A great deal of work remains before the EU27 can reach agreement on how the Horizon Europe research funding programme should operate for the 2028-2034 period. This was shown by a public debate between ministers responsible for research, meeting in Brussels on Friday 29 May. The Cyprus Presidency of the Council, whose initial aim had been to conclude the negotiations at this meeting, acknowledged continuing divergences over a series of “sensitive elements”.
These concern in particular the tension between, on the one hand, the “excellence criteria” of Horizon Europe and, on the other, compliance with a minimum degree of geographical balance in project funding. Among the divisive issues is also the degree to which Horizon Europe would be subordinated to the future Competitiveness Fund. The disagreements are such that a compromise by the end of June, hoped for by the Presidency, appears far from guaranteed.
On the first point, the divide pits several western and northern EU capitals, which share most of the funding, against some 15 eastern and southern states (what are known as ‘widening countries’) keen to strengthen the rebalancing measures in the allocation of funds from which they benefit (‘widening measures’). In the previous MFF, “15 countries together received only 14% of the EU’s total net contribution under Horizon Europe”, Romanian State Secretary Andrei Alexandru complained. Yet “the Union should mean everyone, not just a few Member States”, he added, echoed by many counterparts, including Hungary’s new minister, Zoltán Tanács. In passing, the latter called for his country’s swift return to the research programme, from which it had been excluded under the previous government.
“The crucial point for us is that excellence must remain the main criterion for selecting a project and geographical considerations must not prevail”, German State Secretary for Research Marcus Pleyer countered. France struck the same note, as did Sweden, which said that the ‘widening measures’ should “remain properly targeted and confined to pillar 4” of the Horizon Europe programme as proposed by the Commission. At this stage, the amounts allocated to that last pillar remain uncertain. The issue of excellence criteria, which broadly concerns the Competitiveness Fund (see EUROPE 13874/3), could become politically linked to the wider negotiations on the next MFF (see EUROPE 13874/1).
The second major subject of debate concerned the depth of the link between Horizon Europe and the new Competitiveness Fund. According to the Commission’s initial proposal on the post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) (see EUROPE 13682/1), these will be endowed with €175 billion and €410 billion respectively. Last February, a broad group of European universities warned against “any direct or indirect form of subordination of the research programme’s priorities” [...] “to short-term competitiveness objectives” (see EUROPE 13816/19).
However, French minister Philippe Baptiste did defend “an integrated vision allowing operational bridges between the instruments in order to guarantee a strong continuum between research and innovation and industrial deployment”. Along the same lines, Danish minister Christina Egelund considered it “crucial that we have a common governance model between the two regulations in order to guarantee a comprehensive and coherent approach”. Germany also appeared to align itself with that position.
Conversely, Italy’s deputy permanent representative, Marco Canaparo, considered it “important for there to be strong coordination, without however creating dependency”, arguing in particular for a separate programming committee for Horizon Europe. “It is not possible to strengthen European competitiveness by squeezing the space enjoyed by free research. A large part of the most important research comes from work whose results are not necessarily foreseeable”, he argued.
Another set of disagreements revolves around the future operation of public-private partnerships financed through Horizon Europe. “For partnerships to succeed, we must create an ecosystem that is attractive enough for private players - such as industry, SMEs and foundations - to have an interest in committing to them (...). The question of partnerships is one of the most important elements, but also one of the least developed parts of the text”, were the concerns of the Danish minister on this point.
Many states demanded that the EU Council be more involved in the process of selecting those partnerships, rather than leaving the Commission in control. The Commission, for its part, whose objective of simplifying procedures and shortening deadlines is a priority, is worried about excessive complication created in the course of the negotiations. (Original version in French by Clément Solal)