Strengthening evidence-based policies for the resilience of European agriculture and forestry and related supply chains against crises and systemic risks

Expected outcomes

• Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes.
• For each outcome (EO1 to EO4), 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 this background, proposals should target several systemic risks and crises (e.g., sanitary, environmental, economic, geopolitical, biodiversity, demographic, technological) that are causing, or likely to cause, significant socio-economic impacts directly or indirectly affecting European agriculture or forestry, and agri-food or forest-based supply chains, considering potential compound, cascading and amplifier effects under climate…”
• “Proposals should:. improve analytical capacity on: the exposure of the agricultural or forestry sectors and of agri-food or forest-based supply chains and their agents, including consumers, to (interacting) systemic risks and crises, including compound, cascading and amplifier effects related to climate change and trade disruptions;. the assessment and measurement of the propagation of shocks and short-, medium- and long-term impacts (social,…”
• “Proposals should take into account the specificities of different types of supply chains, e.g., in terms of length, organisation, critical dependencies, considering also the role of ecosystem services and, where relevant, intergenerational time scales;. explore a range of effective socio-economic and technological (e.g., advanced digital technologies) options and identify leverage points to further develop integrated prevention, preparedness,…”
• “Proposals should either address Area A: Agriculture and agri-food supply chains, or Area B: Forestry and forest-based supply chains.”
• “The area (A or B) should be clearly indicated in the application.”
• “Proposals should capitalise on existing relevant research findings and tools.”
• “They should also ensure complementarities with other relevant EU-funded projects, including from the EU Missions on Adaptation to Climate Change and on Soil, and ensure synergies with other relevant EU initiatives and processes (e.g., Resilience Dashboards).”
• “Proposals should include a dedicated task, appropriate resources and a plan on how they will collaborate with other projects selected under this topic (e.g., by participating in joint activities, workshops, as well as common communication and dissemination activities).”
• “Proposals should support collaborative and interdisciplinary work, involving the effective contribution of social sciences and humanities (SSH) disciplines in combination with science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines.”
• “Proposals are encouraged to consider, where relevant, the data, expertise and services offered by European research infrastructures in the environmental, biological and food domains.”

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 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: “In order to ensure a balanced portfolio, and to achieve the expected outcomes of this topic, grants will be awarded to proposals not only in order of ranking but also to one proposal within the area A that is the highest ranked, and one proposal highest ranked within the area B, provided that the proposals attain all…”

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.
• 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.
• 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.