An ERC Starting Grant may provide up to EUR 1.5 million for five years, pro rata for shorter projects. Additional funding of up to EUR 1 million can be requested for eligible major costs necessary to carry out the proposed work. For PIs currently based in non-associated third countries who relocate to the EU or an Associated Country to take up the grant, the maximum additional funding can be up to EUR 2 million.
ERC funding can cover up to 100% of eligible direct costs plus a 25% contribution toward eligible indirect costs, under the applicable rules.
Official source: ERC Starting Grant - How much?
Build the budget from the scientific programme
The useful order is:
- define the research question;
- define the objectives;
- identify the evidence needed;
- design the team and methods;
- identify the resources required;
- cost those resources.
Reversing that sequence can produce a budget that looks administratively tidy but scientifically arbitrary.
Every major cost should solve a real constraint in the programme.
Personnel is usually the core resource
A Starting Grant is often a team-building instrument.
Personnel may include:
- PhD researchers;
- postdocs;
- research engineers;
- technicians;
- research software specialists;
- other roles justified by the science.
The team structure should follow the work.
A proposal might reasonably need two or three PhD researchers and one or two postdocs in one country, while the same grant in another cost environment might support a different mix. There is no universal headcount formula.
The justification should explain why each role exists scientifically.
Major equipment needs a scientific reason
Do not justify equipment as an upgrade to the laboratory.
Explain what scientific regime or measurement becomes possible because of it.
For example:
The instrument is required to resolve observable X below threshold Y, which is the decisive measurement distinguishing hypotheses A and B.
That is stronger than:
The group requires a new high-resolution instrument.
The panel should see the relationship between the cost and the central question.
Additional funding should be treated carefully
The ERC permits additional funding for eligible major costs when justified by the project.
Depending on the rules and circumstances, this can support needs such as major equipment, access to large facilities, major experimental or fieldwork costs, or relocation-related costs for PIs moving from non-associated third countries.
The additional request should be necessary rather than convenient.
A good test is:
If this additional resource is removed, what scientific objective becomes impossible or materially weaker?
If the answer is vague, the justification probably needs work.
Facilities and external access can be central
Some projects depend on:
- synchrotron or neutron facilities;
- cleanrooms;
- clinical infrastructure;
- field campaigns;
- specialist archives;
- high-performance computing;
- expensive datasets;
- major imaging facilities;
- external fabrication.
These costs should be connected to specific scientific decisions in the programme.
The proposal should also show realistic timing and availability where access is critical.
Budget and Part II must agree
The budget justification is provided in the resources section of the online submission form and is visible to evaluators at Step 2 together with Part I and Part II.
The scientific proposal should not describe a programme that requires resources absent from the budget.
Likewise, large budget items should have a visible role in the research plan.
Consistency creates confidence.
Avoid false precision too early
At concept stage, exact personnel-month allocations can give an illusion of maturity before the scientific architecture is stable.
First stabilise:
- team roles;
- major equipment;
- facility access;
- key travel or fieldwork;
- external specialist needs;
- critical timing.
Then work with the Host Institution to translate these into eligible cost categories and institutional rates.
Use the scale of the grant deliberately
EUR 1.5 million is substantial public investment.
The budget should create a capability or programme that would not otherwise exist.
That might mean:
- building a new research group;
- establishing a new experimental platform;
- sustaining a long theoretical programme;
- integrating multiple technical disciplines under one scientific question;
- accessing a regime that is currently unavailable;
- generating a unique dataset or infrastructure.
The value of the budget is not the number of items purchased. It is the scientific possibility created by those resources.
A practical budget review
For every major line, ask:
- Which scientific objective requires it?
- Why is the scale reasonable?
- Why can the Host Institution not already provide it?
- Is the timing aligned with the work plan?
- Does it reduce execution risk or enable a frontier capability?
- Is the same resource described consistently in Part II?
- Would a reviewer understand the consequence of removing it?
A strong budget reads like a financial expression of the scientific programme.