Additional activities for the European Partnership of Agriculture of Data

Expected outcomes

• The topic does not say whether all outcomes must be addressed; treat them all as relevant.
• For each outcome (EO1), 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.

• “The partnership should seek to include additional partners, in particular from Member States and Associated countries not yet in the consortium funded under HORIZON-CL6-2024-GOVERNANCE-02-01.”
• “While the award of a grant to continue the Partnership in accordance with this call should be based on a proposal submitted by the coordinator of the consortium funded under HORIZON-CL6-2024-GOVERNANCE-02-01 and the additional activities (which may include additional partners) to be funded by the grant should be subject to an evaluation, this evaluation should take into account the existing context and the scope of the initial evaluation as…”
• “Taking into account that the present action is a continuation of the existing topic and foresees an amendment to an existing grant agreement, the proposal should present additional activities (including additional partners) to be covered by the award primarily in terms of grant agreement revisions.”
• “The proposal submitted to this call should align with the partnership’s co-created strategic research and innovation agenda.”
• “Through its activities, the partnership should deliver and give rise to ready-to-use tools, solutions and innovations, seek uptake of results by farmers/agricultural producers, advisors, policy-makers, public administrations and all relevant stakeholders, and provide science-based policy advisory activities.”
• “The proposal should focus on additional priority activities and when duly justified, on continuation of on-going activities.”
• “The partnership should create an “umbrella effect” through taking stock, linking and, assessing Research and Innovation (R&I) initiatives and use cases.”
• “It should leverage on nationally funded research activities to create critical mass and synergies across borders and also support defragmentation of the European data landscape.”
• “It should also pool the necessary financial resources from the participating national (or regional) research programmes with a view to organising and implementing joint calls for transnational proposals resulting in grants to third parties, for which it should factor ample time to run and report on the co-funded projects.”
• “Proposals are encouraged to consider, where relevant, the data, expertise and services offered by European research infrastructures in the environment, food and digital domains.”
• “Specific additional activities to enhance the partnership’s collaborations at international level, should also be described.”

Conditions that shape the proposal

• Other Eligible Conditions: “The following additional eligibility criteria apply: The proposal must be submitted by the coordinator of the consortium funded under HORIZON-CL6-2024-GOVERNANCE-02-01: European Partnership of Agriculture of Data. This eligibility condition is without prejudice to the possibility to include additional partners.”
• Evaluation and award: Award criteria, scoring and thresholds: “The evaluation committee may be composed partially by representatives of EU institutions. If the proposal is successful, the next stage of the procedure will be the grant agreement amendment preparations. If the outcome of amendment preparations is an award decision, the coordinator of the consortium funded under…”
• Legal and financial set-up of the grants: “This action is intended to be implemented in the form of an amendment of the grant agreement concluded pursuant to topic HORIZON-CL6-2024-GOVERNANCE-02-01.”
• Legal and financial set-up of the grants: “For the additional activities covered by this action the funding rate is 30% of the eligible costs.”
• Legal and financial set-up of the grants: “Beneficiaries may provide financial support to third parties (FSTP). The support to third parties can only be provided in the form of grants. As a co-funded European Partnership, providing financial support to third parties (FSTP) is a core activity of this action in order to achieve its objectives. Consequently, the…”
• Legal and financial set-up of the grants: “The starting date of grants awarded under this topic may be as of the submission date of the application. Applicants must justify the need for a retroactive starting date in their application. Costs incurred from the starting date of the action may be considered eligible (and will be reflected in the entry into force…”

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.
• 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.
• For each destination impact you claim, show which of your outcomes feeds it. 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.