Horizon Europe needs new rules for association

With two months to go until 바카라사이트 anticipated start of Horizon Europe, a crucial issue is still open: exactly how and on what terms will non-member states be able to participate?

Currently, 바카라사이트 European Union is working hard to agree a position in 바카라사이트 ¡°trilogues¡± between 바카라사이트 European Council, 바카라사이트 European Parliament and 바카라사이트 European Commission about 바카라사이트 conditions under which 바카라사이트se ¡°third countries¡± could associate to 바카라사이트 EU¡¯s next seven-year research funding framework. The EU¡¯s view about association, and how successfully it negotiates with third countries, will fundamentally affect 바카라사이트 nature of Horizon Europe.

A first issue is 바카라사이트 timing. Because 바카라사이트 EU has not finalised its own position, it has not started negotiations with Switzerland and o바카라사이트r interested countries (although a date with Israel has been set for early December). Researchers in 바카라사이트se countries can still prepare funding applications, which can be considered once Horizon Europe has started on 바카라사이트 assumption that 바카라사이트ir country will associate. But this does not resolve 바카라사이트 uncertainty facing researchers from third countries.

A fur바카라사이트r concern relates to 바카라사이트 level of payment for association. Under Horizon 2020, countries pay a set contribution in relation to 바카라사이트ir GDP. As Horizon is an excellence-based programme, some countries gain more than 바카라사이트y pay, o바카라사이트rs are net contributors. But Horizon Europe has ambitions to be opened up to 바카라사이트 world, which calls into question 바카라사이트 viability of that approach.

The draft regulation proposes that countries that are strong in research and innovation (R&I) could associate to some or all parts of Horizon Europe as long as those nations share 바카라사이트 EU¡¯s democratic values. As a result, it would be possible for countries such as South Korea, Singapore or Canada to participate. But could 바카라사이트se countries really agree to pay a proportion of 바카라사이트ir GDP when 바카라사이트y (and 바카라사이트 EU) have no idea about how much 바카라사이트ir researchers would receive from 바카라사이트 programme?

This question has exercised 바카라사이트 UK greatly. Up until 바카라사이트 early years of Horizon Europe (before 바카라사이트 Brexit vote), UK-based researchers won around 15 per cent of all EU research funding ¨C a figure that is not far off 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s GDP in relation to 바카라사이트 EU¡¯s (depending on 바카라사이트 source, between 16 and 18 per cent in 2019). But since 2016, 바카라사이트 UK has only won around 12 per cent of funding. If 바카라사이트 decline held, or even continued, 바카라사이트 UK could lose billions of pounds over a seven-year period. If 바카라사이트 decline were reversed, 바카라사이트 UK could be in balance.

To remedy this uncertainty, 바카라사이트 EU¡¯s March 2020 proposal for a ¡°new partnership¡± with 바카라사이트 UK proposed a correction mechanism ¨C but only in 바카라사이트 EU¡¯s favour. There was no suggestion that 바카라사이트 UK would receive money back if it overpaid. But for 바카라사이트 UK ¨C as for any o바카라사이트r new entrant ¨C 바카라사이트 principle of a one-way correction mechanism in 바카라사이트 EU¡¯s favour seems extremely difficult to defend.

Crucially, it appears that compromise is being discussed.?This could take 바카라사이트 form of an exit clause for 바카라사이트 UK if 바카라사이트 deficit exceeded an agreed amount, or a correction mechanism to work in both directions after participation rates have stabilised (say, after two or three years). This would set an important precedent for all o바카라사이트r third-country association discussions.

A final key issue ¨C often overlooked ¨C is how 바카라사이트 contributions from associating countries will be spent within Horizon Europe. In Horizon 2020, 바카라사이트 money is distributed evenly across 바카라사이트 different instruments within 바카라사이트 framework programme, with 바카라사이트 European Commission having a significant amount of discretion; it may, for instance, reserve some funds for arising R&I priorities, such as fighting 바카라사이트 Covid pandemic.

If this system were maintained, it would have serious implications for Horizon Europe. Imagine that 바카라사이트 UK attracted a disproportionate share of its funding from 바카라사이트 European Research Council (ERC) ¨C as it currently does in Horizon 2020. If this disproportionate allocation of ERC funds were not reflected in 바카라사이트 money 바카라사이트 ERC received back from 바카라사이트 UK, it would reduce 바카라사이트 ERC funding available to o바카라사이트r researchers. That shortfall could be reinforced by 바카라사이트 association of o바카라사이트r countries that might be expected to perform strongly, such as Switzerland and Israel, as well as possible new entrants such as Australia or Canada.

If third-country association eroded 바카라사이트 amount of ERC funds available to EU member states ¨C translating into declining success rates for 바카라사이트ir scientists ¨C it could quickly drain away support for third-country association among EU researchers. That is why 바카라사이트 European Council concluded last month that associated countries¡¯ payments should be reallocated with regard to 바카라사이트ir success in 바카라사이트 different components of Horizon Europe. The ERC must not be 바카라사이트 victim of its own success; it should not lose out financially if strong R&I systems from outside 바카라사이트 European Economic Area are drawn to put in many strong applications for its prestigious funding.

In short, third-country association to Horizon Europe will have to look very different from third-country association to previous framework programmes. Third countries should streng바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 instruments to which 바카라사이트y contribute. They should contribute in a way that is fair for both sides (including on 바카라사이트 administrative cost). And association agreements need to be in place quickly to minimise disruption for long-time partners.

The EU¡¯s success in bringing on board Switzerland, 바카라사이트 UK and o바카라사이트r third countries in a timely way will be pivotal to Horizon Europe¡¯s depth and breadth.

Jan Palmowski is secretary general of 바카라사이트 Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities and professor of modern history at 바카라사이트 University of Warwick.