Research commissioner-designate breezes through soft Brussels grilling

Ekaterina Zaharieva, commissioner-designate for start-ups, research and innovation, promised to radically simplify the Framework Programme and make it more attractive to start-ups and SMEs, as she answered questions from MEPs this morning. 

Representatives of the different political groups in the Parliament’s industry, research and energy (ITRE) committee voted to approve the Bulgarian’s nomination following the hearing, which featured few uncomfortable questions over its three hours. 

MEPs raised questions on the structure of FP10 and the role of innovation in the EU’s new agenda for economic competitiveness. But simplification was a common thread in Zaharieva’s answers. She noted that a simpler, easier to use Framework Programme would speed things up and reduce the time from application to grant agreement, which currently stands at nearly 12 months.

Zaharieva said she “really like[s]” the proposal by the Heitor group on the next Framework Programme, FP10, to introduce a “trust first, evaluate later” principle, which would simplify and shorten the application process. She is also in favour of lump-sum funding, two concrete examples of how the application process can be simplified.  

From 2025, Zaharieva wants to trial a two-phase application process to reduce application times. The first phase will be “focused on the core of the project”, with more documents to be provided if the project is approved. 

Romanian MEP Dan Nica, a former co-rapporteur on Horizon Europe, has been complaining of bias against applicants from less prestigious universities and research institutes, claiming that who submits an application and who assesses it often matters more than its contents.  Zaharieva said she is in favour of double-blind evaluation, a process which would reduce the odds of evaluation bias. This was already the subject of a pilot project currently being evaluated by the Commission. 

More autonomy 

Zaharieva drew heavily from the Heitor group’s recommendations when discussing Pillar II of Horizon Europe, which covers collaborative research and public-private partnerships, and Pillar III, which includes the European Innovation Council (EIC).  

That report called for a more autonomous EIC and an independent European Technology and Industrial Competitiveness Council to steer collaborative research. Zaharieva did not reference the proposals directly but called for “decentralisation in Pillar II and Pillar III”, taking the “good example” of the European Research Council. 

She also lent support to Mario Draghi’s recommendation for the EIC to implement programmes similar to the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) in the US, by giving significant leeway to expert programme managers. “They are very skilled people, they have to have bigger flexibility and autonomy to decide where to finance, how to finance, and also to decide to stop financing,” Zaharieva said. 

After the hearing, German MEP and Horizon Europe co-rapporteur Christian Ehler told Science|Business that Zaharieva’s comments on a more agile governance system for research funding show she has the ability to think independently of the agenda of the Commission’s directorate for research and innovation. “I think that we saw very personal handwriting that was not just the usual Commission preparation, when she was advocating a certain independence of the agencies to [enable] stakeholders in having more self-governance,” Ehler said.

Zaharieva also argued that Pillar II should be more focused. “We have six clusters in Pillar II, but in reality, it’s more than 15 priorities. In my view, if we have 15 priorities, in reality we have zero priorities,” she said. 

Ringfenced budget 

A key priority among MEPs is ensuring R&I funds are not redirected to serve other short-term needs as they have been in the past, but Zaharieva insisted having a ringfenced R&I budget does not mean those funds are protected. 

The only solution is to work with member states to “show the results” of Horizon Europe to both citizens and finance ministers, and “convince them that it’s not good for European competitiveness to use […] our Framework Programme as a saving account for emerging priorities,” she said. 

Much more private investment is also needed to meet the target of investing 3% of GDP in research and development. Zaharieva said European funds should be leveraged more effectively to create incentives for private investors. While EU public funding is competitive compared to the United States or Japan, Zaharieva added, EU private investment still lags behind. 

“We should work relentlessly to secure increased budgets for research and innovation, but not only through European funds,” Zaharieva said. “We need to collaborate with member states to inspire them to meet the 3% target that we committed to 22 years ago. Private sector investment is truly essential.” 

When it comes to the “Widening programme” for countries with low rates of participation in Horizon Europe, Zaharieva said its success also hinges on strengthening national efforts in research and innovation spending.

“I will be very much focused on the Widening measures, and not only on the measures themselves, but how to improve the participation of Widening member states in all parts of Horizon Europe,” Zaharieva said. 

Widening countries also have to contend with brain drain to other member states. Zaharieva wants to improve salaries, working conditions and research infrastructures through a new European Research Area Act. 

While she thinks it’s “naïve” to believe researchers’ salaries can be equal across the 27 member states due to significant differences in GDP, Zaharieva said “minimum standards” should be implemented.

EIC and ERC 

In her opening statement, Zaharieva also outlined plans to expand both the European Research Council (ERC), which primarily funds early-stage research, and the EIC, focused on scaling up innovations. 

Speaking specifically about enhancing the EIC, Zaharieva stressed the need to increase funding for high-risk, disruptive ventures. Currently, EU funds can only support 8% of top-quality projects, she noted. 

“We must support our companies much better to commercialise and scale up their innovations here in Europe,” Zaharieva added, referencing the Draghi report on competitiveness. “As [the report] highlights, too many of our companies often fail to successfully pass the growth stage”. 

Zaharieva warned that each start-up forced to seek capital outside Europe represents a loss of European resources, jobs, and potential community benefits. “We must stop Europe’s innovation drain,” she said. 

According to Zaharieva, addressing Europe’s innovation gap starts with tackling two critical challenges: improving access to capital and cutting red tape. 

A commissioner for start-ups

The “start-up” label in Zaharieva’s job title is a new addition to the portfolio, and many of the simplification efforts she promised will be geared towards boosting the participation of start-ups and SMEs. One fifth of Horizon Europe funding goes to SMEs, which is “clearly not enough”, as they make up 99% of the European economy, Zaharieva said. 

A proposed European Innovation Act will be “the main vehicle for simplification,” including providing a definition of start-ups, supporting regulatory sandboxes, innovative procurement, and an EU-wide company status. The latter will not be easy, she warned. “Maybe we will start with enhanced cooperation, because I’m not sure we’re going to have all the member states on board from the beginning.” 

She plans to organise a European start-up and scale-up forum, possibly in January or February 2025, to hear directly from stakeholders. She also wants to use artificial intelligence to help SMEs identify funding opportunities. 

Dual-use and artificial intelligence 

Zaharieva was also questioned on defence R&D and the future of dual-use research in FP10.  She said the European Defence Fund, the EU's main funding scheme for military R&D, will continue to be separate from Horizon Europe, but she refused to rule out including dual-use research with civil and military applications in FP10. 

A recent consultation around potentially reforming Horizon Europe’s exclusive civil focus recieved a mixed response from stakeholders. “We are going to continue this evaluation, maybe to propose a new study, because the first study actually was not representative enough [...] this was told by the directorate general [for research and innovation],” Zaharieva said. 

On artificial intelligence, Zaharieva plans to collaborate closely with the European Commission's incoming executive vice-president for tech sovereignty, security, and democracy, Henna Virkkunen. 

“I’m committed to consulting the scientific community to develop a joint roadmap and to procure a study exploring implementation options,” she said. 

According to Zaharieva, the EU needs four critical elements to advance AI — funding, computing power, data, and skills — none of which any single EU member state possesses in full. 

In her mission letter to Zaharieva, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed establishing a European Artificial Intelligence Research Council to pool resources effectively across the EU, and the Bulgarian commissioner-designate backed the idea during the hearing. 

Not an R&I geek

Zaharieva was also called upon to defend her expertise in research and innovation, as Filip Turek of the far-right Patriots group called her nomination “deeply troubling”. “We are not looking for a diplomat to manage paperwork, we need someone to lead Europe’s technological future. Your quoting of the Draghi report is no substitute for first-hand expertise in innovation,” Turek said. 

Bulgaria’s former deputy prime minister referred to her extensive political experience, and said she would rely heavily on the opinions of stakeholders and Commission staff. 

Ehler defended Zaharieva’s political track record, noting he doesn’t mind her being new to the field, as long as she can negotiate a bigger budget for FP10. “I think that is what I would prefer," he said

The positive recommendation by the ITRE coordinators must still be approved by the Parliament’s president and group chairs, and then confirmed in a plenary vote, most likely during the 25-28 November session.