MEPs’ changes to Horizon successor ‘a move in right direction’

University groups have broadly welcomed two reports proposing changes to the European Union’s next research framework programme, praising measures seeking to protect the independence of key research bodies, while warning that some elements could still undermine autonomy.

Two draft European Parliament reports, published by MEPs Christian Ehler and René Repasi respectively, suggest several revisions to the design of the successor to Horizon Europe, which will run from 2028 to 2034 with a proposed budget of €175 million ($151 million).

Ehler’s report calls for a budget of €220 million and says that FP10 should operate as a “fully self-standing programme” rather than being subordinate to the Europe Competitiveness Fund (ECF). It also stresses the need to protect academic freedom and the autonomy of the European Research Council (ERC). Other key proposals include the creation of a Council for European Competitiveness Research and a European Council for Global Societal Challenges Research.

The German MEP has been appointed lead rapporteur for the framework programme and co-rapporteur for the ECF, with responsibility for steering both through the parliament. 

The Repasi report addresses the specific programme that implements Horizon Europe, stressing that it must remain “strictly limited to its implementing function” and must not modify the “essential elements or governance arrangements” defined in the main FP10 regulation. It also proposes exploring whether the ERC should be established as a fully independent EU agency with its own legal basis.

In a statement, Kurt Deketelaere, the secretary-general of the League of European Research Universities (LERU), said Ehler’s report was an “unequivocal tribute” to the ERC, praising it for stating that members of the ERC Scientific Council should face “no constraints” in communicating with the academic sector, member states and EU institutions.

On the Repasi report, Deketelaere welcomed the proposal to establish the ERC as an independent union agency with its own legal basis. “If achieved, this would be a major step forward and would quickly overshadow the report’s more questionable elements,” he said.

CESAER, which represents universities of science and technology across Europe, also welcomed the parliamentary proposals, saying they “move in the right direction” by seeking to safeguard the autonomy of FP10. “These reports start from the right premise: Europe needs an FP10 that is strong, autonomous and firmly anchored in excellence,” said Orla Feely, president of CESAER, who also serves as president of University College Dublin.

LERU, however, did raise concerns. The group questioned amendments in the Repasi report accepting directionality within the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions fellowships and proposing “sectoral plans” to be established by the ERC.

The group also flagged the “absence of a clear vision on dual-use and defence research, the lack of a fast-track procedure for the association of the United Kingdom and Switzerland, and the introduction of a Fast Track to Excellence in Pillar I without clarity on its financing” in the Ehler report. 

Secretary general of CESAER Mattias Björnmalm said: “Not everything is perfect, and some elements will need to be improved during the legislative process, but the overall direction is very encouraging.”

seher.asaf@timeshighereducation.com