Widening countries’ wish list for FP10: Part 2

FP10 does not start until 2028, but informal talks are going on now, with the European Commission expected to publish a proposal later this year on the size and content of the next Framework Programme for research and innovation. 

Negotiations have already started, mostly behind closed doors, with member states, MEPs and lobbies increasingly worried about Commission plans to fold FP10 into a broader Competitiveness Fund. Without a doubt, the political rift over the role of EU research and innovation in a broader push for economic competitiveness will define the FP10 negotiations. But it is also likely that old rifts between newer and older, poorer and richer member states over who benefits more from the Framework Programme will also stay on the agenda. 

The future of the Widening programme in FP10 is likely to generate heated debate. After all, it is the Commission’s main tool for trying to help poorer member states boost their research and innovation capacity. 

Back in November, we published an overview of the FP10 debate, based on papers from seven member states in central and eastern Europe that set out what they want from FP10. All were in favour of the Widening programme. A previous analysis by Science|Business of 15 position papers from universities, research organisations and industry groups also showed strong support for Widening to be rolled over into FP10. 

However, there are diverging opinions on the structure, the instruments, the budget and the purpose of these measures. In an attempt to keep track of the main points of contention between member states, we take a look at a second round of five position papers from Widening countries.

Recommended read:
What Widening countries want from FP10

Croatia

According to Croatia’s ministry of science, education and youth, FP10 should “significantly contribute to overcoming” the research and innovation gap within the EU. In a paper published in January, the ministry says the EU should make use of talent and innovation potential across all member states. 

The ministry also says that “tailor-made and diversified activities for countries with underperforming [research and innovation] systems” should continue to be financed within in FP10. The funding is “indispensable support to Widening countries,” the paper says. 

At the moment, 3% of the Horizon Europe budget goes to Widening funding schemes, but Croatia wants that pot to be bigger. “[The Widening] instruments have set the bar for the future” but the Commission should expand the Widening programme with new instruments, the paper says.

Croatia is also lobbying for a revised “hop-on” instrument, which allows partners from Widening countries to join EU-funded research consortia after they get off the ground. The scheme has had mixed results so far, and Croatia says the main problem is that new Widening partners cannot “hop on” a consortium that already has a partner from a Widening country. “The hop-on instrument should be revised to allow joining projects that already include a Widening country in their consortium,” the paper says. 

Croatia is also calling for dedicated funding streams for Widening countries in competitions for European Research Council (ERC) and European Innovation Council grants. But this proposal is likely to be met with strong opposition from member states that insist excellence should be the only consideration in awarding ERC funds.

Estonia

In a short paper published in January, Estonia reiterated its commitment to the Widening programme. “We consider it essential to continue with the Widening measures, as the gap in [research and innovation] capacity still persists in Europe.”

However, the Widening funding schemes should take into account national specificities and help boost levels of participation in other parts of the Framework Programme. “The structure of these measures has to support gradual progress, opening up new opportunities as development progresses,” the paper says. 

Estonia also calls on the Commission to “enhance the attractiveness and equitable accessibility of [ERC] grants, without compromising the quality of research.”

Portugal

In a paper published in November last year, Portugal said the EU should “dedicate funding to instruments that genuinely spread excellence and innovation, ensuring overall participation of all member states in all pillars of FP10.” Widening countries have increased their participation in Horizon Europe, but a handful of richer countries with more efficient research and innovation systems are still taking the bulk of EU funding. 

Türkiye 

Neither Ankara nor Brussels have signalled that there is enough political will to move Türkiye closer to EU membership, but the country can participate in the Framework Programme and the Widening schemes. 

In a paper published in November, the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye said the EU’s “Widening actions are commendable for their positive impact on low research and innovation performing countries.”

The paper says Widening measures remain strategically important for increasing participation from underperforming countries, citing a “persisting tendency” for consortia to form around established networks.

“Instruments such as Twinning, Hop On Facility and Excellence Hubs remain crucial in addressing these challenges,” the paper says. 

Here are links to the papers analysed for this article:

• Croatia
• Estonia
• Portugal
• Türkiye