A decision on how much money to cut from the EU Horizon 2020 research programme will go down to the wire with negotiators failing to reach agreement at a meeting on Monday.
Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) together with the Commission and member states are working to strike a deal on how best to finance the EU’s new stimulus fund announced by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker late last year.
The original proposal involved diverting €2.7 billion earmarked for research, raising ire amongst Europe’s scientists. This implies cuts ranging across anything from space and information and communications technology, to biotechnology, transport and security.
The sides sat down on Monday night for a marathon six-hour round, finally adjourning at 3am. Jyrki Katainen, the Commission vice-president spearheading the fund, and Budget Commissioner Kristalina Georgieva joined the talks in a bid to inject some momentum.
A final negotiation is scheduled for next Wednesday, 27 May, when a deal will have to find endorsement from all three parties.
Before then, negotiators will have to reconcile very different visions of where the EU should look for seed capital for the Juncker fund.
It remains likely the Horizon 2020 budget will still be raided, if not for the full €2.7 billion figure.
A recent proposal tabled during trilogue talks suggested the European Research Council (ERC) and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, should be spared. Currently, the ERC faces cuts of €221 million to its budget for basic research between 2016 and 2020, while the Marie Curie fund supporting scientists to move around Europe to do their research, is on the hook for €100 million.
While there are some MEPs who would like to scuttle the original proposal entirely, keeping Commission hands away from all research money, others are strongly opposed to any agreement that involves safeguarding only some research sub-programmes. Sparing only Marie Curie and the ERC would mean bigger cuts for others. It would also smack of playing favourites, which could trigger a backlash from researchers who do not stand to gain anything from it.
Juncker fund offers nothing for basic research
The case for reversing ERC cuts has been steadily building since Juncker’s announcement in January. Scientists have argued that typical investments made by the Juncker fund, which are expected to include broadband networks, transport links, retrofitting buildings to increase energy efficiency, third generation bio-refineries, and expansion and upgrading of research infrastructures, offer little obvious gains for basic research.
Along with Horizon 2020, the Connecting Europe Facility, a programme to enhance infrastructure investment across the EU, is in line to for a €3.3 billion cut. This is the only other EU programme under threat.
Christian Ehler, a German centre-right MEP, was an early advocate of spreading the pain of budget cuts across more than two EU programmes. The prospect of finding another programme to help shoulder the load still hangs over the talks, but there is doubt over the Commission’s willingness to raid a fresh pot.
Another source of wrangling is money left over from the EU’s 2014 budget. Why not look here for seed capital and minimise the damage to Horizon 2020, some in the Parliament have suggested.
A source close to the discussions on the side of the Council has said Commission negotiators would prefer to retain its unspent budget, which is being reserved for any contingencies stemming from crises in Ukraine and Libya. At a time when EU expenditure is a sensitive issue among European voters, the Commission has to be careful of every penny, another watcher added.
If the Commission remains reluctant to give ground on using the unspent budget, the contours of the deal go back to resembling the original proposal.
Were the Parliament ultimately to fail to get a better deal on Horizon 2020, its members have vowed to dig in their heels on spreading cuts more evenly across the next five years. The European Institute of Innovation & Technology budget, for example, stands to lose €350 million in that time, but the biggest chunk of this money, €243 million, will be taken in 2016 and 2017. The institute has pleaded for its cuts to be spread out, and the Parliament is bringing this argument to the negotiating table.
Researcher training
“We would welcome a reversal of cuts to ERC and Marie Curie,” said Amanda Crowfoot, director of Science Europe, which represents national public R&D funding bodies. “These are the parts of Horizon 2020 that we had particularly strongly fought to defend, bottom-up research and researcher training that cannot be replaced by [investment fund] projects, so it would be an extremely positive move and would show that the EU is listening to the research community.”
But other observers say the politics of the clash are becoming as complex as the numbers involved.
“Research and innovation (R&I) policy should not aim at creating a divide between fundamental and applied research but should aim at improving innovation value chains and eco-systems motivating all R&I actors to perform their best,” the European Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO) said. “R&I actors should not be put up against each other in times where they should be working together to ensure the success of EU R&I programmes. We count on the European Parliament to keep holding their position.”
Receive the Funding Newswire [full access requires a subscription] 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.
