Budget & Investments

Norway	Increase funding for ERC, Address digital and green transitions, Prioritize strategic alignment.
Lithuania	Increase overall budget, Dedicated budget for unforeseen needs, Expand Widening participation
Switzerland	Secure FP10 budget, Focus on R&I activities, Maintain or increase ERC and MSCA budgets.
Germany	Adequate budget for R&I, Focus on key technologies, ensure strategic flexibility
Latvia	Double Widening budget, Balance TRL funding, prevent high-TRL budget shifts
Denmark	Predictable funding for ERC and MSCA, Reduced number of partnerships budget, Allocate mission funding outside FP10
Sweden	Stable and long-term budget, restructuring only in exceptional cases, increase interaction and synergies
United Kingdom	Focus on R&I funding, maintain ERC and MSCA budgets, balance grants and equity finance
Türkiye	Improvements in the budget allocation, particularly for widening measures and overall participation, emphasis on adequate financial support
Romania	Need for a coordinated and substantial budget to support high-quality research and innovation while maintaining current structures
Malta	Significant increases in funding, especially for widening participation, and calls for simplification and clarity in budget allocation
Slovenia	Slovenia advocates for an increased and stable budget allocation, particularly for widening measures and collaborative projects.
The Netherlands	Stresses the importance of a stable budget for achieving FP10 goals, calls for increased funding to address challenges.
Slovakia	Call for a stable and increased budget, emphasizing the need for adequate funding while supporting the current structure.
Spain	Emphasizes maintaining and increasing the FP budget for stability and excellence in R&I, positioning towards continuity rather than change. They stress funding aligned with current objectives without radical alterations
Portugal	Supports significantly increased funding and better coordination, leaning towards substantial improvement and change in budget management.
Czech Republic	Advocates for stable funding with simplified processes, emphasizing continuity while making incremental improvements.
Estonia	Estonia seeks balanced funding between basic and applied research, emphasizing efficient use of resources, balancing both continuity and some change.
Croatia	Croatia emphasizes a simplified, predictable budget but calls for substantial investments, suggesting a moderate blend of continuity with some necessary changes.
Belgium	Advocates for a stable and dedicated budget for R&I, maintaining the current pillar structure and distribution, emphasizing continuity.
Austria	Austria emphasizes the need for an adequate and stable budget aligned with the program’s ambitions.
Hungary	Hungary supports a strong and stable budget with flexibility to align with strategic goals but leans slightly towards change to ensure balanced participation and competitiveness.
Israel	Israel advocates for a unified framework with increased funding for frontier research and EIC expansion, focusing on strategic investments, indicating moderate change.
Bulgaria	Bulgaria emphasizes a stable budget proportionate to FP10's goals but calls for addressing widening gaps and administrative simplification, balancing continuity and moderate changes.
Finland	Finland supports increasing R&I funding to strengthen competitiveness but focuses on maintaining excellence and private investment roles, reflecting moderate continuity.
Ireland	Ireland advocates for maintaining a ring-fenced, well-funded Framework Programme to preserve Europe’s excellence, suggesting a strong alignment with continuity.
Greece	Greece calls for increased and stable funding for FP10, focusing on synergies and balanced distribution, aligning with moderate change while reflecting current structures.

Norway	Maintain excellence as main principle, attract best minds globally, focus on high-impact research
Lithuania	Focus on attracting top talent, promote excellence in all regions, integrate fundamental research
Switzerland	Excellence as key criterion, support curiosity-driven research, promote international competition
Germany	Preserve excellence in project selection, fund pioneering innovations, balance relevance and impact
Latvia	Excellence in Widening countries, fund smaller projects, balance TRL levels funding
Denmark	Excellence as foundation for FP10, open competition for best applicants, introduce stringent excellence definition
Sweden	Excellence drives research quality, maximize budget efficiency, implement open science incentives
United Kingdom	Excellence core of FP10, support for entire research pipeline, set clear thematic priorities
Türkiye	Desires improvements in quality and accessibility; stronger push for change.
Romania	Recognizes importance of excellence; moderate desire for adjustments.
Malta	Advocates increased funding with strong desire for change; focuses on inclusivity.
Slovenia	Aligns with excellence notion; seeks fair evaluations indicating moderate desire for change.
The Netherlands	Seeking excellence while exploring new synergies; slight inclination for improvements.
Slovakia	Maintains excellence; emphasizes improvements in evaluation processes.
Spain	Spain emphasizes maintaining and reinforcing excellence as a core principle, arguing for more budget allocation and continuity in the high standards of the program.
Portugal	Advocates for maintaining high standards of excellence while introducing new, more open and curiosity-driven research approaches, indicating a lean towards evolution and enhancement.
Czech Republic	Supports continuity in excellent research through instruments like the ERC and MSCA, emphasizing stable conditions and balanced support for excellent science and innovation.
Estonia	Highlights the importance of excellence in both basic and applied research, aiming to make ERC grants more attractive and accessible, combining continuity with gradual improvement.
Croatia	Supports the principle of excellence through robust interdisciplinary research, flexibility, and synergies, advocating for empowerment and support of frontier blue-sky research while seeking some enhancements.
Belgium	Emphasizes maintaining high standards of excellence, supporting existing structures like ERC and MSCA with slight enhancements.
Austria	Austria strongly supports maintaining and strengthening excellence through instruments like the ERC and MSCA, emphasizing continuity in fostering top-tier research.
Hungary	Hungary emphasizes inclusiveness while preserving excellence as a core principle, suggesting slight adjustments to ensure balanced participation without compromising quality.
Israel	Israel prioritizes scientific excellence, advocating for increased investment in the ERC and expanding frontier research funding, firmly supporting continuity in excellence-driven policies.
Bulgaria	Bulgaria supports excellence as the foundation of FP10 but emphasizes closing gaps in participation with slight adjustments, balancing excellence with inclusivity.
Finland	Finland stresses the principle of excellence as fundamental, opposing widening-specific measures within FP10, indicating a preference for continuity with minimal changes.
Ireland	Ireland sees excellence as central to FP10, emphasizing the continuation of ERC and MSCA programs and transnational collaboration, advocating strong continuity.
Greece	Greece highlights excellence as the core principle, supporting a merit-based process, but calls for balanced funding across research types, suggesting slight modifications.

Norway	Simplify instruments and procedures, reduce administrative burden, continuously improve processes
Lithuania	Streamline administrative procedures, introduce lump-sum funding, mitigate evaluation biases
Switzerland	Simplify participation process, evaluate new tools carefully, ensure level playing field
Germany	Further streamline processes, examine lump-sum funding, simplify application procedures
Latvia	Continue simplification efforts, increase transparency, blind evaluation welcomed
Denmark	Simplification is crucial, reduce bureaucratic burdens, merge similar programs
Sweden	Simplify application processes, reduce reporting requirements, harmonize regulations
United Kingdom	Reduce administrative burdens, streamline application process, clarify evaluation criteria
Türkiye	-
Romania	Need for clarity and reduction of complexity in procedures
Malta	Clearer and less burdensome application processes
Slovenia	Reducing administrative burdens and simplifying application processes
The Netherlands	Clear processes and administrative simplification to enhance participation
Slovakia	Enhanced simplification and rationalization of various instruments while advocating for user-friendly access.
Spain	Spain supports simplifying administrative processes while maintaining efficiency and resource impact, indicating a balanced approach between continuity and change.
Portugal	Calls for dramatic reduction in complexity, streamlined processes, and user-friendly digital tools, strongly advocating for significant change in simplifying the program
Czech Republic	Emphasizes the need for drastic simplification of administrative barriers, funding systems, and proposal processes, leaning heavily towards substantial transformation
Estonia	Strongly supports simplifying intervention logic and procedures and reducing administrative burdens, advocating for considerable changes
Croatia	Advocates for simplified application processes, reduced administrative burdens, and expanded lump sum funding, signaling a high preference for change.
Belgium	Belgium supports significant simplification efforts, reducing administrative burdens, and enhancing transparency.
Austria	Calls for significant simplification, including reduced administrative burdens, shorter time-to-grant, streamlined application processes, and broader calls (possibly implemented via two-stage-calls); the EU's Funding and Tenders' Portal should serve as a one-stop-shop.
Hungary	Strongly emphasizes profound simplification, including shorter time-to-grant periods, streamlined proposals, and reduced bureaucracy, indicating significant transformation.
Israel	Supports simplifying application and reporting processes, promoting two-stage calls, and reducing rigid requirements, advocating considerable simplification changes.
Bulgaria	Stresses deep simplification, including streamlined governance, reduced bureaucratic burdens, and expanded lump sum use, making simplification a core priority.
Finland	Highlights the need for reduced administrative and regulatory burdens, streamlined processes, and faster decision-making for projects, advocating considerable changes.
Ireland	Calls for streamlining instruments, reducing administrative burdens, and sunsetting ineffective initiatives, strongly pushing for significant simplification reforms.
Greece	Supports simplifying funding mechanisms, reducing complexity, and enhancing accessibility to boost efficiency, advocating considerable simplification.

Norway	Strengthen ERC budget, ERC crucial for research excellence, support early-stage studies
Lithuania	Increase support for ERC, Promote research excellence, instrument for international collaboration
Switzerland	Continue ERC support, crucial for disruptive innovations, foundation of value chain.
Germany	Ensure ERC funding, enable pioneering research, ERC as innovation foundation
Latvia	ERC supports talent, important for research excellence, useful in Widening countries
Denmark	Continue supporting ERC, ERC crucial for curiosity-driven research, ERC remains "Crown Jewel."
Sweden	Support for fundamental research, crucial for scientific excellence, apply ERC to Euratom
United Kingdom	ERC for groundbreaking science, supports excellence-driven projects, Foundation of Europe's reputation
Türkiye	Wants better accessibility and structural reforms for underrepresented countries.
Romania	Recognizes the ERC's importance; balanced desire for reform.
Malta	Highlights need for increased support from the ERC for smaller Member States.
Slovenia	Supports ERC's focus on excellence with calls for improved access.
The Netherlands	Prioritizes ERC funding while suggesting minor adjustments.
Slovakia	Appreciates ERC's contributions; calls for broader support.
Spain	Supports maintaining and strengthening the ERC's independent structure and long-term funding, emphasizing continuity
Portugal	Advocates for expanded ERC funding and enhanced international cooperation while maintaining its bottom-up approach, leaning towards continuity with some enhancements
Czech Republic	Emphasizes the importance of continuing ERC's support for excellent science and increasing funding for interdisciplinary projects, advocating continuity with incremental improvements
Estonia	Highlights the need to enhance the attractiveness and accessibility of ERC grants, focusing on continuity with some improvements in reach and accessibility
Croatia	Supports the high standards of ERC, advocating for specific grants for fundamental research for widening countries, indicating continuity with slight enhancements
Belgium	Supports maintaining the ERC’s independence and excellence, advocating for continuity with slight enhancements.
Austria	Strongly supports the ERC's strategic independence and focus on frontier research, advocating for continuity and for strengthening its successful structure.
Hungary	Supports preserving and slightly enhancing ERC funding while addressing participation imbalances and encouraging inclusivity, indicating slight adjustments.
Israel	Prioritizes increased investment in the ERC, emphasizing its role in funding frontier, curiosity-driven research, and maintaining scientific excellence, advocating strong continuity.
Bulgaria	Supports expanding ERC Synergy Grants and enhancing accessibility for widening countries, suggesting slight changes to promote more balanced participation while retaining core principles.
Finland	Highlights the ERC's autonomy and its critical role in fostering top-tier science, aligning with strong continuity in maintaining excellence-focused funding.
Ireland	Emphasizes the importance of protecting the ERC's independence and increasing its funding, advocating strongly for continuity in supporting frontier research.
Greece	Supports bolstering ERC funding and maintaining excellence as a core criterion but also emphasizes expanding grant opportunities, proposing slight changes.

Norway	Continue three-pillar structure, Strengthen pillar 2 responsiveness, include lower TRL levels
Lithuania	Pillar 2 address societal challenges, increase funding for collaborative research, support dual-use technologies
Switzerland	Facilitate excellence-based collaboration, strengthen interdisciplinary projects, integrate SSH
Germany	Strengthen cross-border cooperation, focus on digital and sustainable transformation, balance between small and large projects
Latvia	Continue focus on Pillar 2, address widening R&I gaps, balance TRL funding
Denmark	Retain three-pillar structure, enhance RIA and IA balance, upscale strategic research
Sweden	Maintain current pillar structure, strong interdisciplinary collaboration, address sustainability and societal challenges
United Kingdom	Preserve three-pillar architecture, support multinational consortia, address global challenges
Türkiye	More targeted calls for collaborative research projects and emphasizes participation from underrepresented countries
Romania	A balanced approach in Pillar 2 funding and emphasizes the need for effective collaborative mechanisms
Malta	Increase in funding for collaborative calls under Pillar 2 to address complex challenges and promote involvement of smaller Member States
Slovenia	Need for balanced funding in Pillar 2 to effectively tackle societal challenges,
The Netherlands	Supports collaborative research across the knowledge chain and emphasizes the importance of cross-sector collaborations
Slovakia	Retaining the focus on collaborative projects in Pillar 2 while promoting improved linkages across the pillars
Spain	Emphasizes the importance of Pillar II for transnational collaborative R&I, supporting a review of clusters to improve integration and efficiency, leaning towards continuity with structured enhancements.
Portugal	Calls for a balance between top-down and curiosity-driven calls, advocating for integrating diverse disciplines and addressing multi-disciplinary challenges, suggesting moderate change with continuity.
Czech Republic	Supports maintaining the structure of Pillar II while calling for a balance between bottom-up and top-down proposals, leaning towards moderate continuity with incremental improvements.
Estonia	Supports balanced sectoral objectives in Pillar II, emphasizing coordination with EU priorities and strategic focus areas like AI and cybersecurity, indicating a balanced approach.
Croatia	Supports a more focused and less fragmented Pillar II to directly address industrial, technological, and societal demands, calling for moderate but strategic changes based on continuity principles.
Belgium	Supports maintaining Pillar 2's structure while enhancing synergies and interdisciplinary collaboration, favoring moderate continuity with improvements.
Austria	Supports the further promotion of transnational and inter-sectoral collaborative research and suggests improvements to the implementation and monitoring of EU partnerships
Hungary	Hungary emphasizes reducing overprogramming, simplifying calls, and integrating more newcomers, advocating moderate changes to make Pillar 2 more accessible and efficient.
Israel	Advocates for a more flexible, bottom-up approach in Pillar 2 with small-scale consortia and greater inclusivity for broader participation, recommending moderate changes.
Bulgaria	Supports retaining the three-pillar structure but advocates for more flexibility and balance in Pillar 2 to ensure greater EU-added value and accessibility, indicating modest changes.
Finland	Values collaborative research but stresses technology neutrality and private sector involvement, advocating for adjustments while maintaining stability, favoring moderate continuity.
Ireland	Highlights the need for better interlinkages between pillars and fewer, larger calls, advocating modest changes to enhance coordination and implementation efficiency.
Greece	Greece supports improved synergies, funding stability, and flexibility in Pillar 2, emphasizing balanced adjustments to address socioeconomic challenges across disciplines.

Norway	Further develop missions, include R&I and implementation pillars, supported by sectoral programs
Lithuania	Rethink mission implementation, lift missions out of FP, relaunch at MFF level
Switzerland	Non-R&I governance outside FP10, focus on transformative impacts, closer coordination needed
Germany	Review of EU Missions, more focused, cross-programme approach, Member state collaboration crucial
Latvia	Remove missions from FP10, introduce 25% funding cap, sectoral DG and ministry responsibility
Denmark	Relaunch missions outside FP10, proper EU missions with own legislation, cross-programme support
Sweden	Evaluate missions thoroughly, ensure relevance and effectiveness, adjust or remove if necessary
United Kingdom	Support EU Missions continuation, improve governance transparency, ensure stakeholder involvement
Türkiye	Comprehensive review of missions, suggests they be funded separately
Romania	Supports the existing framework for missions while suggesting they integrate more effectively with societal objectives
Malta	Simplify the mission structure and enhance funding sources to address societal challenges
Slovenia	Re-evaluation of missions to ensure relevance and effectiveness, advocating for transformational change in their structure.
The Netherlands	Supports missions but promotes a balanced approach featuring open strategic autonomy and effective governance
Slovakia	Supports a mission-oriented approach while emphasizing simplification and effective governance
Spain	Acknowledges missions as important but suggests improving coordination and synergies with other EU funds, leaning towards moderate change to enhance their impact.
Portugal	Supports a thorough review of missions, advocating for better alignment with sectoral objectives and integration with other funding sources, indicating a preference for considerable change.
Czech Republic	Emphasizes the need for new forms of governance and collaboration, calling for better implementation strategies and stronger political support, suggesting significant change.
Estonia	Supports missions but stresses simplification and aligning them with sectoral objectives managed by relevant Directorates-General, indicating a moderate change focus.
Croatia	Advocates for significant simplification and better alignment of missions with other EU programs and national sources, emphasizing considerable change.
Belgium	Recognizes the significant value of the mission approach but suggests revising governance to enhance coordination across existing programs and instruments. They favor reorienting missions as a strategic planning process
Austria	Supports a mission-oriented approach but emphasizes simplifying accompanying societal processes and improving interfaces with other funding programs
Hungary	Highlights the need for clearer governance, streamlined processes, and better inclusiveness in missions, advocating moderate change for improvement and alignment.
Israel	Recommends reorienting mission design to reduce barriers and integrate small-scale participants, advocating considerable changes to enhance impact and inclusiveness.
Bulgaria	Supports lifting missions out of FP10 to ensure alignment with broader EU programs, advocating for significant governance and structure changes.
Finland	Emphasizes improved governance and increased alignment with EU goals in funding missions, advocating moderate changes to clarify roles and increase efficiency.
Ireland	Calls for an MFF-wide approach to missions with appropriate governance and coordination, advocating for considerable changes to ensure their broader success.
Greece	Supports separating mission governance from FP10, emphasizing the need for coordination and aligned funding, indicating moderate change for clearer implementation.

Norway	Fewer, more targeted partnerships, balance with collaborative projects, simplify rules and procedures
Lithuania	Limited number of partnerships, clear phase-out strategies, ensure European added value
Switzerland	Partnerships must be excellence-based, simplify establishment and implementation, ensure transparency and effectiveness
Germany	Limit number of partnerships, ensure strategic use, simplify and integrate
Latvia	Strategic focus for partnerships, avoid thematic overlap, balance with open calls
Denmark	Reduce number of partnerships, transparent and limited selection, simplify processes
Sweden	Simplify and clarify partnerships, align with Member States, ensure complementarity
United Kingdom	Continue European Partnerships, increase transparency, simplify administrative structures
Türkiye	Supports a more flexible approach to partnerships and emphasizes the need for enhanced cooperation with emerging countries
Romania	Recognizes the importance of partnerships but calls for their effectiveness and more significant roles in addressing shared goals
Malta	Need to streamline partnership processes and ensure inclusivity
Slovenia	Enhance the efficiency of partnerships and avoid redundancies
The Netherlands	Supports the role of partnerships in pooling resources and enhancing collaboration but calls for a more strategic focus
Slovakia	Strengthening partnerships as a key mechanism, advocates for clearer goals and improved collaboration
Spain	Supports maintaining European Partnerships but calls for improved coordination and simplification, indicating a balanced approach with both continuity and moderate improvements.
Portugal	Advocates for a focus on key priorities and reducing overlaps, emphasizing better management and alignment with ERA goals, suggesting moderate change.
Czech Republic	Calls for clearer definitions of scope and objectives, enhanced cooperation with Member States, and sustainability of partnerships, indicating a preference for moderate change.
Estonia	Supports reducing the number of EU Partnerships and enhancing efficiency, with better alignment and simplified management, advocating for considerable change.
Croatia	Emphasizes the need for comprehensive revision and simplification of partnerships, better synchronization with other funding sources, and proactive engagement, indicating considerable change.
Belgium	Views European Partnerships as effective but calls for reducing their number and streamlining the partnership ecosystem to avoid duplication and fragmentation, advocating for considerable change.
Austria	Supports partnerships but calls for improvements in transparency, evaluation, implementation and synergies; implementation rules should be transparent and coherent for beneficiaries as well as for the implementing EU agencies (avoid different rules from different agencies)
Hungary	Emphasizes reducing administrative burdens and improving inclusiveness and governance in partnerships, advocating moderate changes to streamline their effectiveness.
Israel	Highlights issues in co-funded partnerships, urging simplified access mechanisms and reduced national funding barriers, advocating moderate structural changes.
Bulgaria	Stresses the need for partnership rationalization, transparency, and streamlined governance, advocating considerable change for greater inclusivity and efficiency.
Finland	Calls for improving alignment and synergies within partnerships while minimizing duplication, advocating balanced adjustments rather than fundamental changes.
Ireland	Stresses the need for a major overhaul and rationalization in the number and governance of partnerships, advocating significant changes to improve impact and transparency.
Greece	Supports simplifying partnerships, addressing governance issues, and ensuring accessibility, advocating moderate changes to improve effectiveness.

Norway	EIT instruments are below average, KICs are not accessible enough, improvements and continuation necessary
Lithuania	EIT should create clear European added value, strategies to phase out weak KICs
Switzerland	Does not explicitly mention EIT
Germany	Reduce number and complexity of partnerships, integrate KICs into strategic portfolio management
Latvia	Dissolve EIT in its current form, phase out KICs gradually, transfer functions to EIC and Erasmus+
Denmark	Abolish EIT, plan for self-sustaining KICs, strengthen EIC, integrate associated tasks into new structure
Sweden	Gradually make EIT/KICs self-financed, finance specific FP10 KIC projects, ensure financial sustainability of KICs.
United Kingdom	Transform EIT and KICs, improve transparency and prioritization, make KICs financially sustainable
Türkiye	Türkiye is calling for significant changes to the structure and processes of the EIT. The emphasis on low membership fees and simplified registration processes shows a clear desire for reform.
Romania	Romania emphasizes the need for a strong and effective EIT while recognizing the importance of integrating it into the overall strategy of the FP10. suggests improvements in cooperation and the effectiveness
Malta	Emphasizes the need for increased funding and more accessible mechanisms within the EIT. Necessity of tailored support for smaller member states
Slovenia	Need for better integration with the overall framework programs and streamlined processes for participation, need to make it more accessible for stakeholders, especially from Widening countries.
The Netherlands	EIT must adapt to improve accessibility for all stakeholders. Streamlining membership processes and reducing fees is necessary.
Slovakia	Need for enhancements within the EIT structure to better align with the overall goals of the FP10. Make the EIT more accessible to stakeholders, particularly from smaller and less experienced Member States
Spain	Advocates for promoting the EIT and the KICs but calls for better alignment and ensuring synergies with other parts of the program, suggesting moderate continuity with improvements
Portugal	Supports the EIT but emphasizes transparency, harmonization, and integration with other EU programs, advocating for considerable change to enhance its efficiency and impact.
Czech Republic	Suggests that EIT could potentially operate independently of FP10 but, if continued within FP10, calls for better alignment and synergies with the EIC, indicating moderate change.
Estonia	Supports merging the tasks of the EIT and EIC to reduce overlaps and increase efficiency, suggesting significant change.
Croatia	Calls for simplifying and redefining the EIT's role, ensuring better alignment and reducing duplication with other innovation activities, advocating for considerable change.
Belgium	Recognizes the value of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) but advocates for better alignment with other Horizon Europe instruments, particularly the EIC, and suggests reducing administrative burden
Austria	The EIT/KICs should be monitored along with the other EU partnerships; synergies with the EIC should be exploited; no new KICs should be established.
Hungary	Emphasizes preserving the EIT's independence while enhancing complementarity and inclusiveness, suggesting moderate changes.
Israel	Supports maintaining the EIT’s role but highlights issues of integration and accessibility, advocating moderate improvements.
Bulgaria	Calls for significant changes, focusing on complementarity and scaling startups through EIT mechanisms, pushing for impactful adjustments.
Finland	Cautiously supports the EIT and emphasizes improvements without proposing drastic changes.
Ireland	Questions the EIT’s current structure and calls for significant changes to improve efficiency and address overlaps.
Greece	Advocates for moderate changes to improve complementarity between the EIT and other EU tools.

Norway	Strengthen EIC instruments, lLink pillar 1 and 2 projects, streamline and rationalize funding
Lithuania	EIC-Potential clear, ensure continuum of support, link Horizon outputs to EIC
Switzerland	ERC-to-EIC transition encouraged, EIC Accelerator crucial, continue proven instruments
Germany	Strengthen EIC Pathfinder, EIC Transition funding crucial, Link EIC with start-up programs
Latvia	Shift EIT roles to EIC, EIT head office for EIC functions, comprehensive integration of innovation
Denmark	Continue and improve EIC, discontinue EIT, merge similar programs for synergy
Sweden	EIC to remain and strengthen, focus on high-risk projects, balance support and market-oriented innovation
United Kingdom	Continue EIC Pathfinder, fund scaling-up via EIC Accelerator, address legal issues in EIC funding
Türkiye	Calls for dedicated funding for underrepresented countries and more accessibility within the EIC
Romania	Supports the EIC but emphasizes the need for accessible opportunities for all countries
Malta	Increased funding opportunities within the EIC, especially for smaller Member States
Slovenia	Strengthen the EIC with greater focus on collaboration and increased funding mechanisms
The Netherlands	Emphasizes the importance of the EIC while advocating for better links to existing funding structures
Slovakia	Better integration of the EIC within broader EU funding mechanisms while recognizing the need for enhancements
Spain	Supports strengthening the disruptive role of the EIC, improving visibility, and supporting innovation with a moderate emphasis on change, balancing continuity with enhancements.
Portugal	Emphasizes expanding EIC support for disruptive innovation and aligning with the EIF activities, advocating for considerable change to boost impact and efficiency.
Czech Republic	Calls for continuing successful instruments like EIC Pathfinder and Accelerator while addressing issues in current schemes, indicating moderate change for optimization and efficiency.
Estonia	Supports reducing overlaps by merging EIC with other innovation bodies and enhancing overall efficiency, advocating for considerable change.
Croatia	Supports fine-tuning EIC instruments, increasing access, balancing participation, and addressing differences in innovation maturity across regions, indicating considerable change.
Belgium	Supports strengthening the EIC by improving leverage tools, enhancing access for innovative SMEs, and ensuring better alignment with national and regional investors
Austria	Acknowledges the EIC as an instruments that meets strong demand from innovators; advocates for establishing better pipelines between instruments within the EIC and with other areas of the FP as well as with other EU funding programmes;
Hungary	Proposes expanding the EIC, simplifying processes, and increasing funding to promote access and disruptive innovations, indicating significant changes.
Israel	Advocates for increasing the EIC budget to support disruptive innovations and reduce oversubscription, favoring moderate to significant changes.
Bulgaria	Supports the EIC’s role with further simplifications, accelerated processes, and greater risk-tolerance, reflecting moderate adjustments.
Finland	Emphasizes fostering disruptive innovations with faster processes and scaling opportunities, proposing significant changes.
Ireland	Recognizes the EIC’s value and proposes improved efficiency and flexibility for innovators, without calling for a full redesign.
Greece	Supports EIC enhancements with simplified access for early-stage innovators, proposing moderate changes.

Norway	Openness to international cooperation, strategic autonomy is important, research security emphasized
Lithuania	Fostering international R&I collaboration, open as possible - closed as necessary, focus on Ukraine and Moldova integration
Switzerland	Promote international cooperation, trusted partners emphasized, open science supported
Germany	Strategic international cooperation, reduce dependence on non-aligned actors, safeguard research sovereignty
Latvia	Attractive for third-country associations, expedite Ukraine and Moldova integration, maintain openness and strategic restrictions
Denmark	Open as possible - closed as necessary, international R&I cooperation essential, handle geopolitical risks
Sweden	Responsible internationalisation, strengthen research security, balance risks and opportunities
United Kingdom	Preserve global openness, address research security, equal participation for associated countries
Türkiye	Enhance international cooperation while establishing stricter measures for research security and safeguarding interests
Romania	Emphasizes the importance of international collaboration but also recognizes the need for security measures
Malta	Enhancing international cooperation along with research security
Slovenia	Calls for a stronger focus on international partnerships while reinforcing research security measures
The Netherlands	Supports international collaboration based on shared values but emphasizes the importance of addressing security risks
Slovakia	Balancing open international collaboration with protection measures
Spain	Emphasizes the importance of international cooperation with strategic allies and the need for research security protocols to mitigate risks, advocating for moderate change to enhance security measures.
Portugal	Promotes fostering strategic international partnerships while ensuring research security via specific measures and protocols, advocating for considerable change to address current geopolitical challenges.
Czech Republic	Strongly supports research security as a cross-cutting theme and calls for clear rules and enhanced cooperation with like-minded countries, suggesting significant change to protect against illegitimate interference.
Estonia	Stresses the need to strengthen cooperation with reliable partners while adhering to the EU's sanctions policy, advocating for considerable change in terms of security and strategic partnerships.
Croatia	Supports excluding collaboration with countries aiding aggression and emphasizes dual-use technology research, advocating for considerable change to enhance international cooperation and security.
Belgium	Supports balanced international cooperation and the principle of "as open as possible, as closed as necessary," while emphasizing research security and strategic autonomy.
Austria	Supports balanced and targeted international collaboration while emphasizing proportionate research security measures; science diplomacy should be actively used;
Hungary	Stresses the importance of strategic international cooperation and reducing innovation gaps while ensuring proportional security, advocating moderate changes.
Israel	Calls for full inclusion of Associated Countries and enhanced governance involvement, balancing openness with security considerations, advocating for considerable changes.
Bulgaria	Supports fostering international collaboration within EU principles but highlights the need for safeguards on sensitive topics, advocating moderate changes.
Finland	Supports trusted partner cooperation while balancing open science and research security, indicating moderate continuity.
Ireland	Highlights the importance of balancing EU interests with global collaboration, advocating for moderate adjustments that ensure openness and risk management.
Greece	Supports strategic partnerships with global actors while safeguarding European interests, emphasizing moderate changes for research security measures.

Norway	Improve synergies with education and industry, promote knowledge valorisation, strengthen science-policy interface
Lithuania	Enhance science-business cooperation, optimize instruments for collaboration, support knowledge valorisation mechanisms
Switzerland	Facilitate industry collaboration, valorise knowledge from whole FP, build multisectoral partnerships
Germany	Strengthen intersectoral cooperation, improve knowledge transfer mechanisms, focus on innovation and application
Latvia	Increase science-business cooperation, focus on innovation ecosystems, promote knowledge valorisation
Denmark	Support knowledge-based innovation, foster industry-academia cooperation, merge and streamline EU programmes
Sweden	Develop innovation ecosystems, harmonise regulations for collaboration, improve knowledge valorisation
United Kingdom	Incentivise collaboration across value chains, enhance knowledge valorisation, facilitate global market access
Türkiye	Significant reforms to enhance collaboration and effective knowledge valorisation mechanisms
Romania	Promotion of intersectoral cooperation while recognizing the need for impactful knowledge valorisation
Malta	Improving knowledge valorisation and fostering intersectoral collaboration
Slovenia	Highlights the importance of knowledge valorisation and intersectoral cooperation
The Netherlands	Emphasizes collaboration across the knowledge chain and supports knowledge valorisation
Slovakia	Need for better intersectoral links and knowledge valorisation
Spain	Emphasizes the importance of improving synergies and knowledge transfer between sectors, advocating for some enhancements and moderate changes without overhauling the current system.
Portugal	Promotes better integration of research with industry, advocating for new approaches to public procurement and innovation processes, suggesting moderate to considerable change.
Czech Republic	Supports enhancing coordination and methodological support for cooperation between sectors to optimize knowledge valorisation, indicating moderate change.
Estonia	Emphasizes cooperation between R&D institutions and companies to accelerate research application, advocating for moderate enhancements without substantial changes.
Croatia	Calls for tailored support for SMEs, fostering innovation clusters, and empowering research infrastructures, advocating for moderate to considerable change.
Belgium	Emphasizes the importance of fostering synergies across different sectors and enhancing knowledge valorisation through stakeholder engagement and interdisciplinary collaboration,
Austria	Advocates for inter-sectoral collaborative research projects and for inter-sectoral mobility programmes (within MSCA).
Hungary	Advocates for enhanced knowledge valorisation and fostering entrepreneurship through expanded initiatives, suggesting significant changes.
Israel	Emphasizes removing barriers to commercialization and promoting smoother transitions between research and market impact, advocating considerable changes.
Bulgaria	Calls for stronger intersectoral cooperation and improved dissemination activities, advocating moderate changes to better connect researchers and industry..
Finland	Supports industry-research collaboration and better commercialization but stops short of advocating transformational changes, indicating moderate adjustments.
Ireland	Highlights the need for a better enabling environment for knowledge transfer and commercialization while maintaining incremental reforms, advocating moderate changes.
Greece	Supports creating effective pathways between fundamental research and innovation, focusing on moderate adjustments to enhance knowledge valorisation.

Norway	Improve synergies with sectoral EU-programs, emphasize inclusiveness, address knowledge and innovation disparities
Lithuania	Focus on closing R&I gaps, fund small/medium projects, restructure widening package
Switzerland	Support excellence in weaker regions, utilize targeted support mechanisms, encourage balanced brain circulation
Germany	Target excellence in all regions, use empirical evidence for support, integration into ERA
Latvia	Double Widening budget, focus on excellence principle, apply to lower TRL projects
Denmark	New approach to widening participation, separate capacity building scheme, link European and national efforts
Sweden	Inclusion focus on quality and impact, decrease number of widening countries, target high-need countries
United Kingdom	Widening inclusiveness for excellence, support underrepresented regions, Promote balanced R&I involvement
Türkiye	Substantial support for Widening measures and aims for increased financial input
Romania	Supports Widening actions but seeks balanced investments and improved access for less experienced Member States
Malta	Emphasizes increasing funding for Widening Participation, particularly to enhance participation from smaller Member States
Slovenia	Expanding Widening measures and ensuring financial allocation
The Netherlands	Supports enhancing Widening Participation while emphasizing maintaining high-quality standards
Slovakia	Emphasizes the importance of Widening Participation and calls for dedicated funding and support for underperforming countries
Spain	Emphasizes enhancing regional innovation ecosystems and ensuring balanced participation of all regions and Member States, advocating for moderate to considerable change to improve inclusivity.
Portugal	Supports dedicated funding for instruments that spread excellence and innovation across all Member States, advocating for moderate to considerable change to achieve wider participation.
Czech Republic	Emphasizes maintaining and improving successful tools like Twinning and Teaming while addressing specific needs of widening countries, suggesting moderate to considerable change.
Estonia	Strongly supports continued widening measures and tailored approaches to national R&I systems, advocating for considerable change to close the R&I capacity gap.
Croatia	Advocates for a separate dedicated pillar for widening countries and emphasizes enhanced financial support and specific measures to boost participation
Belgium	Advocates for a fresh approach to widening measures based on a thorough assessment of existing instruments, emphasizing quality over quantity and tailored actions to address root causes of the innovation divide
Austria	Austria emphasises that strong R&I systems are key to success: Member States with a strong national basis perform well in the FP.
Hungary	Strongly emphasizes the need to reduce disparities, integrate widening measures across all programs, and improve tools like Twinning, advocating significant changes.
Israel	Highlights the importance of inclusivity but focuses more on ensuring full participation for Associated Countries, advocating moderate adjustments.
Bulgaria	Calls for a substantially increased budget for widening measures and better tools for participation, advocating significant changes.
Finland	Opposes widening-specific measures within FP10, suggesting that cohesion policies should address participation gaps, reflecting strong continuity.
Ireland	Calls for nuanced widening measures informed by performance evaluation and promotes inclusivity, advocating moderate changes.
Greece	Strongly supports Widening Participation initiatives to address disparities and improve proposal success rates, advocating significant changes.

Budgets & Investments	The international positions of the countries on the topic of widening participation show predominantly similar views on the importance of appropriate budgeting and financial support, but with certain differences in the extent of the desired changes. While some countries call for significant increases, others focus on maintaining existing programs.
Excellence	There is a high level of agreement among the countries regarding the importance of excellence in research and innovation. Most countries view excellence as a fundamental principle and emphasize its role in driving quality and competitiveness, with only moderate differences in how they approach maintaining and enhancing excellence within FP10. Some countries, like Latvia and Türkiye, express a stronger desire for changes that improve accessibility and inclusivity concerning excellence.
Simplification of procedures	There is a moderate level of agreement among the countries regarding the necessity for simplification. Many countries recognize the need to streamline processes and reduce administrative burdens, indicating a collective desire for enhancements. However, there are notable differences in the extent of desired changes, with countries like Türkiye and Denmark advocating more substantial reforms compared to others that focus on maintaining existing frameworks with minor adjustments.
European Research Council	There is a very high level of agreement among the countries regarding the importance of the ERC in the European Research landscape. Most countries share a strong appreciation for maintaining and enhancing the ERC’s funding and role in promoting excellence in research. There are only moderate differences in the specifics concerning access and implementation, with some countries highlighting the need for better integration and accessibility for underrepresented nations.
Collaborative Research	The positions reflect a moderate level of agreement among the countries regarding the importance of collaborative research in Pillar 2. While most support the continuation and enhancement of collaborative frameworks, some countries, such as Türkiye and Latvia, express stronger desires for reforms, particularly in areas of funding, while others prefer maintaining existing structures with minor improvements. There is a clear consensus on the necessity of intersectoral cooperation to address societal challenges, even amid variations in approach and focus.
EU-Missions	The positions indicate moderate to high differences among the countries regarding the future of missions in FP10. While most countries recognize the importance of missions, they express varying levels of desire for reform and restructuring. Countries like Lithuania and Latvia show a strong inclination toward significant changes, while others, like Norway and Sweden, lean more towards maintaining existing structures with minor enhancements. The overall trend suggests a call for improved effectiveness and clarity in the implementation of missions, reflecting a desire for adaptations that better serve the goals of European research and innovation.
Partnerships	The assessment shows a moderate level of alignment among the countries regarding partnerships in FP10. Many countries recognize the importance of partnerships as key mechanisms for enhancing cooperation and achieving strategic goals. They advocate for improvements, simplifications, and clearer objectives while generally retaining the essence of existing frameworks. However, countries like Denmark and Türkiye express stronger desires for substantial changes, reflecting differing perspectives on the future structure and implementation of partnerships.
EIT	The assessment indicates a moderate to high level of differences among the countries regarding the future of the EIT. Many countries stress the importance of retaining existing structures while advocating for enhancements to improve accessibility and effectiveness, particularly for smaller and Widening countries. Countries like Denmark and Latvia advocate for more significant changes, reflecting a diverse range of perspectives on how the EIT should evolve in the future.
European Innovation Council	The assessment indicates a moderate level of agreement among the countries on the importance of the European Innovation Council (EIC). Most countries see the EIC as essential for fostering innovation and emphasize the need for improvements and reforms to enhance accessibility and support for underrepresented nations. While Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom lean toward maintaining existing structures with minor adjustments, countries like Türkiye and Latvia express a stronger desire for substantial changes, reflecting varied perspectives on the future direction of the EIC.
International Cooperation & Research Security	The rating indicates a moderate to high level of differences among the countries regarding international cooperation and research security. Most countries emphasize the necessity of maintaining openness while advocating for improvements to address security risks. Some countries, particularly Türkiye and Latvia, show a stronger inclination towards significant changes, while others such as Norway and Switzerland lean more towards continuity with minor adjustments. The overall trend underscores the importance of balancing collaboration with protective measures amid evolving global contexts.
Intersectoral cooperation, Knowledge valorisation	The countries have very similar views on the importance of intersectoral cooperation and knowledge valorisation. Although there are some differences in the specific focus points, such as the emphasis on optimising instruments or harmonising regulations, there is strong agreement on the basic objectives of promoting cooperation and improving knowledge exploitation.
Widening participation	This assessment indicates a moderate level of agreement among the countries regarding the importance of Widening Participation in FP10. While most countries support maintaining existing structures, many express significant desires for enhancements, funding increases, and streamlined processes to improve participation from underrepresented countries. Countries like Türkiye and Latvia advocate for more substantial reforms, while others prefer to maintain the overall framework with some improvements, showing variability in approach and emphasis on specific needs within the Widening Participation context.