Research infrastructure operators voice concerns over new EU co-financing scheme

The European Commission says Horizon Europe should cover “up to 20%” of the cost of constructing critical new European research infrastructures and upgrading existing facilities. But infrastructure operators and other observers fear that Europe’s research labs will not be able to comply with the co-financing scheme.

Europe’s research infrastructures come in all shapes and sizes, from large, single-site facilities such as the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, to distributed or virtual facilities such as the European Social Survey. 

In general, the primary responsibility for funding these infrastructures falls on the host country. But faced with low-state budgets, increased operational costs and the lack of adequate funding instruments, EU governments struggle to invest, per the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures.

Now, the Commission proposal for the next Horizon Europe programme includes a plan to ensure that 20% of the cost of new research infrastructures is covered by EU funds. A Commission official told Science|Business that the plan will also apply to projects aiming to upgrade and expand existing research facilities.

The Commission believes the co-financing mechanism will improve the alignment between EU and national priorities, and speed up the decision-making processes which, in turn, will attract and stabilise funding.

“It should bring further collective confidence in reaching agreed objectives in time to remain competitive, and therefore leverage further and faster engagement from more countries,” the Commission official said.

Funding for research infrastructures has been precarious and was a major point of contention in every iteration of the EU’s Framework Programme for research. “I think the member states sometimes overlook them in the interest of other items,” said Nicolas Pade, executive director of the European Marine Biological Resource Centre (EMBRC).

While the centre is fortunate enough to be relatively well-funded in terms of national contributions, these cover its operational costs and “nothing else,” Pade said. Now, the Commission’s co-financing plans imply that, to obtain more funding, “we have to put our own money on the table, where we are short of money to put on the table,” he said. For example, the EMBRC is preparing to submit up to 11 project applications in September, and all require some kind of contribution from its own resources.

The challenge research infrastructures face in covering costs was also made in a position paper published in June by the Cesaer university association. Most rely on competitive grants from public agencies, which makes it hard to recover the full cost of maintaining or upgrading their infrastructure. “It undercuts their ability to build reserves for reinvestment,” said Mattias Björnmalm, secretary general of Cesaer.

Related articles

• Horizon Europe budget to double, but €68B will remain in Competitiveness Fund
• Time and money key to greening Europe’s research infrastructures, says new ESFRI chair

What is needed is a sustainable funding model that combines EU financing, national and regional public funding, and private investments. 

“What really matters is legal clarity and alignment with state aid rules,” Björnmalm said. “Without that, infrastructures risk being locked into short-term fixes instead of long-term stability.” He would like to see the Commission channel national contributions into centrally managed EU instruments that are exempt from state aid rules, especially for cross-border infrastructures.

Meanwhile, Rory Fitzgerald, director of the European Social Survey, wants to be sure that EU support is not limited to bricks and mortar. “We build new infrastructure every time we collect additional rounds of data,” said Fitzgerald. The Commission should also play a role in supporting these costs, he added.

Budget overhaul

Research infrastructure operators are also troubled by the increasing emphasis on competitiveness in the next iteration of Horizon Europe. “I am not particularly happy with research always being linked to a final spin-off or marketable product,” Pade said. Industry represents only a small proportion of the EMBRC’s users, so driving a disproportionate amount of funding in this direction might undermine its value as a research resource. “We work with companies on innovation whenever it is relevant and possible,” he said.

He welcomed the Commission decision to move research infrastructures funding to the newly created Pillar 4 in the next Horizon Europe, which will support a common European research policy. However, it is still unclear how much of the €16.2 billion proposed for Pillar 4 will go to infrastructures.

Finally, he wants to see a better integration of research infrastructures into the Commission’s strategic thinking. “Frequent shifting priorities makes it very challenging for the research infrastructures to meet expectations, and we are at a time where we should be consolidating their activities, not reinventing them,” he said.