The University of Helsinki considers that the next Framework Programme, Horizon Europe, must serve as a key instrument for shaping Europe’s future and for strengthening its global leadership in research and innovation. The European Commission’s proposal for Horizon Europe contains several important strengths: it upholds the programme’s independence with its own legal basis, increases the overall budget, and seeks to simplify implementation. At the same time, however, the proposal challenges some of the programme’s core principles, which underpin its strength: scientific excellence, openness, international cooperation, long-term vision, and academic freedom
The Framework Programme plays a crucial role in enhancing the EU’s competitiveness. However, it should not be driven by competitiveness itself or by the proposed Competitiveness Fund, as short-term political or economic priorities do not support the development of sustainable competitiveness in Europe. In this light, the Commission’s proposal to link the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) with Horizon Europe would alter the very nature of the Framework Programme, turning it into a more politically and economically steered instrument — thereby undermining its above-mentioned fundamental strengths. Moreover, if implemented poorly, such a linkage could prove detrimental, as the short time span of the ECF risks undermining the predictability and long-term perspective essential to research activities.
Scientific excellence refers to high-quality research that generates new knowledge, expands the frontiers of science, and serves as a foundation for new ideas. The University of Helsinki emphasises that scientific excellence must remain the leading criterion in the evaluation processes of the European Research Council (ERC) and the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA). These instruments have been central to Europe’s success in breakthrough research and to the advancement of researchers’ international careers
A bottom-up approach and excellence-based evaluation are key factors underpinning the effectiveness and attractiveness of the ERC and MSCA actions. The University of Helsinki therefore views it as highly concerning that the Commission’s proposal challenges these principles on potential political or regional grounds.
Furthermore, the University considers the proposed shortening of the ERC President’s term to be an entirely unnecessary reform that, at worst, would undermine the autonomy of the Research Council and its mission to support frontier research.
Finland has not taken a direct position on scientific excellence. The Finnish position states that the funding of the next Framework Programme should continue to be based on excellence-based, but it does not specify what is meant by excellence or to what it refers. The regulatory framework of the Programme recognizes only scientific quality as an evaluation criterion, which refers to scientific excellence. The University of Helsinki emphasises that the Programme’s funding must be unambiguously based on scientific excellence and calls on Finland to clarify its position, serving as a clear guideline for implementing this principle.
Only adequate funding can meet the demands posed by European and global challenges and foster research-based innovations that strengthen competitiveness. The Commission’s proposed budget increase is welcome; however, it does not automatically translate into a proportional increase in research and innovation activities, as high inflation and rising costs diminish its practical impact. Although the proposed budget would nearly double the funding for the next Framework Programme, the number of supported researchers and projects would not increase proportionally.
The Commission’s proposal should serve as the starting point for negotiations. Funding below €175 billion (current prices: €154 billion) would represent a missed opportunity for Europe’s competitiveness, resilience, and well-being. It is particularly important to strengthen funding for the European Research Council, researcher careers, pre-competitive collaborative projects, and the research-based instruments of the European Innovation Council (Pathfinder and Transition). These instruments are central to the development of breakthrough innovations and to safeguarding long-term competitiveness.
The University of Helsinki notes that, according to Finland’s national position (Informal Competitiveness Council, 07/2025), the country does not fully support the Commission’s underlying principle of funding projects critical for competitiveness across the entire value chain, from basic research to market entry. Instead, Finland places emphasis primarily on directing funding toward the scaling, exploitation, and commercialization of research results and innovations, which is too narrow an approach. Finland should support the entire research and innovation chain in a balanced manner, as this is the only way to ensure that research generates new innovations that can be effectively utilized and scaled.
Significant imbalances can be observed in the internal allocation of the budget. Draghi’s Competitiveness Report proposed strengthening the role of the ERC and significantly increasing its funding. However, in the Commission’s proposal, the funding share for the Framework Programme’s primary pillar, Excellent Science (including the ERC and MSCA), remains unchanged relative to the overall programme budget. The University of Helsinki considers it extremely important to strengthen the ERC’s role and to substantially increase its funding.
Furthermore, there is a significant imbalance in collaborative projects: just over €7 billion is allocated to societal challenges, while €68.2 billion is reserved to support competitiveness. The separation of these areas into distinct silos, in addition to the funding disparity, is concerning. For the University of Helsinki, research funded under Horizon Europe must remain both broad in scope and interdisciplinary. Only by integrating perspectives from different scientific fields can we effectively address major global challenges, which are inherently complex and interconnected across multiple sectors of society.
The growth of the Framework Programme’s budget is by no means guaranteed. The University of Helsinki recalls that, in its preliminary positions, Finland has supported increasing the EU’s investment in research and innovation. Finland must now defend this stance decisively and support the strengthening of the entire R&I chain in the upcoming Framework Programme
The University of Helsinki is concerned that the proposed close link to the ECF could compromise Horizon Europe’s autonomy and its unique mission to promote frontier research and innovation in Europe.
In the Commission’s proposal, the connections between Pillar II and the ECF—such as joint work programmes and the introduction of a single rulebook—remain very unclear, and there is insufficient clarity regarding the administrative structure of the programmes. Processes such as the selection of topics for collaborative projects are also defined too vaguely in the ECF regulation. The University of Helsinki emphasises that topic selection cannot be based solely on Commission initiatives; member states, and in particular universities and researchers, must be actively involved in their preparation.
The University of Helsinki stresses that basic research is essential for the utilisation and commercialization of results under the ECF. The Commission should clarify how it expects the broad scientific foundation for the four policy windows to emerge, which the ECF is intended to scale.
Immediate clarity from the Commission is particularly needed concerning the allocation of ECF funding. According to the Competitiveness Compass published in January 2025, the comprehensive ECF structure is intended to support European projects throughout the entire investment process—from research to scaling, industrial deployment, and manufacturing. In practice, however, the ECF cannot fund research and innovation activities directly, as Article 182 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) sets a clear legal limit: all research and innovation activities, as well as their funding, must be carried out within the Framework Programme’s research and innovation actions and through its budget.
The University of Helsinki emphasises that research and innovation activities are inherently international, and Horizon Europe must continue to be an open and attractive platform for partnerships, including with associated countries. Core principles of the programme need to include the obligation for open access, which strengthens the impact of research, international collaboration, and transparency.
The University of Helsinki is concerned that the removal of the civilian clause from the Horizon Europe regulation could limit international cooperation, reduce openness, and steer funding excessively toward defence-related research. The Commission has not clarified the overall implications of removing the civilian clause, except in the case of the European Innovation Council (EIC), which is expected to fund innovation activities related to defence applications.
The University of Helsinki believes that the primacy of civilian research should be maintained in collaborative projects under Pillar II of the upcoming Horizon Europe programme for the reasons outlined above, and that the Commission should clarify its proposal on this point.
The University of Helsinki welcomes the Commission’s efforts to simplify participation in the Framework Programme. Streamlining work programmes, reducing overly detailed planning, and shifting, by default, to open topics are very welcome reforms that enhance the attractiveness of the programme.
However, the proposed expansion of the lump sum model as the default across the programme is problematic. While this model may work for short-term, limited projects, it is not suitable for long-term, high-risk research or large collaborative projects.
Creating a single rulebook for both the ECF and Horizon Europe may prove overly complex and, at worst, could undermine the added value of both programmes. There is also a risk that the Commission’s competitiveness funding reform could introduce new administrative barriers rather than achieve simplification.
The Commission’s forthcoming communication on the link between Horizon Europe and the ECF is a key document for the negotiations on both regulations. Regrettably, it has not yet been published, as its absence leaves too many questions unanswered and creates room for speculation.
The European Commission proposes a total budget of €36.2 billion (current prices) for the Erasmus+ programme. This represents a modest increase in absolute terms compared with the current programme, while the programme is expected to implement a significantly broader range of EU policy initiatives. Although the programme would receive slightly more funding, its share of the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework would decrease from 2.55% to 2.17%, meaning it loses relative weight within the overall EU budget. At the same time, the programme is expected to contribute to establishing a Union of Skills—focusing on investment, adult and lifelong learning, skill retention, and the recognition of different types of training to enable people to work across the Union—yet the reduced budget share limits the resources available to achieve these ambitions.
The Commission’s Erasmus+ proposal is very general, and more detailed allocations of the programme’s funding are missing. A key question is whether budget shares will be included in the regulation during negotiations between the Council and the European Parliament. The University of Helsinki is particularly concerned about the predictability of funding for the upcoming Erasmus+ programme. While more flexible annual budget arrangements would increase the Commission’s leeway, higher education institutions and students must be able to plan for the future. For example, effective planning of student mobility requires knowing whether Erasmus+ funding will realistically be available even two years ahead.
The University of Helsinki recalls that Erasmus+ is a key instrument for promoting the internationalisation of universities. The programme enables skills development, strengthens student and staff mobility, and enhances the quality of education through international cooperation. Finland should actively ensure that the programme’s budget benefits higher education institutions in the long term, safeguards the functioning and continued funding of European University Alliances, and genuinely strengthens global collaboration.
For the University of Helsinki, the continuity of funding for Erasmus+ flagship initiatives—namely, the European University Alliances—is essential. The alliances require a stable and predictable funding model that allows for strategic planning and future investments. At the same time, it is important to recognise the research-oriented nature of the alliances in the Commission’s Horizon Europe, Competitiveness Fund, and Global Europe programme regulations.
Erasmus+ is an important funder of international joint degree programmes. The University of Helsinki emphasises that funding for international joint degree programmes should be accessible across all disciplines.
The Mundus scholarships planned for the new programme period, which target strategic fields such as STEM, are important for Finland’s competitiveness and for attracting international talent. At the same time, it must be ensured that Erasmus Mundus funding and the future STEM scholarships maintain discipline-level balance and support multidisciplinary collaboration among higher education institutions, as well as the diversity of science and education.
Finnish higher education institutions have performed well in the Erasmus+ Teacher Academies calls, reflecting the high quality and European impact of Finnish teacher education programmes. Continuation of the Teacher Academies initiative is desirable, as it supports the development of teaching, the quality of teacher education, and the strengthening of the teaching profession across Europe.