28 oktober 2024
Plaatsvervangend directeur
Meer informatie nodig? Stel uw vraag aan één van onze medewerkers
Horizon Europe review led by Manuel Heitor gets the big things right, Joep Roet writes
The high-level group on the interim evaluation of Horizon Europe, headed by the engineering professor and former Portuguese science minister Manuel Heitor (pictured), has hit the nail on the head. Europe must invest in a robust and independent framework programme with a budget of €220 billion, or a bit more than €31bn annually.
The group’s report, published on 16 October, and nearly a year in the making, builds its case on a grim observation. By all metrics, it notes, “Europe is falling behind in science, technology and innovation”.
This echoes high-profile reports on EU competitiveness by former prime ministers of Italy, Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi, published earlier in the year—not to mention European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen’s new political guidelines for the Commission. All warn that Europe must revitalise its research and innovation ecosystem or risk tumbling towards irrelevance.
There is much to welcome in the Heitor group’s recommendations. In particular, the 15 experts propose a simple but elegant guiding principle for the next framework programme (FP10): EU R&D schemes should do what national programmes cannot.
The logic of Heitor’s razor is undeniable: through collaboration and competition at the European level, the framework programme allows us to accomplish what is otherwise impossible. And given its relatively modest budget—Horizon Europe, the current programme, makes up only 6 per cent of all R&I funding in Europe—every euro matters.
With that principle in place, the group rightly focuses on strengthening the framework programme’s unique selling point: competitive excellence. Open, non-prescriptive calls for proposals are the best way for Europe to fully benefit from its researchers’ ingenuity.
That is why FP10 should enshrine the criteria of excellence and impact, and reinforce the framework programme’s bottom-up, excellence-driven funding schemes: the European Research Council, European Innovation Council, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions and collaborative projects.
Heitor’s group also rightly places EU efforts in the context of national and private investments—the other 94 per cent of funding. The framework programme cannot solve Europe’s problems by itself.
EU member states must take responsibility for their own research and innovation ecosystems, and invest 3 per cent of GDP in R&I, a goal set in 2002 and never reached. A competitive Europe starts in the hundreds of ecosystems that make up the union.
The report also shines in its chapter on radical simplification, user orientation and efficiency. This is crucial.
Although the report does not mention it, the most significant simplification is easy to achieve: change as little as possible from Horizon Europe. By definition, new instruments and rule changes require adaptation, which adds complexity.
FP10 also needs to be simpler at the programme level. The Commission, Parliament and member states must make some tough choices. Redundant and underperforming parts of the programme should be eliminated or moved to other EU schemes.
Here the Heitor group points to the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, the five R&I missions, and several instruments for widening participation in EU R&D. All have been scrutinised by others, including the Court of Auditors.
Finally, FP10 needs simplification at the project level. As the framework programme’s scope has expanded, it has become increasingly difficult to navigate for researchers, who are simply looking to fund their ideas.
User-friendliness is key. This is why Europe needs a simple and coherent framework programme—and moving it inside the rumoured competitiveness mega-fund risks that.
While hitting all the right notes, the report is not flawless. It pays scant attention to the social sciences and humanities, which are mentioned only briefly under the societal challenges.
It could also have provided more detail on how to implement its recommendations, particularly when it proposes sweeping reforms such as new industrial and societal advisory councils.
Horizon Europe is already mired in bureaucracy. This includes the basic building blocks of any framework programme, the specifics of the current programme and seven annual work programmes.
On top of this come two strategic plans, sectoral strategic R&I agendas, partnership governing boards and strategic coordination processes, advisory technology and innovation platforms, and mission boards, among others.
No one disputes that FP10 should continue to foster industrial competitiveness and address societal challenges—quite the contrary. But adding another two advisory councils seems unnecessary, if not counterproductive. It also goes against the report’s user-centric spirit.
Overall, though, the Heitor group has done a commendable job of evaluating Horizon Europe. The incoming Commissioner for research and innovation, Ekaterina Zaharieva, should pay close attention.
The stakes could hardly be higher.
Joep Roet is deputy director of Neth-ER, a Dutch office in Brussels that facilitates European research collaboration. He writes here in a personal capacity.
This article first appeared in Research Europe.
REGISTER NOW: Neth-ER annual conference “Investing in Knowledge & Changing Global Perspectives”
Zaharieva overleeft hoorzitting: wat belooft zij aan het Parlement?
Parlement zet kennis op eerste plaats in Europese begroting 2025
ERA vordert, maar lijdt onder groot gebrek aan O&I investeringen