Rector on cuts to Faculty of Science: There’s no way around it

Thank you to the departmental faculty boards [elected bodies of academic staff at each department, ed.] at the Faculty of Science for engaging in the discussion about the current efforts to adjust the faculty’s activities to match its financial framework. You have written a thorough letter, and this reply is, admittedly, a bit on the long side. We are trying to address all your points.

READ ALSO: Dreyer should take responsibility and avert layoffs

Thank you also for expressing concern about what the adjustments might entail and how they are implemented. The concern is entirely understandable — this is a significant adjustment. And it’s important to consider the consequences of the different ways to realign our activities.

We know the upcoming restructuring process will negatively impact the affected academic fields, and this is precisely why it’s crucial that there is broad understanding of the situation. Your letter contributes to this understanding.

Two reasons for the deficit

The existence and scale of a structural deficit at the Faculty of Science has been known and discussed for nearly five years — well before the University of Copenhagen (UCPH) launched its administration reform. Efforts to address the deficit have centred on two key components, which have been clearly evident in annual financial results, budget revisions, and projections:

1. First, the Faculty of Science has, for some time, drawn on the faculty’s central savings to support and expand departmental activities. In other words, more money has been distributed than the faculty has brought in (the difference was DKK 47 million in 2023 and DKK 37 million in 2024). This was possible as long as there were reserves — but these are now nearly depleted, and education and research elsewhere at the university cannot be expected to fund a structural overspend. This is why both the financial framework and the expenditure — which primarily takes place at the departmental level — must be reduced. This has been known for years and has been communicated multiple times, particularly by the dean in SCIENCE newsletters, in the University Post and in the media Forskerforum.
2. Second, increases in operating costs for buildings have had to be budgeted for and covered by the Faculty of Science’s campus service department, now transferred to the buildings unit UCPH BYG. These costs are particularly linked to UCPH taking over the Niels Bohr Building and the complex for the Natural History Museum of Denmark. The issue isn’t rent payments in itself, but operational costs — previously budgeted within the Faculty of Science — which the faculty had to account for. These costs were long anticipated, as the departmental faculty boards noted, and are reflected in similar estimates in the report from consultants KPMG.

The goal is necessary — without action, the financial issues will only get worse

Over the years, the Faculty of Science management team has held ongoing discussions with the Rector’s Office about the transition from overspending to structural balance. In 2024, it was agreed that the Faculty of Science would prepare and implement a plan to reach a balanced budget from 2027 onwards. The goal is necessary — without action, the financial issues will only get worse. This is why Faculty of Science management has laid out a plan to address the imbalances. We will return to this below.

Savings on campus space go to UCPH as a whole

Operating costs for buildings are increasing across UCPH, not just at the Faculty of Science. The overall rent is also rising — not least due to the Niels Bohr Building and the Natural History Museum complex coming into use. These rent increases are covered collectively — that is, by UCPH as a whole. At the same time, UCPH is growing, driven by increases in external funding. At the Faculty of Science alone, external funding has increased by around 60 per cent since 2020, reaching approximately DKK 1.6 billion in 2024. This suggests a greater need for space.

UCPH has at the same time a plan to use its campus areas more efficiently, which includes vacating several buildings. Moving the Faculty of Social Sciences from the former municipal hospital to South Campus is part of this, and we look forward to completing the planned relocations at the Faculty of Science in the coming years. These consolidations are necessary for UCPH to sustain its overall real estate finances — including rent for the Niels Bohr Building, the Natural History Museum, and required renovations of our ageing buildings.

This means the gains from consolidating will go toward covering the overall rent increases at UCPH — and will not be returned to individual faculties. By way of comparison, the savings from the Faculty of Social Sciences’ relocation to South Campus are not returned to those same faculties.

The reform only accounts for minor deviations

As mentioned above — and as both the University Director and the Dean of the Faculty of Science have pointed out — the structural deficit at the Faculty of Science and its causes were known before the reform of the UCPH administration even began. That said, the reform’s budget impacts and savings must also be handled — and this overlaps with the restructuring process. All faculties, including the Faculty of Science, are required to implement savings and budget adjustments from the reform.

The announced budget cuts under the administration reform include several elements: Operational costs related to administration staff now moved to central administration, and cuts to external consultant budgets. These are expenses that the departments do not have to cover anymore.

Overall, these are relatively minor deviations at faculty level. This is also true for the Faculty of Science

The largest element, however, is the transfer of payroll budgets for all reduced administrative staff positions, priced at average salary levels. There are minor variations between departments in how closely these average salaries match the actual transferred staff salaries, but these are relatively small at the faculty level — including at the Faculty of Science.

This part also includes staff roles where administrative tasks have been shared with others — such as lab technicians. It’s clear that the associated payroll reductions must be absorbed by departments, which is no easy task. Also, any administrative positions not refilled during 2023–2024 — often because staff left voluntarily — count toward the Faculty of Science’s reform-related savings or were transferred as vacant to the central administration.

Balance needed by 2027

It’s completely understandable that the department faculty boards are wondering whether a longer timeline might soften the impact compared to the current plan. Management has considered this. But the conclusion was that such an approach would be more difficult and more burdensome. There are several reasons for this.

Delaying cuts would mean savings would materialise too slowly, pushing both the Faculty of Science and UCPH into unsustainable territory — damaging academic environments and long-term development. That’s why the agreement to achieve balance from 2027 was made. The Faculty of Science’s financial imbalance affects the whole university, given its substantial share of UCPH’s overall finances. And looking ahead, ensuring the long-term sustainability of the UCPH budget is of central importance — which means that delay is not a viable option.

Furthermore, a long-term adjustment would require a strict hiring freeze and severe cost containment — creating a degree of randomness in terms of which positions disappear and which are not refilled over a long period. This would seem unfair, and we would lose our ability to ensure proper teaching coverage and develop research fields. We would also lose the chance to use the targeted mitigation measures allowed in the current plan, which are more flexible and measured than blanket hiring freezes.

All departments shoulder the burden together

These are difficult and significant decisions. This is why the entire Faculty of Science management — the dean’s office and the department heads — have worked thoroughly and intensively since February to address the challenge and prepare the agreed plan. A final framework adjustment has now been made for 2026 onwards, reducing departmental funding to match the actual available budget. All departments have had their allocations reduced and must contribute to financial improvements. This is a collective effort.

Based on this, departmental analyses have been conducted to explore ways to improve finances, which have been reviewed with the dean. The overall effects of these plans have been shared with the faculty and department collaboration committees, Academic Council, and the department faculty boards.

There will be layoffs across the Faculty of Science

READ ALSO: Faculty of Science braces for tough choices as budget gap widens (May 2025)

As outlined in Faculty of Science newsletters, it became clear in June that the various initiatives could potentially save up to DKK 50 million. That’s a major improvement — and departments deserve credit for their constructive approach despite the tough topic. But a significant challenge remains in closing the final gap. That’s why the Faculty of Science introduced a qualified hiring freeze from June until at least the end of the year. At the same time, negotiations began with the unions on a voluntary redundancy scheme, and a general process plan was presented to ensure decisions are taken in the second half of 2025. It is now likely that there will be layoffs across the Faculty of Science.

The current status will be presented by the dean of the Faculty of Science at town hall meetings on Monday 29 September (North Campus) and Tuesday 30 September (Frederiksberg Campus).

Is this good management?

While we understand the frustration over the current situation and the proposed plan, we believe the chosen path is the most responsible in terms of management. The plan is based on the continued principle of decentralised budget responsibility at UCPH, which ensures that academic decisions are made as close as possible to where they are implemented. At the same time, it emphasises that this budget responsibility demands continuous managerial focus on financial balance.

It’s not an uplifting conclusion — and as the Faculty of Science has also underlined, the savings are of such a scale that they will affect how teaching is delivered and how research is organised and financed at the Faculty of Science — especially over the coming year, but also in the longer term.