What is going on with funding to R&I for the cultural sector?
Since the Commission proposed the first draft for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the EU institutions are debating and trying to amend the text of the long-term budget to fit different priorities. In all this, the future of culture and creativity in Horizon Europe and the place of culture in the “competitiveness” talks are at stakes. Halfway through this decision-making process, the things got complicated to understand. In this explainer, MCA tells you what you need to know about the things happened up to September 2026 and why we launched the #NamePlaceFund campaign.
In the previous episodes: the Commission proposal in July 2025
Every 7 years, the European Union adopts a new long-term budget, with the aim of creating the big frame in which all the different components and funding of EU should fit. It is the case for Creative Europe, Horizon Europe, CERV, Erasmus+, but also for the Cohesion Funds and for all the money used in the external actions. On July 16, 2025, the European Commission unveiled their proposal for the MFF: with a total of 2 Trillion €, the main pillars in this proposal where the National and Regional Partnership Plans (the heir of the NextGenEU post-COVID funds), Global Europe (to finance the external actions of the EU) and the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF).
In this explainer we focus on the ECF. When the budget was firstly proposed, MCA published an overview in this article, already flagging the critical absence of the cultural sector from this architecture. If you are interested in Creative Europe (now AgoraEU), read the articles of our partners Culture Action Europe, who are following this very closely.
The ECF is meant to be big funding portion of the EU to propel sectors and industries into a new era of prosperity, under the sign of competitiveness. At this point, the ECF represents 22% of the total EU budget with +409 billion€. Inside, there is an envelope for Horizon Europe of 175 billion € (5 times more than in the past), representing 43% of the ECF budget. The ECF itself is divided in 4 “policy windows”, that should steer the themes and topics of all funding. The connection between the ECF and Horizon is not completely clear at first. It seems like the two should be in connection: out of the 4 pillars forming the new Horizon scheme, Pillar II “Competitiveness and Society”, the Competitiveness part has the same 4 “policy windows” that mark the ECF structure. The keywords are: autonomous but connected.
While this interconnection seems present but is not formalized (meaning that in the first draft there is no mechanism to connect directly the Horizon results to the ECF “acceleration purposes”), the meaning of “competitiveness” as a concept remains unclear. On the top of that, the Cluster 2 “Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society” completely disappears, with a mention of the culture and creativity sector in the introduction of the sub-part of pillar II “Society”. The only mention in the ECF proposal to culture is under the policy window “Digital Leadership”, targeting “Cultural and creative industries”. No earmarking, no mention of the sectors outside the protection of cultural heritage through Earth Observation. In this way, the Commission does not recognize the cultural and creative sectors as drivers of innovation and a competitive society: in order to do so, the CCS presence and funding should be mainstreamed in all policy windows of the ECF and have a coherent place in Pillar II of Horizon.
Now the ball is the Parliament’s and Council’s courtyard.
The Parliament: defining competitiveness and finding compromise
In the legislative process, when the Commission proposes a regulation, the Parliament and the Council of the EU (the institution assembling the ministries of the Member States) have a bit of time to discuss internally and produce an opinion. After this, the dialogue between the three institutions can begin to find a common ground: this phase is called “trilogues“. For the MFF, each part of the budget is subjected to a specific proposed regulation.
The Parliament answer is called a report. A committee of reference is entrusted with the drafting of the report and one or more Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are tasked with the mission to guide the process of writing, the consulting with the members of the committee and then the voting. For the ECF and Horizon Europe regulations, it the case for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) and MEP Ehler (EPP, in charge also of the report for Horizon Europe) and MEP Nica (S&D) as rapporteurs.
In April 2026, the two rapporteurs publish their draft report. In this document, the two MEPs propose a restructuring of the ECF to be tightly connected to Horizon, in order to have all the R&I channelled in market-ready solutions, with the so-called “Pathway Actions“. This system aims at establishing clear routes for the introduction, commercialisation, scaling and application of world-leading innovations from Horizon to the ECF. In the ECF, the policy windows are renamed and they slightly change in their respective scopes. The mention of the culture and creative industries is erased from the digital policy window and the revamped policy window 3 “Biotechnology, and Sustainable Prosperity” now contains a paragraph about “support to cultural and creative industries, complementing the AgoraEU programme. Always in the ECF regulation, the rapporteurs propose a definition of competitiveness as “the ability of European companies to compete successfully in global markets […] in terms of the cost of doing business, including by making it easier to invest, lowering energy costs, enhancing productivity, boosting innovative capacity and increasing long-term public investments, and which requires a skilled workforce, which should lead to quality jobs and sustainable growth across the whole Union”.
In the draft report for Horizon Europe, MEP Ehler proposes to avoid funding “topics simply because they are important but lack clear European added value”. He modifies the sub-part “Society” of pillar II in another policy window tightly connected to the ECF called “Global Society Challenges” with no specific mention aside from the New European Bauhaus. Culture and the arts are mentioned only as an horizontal principle for the whole Horizon programme, “for the integration of social sciences, humanities and the arts (SSHA) across all components under the Programme, including specific calls for proposals on SSHA related topics, topics dedicated to the cultural and creative industries”.
The ITRE committee enters in a new phase: each MEP in the Committe can submit amendments to the draft report, especially the shadow-rapporteur (the MEP that are tasked by each party to follow that specific dossier). In May and June 2026, we already had a list of amendments coming from the whole constituency. Among all these amendments, the ones coming from the left side of the Parliament (S&D, Greens, the Left) are asking for more central role of culture in both the ECF and the Horizon Europe regulations.
With the objective of voting in September 2026, the following phase is the compromise. Among all the propositions, MEPs have to find a compromise text set to receive a majority in the Committee voting. The voting is currently set for the last week of September, but indecisions and discussions could make this shift further in the autumn. After the ITRE committee votes, it will be the time for the Plenary to vote the report and officially adopt the Parliament position on these two regulations.
What we did in the framework of #NamePlaceFund
The issue with this new architecture is that not only culture is sidelined, but it is present horizontally with no actual obligation or earmarked budget. This means that culture is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, with great risks to the continuity of funding for R&I in the sector. The definition of competitiveness in the draft report relies heavily on industrial and technological productivity and efficiency, while forgetting the vital presence of social cohesion, democratic resilience and cultural vitality that allow a society to prosper and be competitive globally. The Letta Report “More than a market”, one of the guiding documents together with the Draghi report, argues that a strong social dimension actively promotes inclusive prosperity while directly contributing to the EU’s overall growth and competitiveness.
For these reasons, together with other 8 organizations, MCA started the #NamePlaceFund campaign, to advocate for a place for the CCS in the architecture of these fundings. In this framework, we send to MEPs (both rapporteurs and shadow-rapporteurs), amendments directed at modifying the legislation in key areas. We also launched a public campaign on social media to show how much the sectors need and want specific and targeted funding in this domain. In continuity with this, we are currently targeting the ITRE committee members supporting proposed amendments that are in line with the purpose of the campaign, while the committee vote is approaching.
The Council wants more culture at the table
Differently to the Parliament, the Council of the EU should produce a General Approach, document enables this institution to inform the Parliament of its position on the legislative proposal.. If up to that moment the agreement is reached only on a set of articles, then the Council publishes a Partial General Approach: it is the case for these regulations, published in June 2026. The Horizon one keeps cultural and creative sectors in the Pillar II “Competitiveness and Society” and expands their presence. This pillar should now foster “democratic, culturally diverse, inclusive, socially just, secure and peaceful societies and driving democratic governance and innovation in public services” and sustain “European cultures and cultural heritage and strengthening cultural and creative sectors and industries“. The ECF one does not change drastically the position for the CCS, but where in the Commission proposal, in the Digital Leadership pillar, there was a mention of Cultural and Creative Industries, in the Council’s Partial General Approach we find also the Sectors.
In general, these proposals try to give more power to the Member States in the governance these two funding schemes, without revolutionizing the architecture like the Parliament draft tries to do.
The Council work is slightly more complicated and layered in terms of decision-making: first, working parties (composed of national civil servants, meeting in Brussels) go through the text article by article, then the COREPER (the Ambassadors of the 27 member states) reviews the compromise and prepares what goes to ministers. Finally, a specific Council configuration (in this case, COMPET) adopts the General Approach at ministerial level. This can take time, especially because everything relating money passes through and should be validated by the Finance and Foreign Affairs ministries of each country.
What we did in the framework of #NamePlaceFund
Our collective voice was listened by the Council, as it can be seen with the greater presence of the cultural and creative sectors in Horizon. The first action directed to the Council was to ask the supporters of #NamePlaceFund (now more than 40 organizations) to directly write to their competence ministries, of Culture, Research, Finance and European Affairs. With the new Irish presidency in place, the Name, Place, Fund coalition sent an official letter to the to the Irish Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance, and the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. MCA president Julia Katona co-signs it.
The winter (and the voting) is coming
The big appointment coming the voting in the ITRE committee, happening between September and October 2026, and a plenary vote immediately after. At this point, the phase of trilogues can start: the three institutions will convene to find a satisfactory text for all the parties. These meetings happen behind close doors, but civil society can still make its voice heard.
So, what can you do to save the place of culture in the next R&I funding?
Visit our page for the Name, Place, Fund campaign and discover the toolkit that we prepared for you to interact directly with policymakers. There is still time to make pressure on MEPs and your national ministries to give the place that these sectors deserve. Or simply join the movement on social media with the hashtag #NamePlaceFund.
Competitiveness and a new definition: as said, we want to enlarge the vision of competitiveness to fit also the social and cultural layer, putting them in correspondence with each other and deeply connected. We are inspired on this by the Letta Report (who argues that a strong social dimension actively promotes inclusive prosperity while directly contributing to the EU’s overall growth and competitiveness) and the report “Increasing European added value in an age of global challenges”. As it is right now, the definition proposed in our amendments is:
Share
