Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - The European Research Council - Meeting the challenge of world class excellence
Date: 2009-10-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU action, EU office or agency, EU programme, research programme, scientific research

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 22.10.2009 
COM(2009) 552 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH COUNCIL - MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF 
WORLD CLASS EXCELLENCE 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH COUNCIL - MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF 
WORLD CLASS EXCELLENCE 

INTRODUCTION 

The European Research Council (ERC) is an ambitious new component of the EU's research 
policy,  introduced  under  the  provisions  of  the  European  Community's  Seventh  Framework 
Programme  for  Research  (FP7)1.  It  is  the  means  for  implementing  the  Specific  Programme 
“Ideas”,  which  is  endowed  with  a  substantial  budget  (€  7.51  billi on  over  the  period  2007-
2013). The ERC's architecture comprises an independent Scientific Council, composed of 22 
eminent researchers, supported by a Dedicated Implementation Structure (DIS) in the form of 
an Executive Agency of the Commission2. 

Creating  the  ERC  was  a  pioneering  step  for  the  European  Union3.  Set  up  as  a  brand  new 
entity  to  fund  investigator-driven  frontier  research  of  world  class  quality  at  European  level, 
with  the  aim  to  advance  Europe's  scientific  performance  at  the  highest  levels  of  excellence, 
the ERC is establishing new parameters for research activity at Community level. For the first 
time,  a  Community  research  programme  is  operating  on  the  basis  of  open  European 
competition  between  individual  research  teams,  independent  scientific  governance,  and 
autonomous execution via an executive agency. The ERC has already become a highly visible 
and influential component of the European Research Area.  

Two and a half years from the start of FP7 and the implementation of the "Ideas" programme, 
it is an opportune time to take stock of progress: 

•  Four "Ideas" annual work programmes have been adopted and four calls for proposals have 
been completed since the formal start in 2007. This has provided considerable experience 
of  the  implementation  of  the  "Ideas"  programme  with  its  particular  operational  features, 
including  the  independent  Scientific  Council,  the  peer  review  and  granting  methods 
associated with frontier research. 

•  After  an  intensive  period  of  planning  and  development,  and  following  the  Establishment 
Act adopted by the Commission in December 20074, the ERC Dedicated Implementation 
Structure  (DIS),  in  the  form  of  a  specific  ERC  Executive  Agency  (ERCEA),  has  been 
declared administratively autonomous from the Commission on 15 July 2009.  

•  Against  this  background,  the  independent  “Review  of  the  ERC's  structures  and 
mechanisms”,  mandated  by  FP7  and  its  Specific  Programme  "Ideas",  has  now  been 
completed, providing detailed conclusions and recommendations on the way forward. 

1 
2 

3 
4 

OJ L 412, 30.12.2006, p1 
The ERC Executive Agency is managed by a Director and a Steering Committee, both nominated by 
the Commission. 
OJ L57 of 24.2.2007, p14 
2008/37/EC; OJ L 9, 12.1.2008, p.15 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Like other innovative structures, such as the Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs), the European 
Institute  of  Innovation  and  Technology  (EIT)  or  the  European  Research  Infrastructure 
Consortia (ERICs), the ERC offers a new model for implementing Community research and 
technological  development  policy.  First  experience  has  shown  certain  obstacles  to  their  full 
development,  which  is  only  natural  when  new  structures  are  being  created.  Some  of  the 
problems  which  have  come  to  the  surface  have  been  solved  -  or  are  being  addressed  - 
pragmatically within the current legal framework, but others may necessitate deeper changes.  

It is clear that the stakes go well beyond the ERC itself. This Communication, which builds 
on the experience gained so far by the Commission in implementing the "Ideas" programme 
and  on  the  results  of  the  independent  Review,  has  therefore  to  be  seen  within  the  broader 
context  of  a  more  global  reflexion  on  the  evolution  of  the  Community's  policies  and 
programmes  in  the  fields  of  research  and  technological  development  and  innovation.  The 
Commission's  main  concern  is  twofold:  maintaining,  a  consistent  and  transparent  approach, 
while at the same time ensuring that initiatives have the necessary means and tools to reach 
their  specific  objectives  within  these  policy  domains.  The  overall  challenge  for  Europe  is 
clear: boosting research and innovation for a sustainable knowledge-based society.  

As  concerns  the  ERC,  the  Commission's  initial  objective  and  determination  remain 
unchanged:  to  bring  a  world  class  frontier  research  funding  organisation  into  maturity,  in 
order  to  harness  and  harvest  Europe's  scientific  excellence,  with  the  scientific  community 
driving the frontier research agenda. The launch and initial years have been clearly recognized 
as a good start. Now the Commission wants to take advantage of the lessons learnt from this 
first  phase  of  the  ERC's  life.  This  Communication  therefore  sets  out  a  package  of  concrete 
measures which can be implemented by the Commission in the short term. It also identifies 
medium term challenges that will need to be addressed together with other institutions in the 
broader  context  of  a  reflection  on  how  Community  instruments  and  the  Community's 
administrative  and  financial  control  framework  can  be  best  used  to  boost  new  sources  of 
sustainable  growth.  This  should  ensure  the  ERC's  durable  success  as  one  of  the  most 
important components of the European Research Area, recognising two key features: (i) the 
Community nature of the ERC; (ii) the importance of scientific excellence for Europe.  

THE ERC REVIEW: TOWARDS A WORLD-CLASS FRONTIER RESEARCH ORGANISATION  

In conformity with the Specific Programme "Ideas", and in order to settle on an agreed and 
stable  structure  for  the  ERC  as  soon  as  possible,  the  independent  Review  of  the  ERC's 
Structures  and  Mechanisms  was  set  up  by  the  Commission at a  relatively early stage  of  the 
ERC's operations5. The objectives of the Review were to:  

–  Analyse  the  ERC's  structures  and  mechanisms  against  criteria  of  scientific 
excellence, autonomy, efficiency and transparency, and with the full involvement 
of the Scientific Council; 

–  Consider the process and criteria for the selection of the members of the Scientific 

Council; 

–  Consider the advantages and disadvantages of a structure based on an Executive 

Agency and a structure based on Article 171 of the Treaty. 

5 

COM(2008) 526 final 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Panel of six eminent experts led by Professor Vaira Vike-Freiberga presented its report to 
the Commission on 23 July 20096. The Commission extends its appreciation to the members 
of the ERC Review Panel for their energy and diligence in carrying out this demanding task.  

The  Panel's  analysis  was  based  on  substantial  input  from  stakeholders  within  the  scientific 
community,  including  a  detailed  hearing  of  the  ERC  Scientific  Council,  an  extensive 
questionnaire survey of applicants and peer reviewers, and reports on operational experience 
as well as legal and budgetary advice from the Commission services. 

The ERC Review confirms that the first two years of the ERC's operation have been, overall, 
a considerable success. Its scientific strategy, the design of its grant schemes and the quality 
of its peer review has been widely recognised by the research community, as illustrated by the 
results of the questionnaire survey carried out for the Review. 

From the operational perspective, the ERC has been able, from a "standing start", to design 
and put into effect novel implementing arrangements for the "Ideas" programme, rapidly build 
up  staff  and  resources,  and  create  an  autonomous  operating  structure  in  the  form  of  an 
executive  agency,  while  meeting  an  unprecedented  and  unexpected  level  of  demand  from 
applicants. 

Having  considered  the  opportunities  and  potential  risks  associated  with  the  two  types  of 
structure,  the  Review  comes  to  the  position  that  while  the  Executive  Agency  model,  in  its 
current standard form, involves a number of constraints, the difficulties and risks associated 
with moving to a new structure based on Article 171 of the Treaty, including the possibility of 
political  interference  with  the  ERC's  scientific  independence,  would  not  justify  a  change  of 
structure  -  at  least  until  the  prospects  for  developing  and  refining  the  Executive  Agency  to 
meet the ambitions of the ERC are exhausted. The Panel recommends a further independent 
review in 2 years. 

Nevertheless, as the Review points out, if the ERC is to cement its early success and become a 
truly  world-class  frontier  research  organisation  -  a  continental  leader  in  promoting 
breakthrough science and technology needed to sustain the creativity of European economies 
and societies – further attention must urgently be given to the refinement of its structure and 
modes  of  operation.  For  its  success  to  be  sustainable  in  the  long  term,  the  ERC  requires 
dedicated and enlightened leadership, and rapid consolidation of its activities at all levels, and 
a  culture  of  flexibility  and  trust  which  allows  frontier  research  to  thrive.  These  are  the 
essential  principles  which  permeate  the  short-term  and  medium  term  actions  set  out  below. 
All  proposed  actions  in  this  Communication  will  be  implemented  within  the  financial 
envelope of the existing FP7 and no additional budgetary impact is foreseen. 

DEVELOPING THE ERC INTO A MATURE, WORLD-CLASS RESEARCH FUNDING ORGANISATION 

With the ERCEA now autonomous and the Review completed, the Commission has ambitious 
aims for this second phase of the ERC's development. Whilst the Scientific Council defines 
the  scientific  strategy  of  the  programme  and  the  ERCEA  executes  the  budget,  the 
Commission  ensures  the  autonomy  of  the  ERC  and  retains  a  political  and  financial 
responsibility including accountability for implementing the Specific Programme "Ideas".  

6 

The report, and further details on the evidence and the method used by the ERC Review Panel can be 
found on the ERC website: http://erc.europa.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&topicID=158 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Therefore  the  Commission  intends  to  put  into  effect a two-fold  strategy to  address not only 
the classical teething problems associated with any new organisation but also the underlying 
causes of administrative inefficiencies and structural problems identified in the first period of 
the ERC's operations: 

(i) 

(ii) 

Take immediate and short term actions to implement those recommendations of the 
Review and other necessary technical improvements to the ERC's operating methods 
which  can  be  achieved  within  the  framework  of  its  own  competences,  be  these  at 
Commission or Agency level.  

Address,  in  a  medium  term  perspective,  concerns  associated  with  the  underlying 
rules  and  regulations,  by  bringing  forward  proposals  to  Council  and  Parliament  to 
modify  the  financial  and  administrative  rules  and  make  them  more  consistent  with 
the needs of frontier research. 

That the ERC must be a "learning organisation" is encapsulated in the words of the Specific 
Programme "Ideas": "…The implementation and management of the activity will be reviewed 
and  evaluated  on  an  ongoing  basis  to  assess  its  achievements  and  to  adjust  and  improve 
procedures on the basis of experience".  

(i) Immediate and short term actions 

The  following  actions,  with  indicative  timescales  for  their  implementation,  fall  within  the 
competence of the Commission and/or ERCEA. To clarify and reinforce the legal base, they 
will be reflected, as appropriate, in adjustments to the Commission Decision establishing the 
ERC7, and the ERCEA establishment8 and delegation Decisions9.  

Integrate scientific and administrative governance  

The Review Panel acknowledged that the Commission, as foreseen in the Specific Programme 
"Ideas", has been an effective "guarantor" of the ERC's autonomy and integrity and has fully 
respected the independence of the Scientific Council in setting the ERC's scientific strategy. 
However,  the  Review  finds  that  the  current  ERC  structure,  which  involves  separation  of 
scientific  and  financial/administrative  responsibilities,  creates  unnecessary  complexities  and 
frustrations.  The  Review  Panel  makes  recommendations  for  remedial  measures,  including 
combining  the  roles  of  the  ERCEA  Director  and  ERC  Secretary  General  into  a  single  post, 
subject to the identification of a distinguished scientist with robust administrative experience. 
Other  recommendations  are  that  the  Director  should  report  directly  and  regularly  to  the 
Commissioner  for  research  and  that  the  membership  of  the  ERCEA  Steering  Committee 
should  be  adapted  to  include  two  members  of  the  Scientific  Council  as  well  as  an  outside 
distinguished scientist.  

Within the current financial and regulatory framework, the Commission intends to implement 
the  following  actions  which  aim  at  bringing  the  scientific  and  administrative  aspects  of 
governance into closer alignment and simplify and streamline the structure:  

7 
8 
9 

2007/134/EC; OJ L 57, 24.02.2007, p.14 
2008/37/EC; OJ L 9, 12.1.2008, p.15 
C (2008)5694 final (unpublished). 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
a. 

b. 

c. 

Establish  the  post  of  the  ERCEA  Director  with  the  profile  of  a  distinguished 
scientist with robust administrative and managerial experience. The Scientific 
Council will be involved in the subsequent selection process as foreseen in the 
legal  and  regulatory  ERC  framework  and  the  Guidelines  for  Appointing 
Directors of Executive Agencies10. Timescale: Q2/2010 

Following the successful appointment of the Director with such a profile, and 
with the prior agreement of the Scientific Council, it is anticipated that the post 
of the ERC Secretary General would not be maintained, taking into account the 
term of the incumbent. Timescale: Q2/2011 

Consider  the  adjustment  of  the  composition  of  the  ERCEA  Steering 
Committee11  membership  and  of  its  operating  modalities,  subject  to  ensuring 
that the Commission is able to exercise at all times its functions of control and 
supervision  of  the  ERCEA  by  keeping  the  majority  of  votes.  Timescale: 
Q1/2010 

d.  Develop  and  implement  a  coherent  and  integrated  communication  strategy, 
including a unified web-site which gives to the external stakeholders a single 
clear  vision  and  seamless  coverage  of  the  ERC's  strategy  and  operational 
implementation,  reflecting  the  activities  of  both  the  ERCEA  and  Scientific 
Council.  This  improved  communication  strategy  will  also  contribute  to 
reinforce  the  transparency  of  the  ERC  operations  and  alleviate  the  risk  of 
conflict of interest. Timescale: Q1/2010 

The  Scientific  Council  and  the  ERCEA  Director  will  be  invited  to  meet  the  Commissioner 
responsible  for  research,  whenever  appropriate,  to  discuss  progress  in  the  achievement  of 
ERC's objectives.  

Improved administrative procedures 

It  is  evident  that  the  quality  of  the  ERC's  funding  schemes  –  and,  beyond  this,  the  ERC's 
reputation - depends directly on the quality and capabilities of its peer reviewers – panellists 
and  referees.  The  Review  concludes  that  to  assure  the  continuing  availability  of  such  high 
quality  reviewers and panellists contributing to the programme, management procedures  for 
their appointment and reimbursement must be drastically simplified and made as user friendly 
as possible. 

The  ERCEA,  in  agreement  with  the  Commission  and  within  the  existing  legal  framework, 
will, therefore, in a progressive approach:  

a. 

10 
11 

Start  developing  and  implementing  lighter  and  more  functional  "ERC-specific" 
administrative  procedures  covering  the  critical  processes  of  appointing  and 
reimbursing  peer  reviewers  (panellists  and  referees)  and  managing  grants. 
Timescale: Q4/2009 

SEC(2009)27. 
C(2008) 5132 (unpublished). The ERCEA Steering Committee is presently composed of 3 Commission 
officials, 2 scientists and the ERC Secretary General as observer. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
b. 

c. 

Experiment  and,  if  successful,  fully  deploy  lighter  authentication  procedures  for 
experts  using  website  and  other  professional  data,  compatible  with  best  scientific 
practice. Timescale: Q4/2009 

Further  optimize,  with  the  aim  to  implement,  efficient  procedures  for  expert 
appointments, which may cover the whole of the FP7 period, rather than individual 
years. Timescale: Q2/2010 

Consolidation of activities at all levels 

The ERC's operations demand a high level of professionalism at all levels: in the selection of 
Scientific Council members and peer reviewers and in associated management operations, for 
example as regards conflict of interest provisions, applying both to selection of projects and 
the  work  of  seconded  national  experts.  These  operations  should  be  implemented  rigorously 
but with greater flexibility. 

The Review endorses the criteria established and the selection methodology for the selection 
of  Scientific  Council  members,  and  advocates the  establishment  of  a standing  Identification 
Committee for this purpose. It also suggests that more transparency is needed, for example in 
the  selection  of  Scientific  Council  members  and  peer  reviewers,  and  as  regards  the  strategy 
discussions of the Scientific Council.  

The Commission and ERCEA will take steps to secure high standards of professionalism and 
transparency while guaranteeing independence and quality in the ERC operations: 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

12 

13 

Clarify  the  relations  and  modus  operandi  between  the  ERCEA  and  the  Scientific 
Council  in  their  respective  roles  in  the  ERC  operations  and  if  necessary  revise  the 
ERC Decision. Timescale: Q2/2010 

Establish  a  standing,  independent,  Identification  Committee,  in  line  with  the 
recommendations  made  by  the  ERC  Scientific  Council  Identification  Committee 
200912  to  assure  the  staged  renewal  of  the  Scientific  Council,  which  will  work  in 
consultation  with  the  Scientific  Council  and  on  the  basis  of  the  criteria  and 
methodology already established and endorsed by the Panel. Timescale: Q1/2010 

Encourage the Scientific Council to consider the creation of a sub-committee tasked 
with broadening the basis for the search for experts for the peer review evaluation. 
Timescale: Q1/2010 

Explore the possibilities to provide, in recognition of the personal commitment of the 
members  of  the  Scientific  Council,  and  especially  the  Chair  and  Vice-Chairs,  an 
honorarium for attendance at the Scientific Council plenary meetings13, and continue 
the arrangement for the local support to the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the Scientific 
Council, using the "Co-ordination and Support Action" grant funding instrument of 
FP7. Timescale: Q2/2010 

ERC  Scientific  Council 
http://erc.europa.eu/pdf/ERC_Id_Final_Report_2009-01-19.pdf 
Along the lines of those established for the European Institute of Technology, Regulation EC/294/2008, 
OJ L97, 09.04, 2008, p1 

Identification  Committee,  Final  Report, 

January 

2009, 

19 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
e. 

f. 

Work with the Scientific Council in making the ERC's operations more transparent to 
external stakeholders, including publication of relevant codes of conduct and conflict 
of  interest  provisions,  and  minutes  of  Scientific  Council  meetings.  Timescale: 
Q4/2009 

Introduce  in  liaison  with  the  Scientific  Council  and  under  the  authority  of  the 
ERCEA Director a committee to provide guidance on conflicts of interest, fraud and 
ethical  issues,  according  to  the  legal  provisions  and  international  good  practice  to 
ensure  the  ERC's  operations  are  irreproachable  from  the  perspective  of  quality  and 
fairness especially during the peer review evaluation process. Timescale: Q2/2010 

(ii) Medium term actions 

The  operational  implementation  of  the  Ideas  programme  has  led  to  a  number  of  concerns 
being  expressed  by  researchers  and  their  host  organisations,  demonstrating  that  issues  of 
administrative efficiency are critical in the implementation of frontier research projects. 

The ERC Review Panel, furthermore, considers that operational efficiency cannot be divorced 
from scientific management as clearly as is suggested by the current ERC model. The issues 
of  administrative  efficiency  must  be  improved,  but  the  Review  recognises  that  the  ERC's 
problems, in many respects, are linked to the deeper regulatory environment and "culture of 
control"  which  results  from  it,  in  the  Community  system.  It  suggests  a  need  to  move  to  a 
system  of  "lump  sums"  rather  than  grants  based  on  contracts  and  considers  that  the 
philosophy of the Financial Regulation and associated control processes should be rethought, 
to restore an approach built on trust, combined with strong sanctions in the case of guilt.  

A  number  of  issues  may  not  be  solved  in  the  current  framework  and  require  longer-term 
actions  or  changes.  The  upcoming  triennial  review  of  the  Financial  Regulation  provides  a 
timely opportunity for examining these issues, as this regulation has a broad scope, covering 
not  only  financial  operations  as  such  but  also  the  framework  in  which  Executive  Agencies 
operate.  As  regards,  research  policies,  the  central  element  will  be  to  determine  the  precise 
nature and scope of specific adjustments to be made to the benefit of research, technological 
development  and  innovation,  and  specifically  frontier  research,  so  that  high  levels  of 
creativity  can  be  supported  without  inducing  undue  financial  risk.  The  appropriate  balance 
between risks, which are inevitable in the conduct of cutting-edge research, and the protection 
of the financial interests of the Community through the Financial Regulation indeed has to be 
found.  

The  Commission  will  take  the  opportunity  of  the  forthcoming  review  of  the  Financial 
Regulation to assess the situation, draw the lessons learned and formulate possible responses 
to  the  specific  administrative  and  financial  shortcomings  concerning  research,  technological 
development and innovation in general and frontier research in particular. With the global aim 
of simplification and better governance in mind, the objective would be to build an approach 
to financial management for research which puts emphasis on the function of frontier research 
grants as an investment in high quality researchers, as is understood to be good practice in all 
successful research systems world-wide. 

These issues should be seen in a broader context of reflection on how the future Community 
financial  and  administrative  framework  can  be  best  used  to  serve  the  policies  aimed  at 
boosting new sources of sustainable growth. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS 

After a successful “pioneering phase”, the ERC is now entering with confidence the second 
stage  of  its  development.  On  the  basis  of  early  evidence,  the  ERC  is  set  to  become  an 
important  and  stable  part  of  the  European  research  landscape  and  in  order  to  reach  its  full 
potential, it will also need the support of the other institutions and stakeholders. 

In  many  respects,  by  testing  new  ways  for  research  to  be  carried  out  in  the  Community 
context,  the  ERC  actually  stimulates  a  broader  process  of  learning  and  adaptation  and 
constitutes a true "agent of change" in the European Research Area.  

Whether  this  concerns  management  of  the  interface  between  the  Scientific  Council  and  the 
ERCEA,  procedures  for  handling  frontier  research  peer  review,  new  types  of  interactions 
between  national  and  Community  funding  activities  –  this  learning  process  is  involving 
stakeholders across the whole research community. If the strategy and actions set out by the 
Commission  is  to  achieve  its  aims,  the  continued  and  full  support  and  engagement  of  these 
stakeholders will likewise be critical in this next phase.  

This Communication sets out a series of actions which meet Europe's ambitions for the ERC, 
takes  duly  into  account  the  recommendations  of  the  Review  panel  and  accommodates  the 
Commission's own assessment of experience.  

Starting  immediately,  the  Commission  and  the  ERCEA  will  take  initiatives  under  their 
respective  competences  to  ameliorate  the  governance  and  administrative  flexibility  of  the 
ERC within the current regulatory framework. The Commission will also actively work with 
other stakeholders, including the Scientific Council, to ensure their continued support on the 
way forward and the parallel improvement and "professionalization" of activities under their 
own responsibility. 

The  Commission  will  engage  in  due  course,  and  within  the  review  of  the  Financial 
Regulation, into a broader and substantial debate with the European Parliament and Council 
on  the  regulatory  framework  for  research  and  technological  development.  It  will  aim  at 
ensuring that the appropriate balance is found between the risks inherent to research activities 
and the efficient use of EU funds, and that also appropriate structures and mechanisms can be 
provided for externalised research management. The overall aim is that Community financial 
and  administrative  framework  can  be  best  used  to  serve  the  policies  aimed  at  boosting  new 
sources of sustainable growth.  

EN 

9 

   EN