Widening is working, but it is too soon to celebrate, say observers

A recent midterm analysis of Horizon Europe contained good news about Widening, the mechanism intended to close the research and innovation gap between EU nations. 

It showed that the share of funding received by the 15 Widening countries increased from 9% to 14% in the first three years of Horizon Europe, and that they were involved in 58% of collaborative projects, up from 47% under Horizon 2020.

But expert observers think it is too soon to celebrate. “We are a long way away from closing the innovation divide between Widening and non-Widening countries,” said Ian Gauci Borda, senior executive at Xjenza Malta, formerly known as the Malta Council for Science and Technology. 

In particular, the progress in the headline figures is not evenly shared between the Widening countries. “The three to four top performing Widening countries are taking the majority of the 14% allocated to the Widening group, leaving the rest with a measly 2% to 5% across the programme,” he added. 

Participation in projects linked to the European Research Council, the European Innovation Council and research infrastructures are especially unbalanced.

The results of the midterm evaluation appear to support the continuation of the Widening measures in the next Framework Programme, FP10, and perhaps even their extension. For Gauci Borda, they could be split from the tools intended to reform and strengthen the European Research Area to make up a standalone Widening pillar. 

The Widening task force currently operating within the European Parliament has also suggested that the European Commission implement a separate Widening programme, with mainstreamed instruments across the whole of FP10 to boost research and innovation-centred activities.

According to Joanna Kubiak, acting director of the Wielkopolska Region Brussels Office and a member of the Parliament’s Widening task force, it is important to remember that improving a country’s research performance takes time. “It requires systemic changes within countries, collecting experience and know-how, as well as building a solid network of contacts in other countries,” she said.

Even so, she would like to see the Widening countries play a more active role in shaping the Framework Programme and its instruments and topics. 

Other observers are less keen on seeing the Widening programme extended. 

For Monica Dietl, executive director of the Initiative for Science in Europe, the main challenge is ensuring that research communities in the Widening countries have equal access to the whole Framework Programme, responding to their needs. The separate instruments of the Widening programme, in her view, are only “deviating” their attention from the rest of Horizon Europe.

Related articles

• Budget first, impact later: academic community reacts to Horizon Europe analysis
• Commission to review ‘differents parts’ Widening programme, Zaharieva says

These are “stigmatising” research communities in countries identified as “less performing or just not excellent enough, and that’s not the point,” she said, speaking to Science|Business in a personal capacity. 

What matters, she added, is to improve the working conditions of researchers so that they bring as much value to EU projects as their peers from other nations.

The Commission has yet to reveal its plans for Widening in FP10, but the signals for its continuation are not encouraging. A recently leaked chart detailing the structure of the proposed European Competitiveness Fund, which now seems likely to absorb FP10, covers a range of Horizon Europe clusters, but makes no mention of Widening.