HORIZON 2020: INTERIM EVALUATION UUKi S SUBMISSION JANUARY 2017 Contact: Peter Mason Policy Manager, European Research and Innovation peter.mason@international.ac.uk Action: For information Audience: University staff with responsibility for Europe and European-funded research
INTRODUCTION 1 This document presents the response of Universities UK International (UUKi) to the European Commission s public consultation on the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020. 2 UUKi has arrived at this position through extensive consultation with sector experts, UK and EU stakeholders and other sources. This includes: feedback received from EU research managers at a joint UUKi-UK Research Office workshop on the mid-term review of Horizon 2020 on 17 October 2016; bilateral discussions with key EU stakeholders including the European Commission, the UK Research Office and the European University Association; a review of previous member surveys on EU research and innovation funding programmes (the Balance of Competences review from 2013 and the ex-post review of the Seventh Framework Programme in 2015). 3 A strong and socially cohesive Europe needs a strong and effective research agenda, which is why UUKi believes the budget for EU research and innovation funding should continue to increase. Thanks to its focus on rewarding excellence, the UK higher education sector places a high value on its involvement in Horizon 2020. Beyond the financial opportunities, the sector recognises the significant added value that the EU research and innovation programmes offers. However, there is still room for improvement and refinements in the implementation of the programme. Therefore, UUKi welcomes the opportunity to input into the European Commission s interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 and to offer its initial views on how Framework Programme 9 (FP9) can continue to build on the successes of its predecessors. 2
BENEFITS OF HORIZON 2020 TO UK HIGHER EDUCATION 4 International research collaboration is essential to the success of research and innovation in the UK university sector. In 2012, 46% of UK research involved partners overseas higher than for the US, Japan and Canada and, in 2013, the UK overtook the USA to rank first in the world by field-weighted citation impact (an indicator of research quality). More widely, evidence shows that there is a correlation between international co-authorship and field-weighted citation index, as shown in Figure 1 1. This benefit is mutual, with international researchers drawing similar benefits from collaboration with UK counterparts. Figure 1: Correlation between international co-authorship share and field-weighted citation impact of internationally co-authored articles Source: Elsevier 5 Horizon 2020 is highly valued for the role it plays in facilitating international research collaboration with European partners. Although the USA remains the UK s top research partner, collaboration with France and Germany is rising faster, and 47% of UK-international research collaborations now involve European Economic Area partners. 6 Horizon 2020 funding is of crucial and growing importance for UK universities. In total, UK universities received 836 million in research funding from EU sources in 2014 15, and at the institutional level, EU research and innovation funding can equate to as much as 31% of all income. Moreover, between 2009 10 and 3
2014 15, the amount of research funding that UK universities received from overseas sources increased by more than 65%, from 740 million to 1.23 billion. Within this, the share of funds coming from EU government bodies has increased from 51% to 59%. This success is possible because EU funding is allocated on the basis of excellence. 7 There is also significant added value to participation in Horizon 2020 beyond what is possible at national level. This includes: providing a ready-made platform for research collaboration with European partners; competing with the best researchers from a bloc of 500+ million inhabitants; the ability to tackle global challenges with the best scientists from around Europe; the efficiency of a single set of rules and the sharing of implementation costs; a long-term (seven year) funding settlement; access to networks of European researchers. Key messages There is a clear link between international research collaboration and excellence. EU Research and Innovation (R&I) programmes contribute to the UK s success to the continued competitiveness, especially through the European Research Council (ERC) and researcher mobility. There is significant added value beyond the financial dividends, provided that funding is allocated on the basis of excellence. 4
IMPLEMENTATION OF HORIZON 2020 8 UUKi members have expressed a range of views on the implementation of Horizon 2020. Presented below is a summary of the main points on which there is broad consensus across the UK university sector. Structure of the Programme 9 Although the basic three pillar structure of Horizon 2020 is clearly understood, further simplification (or better explanation) of the range of funding streams and instruments that constitute the Societal Challenges and Industrial Leadership pillars would be beneficial. This would particularly help SMEs and industrial participants better understand where they can access funding. Administration and simplification 10 The flat funding rate for indirect costs is welcome. However, the changes to the model grant agreement were not handled well and this document is now cumbersome to the point where it is difficult for non-specialists to comprehend. In a similar vein, some of the application templates are still far too long and repetitive, especially for collaborative projects, and could be better targeted to the topic of the call to avoid redundancy. The delay in finalising the financial guidelines also caused numerous difficulties for projects funded in the first year of Horizon 2020. There is potential for such problems with the financial processes to put off first-time applicants so these should be decided and communicated well in advance of the first calls in FP9. Regarding auditing, while recognising that rigorous auditing processes are required for financial probity, these now represent a significant administrative burden and should be made lighter touch. The participant portal has been well received by UK institutions. In particular, there has been positive feedback on the digitisation of the grant agreement process, the online workflow management system and the overall user-friendliness of the platform. It is also felt that advice and guidance for applicants has steadily improved, particularly in the ERC and for Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions. Better use could be made of the communication area in the participant portal to help answer applicant questions, especially regarding the financial rules. The marked reduction in the time to grant has been noted and is welcomed by UK institutions. In particular, this has made it easier to secure SME involvement in projects. Gender equality 11 The gender equality targets in Horizon 2020 have been well received, as have efforts to enhance the gender dimension of R&I activity, though there remains much work still to do. The Commission could consider setting more targets with more ambitious timeframes. Also, it is unclear why the gender target for panels and groups is lower than that for advisory groups. Social Sciences and Humanities 12 Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) require better incorporation into the Work Programmes. Many researchers believe that SSH are regarded as an afterthought in Horizon 2020. Either they are treated instrumentally as a means to facilitate or disseminate technological or scientific goals, or they are allocated budgets too small to make a meaningful difference (for example, the recent call CULT-COOP-05-2017 on religious diversity in Europe). Moreover, even where SSH disciplines are targeted in calls, the terminology in the application forms is not appropriate for them (e.g. references to Technology Readiness Levels). The Commission should adopt a more inclusive attitude towards SSH and recognise the significant social impact that SSH research can have instead of exclusively focusing on technology readiness levels. 5
Funding 13 The funding backlog remains a concern and needs to be improved to protect the sustainability of the scheme. The balance of funding across the three pillars is broadly acceptable; curiosity-driven research needs to continue to receive substantial support alongside funding for disruptive innovation. There should also be a clear pipeline of funding for research through the lower-to-middle stages of the innovation timeline (i.e. ideas that fall between basic research and close-to-market innovation). Open to the world 14 Attempts to facilitate more collaboration with non-eu partners are welcomed. Recent agreements with the US and Canada should help with this, but there is also scope for relaxing the terms of their participation (e.g. by allowing third countries to participate outside of the normal grant agreement framework). More could also be done to facilitate their involvement in the project planning phase. It has been suggested that the Commission could make available a small pot of money for third country participants to secure their involvement through to project submission, as at present they often leave consortia before this point due to the resource commitment of project planning. Widening participation 15 UK researchers have welcomed the opportunity to access funding dedicated to building links with researchers in countries that are currently lower-performing in terms of research and innovation output. For instance, through the Teaming funding strand, a team of researchers at University College London and a consortium of five Portuguese universities led by the University of Minho have been awarded 15 million of EU funding to help launch a pioneering new research centre in Portugal. The Discoveries Centre for Regenerative and Precision Medicine will focus on translating multidisciplinary research into innovative approaches to the prevention and treatment of musculoskeletal, neuro-degenerative, and cardiovascular diseases. These opportunities are welcomed, but more funding should be allocated to Twinning projects. Key messages There were significant difficulties arising from the Horizon 2020 model grant agreement and financial guidelines that need to be avoided in the future. The reduced time to grant, flat funding rate for indirect costs and improvements to the participant portal have all been welcomed. Gender equality, openness to the world and the funding backlog remain key areas for further work. Improving the incorporation of SSH into the programme should be made a high priority. 6
INCREASING EFFICIENCY IN HORIZON 2020 16 There are several areas of inefficiency in Horizon 2020 which require urgent attention. The most pressing is the low success rates that applicants have experienced in Horizon 2020 at various levels. The overall success rate, calculated at 10.7% over the first two years 2, is just one element. Even more concerning is the adjusted success rate for highly-ranked proposals that score above the fundable threshold, which stands at 25% 3. This low adjusted success rate not only has a negative impact on researcher morale but also leads to significant wasted resource in the preparation of fundable projects that do not receive Horizon funding. For the first 100 calls of Horizon 2020, EUA estimates this cost to be between 268 million and 2.68 billion 4. The Seal of Excellence initiative is a positive step in that it clearly denotes which projects were fundable, but it does not solve the root problem of insufficient resource. 17 Therefore, the EU R&I budget needs to be protected and, if possible, increased to ensure that more fundable projects are successful. Any return to more prescriptive calls to try to reduce the number of submissions should be resisted lest it close off innovative solutions and interdisciplinary research proposals. 18 Another inefficiency is the Commission s preoccupation with loan-based funding, which is not an appropriate means of funding core university research and innovation activity. While loans have a particular role to play in capital investment through the European Investment Bank, Horizon 2020 should focus on providing universities with dependable streams of non-refundable, output-driven funding to support the basic research and disruptive innovation in which they specialise. In the first half of Horizon 2020, the redirection of R&I funding to the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) not only deprived researchers of much-needed investment; it also accentuated the inefficiencies outlined above. Any further increase to the EFSI budget should be resisted until there has been time to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the first round of investments, as per the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors in November 2016 5, and any increase should not be taken from the Horizon 2020 budget. Key messages The very low success rates in Horizon 2020 represent a significant inefficiency, with millions of pounds spent developing bids that score highly but do not receive funding. The best solution to this problem is increased funding so that a higher proportion of fundable research is successful, but other practical changes could also help. Loan-based funding is not an effective means of investing in research and innovation in universities. 7
LOOKING FORWARD TO THE NEXT FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME 8 19 UUKi believes that EU investment in research and innovation should continue to increase. As well as providing an excellent financial return, this funding stimulates economic growth and job creation and leads to tangible advances in environmental and living standards across the world. This positive track record of the Framework Programmes should be recognised by increasing the budget further in the next multi-annual financial framework. 20 At the same time, it is essential to note that these returns are only possible by funding research exclusively on the basis of excellence. One of the key reasons why EU R&I funding is so highly valued is that it is allocated to the best proposals from a pool of 550 million people. Watering down the requirements for excellence would reduce the competitiveness of EU funding. 21 While retaining excellence as the sole criterion for funding, it is of fundamental importance that the European Commission finds innovative ways to continue to build capacity for research excellence across the EU. This process will strengthen the competitiveness of EU research funding and lead to even better returns on investment. UK universities already embrace this priority, as evidenced above by successful submissions in the Teaming funding stream in Horizon 2020. UUKi itself is also active in this area; in September 2016, a UUKi delegation of senior university leaders and research managers travelled to Poland and the Czech Republic to build links with these countries, leading to concrete plans for future cooperation between institutions. 22 UUKi believes the best way to achieve this is to find new synergies between the Structural Funds and Horizon 2020 and foster those that already exist, so it is essential that the Commission does more to facilitate synergies in the way it plans and administers the programmes. The Commission could look to the successful Ser Cymru and Ser Cymru II programmes 6 in Wales as examples of how this has been achieved at local level, but it should also consider developing specific mechanisms in FP9 through which these could be harnessed. In terms of potential target areas, the professionalisation of research management functions in the widening participation countries is one area where Structural Funds could be usefully directed. 23 Regarding the structure of FP9, the three pillar approach works well and should be retained. The ERC s record of success is formidable; the Commission should seek to protect and enhance this by increasing funding for curiosity-driven research under the Excellent Science pillar. In a similar vein, calls under the Societal Challenges pillar could be broadened to give more scope for bottom-up ideas to be funded. In addition, the full range of funding instruments should be reviewed to ensure there is a clear and coherent pipeline for funding all types and all stages of innovation in universities. Any streamlining of the number of instruments that could be achieved would be welcomed. 24 There should be further increases in funding for networking opportunities through European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) which create the relationships that lead to successful research collaborations both within and outside Horizon 2020. 25 The current Commissioner s focus on openness should be retained in FP9. The dividends of more transparent ways of working are widely recognised in the UK, which is why we are keen to play a leading role in advancing the open science agenda. Moreover, FP9 should build stronger links with the wider world which would maximise the impact of EU R&I funding. There should be further investment to facilitate the involvement of international partners, such as joint calls in the same vein as previous EU- Brazil, EU-Japan and EU-Russia calls. Another idea would be to expand ERA-NETs to include third countries.
Key messages Investment in research and innovation activity provides excellent returns and stimulates growth and job creation. To maximise this return, excellence must remain the sole criterion for allocating research funding. UUKi views capacity building for future excellence across the EU as a high priority. The European Commission should retain the three pillar structure but ensure there must be a clear and coherent pipeline for funding all types and all stages of innovation in universities. In line with the current Commissioner s openness agenda, there should be renewed efforts to maximise collaboration with non-eu partners. There should also be more funding for networking opportunities. 9
References 1. International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base, Elsevier for BIS, 2013 2. Science Business, Horizon 2020 grant application success rate drops to 10.7 per cent, 1 December 2016, http://sciencebusiness.net/news/80030/horizon-2020-grant-application-success-rate-dropsto-10.7-per-cent 3. European Commission, Horizon 2020 Monitoring Report 2014, 2016 4. European University Association, EUA Member Consultation: A Contribution to the Horizon 2020 Mid-term Review, 2016 5. European Court of Auditors, EFSI: little evidence that increase is justified, 11 November 2016 http:// www.eca.europa.eu/en/pages/newsitem.aspx?nid=7766 6. https://businesswales.gov.wales/expertisewales/support-and-funding-researchers/s%c3%aarcymru-ii 10