HORIZON 2020:
INTERIM
EVALUATION –
UUKi’S SUBMISSION
JANUARY 2017
Contact:
Peter Mason
Policy Manager, European
Research and Innovation
[email protected]
Action:
For information
Audience:
University staff with responsibility for Europe
and European-funded research
Horizon 2020: interim evaluation – UUKi’s submission
INTRODUCTION
1
his document presents the response of
T
Universities UK International (UUKi) to the
European Commission’s public consultation on
the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020.
2
UKi has arrived at this position through
U
extensive consultation with sector experts, UK
and EU stakeholders and other sources. This
includes:
ƒƒ 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;
ƒƒ bilateral discussions with key EU stakeholders
including the European Commission, the UK
Research Office and the European University
Association;
ƒƒ 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).
2
3
strong and socially cohesive Europe needs
A
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.
Horizon 2020: interim evaluation – UUKi’s submission
BENEFITS OF HORIZON 2020 TO UK
HIGHER EDUCATION
4
I nternational 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 11. 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
orizon 2020 is highly valued for the role it plays in facilitating international
H
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
orizon 2020 funding is of crucial and growing importance for UK universities. In
H
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
Horizon 2020: interim evaluation – UUKi’s submission
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
here is also significant ‘added’ value to
T
participation in Horizon 2020 beyond what is
possible at national level. This includes:
ƒƒ providing a ready-made platform for research
collaboration with European partners;
ƒƒ competing with the best researchers from a
bloc of 500+ million inhabitants;
ƒƒ the ability to tackle global challenges with the
best scientists from around Europe;
ƒƒ the efficiency of a single set of rules and the
sharing of implementation costs;
ƒƒ a long-term (seven year) funding settlement;
ƒƒ access to networks of European researchers.
4
Key messages
ƒƒ There is a clear link between international
research collaboration and excellence.
ƒƒ 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.
ƒƒ There is significant ‘added’ value beyond the
financial dividends, provided that funding is
allocated on the basis of excellence.
Horizon 2020: interim evaluation – UUKi’s submission
IMPLEMENTATION OF
HORIZON 2020
8
UKi members have expressed a range of
U
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.
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.
Structure of the Programme
9
lthough the basic three pillar structure of
A
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
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
he gender equality targets in Horizon 2020
T
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
Horizon 2020: interim evaluation – UUKi’s submission
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
ƒƒ There were significant difficulties arising from
the Horizon 2020 model grant agreement and
financial guidelines that need to be avoided in
the future.
ƒƒ The reduced time to grant, flat funding rate
for indirect costs and improvements to the
participant portal have all been welcomed.
ƒƒ Gender equality, openness to the world and
the funding backlog remain key areas for
further work.
ƒƒ Improving the incorporation of SSH into the
programme should be made a high priority.
6
Horizon 2020: interim evaluation – UUKi’s submission
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 years2, 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
billion4. 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
20165, and any increase should not be taken
from the Horizon 2020 budget.
Key messages
ƒƒ 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.
ƒƒ 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.
ƒƒ Loan-based funding is not an effective means
of investing in research and innovation in
universities.
7
Horizon 2020: interim evaluation – UUKi’s submission
LOOKING FORWARD TO THE NEXT
FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
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
8
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 programmes6 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 EUBrazil, EU-Japan and EU-Russia calls. Another
idea would be to expand ERA-NETs to include
third countries.
Horizon 2020: interim evaluation – UUKi’s submission
Key messages
ƒƒ Investment in research and innovation activity
provides excellent returns and stimulates
growth and job creation.
ƒƒ To maximise this return, excellence must
remain the sole criterion for allocating
research funding.
ƒƒ UUKi views capacity building for future
excellence across the EU as a high priority.
ƒƒ 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.
ƒƒ 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
Horizon 2020: interim evaluation – UUKi’s submission
References
1.
International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base, Elsevier for BIS, 2013
2. S
cience 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. E
uropean University Association, EUA Member Consultation: A Contribution to the Horizon 2020
Mid-term Review, 2016
5. E
uropean 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. h
ttps://businesswales.gov.wales/expertisewales/support-and-funding-researchers/s%C3%AArcymru-ii
10