Budget squabbles part of Framework programme’s birth pangs
Continuous political crisis can be exhausting for all involved, with even the most worrisome announcements accepted with a shrug.
Among the madness of the Brexit negotiations, last week’s news that the EU’s struggle to shape its next multi-annual financial framework could cause a two-year delay to the start of Horizon Europe barely caused a stir.
An EU council meeting on 18 October failed to resolve important questions, most urgently the issue of what share of gross national income member states should be paying. With the UK expected to leave the bloc before 2021—the start of the next seven-year EU budget—the Commission wants a slightly raised contribution of 1.11 per cent of GNI, and the Parliament 1.3 per cent, but some states want to stick with the old contribution of 1.03 per cent.
As a result, European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker signalled that the Horizon Europe research funding scheme and the Erasmus+ exchange programme might be delayed by up to two years. A horrific prospect, but an unlikely one. To understand why, it is worth looking at previous Framework programmes, many of which also experienced—or were threatened by—delay.
Horizon 2020, which started in 2014, was stalled after member states refused to hold the budget vote over disagreements for flood aid funding. In October 2013, fears came to a head that the EU would default on research payments. Indeed, the bloc was put on a so-called “rolling budget” for the first two months of 2014, meaning the previous year’s budget was cut into 12 chunks, and one apportioned every month. The crisis was resolved in February 2014, and Horizon 2020 kicked fully into gear.
A similar story haunted Framework 7, the 2007-13 programme. In this case the UK and France wanted a reduction of the overall EU budget of between 25-40 per cent. This would have been a significant loss—in fact, the European Research Council was up for the chop.
Researchers were warned that the programme might start up to a year late to resolve the issue. But again, an 11th-hour deal was struck. Previous programmes faced delays over such things as the scope of nuclear funding and power struggles within the Parliament’s industry, research and energy committee.
Of course, the current threat ought not be taken lightly. A significant delay in spending would sound the death knell for many small businesses and hit Europe’s scientific ambitions. But it is worth recalling what an incredible diplomatic and political achievement the Framework programme is. Not only does it support scientific priorities across all fields, it must align the socio-economic priorities of 27 countries, while offering a pan-European vision for science.
This is a huge task. Juncker’s political posturing is par for the course, as are backroom deals, compromises and last-minute pushes for agreement.
Public scrutiny is crucial in this process, and scientists are right to voice concerns. Equally, they should not let those concerns prevent them getting ready for the new Framework programme starting in 2021.
This article also appeared in Research Europe