Strengthening the resilience of European farmers through improved capacity in coping with risks and crises

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 risks and crises (e.g., sanitary, environmental, economic, geopolitical, ecological, demographic, technological) that are causing, or likely to cause, significant socio-economic impacts directly or indirectly affecting EU farmers, considering among others potential compound and amplifier effects under climate change and biodiversity loss.”
• “The actions funded under this topic should support the EU policies related to the EU Vision for Agriculture and Food and the Common Agricultural Policy.”
• “Proposals should:. improve understanding of farmers’ individual and collective options, strategies, incentives, behaviour and decision-making regarding uncertainties, risk and crisis management.”
• “This work should capture the context in which farmers operate, including interactions with other agri-food supply chain operators, critical dependencies, as well as market conditions and policies;. assess the anticipation, robustness and adaptation capacities of farms, costs and benefits of action vs. non-action, and the interactions between risk management, crisis management and the adoption of preventive practices on farms, at landscape level…”
• “This work should also analyse the transformative capacities of farms in response to challenges that make business as usual not viable or not possible;. propose inclusive solutions, improve and develop integrated risk and crisis management strategies, at farm and landscape level and/or along the agri-food supply chain, to improve the resilience of farming systems.”
• “Proposed solutions should consider different types of production and the risk perceptions of practitioners, and they should be adapted to the practitioners’ risk preferences and resilience requirements.”
• “This work should also include an assessment of the costs and benefits of the solutions;. propose criteria and measures to improve fair risk sharing along the agri-food supply chain and for derisking, to mitigate economic risks for farmers;. test the proposed strategies and/or measures, using an experimental approach.”
• “Proposals are encouraged to build for this purpose on existing participatory infrastructures (e.g., demonstration sites, living labs, etc);. support inclusive and accessible capacity building, training, and education on risk and crisis management for farmers and other relevant agri-food supply chain operators (“risk literacy”);. consider compound and amplifier effects of climate change and biodiversity loss on other types of risks and crises in…”
• “Proposals should assess and compare options and strategies developed by farmers implementing various farming approaches, one of which should be organic farming.”
• “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.”
• “Proposals should also ensure synergies with other relevant EU-funded studies (e.g., fi-compass studies), initiatives and processes.”

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 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.”
• 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.”

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.
• 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 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.
• 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.