Brussels (Brussels Morning Newspaper) September 24, 2026 – European Parliament negotiators are shifting discussions regarding new bottom-up research funding instruments from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 of the upcoming Horizon Europe framework. The adjustment aims to secure available financial backing for long-term grants for research institutions, departing from initial curiosity-driven program designs.
Evolution of the Bottom-Up Funding Proposal
The proposal to establish a dedicated funding instrument enabling research institutions to bid for long-term grants in self-chosen fields has undergone significant structural redirection. Initially championed by European Parliament rapporteurs under Pillar 1—the section traditionally reserved for curiosity-driven programs like the European Research Council (ERC)—these “sectoral plans” are now widely anticipated to fall under Pillar 2. Pillar 2 is primarily designated for collaborative research addressing broader societal challenges with topics established by the European Commission.
According to René Repasi, the lead rapporteur for Horizon Europe’s specific programme, the transition stems primarily from budgetary limitations within Pillar 1. Speaking at a Brussels event, Repasi noted that attempting to increase the budget allocation in Pillar 1 was deemed unviable, stating that placing the initiative in Pillar 2 was driven by pure pragmatism, where funds are more readily available.
Convergence of Parallel European Models
The concept builds on similar frameworks introduced across various European policy discussions. The idea first emerged in 2024 as an “ERC for institutions” via a competitiveness report authored by former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, with Repasi’s sectoral plans closely drawing on a Dutch initiative of the same designation.
Parallel efforts have emerged from multiple member states and institutions. In June, the French and Polish governments proposed a plan during an EU Council meeting aimed at securing long-term financing for pan-European laboratory networks aligned with strategic priorities. Simultaneously, a third initiative named Nexus has been formulated collaboratively by the German Research Foundation, the German Rectors’ Conference, and the German Science and Humanities Council, proposing that the ERC distribute €20 million over a seven-year span to networks comprising at least three institutions.
Addressing compatibility between these models, Repasi observed that while distinct, they share a fundamental philosophy. He emphasized that the common thread is a shift in mindset toward a bottom-up approach that trusts research institutions to design appropriate programs for talented researchers. Nils Wörner, head of the Brussels office of the German Rectors’ Conference, expressed openness to relocating the Nexus proposal to Pillar 2, provided that administrative oversight from Brussels is adjusted to prevent micromanagement. Krzysztof Pyrć, president of the Foundation for Polish Science, echoed support for a unified discussion given the alignment between French, German, and Polish proposals.
Institutional Reactions and National Funding Concerns
While the general exploration of bottom-up instruments has garnered broad interest, reactions from national agencies, university groups, and research bodies remain mixed regarding the integration into Pillar 2.
Manuel Aleixo, a senior adviser to research Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva, welcomed the general concept of bottom-up collaborative initiatives during the Brussels discussions. However, Aleixo raised potential concerns regarding fiscal responsibilities at the national level. He questioned whether introducing EU-level funding to bridge institutional gaps might inadvertently encourage national governments to curtail their own domestic research funding allocations.
Additional reservations focus on the distinct nature of Pillar 2, which typically involves shorter, narrower projects aligned with specific policymaker priorities through links to the European Competitiveness Fund. Julien Chicot, head of research and innovation policy at the Guild University Group, supported exploring the initiative as a complementary instrument to address policy-oriented gaps, provided that its unique added value and alignment with administrative simplification for researchers are clearly demonstrated.
Conversely, some institutional bodies and national authorities have expressed caution. The ERC has previously warned that national interests could influence the research selection process, while university associations such as the League of European Research Universities have cautioned against risks involving member state competition over academic excellence. Negotiations between the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission remain ongoing as stakeholders continue to refine the structural details of the upcoming framework.
