Climate security and civil preparedness – new ways to develop pre- and post-crisis climate-change related scenarios for a more resilient Europe

Expected outcomes

• Projects may contribute to some of the expected outcomes; say which ones and why.
• For each outcome (EO1 to EO7), 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.

• “Proposals should aim to develop methodologies, tools, and technologies that enhance situational awareness both before a crisis (pre-crisis) and after a crisis (post-crisis), enabling decision-makers and populations to respond effectively.”
• “Research should focus on defining priority climate security scenarios in the EU, identifying key stakeholders, and establishing essential indicators for informed decision-making.”
• “Efforts should be directed toward understanding and mitigating the impacts of floods, landslides, wildfires, and other climate-induced disasters.”
• “In this view, the proposals should build on the European Climate Risk Assessment (EUCRA) and consolidated national risk assessments as well as find synergies with project’s chosen for the similar EU Mission: Adaptation to Climate Change topic.”
• “Diverse climate and environmental security scenarios should be developed, supported by innovative, reliable tools that leverage multiple data sources, enabling a comprehensive and adaptive response.”
• “Proposals should also integrate space programme components such as Copernicus and Galileo to improve data accuracy and crisis response capabilities.”
• “A strong emphasis on international cooperation should foster knowledge exchange, enhance policy integration, and share best practices.”
• “Proposals should support transnational collaboration within the EU, facilitate improved data-sharing mechanisms, and align with global initiatives such as the Sendai Disaster Risk Reduction Framework.”
• “Where applicable, proposals should leverage the data and services available through European Research Infrastructures federated under the European Open Science Cloud, Copernicus, Destination Earth, as well as data from relevant Data Spaces.”
• “Particular efforts should be made to ensure that the data produced in the context of this topic is FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Re-usable).”
• “Where relevant, funded projects are encouraged to liaise with the European Commission's Joint Research Centre, for complementary real-scale testing at the Reaction Wall and HopLab of the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA).”

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 7–8 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: “The Joint Research Centre (JRC) may participate as member of the consortium selected for funding as a beneficiary with zero funding, or as an associated partner. The JRC will not participate in the preparation and submission of the proposal - see General Annex B.”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “Due to the scope of this topic, relevant international organisations with headquarters in a Member State or Horizon Europe Associated Country are exceptionally eligible for funding.”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “The following additional eligibility criteria apply: This topic requires the active involvement, as beneficiaries, of at least 3 authorities in charge of disaster risk[[Authorities in charge of disaster risk entail public bodies operating at the national level that hold legally defined responsibilities in the area of…”

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.
• International cooperation is part of the scope. Explain what the non-EU partners add and how the cooperation is organised.
• The Joint Research Centre may take part. Decide whether its involvement helps, and say so if you include it.
• The topic expects cooperation with other projects or initiatives. Reserve effort and budget for it in the work plan.
• Open science or data practices are named. Make the data management plan concrete: which data, which repository, when.
• 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.