At the end of October the European Parliament voted for significant increases in funding for research and innovation in the EU budget for 2014-2020, saying there is need, “to enhance, stimulate and secure the financing of research and innovation” in the next R&D programme, Horizon 2020.
To date, the exact stance of Member States to the Commission’s proposal to increase expenditure on R&D from a seven-year total of €50.5 billion under Framework Programme 7 (FP7) to €80 billion in Horizon 2020 is unclear. But with many countries seeking a reduction in the Commission’s overall seven-year budget, the proposed €1 trillion Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF), the expectation is that ministers will try to prune back Horizon 2020 with the programmes.
Here Teresa Riera Madurell, a Spanish member of Parliament and one of the rapporteurs on the legislation, explains why the European Socialist group of MEPs (S&D) believes it is critical to get the full €80 billion budget approved. First she addresses the current budget – the last under the existing FP7 plan – then turns to the longer-term Horizon 2020 plan.
Q: Are you happy with the 2013 budget, in terms of innovation and R&D?
A: We believe the Commission's figures are an absolute minimum, and therefore the 2013 Budget as voted by the European Parliament (EP) restating those numbers, is a realistic exercise - even though we would naturally have wished for more, because we remain convinced that money invested in research is money well-invested and will bring about growth and jobs.
As a result of our efforts, the EP adopted some amendments in favour of slightly increasing commitments in relation to FP7 spending on R&D; we would have liked to have gone further, but were blocked by the EPP and ALDE.
A big concern we have is the level of payments, given there was already a shortfall on that during the budgetary exercise of 2012, and will be short next year too. In endorsing the La Via/Vaughan report, [Giovanni La Via/Derek Vaughan] on [October 23] in plenary, the EP clearly states it will not accept a budget without adequate and sufficient payment levels. It remains to be seen if the Council will accept the Commission's proposals on this matter. The risk is there.
We are deeply concerned that the current economic and financial crisis risks destroying the human capital of our societies. We do not believe that a single-minded austerity economic policy is the way to exit the current crisis. That is why we hope that the EP will remain strong in the defence of our objectives, in the framework of the MFF.
Q: Do you think Parliament will consent to a seven-year, Multi-Annual Financial Framework with a ceiling for Horizon 2020 lower than €80 billion?
A: We need to provide the means for Europe to be able to seize the opportunity to deliver on the objectives of a strengthened European economic governance and the realisation of the EU 2020 strategy for a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
We believe €80 billion is crucial to deliver the objectives we are setting out to achieve. Anything less would be detrimental to future generations and to the re-launching of European economic growth and job creation impetus.
The EU budget can be an important counter-cyclical policy instrument. Cutting the EU budget would lead to a dramatic decrease in public expenditure in many Member States, thus creating a strong pro-cyclical effect. We believe that the EU budget is a tool to coordinate and enhance national efforts to regain growth and generate employment in Europe. We believe that adequate EU funding, if well-directed, can actually trigger and catalyse future-oriented investments that Member States are unable to carry out on their own - in human capital and education, in favour of a knowledge - (based) society, in favour of infrastructures, research, innovation, SMEs and green and new technologies.
We believe that the EP position of 8 June 2011 remains valid: without an adequate increase (+ at least 5% over 7 years) of the 2014 -2020 ceilings above the 2013 ceiling, the EU budget will not be able to finance existing EU political ambitions (set by the European Council itself) and the implementation of new EU prerogatives enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty. In the case that Member States disagree, they will have to clearly and publically identify which EU political priorities have to be revised downwards, or even abandoned.
Q: Do you expect Parliament to consent to an MFF that doesn’t “ring-fence” the fusion research project ITER, the Galileo spatial positioning system and the GMES earth observation project?
A: We hope the EP will remain strong in the defence of the ring-fencing of ITER, Galileo and GMES. We are fully committed to these projects, we believe they can produce an enormous added-value to EU economic businesses and citizens, and we remain determined to maintain the EU's engagement in these fields.
Our position is clear: we recognise the strategic importance of large-scale infrastructure projects such as ITER, Galileo, and GMES for the future of the EU's competitiveness and reject any attempt to transform GMES into an inter-governmental programme. We strongly defend the financing of these large-scale projects ring-fenced in the EU budget, to ensure that possible cost overruns do not threaten the funding and successful implementation of other EU policies, namely Horizon 2020.
That is why we salute the Commission's proposal to fix a maximum amount for Galileo in the MFF regulation, thereby ring-fencing the budgetary allocation for this project. We would like that the maximum amounts for ITER and GMES be also fixed in the regulation.
And, very importantly, we think that the financial envelopes for these three projects should be allocated over and above the MFF ceilings, so as to make the provision of additional funding by Member States easier, if needed.
Q: Would a potential mid-term review of the MFF open up the possibility that the Horizon 2020 ceiling could be raised (or lowered) in 2018 – if economic circumstances have changed by then?
A: We want this mid-term revision to happen and will make our acceptance of the 2018 Budget conditional on the revision being done. We consider that, as a matter of principle - and even more so in times of economic distress and uncertainty - political and economic developments may require that there are adjustments to the MFF 2014 -2020. The implementation of the 2007-2013 MFF has shown the reluctance of the Council to accept any form of adaptation or revision of the MFF, even without any increase of the global expenditure ceiling.
We defend the position that the 2014-2020 MFF Regulation must provide enhanced budgetary flexibility within and across headings, as well as between financial years within the MFF, in order to ensure that available budgetary resources are used to the maximum. A mid-term revision (by 2018) of the MFF 2014-2020 with a binding calendar and the full involvement of the forthcoming EP (2014-2019) must be agreed upon.
Teresa Riera Madurell is a Spanish politician and Member of the European Parliament for the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, part of the Party of European Socialists.
Receive the Funding Newswire each Tuesday, our Policy Bulletin each Thursday, and news about bridging Europe’s east-west innovation gap twice a month in The Widening. 
A unique international forum for public research organisations and companies to connect their external engagement with strategic interests around their R&D system.
