Strengthening plant health: addressing emerging plant pest risks

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.

• “Proposals should target one or more emerging plant pests, taking into account the increasing risks driven by climate change, biodiversity loss, land use changes, globalisation and other contributing factors, with the exception of plant pests targeted in Horizon Europe.”
• “Proposals should:. enhance understanding of pest(s) biology, introduction pathways, mechanisms of spread, thereby reducing uncertainties and lack of data in pest risk assessments;. develop rapid, safe, and cost-effective tools and methods for preventing introduction and spread of the pest(s); this includes early detection, surveillance, treatment, and (bio)control measures (including innovative agro-ecological or forestry management practices),…”
• “Proposals must implement the multi-actor approach including a range of actors to ensure that knowledge and needs from various sectors such as research, plant health services, farming/forestry sectors, advisory services, and industry are brought together.”
• “Results should address diverse farming systems/approaches, including conventional and organic farming.”
• “Proposals should contribute to the objectives of the common agricultural policy, the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive, the policies related to the EU’s Vision for Agriculture and Food, the EU Action Plan for the Development of Organic Production and support Regulation 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants.”
• “Applicants are expected to explain and justify the choice of pest(s) in alignment with the proposal’s objectives and the topic’s expected outcomes.”

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.
• 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: “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.”
• Legal and financial set-up of the grants: “Beneficiaries may provide financial support to third parties. The support to third parties can only be provided in the form of grants. The maximum amount to be granted to each third party is EUR 60 000.”

Impact pathway and traps

• The scope expects pilots or demonstration. Name the sites, the partners who run them and what is measured there.
• 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 gender dimension is named in the topic. Show how sex and gender analysis enters the research content, not only team balance.
• 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.