Introduction
Rapporteur Ehler’s draft report on Horizon Europe, the 10th framework programme, overhauls the governance of pillar 2.
Jumping out is his proposal to establish two new Research Councils, modelled after the ERC Scientific Council and the EIC Board.
But what does it mean for pillar 2 to be “expert-driven, and with shorter turnover”?
This article is my attempt to systematically think through that question. It is the first in a two-part series. Part two will consider the consequences for four groups of actors: researchers, research organisations, member states, and the Commission.
In what follows, I will address the following:
- What Ehler intends to accomplish.
- How to break down the expert-led governance into four steps.
- Five questions that the draft report left open.
- How to “improve, not sever” the tight connection to the ECF.
- Why, in spirit, the draft report and Commission proposal are not that different.
Obviously, this analysis is based on the draft report; you can read Ehler's accompanying statement here. Other MEPs could propose amendments until 9 April, so Parliament’s position will change, not to mention negotiations with member states in the Council in the autumn.
That said, support among shadow rapporteurs was noticeably broad when Ehler first presented his draft, and parts are quite similar to what the Commission had in mind, so my bet is on the expert-led Councils staying.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the initial analysis (in Dutch) by Emma Zürcher and Matthijs Timmermans, on whose work this article builds.
What Ehler intends to accomplish
“Conditional on reforms, the budget of the new Framework Programme should be doubled,” said not Ehler but Mario Draghi in his report on the future of European competitiveness. “Europe faces an existential challenge […] to become more productive, while preserving our values of equity and social inclusion. And the only way to become more productive is for Europe to radically change.”
This is the gauntlet that Ehler took up: to reform the programme, double the budget to 220 bn euros, and place research and innovation at the heart of our economy.
In his view, pillar 2, and the broader framework programme, must be focused and agile, with industrial deployment following research, not the other way around. Tying it together is expert-led governance.
First, pillar 2 must be focused. Limited research funding should not be spread too thinly across many topics. The framework programme must prioritise topics that benefit most from EU support, rather than national or private backing. “We must recognise the opportunity cost of choosing one topic over another,” the draft notes. Go big, or go home.
Second, pillar 2 must be agile. Programming should be faster so that funding can respond quickly to scientific or technological breakthroughs. This becomes particularly important when the programme doubles to 220 bn, given the limited administrative capacity of the Commission and member states.
Third, research in pillar 2 must lead to industrial deployment via the ECF, not the other way around. Policymakers are notoriously poor at picking winners, while industry tends to favour incremental over breakthrough innovation. To catch up with China and the US and to escape the mid-tech trap, Horizon Europe must cast a wide net, while the ECF invests selectively and at scale.
Finally, expert-led governance addresses all three challenges, provided the experts involved are at the forefront of their field and have a record of leading-edge innovation.
With these four reforms, the rapporteur intends to secure an ambitious future framework programme—in budget and in scope—that will meet Draghi’s existential challenge.
Pillar 2 programming in four steps
On the whole, pillar 2 programming remains remarkably familiar: thematic priorities are translated into individual call texts, and researchers then submit proposals. The main change is in how priorities are translated, or rather, who translates them.
Concretely, I would break down the suggested governance system of pillar 2 into four steps, which I will describe in more detail below:
- The Commission and member states set priorities through work programmes.
- Two Research Councils advise on how to carry out that assignment.
- Expert teams draft call texts and manage a portfolio of projects.
- The Commission and member states approve call texts or adapt them if serious concerns arise.
A helpful comparison is rally racing. The Commission is the organiser, setting the objectives. Expert teams drive the cars as best they can. In the passenger seat, Research Council members help navigate the car from start to finish. And at the finish line, the Commission waves the flag, checking whether the rules were followed, as judge and arbiter.
Let’s go through the four steps.
Interpretation of pillar 2 programming based on the draft report.
Step 1: Work programmes
Step one is to adopt the work programmes.
The draft report suggests that pillar 2 work programmes cover the bare minimum. They identify the main thematic priorities, allocate the budget for each, and include a call for expressions of interest to assemble an expert team for each priority.
That’s it.
Notably absent are call texts. They are published independently some time after the work programmes are adopted. This separation is necessary to incorporate expert input while preserving the Commission's prerogatives and financial accountability, as we shall see later.
Work programmes are to be prepared and adopted by the Commission following consultation with national expert groups. Input will also come from the two Councils, which shall advise the Commission on the priorities for each window, and from the Observatory on Emerging Technologies, to be established under the ECF.
Each of the five windows gets a work programme, including the Global Societal Challenges window.
There will be three rounds of work programmes, each spanning three years. This means the final year of one programme overlaps with the first year of the next, so ongoing priorities can carry over while new ones are added. (Calendar note: new work programmes in 2028, 2030, and 2032.)
Moonshots and missions are elevated to general instruments, meaning they can be supported across multiple windows and, preferably, other programmes. Notably, the new instruments in pillar 2—Fast Track to Innovation and European Demonstrators—are not part of the governance system and follow the same procedure as the rest of FP10.
Finally, a technical note. Ehler suggests adopting the work programmes as delegated acts, as they are limited to thematic priorities and related budgets, essentially supplementing and fleshing out the objectives of FP10. Until now, work programmes have been adopted as implementing acts.
This does several things. First, it allows separating work programmes and call texts. Second, it gives national experts a bigger say than in the ECF proposal. Third, it grants Parliament and the Council the right to object if the work programme overstepped its mandate (which has been extremely rare historically) and even a veto (which, to my knowledge, is unprecedented).
The main point here is that public authorities should set political priorities, while experts decide how to accomplish them.
Step 2: Research Councils
Step two is the work of the Research Councils, which are the linchpin in this system.
The draft report suggests establishing a Council for European Competitiveness Research to oversee the four competitiveness windows linked to the ECF, and a European Council for Global Societal Challenges Research to oversee the societal window.
Each Council shall comprise at least fifteen prominent experts from science, innovation, industry, and civil society. Members shall be appointed part-time by the Commission for five years, with one extension of up to six years.
The Councils have four tasks:
- To advise the Commission and national experts on the thematic priorities of the work programme and to attend the relevant meetings.
- To guide the selection of expert teams by advising the Commission on calls for expressions of interest. For example, they may specify additional selection criteria or recommend weighting.
- To oversee the work of the expert teams, mainly by providing feedback on draft call texts.
- To establish a code of conduct and clear rules on conflicts of interest for themselves and for the expert teams.
An obvious comparison is the ERC Scientific Council, although it is not perfect. The Scientific Council’s responsibilities extend further, including ERC strategy, evaluation procedures, and the composition of evaluation panels, none of which the Councils may do.
Essentially, the Councils serve as the supreme advisory body for pillar 2. They advise the Commission on work programmes and expert selection. Even feedback on call texts is ultimately advisory, as the Commission must decide whether to adopt or adapt them at the final stage.
Step 3: Expert teams
Step three is to draft the call texts, which is done by expert teams.
For each thematic priority in the work programmes, the Commission will appoint at least one lead expert, supported by an expert team, following a call for expressions of interest.
The Commission shall select them based on four criteria: scientific expertise, a track record of innovation success, commercial experience, and management skills. Their appointment is full-time, valid for up to five years, and non-renewable. To clarify, these experts are not the same as the Council members.
The expert teams have three tasks:
- To draft calls for their thematic priority. Draft calls are developed on a rolling basis until the allocated budget is fully committed. Before submitting a draft call to the Commission, the lead expert shall present it to the relevant Council for feedback.
- To engage with industry, academia, civil society, and the investment community to gather intelligence on emerging needs, technological developments, and market dynamics, ensuring that calls reflect real-world opportunities and challenges.
- To manage a portfolio of projects in their area across the entire project lifecycle, offering support, facilitating access to relevant networks, and fostering connections between projects where there is shared interest or where closer coordination could bring additional value to the Union.
The Commission may appoint one official to a team to ensure compliance with EU rules and objectives. I expect this to become standard practice, alongside at least one project officer from the executive agencies assisting the team.
The model here is the EIC programme managers who steer a challenge and manage a portfolio. Unlike the individual programme managers, however, the expert teams are not involved in evaluating proposals and will probably oversee larger budgets.
Step 4: Approve or amend
Step four is for the Commission to either approve or amend the call texts.
If the Commission approves the call text, it must convene a programme committee meeting within ten days. National experts on the committee must submit their opinions on the call text within five days of the meeting. (Technical note: this is an accelerated advisory procedure.)
Alternatively, the Commission may amend the call text, but only if it is out of scope, illegal, or significantly overlaps with another call.
The amended call text will be sent to the programme committee in the same manner as is customary today—but not under the ECF proposal—meaning that national experts can line-edit the text and then vote. (Technical note: this is the standard examination procedure.)
The Commission should also inform Parliament and the Council about these changes.
Once the call text is approved, it is published online so researchers can submit proposals.
Schematic overview of pillar 2 based on the draft report.
[...]
Continue reading here.
