"It is highly unlikely that the budget would stretch to fund research projects as such"

At the eleventh hour, discussions abound in Brussels (and in some member states) about whether European university alliances might be funded in a new way. Accordingly, the 65 alliances, which comprise around nine or ten higher education institutions across Europe each, could move from the Erasmus+ programme to the European Competitiveness Fund (ECF). It is important to consider carefully what the consequences of this could be.

Many alliances have long argued that there should be funding for research as well as pedagogy and mobility. As universities do both research and teaching, many alliances have argued that they also need dedicated research funds. Many alliances have also pushed for funding to strengthen international collaboration between alliances and overseas partners. Integrating alliances into the European Competitiveness Fund might allow direct funding, according to one common rulebook, for different endeavours within the alliances.

MFF: Money is likely to be available for capacity-building or seed-funding »

However, there are reasons to be extremely cautious about this proposal. To begin with, what exactly is being funded through the European Competitiveness Fund? It is highly unlikely that the budget would stretch to fund research projects as such. Money is likely to be available for capacity-building or seed-funding.

Moreover, if the global dimension of alliances extends to include overseas institutions in a European degree framework (one of the Commission’s flagship ambitions), then how attractive is this - for alliances, or for overseas partners? And how many students could this actually affect?

"If European universities move into the European Competitiveness Fund, that would weaken Erasmus+"

For these ‘gains’, the potential costs could be significant. If European Universities move into the ECF, that would weaken Erasmus+.

This could have serious financial implications, as the Commission is facing tough budget choices for the next MFF. Because in the current MFF, Erasmus+ spending increases significantly from year to year, in the next MFF, Erasmus+ will have to triple just to keep 2027 mobility levels steady. If we divide the programme and move a key flagship initiative to the ECF, we undermine support for Erasmus+. But what good is a move of alliances to the ECF if their bread and butter, student mobility, is in peril?

Erasmus+ has stayed and grown in importance »

Moreover, can it really be in the sector’s interest to weaken a global brand that has prospered since 1987, to become part of an ambition that still has to demonstrate its impact and longevity? The last MFF seven years ago was all about the Green Deal. Today, it’s all about competitiveness. While these priorities have come (and often gone), Erasmus+ has stayed and grown in importance. Would alliances really want to leave it?

"The resulting loss of advocates and experts of higher education could have severe consequences"

This also raises the question of ownership. I have consistently been impressed, since coming to Brussels, about the deep (and unique) knowledge of the Higher Education unit in DG EAC Directorate-General responsible for the EU Commission's policies on education, youth, sport and culture of the sector. And if alliances remain as part of a big Erasmus+ programme, that would be likely to stay. But if they move to the ECF, why would alliances be managed by DG EAC, and not by whoever will be in charge of managing the ECF, to ensure synergies between its components? The resulting loss of advocates and experts of higher education within DG EAC could have severe consequences on the voice of universities inside the commission for years to come.

Indeed, moving the alliances to the European Competitiveness Fund raises the fundamental question of directionality and ‘agility’. The Commission President has been clear that she wants the ECF to be agile, to allow her to respond to priorities as they arise, and move budgets accordingly. But agility would provide fundamental challenges to alliances, which need time and dependable financial frameworks to build up and sustain collaboration.

Moreover, directionality is the antithesis of ‘bottom-up’ collaboration. The ECF is being created precisely to allow the Commission to drive competitiveness in key industries and to support new ideas through to scale-up and industrial deployment.

How would alliances, which have consistently insisted on the need to allow bottom-up collaboration, fit with this directionality? We have seen, in the current Horizon Europe programme, that the most directive calls have led to few applicants to calls (because of their complexity) and to the least demonstrable success. So, how would directionality work for alliances, in teaching, research, and societal engagement?

" How open would the Commission be to third countries having access to the ECF?"

And finally, moving alliances to the ECF would raise important questions for third countries. Currently, alliances are open to all Erasmus+ programme countries (including, for example, Norway, Iceland and Turkey) and to universities beyond that in the European Higher Education Area as associate countries.

The UK United Kingdom and Switzerland have committed to joining Erasmus+, which would make their universities full members.

• What would happen if alliances joined the ECF?
• How open would the Commission be to third countries having access to the ECF, a fund created for the EU to get ahead globally?
• And how open would the government of a third country be to pay into the ECF for alliances?

It may be much easier for a government to justify paying into Erasmus+, to which all universities have access, than into a dedicated fund for alliances, which will only benefit a minority of higher education institutions.

There is a choice to be made: do we want to see Erasmus+ be as strong as possible in the next MFF? Or do we want to move alliances to the ECF? Over many decades, the Erasmus+ programme has been the most faithful companion of universities, staff and students across all subject domains. We should continue to integrate alliances in this success.