Let us sum up the recent sequence of events that were supposed to lead to a decision being made by the EU institutions.
On 7 June 2018, the Commission showed its hand: a ‘package’ that consisted primarily of a proposed Regulation establishing the new framework programme (COM(2018) 435 final) and a proposed Decision establishing the specific implementing programme for the same (COM(2018) 436 final) (see EUROPE 12018). The proposed envelope for the next seven years is €94.1 billion (in current prices) for the framework programme; if we add in the research innovation grants under the Euratom programme (€2.4 billion) and the InvestEU Fund (€3.5 billion), the Commission can go to the press with the nice round figure of €100 billion. Still hopeful, on the basis of the ‘Lamy’ Report (2017), for a doubling of the budget, the scientific community was fairly disappointed.
Aside from the European Innovation Council, the main change brought in was to identify a series of scientific missions of a societal nature, to prove that the Union is doing something about the most pressing issues in people’s everyday lives, such as urban transport, cancer and cleaning the oceans (see EUROPE 12188).
In relation to the acts of 2013, the Regulation will merge the framework programme and the rules of participation into a single instrument. In particular, the Decision, like the Regulation, will be adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, contrary to article 182(4) TFEU; by adding article 173(3) TFEU (Industry) as the legal of the act, the Commission gave the Parliament the chance of a say in the decision. It explains this move by the link between stimulating innovation and industrial competitiveness. On 28 September, the Council of the EU unanimously rejected this secondary legal base (see EUROPE 12106), with the effect of making a ‘trilogue’ session vital only to bring the Regulation into being: Commission and Parliament take the opposite view.
The European Parliament is not letting the grass grow under its feet. On 21 November, reports were adopted by the ‘Industry, Research and Energy’ committee (ITRE); at the plenary session of 12 December, the institution reached its position on each of the draft acts, by a very sizeable majority (see EUROPE 12142). It has outstripped the Commission for budgetary ambition – €120 billion (in 2018 prices) for the framework programme alone – and for climate ambition: the programme’s contribution to the EU’s overall efforts must rise from 25% to 35%. The EP also wishes to bolster the fight against childhood cancers and to support SMEs, the cultural and creative industries and cultural heritage.
Over at the Council, notwithstanding the legal veto referred to above, the quest for consensus is proving far more involved. Its position on the Regulation was adopted on 30 November (see EUROPE 12151, 12150). There are points on which the ministers agree concerning the EIC, public-private partnerships and certain elements of the programme’s structure. However, there are also some divisions that have been masked and as for the envelope, it is anybody’s guess. The position is, moreover, officially denoted a ‘partial general orientation’ and is flanked by declarations from several member states that are dissatisfied or concerned, for one reason or another. Basically, only one thing was clear as the year drew to an end: the Parliament knows what it wants better than the Council, but the Council knows very well what it doesn’t want.
The Romanian Presidency then saw fit to set the schedule for the ‘trilogues’ on the Regulation: 9 January, 29 January, 21 February, 12 March. The first two meetings yielded little, with the Parliament complaining that it was impossible to discuss the framework programme properly without knowing what’s going to be in the specific programme. And that, despite intensive work by experts, the meeting of the ‘Competitiveness’ Council of 19 February did not allow an official position to be reached and did no more than take stock of the situation (see other article). A consensus has, at least, emerged on the outlines of the missions and partnerships. In particular, it reiterated its stance on the legal base of the specific programme, whilst pledging an intention of informally consulting the European Parliament. All of these elements allow for a degree of hope for progress in the inter-institutional negotiations.
Time is of the essence, if there is to be agreement on the two acts before the end of the legislative period. All political players know full well that the announcement of the adoption of the mega-programme for research and innovation is theoretically possible before the elections of May. But the global agreement on the multi-annual financial framework 2021-2027 is now not expected before the autumn, and this will quite clearly have an influence on the various programmes’ envelopes. If research and innovation are given a position of sanctuary, is it possible for this to be reflected in actual numbers this spring? In any event, a sizeable delay would lead to problems of overlap with the current programme; if doubt takes a hold, if calls for proposals are not made early enough, the best researchers will look elsewhere for funding opportunities and many jobs linked to this EU policy could go. On the horizon, the sky is looking leaden.
To finish off, I’d just like to say a few words about titles. This is not unimportant since, as the official texts explain, as many citizens as possible need to be informed about and even involved in this major European ambition. To give something a name is to bring it into being. Giving great names is an art form. Let us gloss over the repeated bizarreness of these ‘European Councils’ (the summit of ‘déjà vu’) in naming scientific and administrative bodies – which obviously breaches the intended political readability of Europe for ordinary citizens – and focus instead on the programmes, particularly as the Commission has already done much better in other fields.
The inaugural act of the series was the ESPRIT programme, an excellent acronym that got people talking and was one of the factors in its success. This was followed by a stupefying lack of imagination on the part of the decision-makers, a quality you would have thought essential for communication, but also in science (see also Einstein, Bachelard, Jacob, Changeux, Wilczek, Reeves, etc.). The framework programmes were referred to by their numbers, which ran from 1 to 7. Then, as numbers were no doubt considered a bit cold, hello Horizon! This still needs to be qualified, as the word refers first and foremost to an imaginary line: if there is to be any hope of moving away from fiction, you have to think of it as a perspective, the travel destination. But what else?
The first ‘Horizon’ was identified chronologically: 2020 – and we’ll be there next year: mission accomplished, Champagne all round! And now the future ‘Horizon’ is to be defined geographically – but we are already at that part of the globe! Is this meant to suggest that the definition of innovation is knocking on an open door? This framework programme that is so important for the future deserves a bit more intellectual effort before it is adopted.
Let us venture a proposal, amongst other options. Why not call it ESPOIR, the French word for hope, for European Strategic Programme for Optimal Innovation and Research? This would express an intention of connecting up with the great messages of hope borne by scientists and inventors for two centuries, hope of a better and a longer life, in a quality environment. The hope of Science versus oversimplification, the re-emergence of zealotry, allowing us to better understand the Two Infinites. The hope placed by millions of families in medical advancement. The hope invested by Innovation in a society of progression, dependability, of jobs, healthcare, security. Last but not least, hope springs eternal. As you know.
Alas! It would take quite a twist in the tale to persuade the EU to give up on the name ‘Horizon Europe’, so pleased with itself as it is with this pearl that allies and abstruseness with banality. Good luck selling it to the general public and the powers that be!
See the first part of this editorial: EUROPE 12196
Renaud Denuit.