The EU has increasingly supported R&I initiatives in the context of civil security. What lessons can be drawn for future EU funding programmes?
The European Commission (EC) Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs published the final report “Study on strengthening EU-funded security research and innovation – 20 years of EU-Funded Civil Security Research and Innovation”. With data and evidence from relevant research projects since 2004, the study assessed the effectiveness of EU-funded civil security research and innovation in responding to security challenges. Based on the study, the final report outlines the conclusions and recommendations for future funding frameworks.
Developments in the geopolitical landscape have acted as a wake-up call for the EU: in her press remarks on the first 100 days of the 2024-2029 Commission, President von der Leyen stressed the three pillars of prosperity, security, and democracy that form the basis of the Commission’s Security Guidelines. Security has clearly become a top priority, as demonstrated by the historic €800 billion package for defence. With uncertainty still looming around the upcoming framework programme (FP), this report could be a valuable contribution to ensuring that the potential of security research projects is maximised, thereby supporting this new security-oriented direction.
EU funding for security research: main takeaways
Security research funding – which already only constitutes a small portion of the overall research budget under Cluster 3 of Horizon Europe – has decreased across the different FPs. This, despite heightened geopolitical tensions and EU ambitions of strategic autonomy and technological sovereignty. Stakeholders have thus argued that security research is given too little priority at European policy level. There is also perceived homogeneity of consortia members of EU-funded research programmes, with an overrepresentation of multinationals and repeat players. While these participants certainly have the expertise and recognise that the best possible consortia should be chosen, it is important to note that this phenomenon has limited the participation of new players and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). The EC’s new approach towards preparing FPs, like Horizon Europe, arguably magnifies this homogeneity, as this has led to Work Programmes (WPs) with more broadly described topics, making participation more difficult for some.
Market absorption of EU-funded security research also faces challenges, such as the diverging objectives between research entities and practitioners. Whilst the former may focus more on early-stage technological concepts, the latter are usually more interested in near-market solutions that can be integrated into their operations. These differences often result in a disconnect within the consortia in the relevance and applicability of research outputs. Another challenge relates to the dissemination of results. Rather than simply focusing on completing their end products, consortia should also raise awareness about their outputs and methodologies; this would improve capacity-building and knowledge-sharing across the EU security research community.
Positively, stakeholders unanimously agreed that the lack of EU funding would negatively impact security research drastically. This, especially considering that national programmes do not systematically fund security research projects: the portion of alternative funding streams decreased from 29% for FP7 to 4% in Horizon Europe. Furthermore, EU-funded security research is of added value, which strengthens Europe’s competitiveness: such projects have generated an output of around €33.3 billion, which represents a return on investment of 7.3 across the various funding programmes, and have generated around 200’000 jobs in the security sector between 2015 and 2020.
Overall, the suggested improvements to funding and implementing security research projects are to: (1) enhance flexibility and transparency regarding the WPs; (2) increase budget allocations; (3) foster greater alignment of research objectives with market needs; and (4) promote further dissemination of results.
Recommendations for future funding programmes
Nine recommendations are made to improve future funding programmes. While acknowledging that increasing the budget is not the solution to all problems, it could result in more projects per topic being funded, which would, in turn, encourage more – also diverse – potential participants to submit proposals, as more consortia can pursue research projects. Additionally, alternative WP models could be considered: increasing the number of funded projects per topic while maintaining an average grant size, as well as promoting a balanced mix of project sizes and Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), with a clear focus of proposals. Incentives to involve newcomers and SMEs in EU-funded research projects should also be explored. The value of an EC-managed central database for project methodologies, processes, outcomes, and TRLs is also highlighted. Such a platform could improve the effectiveness and efficiency of future research projects, as other consortia or potential participants could easily access best practices and results. Including these recommendations in the upcoming FP would encourage innovation and knowledge sharing among the research community, benefiting the overall competitiveness and innovativeness of the EU.