With the interim review of the research programme underway, there is a need to ensure resources are not spread thinly across duplicate research streams
Joep Roet, a policy adviser at the Netherlands house for Education and Research
Horizon Europe – by and large – is a continuation of its predecessor Horizon 2020. Guided by the maxim “evolution, not revolution,” the 2021 – 2027 research programme has expanded both in scope and budget. Unfortunately, this has resulted in a proliferation of duplicate funding streams.
The theory of evolution holds that a species continually adapts to its environment over time. Individuals develop new traits, while natural selection means traits that are no longer relevant disappear.
That did not happen with Horizon Europe. The current programme gathered many new traits while shedding few. Apart from the large-scale Future and Emerging Technology flagships, little of Horizon 2020 was discontinued.
Compared to the sleeker Horizon 2020, the number of funding instruments in Horizon Europe ballooned, leading to duplication and confusion. The programme increasingly resembles an over-decorated Christmas tree whose branches are laden to breaking point, as yet more baubles are added.
Where less would be more
For me, the most striking example is not in backing multiple research projects that have shared objectives, but in the proliferation of tools that supposedly underpin strategic thinking about funding priorities.
Horizon Europe introduced a new approach that involves setting out a strategic plan for each half of the programme, which in turn is supposed to give direction to annual work programmes.
Layered on top of this, Horizon Europe introduces five themes, or missions, that set concrete goals for research and innovation until 2030. Separate plans set priorities in key sectors, including the strategic energy technology plan, two industrial roadmaps for low-carbon and circular technologies, and research and innovation agendas for each of the 49 partnerships.
While pillar two needs to set priorities, the number of planning tools has got out of hand. Four out of five missions deal with climate and the environment directly, as do the technology plans. Both the missions and the sector plans overlap with several of the partnerships. Meanwhile, the strategic plan coats the whole pillar like fondant icing on a multi-layered wedding cake.
Like fondant, however, the taste and thick texture of the strategic plan can be a bit intense for the average palette.
Looking ahead to the next framework programme, the planning process needs to be streamlined to avoid overlap. One way forward could be single themed plans that set goals (like the missions) in cooperation with relevant partners (like the sector plans) and are aligned with national programmes (like the partnerships), rather than the current mix of coinciding objectives.
Another duplication is the New European Bauhaus. First proposed by Commission president Von der Leyen in her election pitch to the European Parliament, the aim is to foster climate-friendly architecture that is also aesthetically pleasing. Introduced as an add-on six months after Horizon Europe was negotiated, the new Bauhaus sits uncomfortably in the programme, and the Commission has scrambled to find funding for it through the missions and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology.
The reality is that the Bauhaus is trying to fill a gap that does not exist. Two missions already address adaptation to climate change in the built environment, as do several partnerships like Built4People and Driving Urban Transitions to a Sustainable Future. As for the cultural part of the Bauhaus, a partnership for the cultural sector is in the making, while a knowledge and innovation community on culture and creativity started in June 2022.
Finally, consider the EIT. Initially conceived in 2005 by former Commission president José Barroso as Europe’s answer to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it eventually came to life as a number of sector-specific networks of businesses and academics called knowledge and innovation communities (KICs).
Today, EIT, with its vision to become “the leading European initiative that empowers innovators and entrepreneurs to develop world-class solutions,” is being eclipsed by more recent schemes.
The most notable of these is the European Innovation Council, the new flagship innovation programme formed to “identify, develop and scale up breakthrough technologies.” At the same time, funding streams for innovation ecosystems also support KIC-like regional networks.
Meanwhile, the European University Alliances programme, inspired by French President Emanuel Macron, links together higher education institutions in focused, thematic networks, which have both more flexibility and more realistic ambitions – due to their bottom-up nature. It is hence no surprise that the EIT had to reach out to universities to carry out its own Higher Education Initiative.
After 15 years, the EIT is still far from the goal of financial independence, as per its own reviews, and founding partners are starting to leave the network disillusioned. Can the slow-acting EIT adapt to the fast-paced world of the EIC, innovation ecosystems and university alliances that do not buckle under the bureaucratic weight of a central headquarters?
Money
During the drawing up of Horizon Europe, many warned the proposed budget would not deliver on the objectives of the programme. Parliament and civil society organisations said the budget should be at least €120 billion, while a Commission-appointed advisory panel headed by former EU commissioner Pascal Lamy concluded that Horizon Europe would need €160 billion to both meet Europe’s challenges and accommodate the changes in the programme. The final settlement was a more paltry €95.5 billion.
Plagued by oversubscription and low success rates, the jubilee 10th framework programme can ill-afford to waste resources on instruments that are not up to snuff. The main objective of Horizon Europe – excellent research with a tangible impact on the world – is at real risk.
With the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe now underway, we must consider which decorations enhance the Christmas tree and which are detracting from the whole.
Joep Roet is a policy adviser at the Netherlands house for Education and Research (Neth-ER)
Receive our news bulletin each Tuesday & Thursday and news about bridging Europe’s east-west innovation gap twice a month in The Widening. 