Research community calls for more detail on 'transition countries' in FP10

The Commission’s proposal to create a new group of “transition” countries in the next Widening programme has been broadly welcomed by the research community. Yet key details on how countries will be classified remain unclear.

To address growing disparities among Widening countries, the European Commission has outlined a two-tier eligibility scheme for the post-2027 programme, a part of Horizon Europe. The plan would split the current group of 15 eligible countries, introducing a new category of “transition countries,” or member states scoring above 75% on the EU Innovation Scoreboard and demonstrating progress in research performance and participation in Horizon Europe. The scoreboard is the bloc’s annual ranking of national research and innovation performance.

Progress would thus be measured through improvements in the scoreboard and growth in participation, benchmarked against a “positive relative financial return per gross national income” (GNI) in the Framework Programme. 

According to Igor Papič, Slovenia's minister of higher education, science and innovation, the initiative is “a constructive starting point for negotiation,” but he also wants to see clearer criteria and plans for implementation.

“Certain specific aspects of the proposal warrant further scrutiny, in particular the measures foreseen for the two newly formed groups of countries, where additional details, such as measures foreseen, need to be clarified,” he told Science|Business.

He also questioned whether the indicators chosen to determine the groups are appropriate, since the use of a different set of relevant indicators could result in different grouping. Under the current proposal, Slovenia would join Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Malta and Portugal in the new transition group.

Related articles:

• Widening on the table as Council begins Horizon Europe talks
• New Widening funding must consider relative progress, observers say
• Commission floats Widening reforms in leaked FP10 proposal

Conditionality measure raises concerns

Research associations such as the European University Association (EUA), the Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities, and Cesaer have broadly endorsed the Commission’s proposed reform.

The EUA called the introduction of the transition category “a noteworthy development,” demonstrating that Widening countries are strengthening their ability to engage in excellent research and compete successfully for EU funds. 

However, other elements of the plan have sparked concern. For example, from 2030 onwards, access to some Widening funding schemes, particularly those aimed at capacity building, will be restricted to the Widening countries that have increased their public R&D expenditure in the previous year. National investments in research will be assessed through the European Semester process, which is the Commission’s main tool for financial supervision in the member states.

The EUA has urged “caution” over this proposed conditionality of funding for capacity-building measures.

“Such a conditionality measure must be very carefully considered, as it may negatively affect beneficiaries in countries with lower research and innovation capacity, based on criteria unrelated to their own performance,” the association wrote in its position paper on the Commission’s FP10 proposal. 

In the past, critics have warned that this approach risks being perceived as punitive rather than supportive. They argue it overlooks fiscal and structural limitations in many Widening countries, could deepen disparities, and might pressure governments to chase indicators instead of pursuing coherent long-term strategies.

Ivana Didak, head of higher education policy at the Guild of European Research Intensive Universities, voiced similar reservations, noting that the measure could unintentionally limit cooperation. “Although we would welcome a clear strategy by all member states to increase their research and innovation spending and create synergies with national research and innovation priorities, the conditionality clause – intended only for institutions from Widening countries – might limit their possibility to access research networks,” Didak told Science|Business.

Mattias Björnmalm, secretary general of Cesaer, welcomed the Commission’s efforts to move beyond “gentle encouragement” towards mechanisms that ensure member states deliver on their commitments, including on funding levels. 

“It is clear that some political leaders and governments across Europe have not done enough to strengthen their own research and innovation capacity,” he told Science|Business. “Such mechanisms should be designed to drive action at the national level while keeping unnecessary burdens and disruptions for researchers and universities to a minimum.”