Lion’s share of Framework Programme 7 budget went to 500 research groups

Five hundred research institutes scooped 60 per cent of the EU’s €55 billion Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) budget, according to an independent review published this week.

This strong research core, which includes powerhouses such as the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft and Oxford University, has strengthened over time. In the preceding Framework Programme 6, which ran from 2002 until 2006, 500 organisations won 58 per cent of the grant money.  

The new analysis, carried out late last year by 12 academics, looks at the impact of FP7 on scientific excellence and economic growth. It finds that 85 per cent of funding for FP7 went to research facilities and businesses located in western Europe. Germany put in the strongest performance, slightly edging the UK.

By comparison, the share of FP7 funding for organisations from the other half of Europe, as well as the success rates of proposals coordinated by researchers from these countries, was significantly lower, with the ten Central and Eastern European countries that joined the EU after 2004 receiving only 4 per cent of total FP7 monies.  

The report says this is both good and bad. “One the one hand, [concentration] can lead to increased global competitiveness and economies of scale, and foster the emergence of centres of excellence. On the other hand, it can lead to unintended effects, such as the dominance of status over content, risks of elitist compartmentalisation, or barriers against newcomers.”

Of a total of 139,000 research proposals submitted to FP7, 25,000 were funded.

Launching the report this week EU Research Commissioner Carlos Moedas said the focus on excellent research means, “It’s normal that the best ones get more.”

Righting the imbalance in Europe’s research systems is primarily a task of EU regional funds, the majority of which go to poorer regions, he said. “More than [a quarter] of the EU budget is allocated to structural funds. Only 8 per cent goes to research and innovation.”

The disparity has long been recognised and there are attempts to get the structural programme working in concert with the current Horizon 2020 R&D programme.

A scheme introduced last year awards a seal of excellence to Horizon 2020 proposals that receive high scores from evaluators, but do not win grants. The idea is that these unsuccessful Horizon 2020 applicants can then take their proposals to another funding source, ideally the EU’s regional programme, which has money for research and innovation projects.

The scheme has so far issued 500 seals of approval, with the most going to Italian projects, followed by Spanish ones, said the Commissioner. “I think it’s a very good start, even better than I would have imagined,” he said.

The funding maze

Moedas is keen to attract newcomers to apply for Horizon 2020 grants. “We have always to get new people to participate because I want great ideas and great people,” said the Commissioner. “I don’t want people to make it just because they know the system.”

The best way to get newcomers into the already ultra-competitive Horizon 2020 is to simplify funding options, Moedas believes. Last week he visited the offices of Berlin start-up factory, Rocket Internet, where staff told him they did not have the will to figure out the Brussels funding landscape.  

“They were quite puzzled by the number of instruments we have,” Moedas said. “What they need is an umbrella, or something to tell people like them where to go.”

Moedas thinks his European Innovation Council (EIC) proposal, announced last July, can turn the heads of innovators who habitually ignore opportunities for funding from Brussels.

The Commissioner wants to gather together disjointed innovation competitions, such as the SME Instrument and the Fast Track to Innovation, and run them out of the EIC. “I can’t develop the idea alone,” he said. “I need [input from] the Rocket Internets of the world for this to work, they’re extremely important for Europe.”