, explaining that the Commission and member states need to retain the flexibility to respond to different challenges in future work programmes, rather than adding detailed provisions that “we will regret later.”

For example, provisions related to blind evaluation or two-stage calls should not be included in the regulation but in the work programmes and calls. Flexibility is a necessary response to calls to simplify the programme and shorten the time to grant, which is “so long sometimes that you don’t even need the money when you finally get to the point to sign the agreement,” Zaharieva said.

However, she also said she was “very optimistic” as the debate showed that “behind every legitimate national interest lies a common objective” to ensure an ambitious and effective research and innovation programme.

To read the original article on the Science|Business website, click here.