The European Parliament and the Council of the EU endorsed their positions on Horizon Europe, the EU Framework Program for R & I 2021-2027, by officially responding to the European Commission’s proposal last June and thus defining their respective positions in view of the negotiation inter-institutional.
On 12 December, the European Parliament approved in plenary session, by a large majority, the two reports – the first on the regulation (framework program and rules for participation and dissemination, rapporteur: Dan Nica), the other on the decision (specific program; speaker: Christian Ehler) -, confirming in a big part the contents of the vote in ITRE Commission on 21 November.
On 30 November, however, the EU Council (Competitiveness) published the Partial General Approach on the regulation / framework program (expressing a common position on a part of the articles of the text) and an interim report (Progress Report) on the specific decision / program.
The steps in Parliament and Council mark an important step in the approval process of Horizon Europe, closing the first phase of the legislative process (which was opened on June 7th with the presentation of the European Commission’s proposal). The three versions of Horizon Europe now on the table (the Commission’s proposal, Parliament’s reports, the partial reaction of the Council), should give life – from January – to inter-institutional negotiation (or informal trilogue), to arrive at a text shared and the final contents of the program. If it is certain that the official adoption of Horizon Europe – as well as the Multiannual Report 2021-2027 – will be postponed until after the European elections, the minimum political objective of the institutions (Commission and Parliament in the first place) remains the reaching of an agreement on large parts of the program before the May election deadline.
The position of Parliament
Parliament’s reports introduce important new features to the European Commission’s proposal:
- fixes the overall budget of Horizon Europe to 120 billion euros in 2018 prices, equal to 135.2 billion in current prices (compared to 94.1 million proposed by the European Commission);
- re-proposes the Horizon 2020 SME Instrument as a horizontal scheme to the second pillar of Horizon Europe, with an explicit focus on incremental innovation, a budget of € 2.5 billion and a structure in different phases;
- defines the strategic planning process more clearly, proposing that the strategic plan be adopted every two years by means of a delegated act, following a wide and transparent consultation and involving the Member States, the Parliament and the R & I stakeholder community ;
- proposes a greater definition of the criteria for the selection of R & I missions, also establishing to dedicate to the missions a maximum of 10% of the second pillar budget for the first two years of the program;
- proposes that the currently existing and supported FET Flagships in Horizon 2020 (Human Brain Project, Graphene, Quantum Technologies) be maintained as such in Horizon Europe and that for the other FET Flagships to be launched by the end of Horizon 2020, the continuation as R & I missions;
- take stock of the second pillar cluster 2 proposed by the Commission (“Inclusive and Secure Societies” in two different clusters (“Inclusive and Creative Society” and “Secure Societies”).
The position of the EU Council
Significant elements of novelty are also found in the reaction – albeit partial – of the Council (non-exhaustive list):
- separates Cluster 4 of the second pillar proposed by the Commission (“Climate, Energy and Mobility”) into two different clusters (“Climate and Energy” and “Mobility”). It also aligns itself with the Parliament in the separation of cluster 2 (the names are however different: “Culture and Inclusive Society” and “Civil Security for Society”);
- renames cluster 3 “Digital and Industry” in “Digital, Industry and Space” and cluster 5 “Food and Natural Resources” in “Bioeconomy, Food, Natural Resources and Environment”;
- recovers some elements of the SME Tool within the EIC Accelerator; for example, placing greater emphasis on the mono-beneficiary character of the scheme and on the grant as a preferred form of financing;
- fixes a ceiling (theoretical, of 49.9%) for the share of the budget to be allocated to the set of partnership instruments, establishing that more than half of the second pillar financial allocation must be allocated to instruments other than partnerships.