 Thank you very much for this very nice introduction, of course, of the organization for inviting me to be here. It's a great pleasure to share information with you and also with all of you. Yes, Felipe and I, we worked together for a while and the only thing I can say is congratulations to the association for doing great things with you. So, okay, what I'm trying to do is to tell you about ERC. I will walk you through the basics of ERC so you can understand what is behind the European Research Council, what is the philosophy, what we are doing. ERC is now 11 years old, so we can show some achievements, how we are doing, how we are changing the shape of research in Europe in many areas. Then I will talk about archaeology at ERC, what we have found in archaeology, and we will do some statistics and also some examples of what we have found in. And in the last part I will talk about the next framework program that is now under discussion in the European Parliament, that is all horizon Europe, what are the perspectives from the European side on research in the next period of seven years starting in 2021. So ERC is a funding organization in part of the European Commission that was created in 2007 with very clear aims. One is to support excellent research in all the areas of knowledge and all the domains and also it was created to try to retain the best researchers in Europe and also to attract talent from everywhere in the world and to do it through a generous funding of research projects that they have, typical understanding of five to six years. How this was implemented in these seven years? Well, first you have to have a legal basis. This is linked to what is called the framework programs. Framework programs are approved and debated every seven years. We are currently in the one call Horizon 2020 that will be finishing in 2020 and the next one that is the same as the one we talked about at the end is called Horizon Europe starting in 2021 and that is discussion in the Parliament but then we will talk about the proposal that the European Commission has made and is underway in the Parliament. So this legal basis is linked to the framework program that in the year 2006 studies the same three principles that have been maintained in Horizon 2020 and are the key principles for European research. First, to trust in the scientific community by this I mean that the European Commission decided to give to 22 scientists the power to decide on what to do with a significant slice of funding of the framework program. We basically want to constrain Poland. The only constraint is that whatever they decide how to use the money the only criteria to select, to select the projects will be excellent. No other planning effort would be added. And of course, and since the financing was created to provide support to these 22 prominent scientists, the scientific council, the European Research Council to carry out all the decisions and to implement the program. So this council worked on the study, what to do with that and what they decided was to support individual researchers and their teams and also to not establish priorities and to fund all areas of research all areas are eligible for funding from ERC and there are no priorities what is called a true bottom-up approach to fund research. So this has been maintained since 2007 through the first framework program that was called the 7th and through the current one that is called Horizon 2020. The current composition of the scientific council is shown here. These are 22 prominent scientists. This is the presentation given in your mathematician and there are three vice presidents, one for each scientific to make. There are three in ERC. One is Physical Sciences and Engineering. The other one is Life Sciences. The third one is Social Sciences and Humanities. Mark and Stoff Office is the vice president. There are no quotas to elect to appoint these people. The only consideration that is made is that these people should cover as much as possible all fields of knowledge. Now in 2022 this is a difficult task. Some people are more covered by this but some people are less. But there are no quotas per country whatsoever. So how we have been arranged to achieve these goals and to keep working well. The scientific council, as I said, is like the governing body of ERC. The body deciding what to do with the money, defining the programs, defining the evaluation process, defining everything. So it's the key part of the council. The European Commission is the one providing the money. It also verifies that the general financial rules and the European Commission are satisfied in the way we spell the money. And of course there is the Secretary of the Agency where I work that we do all the implementation of the program, the follow-up financial scientific and so on. But the scientific council does another very important task. And this is something that makes the difference because many of the fund bodies in Europe and in the world is that they identify the members of the evaluation panel. We don't have a process, a kind of autonomous process where people postulate themselves to be an evaluator if you see. It's totally doped down by these 22 people. These 22 people, they appoint the members of the panel. We have around 2,000 people active as expanders. But likewise, in the first seven years we have 11 curves so the budget was increasing year by year so we can develop the program, the processes and so on. And then in Christ in 2020, the budget was significantly increased so let's say the 7 billion of the 7 to 13 billion in Christ in 2020. And we are now, as you see, in 2018 in the years when we are close to the 2 billion that will be reached in 2019 and we will end the billion with 2,200 billion for 2020. By the way, this means that we wait 17% within the overall budget for projects in the framework of the European Commission. You can ask what, in the framework of the whole European Union what is the weight of the fund in the European Commission? This is very small. It's actually 2.5. So when you compare to all the money in the European Union it's a thing of public money. It's the same to research where small, small fraction. Even so, it's a thing we are making a change. Well, about the funding schemes. As I mentioned, ERCs tried to fund the best research for individual researchers, tried to encourage them to propose the most interesting ideas possible. High risk, high gain ideas in the respective fields of research. And this is all through our holes in funding schemes that are listed here. Basically we have two funding schemes. One, that is for individual researchers that is sliced in three types. One is what is called a starting consolidator. Because we try to evaluate people that are more or less in the same career stage when they apply. So starting and it's for people between 2 and 7 years at the PSD to 7 to do an advanced for the rest. But the schemes are very simple. You have to provide a very good idea. High risk, high gain idea is funded and it is funded. If the planet recommends it's for funding then we have enough money to do it. On top of this, the same. Three slices of the same scheme, starting from 7 years at the PSD we have simply granted that it's a scheme to try to fund projects that need more than one individual researcher to really carry out special interdisciplinary projects but not only. Scenery grants are for teams of 2 to 4 principal investigators. Here the funding can go up to 14 million. That is more than in the other schemes. In the starting limits up to 2, in those areas 2.75 in advance a 3.5. And basically this is how we fund research. It has been rather stable over the years. Scenery was interrupted due to lack of budget and also that the council wanted to assess what happened in Scenery grants in 2012 and 2013, two years when we launched two pilot homes and after all this assessment and so on it has been restated in 2018 and it will stay in the country for years. And on top of this we have another small scheme that is called proof of concept. This is not an open scheme for everyone. It's only for people, for researchers that they already have a grant and the idea here is the following. We stress that the impact in the economy, in the society of the research we've found in the medium and the long term but there will be situations that this can go much, much faster. Even in the lifetime of the grant these grants typically last for five years. So proof of concept is just for that. You have to be very interested in something. You think that we go to the market quickly. We give you 150,000 euros for one year, one year and a half for you to check. To check if this is true, to do a market study to check the visibility of your idea. To study the potential pattern of the situation of your area. All this can be done with this proof of concept. This is, as she said, it's only for the eyes that they have already a grant and around 20% of the grantees apply at least once in the regular grant for four days. And we are organizing the evaluation plans to address the proposal that we get in each family scheme. There are 25 families covered on knowledge that means that these families are very broad in scope and this is not important in the sense that ERC receives a lot of interdisciplinary research and they try to cover as much as possible in this interview in the panel. Because of archaeology we receive the proposal seen in the SHCs panel that the human past is basically the one dealing with history and with archaeology. Let me just finish this part of the basics with some key elements. That's just maybe some take-home elements that are, I think, the key issues that we are seeing. First, that is often due to research. The only constraint is that you have new research at least 50% of your time in Europe or one of the associate countries to do the work program. It is what Olaf has said, of yourself. Fundable and then priority is all. There is only one evaluation per year and then it's a peer-review process that I think is there. It has been developed in these years and it's quite fun to approach for the reasons first because we are able to engage top researchers in the process of evaluation, coming from all over the world. It's not received according to Europeans. It's coming from all over the world. It's produced in a lot of Canada, Japan, Australia, all countries in the world continue with researchers. And also the process is established in such a way that it's targeted for to identify the best possibilities, ideas, ideas, ideas and the best potential in research to develop those ideas. You can say, okay, how do we do this for the very young researchers that the area's finished in two years ago? Well, for that, one of the things in the process is that these researchers have to go to the process for an interview in the panel. This is key for the success of ESC in identifying the best researchers and the best ideas. Well, the polls are very competitive. The average success rate since the beginning is 0.4 and also I think we have I mean, the grant is rather generous in use of the numbers up to 3.5 million in advance grant. But also the execution is very flexible. We give a lot of autonomy and independence to the PR, the PA, and make changes in the project. We understand that this is high-risk of the main needs and some strengthening in the process also. And also another important thing is that we do an exhaust for a lot of the research that we have been funding and we have the use of the resources. So these are the key elements on the basics of ESC and a bit of what the achievement is during these, let's say, 11 years of regular running. We have found already 8,500 projects but it's important also to remark that behind those projects there are teams of people. Like 70% of the money goes to salaries of people working in the teams. We estimate around more than 60,000 people that have benefit from our grant. We have around 70% of the team members that are not from the family. So we see that this plurial talent is attracted from everyone in the world. And around 8% of our mentees they don't have the functionality of any of the European countries they are nationals of third countries. But double this we have also in the race of different countries to exchange researches to push for international cooperation. So to show you some more statistics from the human resources side this is the distribution by age of the mentees until this is taken up to last year. So you can see that there is strong concentration among the young researchers. The policy of ERC has been to assign two thirds of the funding of the young researchers and one third for the senior researchers doing a very important effort in trying to identify the best young researchers to boost their careers because they will be the probably the senior researchers of the future. And you see also the distribution of the people in the team that most of the funding goes to postdocs and doctoral students and also researchers, sisters and technicians but mostly postdocs and doctoral students. Well, so how the research that all these things are producing is a research that is average or is a research that is having a significant impact in the research for the people. We do this following the bibliometric parameters and in different databases mostly in the database of scopus that is more complete. Remember that we are covering all areas of knowledge and we have to say that we have seen that we see that the impact of the papers, the publications coming from ERC funding is very high. You look at the top 1% we have seen when you look at this figure pursuant to ERC funding it becomes 7.7% which is really, really, really high. If you are funding average in the top 1%, you should have 1% but we are in 7.7% looking at that are only the proposals I mean the research from the team in FD7, because we are doing this study of scopus in 2020 are in the database of scopus. But also in the other database that is competing with this that is the worth of science we have very significant impact. Looking at this is a study that was done by clarifying analysis at the owners of the worth of science looking at the view of 10 years from 2007 to 2016 and the interesting thing is that ERC in the first 10 years of the life was the best funding organization worldwide the best in what sense in the sense that the papers that are not ERC in general they have a higher impact than the papers that are knowledge of all the funding organizations. They look at three parameters they have a normalization impact and we can see that it is the highest the top 1% cited also the highest and also another indicator that they look at that was a surprise for us is that in percentage international collaboration in the papers also ERC is the top one in the world so even that we found individual research in the principal investigators the cooperation is a given if you are doing top research you are doing excellent research this 60% is really impressive we think that we are serving the deal to the to the creation of ERC the gap that we have in the past with the United States regarding the citation of papers especially looking at the top 1% is a gap that is narrowed now probably is not anymore there we have data until 2014, 2015 and you see that either you look at what science or you look at two main databases for geometry this is a period and ERC is behind behind this due to the high quality of the papers that our principal investigators have done we do on top of the of the biometric analysis we do also an exposed assessment of the quality of the research we have funded by humans so we do an exposed peer assessment how to do this we do every year we select a random sample of projects that have finished two years ago and we organize an evaluation of the project with reviewers who are involved in the evaluation of those projects initially that they are totally independent of the project and in this project we have people that are knowledgeable about ERC sometimes they observe but also people that are totally accustomed to the project so we ask them to do this assessment and this is the result we have done this for three years and these are the results we ask them many questions in the assessment but one of the main questions is to allocate the the project in one of these four categories A is CT C is CT B is CT C is CT D is CT and you see that A plus B is ARC near to 75 to 80 percent so this is for system also we are going to see in the geometry that another paper search is being done by researchers a fraction is 30 percent but it's incremental but this is what we expect because we are asking our opponents to take risks to fund research that is risky so some of the projects should not be so successful it's weirdly the reason we think about it so let me just add more on the achievements as I mentioned already this project is successful in the sense that we see how in many cases in a significant number of cases the projects need to do patent applications and also this patent is a very very focused patent and also some startups can create it in the framework of these projects and of course ERC is a quarry from many other things we have a very very strict with our researchers with our members about these models we are very interested very significantly in the process of valuation and research and techniques also look up in the project open access has been also something in the DNA of ERC from the very beginning to push to open access in such a way that everyone feels comfortable with the process now in the way there are many ways to be independent to have a satisfactory situation for these years to dream behind this since the beginning in the past it's something that we look at very very very thoroughly we don't have as many applications for female researchers we like to have but the number that we have are totally proportional to the different sizes of the different fractions of female researchers in the scientific communities but we for instance check very carefully the success rates and the female men are the same and they are the same we try to find something that is going on the same for women in European participation to try to to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to be independently of the country of origin the whole institution where the success will be done is not going to participate in the process this is not evaluated at all in the process and this is pretty easy to say there may be a constant bias in the panel members so we follow this also very thoroughly to make sure that the success rate is coming so ERC is now very smart for many universities for many countries in Europe and ERC funding processes have been also exported to other member states and on top of this we know that sometimes they have lunch initiatives to be able to fund research that were successful in ERC but they got the Masunggre that is called A but we didn't have enough funding to fund this project so there are countries that they provide money for these people so they are better prepared for the next call or even to develop the project as they propose to do it so it's coming a new path in the landscape of ERC what are the reasons for this success? Well I think there is a trust I think there is a trust in the scientific community that things have been known usually for love and in ERC this is very much related to the fact that the governing body is actually this 22 people that they are scientists themselves I think this is key for the success because panel members they had to work hard for it but they had some nice top people and very busy very difficult to get there but we managed to convince them to work for us so this trust is essential to have a successful program we think we can be able to attract top researchers and top proposers who have seen the figures of the results the decision process we have tried to simplify as much as possible we think that is very simple we have this sound peer review and the grants are curious and long enough to implement the projects and to have this feeling for the principal investigators that they supervise to hope that it is needed to carry out the research due to the independence that we give this is related to the flexibility ok so this is just to walk through the achievements of these 11 years now archaeology same as archaeology is panel S.H.6 it is the study of the human past and has a archaeology history in each of the titles of the panel you will know our website you can see what we call the descriptors this is a list of 10 to 15 works that describe different aspects of history and different archaeology that we have found and the proposal that we will use in archaeology in archaeology is per year it is around 14 to 15 for each fold you have here the figures for 2016 17 and 18 in the starting angles of the data in the background I think close last week I don't have the breakdown by topic so I cannot give you the number but it will be something around 40 years because we have a similar number of proposals as we have here and probably it will not change much so this is the same the proposals we receive in the that piece before me assigned 39 projects related to archaeology and the current horizon 2020 so far close to 100 million I mean assigned to a total of 52 projects the breakdown by the country where this research is the stories, the song in this graph and you can see that the United Kingdom dominates the landscape with 40 percent ok is the country where we receive more applications so far and also the country that is more funding in projects on archaeology is followed by Germany and Spain, France, Italy and the Netherlands but with the smaller countries and let me say that United Kingdom Opera is the most successful country in the program in the PMR Science Council is around 20 percent of the funding going to United Kingdom but in the case of archaeology as you see this is twice as big so for you to know yet otherwise in the other figures our other figure for female principal investigators is around 25 percent and in the case of archaeology as you can see this 41 is a field that is quite balance ok but of course from down the field the research is not balance at all this one is quite successful in this sense I would like to show you some examples I asked the scientific officers dealing with to identify projects from each coal from different different countries and so on these are some of the many good projects usually figures we can find quite a few but just to be your favorite of the kind of research that we are funding the first one is Unstarting Grant project of 2014 of this favorite program by 2020 they are currently in its birth and the title is births from all the babies prehistoric fertility in the Balkans between 10,000 and 3,000 B.C. this is a project that is an opportunistic approach in understanding fertility and a scale and a different culture of factors influencing birth and health in the central Balkans it was funded with 1.7 million and it's been developed in the University of Nobisac in the B.C.S. Institute in Serbia it's a project that use high variety of methods humanist geometry geometric so you can see the different methods and it involves a large collaboration of 20 museums and institutions across Europe and the groundbreaking part that according to the evaluation is that they have developed a completely lower set of framework for researching and enhancing fertility incidentally this was the first B.C. project that was funded in Serbia and it has a huge impact in the media and in fact lead to a project that exhibition was held in New Age in the University of Nobisac in Serbia and you can make a nice video about the volume you can show it you will have access to the slides and you can take a look this is very very nice the other project I wanted to run in the same year 2014 is this project is the acronym the technical insights into the Neanderthals and the demise of the study of microscopic and labrarchar matter in the immediate biopedic experiments this is funded to me and the project tries to answer questions of the ADP of the Neanderthals it might be a different approach focusing on chart of antidepressants and for that the group is the group of the University of Barabuna in Spain it would be the ambilab, that is archeological, micro morphology ambilmarcus research lab this was created from the funding received from ERC on this basis in the work combined all the needs to carry out research they are inside the site of work in the east part of Spain in two places in Miracol the third project is the project that is already finished it is in Barcelona 2010 it is from the previous training program from the P7 Transahar the guidance, state formation migration and training and the project seeks to investigate the nature of the consequences of the connectivity of the Transahar and some in the baseline to understand the role played by Garamantis in the Islamic Sahara and this project carried out at the University of Leicester with a lot of your work in Libya it was quite risky we were talking about in the last 10 years and it was a major discovery according to the digital investigators they probably discovered that the Garamantis they work and civilized and organized the state and now it is not trying to do what was believed before this study and in the slides we have links to information and the last one that I wanted to share with you is the only Synergy that was funded in archaeology we funded only 24 Synergy in 2013 and Lexus 1492 is one of 10 new world encounters in the globalizing world this is a project that investigates colonial encounters in the Caribbean and in the country of the American, European and African dynamics in multiple temporal and special scales to cross the history of the Bible for King 92 is the Synergy project it's a large amount close to 15 million of this project and it's carried out by four principal investigators in three different institutions unfortunately one of the responsibilities of that party was taking my professor in the University of England as the same professor was a professor but it involves 38 researchers from the wide range of disciplines and they are doing a lot of fieldwork in the Caribbean they use a variety of methods like the UNI-CROF the DNA analysis and so on but on top of this this is a project that is engaging the communities and the indigenous heritage with the indigenous heritage in the area and their producing material I have one show here for the people living in the area so these are just for examples there are many more but just to give you a framework of the type of research that you are finding in the website of ERC there is a part that says projects and you can go there and just look at the project that we found and do searches using keywords so you can see what is being funded in the area of research you are doing let me talk about French and Europe so what's next, what's after 2020 well the funding or the way it's organized the European Commission is that it is settled there are 34 periods of 7 years this is what is called the annual financial framework the European Commission provides a proposal of how to spend money the same the next 7 years and in this case 31 from 31 to 27 and in all these packages there is a part dedicated to research that is called Horizon Europe so this proposal is already there it's public and you can find it on our website what is the proposal of the Commission and now it has to be discussed in the Parliament and then it goes to the Council of Europe and when finally there is what is called the Co-decision between the Council and the Parliament to give a programme that will establish how much will be spent in research from 21 to 27 well what is in the proposal well the proposal has some similarities to the current Horizon 20 20 framework programme yet these are listed here to support the creation of high-quality knowledge to strengthen the impact of the European Union policies and also to foster all forms of innovation and strengthen market economy it was just three pillars pillar one is called EnScience pillar one in the current Horizon 2020 is called Texas EnScience they have changed the name slightly but basically it has the same composition it has three items in that pillar one is the European Research Council another one is the ideas for those who react with them and also research infrastructure in Horizon 2020 there was an addition one that was called Future and Technologies and now this has disappeared and all this part will be part of what is called the European Innovation Council there is a pillar two that is more for capital research trying to address the global challenges and industrial problems like this and there are some clusters but they are health inclusive and secure society digital industry there is more continuation of the current approach and then the joint research center that is part of the European Commission and then pillar three is more on the innovation side the open innovation and here the star is the creation of the European Innovation Council it is something that we have some assumptions with the European Research Council but focus on innovation and innovation approach and we have this is under the creation of a lot of things in the proposal and then there are some transversal programs that is also in the European Research Area trying to develop programs to diminish the inequality of the development of research activities in the different countries in Europe and other areas such science and society and so so here is in pillar one as part of the open science and but likewise pillar one will have 30 sorry 25.8 billion out of the total part of one hundred billion that is in the proposal and you see that the global challenges is the one that is getting the biggest part of this project if we go to more detail in pillar one that is the one that is for us in the European Research Council the budget proposes 16.6 billion this is this remember in Christchurch we have 13 billion so it's 3.6 billion more but we have to take into account that this is the budget without European Kingdom European Kingdom will not be part of horizon Europe and if finally European Kingdom is associated to the research program as the research community is at the important European Kingdom to have this will imply additional 15-20% more money for research so this is the proposal as I said it's on the discussion in the Parliament and we hope that this budget will be maintained besides the issue of the budget of course in the Proposal of the Commission there are many more aspects of the European Research Council but this has been basically pre-served actually there is a bit more of the state freedom for the European Research Council to engage in international cooperation this is a thought that must be close for the European Research Council and the horizon Europe will be a bit more open to engage in cooperation I have to say that just before I finish that today we have published the world program of all our course in 2019 today has been approved by the Commission and it's now on the website so all the first two courses have opened and it's many grants that are in the calendar will close and there is an important novelty and this is linked to international cooperation in the Synergy and Call of 2019 that is that the Synergy grant will have between two or four PIs ERC has opened the possibility to have one of these PIs not the corresponding PIs to have one principal investigator in another country which means can be at least not intervening but is not associated to the world program for example Canada, for example the United States Australia and so on now this is possible to have the principal investigator in another country the Synergy Council all of us hope that this will trigger very good very good players international cooperation to the best to the best research in the world ok thank you for your attention and I am ready or open to discuss anything and all the questions are welcome thank you