HORIZON EUROPE: DRIVING EU-JAPAN R&I THROUGH GLOBAL VOLATILITY

1. THE HORIZON EUROPE PROGRAMME FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

1.1. A 37-YEAR FOUNDATION

Before adopting the single "Horizon" brand, the European Union's flagship research and funding initiatives were known chronologically as Framework Programmes (FPs). First launched in 1984, these programmes shifted from heavily industrial research toward tackling global, socioeconomic, and scientific challenges over nearly four decades.

A historical evolution of the European Union's research and innovation frameworks consists of several key phases:

1. The Early Eras: FP1 to FP5 (1984–2002)

• FP1 to FP4 (1984–1998): originally introduced to streamline and unify fragmented national public research setups across Europe. Early budgets were comparatively small, and funding tightly targeted collaborative industrial R&D, cross-border engineering, and IT development.

• FP5 (1998–2002): represented the first major pivot toward incorporating problem-solving approaches, socio-economic research, and growth frameworks to directly benefit European citizens alongside industry.

2. Structuring European Excellence: FP6 and FP7 (2002–2013)

• FP6 (2002–2006): officially introduced the concept of the European Research Area (ERA). It focused heavily on creating "Networks of Excellence" and integrating European scientific research communities to compete globally.

• FP7 (2007–2013): suffered a massive budget expansion to over €50 billion. A pivotal historic milestone of FP7 was the creation of the European Research Council (ERC) in 2007, which shifted significant focus onto funding high-risk, high-reward basic science driven by individual elite researchers.

3. The Shift to "Horizon": Horizon 2020 / FP8 (2014–2020)

To establish a more prominent global public identity, the EU rebranded its eighth iteration from "FP8" to Horizon 2020, pooling all EU-level research and innovation funding under one simplified roof.

• Budget: funded with a massive €70 to €80 billion budget.

• The Three Pillars: it moved away from bureaucratic tracking to structure itself around three explicit pillars: Excellent Science (ERC grants, Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions), Industrial Leadership (SME innovation, biotech, space), and Societal Challenges (climate, green energy, health).

• Impact: Horizon 2020 funded more than 35,000 projects, backed rapid scientific responses to global health crises (like Ebola and Zika), and laid the technical foundation for the European Green Deal before concluding on December 31, 2020.

This previous 37-year foundation directly shaped Horizon Europe (FP9), which officially succeeded Horizon 2020 on January 1, 2021

1.2. HORIZON EUROPE 2021-2027

Today “Horizon” Europe is the European Union's key funding programme for research and innovation, running for the period 2021–2027 with a budget of approximately €95.5 billion.

The core vision of Horizon Europe is to achieve a sustainable, fair, and prosperous future for people and planet, while maximizing the scientific, economic, and societal impact of the European Union's investments in research and innovation. It acts as a policy tool rather than a generic research fund. Its vision is built directly around solving global challenges, achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and positioning the EU as a global leader in science and technology.

Missions:

Horizon Europe uses a mission-oriented approach to tackle big challenges with concrete goals and milestones by 2030.

• Missions cut across pillars.

• They are designed to deliver tangible societal impact and to involve citizens, researchers, and industry in co-creation.

Main Aims:

• Strengthen the EU's scientific and technological base.

• Boost Europe's innovation capacity, competitiveness, and jobs.

• Deliver on citizens' priorities - tackling climate change, achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, and boosting the Union's competitiveness and growth.

• Support the creation and diffusion of high-quality knowledge and technologies.

• Strengthen the impact of R&I in developing, supporting, and implementing EU policies.

• Support the uptake of innovative solutions in industry and society to address global challenges.

• Optimise the programme's delivery for increased impact within a strengthened European Research Area (ERA)

The Three Horizon’s Core Pillars (+ One Horizontal Part)

Pillar I: Excellent Science

This pillar aims to reinforce and extend the excellence of the EU’s science base. It is driven by a bottom-up approach, encouraging research initiated by researchers themselves. Its main components are:

• European Research Council (ERC): funds frontier research projects driven by top individual researchers and their teams. It supports curiosity-driven, high-risk/high-gain research across all scientific fields.

• Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA): funds fellowships and mobility programs for researchers at all stages of their careers. It focuses on equipping researchers with new knowledge and skills through training and international/inter-sectoral mobility.

• Research Infrastructures: invests in world-class research infrastructures (including e-infrastructures) across Europe, ensuring researchers have access to the facilities and services they need to conduct top-level research.

Pillar II: Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness

This pillar supports research that tackles societal challenges and reinforces technological and industrial capacities. It promotes collaboration across disciplines, sectors, and public/private actors. The research and innovation activities are organised into six thematic "clusters":

1. Health: tackling diseases, improving health systems, and promoting human health and well-being.

2. Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society: strengthening democratic governance, safeguarding cultural heritage, and managing social and economic transformations.

3. Civil Security for Society: responding to disasters, fighting crime and terrorism, and securing borders and infrastructure.

4. Digital, Industry and Space: developing key digital and industrial technologies, and advancing Europe's space sector.

5. Climate, Energy and Mobility: fighting climate change, advancing clean energy transition, and developing smart and sustainable mobility.

6. Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment: protecting the environment, restoring ecosystems, and ensuring sustainable management of natural resources from land and sea.

This pillar also includes the activities of the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the Commission's science and knowledge service, which provides independent scientific advice and support to EU policy.

Pillar III: Innovative Europe

This pillar aims to make Europe a frontrunner in market-creating innovation and to foster a favourable environment for innovators. Its key components are:

• European Innovation Council (EIC): a one-stop shop for breakthrough and disruptive innovators. It supports high-risk innovations from early-stage research on future technologies (Pathfinder) to the development and scaling up of startups and SMEs (Accelerator).

• European Innovation Ecosystems (EIE): aims to create more connected and efficient innovation ecosystems at the European level, connecting regional and national innovation actors.

• European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT): an independent EU body that strengthens Europe's innovation capacity by integrating the "knowledge triangle" of business, education, and research.

Horizontal Part - Widening Participation and Strengthening the European Research Area

This cross-cutting element supports two objectives:

• Widening participation and spreading excellence - helping countries with lower R&I performance to participate more fully (through tools like Teaming, Twinning, and ERA Chairs).

• Reforming and enhancing the European R&I system - promoting open science, attractive research careers, gender equality, and citizen engagement.

Key Features and Novelties Compared to Horizon 2020

• Introduction of EU Missions - bold, measurable goals to tackle societal challenges (e.g., adapting to climate change, conquering cancer, restoring oceans).

• Strengthened European Innovation Council (EIC) as a one-stop shop for high-potential innovators.

• Emphasis on open science (open access to publications and research data).

• Increased focus on international cooperation.

• Streamlined partnerships with industry, Member States, and other stakeholders.

1.3. Successor to Horizon Europe: FP 10 (2028-2034)

The European Commission has been working on a successor framework programme to follow Horizon Europe. It is commonly referred to as FP10 (the 10th EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation), intended to cover the period 2028–2034.

Current Status

In March 2025, the European Commission published its formal proposal for FP10, officially titled "Horizon Europe's successor" or simply FP10.

• The proposal followed extensive consultation, including input from the independent expert report by Heitor report / Pascal Lamy's high-level group, as well as feedback from Member States, research institutions, and stakeholders.

• The programme is now subject to negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council of the EU as part of the broader Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028–2034.

Based on all this input, the European Commission is currently drafting the official legislative proposal for FP10. This proposal, including the structure, objectives, and a proposed budget, is expected to be published in late 2026 or early 2027.

Co-decision Process: once published, the proposal will be debated, amended, and eventually adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. This negotiation process will take place throughout 2027.

Launch: The goal is to have the new programme legally in place to launch seamlessly on January 1, 2028.

Key Proposed Changes and Directions:

1. Simplified Structure

• The Commission has proposed a streamlined architecture compared to Horizon Europe, reducing complexity and making it more accessible to applicants.

2. Stronger Focus on Competitiveness

• Reflecting the Draghi Report on European competitiveness (2024) and the broader political priority of closing the innovation gap with the US and China.

• Greater emphasis on translating research results into marketable innovations and industrial applications.

3. Continued Excellence in Basic Research

• The European Research Council (ERC) and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) are expected to remain central pillars, given their widely recognised success.

4. Mission-Oriented and Challenge-Driven Approach

• Building on the Horizon Europe Missions concept, but with lessons learned - potentially with fewer, more focused missions and better governance.

5. Technology and Strategic Autonomy

Stronger alignment with the EU's goals around strategic autonomy, particularly in areas like:

• Artificial intelligence,

• Quantum computing,

• Semiconductors,

• Clean energy technologies,

• Biotechnology and health

6. Widening Participation

• Continued and potentially reinforced efforts to close the R&I divide between EU Member States.

7. Budget

• The exact budget is still under negotiation. Stakeholders (including the research community, universities, and the European Parliament) have called for a significant increase over Horizon Europe's €95.5 billion, with some advocating for budgets in the range of €120–200 billion to match global competition.

• The final figure will depend on the overall MFF negotiations.

Key Debates and Open Questions:

While the final structure may change, several key themes are emerging from the ongoing discussions and are expected to be central to FP10:

• EU Strategic Autonomy & Competitiveness: there is a strong emphasis on bolstering the EU's capacity to act independently in critical sectors. This includes reducing dependencies on non-EU countries for key technologies like semiconductors, batteries, critical raw materials, and pharmaceutical ingredients.

• Deepening the Twin Transitions: the Green and Digital transitions remain core EU priorities. FP10 will likely intensify support for research and innovation that advances the European Green Deal, climate neutrality, and the EU's Digital Decade goals.

• Security and Resilience: in light of the changed geopolitical landscape, there is a growing demand for increased R&I in security, defence, and overall societal resilience, from cybersecurity to disaster response.

• Bridging the "Valley of Death": a major focus is on improving the translation of excellent research results into market-ready innovations and successful European companies. This could mean strengthening the role of the European Innovation Council (EIC) and finding new ways to de-risk private investment in deep tech.

• Simplification: a constant demand from the research community is to further simplify the programme's rules, reduce administrative burdens, and speed up the "time-to-grant" process for successful applicants.

• Balancing Bottom-Up and Top-Down Research: the debate continues on finding the right balance between funding curiosity-driven, fundamental research (like the ERC) and mission-oriented, top-down research aimed at solving specific societal challenges (like the Pillar II Clusters).

The successor programme (FP10) is well into its planning phase. It is expected to build on the three-pillar structure of Horizon Europe but with a renewed focus on strategic autonomy, security, and turning scientific leadership into industrial and economic competitiveness.

2.  THE IMPERATIVE OF INTERNATIONAL R&I COOPERATION BETWEEN COUNTRIES

International cooperation in research and development is not a modern phenomenon - scientific knowledge has crossed borders for centuries. However, the scale, institutional complexity, and strategic intentionality of cross-national R&D and Innovation partnerships have grown dramatically since the mid-20th century. Today, virtually every nation engages in some form of bilateral or multilateral research collaboration, from small-scale academic exchanges to trillion-yen mega-science facilities.

2.1.         Cooperation Drivers

The question of why countries cooperate in R&D can be approached from multiple analytical perspectives. In practice, the decision to initiate and sustain cooperation typically reflects a convergence of several drivers rather than a single motive. The drivers can be broadly categorized into economic, scientific, societal, and political motivations.

1. Economic and Industrial Drivers

These drivers are cantered on efficiency, competitiveness, and financial pragmatism.

• Cost and Resource Sharing: modern science often requires enormously expensive, large-scale infrastructure. Projects like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN or the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) have budgets in the tens of billions of dollars, making them unfeasible for a single nation to fund alone. By pooling financial resources, countries can build and access world-class facilities.

• Risk Mitigation: cutting-edge research, especially in fields like quantum computing, advanced pharmaceuticals, or new energy sources, is inherently high-risk with no guarantee of a breakthrough or commercial return. International collaboration allows countries to share this financial and scientific risk.

• Boosting Competitiveness and Market Access: by collaborating, countries can pool their industrial and innovative strengths to create a competitive edge against other economic blocs. Joint R&D often leads to joint ventures, harmonized standards, and easier access to each other's markets for the resulting technologies.

• Preventing Duplication of Effort: without coordination, multiple countries might spend vast sums of money researching the exact same problem in parallel. Cooperation allocation allows for a more efficient of global R&D resources, enabling different teams to tackle different aspects of a larger problem.

  
  

2. Scientific and Technological Drivers

These drivers stem from the very nature of scientific inquiry and technological advancement.

• Tackling Complexity and Scale: many of today's scientific questions are too complex and interdisciplinary for one national research team or community to solve. Projects like the Human Genome Project or mapping the global climate system require the combined expertise of geneticists, computer scientists, oceanographers, and more from around the world.

• Access to Complementary Expertise and Talent: innovation is not evenly distributed. One country might have leading experts in artificial intelligence, while another excels in advanced materials science. Collaboration allows them to combine these complementary strengths to create something that neither could achieve alone. It also facilitates the mobility of top researchers, fostering a more dynamic global talent pool.

• Access to Unique Resources: this includes access to unique facilities (as mentioned above), but also to specific geographical locations (e.g., Antarctic research stations, unique ecosystems for biodiversity studies), patient populations (for rare disease research), or vast datasets (e.g., astronomical observations, genomic data).

  
  

3. Societal and Global Drivers

These drivers are motivated by shared challenges that transcend national borders.

• Addressing Global Grand Challenges: issues like climate change, pandemics, food and water security, and sustainable energy cannot be solved by any single country. They are inherently global problems that demand a coordinated, global response. The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines was a powerful testament to the effectiveness of international scientific collaboration in a crisis.

• Enhancing Public Health and Safety: international R&D is crucial for tracking infectious diseases, sharing data on drug-resistant bacteria, and developing early warning systems for natural disasters like tsunamis or volcanic eruptions.

• Fostering a Global Scientific Community: science thrives on openness, peer review, and the free exchange of ideas. International cooperation is the ultimate expression of this principle, accelerating the pace of discovery and ensuring that knowledge is a shared human endeavour.

  
  

4.Political and Geostrategic Drivers

These drivers relate to diplomacy, influence, and national strategy.

• Science Diplomacy and "Soft Power": collaborative science projects are a powerful tool for diplomacy. They build trust, foster mutual understanding, and maintain open channels of communication between countries, even when political relationships are strained. A nation seen as a key partner in science and innovation projects a positive image of being advanced, cooperative, and a leader on the world stage.

• Setting International Norms and Standards: the countries that collaborate to develop new technologies (e.g., 6G, ethical AI, quantum encryption) are in a prime position to shape the international standards, regulations, and ethical guidelines that will govern their use. This provides a significant strategic advantage.

• Building Strategic Alliances: in an era of geopolitical competition, "like-minded" countries increasingly use R&D collaboration to strengthen their alliances. By pooling resources in critical technologies like semiconductors, AI, and clean energy, they aim to enhance their collective technological sovereignty and resilience against rival blocs. The EU-Japan Digital Partnership is a prime example of this driver in action.

2.2. Enabling Conditions and Moderating Factors

While the drivers described above provide the motivation for R&D cooperation, several enabling conditions determine whether that motivation translates into effective collaboration:

• Trust and Political Will: sustained high-level political commitment and mutual trust are prerequisites. R&D cooperation is difficult to maintain between states with adversarial political relations.

• Legal and IP Frameworks: clear agreements on intellectual property ownership, data sharing, publication rights, and commercialisation rights remove friction and reduce the risk of disputes.

• Co-Funding Mechanisms: effective cooperation requires aligned funding instruments - synchronised calls, compatible eligibility rules, and streamlined administrative processes.

• Language and Cultural Compatibility: shared working languages, compatible academic cultures, and mutual understanding of research norms facilitate practical collaboration at the laboratory level.

• Reciprocity and Balance: partnerships perceived as one-sided - where one country primarily extracts knowledge without contributing equitably - are unlikely to endure. Sustainable cooperation requires genuine mutual benefit.

• Physical and Digital Connectivity: air links, high-bandwidth internet, shared data platforms, and joint laboratory facilities all lower the practical barriers to day-to-day collaboration.

2.3. Barriers and Inherent Tensions

It is important to acknowledge that the drivers of cooperation often coexist with countervailing forces:

• Cooperation vs. Competition: countries that cooperate in R&D are often simultaneously competitors in global markets. Managing the tension between pre-competitive collaboration and commercial rivalry is a perennial challenge - particularly in dual-use and strategically sensitive technologies.

• Openness vs. Security: the principles of open science - transparency, data sharing, free publication - can conflict with national security imperatives, especially in domains like AI, quantum computing, biotechnology, and space. Countries must balance the benefits of openness with the risks of technology leakage to adversaries.

• Sovereignty vs. Interdependence: while cooperation builds interdependence, it can also create dependencies that reduce strategic autonomy. The desire for technological sovereignty can paradoxically both drive cooperation (with trusted partners) and constrain it (by limiting technology transfer).

• Short-term Politics vs. Long-term Science: R&D programmes operate on decadal timescales, while political cycles are much shorter. Changes in government, shifting diplomatic priorities, and budgetary pressures can disrupt long-term research commitments.

• Asymmetric Capacity: when cooperating countries have vastly different levels of scientific capacity, there is a risk that the partnership becomes a de facto one-way technology transfer rather than a genuine collaboration. Managing this asymmetry requires careful programme design and capacity-building mechanisms.

2.4. The Evolving Landscape

Several trends are reshaping the driver landscape for international R&D cooperation in the mid-2020s:

The "Geopoliticisation" of Technology

Technology policy has become inseparable from foreign policy. Export controls, investment screening, sanctions, and entity lists increasingly shape which R&D partnerships are possible — and which are politically mandated. The bifurcation of global technology ecosystems along geopolitical lines (sometimes characterised as "techno-blocs") is creating new pressures for cooperation within like-minded groupings and new barriers to cooperation across geopolitical divides.

The Rise of "Minilateralism"

Alongside traditional bilateral and multilateral frameworks, new "minilateral" groupings - small clubs of like-minded countries cooperating on specific technology challenges - have proliferated. Examples include the Quad (US, Japan, Australia, India) technology agenda, AUKUS, the US–EU Trade and Technology Council (TTC), and the Minerals Security Partnership. These arrangements are often faster and more flexible than large multilateral institutions, but they raise concerns about fragmentation and exclusion.

The Open Science Movement

The global push toward open access publishing, open data, and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data principles is creating new modalities for international R&D cooperation - enabling collaboration at lower institutional overhead, but also raising questions about equity, credit, and the exploitation of openly shared knowledge.

Climate Urgency

The accelerating climate crisis is arguably the single most powerful structural driver of international R&D cooperation in the current decade. The Paris Agreement's targets, the need for rapid deployment of clean energy technologies, and the growing economic costs of extreme weather events create an imperative for collaborative innovation on a scale that dwarfs historical precedents.

The decision by two countries to cooperate in R&D is rarely attributable to a single factor. Rather, it emerges from a complex interplay of scientific complementarity, economic logic, geopolitical calculation, societal necessity, and institutional inertia. The most durable and productive partnerships are those in which multiple drivers reinforce one another - where scientific excellence aligns with economic interest, political trust, and a shared sense of purpose in addressing global challenges.

As the 21st century unfolds, the drivers of international R&D cooperation are evolving. The rise of technology as a domain of geopolitical competition, the urgency of the climate crisis, the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the accelerating pace of innovation in AI, quantum, and biotechnology are all reshaping the calculus of cooperation. Nations that can navigate the inherent tensions - between openness and security, cooperation and competition, sovereignty and interdependence - will be best positioned to harness the transformative potential of collaborative research.

3. ASSOCIATED COUNTRIES WITH HORIZON EUROPE

Horizon Europe (2021–2027) was designed from the outset with an open international dimension, enabling non-EU countries to participate under several mechanisms.

There are currently 22 other non-EU countries and territories officially cooperating with Horizon Europe through formal "associated country" status.

Associated status represents the closest form of research partnership offered by the EU. It allows these nations' scientists, universities, and businesses to apply for funding, form partnerships, and lead international research consortia on equal terms with EU Member States.

The associated countries cooperating are grouped by their entry pathway into the programme:

3.1. Highly Industrialized & Global Partners

Horizon Europe has strategically opened participation to like-minded, technologically advanced democracies beyond Europe. These partnerships typically focus on Pillar II (Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness) and are designed to pool resources on shared priorities such as health, climate, digital, and energy:

GB – UNITED KINGDOM

Associated to Horizon Europe as of January 2024, following the Windsor Framework political agreement.

• Scope: the UK gained broad association covering nearly all parts of the programme, including Pillar I (Excellent Science — ERC, MSCA), Pillar II, and parts of Pillar III, though with some exceptions (e.g., the Quantum and Space-related programmes have restrictions).

• Significance: the UK is the largest non-EU participant by research capacity. Its association restored a critical link for thousands of researchers and universities that had been in limbo since Brexit. The agreement includes a financial cap mechanism to protect the UK from excessive net contributions.

CA - Canada

Canada has had a targeted cooperation arrangement with the EU for Horizon Europe, focusing primarily on Pillar II collaborative research projects.

• Scope: Canadian researchers can participate in selected Pillar II calls, with funding provided by Canadian national agencies (such as NSERC, CIHR, or SSHRC and through the National Research Council). Canada does not pay into the Horizon Europe budget; instead, a "parallel funding" model is used.

• Key Areas: Health, Climate Action, Clean Energy, Food Systems, and Digital Technologies - areas of strong mutual interest.

• Significance: this arrangement builds on decades of EU–Canada S&T cooperation and the 2023 renewed Science, Technology and Innovation Roadmap.

KR - REPUBLIC OF KOREA (SOUTH KOREA)

South Korea has been associated or closely linked to Horizon Europe as a high-income industrialised partner, primarily targeting Pillar II.

• Scope: Korean entities can participate in eligible collaborative calls. Funding for Korean participants is typically provided by Korean agencies (e.g., the National Research Foundation of Korea - NRF, or KIST). The EU–Korea Framework Agreement on S&T cooperation underpins this relationship.

• Key Areas: Semiconductors, Batteries, AI, Quantum Technologies, Health Research, and Climate Science - reflecting Korea's strengths in advanced manufacturing and ICT.

• Significance: Korea is one of the world's top R&D spenders (over 4.9% of GDP), making it a highly valuable partner. The partnership also aligns with the EU's strategy to diversify technology supply chains.

NZ – NEW ZEALAND

New Zealand concluded an association agreement to Horizon Europe, making it one of the first non-European countries to formally associate with the programme.

• Scope: New Zealand researchers have access to a substantial portion of the programme, with particular emphasis on Pillar II topics such as climate and environmental research, food and bioeconomy, and health.

• Key Areas: Climate science (particularly Antarctic and Southern Ocean research), Agriculture and Food Systems, Indigenous Knowledge in Research, and Biodiversity.

• Significance: despite its smaller research system, New Zealand brings unique capabilities in environmental science, agricultural innovation, and Māori-informed approaches to sustainability. The partnership was also seen as a signal of the EU's Indo-Pacific engagement strategy.

CH – SWITZERLAND

As of mid-2026, Switzerland's situation has been one of the most protracted and politically complex cases. Switzerland was a fully associated country under previous framework programmes (FP7, Horizon 2020) but lost its full association after the collapse of the EU–Switzerland Institutional Framework Agreement in 2021.

• Scope: for most of the Horizon Europe period, Swiss researchers were treated as non-associated third-country participants, meaning they could collaborate but had to be funded by the Swiss government (via SERI - the State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation) through transitional measures. Negotiations for a new broader bilateral package (the "Common Understanding" or successor institutional agreement) have been ongoing, with association to Horizon Europe as one of the key elements.

• Key Areas: Fundamental Research (ETH Zurich, EPFL, PSI), Health, Quantum, Climate, and AI.

• Significance: Switzerland is one of the world's leading research nations. Its partial exclusion has been widely viewed as detrimental to both sides, and restoring full association remains a high priority for the European research community.

AU – AUSTRALIA

Australia has been in formal negotiations to associate to Horizon Europe, with the process advanced but not yet concluded.

• Scope: the anticipated association would focus primarily on Pillar II, similar to New Zealand's model. Australian researchers have already been participating in some Horizon Europe calls on a project-by-project basis while negotiations continue.

• Key Areas: Climate and Earth Observation, Health and Pandemic Preparedness, Critical Minerals and Clean Energy, Quantum Technologies, and Space Research.

• Significance: Australia's potential association reflects the EU's deepening Indo-Pacific research engagement. Australia brings world-class capabilities in areas like astronomy, marine science, mining innovation, and biosecurity. The partnership is also aligned with the EU–Australia Framework Agreement and broader strategic convergence on technology governance.

These partnerships collectively reflect the EU's strategic intent to build a global alliance of democratic, rules-based research partners, ensuring that Horizon Europe serves not only European competitiveness but also global public goods - while also securing trusted supply chains and technology sovereignty in an increasingly contested geopolitical landscape.

3.2.         European Economic Area (EEA) Members

These countries participate fully across all pillars due to their integrated economic agreements with the EU:

NO – NORWAY

Fully Associated Country. Norway's association to Horizon Europe was formalized from the beginning of the program, continuing its long-standing collaboration in EU research and innovation frameworks.

• Scope: Norwegian entities have the same rights and obligations as entities from EU Member States. This grants them full access to participate in and lead projects across all pillars and components of Horizon Europe, including the European Research Council (ERC), Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA), and the European Innovation Council (EIC).

• Arrangements: participation is based on the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). Norway provides a substantial financial contribution to the Horizon Europe budget, which is calculated based on its GDP. This allows Norwegian researchers, innovators, and businesses to compete for funding directly from the European Commission on an equal footing with EU participants.

IS – ICELAND

Fully Associated Country. Iceland is associated with Horizon Europe, enabling its research and innovation community to be fully integrated into the program.

• Scope: Icelandic participants can engage in all parts of Horizon Europe under the same conditions as participants from EU Member States. They are eligible to lead project consortia and participate in all funding schemes across the program's three pillars.

• Arrangements: Iceland's participation is arranged through the EEA Agreement. It makes a financial contribution to the Horizon Europe budget proportional to its GDP. This arrangement ensures that Icelandic entities can receive direct funding from the EU and collaborate seamlessly with partners across Europe.

LI – LIECHTENSTEIN

Fully Associated Country. Despite its small size, Liechtenstein is fully associated with the Horizon Europe program.

• Scope: the association grants entities from Liechtenstein full access to participate in all parts of Horizon Europe with the same rights as entities from EU Member States.

• Arrangements: Liechtenstein's participation is also founded on the EEA Agreement. It contributes financially to the Horizon Europe budget in proportion to its GDP. This enables researchers and companies from Liechtenstein to apply for funding, lead projects, and be full partners in European research and innovation consortia.

Common Features Across All Three

• Legal basis: The EEA Agreement automatically extends the association framework; no separate bilateral S&T agreement is needed (unlike non-EEA associated countries such as Switzerland or the UK, which require standalone association agreements).

• Financial contribution: each country pays into the Horizon Europe budget using a GDP-based proportionality factor, calculated annually.

• Equal treatment: researchers and entities from all three countries are treated identically to those from EU Member States in evaluation, funding, and consortium roles — they can coordinate projects, host ERC grants, and access all partnership and mission instruments.

• Program Committee participation: EEA/EFTA associated countries attend Horizon Europe Program Committee meetings as observers, allowing them to follow and influence strategic programming.

3.3. EU Enlargement & Neighbourhood Policy Countries

These are nations in the process of joining the EU or those with strong geographical/political ties:

Ukraine, Turkey (Türkiye), Israel, Tunisia, Egypt, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Faroe Islands, Western Balkan States (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia).

Almost "Open to the World"

Even if a country is completely non-associated (such as the United States or Brazil), individual researchers and institutions can still participate in the vast majority of Horizon Europe calls as third-party partners. However, unlike the officially associated countries, they generally must bring their own domestic funding to the table rather than receiving a direct payout from the EU budget.

4. EU–JAPAN STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS IN R&D

The relationship between the European Union (and its predecessor institutions) and Japan in the field of research and development represents one of the most consequential - yet often under-examined - axes of international scientific cooperation. Over more than five decades, the partnership has evolved from informal scientific exchanges to a deeply institutionalised framework spanning digital technologies, space exploration, health sciences, energy, and fundamental research.

4.1.1. Early Foundations (1960s–1980s) 

Post-War Context and Emerging Scientific Ties

Following Japan's remarkable post-war economic recovery, European nations increasingly recognised the technological prowess of Japanese industry - particularly in electronics, automotive engineering, and materials science. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, bilateral scientific exchanges occurred primarily at the nation-state level (e.g., France–Japan, Germany–Japan) rather than through any centralised European mechanism.

Trade Friction and the Impetus for Cooperation

By the early 1980s, rising trade imbalances - especially in semiconductors, consumer electronics, and automobiles - prompted both sides to explore cooperative rather than purely competitive frameworks. The idea emerged that joint R&D could reduce duplicative research spending while creating shared standards and opening reciprocal markets.

The European Community's launch of its first Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP1, 1984–1987) created for the first time a supra-national European instrument through which engagement with Japan could be structured at the Community level.

4.1.2. Formalisation of Relations (1991–2000)

1991: The Hague Declaration

The Joint Declaration on Relations between the European Community and its Member States and Japan (18 July 1991) established a formal political framework for cooperation, explicitly recognising science and technology as a pillar of the bilateral relationship. Annual summit meetings between EC/EU and Japanese leaders were institutionalised.

1994: First EU–Japan S&T Forum

The first structured Science and Technology Forum brought together researchers and policymakers. Discussions centred on information technology, telecommunications, environmental technologies, and life sciences — areas of mutual strength and complementarity.

Mid-1990s: Industrial Cooperation Dialogues

Specific industrial dialogues were created covering sectors including automotive engineering, electronics, and pharmaceuticals. These dialogues laid the groundwork for harmonised regulatory approaches and pre-competitive joint research.

1997–2000: FP5 and the Opening of Framework Programmes

The Fifth Framework Programme (FP5, 1998–2002) marked a significant step toward internationalisation of European research. Japan became an increasingly active third-country partner, with Japanese researchers participating in EU-funded consortia - especially in the Information Society Technologies (IST) and Quality of Life programmes.

4.1.3. Deepening and Broadening (2001–2010)

The 2001 Action Plan - "Shaping Our Common Future"

At the 10th EU–Japan Summit in Brussels on 8 December 2001, leaders adopted the landmark EU–Japan Action Plan titled "Shaping Our Common Future". This comprehensive document set out four major objectives, with science, technology, and innovation explicitly integrated across them:

• Promoting peace and security.

• Strengthening the economic and trade partnership.

• Coping with global and societal challenges.

• Bringing together people and cultures

Under Objective 3, both parties committed to enhanced cooperation on environment, energy, and information and communications technology (ICT). The Action Plan remained the strategic reference document for over a decade.

EU–Japan S&T Agreement (2009)

A dedicated Agreement on Cooperation in Science and Technology was signed in Brussels on 30 November 2009, entering into force in 2011. This legally binding agreement established:

• A formal Joint S&T Committee to oversee cooperative activities.

• Provisions for reciprocal access to research programmes.

• Frameworks for the protection and allocation of intellectual property rights (IPR) arising from joint research.

• Mechanisms for researcher mobility and exchange

Key Insight: the 2009 S&T Agreement represented a maturation of the relationship from ad hoc cooperation to a treaty-level framework - signalling both parties' recognition that R&D collaboration was a strategic asset, not merely a diplomatic gesture.

Major Joint Research Areas (2001–2010)

Domains:

• ICT / 5G precursors: joint workshops on next-generation networks; early collaborative projects on photonics, grid computing, and future internet architectures.

• Nuclear Fusion: shared leadership in the ITER project (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), with Japan hosting the complementary Broader Approach programme.

• Aeronautics & Space: ESA–JAXA dialogues; cooperation on Earth observation (e.g., GOSAT, Sentinel synergies); satellite navigation (Galileo–QZSS interoperability discussions).

• Environment & Climate: joint research on carbon capture and storage, clean coal technologies, and climate modelling.

• Life Sciences: Genomics cooperation; regulatory science dialogues (EMA–PMDA); joint participation in the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium.

• Nanotechnology & Materials: collaborative projects via FP6 and FP7; co-funding of nanoelectronics and advanced materials research

The ITER / Broader Approach Nexus

The relationship around thermonuclear fusion research merits special attention. When the ITER site was decided in favour of Cadarache, France (2005), a parallel agreement - the Broader Approach - was negotiated between the EU (through Euratom) and Japan. Under this arrangement, Japan would host three complementary facilities:

• JT-60SA - a large superconducting tokamak at Naka (completed and achieving first plasma in 2023).

• IFMIF-EVEDA - an engineering validation facility for fusion materials testing at Rokkasho.

• IFERC - a computational simulation centre, also at Rokkasho.

This arrangement demonstrated that EU–Japan R&D cooperation could operate at the scale of major research infrastructures - involving billions of euros and decades-long commitments.

4.1.4. Strategic Intensification (2011–2018)

Horizon 2020 and Japanese Participation

The EU's Horizon 2020 programme (2014–2020), with a budget of nearly €80 billion, was explicitly designed to be more open to international partners. Japan was identified as a priority partner country, and specific co-funding mechanisms were established. Japanese agencies - particularly the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) - issued coordinated calls with European counterparts.

The ICT / 5G Cooperation

Beginning in 2013–2015, the EU and Japan established a pioneering joint research programme on 5G mobile communications. This was formalised through:

• A Memorandum of Cooperation on 5G signed at the 2015 EU–Japan Summit.

• Coordinated research projects funded by the European Commission and Japan's Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC).

• Joint demonstrations and trials at major conferences and international events, including the 2020 Tokyo Olympics (which, postponed to 2021, ultimately served as a showcase for early 5G deployment).

This ICT partnership was notable for its explicit alignment of research timelines and standardisation efforts, reflecting a shared determination to shape global 5G standards through Sino-Western-Japanese negotiation at 3GPP.

Post-Fukushima Energy Research Cooperation

The 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster had profound consequences for Japanese energy policy and created new impetus for EU–Japan cooperation in:

• Nuclear safety research (EU–Japan joint stress tests and safety methodology sharing).

• Renewable energy - particularly offshore wind, hydrogen fuel cells, and smart grids.

• Energy efficiency technologies for buildings, transport, and industry.

Robotics and Artificial Intelligence

From 2014 onward, EU–Japan cooperation in robotics deepened significantly. Joint workshops brought together key institutions such as euRobotics and Japan's New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO). Collaborative projects addressed healthcare robotics, service robotics, disaster response, and manufacturing automation.

As AI became a strategic priority for both parties, early dialogues on ethical AI, trustworthy AI frameworks, and the societal impact of automation began - laying the groundwork for later policy alignment.

4.1.5. The Modern Era: Strategic Partnership and Beyond (2018–Present)

The Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA, 2018)

On 17 July 2018, the EU and Japan signed two landmark agreements:

• The EU–Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) - the world's largest bilateral free trade zone at the time of its entry into force (1 February 2019).

• The EU–Japan Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) - a comprehensive political framework covering over 40 areas of cooperation, including research and innovation

The SPA elevated science, technology, and innovation from a sectoral concern to a core element of the overall strategic relationship. Article 42 specifically addresses cooperation in science, technology, and innovation, committing both sides to:

• Encouraging reciprocal participation of entities in each other's R&D programmes.

• Joint research projects and networks.

• Mobility of researchers.

• Sharing of research facilities and data

Digital Partnership

In May 2022, at the EU–Japan Summit, leaders established a Digital Partnership that consolidated and expanded cooperation across:

• Semiconductors and secure supply chains.

• Quantum computing and quantum communications.

• High-performance computing (including synergies between the EU's EuroHPC initiative and Japan's Fugaku supercomputer ecosystem).AI research and governance.

• Beyond-5G / 6G research.

• Trusted data flows and data governance.

• Undersea cable security.

Context: the Digital Partnership should be understood against the backdrop of intensifying US–China technology competition and growing supply chain vulnerabilities exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the global semiconductor shortage. Both the EU and Japan sought to diversify dependencies and build resilience through trusted partner networks.

Horizon Europe and Associated Cooperation

Under Horizon Europe (2021–2027, ~€95.5 billion budget), Japan continues as a key third-country partner. Specific mechanisms include:

• Coordinated calls between the European Commission and Japanese funding agencies (JST, JSPS, NEDO, AMED).

• Japanese participation in European Partnerships - particularly in clean hydrogen, smart networks, and transforming health research.

• The Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) facilitating researcher exchange with Japanese institutions.Japan's engagement in Cluster 4 (Digital, Industry, and Space) activities.

Space Cooperation

ESA–JAXA cooperation has matured into a multi-domain partnership:

• BepiColombo - a joint ESA–JAXA mission to Mercury (launched 2018, arrival expected 2025–2026).

• Earth observation data sharing and joint calibration/validation activities.

• Cooperation on space debris mitigation and space situational awareness.

• Discussions on lunar exploration under the broader Artemis-adjacent frameworks.

Health and Pandemic Preparedness

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated EU–Japan cooperation in health R&D. Key developments include:

• Joint research on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) - a long-standing priority since both parties led the Global AMR R&D Hub.

• Regulatory convergence through ICH (International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use).

• Data sharing on genomic surveillance of pathogens.

• Cooperation on mRNA platform research and next-generation vaccine development.

Sustainability and Green Transition

With the EU's European Green Deal and Japan's Green Growth Strategy (targeting carbon neutrality by 2050), R&D cooperation has expanded to include:

• Green hydrogen - joint R&D on electrolysers, storage, and transport.

• Battery technology - solid-state batteries, recycling, and next-generation chemistries.

• Carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS).

• Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF).

• Circular economy research

4.2. Institutional Architecture

The EU–Japan R&D partnership operates through a layered institutional structure:

• LEVEL 1, Political / Summit: Annual EU–Japan Summit - Sets strategic direction; announces new initiatives.

• LEVEL2, Strategic: Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) - Legal framework for political cooperation, including S&T.

• LEVEL 3, S&T-specific: EU–Japan S&T Agreement & Joint S&T Committee - Oversees research cooperation; reviews progress; identifies priorities.

• LEVEL 4, Thematic: Digital Partnership; Energy Dialogue; Space Dialogue - Sector-specific coordination and joint work plans.

• LEVEL 5, Operational: coordinated calls (EC + JST/JSPS/NEDO/AMED) - Co-funded research projects.

• LEVEL 6, Researcher-level: MSCA; JSPS Fellowships; Erasmus+ academic mobility - Individual and team-level researcher exchange.

  
  

4.3. Drivers of Cooperation

• Complementarity: EU strengths in fundamental research, regulatory science, and social innovation complement Japan's strengths in applied engineering, manufacturing precision, and rapid technology deployment.

• Shared values: commitment to rules-based international order, democratic governance, open science, and intellectual property protection create a foundation of trust.

• Geopolitical hedging: both parties have sought to diversify technology partnerships beyond the US–China axis, making each other natural allies in building technological sovereignty.

• Demographic convergence: both face ageing populations and labour shortages, driving shared interest in robotics, AI, health technology, and productivity-enhancing innovation.

  
  

4.4. Persistent Challenges

• Asymmetric awareness: the partnership has historically been more visible at the policy/institutional level than at the researcher or industry level. Many European and Japanese researchers remain more naturally oriented toward US collaborations.

• Language and cultural barriers: despite extensive institutional frameworks, practical collaboration can be impeded by linguistic gaps and differing research cultures (e.g., publication norms, IP-sharing expectations).

• Funding asymmetry: mechanisms for co-funding remain complex; differences in programme cycles, evaluation criteria, and administrative requirements can deter smaller research teams.

• Speed of implementation: the gap between political declarations at summits and operational-level implementation has sometimes been significant.

  
  

4.5. Emerging Trends and Future Outlook

Several factors point toward a further deepening of EU–Japan R&D cooperation in the late 2020s:

• The shared prioritisation of economic security and technology sovereignty - including screening of foreign investment in critical technologies, export controls on advanced semiconductors, and friend-shoring of supply chains.

• Growing alignment on AI governance, building on the G7 Hiroshima AI Process (2023) and the EU AI Act.

• Joint interest in 6G research and in ensuring that the next generation of telecommunications standards reflects shared values of openness, security, and interoperability.

• Expanded cooperation on quantum technologies, with both parties investing heavily in quantum computing, sensing, and communications R&D.

• Continued partnership on fusion energy, with ITER approaching first plasma and JT-60SA generating valuable experimental data

The EU–Japan R&D partnership has followed a remarkable trajectory. It has evolved from informal scientific contacts in the 1960s, through the formalisation of the 1991 Hague Declaration and the 2009 S&T Agreement, to the comprehensive strategic architecture of the 2018 Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) and the 2022 Digital Partnership. This collaboration has yielded tangible outcomes in diverse fields, including thermonuclear fusion, 5G telecommunications, space exploration, and pandemic preparedness.

In the contemporary landscape, this partnership is distinguished by its grounding in shared values: democratic governance, the rule of law, open science, and a commitment to addressing global challenges through innovation. Amid intensifying technology competition and fragmenting supply chains, the EU–Japan R&D relationship represents a strategic imperative rather than mere bilateral convenience.

The upcoming challenge lies in translating this hitherto impressive R&D partnership into deeper operational collaboration. Both regions must ensure the partnership's impact is felt not only in summit communiqués, but directly in laboratories, start-ups, and classrooms.

5. FROM DIALOGUE TO BLUEPRINT: THE JOURNEY OF JAPAN’s ASSOCIATION TO HORIZON EUROPE

On July 30, 2026 Japan officially became an associated country to Horizon Europe. The formal association agreement was signed in Brussels by representatives from the European Commission and the Mission of Japan to the EU.

It is a significant milestone as Japan is one of the first major most populous non-European industrialised nations to formally associate with the EU's framework programme for research and innovation. This association deepens a long-standing EU-Japan science and technology cooperation relationship.

The agreement specifically focuses on Pillar 2 (Global Challenges & European Industrial Competitiveness), which holds a budget of €52.4 billion. This partnership creates clear, mutual advantages for both sides by unlocking new funding pathways, expanding talent pools, and streamlining bureaucratic processes.

5.1. THE CORE DISTINCTION (PREVIOUS STATUS VERSUS NEW STATUS)

1. Previous Status: Priority Partner with Co-funding Mechanism

A two separate but synchronized efforts:

A research consortium including European and Japanese partners would develop a project idea.

• The European partners would apply to the European Commission for funding under a Horizon Europe call.

• Simultaneously, the Japanese partners would apply to a Japanese funding agency (like JST or JSPS) for their portion of the project costs under a corresponding Japanese call.

This created significant administrative overhead and risk. The project's success depended on two independent funding decisions. The timelines, reporting requirements, and budgets were managed separately, which could be complex. Most importantly, since the Japanese entity wasn't receiving EU funds, it could not be the official "coordinator" of the EU grant.

2. New Status: Associated Country (for Pillar 2)

This new status represents a much deeper level of integration. Japan is no longer an "outside" partner; it's now an "inside" participant for a specific part of the program.

For any call under Pillar 2 (Global Challenges & European Industrial Competitiveness), a Japanese university, research institute, or company is treated exactly like one from Germany, France, or Norway.

• The entire consortium, which can now be led by a Japanese coordinator, submits one single application to the European Commission.

• If the proposal is successful, the European Commission signs one grant agreement and distributes funds from the central Horizon Europe budget to all partners, including those in Japan.

This is a game-changer:

• Simplicity: one application, one evaluation, one set of rules.

• Leadership: Japan can now take a strategic lead in setting the direction of major international research projects.

• Integration: it brings Japan's scientific community directly into the European Research Area, fostering much closer and more seamless collaboration.

In short, the move from a "Co-Funded Partner" to an "Associated Country" is a shift from a bilateral cooperation model to a fully integrated multilateral model within the scope of Pillar 2.

EEA countries are part of the EU's single market. The EEA Agreement was designed to extend internal market rules - and flanking policies like research - to EFTA states. Association to EU research programs is essentially an entitlement built into the treaty architecture. It is comprehensive by design.

Japan is a sovereign third country with no single-market integration. Its association was a strategic policy choice by both sides, negotiated from scratch. The EU and Japan deliberately chose to limit scope to Pillar 2 for several reasons:

• Pillar 2 addresses global challenges (health, climate, energy, digital, food, security) where mutual benefit from international collaboration is clearest

• Pillar 1 instruments like ERC grants and MSCA are designed primarily to build and retain talent within the European Research Area - opening them to a major scientific power like Japan raised concerns about talent outflow and budget impact

• Pillar 3 (EIC, EIT) involves equity investments, start-up acceleration, and innovation ecosystem building that are inherently tied to EU industrial policy and competitiveness - extending these to a major economic competitor was politically sensitive

The word "associated" applies to both EEA countries and highly industrialized / global partners, but the difference is in the spectrum:

• Full association (EEA) = participation equivalent to an EU Member State across the entire program.

• Partial/selective association (for Japan) = participation equivalent to an EU Member State but confined to specific program components

This selective model is actually becoming more common - the EU has used it to tailor association agreements to the strategic relationship with each partner, balancing openness with protection of core European Research Area objectives.

5.2. JAPAN's PATH TO HORIZON EUROPE ASSOCIATION

Several converging geopolitical and strategic factors accelerated the move from cooperation to formal association:

• Technology sovereignty concerns: Both the EU and Japan became increasingly focused on reducing strategic dependencies - particularly on China - in critical technology areas such as semiconductors, quantum computing, AI, and advanced materials. A closer R&I partnership was seen as a pillar of a "like-minded" technology alliance among democracies.

• The EU's new association policy: under Horizon Europe, the European Commission introduced a more flexible association framework than under previous programs. For the first time, the regulation explicitly allowed partial association (to specific pillars or program parts), which made it feasible to design a bespoke arrangement for a major non-European scientific power.

• The Indo-Pacific Strategy: the EU's Indo-Pacific Strategy, published in September 2021, identified Japan as a core partner and explicitly called for strengthened cooperation in research, innovation, and digital transformation.

• COVID-19 aftermath: the pandemic underscored the value of international scientific collaboration on global challenges - health, pandemic preparedness, climate resilience - precisely the domains housed in Pillar 2.

Timeline and key steps achieved:

• 2021 (early): Horizon Europe regulation enters into force; Article 16 establishes the legal framework for association of third countries, including the novel possibility of partial association.

• 2021: exploratory discussions begin between the European Commission (DG RTD) and Japan's Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), alongside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

• 2022: EU–Japan Summit (May 2022, Tokyo) - Leaders explicitly tasked negotiators with exploring Japan's possible association to Horizon Europe; a joint statement referenced cooperation in areas including digital, green transition, and health.

• 2022 – 2023: technical and legal negotiations proceed on multiple tracks: scope of participation, financial contribution formula, intellectual property (IP) rules, reciprocity provisions, data protection alignment, and security-related research exclusions.

• 2023: negotiations intensified; interim cooperative mechanisms.

• 2024: formal conclusion of negotiations; the association agreement is initialled and proceeds through EU internal approval processes (Commission adoption, Council notification).

• 2025: the agreement was officially finalized and enters into force, making Japan a formally associated country to Horizon Europe's Pillar 2.

• 2026 (July): official signature of the agreement.

5.3. BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES OVERCOME

The negotiation was not straightforward. Several significant barriers had to be addressed:

5.3.1. Scope Limitation - Why Not Full Association?

This was arguably the most consequential design decision. Full association (all three pillars) was considered but ultimately not pursued for several reasons:

• ERC and talent flow concerns: European research stakeholders worried that opening ERC grants to Japan - a country with world-class universities and substantial domestic research funding - could divert a significant share of ERC budget to Japanese host institutions, potentially weakening the European Research Area's talent-retention mission.

• EIC and industrial competitiveness sensitivity: Pillar 3 instruments (especially EIC Accelerator) involve equity stakes and direct support for start-ups and SMEs. Extending these to Japanese companies raised competition concerns among EU industry representatives.

• Japan's own preferences: Japanese negotiators were primarily interested in collaborative research on global challenges - the domain where international cooperation yields the highest mutual returns. There was less institutional demand from the Japanese side for individual excellence grants (ERC model) or start-up acceleration (EIC model), since Japan has well-funded domestic equivalents (JSPS KAKENHI, JST programs, NEDO innovation support)

The Pillar 2 focus was therefore a mutually agreed strategic choice, not merely an EU-imposed restriction.

5.3.2. FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FORMULA

Associated countries contribute to the program budget proportionally. For a country of Japan's GDP size the 4^th largest economy globally, the financial contribution to even Pillar 2 alone represents a substantial sum. Negotiations had to calibrate:

• The exact GDP-proportionality coefficient.

• Payment schedules and currency arrangements (euro vs. yen).

• Provisions for annual adjustment as participation volumes materialized.

• Budget predictability for both sides across the remaining program period

5.3.3. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DATA PROTECTION

This was one of the most technically complex negotiation tracks:

• IP rules: Horizon Europe has detailed IP provisions (access rights, ownership, exploitation, dissemination). Japan's domestic IP framework differs in certain respects. The agreement had to ensure that Japanese participants would be bound by Horizon Europe's IP rules within funded projects, while respecting Japanese law for background IP.

• Data protection: The EU's GDPR applies to Horizon Europe projects. Japan had already received an EU adequacy decision in 2019, which significantly eased this barrier - but specific provisions for research data handling still needed to be codified.

• Open Science requirements: Horizon Europe mandates open access to publications and increasingly to research data. Alignment with Japan's own open science policies (promoted by the Cabinet Office and MEXT) was necessary.

5.3.4. SECURITY-RELATED RESEARCH EXCLUSIONS

Certain parts of Pillar 2 - particularly Cluster 3 (Civil Security for Society) and elements touching on defence-adjacent research — are sensitive. The agreement had to define:

• Which specific calls or topics within Pillar 2 would be open to Japanese participation.

• Which would be restricted due to EU security classification or strategic sensitivity.

• Security clearance and information-handling protocols for any projects involving sensitive-but-unclassified (SBU) material

This mirrors similar provisions in other association agreements (e.g., with Canada, New Zealand).

5.3.5. RECIPROCITY

The EU increasingly insists on reciprocal access / if Japanese entities can participate in EU-funded programmes; European researchers should have comparable access to Japanese funding programmes. Negotiations addressed:

• Opening of certain JST and JSPS programs to European participants or joint calls.

• Mutual recognition of evaluation standards.

• Ensuring that the partnership was not perceived as one-directional

5.3.6. INSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ALIGNMENT

• Japan had to designate National Contact Points (NCPs) for each Pillar 2 cluster to support Japanese applicants navigating Horizon Europe's processes.

• Administrative systems (participant identification, grant management via the EU's Funding & Tenders Portal) had to be adapted to accommodate Japanese institutions.

• Evaluation panel processes had to be adjusted to handle potential conflicts of interest and ensure fair treatment.

5.3.7.    SCOPE OF JAPAN's PARTICIPATION UNDER THE AGREEMENT

Japan's association covers Pillar 2: Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness, which is organized into six thematic clusters:

Cluster 1: HEALTH, Aging society (Japan is a global leader in aging research), infectious diseases, personalized medicine.

Cluster 2: CULTURE, CREATIVITY & INCLUSIVE SOCIETY, Digital humanities, social innovation, disaster resilience and societal recovery.

Cluster 3: CIVIL SECURITY FOR SOCIETY, Disaster management, cybersecurity, critical infrastructure protection (some topics may be restricted).

Cluster 4: DIGITAL, INDUSTRY & SPACE, Semiconductors, AI, quantum, advanced manufacturing, robotics — areas of intense mutual strategic interest.

Cluster 5: CLIMATE, ENERGY & MOBILITY, Hydrogen economy, fusion energy, smart transport, carbon neutrality — directly aligned with Japan's Green Transformation (GX) strategy.

Cluster 6: FOOD, BIOECONOMY, NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE & ENVIRONMENT, Marine science, biodiversity, sustainable agriculture, circular bioeconomy.

Japanese entities can now:

• Coordinate Pillar 2 collaborative projects (act as lead partner).

• Receive direct EU funding from the Horizon Europe budget no longer requiring separate JST/JSP co – funding for participation costs.

• Be evaluated identically to EU Member State participants.

• Participate in relevant Horizon Europe Partnerships and Missions operating under Pillar 2.

5.3.8.    KEY INSTITUTIONS ON THE JAPANESE SIDE

MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science & Technology) - Lead ministry for the association agreement; policy oversight.

MOFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) - Diplomatic and treaty coordination.

JST (Japan Science and Technology Agency) - Primary implementing agency; manages coordinated calls and NCP functions.

JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) - Academic mobility and collaborative research support; complements JST.

NEDO (New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization) - Industry-oriented R&D; relevant for Clusters 4 and 5.

Cabinet Office (CSTI) - Council for Science, Technology and Innovation — strategic oversight at the highest government level.

RIKEN, AIST, NIMS, NICT, etc. - Major national research institutes now eligible for direct Horizon Europe funding under Pillar 2.

5.3.9.    BROADER SIGNIFICANCE

Japan's association represents a landmark in several respects:

• Scale: Japan is the largest economy and most populous country ever to associate with an EU Framework Programme, signalling a qualitative expansion of the program's global reach

• Precedent for the Indo-Pacific: It opens a potential pathway for other advanced democracies in the region to explore similar arrangements, though each would require separate negotiation

• Model for selective association: The Pillar 2–only design validates the EU's new flexible association architecture and demonstrates that deep partnership does not require all-or-nothing membership

• Geopolitical signal: In the context of technology competition supply chain diversification, the agreement is widely interpreted as a careful strengthening of the democratic technology alliance between Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

  
  

5.3.10. REMAINING OPEN QUESTIONS

Despite the agreement's success, several issues will require ongoing management:

• Participation uptake: will Japanese institutions, accustomed to domestic funding systems, adapt quickly to Horizon Europe's application processes, consortium dynamics, and administrative requirements?

• Budget impact: how will Japan's financial contribution and drawdown balance evolve? If Japanese institutions win a disproportionate share of grants in certain clusters, political pressure within the EU could arise.

• Extension to future programs: the current agreement covers the remainder of Horizon Europe (through 2027). Whether and how it will be carried forward into FP10 (the 10th Framework Programme, expected from 2028) will depend on both sides' strategic assessments.

• Potential scope expansion: could the scope eventually be broadened to include elements of Pillars 1 or 3? This remains theoretically possible but politically unlikely in the short term.

6.  A MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL EVOLUTION: DEEPENING THE EU-JAPAN PARTNERSHIP

Japan's official accession to Horizon Europe as a partner offers numerous advantages for both Japan and the EU, fostering collaboration in science, research, and innovation.

ADVANTAGES FOR JAPAN

Access to Elite Research Networks and Funding:

• Vast Collaborative Network: Japanese universities, research institutes, and companies gain access to the entire Horizon Europe ecosystem, which includes top-tier partners from 27 EU member states and other associated countries. This facilitates the creation of powerful, cross-disciplinary research consortia.

• Direct EU Funding: Japanese participants can lead projects and receive funding directly from the €95.5 billion Horizon Europe budget for Pillar II activities. This provides a new, substantial source of R&D funding.

Driving Innovation and Competitiveness:

• Accelerated R&D: collaborating with European leaders in fields like renewable energy, digital technologies, and health can accelerate Japan's own R&D cycles and help its industries stay at the cutting edge.

• Influence on Global Standards: by co-developing new technologies within Horizon Europe projects, Japan can help shape the future technical standards and regulations, ensuring its industries are aligned with global norms.

  
  

Talent Development and Mobility:

• Researcher Mobility: the agreement enhances opportunities for Japanese researchers to work in European labs and for European researchers to come to Japan, fostering knowledge exchange and developing the skills of the next generation of scientists.

Addressing Shared Societal Challenges:

• Pooling Resources: Japan and the EU face similar challenges, such as aging populations, climate change, energy security, and pandemic preparedness. This partnership allows them to pool intellectual and financial resources to find common, more effective solutions.

ADVANTAGES FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION

Access to Japan's Scientific and Technological Excellence:

• A Global R&D Powerhouse: the EU gains a formidable partner. Japan is a world leader in areas like robotics, advanced materials, automotive technology, electronics, and photonics. Integrating this expertise into Horizon Europe projects significantly boosts the programme's overall capacity and potential for breakthroughs.

• Complementary Strengths: Japanese expertise can fill gaps and complement the strengths of European research teams, leading to more robust and innovative project outcomes.

Strengthening Strategic Autonomy and Supply Chains:

• Geopolitical Partnership: the agreement is a key pillar of the EU-Japan Strategic Partnership. In a world of increasing geopolitical competition, it solidifies an alliance with a major like-minded, democratic partner in the Indo-Pacific region.

• Diversifying Dependencies: collaboration with Japan in critical technology areas such as semiconductors, batteries, and “green” hydrogen helps the EU achieve its goal of "strategic autonomy" by diversifying its partnerships and reducing dependencies on other single countries or regions.

  
  

Increasing the Scale and Impact of R&I:

• Greater Firepower: adding Japan's R&D capabilities to the Horizon Europe ecosystem creates a larger critical mass of researchers and resources. This enables more ambitious projects to tackle global challenges that no single country or region can solve alone.

• Enhanced Global Reach: the partnership extends the global reach and influence of Horizon Europe, reinforcing its position as the world's largest multinational research and innovation programme.

  
  

Promoting Shared Values:

• Human-Centric Technology: both the EU and Japan share a commitment to developing technology in a way that is ethical, trustworthy, and human-centric. This collaboration helps them jointly promote these values on the global stage, particularly in the governance of AI and data.

The association is a classic win-win strategic partnership. It moves beyond simple cooperation to a deep integration of research efforts, reinforcing the scientific and industrial competitiveness of both Japan and the EU while creating a powerful alliance based on shared democratic values and a common goal of tackling global challenges.

7.  BEYOND THE “LOST DECADES”: WHAT JAPAN’s R&I JOURNEY CAN TEACH THE EU

Japan's experience since the early 1990s offers the EU a strangely relevant - and urgent - set of lessons. While the contexts differ, the structural parallels are striking: aging populations, risk-averse capital markets, declining productivity growth, rising competition from larger economies, and a persistent failure to convert strong basic research into commercial dominance.

7.1. CRITICAL LESSONS: WHAT JAPAN GOT WRONG THAT THE EU MUST AVOID

7.1.1. High R&D Spending ≠ Innovation Leadership

JAPAN:

• Japan consistently spent over 3% of GDP on R&D - one of the highest rates in the world - yet saw diminishing returns in terms of new industries, global market share, and productivity growth.

• The spending was heavily concentrated in large incumbent corporations (Toyota, Sony, Panasonic, etc.) focused on incremental improvements to existing product lines rather than disruptive innovation.

• Government R&D funding was spread thinly across too many priorities without sufficient strategic focus.

Lesson for the EU:

Spending more is not enough. How and where you spend matters enormously. The EU must resist the temptation to simply increase Horizon Europe / FP10 budgets without fundamentally reform allocation mechanisms. Funding must be concentrated on breakthrough potential, not distributed as political compromise across all Member States and sectors equally.

7.1.2. The "Valley of Death" Between Research and Commercialization

JAPAN:

• Japan produced world-class basic research (Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, medicine) but consistently failed to translate this into commercial dominance in new industries.

• Japanese universities remained isolated from industry. Technology transfer offices were underdeveloped. Spin-off creation was culturally discouraged.

• By the time Japanese firms commercialized innovations, faster-moving US and Chinese competitors had already captured the market.

Lesson for the EU:

Europe suffers from an almost identical pathology. The EU produces ~20% of the world's top scientific publications but captures a far smaller share of global tech market value.

The EU must:

• Massively strengthen technology transfer infrastructure.

• Create fast-track mechanisms from lab to market.

• Stop treating research and industrial policy as separate domains.

7.1.3. Non-Viable Enterprises and Misallocated Capital

JAPAN:

• Loose monetary policy and government reluctance to allow corporate failures led to the proliferation of "Non-Viable Firms" - companies that survived on cheap credit but contributed little to innovation or productivity.

• Capital was trapped in unproductive legacy industries instead of flowing to new, high-growth ventures.

• Banks continued lending to failing firms to avoid recognizing losses on their balance sheets.

Lesson for the EU:

Europe must not replicate this mistake. Several EU economies already show signs of non-viable firm proliferation, exacerbated by post-COVID support measures and energy crisis subsidies. Capital must be redirected toward innovative firms through:

• Aggressive venture capital development (completing the Capital Markets Union).

• Willingness to let uncompetitive firms fail.

• State aid reform that rewards innovation, not preservation.

7.1.4. Risk Aversion and the Failure to Embrace Disruption

JAPAN:

• Japanese corporate culture became increasingly risk-averse after the bubble burst. The focus shifted to cost-cutting, efficiency gains, and protecting existing market positions.

• Japan excelled at Kaizen (continuous improvement) but failed at disruptive innovation. It missed or was late to the internet platform economy, cloud computing, social media, and the smartphone software ecosystem.

• The culture of lifetime employment and corporate hierarchy made it difficult for talented individuals to leave large companies and start ventures.

Lesson for the EU:

Europe's innovation culture is dangerously similar. European firms optimize existing processes rather than creating new markets. The EU must:

• Foster a culture that tolerates and even celebrates entrepreneurial failure.

• Create strong incentives for corporate venturing and intrapreneurship.

• Ensure that Horizon Europe / FP10 funding supports genuinely high-risk, high-reward research.

7.1.5. Fragmented Industrial Policy

JAPAN:

• METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) and its predecessor MITI were once celebrated for strategic industrial policy. But over time, Japan's industrial strategy became fragmented, reactive, and captured by incumbent industry interests.

• Multiple government competing programs with overlapping mandates diluted impact.

• The famous "Japan Inc." coordination between government, banks, and corporations broke down without a coherent replacement.

Lesson for the EU:

The EU's fragmentation problem is even worse. With 27 Member States each running their own industrial and innovation policies, the EU risks a multiplication of Japan's coordination failures. The EU urgently needs:

• A truly unified industrial innovation strategy (not 27 national strategies loosely coordinated).

• Empowered EU-level institutions (DG RTD, DG GROW, EIC) with real strategic authority.

• Reduction of duplicate national programs that compete with rather than complement EU-level funding

7.1.6. Demographic Decline and Talent Drain

JAPAN:

• Japan's shrinking and aging workforce reduced the pool of young, entrepreneurial talent.

• Restrictive immigration policies meant Japan could not compensate by attracting global talent.

• The best young Japanese researchers increasingly left for the US, where funding, facilities, and career prospects were superior.

• Japan's share of global scientific publications and citations declined significantly from the 2000s onward.

Lesson for the EU:

Europe is on the same trajectory. The EU is losing top researchers to the US and increasingly to well-funded Asian institutions. The EU must:

• Make European research careers globally competitive in terms of salary, autonomy, and career progression.

• Radically simplify immigration for highly skilled researchers and entrepreneurs.

• Use MSCA and ERC not just as funding instruments but as talent retention tools.

• Address the brain drain from Southern and Eastern Europe to Northern Europe and beyond.

7.2. WHAT JAPAN GOT RIGHT THAT THE EU SHOULD EMULATE

Not everything in Japan's experience is a cautionary tale. Several Japanese approaches offer positive lessons.

7.2.1. Long-Term Strategic Technology Programs

• Japan's Moonshot R&D Program (launched 2020) set ambitious long-term goals (e.g., a society where humans are free from physical and cognitive limitations by 2050).

• Japan's CSTI (Council for Science, Technology and Innovation) directly advises the Prime Minister, ensuring R&I is treated as a top-level political priority.

• Japan maintained patient investment in areas like hydrogen energy, robotics, and materials science even during decades of stagnation - and is now reaping rewards as these become globally critical.

Lesson for the EU:

Adopt genuinely long-term, patient investment strategies in critical technologies. Horizon Europe Missions were a step in this direction but lacked sufficient funding and political commitment. FP10 should be bolder.

7.2.2. Deep Industry-Government-Academia Collaboration in Applied Research

• Despite weaknesses in university spin-offs, Japan's National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) and similar bodies created strong bridges between fundamental research and industrial application.

• Japan's Cross-ministerial Strategic Innovation Promotion Program (SIP) effectively forced collaboration across silos.

Lesson for the EU:

The EU needs stronger applied research translation institutions. The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) was designed for this but has underperformed. EU must consider redesigning it along AIST/Fraunhofer lines with more industry integration.

7.2.3. Manufacturing Excellence and Process Innovation

• Even during stagnation, Japan maintained global leadership in advanced manufacturing, precision engineering, and industrial automation.

• Japan consistently invested in factory-level innovation - robotics, lean manufacturing, quality control - that its sustained export competitiveness even as headline GDP growth stagnated.

Lesson for the EU:

Europe (particularly Germany, Italy, and parts of Central Europe) has similar manufacturing strengths. The EU should not abandon its industrial base in pursuit of a purely digital/platform economy. Instead, it should integrate Industry 4.0, AI, and green technologies into its existing manufacturing excellence - a strategy of innovative reindustrialization.

7.2.4 Societal Innovation for an Aging Society

• Japan became a world leader in developing technologies and services for aging populations: care robotics, telemedicine, age-friendly urban design, and assistive technologies.

• Japan's Society 5.0 concept - a human-cantered vision of digital transformation -emerged from practical necessity.

7.3. TRANSLATING JAPANESE INSIGHTS INTO EU ACTION: THE INNOVATION ROADMAP

Europe faces the same demographic challenge and should invest heavily in “silver” economy innovation. This is a massive market opportunity as well as a societal necessity. Horizon Europe / FP10 should make aging society innovation a cross-cutting priority.

Based on thirty years of Japanese economic insights, I believe the EU must prioritize the following political actions:

Immediate Action Plan (2026–2027)

• Bridge the Venture Capital Gap: accelerate the deployment of the Capital Markets Union, establish a dedicated EU-level sovereign innovation fund, and reform European Investment Fund (EIF) mandates to accommodate higher risk profiles.

• Empower the EIC: grant the European Innovation Council genuine operational autonomy and a significantly larger budget to aggressively fund breakthrough innovations and tech scale-ups.

• Retain Top-Tier Talent: launch an "EU Blue Card Plus" offering fast-track immigration procedures for global researchers and innovators, while matching US-level salaries at EU-funded research institutions.

• Phase Out Obsolete Subsidies: eliminate protective state aid that sustains uncompetitive legacy industries, redirecting those vital public funds into innovation-intensive sectors.

Medium-Term Strategy (2028–2034, Aligned with FP10)

• Enforce Strategic Concentration: focus Framework Programme 10 (FP10) funding exclusively on 5–7 critical technology domains where Europe can realistically secure global leadership.

• Leverage Public Procurement: mobilize EU and national public procurement frameworks—which account for roughly 14% of GDP—to purposefully buy European innovations and create domestic lead markets.

• Pioneer Regulatory Sandboxes: establish flexible regulatory safe spaces for emerging fields like AI, biotechnology, and clean energy, enabling European firms to test and scale ahead of US and Chinese competitors.

Long-Term & Structural Reforms

• Complete the Single Market: Recognize that a fragmented single market is Europe's equivalent to Japan's historical keiretsu system - it insulates incumbents and stifles cross-border scaling. Full integration is non-negotiable.

• Cultivate an Entrepreneurial Culture: Systematically embed entrepreneurship into educational curricula, destigmatize commercial failure, and actively celebrate pioneering European innovators.

• Secure Open Strategic Autonomy: Maintain global openness—exemplified by the landmark Horizon Europe association with Japan—while aggressively securing critical supply chains and foundational technologies.

Japan's most critical lesson may be its most uncomfortable: economic decline is gradual, and then sudden. Once a stagnation mindset takes hold, it becomes self-reinforcing.

In 1990, Japan was the world's most feared economic competitor; by 2000, it was a cautionary tale. This decline did not stem from a single catastrophic event, but from accumulated inaction - a thousand small decisions to preserve the status quo rather than embrace disruptive change.

The EU displays alarming parallels:

• Europe's share of global tech market capitalization has collapsed.

• No European company ranks among the global top 10 by market value.

• European productivity growth has sharply diverged from the US since roughly 2005.

• The Draghi Report (2024) warned that Europe faces a "slow agony" without radical reform.

• Young European entrepreneurs and researchers continue to leave for the US.

The critical difference is governance. Japan had a single government that could, in theory, act decisively. The EU's multi-level governance makes course correction harder, slower, and more politically costly - which makes starting today even more urgent.

Japan's "lost decades" are no longer just an academic case study for Europe - they serve as a mirror reflecting the EU's potential trajectory unless structural reforms to its R&I and industrial competitiveness ecosystems are executed with genuine urgency.

To avert this outcome, the EU must pursue a decisive dual strategy:

• Inject American Dynamism: embrace the disruptive, risk-tolerant agility of the US model to combat the kind of innovation stagnation that historically slowed Japan.

• Adopt Japanese Patience: simultaneously integrate the long-term, patient-capital approach characteristic of Japan’s deep-tech focus to cultivate resilient, world-leading industrial sectors.

Ultimately, international collaboration in research and innovation is not a modern phenomenon; scientific knowledge has fluidly transcended borders for centuries. Science serves as a universal unifier. It is collective curiosity, shared learning, and disruptive innovation that continuously propel human society forward. In this enduring pursuit, Europe stands to learn immensely from Japan’s experience - just as Japan can thrive by tapping into a deeply integrated, highly competitive EU.

SOURCES

Ø  THE EVOLUTION OF EU FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES: FROM FP1 TO HORIZON EUROPE

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398934010_THE_EVOLUTION_OF_EU_FRAMEWORK_PROGRAMMES_FROM_FP1_TO_HORIZON_EUROPE

Ø  HORIZON EUROPE - STRATEGIC PLAN 2021 – 2024

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/horizon_europe_strategic_plan_2021-2024.pdf

Ø  EU framework programmes for research and innovation: Evolution and key data from FP1 to Horizon 2020 in view of FP9

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_IDA(2017)608697

Ø  Evaluation of past EU research and innovation framework programmes

https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/support-policy-making/shaping-eu-research-and-innovation-policy/monitoring-evaluation-and-impact-assessment-horizon-europe/past-framework-programmes_en

Ø  Horizon Europe: a general overview of this new framework programme

https://evolutioneurope.eu/blog/horizon-europe-general-overview/

Ø  Horizon Europe

https://praxinetwork.gr/en/horizon-europe-2/

Ø  Horizon Europe

https://www.euro-access.eu/en/programs/10/Horizon-Europe

Ø  Horizon Europe 2028–2034: What do we know so far?

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/horizon-europe-2028-2034-what-do-we-know-so-far/

Ø  Horizon Europe Associated Countries

https://eufundingportal.eu/horizon-europe-associated-countries/

Ø  Eligible countries for Horizon Europe funding: the complete 2025 guide

https://futureneeds.eu/eligible-countries-for-horizon-europe-funding-the-complete-2025-guide/

Ø  Who can Participate in Horizon Europe?

https://ufsn.dk/english/funding-calls-and-grants/research-and-innovation/horizon-europe/what-is-funded/introduction-to-horizon-europe/who-can-participate-in-horizon-europe/

Ø  OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2023

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-science-technology-and-innovation-outlook-2023_0b55736e-en/full-report/disclaimer.html#disclaimer

Ø  Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st Century

https://royalsociety.org/science-events-and-lectures/2011/knowledge-networks-nations/

Ø  Europe's global approach to cooperation in research and innovation:

strategic, open, and reciprocal

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_21_2465/IP_21_2465_EN.pdf

Ø  Global approach to research and innovation

https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-research-and-innovation/europe-world/international-cooperation/global-approach-research-and-innovation_en

Ø  Global Approach to Research and Innovation

https://www.eua.eu/images/Adam_Tyson.pdf

Ø  UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT - The race against time for smarter development

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352414618_UNESCO_Science_Report_the_Race_Against_Time_for_Smarter_Development_2021

Ø  Joint Declaration on relations between the EEC and Japan.

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/448-joint-declaration-on-relations-between-the-eec-and-japan/fr

Ø  Shaping our common Future

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/122441/actionplan2001_en-1.pdf

Ø  Annual Meetings – EU-Japan Business Round Tables

https://www.eu-japan.eu/brt/annual-meeting-2026

https://www.eu-japan.eu/brt/annual-meeting-2001

Ø  European Community signs a Science & Technology Cooperation Agreement with Japan

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_09_1844

Ø  EU-Japan Strategic Partnership Agreement

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/eu-japan-strategic-partnership-agreement.html

Ø  Japan - Policy background, funding opportunities, agreements and arrangements, projects and results and contact

https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-research-and-innovation/europe-world/international-cooperation/bilateral-cooperation-science-and-technology-agreements-non-eu-countries/japan_en

Ø  Japan-EU Relations

https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/eu/index.html

Ø  Japan brings a whole new research and innovation ecosystem to Europe’s network of scientific cooperation, with reduced barriers around participation and funding.

https://www.innovationnewsnetwork.com/japan-officially-joins-horizon-europe/72172/

Ø  Japan officially joins Horizon Europe

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/sv/ip_26_1705

Ø  Japan and EU sign off Horizon Europe association

https://sciencebusiness.net/news/horizon-europe/japan-and-eu-sign-horizon-europe-association

Ø  Japan joins Horizon Europe. What changes for European science?

https://euperspectives.eu/2026/07/japan-joins-horizon-europe-what-changes-for-european-science/

Ø  Japan brings a whole new research and innovation ecosystem to Europe’s network of scientific cooperation, with reduced barriers around participation and funding.

https://www.innovationnewsnetwork.com/japan-officially-joins-horizon-europe/72172/

Ø  Japan has officially become an associated country to Horizon Europe, the European Union’s flagship research and innovation programme

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/japan-joins-horizon-europe-opening-a-new-chapter-in-their-global-research-collaboration/212663/

Ø  Japan signs deal to join EU’s Horizon Europe framework

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2026/07/31/japan/horizon-europe-framework-japan/

Ø  Japan formally joins Horizon Europe as associated country

https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-horizon-2020-2026-7-japan-formally-joins-horizon-europe-as-associated-country/

Ø  European Innovation Council Board calls for EIC’s expanded mission and increased budget to boost Europe’s deep tech leadership

https://eic.ec.europa.eu/news/european-innovation-council-board-calls-eics-expanded-mission-and-increased-budget-boost-europes-2025-07-01_en

Ø  President Calviño at the XXIII CEDE Congress

https://www.eib.org/en/press/speeches/nadia-calvino-xxiii-congreso-de-directivos-cede

Ø  The Draghi report on EU competitiveness

https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/draghi-report_en

Ø  Mario Draghi’s report And Unlocking Europe’s Venture Capital Potential

https://www.ipo.club/blog/mario-draghis-report-and-unlocking-europes-venture-capital-potential