Europe in the innovation race: voices from Germany call for more money, less bureaucracy and clear priorities

With the successor to the current "Horizon Europe" programme due to start in 2028, and eight stakeholders from Germany have set out their recommendations for the EU‘s 10th Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (FP10). The result: a clear consensus on the necessary budget, but also some differences on other aspects.

When Mario Draghi recently presented his highly acclaimed report on the competitiveness of the EU, he made it clear that Europe needs to catch up with the US and China in terms of innovation. To achieve this, one thing is needed above all: more money for research and innovation. This idea is also widely echoed in the following eight position papers on FP10 (in German):

1. The Federal Ministry of Education and Research, BMBF
2. the Bundesrat
3. the EU Liaison Officers of German University Hospitals
4. German U15
5. the Federation of German Industries, BDI
6. Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher Forschungszentren e.V.
7. the German Research Foundation, DFG
8. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.

The budget: Agreed and yet not enough?

There is broad agreement on one point: EU member states should invest three percent of their gross domestic product in research and innovation (R&I). This may sound ambitious, but Draghi's target is even higher: five per cent. German stakeholders are also calling for a significant increase in the budget for FP10, from the current €100 billion to €200 billion earmarked for research and innovation. The DFG criticises the fact that previously unused research funds are returned to the member states instead of being reinvested in the research programme.

The Federal Council and the BMBF have not yet made any concrete budget proposals for FP10. These are expected in the course of the negotiations on the EU's multiannual financial framework.

Scientific excellence: a sacred cow

The financial strengthening of the first pillar of "Horizon Europe", "scientific excellence", is highly favoured. In particular, the European Research Council (ERC) and the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) are undisputed favourites - not only in the German position papers, but also in the other European position papers currently available.

Controversial topic "missions"

However, the second pillar, "Global Challenges and Industrial Competitiveness", is a source of tension. The five missions divide the opinions of the European stakeholders who have so far officially commented on the organisation of FP10. In Germany, the BMBF has come out in favour of the missions, while the Helmholtz Association has criticised the fact that other research areas have had to take a back seat in order to fund them. German U15 criticises the calls for proposals for being too politically motivated and not focused enough on research and innovation, a view that is echoed across Europe.

The Federation of German Industries (BDI) is calling for the calls to be opened up to industry and for more support from the Structural Funds. Fraunhofer, on the other hand, is highly critical of the missions: They should be abolished - they are too complicated and fragmented.   Similar voices come from countries such as Switzerland and Lithuania. The missions appear to be among the most unpopular elements of the current 9th Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 'Horizon Europe'.

Synergies, clusters, TRLs: A question of detail

University hospitals are calling for better synergies between missions, clusters and European partnerships in order to avoid duplication.
Fraunhofer would like to see more partnerships because they effectively link research and development with industry. However, they need to be more transparent and simpler. German U15 and university hospitals would also like to see fewer but more specific partnerships, a concern that is also shared internationally.

When it comes to technology readiness levels (TRLs), most stakeholders urge caution: the Federal Council, German U15, Fraunhofer and Helmholtz emphasise that the entire range of TRLs should be supported. The BDI, on the other hand, calls for a stronger focus on higher TRLs in order to accelerate the development of marketable technologies.

Innovation: more risk, less red tape

German stakeholders' enthusiasm for the third pillar, "Innovative Europe", is limited. While the BMBF welcomes the innovation ecosystems, the BDI criticises the sluggish processes of the European Innovation Council (EIC) and the under-representation of industry in the Council itself. Start-ups would therefore prefer to look elsewhere for funding opportunities. While recognising the benefits of the EIC, Fraunhofer calls for the abolition of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) and its Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs): too expensive, too unattractive.

Research security and dual use: caution is needed

When it comes to research security, the DFG advocates a case-by-case risk analysis without restricting the freedom of research. European research actors cooperating with third countries should then be able to decide for themselves whether a cooperation is safe (e.g. with regard to sensitive research data and results). There are also differences on the controversial issue of "dual-use research", i.e. research with both civil and military benefits. While the DFG warns that civilian research should not be penalised, the German U15 categorically rejects dual-use research. At the European level, the issue is being discussed cautiously: Sweden, Lithuania and others are cautiously optimistic.

Fewer rules, more freedom – this ist he crux oft he matter

There is unanimity: Bureaucracy must go, procedures must be simplified. What makes sense should remain - such as the funding of SMEs (according to the BDI, the Bundesrat and Helmholtz), the stronger integration of the humanities and more interdisciplinarity (according to the BMBF, the Bundesrat, the DFG and German U15) as well as gender equality. However, the DFG warns that principles such as "Do no Significant Harm"¹ and strict sustainability requirements could end up stifling freedom of research.

What's next?

The German position papers reflect a wide range of interests, from traditional basic research to technological innovation. One thing is clear: Europe needs to improve its competitiveness, and this can only be achieved with more and better targeted investment in research and innovation. Whether German stakeholders' proposals will ultimately be listened to depends on the political will of EU member states - and how well they manage to reconcile their different interests.

^{(1) "Do no significant harm" means that no economic activities are supported or carried out that cause significant harm to an environmental objective within the meaning of Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852, where relevant.}