(Science|Business) Research lobbies reject reassurances over Horizon Europe budget reshuffle

For the original publication, please click here.

Research Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva has reassured MEPs that countries associated to Horizon Europe will not lose out in a planned budget reallocation. Balance will be restored “when we have concrete data” on their participation in the programme, she told the European Parliament’s research and industry committee on March 23. 

But her argument has fallen flat with Brussels lobby organisations, who think that both researchers and the EU will lose out if the redistribution goes through.

“While the legal correction might happen at the end of the programme, the lack of an upfront adjustment is creating a bottleneck for researchers today,” said Mostafa Moonir Shawrav, executive director of the Marie Curie Alumni Association. 

The proposed budget reallocation would put money into EU policy priorities, such as a new horizontal call for biodiversity research projects, rather than supplement the oversubscribed Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA), which are popular with associated country researchers. 

Last year, the MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships call had a record-low success rate of 9.6%, driven by a surge in applications and a decrease in budget. “We are seeing a dilution of excellence, where the programme is forced to turn away hundreds of world-class researchers simply because the funding pool has not been scaled to match the new reality,” Shawrav said.

For Kurt Deketelaere, secretary general of the League of European Research Universities, the fact that the commissioner and her officials may be right from the legal and budgetary perspective is no consolation. “The public perception of this issue is absolutely against them,” he said. “Everything is done to make countries strong in research and innovation associate to the Framework Programme, and then they discover that ‘their’ money is used for topics they are not really aiming at or interested in.”

“Of course, there is no ‘my money’ and ‘others’ money’ in the Framework Programme budget,” he added, “but the commissioner should be aware of this perception and how this disappoints and [fails to] motivate people.”

According to Mattias Björnmalm, secretary general of the Cesaer university association, it also undermines the European Commission’s own policy objectives. “The perception that funding is being diverted away from MSCA runs counter to a core political objective: ensuring that top talent, from Europe and globally, actively chooses Europe,” he said.

Commission will settle up “a bit later”

Zaharieva was responding to questions about a Commission plan, first revealed by Science|Business, to reshuffle Horizon Europe funding for 2026-27. This would use a budget surplus created by payments from newly associated countries to finance policy priorities rather than activities favoured by associated country researchers.

While it is down to the Commission to decide how that money is distributed, the Horizon Europe regulation says that its distribution should reflect the country’s participation in each part of the programme. This way, any budget imbalances introduced by allowing more countries into the programme can be rectified.

“The problem that we face in the Commission is that the real distribution comes not year by year, but a bit later,” Zaharieva said. “So, at the end of their association, there has to be a distribution according to their participation, but the truth is that it’s not possible to do it year by year.”

For Jan Palmowski, secretary general of the Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities, this does not add up. “We are already approaching the end of the current Horizon Europe programme; if the Commission plans to allocate the contributions of associated countries only at the end, how long will it wait?”

Meanwhile, the European Research Council’s budget, which falls under the same pillar of Horizon Europe as MSCA, appears to have been adjusted to take into account both the UK and Swiss association to the programme. “The same could easily be done for the MSCA,” Palmowski said. “The Commission only needs to look at the success rates for UK and Swiss scholars in MSCA calls year-on-year, and adjust budgets in real time.”

Alternatively, UK and Swiss participation rates during their first years of association could be used to lift the budget, drawing on association payments. “That is not perfect, because it would not be able to respond to short-term changes in allocations to those countries, but it would be a good compromise to ensure the Commission can plan,” he added. 

For Björnmalm, Zaharieva’s comments during the meeting are “an explicit acknowledgement that the current situation is not satisfactory, combined with a clear commitment to correct it.”

“Her point on timing reflects a structural constraint in how financial balances are accounted for over the lifecycle of association agreements, rather than annually. However, I see it as a clear political signal from Zaharieva that contributions from associated countries are intended to align with their actual participation across programme parts,” he said.

He now hopes to see this commitment translate into “tangible budgetary adjustments, including a substantially strengthened allocation to MSCA already in the next budget.”

Innovation Act update

MEPs also questioned Zaharieva on a delay to the Innovation Act, which was due to be presented on March 18. “We decided to postpone it because we want to get it right,” she said. “Additional work is needed to further strengthen its substance and coherence with other proposals.” 

This includes the revision of the Public Procurement Act, scheduled for the second quarter of 2026. “Coordination of the policy is also helpful,” she added. “When I meet innovative companies, the main request that they have for us is to tackle fragmentation.”