51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

Sector leaders have cautiously welcomed the?European Commission¡¯s proposed budget for the successor to Horizon Europe, celebrating the recommended boost in funding for the research framework programme while raising concerns about its relationship with the?new European Competitiveness Fund.

Proposing an almost €2 trillion (?1.7 trillion) budget for the EU between 2028 and 2034, commission president Ursula von der Leyen said on 16 July that the Competitiveness Fund would have a budget of €410 billion, which would ¡°include¡± €175 billion for FP10, as the Horizon Europe successor is commonly known.

The figure is almost double the €95.5 billion budget assigned to Horizon Europe between 2021 and 2027, although it falls short of the €200 billion called for by sector leaders. The framework programme will comprise four pillars, the commission said: excellent science; competitiveness and society; innovation; and the European research area.

An uplifted budget was also proposed for the Erasmus+ programme, from?€26.2 billion for 2021-2027 to?€40.8 billion between 2028 and 2034 with its scope being extended to include?volunteering. This will create a?¡°one-stop-shop for all EU funded youth projects and initiatives, helping make these opportunities more accessible and inclusive¡±, the commission said.?

Silvia Gomez Recio, secretary general of the Young European Research Universities Network (YERUN), said she was ¡°gladly surprised¡± by the budget announcement. ¡°Considering that Horizon Europe¡¯s future looked uncertain as recently as January, this proposal represents a significant political achievement,¡± she said.

Calling the proposal ¡°very promising¡±, Gomez Recio welcomed the reinforcement of the European Research Council and continued support for the Marie Sk?odowska-Curie Actions. ¡°In theory, the architecture of FP10 looks strong. The key now will be ensuring that this ambition is?reflected in implementation,¡± she said.

The YERUN secretary general drew particular attention to the proposed role of the European Competitiveness Fund as the ¡°main vehicle for the competitiveness elements¡± of the second pillar. While von der Leyen confirmed earlier this year that?FP10 will remain a ¡°self-standing¡± programme, the budget proposal says it will be ¡°tightly connected¡± to the new fund, a relationship sector leaders say needs more clarity.

Kurt Deketelaere, secretary general of the League of European Research Universities (LERU), said the connection between the two ¡°remains opaque¡±, adding, ¡°One wonders why such a connection is needed at all ¨C and whether its intended objectives couldn¡¯t simply be achieved through Horizon Europe itself. As it stands, it risks creating unnecessary complexity.¡±

Calling the plans for pillars one, three and four ¡°broadly acceptable¡±, Deketelaere said some concerns persist, among them the lack of a civilian clause barring investment in dual-use and military technologies, an intended increase in ¡°directionality¡± in the Marie Sk?odowska-Curie Actions and a reduced term for the European Research Council presidency. ?

The unchanged rules for association to the framework programme were ¡°disappointing¡±, he added, calling for a ¡°fast-track¡± association procedure for countries such as the UK and Switzerland.

Deketelaere welcomed the overall objectives of the proposed Horizon Europe successor, while urging a ¡°stronger focus on excellent research and innovation¡± and a greater involvement of researchers and innovators in defining the future agenda. ¡°That agenda should not be driven solely by technology and competitiveness,¡± he said. ¡°It must also respond to the?grand societal challenges, with meaningful inclusion of the?social sciences and humanities.¡±

Amanda Crowfoot, secretary general of the European 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ Association, called the proposals ¡°highly encouraging¡±, commenting, ¡°The proposal to retain Horizon Europe as a stand-alone programme and to double its budget sends a strong and strategic signal of the EU¡¯s enduring commitment to [research and innovation].

Welcoming the continued bottom-up nature of the European Research Council and Marie Sk?odowska-Curie Actions, as well as the ongoing presence of collaborative research in the framework programme¡¯s second pillar, Crowfoot stressed, ¡°it is vital that this is not limited to projects close to market. Strong support for excellent, early-stage research should remain a clear priority.¡±

¡°While FP10 is formally a stand-alone programme, the proposed approach with joint work programmes, a single rulebook, and shared governance with the ECF could risk undermining FP10 autonomy,¡± she stated. ¡°Ensuring that scientific excellence and long-term knowledge creation remain central will be key to securing the programme¡¯s full impact.¡±

emily.dixon@timeshighereducation.com