Next generation scenarios for informing climate and sustainability transitions

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.

• “Against the backdrop of rapid environmental shifts, social upheavals, high uncertainties and complexity, scenarios must be advanced to inform low-emission climate-resilient pathways, while also accounting for other critical policy priorities, such as environmental protection.”
• “Actions should improve Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) or propose alternative approaches to address key challenges and gaps in current climate scenario frameworks.”
• “They should extend the scope of scenarios beyond the 21st century, enlarge the future possibility space with more diverse narratives and drivers (e.g. post-growth), more explicit consideration of equity, justice, geopolitics and attention to inclusivity.”
• “Proposals are expected to address only one of the following priority areas, which should be clearly indicated:.”
• “Scenarios should capture a wider range of plausible futures to reflect changing socio-economic and environmental conditions (including a broader range of economic growth assumptions), technological advancements, evolving policy landscape and disruptive events.”
• “Actions should promote transdisciplinary collaboration and co-design with stakeholders to integrate diverse perspectives and needs They should develop and test new approaches, including communication, to improve uptake of results by various audiences.”
• “The topic therefore requires inclusion of relevant SSH expertise, to produce meaningful and significant effects to enhance the societal impact of related research activities.”
• “They should contribute to the organisation of the European Climate and Energy Modelling Platform conferences to foster dialogue between scientists, policymakers and other stakeholders.”
• “They should also support inclusive and transparent model intercomparison exercises, aligning with the efforts of the European Climate and Energy Modelling Forum.”
• “It should ensure diverse, globally representative scenario space and, where appropriate, foster capacity development. https://www.ecemf.eu/ecemp/european-climate-and-energy-modelling-platform/. https://www.ecemf.eu/. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lendinggroups; standard Horizon Europe funding rules apply - only participants from some of these countries are automatically eligible for…”

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.
• Other Eligible Conditions: “The following additional eligibility criteria apply: The consortium must include as beneficiary or associated partner at least three independent legal entities established in three different low or lower/upper-middle-income countries[[…”
• 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.”
• Evaluation and award: Award criteria, scoring and thresholds: “To ensure a balanced portfolio covering different research areas (A, B and C), grants will be awarded to applications not only in order of ranking but also to at least two highest ranked applications in each area, provided that the corresponding applications attain all thresholds.”
• Legal and financial set-up of the grants: “Beneficiaries will be subject to the following additional obligations regarding open science practices: Open access to any new modules, models or tools developed from scratch or substantially improved with the use of EU funding under the action must be ensured through documentation, availability of model code and…”

Impact pathway and traps

• The topic asks for social sciences and humanities (SSH) expertise. Evaluators look for SSH partners with a real role in the methodology, not a token task.
• 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.
• 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.