Praise for Commission’s research programme proposal, but concerns linger over its vagueness

There was praise for research Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva and much relief after the European Commission presented its proposal for a €175 billion successor to Horizon Europe on July 16. But concerns remain about the programme’s links to the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) and plans to simplify funding.

“You spoke, we listened,” Zaharieva said about the proposed plan for the post-2027 research Framework Programme. “Horizon Europe will place research and innovation at the heart of the EU economy and investment strategy.”

After presenting its proposal for the next long-term EU budget, the Commission also published a draft Horizon Europe regulation, the legislation that will establish the next Framework Programme for research and innovation.

The Commission's proposal was welcomed by European People’s Party MEP Christian Ehler, who was co-rapporteur for the current Framework Programme. As one of the Parliament’s leading science negotiators, he praised Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for keeping her promise to double the budget of Horizon Europe and to maintain its independence.

However, while the structure and content of the programme look very familiar, “the changed approach with much less legal text and the ‘tight’ connection to the European Competitiveness Fund raise some issues that will need to be clarified during the legislative procedure,” Ehler said in a statement.

The Horizon Europe proposal says the programme will be “tightly connected” to the ECF, and that collaborative research and innovation activities will be set out in dedicated parts of the ECF work programmes.

Programming via the ECF “will likely lead to [a] detailed policy steer on calls for collaborative projects, which is the opposite of what the Draghi report, the Heitor report, and the Parliament called for,” Ehler said.

Ehler pointed out that the lack of detail in the legislation, which could be seen as a simplification, may in fact lead to legal uncertainty. Meanwhile, he fears the single rulebook with the ECF and the widespread use of lumpsum funding will undermine simplification. He also said that the European Parliament would continue to advocate for researchers and other experts having a strong role in steering programme decisions within the Framework Programme.

Christophe Grudler, MEP for the centrist Renew Europe group, said the doubling of Horizon’s budget is “excellent news for keeping Europe at the cutting edge of scientific excellence,” but warned the links with the ECF need clarifying “to avoid any implicit reorientation.”

Grudler, who recently joined colleagues in calling for a standalone EU space programme with a budget of at least €60 billion, added that the absence of a dedicated budget line for space policy was “a very worrying signal.” The budget proposal includes plans to multiply investments in defence and space by five, to €131 billion, but so far there has been no mention of a dedicated space budget. “It’s a serious oversight for such a strategic sector.”

Manuel Heitor, former Portuguese science minister and chair of the expert group that advised the Commission on the structure of FP10, agreed with Grudler about the vagueness surrounding both the space and defence components, but called the proposed budget increase in these areas “extremely positive.”

Like Ehler, he also criticised details in the proposal which suggest, for example, potential changes to the governance of the European Research Council. These could “negatively affect” the performance of Horizon Europe, he said.

Related articles:

• Commission puts forward €175B budget for FP10

Relief for research sector

The proposal to maintain Horizon Europe as a standalone programme and double its budget is “highly encouraging,” said Amanda Crowfoot, secretary general of the European University Association. “We particularly welcome the preservation of the bottom-up nature of core Horizon Europe instruments such as the ERC and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions.”

Crowfoot is also pleased that collaborative research will remain in Pillar 2 of the programme, but she warned that it is vital there is support for early-stage research in both its competitiveness and society components . And, if not implemented properly, the proposal for a single rulebook and shared governance with the ECF “could risk undermining FP10 autonomy,” she said.

The proposed budget breakdown meanwhile suggests a “shift in emphasis,” with a greater focus on innovation, Crowfoot said. The proportion allocated to Pillar 2 is reduced, but this could be compensated by the participation of other programmes under the ECF.

Over the past year, research associations have led a tireless lobbying campaign to secure a dedicated research and innovation programme with a budget of at least €200 billion. Various leaked plans and Commission announcements had stoked fears that the Framework Programme would be broken up and scattered throughout the ECF.

Kurt Deketelaere, secretary general of the League of European Research Universities, congratulated Zaharieva for the proposal for a dedicated and expanded research programme. “I never would have imagined she could navigate the precarious FP10 and Multiannual Financial Framework debate to arrive at what is now on the table.”

However, while he welcomed the objectives of the Framework Programme, he called for a “more explicit involvement of excellent researchers and innovators in shaping the future research and innovation agenda.” He cited the reduced term of the European Research Council president and increasing directionality in the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions as causes for concern.

But Deketelaere is most worried by the lack of transparency around the link between Pillar 2 and the ECF. This “risks creating unnecessary complexity,” he said, while, like Ehler, he is also sceptical of some of the Commission’s plans for simplification, such as the default use of lump sums.

Deketelaere had also been hoping to see changes to rules for association to the programme. “Countries like the UK and Switzerland, unlike other third countries, deserve a fast-track association procedure, yet this has not been proposed,” he said.