We welcome the alignment between the European Commission and the Council to recognise the crucial role of research and innovation (R&I) in boosting Europe’s competitiveness. However, the Council must go further than to simply recognise “the necessity of an adequate budget” of the framework programme. The issues at stake for Europe’s competitiveness and resilience require the Member States to commit specifically and credibly to increasing investment in R&I, with clear targets and milestones, at both the European and national levels.
The framework programme, even though it still accounts for a small share of total EU spending in R&D, has a critical impact on Europe’s competitiveness. Its unique transnational reach enables excellence in research and scientific collaboration within and beyond Europe, and the development of cutting-edge infrastructures. We need a commitment by Member States to spend at least 200 billion euros on the next framework programme (FP10), alongside similarly ambitious – and aligned – increases in national spending.
One aspect on which the Council was crystal clear was in the ‘information’ supported by 22 Member States in which they unequivocally stated their support of the independence of the European Research Council (ERC) as quintessential to the ERC’s ‘scientific quality, integrity, and continued relevance’. The Guild fully agrees with this statement and calls upon the Council to identify further firm commitments for FP10.
For instance, the Council Conclusions missed the opportunity to emphasise the need to expand the ERC and Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA) in the next framework programme. This would have been consistent with the recommendations formulated in Mario Draghi’s report, and by the expert group chaired by Manuel Heitor, to strengthen research excellence in Europe by building on instruments with proven success. It would also have built on the Council’s own previous conclusions on the ex-post evaluation of Horizon 2020 which recognised the scientific contributions and positive structuring effects of the ERC and MSCA.
The Guild supports the Council’s endorsement of the idea of “fifth freedom”, as proposed by Enrico Letta in his report on the Single Market. However, again the Council remains general and vague on how this ambition can be achieved. It does not specify how, and by which means, the Member States should better align their national research and innovation ecosystems and policies, even though their role is critical in this regard.
In her political guidelines for the European Commission 2024-2029, Ursula von der Leyen proposes an ERA Act to complement the present voluntary approach with legislative actions to address key administrative and legal barriers. In this context, it would have been important for the Council to frame the work of a future ERA Act. And it is critical that the Member States take clearer ownership of their joint efforts to align and coordinate their national R&I systems and policies. Now is the right time to work together to strengthen the ERA in concrete terms. Generalities will not make the fifth freedom a reality.
In its efforts to boost European competitiveness, the Council rightly recognises the innovation divide which persists within the EU. It highlights the critical importance of national reforms and investment to reduce this divide, and stresses the need for better evidence of the effectiveness of the widening instruments. The Guild calls on the Member States to develop a vision for European R&I that is inclusive and excellence-based, again building on what works so that we can benefit from the excellence and drive of researchers and innovators from all parts of Europe.
Without more clarity and ambition on all sides, we cannot make progress. We urge the Polish and Danish presidencies of the Council of the EU in 2025 to build on these Conclusions and clearly state the Council’s ambitions on the scale and nature of FP10, national R&I alignment, and ERA priorities. And we urge an explicit recognition by the Council that an efficient framework programme requires building on instruments that have proven success, such as the ERC and the MSCA.
Julien Chicot, Head of R&I Policy of The Guild: “Under the Hungarian presidency, the Council re-affirms the importance of research and innovation for Europe's competitiveness. However, the growing consensus on the need to strengthen our scientific leadership and to align better national and EU research policies and systems require now a clear vision for the next framework programme (FP10) and the ERA. The EU science ministers need to go one step further and call for expanding the ERC and MSCA, and frame the proposed ERA act. In the coming months, the Council under the Polish and then Danish presidencies will need to develop a vision for better articulating excellence and inclusivity, for collaborative research and innovation, and for international collaboration.”