Improving analytical capacity for sustainable competitiveness of the agricultural sector

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.

• “There is a need to update knowledge and tools on agricultural competitiveness.”
• “This should contribute to improve our capacity to design and implement agricultural policies, effective in navigating and addressing multiple objectives while enabling green and digital transitions without undermining our competitiveness over time.”
• “Successful proposals under this topic should support the EU Vision for Agriculture and Food, the Competitiveness Compass, the Common Agricultural Policy, the sustainability objectives (including on climate and biodiversity) of the Green Deal, and the sustainable development goals (SDGs).”
• “Proposals should:. address analytical gaps on competitiveness to better account for their various drivers, inputs (including land, labour, capital), components (e.g., costs, price, innovation capacity, investment capacity, market share, market position, resilience, knowledge, skills, productivity, product quality, differentiation) and impacts (economic, environmental and social).”
• “Consider various value chains and farming systems in different regions, one of which should be organic farming.”
• “This activity should integrate knowledge from different disciplines (e.g., economics, management, agronomy, environmental sciences);. improve the capacity to analyse agriculture-related policies supporting and recognising sustainable practices (such as supporting climate, biodiversity, and SDGs) across the value chain (e.g., due diligence, deforestation-free products) and in trade agreements, in particular their capacity to support…”
• “Proposals are encouraged to consider different lengths of value chains (e.g., short, mid-tier, global), business strategies (e.g., economies of scale, specialisation and agglomeration vs economies of scope) and marketing strategies (e.g., quality differentiation);. identify, improve and/or develop adequate indicators and metrics, and collect the necessary data, to improve the measurement of performance, sustainability, resilience, productivity…”
• “This work should take into account the practical needs of decision-makers and the context of their operations (e.g., international versus local strategy).”
• “Particular attention should be paid to prioritising relevant robust indicators that could be replicated in different countries;. provide recommendations and propose levers to anticipate trade-offs and conciliate competitiveness, resilience and sustainability objectives in business strategies and policies and support the long-term prosperity of the agricultural sector.”
• “Proposals should capitalise on existing relevant research findings and tools and ensure complementarities with other relevant EU-funded projects.”
• “Proposals should also ensure synergies with other relevant EU-funded studies, initiatives and processes (e.g., competitiveness check).”
• “Proposals must implement the multi-actor approach, with a consortium based on a balanced mix of actors with complementary knowledge, including farmers, researchers, businesses and other relevant actors from agri-food supply chains.”

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.
• 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.
• 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.