Associated country universities demand place at FP10 table

University associations from four countries associated to the EU’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme have banded together to warn that the programme needs to be “research-led” and include support for curiosity-driven science.  

In an open letter on May 13, the UK’s Russell Group, U15 Canada, Swissuniversities, and Universities New Zealand suggest they are concerned that the next programme, known as FP10, could drift away from a research focus and exclude them from sensitive projects. 

In Brussels, the European Commission and MEPs are fighting over the extent to which FP10’s research areas will be controlled by a much broader instrument, the mooted €409 billion European Competitiveness Fund (ECF). 

The fear is that the ECF will be steered by the EU’s needs of the day, be it semiconductor production or drones for defence,  meaning FP10 becomes subsumed by big industrial or defence-related projects decided by Brussels.

The details remain unclear, and the exact link between the programmes is up for grabs. 

But the debate has spooked non-EU countries that pay to participate in Horizon Europe. They worry the research focus in FP10 could be diluted in favour of immediate technological needs, or there could be more defence-related projects that they are excluded from. At the beginning of the current programme in 2021, the Commission initially excluded the UK, Switzerland and Israel from quantum and space projects. 

In their open letter, sent to the Cypriot presidency of the EU Council and the Commission, the university umbrella bodies say they want “curiosity-driven, fundamental research” protected in all parts of FP10. Collaborative grants in FP10 also need to remain “firmly research-led,” they add. 

Topic exclusions, where some research projects are off limits to non-EU members, should be kept to a minimum, they write. Researchers from associated countries must be “treated equally in applications and collaborations,” they say. 

The ECF also throws open the question of FP10 governance. Currently, associated countries send observers to the meetings where research calls in Horizon Europe are decided. Although they don’t get a formal vote, they do get a say. 

If the ECF steers parts of FP10, however, it’s less clear how countries such as the UK or Canada will maintain their voice in the process. The letter asks that associated country observers “retain their clear role, so they can feed into the governance of Pillar 2 as at present,” referring to collaborative grants.

Related articles

• Horizon Europe is now truly global. But what comes next?
• Parliament shares alternative vision for ECF link with Horizon Europe
• Associated countries seek bigger role in Horizon Europe agenda setting

The associated country universities also want a speedy association process for FP10, so there’s no gap in access after the present Horizon Europe ends. At the beginning of the current programme, the UK and Switzerland were excluded temporarily due to wider political disagreements. 

“We hope the Council will work to ensure smooth and rapid association for trusted partners, so they can take part in FP10 from day one,” the letter says. “Political discussions at an early stage would instil confidence and help maximise the benefits.” 

The letter is part of an ongoing and unresolved tussle over whether the Framework Programme, set to have a €175 billion budget for 2028-34, is truly global, or will be EU-first. 

The Commission has brought in New Zealand, Canada, South Korea and Japan, and negotiations with India are ongoing. Longstanding partners such as the UK, Israel, Switzerland and Türkiye are also associated.

Despite their economic weight and contributions to the programme, these associated countries remain second-class citizens when it comes to deciding the shape of the programme. But their science diplomats have been demanding a greater role the governance, and this week’s letter from universities adds to those calls.