AI supporting informed advice for farmers and foresters to improve competitiveness and sustainability

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.

• “Successful proposals should contribute to build a competitive and resilient agriculture and forestry sectors.”
• “Proposals should:. develop, test, validate and pilot cost-effective AI-based solutions that make use of the various existing reliable and trustable knowledge reservoirs and provide contextual, effective and impartial advice for advisors, farmers and foresters;. capitalise on standardised and comprehensive data collected from different sources (e.g. public and private databases, in-situ data generated during the project implementation) for the…”
• “By doing so, successful proposals should ensure the availability of curated datasets by connecting to and harvesting data from existing public and private data sources, making use of privacy-preserving techniques when needed.”
• “The curated datasets, to be released as outputs, should be interoperable to maximise reuse, in order to support information fusion and third-party usage of the data;. involve advisors, farmers and foresters from across Europe in the co-development, testing, validation and piloting of the AI-based solutions; and improve end users’ awareness, understanding, competences and skills on the use, benefits, and risks of the developed AI-based solutions…”
• “Proposals must implement the multi-actor approach, with a consortium based on a balanced mix of relevant actors with complementary knowledge to achieve the objectives of the projects, seeking for the involvement of SMEs, start-ups, and including for instance relevant rural actors (in particular end-users of the AI-enabled solution), universities, research and technology organisations.”
• “Proposals should develop diverse practice-oriented dissemination materials (e.g., audiovisual materials, brochures) presenting the AI-enabled solutions and other R&I results developed within the project and feed them into communication channels most consulted by the potential end-users.”
• “Proposals are encouraged to explore the application of data retrieval techniques (e.g., RAG) for the retrieval of up-to-date and context-specific information from external knowledge sources (e.g., market information, evolving regulation/legislative requirements).”
• “This topic should involve the effective contribution of social sciences and humanities (SSH) disciplines.”

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 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: “In line with the “ restriction on control in innovation actions in critical technology areas ” delineated in General Annex B of the General Annexes, entities established in an eligible country but which are directly or indirectly controlled by China or by a legal entity established in China are not eligible to…”
• 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.
• Standardisation is mentioned. Name the committees or bodies and the partner who engages with them.
• 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.
• 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.