Open topic: Innovative solutions for the European Water Resilience Strategy

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.

• “With a view of contributing with breakthrough innovation to this strategy, proposals are expected to address creative or disruptive solutions to develop a set of means for its implementation.”
• “Adapted to the nature, scope and type of proposed activities, proposals should convincingly explain how they will plan and/or carry out demonstration, testing or validation of developed tools and solutions.”
• “Proposals must implement the multi-actor approach and ensure adequate involvement of appropriate stakeholders, including where relevant farmers, water intensive industries, energy producers, land managers, water governance bodies and local authorities.”
• “Proposals should also delineate the plans to develop possible future uptake and upscaling at local, national and EU level for possible next steps after the project.”
• “In this topic the integration of the gender and intersectional dimension (sex and gender analysis) in research and innovation content should be addressed only if relevant in relation to the objectives of the research effort.”
• “Proposals should consider and possibly expand on previous research of related past national or EU-funded projects, avoiding duplication.”
• “Proposals should address one or more of the following actions:.”
• “However, they should convincingly explain how their proposed actions are expected to contribute to the achievement of the expected outcomes they address.”
• “Proposals should leverage relevant Copernicus elements and foster complementarities, avoiding overlaps with projects funded under previous Framework Programmes, the Partnership Water Security for the Planet (Water4All), the EU Missions 'Restore our Ocean and Waters by 2030', 'Adaptation to Climate Change' and 'A Soil Deal for Europe'.”
• “Proposals should include a task to ensure collaboration with the other projects funded under this topic.”
• “It should reinforce the complementarities of approaches and methodologies developed and maximise the outcome of the topic for the different actions foreseen.”

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.
• Two-stage submission: the first stage uses a shorter proposal and is assessed on Excellence and Impact only. Check the page limit and sections in the stage-one form of your call.
• Innovation action: evaluators expect a plausible path to commercialisation and named first users or customers.
• Admissibility Conditions: Proposal page limit and layout: “Applicants submitting a proposal for a blind evaluation (see General Annex F) must not disclose their organisation names, acronyms, logos nor names of personnel in the proposal abstract and Part B of their first-stage application (see General Annex E).”
• 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: “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: “The following additional eligibility criteria apply: the proposals must apply the multi-actor approach. See definition of the multi-actor approach in this work programme part.”
• Evaluation and award: Award criteria, scoring and thresholds: “The first-stage proposals of this topic will be evaluated blindly.”

Impact pathway and traps

• The scope expects pilots or demonstration. Name the sites, the partners who run them and what is measured there.
• The Joint Research Centre may take part. Decide whether its involvement helps, and say so if you include it.
• 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.
• 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.