Image: imaginima, via Getty Images
Report sets out ways association to EU research and innovation programme could be improved
The process of associating to the EU’s research and innovation programme should be made faster and simpler, a study has suggested.
Association enables non-EU countries to win funding from the R&I programme and lead collaborative projects, often in exchange for a budget contribution.
For the study, Malgorzata Maria Mitka, a vice-dean in the University of St Andrews’ business school, and Rachel Dohain-Lesueur, a project officer at Glasgow Caledonian University, both in Scotland, interviewed representatives from associated countries about their experiences.
The aim was to assess what could be improved in preparation for Framework Programme 10 (FP10), the next EU R&I programme, which is due to start in 2028.
Key findings
Findings included that countries choose to associate to EU R&I programmes so that they can benefit from the scale of collaborations and scope of opportunities the programmes offer, as well as the excellence that is fostered by the extent of competition for funding.
Reported challenges included that increasing budgets for the programmes could result in bigger costs for associated countries, and that it may not be possible to cap or know these costs in advance.
In addition, participants in the study complained about delays in association to Horizon Europe, the current programme, and the complexities of the negotiation process.
The study report notes that following informal talks, Australia declined to join the programme, which the authors said “underscores the complexity and multifaceted nature of the internationalisation process”.
Recommendations
The report makes recommendations for association to FP10, including “ensuring the inclusion of [potential associate] countries’ voices at the design stage, establishing FP10 early enough for timely association and providing more clarity on association terms”.
Other recommendations include implementing financial safeguards and streamlining the application process.
None of the participants in the study, including named officials from Iceland, Moldova, Morocco, Turkey and Switzerland and unnamed officials from four other countries, were expressing formal views as representatives of their countries.
Asked whether their country would seek to associate to FP10, none said it would not, but half were cautious pending the adoption of an official position.
Participants said FP10 should be an evolution from Horizon Europe rather than a revolutionary change, with one from Norway saying that participation in predecessors to the programme “had substantially increased the quality” of research in their country.
View this article on Research Professional