Empowering local urban food systems entrepreneurship and innovation

Expected outcomes

• Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes.
• 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.

• “The successful proposals should drive transformative and inclusive innovation in local urban food systems, boosting decentralised competitiveness and creating positive social and environmental spillovers that enhance well-being of urban communities.”
• “Proposals should:. develop and pilot decentralised local capacities and ecosystems, such as food innovation incubators, accelerators and hubs, which support high-impact and sustainable urban food solutions.”
• “These should provide targeted support and access to capital and investment, while connecting fragmented ecosystems across Member States and Associated Countries;. integrate tailored mentorship programs to stimulate entrepreneurship and start-ups in urban food systems and facilitate participatory co-creation of place-based collaborative sustainable and climate smart business models, utilising the networks and solutions developed through the…”
• “This topic should involve the effective contribution of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) disciplines.”
• “Proposals should integrate the gender dimension where applicable.”
• “Consideration of other social categories besides gender (disability, age, socioeconomic status, ethnic and/or cultural origin, sexual orientation, etc.), and their intersections, should be also ensured.”
• “Proposals must implement the multi-actor approach, involving local and regional authorities, urban planners, SMEs and start-ups, food entrepreneurs, research and innovation actors, educational institutions, civil society organisations, and citizens, to co-create inclusive, sustainable, and scalable urban food system innovations.”

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 6–8 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 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.”

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 scope expects pilots or demonstration. Name the sites, the partners who run them and what is measured there.
• The gender dimension is named in the topic. Show how sex and gender analysis enters the research content, not only team balance.
• Market uptake is part of the scope. Evaluators look for a credible route to market with named first adopters.
• 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.