Associated countries set out Horizon Europe concerns

Associated countries to Horizon Europe have complained about being frozen out of sensitive calls, and want a bigger role designing the next Framework Programme, according to a study that tracks how countries outside the EU feel about joining the bloc’s flagship research scheme. 

Neighbouring countries like Norway, Türkiye and Switzerland have long paid to join the EU’s research Framework Programmes. During Horizon Europe, which started in 2021, distant countries like New Zealand, Canada and South Korea have also been allowed to associate. And the UK has gone from being an EU member state to an associated country following Brexit in 2020. 

With associated countries now contributing 20-30% of the overall budget, “they should be taken very seriously,” said Gosia Mitka, an international macroeconomist at the University of St Andrews, who co-authored the study. 

Even more countries could join the list in future: Singapore, Japan and Egypt are also in association talks. 

But as the programme becomes more international, and less a purely EU scheme, concerns have risen about whether these countries are being treated fairly in association negotiations and in formulating the research agenda. 

They don’t get a formal vote when drawing up the work programmes that determine research calls, for example, nor do they get a formal say on designing the next programme, set to start in 2028, although they can feed their views into discussions. 

Mitka’s study, presented to associated countries in Brussels earlier this week, interviewed 12 people from “national public organisations” across nine associated countries, all of which had some insight into negotiations with the EU. Most remained anonymous. 

Horizon is the world’s biggest international research programme, and many associated countries were upbeat about joining, pointing out that it allowed them to do “research on global challenges which go beyond the capacity of one single country,” according to one Swiss interviewee. 

But still, there are a number of complaints about the European Commission’s transparency during negotiations, restrictions on access and the financial terms of joining. A Commission official said they were “carefully reading” inputs by the associated countries. 

‘Weird dance’

One interviewee from Australia, which held association talks with the EU but hasn’t joined due to financial stumbling blocks, said that they never received a formal invitation from the Commission. 

This resulted in a “really weird dance” in which there was “a long period in which we were being asked to express an opinion about association in which we had no idea what we'd be signing up for.” 

“It's the process of that interaction, of that first contact that can be a bit less transparent,” said co-author Rachel Dohain-Lesueur, an EU and international project officer at Glasgow Caledonian University. 

Another issue is that, at least for geographically distant countries like New Zealand, association is pay-as-you go, meaning the bill is in proportion to the amount of money won. The risk is that this can leave countries on the hook for enormous payments if their scientists are more successful than expected. 

“Some interviewees were concerned about the lack of a spending cap,” said Mitka. “It’s a huge risk because it’s a lot of money.” 

The Australian interviewee agreed: “It's a very difficult thing for the Australian government to write a blank cheque to the research and innovation sector based on their success,” they said. 

What’s more, some associated countries have been left baffled by how the Commission calculates participation fees. 

“It's very obscure. It's like only three people on this planet know how it is calculated,” said one interviewee from Türkiye. It’s not that Commission isn’t trusted, they went on, “but it would be better if we knew how it was calculated.” 

This has led to associated countries getting together to compare terms, but for some, this isn’t satisfactory. “Nobody should have to meet over coffee and compare their association agreements,” said a Turkish interviewee. 

Related articles

• Canada association raises questions over who controls Horizon Europe
• Horizon Europe goes global: who’s in, who’s out, and why?
• Dual use research in FP10 could cause problems for associated countries, says EU’s chief negotiator

Restricted calls

Another area of complaint was restricted calls, research grants where only EU member states are allowed to apply. Switzerland and the UK have been shut out of some applied quantum and space calls, for example. 

The Commission emphasises that these account for a tiny fraction of all Horizon Europe grants. But they are still a major irritant, because it means associated countries are unclear precisely what access they will get. 

“It’s actually quite frustrating,” said Mitka. “They need to know what they sign up to. It's a very, very big commitment.” 

“The way it is implemented, or it was implemented, over the course of this current FP9 [Horizon Europe] was difficult to make sense of in some cases,” said one Swiss interviewee. 

FP10 planning

On FP10, the Framework Programme that will follow Horizon Europe in 2028, associated countries are nervous of any major changes, and want a bigger say in how it’s designed. 

“It's about keeping what works well, rather than creating something completely new,” said Mitka. “So let’s reflect that, and let’s include the voices of those countries in the design.” 

One worry is that FP10 will be subsumed into a much bigger Competitiveness Fund design to boost the EU’s economy, leaving the role of associated countries hazy. 

“The programme has evolved to involve associated countries, but in essence it is still about Europe and Europe's competitiveness,” said an Australian interviewee. “It's not actually designed to be an international programme in that sense.” 

The report stresses that associated countries need to have more of a voice in planning FP10, perhaps even through a joint committee. 

‘Stand together’

“I think that we should have a more connected group of associated countries. I think we should stand together,” said one Turkish interviewee. 

“We may want to think about whether we have something like a joint committee,” said a UK respondent. 

However, associated countries aren’t a uniform bunch. They range from relatively small scientific neighbours, like Moldova or Iceland, to major players like the UK and Switzerland, which suffered years of delay before they could associate due to wider political disputes with Brussels. 

Neighbouring countries typically have access to the full programme, including European Research Council grants, which fund bottom-up proposals from scientists. But newcomers like New Zealand, Canada and South Korea are only associated to the so-called Pillar 2 of the programme, which funds academic and industrial consortia. 

Asked to comment on the report, a Commission official said: “these views will be carefully looked at together with any other input from member states and stakeholders in the process preparing for the next regulation.”