An analysis of position papers from 7 member states in central and eastern Europe points to divergent views on Framework Programme 10
Photo credits: European Union
Position papers from seven member states in central and eastern Europe indicate there is a great diversity of opinion over how the EU should organise and structure the next Framework Programme for research and innovation, FP10.
FP10 does not start until 2028, but informal talks are going on now, with the European Commission expected to publish a proposal for the size and contents of FP10 by June next year. After that, member states and the European Parliament will join negotiations on how the programme should be shaped up in the face of the severe economic and technological challenges that were highlighted in a series of high-level policy reports and political speeches over the past months.
EU capitals are getting ready for lengthy debates on the programme. Negotiations will be tough and are likely to unearth old rifts between newer and older, poorer and richer member states.
The future of the Widening programme in FP10 is likely to generate heated debate. A previous analysis by Science|Business of 15 position papers from universities, research organisations and industry groups showed strong support for Widening to be rolled over. However, there were diverging opinions on the structure, the instruments, the budget and the purpose of these measures.
In a joint letter sent to the European Commission,15 research ministers put up a united front, calling for a doubling of the Widening budget. But the latest position papers show some potential holes in that unity.
In an attempt to anticipate the main points of contention, we take a preliminary look at what some member states in central and eastern Europe say they want from FP10.
Czechia:
Czech National Contact Points (NCPs) published a paper this month calling on the Commission to work more closely with NCPs in all member states to ensure these offices continue to provide comprehensive and high quality information on EU research and innovation funding.
The paper also calls for an increase of the overall FP10 budget. Stakeholders and MEPs have been calling for a €200 billion budget, more than double than the current budget for Horizon Europe.
But, more importantly, the Czech NCPs say the Commission should simplify procedures and ensure the more effective functioning of the programme. They also complained about delays in providing thorough explanations on the structure of the model grant agreement in Horizon Europe. “It is unacceptable that the interpretation of the rules in the Annotated Model Grant Agreement (AGA) becomes fully available only halfway through the programme,” the paper says.
Also, the Czech paper calls for more simplified forms of financing, such as lump sum funding, flat rates for indirect costs, and more effective implementation rules for personnel costs. These requests are in line with the conclusions of the high level group led by Portugal’s ex-science minister Manuel Heitor, which called on the Commission to drastically simplify the programme and reduce the time from grant to funding.
Czech NCPs want the Commission to increase the size of individual grants allocated through the European Research Council (ERC). “An increase of the individual grant sizes ought to be considered to ensure the ERC remains competitive,” the paper says.
Last but not least, the paper says Widening instruments relating to widening participation and spreading excellence, should be separated from the European Research Area focus on reforming and enhancing the European R&I system. “The current status quo is misleading and confusing the applicants.”
Lithuania
In the face of its geographical proximity to a war zone, Lithuania stresses the importance of defence and critical technologies in its position paper on FP10. One of the main messages is that FP10 should enhance support for research and development of technologies with dual-use potential. FP10 should also establish
“framework conditions to foster the emergence and incubation of critical technologies”. Lithuania also calls for “tailor-made integration measures” for Ukraine and Moldova.
On the topic of Widening, Lithuania says FP10 should promote diversity by funding more small or medium-sized projects at lower technology readiness levels, and wants the Widening programme to be restructured and “mainstreamed” across all FP10 pillars.
While it refrains from giving out a number, the paper says FP10 should have “an increased and stable budget”
Malta
The small Mediterranean island has the Widening programme at the top of its FP10 agenda. The next Framework Programme should “urgently address the lack of participation from the smaller EU member states,” the paper says. “FP10 should significantly expand and embed a larger financial allocation for Widening measures to close the innovation gap, harness the potential of all innovation ecosystems actors and develop and attract talents.”
The paper also notes funding from the ERC and the European Innovation Council (EIC) should be made more accessible to applicants from Widening countries. “Specific grant schemes for Widening countries should be introduced, ensuring that these researchers can participate fully and benefit from these prestigious instruments.”
The paper wants FP10 to have a simpler, clearer and more transparent structure. “The complexity, length and lack of clarity of the current application process are significant barriers to participation,” it says.
Poland
In its position paper, the Polish Chamber of Commerce for High Technology says FP10 should maintain and expand the Widening programme. The goal would be to further reduce barriers to innovation and the implementation of advanced technologies in Europe.
The Polish paper notes the European Innovation Council (EIC) and European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) should work to reduce overlaps.
The paper calls for the budget for FP10 to be twice that of Horizon Europe, which it says would increase success rates in applying for grants. It also says there should be greater alignment with other EU programmes and with national funding agencies.
Romania
The eastern European country has the lowest R&D expenditure in the EU and consistently ranks last in EU research and innovation league tables. A paper by the research ministry says FP10 should help reduce brain drain in Europe, ensure anonymous peer review of proposals and equal salaries for researchers in poorer countries. There is also a call for the EU to upgrade state aid rules to exclude investment in fundamental research from the scope of antitrust law.
Slovakia
The paper by the Ministry for education research and development also wants to see “blind evaluation” of grant applications to increase trust and transparency in FP10. And it also calls for the Widening programme to be “mainstreamed” across all pillars in FP10.
Slovakia wants FP10 to keep its civilian focus and steer clear of research and development involving technologies with dual-use potential. “As dual-use technologies may commonly include classified information and the evaluation process will include specific measures and procedures to protect such information, it may be reasonable create a specific sub-programme,” the paper says.
Slovenia
The small mediterranean country says FP10 should implement “challenge-based calls” which would allow researchers greater autonomy. This approach would ensure that research themes and priorities are shaped by “genuine needs and opportunities in research and innovation, rather than being dictated by political decision-makers.”
As for the Widening progamme, Slovenia says not all of its instruments necessarily need 100% funding from the EU, they could also be co-financed. The Widening budget should increase, but “it would be more rational to design the instruments as co-financed in order to stimulate national investment,” the paper says.
Here are links to the papers analysed for this article:
Receive the Funding Newswire 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.
