ERC Review submission

 

Contribution of Universities UK and the UK HE Europe Unit to the 2009 Review of the European Research Council

Funding

It is important that ERC funding be enabled to grow significantly within the structures of EU funding programmes. The success of the ERC has led to high expectations among academics across Europe, many of whom are concerned about the very low success rate for funding applications resulting from the limited funds available. A question remains, therefore, as to whether the ERC is funded at the level required to make a significant difference to the EU research landscape, and whether more resources from the Framework Programme should be allocated in this manner.

As noted above, the competition for ERC grants can be seen to have played a role in contributing to more strategic approaches to the management of research. Enhanced competitive funding through the ERC will help promote this further and contribute to Commission policy objectives for enhancing the performance of university based research.

Financial sustainability

We have welcomed the European Commission’s recognition of the need to support research in Europe’s universities on a financially sustainable basis. We would therefore call for the Review to consider whether the current levels of reimbursement for ERC activities, particularly the proportion of overhead reimbursement, are sufficient within this context. It is our view that the current 20% flat rate overhead reimbursement is insufficient and should be reviewed. Whilst we would call for greater financial support for the ERC, we would not want to see the volume of activity grow without regard for the levels of reimbursement provided to universities.

Peer Review

We would propose that the Review consider how the ERC can strengthen the framework for peer review, with particular regard to making this more transparent and consistent.

Structure of the ERC

With regard to the advantages and disadvantages of a structure based on Article 171 of the EC Treaty, the Executive Agency model appears, on the whole, to be working well and providing an adequate level of independence in its operation. It is also important to remember that the operation of the ERC agency has only been fully staffed for a year and it is too early to make a clear assessment of how this is delivering. A key advantage of the Executive Agency model is that it helps maintain policy coherence with the Framework Programme, particularly from an operational level. This makes it easier for universities to manage, as the Rules for Participation are broadly in line with those for the rest of the programme. The benefit of a body set up under Article 171 of the Treaty is that it does at one level allow greater autonomy from the Commission. However, in our view there is a danger it may also facilitate unnecessary interference from member states.  It is our view that there does not appear to be any clear rationale for setting the ERC up under Article 171 at this moment in time and, indeed, it could cause unnecessary disruption if a change were to be made.