MEPs agree a strong negotiating line on Horizon Europe

The European Parliament “rapporteurs” for Horizon Europe have set out a compromise agreement on the structure of the next framework programme (FP10) – the legislative proposal will be considered at a meeting of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy next week.

Once agreement has been reached, a further round of negotiations between the Parliament, the European Commission, and EU governments will take place – individual member states have already indicated their desire to see the overall EU budget come down from previous expansive proposals.

René Repasi MEP has shared the agreed parliamentary compromise along with explanatory notes in a post on social media – he describes the new text as protecting independence and excellence in the 2028–34 Horizon Europe programme.

Pushing back against the recent Irish EU presidency proposals for a reduced FP10 budget, the newly agreed negotiation position reaffirms MEPs’ desire for a €200bn programme, along with a “clear budgetary identity” for Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (with almost €14bn assigned) and a 3.3 per cent allowance for widening participation.

The proposal would also see “separate but coordinated” governance and programming structures for Horizon Europe and the European Competitiveness Fund, after the European Commission proposed that research within Horizon would be more closely aligned with European industrial priorities. MEPs are pushing instead for a new expert-led governance model for pillar two of FP10, rather than have priorities set by the Commission:

“Horizon’s collaborative research and innovation activities under Pillar II would retain its own work programmes and research-based selection criteria, rather than having its priorities determined by the ECF’s industrial policy agenda.”

This is accompanied by measures to strengthen the autonomy of the European Research Council (ERC). The ERC’s budget would be €36bn over the period.

Various amendments to the text also aim to put social sciences and humanities on a more equal footing with other elements of FP10. As one early insertion puts it:

“Science, technology and social structures are inherently interlinked, with their evolution being mutually shaped and interdependent. The development, diffusion and uptake of technologies are significantly influenced by social factors and may lead to unintended transformations of societal structures. Addressing these dynamics requires the Programme to provide strong interdisciplinarity, in particular through the enhanced integration of social sciences and humanities throughout the R&I process, including from the earliest stages of technology development, and to dedicate sufficient resources and effort to it.”

Third countries

The MEPs’ proposal would introduce a specific reference to Horizon Europe association for the UK and Switzerland, for which participation would be in accordance with the general principles already established in their existing agreements with the EU.

For other third countries, it’s suggested that a specific international agreement would be required, and the European Parliament’s consent would need to be sought. Prior to association, the European Commission would have to assess the state of academic freedom in each third country.

And the Commission would also be granted the power to designate an associated country “trusted partner” status (a possibility likely to be welcomed by UK institutions). Trusted partners would need a track record of participation in EU framework programmes, and its participation must not “contravene the strategic interests” of the EU. Countries thus designated would largely be treated in the same way as member states for the purposes of Horizon Europe:

“For the purposes of this Regulation, trusted partners should be treated as Member States with regard to any restrictions on participation in the Programme or the exploitation of its results adopted for reasons including, but not limited to, research security, economic security, global security and European competitiveness.”

This would mean that research institutions and other organisations in trusted partner countries would not be excluded from participation in specific calls – unless it were demonstrated that their participation “would have a direct and negative effect on the Union’s fundamental values, core interests or competitiveness.”