Accessible and available travel facilitation

Expected outcomes

• Projects may contribute to some of the expected outcomes; say which ones and why.
• For each outcome (EO1 to EO3), name who will use or adopt your results (a specific group, not “industry” or “society”), how they get them, and the indicator that shows the change, with baseline, target and date.
• Use the topic's own words for each outcome, so the evaluator can tick it off.

What the scope asks for

Evaluators check the proposal against these sentences of the scope. Answer each one visibly, in the call's own words.

• “Travel facilitation schemes are still not as fair, inclusive and accessible as they should be.”
• “Travel facilitation systems should ensure both security and easy passenger flow, while remaining accessible to all travellers.”
• “According to the EBCG Capability Roadmap, legal border crossings should be as swift and simple as possible, while at the same time allowing a smooth crossing of bona fide persons, and of the goods carried with them.”
• “To minimise potential for discrimination or physical or digital divide regarding travel facilitation schemes, solutions should be inclusive and accessible.”
• “Furthermore, solutions should be tested for use with the same approach by all European border control staff in all conditions and BCPs.”
• “Solutions should include automated decision support systems suggesting to the end-users (border checks operators) which procedure, technology or database can be used without infringing rights of travellers.”
• “Solutions should also integrate and, if appropriate, further develop, biometric matching that minimises data shared (for example limiting to matching scores) to improve data protection.”
• “Proposals submitted under this topic are expected to address the priorities of the European Border and Coast Guard and of its Agency (Frontex) and of the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA).”
• “This should start from the definition of requirements and the design phase of their work, including basing on the EBCG Capability Roadmap; and on the engagement with the Agencies during the implementation of the project.”
• “Proposals should consider and foresee that Frontex and eu-LISA may observe pilots and demonstrations when the project will be implemented, with the aim of facilitating future uptake of innovations for the border, customs and coast guard community.”
• “To ensure the active involvement of and timely feedback from relevant security practitioners, proposals should plan a mid-term deliverable consisting in the assessment of the project’s mid-term outcomes, performed by the practitioners involved in the project.”

Conditions that shape the proposal

• Part B, sections 1–3: 45 pages (standard application form). Text beyond the limit is not read; tables and figures count.
• Lump sum: the budget is fixed per work package and paid when each work package is completed. Every work package needs activities and deliverables an evaluator can verify, and the effort must match the money.
• TRL: the topic expects TRL 6–7 by the end of the project. State where you start and the evidence for it.
• Innovation action: evaluators expect a plausible path to commercialisation and named first users or customers.
• Other Eligible Conditions: “In line with the “ restriction on control in innovation actions in critical technology areas ” delineated in General Annex B of the General Annexes, entities established in an eligible country but which are directly or indirectly controlled by China or by a legal entity established in China are not eligible to…”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “Subject to restrictions for the protection of European communication networks.”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “The following additional eligibility criteria apply: This topic requires the active involvement, as beneficiaries, of at least 2 Border or Coast Guard Authorities from at least 2 different EU Member States or Associated Countries. For these participants, applicants must fill in the table “Information about security…”

Impact pathway and traps

• Users or citizens are part of the scope. Show how they take part in the design and testing, not only that they are informed.
• The scope expects pilots or demonstration. Name the sites, the partners who run them and what is measured there.
• Open science or data practices are named. Make the data management plan concrete: which data, which repository, when.
• The gender dimension is named in the topic. Show how sex and gender analysis enters the research content, not only team balance.
• Policy or regulation is in scope. Name the policy owners you will reach and what you will give them.
• Keep outputs, outcomes and impacts apart: what you deliver, what changes when others use it, and the long-term effect.
• Link your outcomes to the destination's expected impacts in the Work Programme. Destination impacts are long-term effects, not project deliverables.
• Name the barriers outside the project (regulation, markets, user behaviour) that could block uptake, and what you will do if they do.
• Section 2.3 (the summary canvas) is optional on this call; the old split into scientific, economic and societal impact is no longer required.