EU and international Projects and Funds consultant and trainer. Inclusion - Education - Health
💣 A Funding System Under Pressure: Horizon Europe’s Application Explosion ‼️ The numbers just released by the European Research Executive Agency (REA) are striking. More than 3,400 proposals have been submitted to just five Horizon Europe calls, with some actions showing an 80% increase in one year. 📈 The 2025 call for Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society alone attracted 1,331 applications, setting a record for the social sciences and humanities. The ERA Fellowships call reached 1,758 proposals, an 85% rise compared to 2024. Other calls, such as Research Infrastructures and Reforming and Enhancing the R&I system, followed the same trend. This explosion of applications is not an isolated episode. As I discussed in my recent article on Erasmus+ (https://lnkd.in/eE-2rbME), EU funding programmes are experiencing an unprecedented surge in demand, fundamentally reshaping how they work. 📉 The implications are profound. The higher the number of applications, the lower the success rates, and the more unequal the playing field becomes. For applicants, this means months of work and growing uncertainty. For the European Commission, its Directorates-General and Executive Agencies, it means confronting the challenge of redesigning evaluation systems that are reaching their limits. If this trend continues, the next Multiannual Financial Framework will need to rethink not only budgets but also accessibility, fairness and sustainability across all programmes. Otherwise, we risk a situation where brilliant ideas and solid partnerships will keep competing in an arena with vanishing chances of success. This is not a criticism, but an invitation to reflection. The explosion in proposals is also a sign of vitality, of organisations that believe in Europe’s programmes. But it is time to ask how we can channel this energy more effectively, to ensure that Europe’s funding remains both ambitious and accessible. Read the statistics below: https://lnkd.in/eUCeyfU7 #HorizonEurope #EUFunds #Research EURAXESS EASSH – European Alliance for Social Sciences and Humanities EARTO - European Association of Research and Technology Organisations EUF - European University Foundation European University Association League of European Research Universities (LERU) Manuel Segovia-Martinez Tally Hatzakis Alicia Gómez Campos Panagiotis Kokkinakos Sutra
There's a cascading effect: as national and regional funding for education is declining (and, for some sectors, substantially cut), organisations turn to European funding. In education, they typically apply in Erasmus+ first, and when they've gained experience, they "move on" to Horizon Europe where they can get decent staff rates. This situation requires a complete rethinking of the financing for education. At the end of the day, this trend is not about generating more funding for education, but only about (desperately) saving what's there already, in a European downward trend of public financing for education. The difference is where the money is coming from, and the big question is if Member States can be convinced to increase their contribution to the EU budget, so that education will continue to receive public funding, albeit in a roundabout way via EU funding instruments. We need to be aware, however, of possible adverse effects on the quality of education provision, if education professionals need to spend more and more time on fundraising instead of focusing on the development of educational programmes.
A new era for approaching EU program is at stake. Organisations have to take into account this scenario and take action accordingly.
The rise of AI has made it much easier to prepare proposals, which also increases their overall number. Perhaps the evaluation process should include an additional step, for example, direct meetings with consortium members to ensure a more thorough assessment.
I think we also need to consider how AI tools have lowered the barriers to producing high-quality proposals. Writing, structuring, and polishing research applications is now faster and more accessible than ever. While this is positive for inclusivity, it also means many more proposals of comparable quality are competing for limited funds. The result: an evaluation system under even greater pressure. AI is not the cause of the problem, but it’s certainly accelerating the imbalance between supply and available funding.
This is a narrow but very important discussion. I think we also should add that the recent call in the LIFE-programe received more than 1000 applications (+22%). The system might not be broken today, but it might be on that path and I am not sure that the current consolidation of programmes is the best way forward.
Noah Mike B.
2w
Exceeding 3,400 submissions across just five calls, with an 80% year-on-year increase — is not merely a data point. It reflects a systemic shift in the innovation landscape, driven by both urgency and opportunity. This explosion of proposals signals more than demand. It reveals a deepening recognition that traditional R&D models are no longer sufficient to address complex societal challenges — from climate resilience to digital transformation. What might be interesting is to understand these consortia - who and where are the partners and where are they coming from? These collaborations often reflect shared priorities around AI-driven solutions, sustainable development, and health equity — areas where local context meets global ambition. But also reflect other hidden dimensions. The reality is that while AI can accelerate proposal development and project execution, it cannot compensate for systemic gaps in capacity, coordination, or long-term strategic planning. We now face a pivotal question: How do we channel this energy into a more equitable, agile, and globally connected ecosystem? One that doesn’t just support more projects — but ensures those projects succeed, and that their outcomes truly serve society.
Yeah MSCA 17k applications, LiFE also doubled at least... Seems that IA is helping many research finalising their proposal 😏. Things for sure : - reviewers will be overwhelmed, time to award will be longer, quality of ESR will be less homogeneous. - win rate will drastically drop... With question about the ROI for many -Only viable approach will be with a centered "Human loop" , a real collaboration, augmented with IA and tools to get rid of the painful formating
Ai make proposal writing to easy. Everyone tries. Lot of garage submissions. Some AI BS proposals will slip through and that wont be good for anyone. Interesting times ahead!
Ivana Davidovska
⭐ AI Trainer & Custom GPT Builder ⭐ 2,300+ Researchers, EU Grant Writers, Educators Trained ⭐ Partner of Choice for AI Capacity Building Projects across Horizon Europe, Digital Europe & Erasmus+
3w20 years ago I was working at the NA (at the time for Grundtvig programme...if anyone can still remember that times), and we were working hard to attract more and more applicants. It seems now the opposite will become a goal. The questions are: - Is the demand higher due to real need? If yes, we have a different (deeper) problem. - Or AI unlocked capacities? That's another discussion. Not easy to solve...