Horizon 2020: first impressions
Last week, representatives from academic and research institutes,
industry and the European Commission gathered at last week's Innovation
Summit to share their take on year one of Horizon 2020.
‘Congratulations to the creators. This is not a case of “old wine in
new bottles” but rather new wine in recycled bottles! It works, at
least for my production area’: this was the powerful endorsement from
Andreas Förster, Director of Dechema (Society for Chemical Engineering
and Biotechnology). Feedback generally followed an encouraging line like
this, but speakers also drew attention to areas where there was room
for improvement. Concerns were also voiced by all sides about what
potential budget cuts that are currently under discussion between the
European Parliament and the Council might mean for the programme.
Simplifying the process
Away from the finances, the issue of simplification, a key ambition
of Horizon 2020, was also a focus. Speakers were, in general, satisfied
that improvements had been made on this front. Maria da Graca Carvalho,
former MEP and rapporteur on the Horizon 2020 proposal report,
reflected, ‘We see that it’s much simpler than FP7, and we have tried to
make it a more balanced programme in terms of geographical balance,
gender balance and a balance between top down and bottom up.’ Bertrand
van Ee, CEO of Climate-Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC), however
went against the general consensus by stating, ‘I think there is enough
money but we need to focus on simplification because we are losing a
lot of money in the system.’
Call for a two-stage application
Getting down to the operational side of things, Bernd Schulte, Vice
President of Photonics 21, which formed a Photonics Public Private
Partnership (PPP) with the Commission in 2013, urged for the process to
become faster and pointed to good examples in Member States. He
elaborated on the Photonics 21 experience of its first call under the
new programme, noting, ‘There was a good balance between industry and
research. However oversubscription was 71, and there are people who will
be disappointed. Given the bureaucracy, I don’t know if they will try
again.’
Both Mr Schulte and Mr Förster made a call for a two-stage
application process to be introduced to reduce the time burden,
particularly for those who are not successful. Mr Förster noted,
‘Two-stage proposals would be helpful in terms of reducing the amount of
work.’
Positive feedback for the participant portal and PPPs
Horizon 2020’s participant portal was singled out for praise. Rudolf
Strohmeier, Deputy Director General of DG Research and Innovation,
reported that he was receiving good feedback from users. Mr Förster also
offered positive feedback on the Public Private Partnerships (PPP)
element of the programme, enthusiastically noting, ‘They are excellent –
continue with them please!’
The potential of a multi-funding approach
With regards to funding, there was some concern among speakers and
participants that a multi-funding approach would become a selection
criterion. Ms da Graca Carvalho assured participants that Horizon 2020
would not be linked to regional funds but insisted that they could
complement each other: ‘It should not be a criterion but we should make
sure that there is a mechanism so that the multi-funding approach can
happen. Regional funds can act upstream and downstream. We don’t want to
link them but one way that they might complement each other is, for
example, through a stamp of quality. We have high percentage of
proposals that are excellent but do not get funding, and it could be
easier for regions to finance them. However, something would need to be
solved to achieve this because usually the results are not public.’
Horizon 2020 - the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation