STAATSCOURANT
Officiële uitgave van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden sinds 1814.

Restoration of ecosystem functioning, integrity and connectivity (BiodivConnect), Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
VAT, Biodiversa+ Joint Research Call – Call Documents
EUROPEAN PARTNERSHIP
Version | Date | Modified by | Modification reasons
V0 | 28 March 2025 | | Annex 1 of the initial version of the MoU. The Call Text is currently under development and will be added later on.
V1 | 28 May 2025 | Clara Superbie and Orsolya Csiszar | This new version integrates feedbacks received from the CSC members during the “major revision round” and following discussions and agreements taken during the CSC meeting organised on May 20th and 21st.
V2 | 20 June 2025 | Clara Superbie | This is the final version which of the call documents. It integrates minor revision from the Call Steering Committee. The call text stating the scope of the call has been integrated. This is what will be made publicly available upon the launch of the call.

Contents
Glossary | 2
List of Abbreviations | 2
Document 1: Announcement of Opportunity | 2
1. | RESEARCH PRIORITIES AND KNOWLEDGE GAPS | 2
2. | EXPECTATIONS TOWARDS FUNDED PROJECTS | 5
3. | Procedures, eligibility and assessment criteria | 7
4. | Funding | 10
| TABLE 1: LIST OF FUNDING ORGANISATIONS AND THEIR FUNDING COMMITMENTS*,**. | 10
5. | Programme structure and management | 11
6. | Eligible budget items | 12
7. | Measure to encourage participation and success of countries / regions with small research communities and/or where research applications have been less successful at Step 1 (pre-proposals) | 12
8. | Further information | 12
Document 2: Pre-proposal application form | 14
1. | Administrative details | 14
2. | Declaration of parallel submissions of this proposal (whole or parts) to other funding programmes or to the same programme and currently under evaluation: | 20
3. | Summary of the project | 20
4. | Topics(s), environment(s) and/or socio-economic sector(s) targeted if relevant, scientific discipline(s) involved, and study site(s)/country(ies) covered in the project | 20
4. | Short project description | 22
5. | Preliminary Data Management Information | 23
6. | Brief CVs for the principal investigator of each Partner involved in the project | 23
7. | Exclusion of potential reviewers (optional) | 23
8. | Suggestion of potential evaluators (optional) | 24
9. | Budget | 24
10. | Do no significant harm principle | 26
11. | Confirmation of submission & use of data | 26
Document 3: Full proposal application form | 27
1. | Administrative details | 27
2. | B. Declaration of parallel submissions of this proposal (whole or parts) to other funding programmes or to the same programme and currently under evaluation: | 33
2. | Summary of the project | 34
3. | Topic(s), environment(s) and/or socio-economic sector(s) targeted if relevant, scientific discipline(s) involved, and study site(s)/country(ies) covered in the project | 34
4. | Work packages, deliverables and milestones | 35
5. | Description of the project | 36
5. | CVs for the principal investigator of each Partner involved in the project | 39
6. | Budget | 39
7. | Exclusion of potential reviewers (optional) | 42
8. | Suggestion of potential evaluators (optional) | 43
9. | Ethics self-assessment and do no significant harm principle | 43
10. | Declaration of changes between pre-proposals and full proposals | 46
11. | Confirmation of submission | 47
Document 4: Checklist for applicants | 48
Document 5: Open Science and Fair Data | 49
Document 6: Assessment criteria | 51
1. | CRITERIA FOR STEP 1 | 51
2. | CRITERIA FOR STEP 2 | 52
3. | SCORING SYSTEM | 54
Document 7: Conflict of interest, confidentiality and non-disclosure policy | 56

Glossary
Associated Countries | Associated Countries are countries who signed an association agreement with the European Union and its Members. In Horizon Europe, legal entities from Associated Countries can participate under the same conditions as legal entities from the Member States. The list of Associated Countries is available here: ec.Europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/list-3rd-country-participation_horizon-euratom_en.pdf NB: not all associated countries listed at this link participate in this call. Only researchers from countries that confirmed their participation and reserved a budget for this call can be eligible for funding. See TABLE 1: LIST OF FUNDING ORGANISATIONS AND THEIR FUNDING COMMITMENTS below to verify whether your country participates or not in this call.
Call Secretariat | For the entire period of each Call, the Call Secretariat will be charge of preparing, coordinating and following up on the joint Call processes, both electronically and physically. It will work in cooperation and consultation with the Call Steering Committee and provide the CSC with all documents needed for decisions (see Annexes 2 and 3).
Call Steering Committee (CSC) | The CSC is responsible for the practical implementation and follow-up of the Call. It is composed of one mandated representative from each Funding Organisation taking part in the Call, who will be the reference point for the participation of their organisation in the development and implementation of the Call (see Annex 3).
Evaluation Committee (EvC) | The EvC is a committee of independent experts (referred hereafter as “EvC members”) that reviews and ranks pre- and full proposals. The EvC meets to agree on a final evaluation and ranking of pre-proposals (Step 1) and full proposals (Step 2).
Expert | Experts are independent academic scholars or non-academic stakeholders with relevant skills and expertise with respect to the topic of the call. They can be mobilised for the development of the call and/or for the selection process. During the selection process, experts can act as EvC co-chairs, EvC members or external reviewers.
External Reviewer | An external reviewer is an independent expert whoprovides a (remote) written peer review of a proposal, as opposed to EvC members who review several applications and discuss them during a joint meeting.
Funding Organisation | A Funding Organisation is a national or regional organisation participating in the 2025–2026 Biodiversa+ Call on “Restoration of ecosystem functioning, integrity and connectivity (BiodivConnect), which requires signing the present Memorandum of Understanding.
Funding Organisation Contact Point (FCP) | An FCP represents a Funding Organisation and can be contacted by applicants and the Call Secretariat to give information on or explain the Call procedures as well as national and/or regional rules and procedures.
Participant | A participant may be a Partner, a self-financed Partner or a subcontractor.
Partner | Depending on the Funding Organisation, a “Partner” may be a researcher, an institution, a department of an institution, a laboratory, or a public or private, for- or non-profit organisation contributing to the implementation of the research project.
Project Partner Coordinator | The Project Partner Coordinator is a Partner that coordinates a consortium submitting a proposal under this call (i.e., Partner in charge). It is identified as Partner 1.
Self-financed Partner | A self-financed Partner is a Partner who brings their own secured budget in the call and fully cover their costs. Self-financed Partners can be from countries participating or not in the call.
Subcontractor | Subcontractors are subcontracted by eligible Partners that have to comply with their respective funding organisation rules. Generally speaking, subcontracting is understood as the externalization of the execution of a (minor) project task that Partners cannot execute.

List of Abbreviations
CSC | Call Steering Committee
EPSS | Electronic Proposal Submission System (Submission Platform)
EvC | Evaluation Committee
FCP | Funding Organisation Contact Point
Document
1:

Announcement of Opportunity
The Funding Organisations in Biodiversa+ Partnership have joined efforts to organise and fund an international call for transnational research proposals on
Restoration of ecosystem functioning, integrity and connectivity (BiodivConnect)
1.

Research priorities and knowledge gaps
INTRODUCTION
One of the strategic objectives of the European Biodiversity Partnership, Biodiversa+, is to produce actionable (i.e., practically usable) knowledge to halt and reverse biodiversity decline (Biodiversa+ Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda). To achieve this, a series of actions, including this research call, are embedded in the Flagship Programme“Supporting protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems across land and sea”. In this context, Biodiversa+, co-funded by the European Commission, launches this joint call for research proposals on “Restoration of ecosystem functioning, integrity and connectivity", referred to as BiodivConnect.
This call is focused on fostering innovative research to be integrated into nature restoration
1
Note: this call does not refer to any specific definition of “restoration” and leaves it up to applicants to frame in their proposal the restoration approach they intend to address.
practices for interconnected and well-functioning ecosystems and habitats, with special consideration for long-term sustainability and future-proofing of restoration efforts, at scales from local to regional to cross-border and global, including their evaluation.
A first key topic is the need for coherent and operational restoration targets and measurements of success in terms of ecosystem functioning, integrity and connectivity. Projects are expected to consider shifting baselines and integration of ecological, cultural and social contexts, with objective-based or reference-based approaches. The second key topic is the need for a better understanding of the possibilities and methods for meaningful and effective scaling and transferability of nature restoration efforts. There are many examples of successful local restoration efforts across the world, however the scale of the biodiversity crisis necessitates advancements in approaches and processes for reproducing successful efforts across different socio-economic and environmental contexts. The third key topic is the need for long-term sustainability of restored species, habitats and ecosystems, including resilience to climate change and other pressures. Given future environmental and societal changes, it will not be possible to rely solely on historical and current datasets and models to predict likely pathways to successful restoration. There is also a need for advanced predictive modelling and anticipatory strategic foresight based on policy learning, as well as the development of entirely novel approaches to restoration, experimental approaches with high risk tolerance, and/or open-ended restoration efforts such as rewilding.
This call covers restoration efforts for biodiversity in all types of ecosystems and habitats, e.g. terrestrial, coastal, freshwater, estuaries, marine, wetlands, urban, agricultural and forest ecosystems, as well as in transition zones and multi-habitat interventions. Projects to be funded under this call can focus on a wide range of aspects, e.g.: different categories of indicators (biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, environmental quality, governance, planetary health aspects), multiple scales for restoration upscaling, ecological, socio-economic, and socio-cultural dimensions; and/or varying levels of environmental regulations and policies needing alignment. Projects should support progress towards international biodiversity commitments, also beyond 2030, under the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework, and relevant biodiversity policy objectives at different levels. For instance, the projects could support the implementation of EU biodiversity policies, in particular the Nature Restoration Regulation, the Birds and the Habitats Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, as well as the proposed Soil monitoring and resilience directive, or equivalent legislations outside the EU. Focusing on the connectivity, integrity, and functionality of ecosystems, projects are also encouraged to support Member States in establishing national restoration plans under Article 14 of the Nature Restoration Regulation, and in developing practical methods and tools for stakeholders involved in implementing nature restoration activities.
KNOWLEDGE GAPS
To adequately address the key challenges of nature restoration, it is essential to support knowledge exchange and capacity building across disciplines and societal sectors, and acknowledge, appreciate and integrate multiple forms of knowledge. This call is arranged into three main topics that partly overlap:
- • Setting restoration targets and measuring success
- • Transferability and scaling of nature restoration efforts
- • Resilience and sustainability of restoration efforts
Project proposals can address one or more of these main topics. The points listed below under each topic serve to give an idea of knowledge gaps which could be addressed by projects. They are neither to be understood as a list limited to these points nor as a list to be fulfilled in as many points as possible. To be successful, applicants are advised to consider that the extent of knowledge gaps they address within their project is realistic for the requested project duration of three years.
Topic
1:

Setting restoration targets and measuring success
- • Integration of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning targets – identifying the most appropriate and effective metrics as indicators and for defining restoration outcomes for use by managers, policy makers, landowners, users of land and sea, and local and global businesses.
- • Development and use of prioritisation tools for underpinning restoration targets, e.g. systematic conservation planning, spatial planning, and including AI supported tools. Development of evaluation frameworks that integrate and prioritize various success criteria including ecological, social and economic parameters.
- • Studies of ecosystem functioning, integrity and connectivity at multiple levels (e.g., genetic, species, and ecosystem), aspects (e.g. taxonomic and functional diversity, phenotypic traits), and functioning (e.g., stability, productivity), as well as trade-offs for society and stakeholders of possible restauration measures to identify mechanisms and incorporate them into support of evidence-based restoration planning with high probability of societal acceptance.
- • Integration of social, economic, environmental and cultural criteria for success and failure of nature restoration in delivering nature-positive (biodiversity-positive) outcomes with reference to the targets and indicators of the Global Biodiversity Framework, including interlinkages between biodiversity loss, changing climate, and the risk of undesired outcomes from complex ecosystem responses.
- • Incorporating diverse restoration paradigms and future-oriented approaches, including rewilding and the concept of novel ecosystems, in defining restoration success; links between different facets of biodiversity in heavily human-altered landscapes and less altered ones.
- • Assessing the relevance of concepts such as resilience-based targets, adaptive ecological baselines, favourable conservation status, and ecological conditions for multifunctional approaches to restoration which address multiple pressures.
- • Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses across scales of geography and time, but also ensuring inclusion and adequate integration of multiple perspectives on values and benefits of biodiversity and ecosystem services and nature’s contributions to people.
- • Studies of the role of local communities and indigenous people and how to establish an inclusive process that fosters local ownership and acceptance by addressing equity in who participates in the design, planning, implementation, and evaluation of restoration projects.
Topic
2:

Scaling and transferability of nature restoration efforts
- • Metacommunity approaches: understanding connections between habitats by addressing spatial community dynamics underlying the emerging patterns in ecosystem functions and biodiversity; understanding how interventions in key habitats create effects across a landscape; investigating the effect of landscape-level interventions on the long-term sustainability of restoration efforts.
- • Meta-ecosystem approaches: addressing cross-ecosystem connectivity (and gaps) and down-stream effects (e.g., terrestrial-aquatic) to scale up restoration and support ecosystem functions, focussing for example on functional connectivity, land/sea use history, and climate change.
- • Addressing the impact of local and global drivers of degradation, accounting for synergies and trade-offs among solutions and intervention actions including active and passive restoration efforts, and their transferability to other areas or habitats.
- • Addressing societal drivers and enabling conditions for the diffusion and scaling up of nature recovery interventions. Definition of criteria to help decide if and how small-scale approaches (pilot, local) are suitable for transfer to other areas or larger-scale approaches (regional, cross-border).
- • Analysing the role of businesses and the financial system – including financial institutions, value chains, investors, and public and private markets – in developing financial products, market structures and incentive schemes including payment for ecosystem services and nature credits to scale up biodiversity financing and to bridge the funding gap through profitable and replicable business models for restoration.
- • Understanding the importance of enabling policy environments and policy coherence across sectors, such as between regional development, sustainable finance, and other relevant regulation. The role of policy, legal acts, taxes, subsidies, and trade regulation for transnational supply chains at the trade and biodiversity nexus to enable the scaling-up and long-term sustainability of biodiversity restoration efforts.
Topic
3:

Long-term sustainability of restoration efforts
- • Addressing the need to develop a basis for defining long-term targets/satisfactory levels for regulations and policies, and the need for measuring the long-term outcome and impact of restoration efforts on ecosystem functioning, integrity and connectivity beyond the endpoint of a restoration project. Shifting towards long-term strategies for monitoring of restored areas under potentially changing conditions, including mechanisms for their sustainable financing.
- • Addressing long-term needs for policy development which are not included in the requirement from the EU Nature Restoration Regulation.
- • Consideration of social justice and equity issues in sustainable restoration efforts. Investigating which individuals and sectors of society might bear the burdens, and who might benefit, with particular attention to underrepresented and marginalised communities and the implications of current decisions for future generations, with applicable solutions to ensure also inter-generational equity.
- • Laying the scientific basis for weighing up between different restoration efforts and targets and for their prioritisation, evaluating their robustness to climate change and other pressures while maintaining biodiversity and important ecological processes and species interactions, including connectivity and range shifts of species. Studying the role of connectivity to mitigate existing and novel threats to the sustainability of restoration efforts and the role of range shift of species.
- •
Integration of multiple restoration targets into restoration interventions and sustainable land use while considering multiple and emerging threats to ecosystems. Investigating possible paths for e.g., agroecology or closer-to-nature forest management
2
Guidelines on Closer-to-Nature Forest Management - European Commission
and their prospects of success to build sustainable solutions involving national and local stakeholders.
- • Development of predictive and/or systems models, and ways to utilize historical and novel data and emerging technology for new approaches, automated monitoring and near real-time adaptive management across systems, with rapid feedback to stakeholders, management and policy.
- • Mitigation of un-desired outcomes of restoration efforts, including for example the effects on biodiversity from contaminants, pollutants, and biomagnification, such as washout from land to sea. Developing a better understanding of how contaminants may become a problem after restoration, including e.g. planetary health aspects and biodiversity aspects of bioremediation efforts.
- • Development or application of anticipatory strategic foresight methods (e.g., explorative policy scenarios and policy back-casting) and assessment or improvement of existing qualitative approaches (e.g. storytelling, historical analyses, ethnography, engaging with arts and humanities researchers) to learn from successes and failures, to establish transparency and acceptance for a learning environment surrounding restoration plans. Exploration of how visions of the future of restored landscapes might be shared or differ between different societal groups, and showing ways how a biodiversity positive paradigm and behavioural shifts of stakeholders could be stimulated.
2.

Expectations towards funded projects
General expectations
This call supports high-quality research and innovation projects on biodiversity and ecosystem restoration that demonstrate holistic, systemic, and integrated approaches with potential for high environmental, economic and societal impact, including support to decision-making in policy and management. The call is designed to fund interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and/or cross-sectoral research projects that appeal to diverse scientific communities, including natural, social and technical sciences, humanities and arts, with contributions also from business and finance sectors as required.
The call aims for research and innovation projects demonstrating academic excellence, with potential for local, regional and/or global societal and policy impact regarding biodiversity, aiming to connect science, society, policy, and practices for transformative change. Projects are therefore expected to directly engage with and include stakeholders and citizens at various stages of the process, from project design through to research, implementation, impact monitoring, and evaluation, as appropriate and relevant.
It is expected that applicants will explicitly make clear the novelty of their research and how it builds upon and adds to the existing knowledge base, including previously funded or on-going international, European and national projects. Redundancy must be avoided, yet complementary research (for example with existing Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe efforts) is possible, as long as the added value of the proposal is clearly explained. Projects are expected to explain how they intend to deliver a significant contribution to scientific knowledge production, and the proposed means and manner to use this knowledge towards the achievement of restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems.
The dual objective of supporting projects that conduct excellent research on the one hand and, on the other, advance the most promising approaches for the implementation of their research results in society and policy, is clearly reflected in the call’s evaluation criteria. Applicants are encouraged to refer to the Call Document #6 for detailed information regarding the evaluation criteria that will be used during the evaluation process.
Please note that each funding organisation has its own rules for research partners eligibility, and it is crucial that applicants consult the national/regional rules for each partner of their consortium.
Projects are encouraged, where relevant, to build on the results of the BiodivRestore projects, outcomes of the BiodivRestore Knowledge Hub, and engaging with other relevant initiatives and projects including Horizon Europe R&I projects, LIFE projects, EU Business@Biodiversity Platform, or Biodiversity Finance Initiative BIOFIN, and to utilise the scientific research infrastructures and Earth observation programmes which have been created and supported by the European Union to facilitate biodiversity research and observation across the continent (e.g. LifeWatch, AnaEE, eLTER, Copernicus, Galileo, EGNOS), as well as global research infrastructures (e.g. GBIF, ILTER, GEOSS/GEOBON, GERI, and others). All projects must be clearly evidence-based and ensure that they are learning and capitalizing from existing projects and programmes, as well as the successes/failures of previous efforts in restoration research and practice.
Interdisciplinarity
To meet the goals of this call, projects are expected to be interdisciplinary. Interdisciplinary science refers to the involvement of multiple academic disciplines. Research teams should therefore span all disciplines of relevance for their project, be it from natural, social, and technical sciences, humanities and/or arts. Proposals should demonstrate how they will ensure the equitable and appropriate combination and inclusion of relevant academic disciplines, collaboratively integrating their approaches and skills.
Transdisciplinarity and impact
Proposals are strongly encouraged to be transdisciplinary to include non-academic stakeholders working together with researchers to co-produce new knowledge relevant for society. They should do so by considering the potential societal (including policy) impacts of their research (i.e., reflexive and introspective). Where relevant, stakeholders should be involved in different stages of the project, for example in the initial phase when defining research objectives and strategies, in implementing the project through data collection or analysis, to contribute to better dissemination of the knowledge gained, and/or to facilitate a systemic approach to a challenge. However, this involvement must not be an end in itself, but should be designed to add clear value to the project. For guidance, please consult the Biodiversa+ handbooks on Stakeholder engagementand on Citizen science(all Biodiversa+ guiding documents can be found here). If the inclusion of relevant stakeholders within the project management is not feasible or useful, this should be explained including how the proposed work remains valuable in a societal context. We welcome research in partnership with, and for, potentially under-represented and/or vulnerable groups of actors often omitted from academic studies in this context (e.g. traditional knowledge holders, indigenous and local communities, young, marginalised demographic groups, etc.). We also welcome projects which consider innovative ways to have better impact on policy and practices in business and public management, and among different stakeholders. Projects are encouraged to adopt a holistic approach and where relevant engage businesses and industries as partners in their proposal, to encompass a complete innovation ecosystem
3
Please consult the relevant national/regional rules regarding partners’ eligibility.
. The integration of various actors and sectors should be carried out in an equitable, respectful and just manner.
Global scope
32 countries are contributing to the funding of this joint call (see the updated list of countries and participating Funding Organisations on our website: www.biodiversa.eu/research-funding/open-call/participating-funding-organisations/).
The call covers research in all parts of the world, in all types of ecosystems and habitats, and in all types of societies, cultures and economic models. Research and innovation projects can thus include study sites, modelling or data collection globally, beyond the countries participating in the call. Note that researchers and stakeholders which cannot be funded directly from the call are welcome to participate on their own funds as in-kind project partners, or (if applicable) contracted by the applicants (see the section 3.2. “Eligibility of projects and partners in Call Criteria”, below).
Research proposed under this call is expected to demonstrate significant transnational added value in comparison to the value that would result from research and innovation projects funded at national level only. Evidence of transnational added value can either be found directly among the countries involved in the research, or through indirect value accrued as a result of their joint work. Such value could for example include relevance to international policy and management processes, linking expertise and efforts across international teams, or upscaling/transfer of efforts, methodology and knowledge across countries and regions.
Furthermore, the transnational added value should be end-user oriented and benefit environmental and societal actors beyond researchers, generating insights on the way, with emphasis on inclusion, social justice and equity. These end-users/stakeholders can be “proximate”, that is, those who directly benefit from the project, or more “ultimate”, i.e., those that may indirectly benefit from the outcomes in a broader geographical scope or longer term. When relevant, projects should for example ensure to have adequate budget for inclusion, capacity building, and exchange also with marginalised rights-owners and stakeholders at events and meetings.
3.

Procedures, eligibility and assessment criteria
3.1.

Submission, deadlines and time schedule Submission
A two-Step process will apply, with a mandatory submission of pre-proposals at Step 1 and submission of full proposals at Step 2. Pre-proposals and full proposals (in English) must be submitted electronically with the Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS). Instructions for electronic submission will be available on the Biodiversa+ website at www.biodiversa.eu/BiodivConnectin September 2025.
Please note that:
- • The online platform will stay open 5 minutes after the official deadline. Any proposals not correctly submitted at this moment will be declared ineligible.
- • All completed proposals will be submitted automatically when the platform closes, to avoid a situation where an applicant does not have time to click on the submit button. In this situation, the proposal will be evaluated as it stands.
At Step 1, applicants have to submit pre-proposals: information (in English) on the project consortia, a 5-page description of the project and the required budget for each Partner must be submitted on the EPSS. Submission of pre-proposals is mandatory; it is not possible to enter the procedure at a later stage.
Only eligible pre-proposals can be invited to submit full proposals.
At Step 2, only invited applicants have to submit full proposals: information (in English) on the project consortia, a 16-page description of the project and the required budget for each Partner must be submitted on the EPSS.
The information submitted at Step 1 and Step 2 will be used to complete an eligibility check, to find appropriate evaluators, and to evaluate the pre- (Step 1) and full (Step 2) proposals.
In case very few proposals are received, the CSC can decide with absolute majority to invite all eligible consortia to submit a full proposal in Step 2 without organising an Evaluation Committee in Step 1. Note however that the eligibility check will still be done in Step 1.
Deadlines and time schedule
The selection procedure will consist in an eligibility check and an evaluation of pre-proposals at Step 1 and an eligibility check and an evaluation of full proposals at Step 2.
The call will go through the following processes and applicants must pay attention to the deadlines outlined below in the time schedule:
| 12 June 2025 | Pre-announcement of the call
Step 1 | 9 September 2025 | Official launch of the call
11 September 2025 at 13:00 CEST | General webinar of the Call
7 November 2025, 12:00 CET | Deadline for submitting pre-proposal
| December 2025 | First eligibility check completed by the Call Secretariat and Funding organisation Contact Points (FCPs)
Late January / early February | First EvC Meeting
Mid-February 2026 | Results of the first Evaluation Committee (EvC) meeting • Selected applicants are invited to submit full proposals. A general feedback from the Evaluation Committee will be communicated to all invited applicants. Note however that no individual feedbacks will be sent at this stage. • Applicants that are not invited to submit a full proposal will receive feedbacks from the EvC regarding the strengths and weaknesses of their pre-proposals with respect to the assessment criteria used in Step 1 (see Document 6) tentatively in May 2026. No score nor rank will be communicated.
Step 2 | 14 April 2026, 12:00 CEST | Deadline for submitting full proposals
May 2026 | Second eligibility check completed by the Call Secretariat and FCPs
June or July 2026: | Second EvC meeting Ranked list of proposals established by the EvC
Late September 2026: | Recommendation for funding projects by the Call Steering Committee (CSC) • Results communicated to applicants • Both selected and non-selected applicants will receive feedbacks from the EvC regarding the strengths and weaknesses of their full proposals with respect to the assessment criteria used in Step 2 (see Document 6) tentatively in October 2026. No score nor rank will be communicated.
| 1 December 2026: | Earliest possible start of funded projects
1 April 2027: | Latest possible start of funded projects
During the entire procedure, strict confidentiality will be maintained with respect to the identities of applicants and the contents of the proposals.
3.2.

Eligibility of projects and Partners (call criteria)
The call is open to proposals and research consortia that meet the following criteria:
- • The international, scientific research projects are performed by eligible organisations. Funding Organisations eligibility criteria (see Funding Organisations’ rules) apply to all Partners, including research entities and private sector (for- or non-profit) organisations;
- • The Project Partner Coordinator (i.e., person in charge of the whole project, also referred to as Partner 1) must be eligible to be funded by one of the countries participating in the call and is eligible and employed by an eligible organisation according to the terms and conditions of the participating Funding Organisation to which they apply for support;
- • The Project Partner Coordinator (i.e., person in charge of the whole project, also referred to as Partner 1) can only participate as Project Partner Coordinator in one proposal of this call. Otherwise, applicants can participate in several proposals (as long as this is in line with their Funding Organisation’s eligibility rules);
- •
The project must be a transnational project involving eligible Partners from at least three different countries participating in the call and requesting support from at least three different Funding Organisations; including eligible Partners from at least two different EU Member States or Associated Countries
4
ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/list-3rd-country-participation_horizon-euratom_en.pdf NB: not all associated countries listed at this link participate in this call. Only researchers from countries that confirmed their participation and reserved a budget for this call can be eligible for funding. See TABLE 1: LIST OF FUNDING ORGANISATIONS AND THEIR FUNDING COMMITMENTS below to verify whether your country participates or not in this call.
participating in the call.
- • An individual researcher affiliated to several organisations cannot request funding for more than one of their affiliated organisations. The individual researcher must declare which Partner within the consortium they represent. They will not be considered as two different Partners within the consortium.
- • Proposals must be written in English;
- • The submission of a pre-proposal is compulsory. Applicants cannot submit a full proposal at a later stage otherwise;
- • Pre- and full proposals must be received before the deadlines set for the submission;
- • Pre- and full proposals must meet all the formal criteria: submitted electronically on the EPSS (see Call Documents 2 and 3 for indicative pre- and full- proposals application forms respectively), respect page limits and the number/type of attachments allowed;
- •
The information given in the pre-proposals regarding the research questions and objectives of a proposed project is binding. No change regarding the scientific content will be allowed by the Call Steering Committee (CSC) between the pre-proposals and full proposals. However, it is still possible to make minor changes to improve your proposal if the objectives remain unchanged (you will have to declare these changes in your full proposal). Regarding the administrative details, a limited number of changes may be allowed by the Funding Organisation Contact Point (FCP) and/or CSC, provided they are in line with the general rules of the call and the rules of the Funding Organisations:
  - ○ Change of budget can be allowed by the relevant Funding Organisation. The FCP can decide according to its own rules whether it needs a justification for it. There is no need to inform the Call Secretariat.
  - ○
Changes in the consortium composition:
    - • No change of Project Partner Coordinator (person in charge) will be allowed, except in case of force majeure. A request of change of Project Partner Coordinator must be submitted to the Call Secretariat, at least one week before the deadline for submitting full proposals and it will be discussed on a case-by-case basis by the CSC.
    - •
Changes in the consortium composition are allowed (maximum three changes of Partners), provided approval by the concerned Funding Organisations. Please note that the following actions are considered as changes: addition or removal of a Partner (incl. self-financed Partners). Please note that the maximum number of changes applies to “Partner”; it does not apply to “team member” or “subcontractors”.
      - • In case of a removal of a Partner, consortia have to make sure that their consortium still includes the minimum number of requested Partners. If this is not the case, the project will be declared ineligible and won’t be evaluated.
      - • All new Partners have to comply with their respective Funding Organisation’s rules. If a new Partner is declared ineligible at Step 2, the whole consortium will be declared ineligible and won’t be evaluated.
In terms of procedure: The eligibility of new Partners should be confirmed by the concerned Funding Organisation(s) at least one week before the full proposal submission deadline. Applicants are strongly advised to seek confirmation of the changes and the eligibility of new Partners from the FCP, who needs to check the national/regional eligibility of the new Partner and agree with the change, before it is implemented on the EPSS. The changes must be declared on the EPSS in the “disclosure of changes” box.
Please note that the following cases are not considered as one of the maximum three changes but the procedure mentioned above remains the same:
    - • If the change is explicitly requested by a Funding Organisation after the eligibility decision at Step 1
    - • If a researcher in charge (person) remains the same but changes the institutions (within the same country), provided the institution fulfils eligibility criteria of the same funding organisation. This does not apply to the Project Partner Coordinator.
    - • Similarly, if the institution remains the same but the researcher in charge (person) changes, provided the researcher in charge fulfils eligibility criteria of the same funding organisation. This does not apply to the Project Partner Coordinator.
  - ○ The change(s) should not change the substance of the proposal. Applicants will have to indicate in their full proposal the changes made as compared to the pre-proposals (for information for the EvC and the Call Secretariat).
Please indicate the acronym of your project when you contact the Call Secretariat and/or your Funding Organisation.
- ○ Compliance with Funding Organisation eligibility criteria and rules (e.g. eligible budget items) is mandatory; it is thus strongly recommended that applicants approach their respective Funding Organisation Contact Point to make sure they respect all the eligibility criteria and rules (contact list and main Funding Organisations’ rules are available in the call documents published on the Biodiversa+ website).
If one Partner is not eligible, the whole proposal will be considered ineligible and will not be evaluated, unless the eligibility issue(s) can be fixed without changing the substance of the proposal.
3.3.

Project Duration
The project duration is 3 years. Projects are expected to act as transnational project and not as a mosaic of national or regional projects; to this end, as far as possible Partners should participate in the project for its entire duration. However, as needed, position of some team members can be requested for only part of the project’s duration, as long as at least one member of each Partner remains involved for the whole project duration.
3.4.

Evaluation and Selection
General information:
Potential applicants are advised to take careful note of the scope and objectives of the call as described above in the Announcement of Opportunity. Applicants are strongly advised to assess the relevance of their proposed research against the scope and objectives of the call set forth in the scientific text of the call; any project that does not fit this will not be recommended for funding, regardless of its quality.
Biodiversa+ aims at funding excellent scientific research projects that can demonstrate societal relevance, including policy relevance, and engage with stakeholders. Proposals will thus be judged on both scientific excellence and their expected impact on society and policy, in addition to project implementation. Proposals should therefore focus on clear research questions with tractable and testable hypotheses and clearly explain expected societal and policy impact as well as their stakeholder engagement approach. Research projects should generate new knowledge and solutions based on the production of new primary data and/or by making use of available data.
Proposals from the natural sciences, technical sciences, and social sciences and humanities are welcome.
Evaluation process:
A two-Step evaluation process will be organised
5
In case very few proposals are received, the CSC can decide with absolute majority to invite all eligible consortia to submit a full proposal in Step 2 without organising an Evaluation Committee in Step 1. Note however that the eligibility check will still be done in Step 1.
.
- 1)
Step 1:
An eligibility check will be performed by the Call Secretariat and Funding Organisation Contact Points (FCPs) as well as Step 1 evaluation of eligible pre-proposals by an independent Evaluation Committee (EvC) against the following criteria:
  - (i)
Fit to the scope of the call,
  - (ii)
Novelty of the research
  - (iii)
Impact
Only successful pre-proposals will be invited to submit full proposals.
- 2)
Step 2:
An eligibility check of full proposals will be performed by the Call Secretariat and Funding Organisation Contact Points (FCPs).
Eligible full proposals will be evaluated by an independent Evaluation Committee (EvC) as well as by external reviewer(s) where deemed necessary by the EvC against the following criteria:
  - (i)
Excellence,
  - (ii)
Quality and efficiency of the implementation,
  - (iii)
Impact
The Call Steering Committee (CSC) will establish an EvC, comprising both scientific experts from natural sciences, technical sciences, social sciences and humanities, and policy/management experts relevant to the Call. The EvC composition should allow to cover, as far as possible, the range of topics within the scope of the call.
Members take part in the EvC as independent experts and do not represent any organisation nor can they send any replacements. This means that their work on this Committee does not represent any organisation or nation.
The EvC will assess the proposals according to the criteria defined (see “Assessment criteria” document in the call documents). At Step 2, where relevant (i.e. specifically requested by the EvC), the EvC will also moderate the assessments provided by the external reviewers.
The EvC will discuss the proposals and establish the final ranking of pre- and full proposals based on the set of assessment criteria defined.
After Step 1: The Call Steering Committee (CSC) will decide on which projects to invite to Step 2, following the eligibility check and the evaluation made by the EvC.
After Step 2: The CSC will decide on which projects to recommend for funding, and selection must be made strictly following the final ranking list established by the EvC.
Upon the final decision by the CSC, a list of funded projects will be published on the Biodiversa+ website.
Please note that no appeal can be brought at the EvC and CSC levels to challenge the results of the selection procedure. However, the decisions taken by the CSC do not take precedence over possible mandatory national, regional or organisational requirements for eligibility and appeal processes.
In case of funding failure, an equivalent re-evaluation procedure may be implemented. The exact process will be agreed on by the CSC in an ad hoc manner.
4.

Funding
For this call a total amount of ca. 35 M€ has been provisionally reserved by the participating Funding Organisations (see the list in the table below).
The European Commission (EC) will also provide funding for the funded projects depending on the final total funding amount for research proposals committed by the participating Funding Organisations eligible for EC-funding.
The indicative total budget for this call is thus of over 40 M€, including the EC contribution.
Total indicative budget for each Funding Organisation is given below. Please note that Funding Organisation may have defined maximum requested budget per project. Each participant in a funded project will be preferentially funded by their Funding Organisation(s) participating in the call. The additional funding provided by the EC for the funded project will be distributed through the EC-eligible Funding Organisations.
The aim of the call is to fund medium size projects (with a total budget of typically 1.2–1.5M€ on average; but note that this constitutes an indication rather than a formal limit). The requested funding should be justified and relevant with regards to the work planned within the project.
TABLE 1: LIST OF FUNDING ORGANISATIONS AND THEIR FUNDING COMMITMENTS
1
The full up-to-date list of participating funding organisations joining this Call and their reserved budget is available on the Biodiversa+ website: www.biodiversa.eu/research-funding/open-call/participating-funding-organisations
,
2
The Funding Organisations marked by “#” have defined maximum allowed budget per project and/or per Partner. Please consult the Funding Organisations’ rules and contact your Funding Organisation Contact Point for more information.
Country | Funding organisation | Acronym | Reserved budget in EUR
Austria | Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung | FWF# | 1,300,000.00
Belgium (Wallonia- Brussels) | Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique | FNRS# | 300,000.00
Belgium (Flanders) | Fonds Voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-Vlaanderen | FWO# | 750,000.00
Brazil | Brazilian National Council of State Funding Agencies | CONFAP# | 100,000.00 (tbc)
Bulgaria | Bulgarian National Science Fund | BNSF# | 460,000.00
Czech Republic | Technology Agency of the Czech Republic | TA CR# | 1,000,000.00
Denmark | Innovation Fund Denmark | IFD# | 2,000,000.00
Estonia | Ministry of Climate | MoC | 150,000.00
Estonia | Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture | REM | 100,000.00
Estonia | Estonian Research Council | ETAG | 300,000.00
Faroe Islands | The Faroese Research Council | RCFI# | 100,000.00
France | Agence Nationale de la Recherche | ANR# | 2,000,000.00
Germany | German Research Foundation | DFG# | 1,500,000.00 (tbc)
Germany | Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH (on behalf of BMFTR) | PTJ (on behalf of BMFTR) | 2,000,000.00
Hungary | Nemzeti Kutatási, Fejlesztési és Innovációs Hivatal | NKFIH# | 250,000.00
Iceland | Icelandic Centre for Research | Rannis# | 700,000.00
Ireland | Environmental Protection Agency | EPA# | 700,000.00
Israel | Ministry of Environmental Protection | MoEP# | 120,000.00
Italy | Autonomous Province of Bolzano/Bozen | BOZEN# | 350,000.00
Latvia | Latvian Council of Science | LZP/LCS# | 600,000.00
Lithuania | Lietuvos mokslo taryba | LMT# | 300,000.00
Moldova | National Agency for Research and Development | NARD | 100,000.00
Netherlands (the) | Dutch Research Council | NWO# | 3,000,000.00
Norway | Research Council of Norway | RCN# | 2,200,000.00
Poland | Narodowe Centrum Nauki | NCN# | 1,000,000.00
Portugal | Portuguese national funding agency for science, research and technology | FCT# | 500,000.00
Romania | The Executive Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation Funding | UEFISCDI# | 500,000.00
Slovakia | Slovak Academy of Sciences | SAS# | 360,000.00
Slovenia | Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Innovation | MVZI# | 900,000.00
South Africa | Department of Science and Innovation | DSI# | 400,000.00
Spain | Agencia Estatal de Investigación | AEI# | 1,500,000.00
Spain | Fundación Biodiversidad | FB# | 600,000.00
Sweden | The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning | Formas# | 3,500,000.00
Sweden | Swedish Environmental Protection Agency | SEPA | 450,000.00
Sweden | Swedish National Space Agency | SNSA | 1,500,000.00
Switzerland | Swiss National Science Foundation | SNSF# | 2,600,000.00
Taiwan | National Science and Technology Council | NSTC# | 810,000.00
Tunisia | Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research | MHESR# | 400,000.00
Türkiye | Türkiye Bilimsel Ve Teknolojik Arastirma Kurumu | TÜBITAK# | 350,000.00
Please note that all Funding Organisations have defined specific rules – including restrictions with regards to the environments they support. Carefully read the Funding Organisations’ rules and contact your Funding Organisation Contact Point in case of any questions or doubts regarding these rules.
5.

Programme structure and management
Programme activities
The funded projects are considered to form part of an international research programme for which joint activities will be organised, in particular:
- • A kick-off meeting at the beginning of the funding period
- • A mid-term meeting to present and discuss the mid-term reports,
- • A final meeting to present and discuss the final reports; and disseminate the project results at the end of the funding period.
These events will be possibly organised back-to-back with other workshops (such as clustering workshops, data management workshops, synthesis workshops, etc.)
At least the Project Partner Coordinator of each funded consortium should participate in these joint activities. The costs for attendance to two physical meetings should be included in the budgets of their proposals (at least one event will be done remotely).
Project management and reporting
Funded projects will be requested to submit via the Project Partner Coordinator a mid-term report and a final report on research and activity progress. Some Funding Organisations may request additional specific reports.
6.

Eligible budget items
Eligible costs and the maximum allowed requested budget per project and/or per Partner are governed by Funding Organisations’ specific rules. Specific questions should be addressed to the Funding Organisation Contact Points (updated list available on the Biodiversa+ website).
In case of a significant financial pressure on a Funding Organisation due to the high number of teams requesting budget from this Funding Organisation in the submitted applications, the applicants may be asked to adjust downward their budget.
7.

Measure to encourage participation and success of countries / regions with small research communities and/or where research applications have been less successful at Step 1 (pre-proposals)
A “widening option” will be set-up between Step 1 and 2 of the evaluation process:
- • On a voluntary basis, consortia invited to submit a full proposal in Step 2 will have the possibility to include one or several new Partner(s) from undersubscribed funding organisations between Step 1 and 2. The inclusion of one or several new Partner(s) should be relevant for the proposal, and new Partners should be well integrated in the consortium.
- • The addition of a Partner from undersubscribed funding organisations is not considered as one of the maximum three changes allowed but the eligibility procedure remains the same and funding organisation national/ regional rules must be respected.
On the Biodiversa+ website:
- a)
An updated list of undersubscribed funding organisations will be made public
- b)
The acronym, title and keywords of the pre-proposals invited to Step 2 will be published
On the Partner Search Tool (PST):
- a)
Applicants from undersubscribed funding organisations can declare their interest to join a consortium invited to Step 2. To facilitate contact with the coordinator of the full proposal, applicants are invited to include the acronym of the proposal they want to join when declaring their interest in the PST. They are also encouraged to check the PST for new offers of interest by successful consortia.
- b)
The successful consortia may use the PST to look for new Partners from undersubscribed funding organisations, in case they would like to add expertise to their consortium. They will have the opportunity to post a detailed offer on the Biodiversa+ PST.
8.

Further information
General management of the Call, including information on the call secretariat vs. funding organisation ata national or regional level:
The Call Secretariat is responsible for organising the call implementation procedure and for all communication with applicants related to joint aspects of the call and procedure.
However, for Funding Organisation eligibility criteria, the Funding Organisations’ documented rules must be consulted and Funding Organisation Contact Points should be approached (the information are published and updated on the Biodiversa+ website), in particular with regard to eligibility of Partner, eligible costs and other country-specific aspects of the call. The compliance with Funding Organisations’ rules is mandatory, and relevant Funding Organisation Contact Points should be contacted to obtain further information if needed.
According to their respective rules, the Funding Organisations may require that the project members selected for funding establish a project consortium agreement to release the funds. The requirement will thus apply to all the project members, even if their respective Funding Organisation does not require a project consortium agreement.
Data Management
Applicants’ attention must be drawn to the fact that they will be requested to produce data management plans and regularly update them in the course of your project (data management plan should indeed be seen as living documents). Biodiversa+ strongly encourages applicants to make available publicly the new databases, with metadata that they will produce within their project. Please note that the respective Funding Organisation may also have specific requirements in terms of open access to data. Applicants are thus strongly encouraged to plan resources to ensure data open access and comply with the requirements of their Funding Organisations (if any). For more information, please refer to the “Open Science and Fair Data” (Document 5in the call documents) and Biodiversa Guidance document on data management, open data, and the production of Data Management Plans (www.biodiversa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Biodiversa-Data-Management_WEB_2023.pdf).
Applicants’ attention must be drawn to the fact that if they plan to use genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources in their project, they will have to ascertain towards the competent authorities and focal point that these used genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources have been accessed in accordance with applicable access and benefit-sharing legislation or regulatory requirements, and that benefits are fairly and equitably shared upon mutually decided terms, in accordance with any applicable legislation or regulatory requirements.
6
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity and REGULATION (EU) No 511/2014 OF THE EuropEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation in the Union and related implementing acts.
Please refer to the competent authorities for more information.
Contractual requirements
In this call for proposals, being co-funded by the European Union, Partners are considered as third parties of Funding Organisations. All Partners commit to the following articles of the Horizon Europe Annotated Grant Agreement
7
ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/aga_en.pdf
and related regulations of Annex 5:
- • Conflicts of interest (Article 12)
- • Confidentiality and security (Article 13)
- • Ethics and values (Article 14)
- • Visibility (Article 17)
- • Specific rules for carrying out the action (Article 18)
- • Information obligations (Article 19)
- • Record-keeping (Article 20)
Moreover, the bodies mentioned in Article 25 (e.g. granting authority, the European Court of Auditors (ECA), the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)) have the right to carry out checks, reviews, audits and investigations on the Partners, and in particular to audit the payments received. If access is denied by the project partners, the costs will be rejected.
Additional resources
Biodiversa+ regularly publishes guides that can help in the application process and development of a project, see at www.biodiversa.eu/library/#1. Where relevant, applicants and grant holders are notably encouraged to consult the following material:
- • The Stakeholder Engagement Handbook
- • The Guide on Policy Relevance of Research
- • The Citizen Science Toolkit
- • The Guidance Document on Open Science and Data Management
Main contact points:
- •
For technical questions regarding submission, please contact the Call Secretariat:
biodiversa.cs@agencerecherche.fr
- • For technical questions regarding the Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS), please contact the EPSS technical helpdesk: Taavi Tiirik: epss.biodiversa@g.etag.ee
- •
For budgetary questions and other national/ regional issues, please contact the relevant Funding Organisation Contact Point (FCP) – who are listed and updated at www.biodiversa.eu/research-funding/open-call/participating-funding-organisations.
Funding organisations’ rules are also advertised and updated on the Biodiversa+ website and are mandatory. Should you have any question on these aspects, please contact the relevant FCP.
Document
2:

Pre-proposal application form
This template is an
indicative model
of pre-proposal application form. All pre-proposals have to be submitted online via the electronic proposal submission system (EPSS). The format of the pre-proposal application form will be modified to fit the EPSS.
The Project Partner Coordinator (i.e., person in charge of the whole project, identified as Partner 1 of a pre-proposal will invite all involved Partners to log in on the EPSS following creation of the pre-proposal. All Partners must accept the invitation and log in on the EPSS before submission of the pre-proposal in order to confirm their participation and provide their related information.
PRE-PROPOSAL APPLICATION FORM
Call for transnational research projects on Restoration of ecosystem functioning, integrity and connectivity (BiodivConnect)
Project Title 1 Please note that the project title and acronym should be considered as definitive. (max 255 characters including spaces) |
Short name / Acronym 2 Only letters, numbers and space are allowed, but no special characters (e.g., -, _,?,!, etc.) (max 20 characters including spaces) |
The acronym, title and keywords of the pre-proposals invited to Step 2 will be published on Biodiversa+ website (see the “widening option” for further information in the Call Documents)
How to choose a good acronym for your proposal?
You are free to choose any acronym you wish for your proposal as long as it respects the allowed format. However, keep in mind that a good acronym increases the impact of the selected research projects, as a wider audience will be able to find the results and pay attention to the good work that is not always reaching full potential with poorly chosen acronym. This should be useful and efficient with respect to communication purposes if your project is selected. Therefore, it is important to think about a useful and efficient name that is:
- 1.
Easy to remember
- 2.
Easy to search for and find on the internet (unique)
- 3.
Providing some ideas regarding the topic of the project
Keywords:
(min 1 keyword, max 10 keywords)
General guidance for all applicants:
- • The proposal must be written in English;
- • Any documents other than those requested as part of the proposal will not be forwarded to Evaluation Committee members.
1.

Administrative details
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS.
Please note that these fields (highlighted by ○) won’t be evaluated and will be collected by the European Commission for the purpose of doing anonymous statistics.
You will have to provide in this section information on the Project Partner Coordinator (i.e., person in charge of the whole project and associated consortium) and Partners involved, as well as the requested budget per Partner.
Here participants refer to Partners, self-financed Partners, and subcontractors.
What is a Partner?
Note that depending on the Funding Organisation, a “Partner” can be:
- • a researcher,
- • an institution,
- • a laboratory, a department of an institution
- • a private, for- or non-profit organisation
Please make sure to respect the eligibility rules of the call and funding organisations.
Please also consult Funding Organisations’ rules advertised on the Biodiversa+ website which are compulsory.
Applicants are strongly advised to contact their respective Funding Organisations (list available on Biodiversa+ website) and to confirm their eligibility with their Funding Organisations before submitting the pre-proposal.
Important:
Please indicate the acronym of your project in the subject line of your email when you contact the Call Secretariat and/or your Funding Organisation.
Please note that the information given in the pre-proposals regarding the research questions and objectives of a proposed project is binding. No major changes regarding the proposals’ content will be allowed by the Call Steering Committee (CSC) between the pre-proposals and full proposals (if invited to Step 2). Regarding the administrative details, a limited number of changes may be allowed by the Funding Organisation Contact point (FCP) and CSC, provided they are in line with the general rules of the call and the rules of the Funding Organisations:
- •
Change of budget
can be allowed by the relevant Funding Organisation. The FCP can decide according to its own rules whether it needs a justification for it.
There is no need to inform the Call Secretariat.
- •
Changes in the consortium composition:
  - ○ No change of Project Partner Coordinator (person in charge) will be allowed, except in case of force majeure. A request of change of Project Partner Coordinator must be submitted to the Call Secretariat, at least one week before the deadline for submitting full proposals and it will be discussed on a case-by-case basis by the CSC.
  - ○
Changes in the consortium composition are allowed (maximum three changes of Partners), provided approval by the concerned Funding Organisations. Please note that the following actions are considered as changes: addition or removal of a Partner (incl. self-financed Partners). Please note that the maximum number of changes applies to “Partner”; it does not apply to “team member” or “subcontractors”.
Please note that the following cases are not considered as one of the maximum three changes:
    - ■ If the change is explicitly requested by a Funding Organisation after the eligibility decision at Step 1
    - ■ If a researcher in charge (person) remains the same but changes the institutions (within the same country), provided the institution fulfils eligibility criteria of the same funding organisation. This does not apply to the Project Partner Coordinator
    - ■ Similarly, if the institution remains the same but the researcher in charge (person) changes, provided the researcher in charge fulfils eligibility criteria of the same funding organisation. This does not apply to the Project Partner Coordinator
ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING
Please note that if you plan to use genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources in your project, you will have to ascertain towards the competent authorities and focal point that these used genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources have been accessed in accordance with applicable access and benefit-sharing legislation or regulatory requirements, and that benefits are fairly and equitably shared upon mutually decided terms, in accordance with any applicable legislation or regulatory requirements
8
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
.
Please also note that if the utilisation of genetic resources or traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources takes place in an EU Member State, users in those states will have to comply with the general due diligence obligation under Art. 4 of Regulation (EU) No 511/2014, as well as the obligation to file due diligence declarations under Art. 7 of Regulation (EU) No 511/2014
9
Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation in the Union
.
For funding, there are 2 categories of Partners:
- 1.
Partners from countries (and organisations) eligible for direct funding by a participating Funding Organisation of this call (designated Partners 1, 2... N);
- 2.
Fully self-financed Partners from any country who bring their own secured budget (designated Partner A, B, etc.).
Other Participants – Subcontractors:
Participants ineligible for direct funding under this call that are subcontracted by eligible Partner(s). Subcontractors are designated Sa, Sb... Sx). Subcontractors are subject to the terms and conditions of each Funding Organisation providing the subcontracting costs and need to comply with their rules. Generally speaking, subcontracting is understood as the externalization of the execution of a (minor) project task that Partner(s) cannot execute.
Project Partner Coordinator – Partner 1
Researcher in charge: | ORCID ID(XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX or enter N, if not applicable):
Family name | | First name |
Title | | Gender |
Phone | | E-mail |
Career Stage 1 Category A: the single highest grade/post at which research is normally conducted. • Example: “director of research” or “full professor” Category B: Researchers working in positions not as senior as top position (a) but more senior than newly qualified doctoral graduates • Example: “senior researcher”, “principal investigator” or “associate/assistant professor”. Category C: the first grade/post into which a newly qualified doctoral graduate would normally be recruited. • Examples: “researcher”, “investigator” or “post-doctoral fellow”. Category D: Either doctoral students at the IsCED level 8 who are engaged as researchers, or researchers working in posts that do not normally require a doctorate degree. • Examples: “Ph.D. students” or “junior researchers” (without a Ph.D). These categories are defined in Frascati manual from OECD www.oecd.org/sti/inno/frascati-manual.htm(page 249) | Category A: Top grade researcher Category B: Senior researcher Category C: Recognised researcher Category D: First stage researcher N: Not applicable | Nationality○ |
Website |
Legal full name of the research organisation / Company | | Short name (acronym) of the research organisation/Company – if any: |
Participant Identification Code (PIC) number of the organisation 2 A PIC (Participation identification code) is a 9-digit number serving as a unique identifier for organisations (legal entities) participating in EU funding programmes / procurements. A search tool for organisations and their PICs is available at the following link: ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-participate/participant-register-search. ○ |
Status: Private or public? | | If private, Small or Medium-sized Enterprise (SME status) ○: Yes/No Enterprises other than SME○: Yes/No | | Statistical Classification of Economic Activities (NACE) 3 The NACE code is a Statistical Classification of Economic Activities of the organisation. You can find further information about NACE at Eurostat website ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nace and the classification can be downloaded at ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST_CLS_DLD&StrNom=NACE_REV2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntCurrentPage=1&StrLayoutCode=LINEAR# ○: |
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory |
Street name and number |
PO Box (optional) | | Postal code | | Cedex (optional) |
Town | | Country |
Employment status information | □ on permanent position
□ on fixed-term position
If on fixed term position:
Start date of the contract (YYYY-MM-DD):
End date of the contract (YYYY-MM-DD):
Funding body 4 The “Funding body” can be the funding organisation you will be requesting money from under this call or another body responsible for your salary as PI. :
Are you planning to cover your own position/salary as a PI with funding requested under this Call? 5 If yes, please make sure that your Funding Organisation’s rules and regulations allow it. | □ Yes
□ No
Other team members involved in the project 6 Please include all the team members to be involved in the project, would they be funded or not by your Funding Organisation. Do not repeat the principal investigator here. If you do not have yet this information for one team member (e.g. for a postdoc), you can indicate “to be determined (TBD)”.
Team member 1: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id. Team member 2: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id. (...) Team member N: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id.
Partner 2, ... N
Researcher in charge: | ORCID ID(XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX or enter N, if not applicable):
Family name | | First name |
Title | | Gender |
Phone | | E-mail |
Career Stage 1 Category A: the single highest grade/post at which research is normally conducted. • Example: “director of research” or “full professor” Category B: Researchers working in positions not as senior as top position (a) but more senior than newly qualified doctoral graduates • Example: “senior researcher”, “principal investigator” or “associate/assistant professor”. Category C: the first grade/post into which a newly qualified doctoral graduate would normally be recruited. • Examples: “researcher”, “investigator” or “post-doctoral fellow”. Category D: Either doctoral students at the IsCED level 8 who are engaged as researchers, or researchers working in posts that do not normally require a doctorate degree. • Examples: “Ph.D. students” or “junior researchers” (without a Ph.D). These categories are defined in Frascati manual from OECD www.oecd.org/sti/inno/frascati-manual.htm (page 249) | Category A: Top grade researcher Category B: Senior researcher Category C: Recognised researcher Category D: First stage researcher N: Not applicable | Nationality○ |
Website |
Legal full name of the research organisation / Company | | Short name (acronym) of the research organisation/Compa ny – if any: |
Participant Identification Code (PIC) number of the organisation 2 A PIC (Participation identification code) is a 9-digit number serving as a unique identifier for organisations (legal entities) participating in EU funding programmes / procurements. A search tool for organisations and their PICs is available at the following link: ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-participate/participant-register-search. ○ |
Status: Private or public? | | If private, Small or Medium-sized Enterprise (SME status) ○: Yes/No Enterprises other than SME○: Yes/No | | Statistical Classification of Economic Activities (NACE) 3 The NACE code is a Statistical Classification of Economic Activities of the organisation. You can find further information about NACE at Eurostat website ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nace and the classification can be downloaded at ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST_CLS_DLD&StrNom=NACE_REV2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntCurrentPage=1&StrLayoutCode=LINEAR# ○: |
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory |
Street name and number |
PO Box (optional) | | Postal code | | Cedex (optional) |
Town | | Country |
Employment status information | □ on permanent position
□ on fixed-term position
If on fixed term position:
Start date of the contract (YYYY-MM-DD):
End date of the contract (YYYY-MM-DD):
| Funding body 4 The “Funding body” can be the funding organisation you will be requesting money from under this call or another body responsible for your salary as PI. :
Are you planning to cover your own position/salary as a PI with funding requested under this Call? 5 If yes, please make sure that your Funding Organisation’s rules and regulations allow it. | □ Yes
□ No
Other team members involved in the project 6 Please include all the team members to be involved in the project, would they be funded or not byyour Funding Organisation. Do not repeat the principal investigator here. If you do not have yet this information for one team member (e.g. for a postdoc), you can indicate “to be determined (TBD)”
Team member 1: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id. Team member 2: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id. (...) Team member N: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id.
[Please insert as many copies of the above tables as necessary for other applicants.]
Subcontractor Sa, Sb, ... Sx (participant subcontracted by Partner(s) funded under this call)
Researcher in charge (if not applicable, principal contact point): | ORCID ID (XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX or enter N, if not applicable):
Family name | | First name |
Title | | Gender |
Phone | | E-mail |
Career Stage 1 Category A: the single highest grade/post at which research is normally conducted. • Example: “director of research” or “full professor” Category B: Researchers working in positions not as senior as top position (a) but more senior than newly qualified doctoral graduates • Example: “senior researcher”, “principal investigator” or “associate/assistant professor”. Category C: the first grade/post into which a newly qualified doctoral graduate would normally be recruited. • Examples: “researcher”, “investigator” or “post-doctoral fellow”. Category D: Either doctoral students at the IsCED level 8 who are engaged as researchers, or researchers working in posts that do not normally require a doctorate degree. • Examples: “Ph.D. students” or “junior researchers” (without a Ph.D). These categories are defined in Frascati manual from OECD www.oecd.org/sti/inno/frascati-manual.htm(page 249) | (Category A: Top grade researcher Category B: Senior researcher Category C: Recognised researcher Category D: First stage researcher N: Not applicable) | Nationality○ |
Website |
Legal full name of the organisation | | Short name (acronym) of the organisation- if any |
Participant Identification Code (PIC) 2 A PIC (Participation identification code) is a 9-digit number serving as a unique identifier for organisations (legal entities) participating in EU funding programmes / procurements. A search tool for organisations and their PICs is available at the following link: ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-participate/participant-register-search. number of the organisation○ |
Status: Private or public? | | If private, Small or Medium-sized Enterprise (SME status)○: Yes/No Enterprises other than SME○: Yes/No | | Statistical Classification of Economic Activities (NACE) 3 The NACE code is a Statistical Classification of Economic Activities of the organisation. You can find further information about NACE at Eurostat website ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nace and the classification can be downloaded at ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST_CLS_DLD&StrNom=NACE_REV2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntCurrentPage=1&StrLayoutCode=LINEAR# ○: |
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory |
Street name and number |
PO Box (optional) | | Postal code | | Cedex (optional) |
Town | | Country |
Other team members involved in the project 4 Please include all the team members to be involved in the project, would they be funded or not by your Funding Organisation. If you do not have yet this information for one team member (e.g. for a postdoc), you can indicate “to be determined”.
Team member 1: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max), main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id. Team member 2: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id. (...) Team member N: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id.
Indicate by which Partner(s) you will be subcontracted by: <...> <...> <...>
[Please insert as many copies of the above table as necessary for other Subcontractors]
Self-financed Partner A, B, ...X
Researcher in charge: | ORCID ID (XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX or enter N, if not applicable):
Family name | | First name |
Title | | Gender |
Phone | | E-mail |
Career Stage 1 Category A: the single highest grade/post at which research is normally conducted. • Example: “director of research” or “full professor” Category B: Researchers working in positions not as senior as top position (a) but more senior than newly qualified doctoral graduates • Example: “senior researcher”, “principal investigator” or “associate/assistant professor”. Category C: the first grade/post into which a newly qualified doctoral graduate would normally be recruited. • Examples: “researcher”, “investigator” or “post-doctoral fellow”. Category D: Either doctoral students at the IsCED level 8 who are engaged as researchers, or researchers working in posts that do not normally require a doctorate degree. • Examples: “Ph.D. students” or “junior researchers” (without a Ph.D). These categories are defined in Frascati manual from OECD www.oecd.org/sti/inno/frascati-manual.htm(page 249) | (Category A: Top grade researcher Category B: Senior researcher Category C: Recognised researcher Category D: First stage researcher N: Not applicable) | Nationality○ |
Website |
Legal full name of the research organisation / Company | | Short name (acronym) of the research organisation/Company – if any: |
Participant Identification Code (PIC) 2 A PIC (Participation identification code) is a 9-digit number serving as a unique identifier for organisations (legal entities) participating in EU funding programmes / procurements. A search tool for organisations and their PICs is available at the following link: ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-participate/participant-register-search. number of the organisation○ |
Status: Private or public? | | If private, Small or Medium-sized Enterprise (SME status)○: Yes/No Enterprises other than SME○: Yes/No | | Statistical Classification of Economic Activities (NACE) 3 The NACE code is a Statistical Classification of Economic Activities of the organisation. You can find further information about NACE at Eurostat website ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nace and the classification can be downloaded at ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST_CLS_DLD&StrNom=NACE_REV2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntCurrentPage=1&StrLayoutCode=LINEAR# ○: |
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory |
Street name and number |
PO Box (optional) | | Postal code | | Cedex (optional) |
Town | | Country |
Other team members involved in the project 4 Please include all the team members to be involved in the project, would they be funded or not by your Funding Organisation. If you do not have yet this information for one team member (e.g. for a postdoc), you can indicate “to be determined”.
Team member 1: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id. Team member 2: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id. (...) Team member N: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id.
[Please insert as many copies of the above table as necessary for other Self-financed Partners]
2.

Declaration of parallel submissions of this proposal (whole or parts) to other funding programmes or to the same programme and currently under evaluation:
Provide details of any proposal related to this one, which you or another project Partner have submitted to other funding opportunities, including title, funding source, extent of overlap and expected decision date.
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS.
Duplication of funding is not allowed for the same (whole or part) research project.
/!\ Please note that some Funding Organisations have specific rules on the possibility to apply as applicant in different proposals. Make sure you comply with your Funding Organisations’ rules. /!\
3.

Summary of the project
(min 500 characters including spaces and max 3,000 characters including spaces) NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS.
4.

Topics(s), environment(s) and/or socio-economic sector(s) targeted if relevant, scientific discipline(s) involved, and study site(s)/country(ies) covered in the project
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS.
Please indicate:
- (1)
Indicate in % the topic addressed by your project,
- (2)
Indicate in % the type of environment(s) that are studied in your project,
- (3)
Indicate in % the general disciplines involved in the project (NB | you should indicate disciplines that are actually mobilised in your consortium, based on the expertise of whole research consortium)
- (4)
list (4.1) the socio-economic sectors, (4.2) the scientific disciplines involved and (4.3) the study sites/countries covered by the project.
(1) Topics in the joint 2025–2026 Biodiversa+ call | %
T1: (...)
T2: (...)
T3: (...)
TOTAL | Should be 100%
(1) Environment(s) studied where relevant | %
1. Terrestrial |
2. Inland water (including wetlands) |
3. Coastal |
4. Marine |
5. Air |
TOTAL | Should be 100%
(2) interdisciplinarity of the proposed research | %
1. Natural sciences |
2. Social Sciences |
3. Humanities |
4. Technical sciences |
5. Other |
TOTAL | Should be 100%
(3.1) Socio-economic sector(s) studied and policies if relevant
To be selected from a standardised list (available on the EPSS) – multiple choices • Agriculture/ forestry/ food/ aquaculture • Biological resources management (including cultivated plants, pollinators, pests, invasive alien species, genetic resources, ...) • Business/private sector • Climate change • Conservation/ protection/restoration/ nature-based solutions/ ecosystems services • Education/communication • Environmental policy and governance • Health/well-being • Infrastructure (including linear infrastructures, green and blue infrastructures, ...) • Non-biological natural resources management (including soil protection, water management, natural renewable resources, ...) • Sustainable development • Tourism/ recreation • Urban planning/spatial planning and management (including landscape and land- use planning and management) • Other (please specify):
(3.2) Scientific disciplines involved
Please indicate in this section the scientific disciplines mobilised in your project, depending on the expertise of the members of your consortium
To be selected from a standardised list (available on the EPSS) – multiple choices
Study sites/countries covered by the project
(please do not indicate here the nationality of the members of the consortium but the areas and countries studied in your proposals (research scope, studied sites, etc.) (max 3,500 characters including spaces)
Under this project, is the research to be carried out non-profit research?
□ Yes □ No
4.

Short project description
NB: This part will have to be uploaded as a single pdf on the EPSS.
Please start by indicating the Acronym of your project at the top.
Page limit: The short project description should not be longer than 5 pages. All tables, figures, references and any other element pertaining to this section must be included as an integral part of these sections and are thus counted against this page limit.
The page limit will be applied automatically. After the deadline, excess pages (in over-long proposals/applications) will be automatically made invisible and will not be taken into consideration by the evaluators.
The proposal is a self-contained document. Links and hyperlinks are not allowed unless specifically asked for in the pre-proposal application form. Evaluation Committee members will be instructed to ignore any information that is specifically designed to expand the proposal, thus circumventing the page limit.
You are however welcome to include references and all relevant information that would allow them to be found without links nor hyperlinks. There are no specific formatting rules regarding how references should be included or listed in the project description other than the general formatting conditions described below.
The following formatting conditions apply:
- • The reference font for the body text of proposals is Arial. The minimum font size allowed is 11 points. Standard character spacing and a minimum of single line spacing is to be used. This applies to the body text, including text in tables.
- • Text elements other than the body text, such as headers, foot/end notes, captions, formula's, may deviate, but must be legible (links and hyperlinks are not allowed in the project description).
- • The page size is A4, and all margins (top, bottom, left, right) should be at least 1.27 cm (not including any footers or headers).
- • A pre-proposal can be declared as ineligible if formatting conditions are not followed.
The project description should include the following elements:
- • Fit to the scope and objectives of the call;
- • Scientific objectives and main research questions: demonstrate how the activity advance knowledge and understanding of the topic of the call.
- • Short description of the theoretical framework, research questions, and hypothesis to be tested. Explain to what extent the proposed work can lead to the purpose of the call.
- • Explanation of the novelty of the research planned, in relation to the present state-of-the-art. Explain to what extent the proposed work explores novel concepts and the advancement of the scope and objectives of the call, and to what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original concepts.
- •
Relevance for society, including policy: explain to what extent your project could lead to novel / original contribution for tackling societal challenges, including policy challenges, as well as your approach/ambition towards stakeholder and/or end-user engagement
10
For guidelines, consult the Biodiversa Stakeholder Engagement Handbook (www.biodiversa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/stakeholder-engagement-handbook.pdf) and Policy Guide (www.biodiversa.org/1563/download)
to achieve the expected societal impact, including policy impact?
- • Preliminary identification of the types/categories of the stakeholders to be engaged in your project.
- • Transnational added value of the research proposed from a societal/policy impact perspective.
Please be aware that proposals will be evaluated based on their submitted content and written information only and following the assessment criteria defined in the Document 6.
5.

Preliminary Data Management Information
(max 2,500 characters including spaces)
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS.
Please detail the data management approach envisaged for your project (type of datasets to be produced / reused, how will you ensure that the data meets the FAIR principles (i.e. they should be findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable), possible restrictions on data, etc.).
For guidelines, please consult the document 5 ‘Open Science and Fair Data’’ in the Call documents.
6.

Brief CVs for the principal investigator of each Partner involved in the project
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS, using the CV template below.
Where relevant, please include the CVs of self-financed and subcontractors.
Where relevant, please specify in the CVs, the Partners’ capacity to involve stakeholders.
Participation status: <Project Partner Coordinator or principal investigator of a Partner>
Name:
Nationality:
Institution, City, Country:
E-mail:
URL / website (including complete list of publications if any):
Professional status: <Professor, Assistant professor, Associate professor, Senior scientist, Post- Doc, PhD-student, Other>
Education: <Year; Degree (e.g., Bachelor, Master, Doctorate, Certificate, etc.); Major discipline(s); organisation; country > <Year; Degree (e.g., Bachelor, Master, Doctorate, Certificate, etc.); Major discipline(s); organisation; country > ...
Positions: <Year; Position; organisation; country > <Year; Position; organisation; country > ...
Awards received / other responsibilities (max 1,000 characters including spaces):
General expertise and its relevance for the project, incl. capacity to involve stakeholders (max 1,500 characters including spaces):
Up to 5 most important publications relevant to the proposal released in the past 5 years at the launch of the call, if any: <...> <...> <...> <...> <...>
7.

Exclusion of potential reviewers (optional)
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS.
List here potential reviewers who, you think, should not be asked to evaluate the project for reasons of direct competition and partiality (Table VI.a). Also provide the names of significant collaborators that should not be used as reviewers due to conflicts of interest (Table VI.b).
7.a. Potential competitors
| First Name | Last Name | Organisation | Country | E-mail address | Rationale for excluding the reviewer
1 | | | | | |
2 | | | | | |
(...) | | | | | |
N | | | | | |
Insert as many lines as needed
7.b. Collaborators with conflict of interest
| First Name | Last Name | Organisation | Country | E-mail address | Rationale for excluding the reviewer
1 | | | | | |
2 | | | | | |
(...) | | | | | |
N | | | | | |
Insert as many lines as needed
8.

Suggestion of potential evaluators (optional)
Please indicate up to 4 experts who could review your proposal, including their field expertise. The rules on conflict of interest set forth in document 7 ‘Code of conduct for conflict of interest, confidentiality and non-disclosure’ in the Call documents apply to these suggestions.
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS.
| First Name | Last Name | Organisation | Country | E-mail address | Link to their website | Field of expertise
1 | | | | | | |
2 | | | | | | |
3 | | | | | | |
4 | | | | | | |
Please note that these are only suggestions for consideration by the Evaluation Committee (EvC) and Call Steering Committee (CSC). The final attribution of reviewers to proposals is the responsibility of the EvC and CSC.
9.

Budget
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS.
/!\ Please note that you should indicate in this table an indicative repartition between the different categories of costs, the total budget / total costs of the project and the budget requested to your Funding Organisation for this 2024–2025 Biodiversa+ call. Please make sure to follow your Funding Organisations’ rules .
Please note that for each Partner you are requested to indicate both the total costs of the project and the requested funding budget:
- • The total costs/expenses (column Total costs) comprise all the costs related to the project independently of national / regional funding rules. You have to indicate here all the costs of the project (including ineligible personnel costs of permanent staff when relevant; etc.)
- • Requested funding budget (column Funding request) comprises costs or expenses for personnel (including permanent salaries depending on Funding Organisations’ rules), travelling, consumables, overheads (if fundable), subcontracts etc. that you will request to your Funding Organisation.
For requested funding budget, the cost calculation has to be based for each Partner on its Funding Organisations’ rules; for questions, please contact your Funding organisation Contact Point.
/!\ Please note that some Funding Organisations cannot provide 100% of eligible costs. Please make sure to follow your Funding Organisations’ rules!
Please indicate the acronym of your project in the subject line when you contact your Funding Organisation.
MANDATORY COSTS:
The funded projects are considered to form part of an international research programme for which activities will be organised, namely a kick-off meeting, a mid-term meeting and a final meeting. These events will be possibly organised back-to-back with other workshops (such as clustering workshops, data management workshops, synthesis workshops, etc.). At least the Project Partner Coordinators of funded projects should participate in these joint activities. The cost for attendance to two of these meetings must be included in the budgets of the pre-proposals (at least one of these meetings will be organised remotely). Given the intercontinental collaborations expected under this call, it is recommended that proposals reserve a total of approximately 3,000 euros for the attendance to these two meetings.
The indicated requested budget per Partner should be considered definitive, unless adjustment is requested by the Funding Organisations. Between pre-proposal and full proposal stage, change of budget can be allowed by the relevant Funding Organisation provided they are in line with the general rules of the call and the rules of the Funding Organisations. The Funding Organisation can decide according to its own rules whether it needs a justification.
(Please insert as many lines in the table below as necessary for other Partners)
| | Funding organisation(s) to which you are applying for funding 1 Please indicate to which Funding Organisation you are requesting funds. If more than one Funding Organisation from your country is participating in the call, please indicate which one should fund your project. Note that it may be possible to indicate all of the funding organisation from one country. In such cases, and if your project is selected for funding, the Funding Organisations will decide which one of them will fund your project. | Total cost 2 The total for the column “total costs (in EURO, incl. VAT)” should include the costs of subcontractors and self-financed Partners (Partners A, B, S1, S2, Sa, Sb, etc.). (in EURO, incl. VAT) | Funding request 3 The totals for the column “Funding request (in EURO, incl. VAT)” should not include the costs of self-financed Partners as these participants do not directly request funding to a funding organisation. (in EURO, incl. VAT depending on rules 4 Please make sure that VAT is eligible according to the national/regional legal framework and Funding Organisations’ rules. If not, please do not include VAT.
Partner 1, 2,...N Name Country | Salaries | Permanent | | |
Fellowships | | |
Non-permanent | | |
Total | | |
Travel | | |
Participation to joint activities of the call | | 3,000€ 5 This is the recommended amount to participate to the joint activities of the call (kick-off meeting, mid-term meeting and final meeting): please note that you are free to adjust this amount depending on your needs / the needs of your consortium and please make sure that this is in line with the Funding Organisations’ rules. | 3,000€
Consumables | | |
Equipment | | |
Other costs | | |
Sub-contracting costs 6 Indicate here the total budget and requested budget for your subcontractor and/or any other subcontracting costs. | Salaries | Permanent | | |
Fellowships
Temporary
Total
Travel
Consumables
Equipment
Other costs
Overheads
| | Total | | |
Total direct project costs (without Overheads) | | |
Overheads 7 Please calculate Overheads according to your Funding Organisations’ rules. | | |
Total (including Overheads ) | | |
Self-financed 8 Self-financed Partners have to indicate the total budget per cost category (column ‘Total costs’). Partner A, B, ...X Name Country | Salaries | Permanent | | | 0 €
Fellowships | | 0 €
Non-permanent | | 0 €
Total | | 0 €
Travel | | 0 €
Consumables | | 0 €
Equipment | | 0 €
Other costs | | 0 €
Overheads | | 0 €
Total | | 0 €
Total | | | | |
For self-financed Partners, please indicate shortly how their participation to the project will be funded.
Self-financed Partner A Name Country | The Partner will be funded through ...
(Use as many lines as needed)
10.
Do no significant harm principle
11
The Do no significant harm principle was introduced in the European Green Deal to ensure that the research and innovation activities do not make a significant harm to any of the six following environmental objectives (EU TaxonomyRegulation): climate change mitigation, climate change mitigation, sustainable use & protection of water & marine resources, Pollution prevention & control, Transition to a circular economy and Protection and restoration of biodiversity & ecosystems. You can find more information on what is considered as doing significant harm to the above objectives in the following note: ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/c2021_1054_en.pdf (section 1: what is do no significant harm).
Does your project comply with the "Do no significant harm principle"? YES / NO
If no, please specify: (Maximum number of characters allowed: 1000)
11.

Confirmation of submission & use of data
For information: the data provided in this pre-proposal application form will be used to:
- • Communicate with you about the call and application process
- • Allow the funding organisations to perform an eligibility check of the applicants
- • Assess the competencies and complementarities of your proposal and consortia by the EvC members and external reviewer(s), where relevant
- • Award funding if your application is successful
- • Analyse and describe our applicant pool (the name of applicants is anonymised in our analysis)
- • Collect your feedbacks and improve our communications with potential future applicants in future Joint Calls
Anonymity and confidentiality will be maintained throughout processing of these data for the production of statistics. Please note that these data will be accessible to Funding Organisations participating in the call, including the ones based in non-EU or non-EEA countries (i.e. Brazil, Faroe Islands, Israel, Moldova, South Africa, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tunisia and Türkiye). Protection of personal data and compliance with the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679)(GDPR) is however ensured.
Retention of personal data shall take an end in accordance with the EPSS General Data Protection Policy and Biodiversa+ Privacy and Data Policy.
You can find more information in the EPSS General Data Policy and Biodiversa+ Privacy and Data Policy
Document
3:

Full proposal application form
This template is an indicative model of full proposal application form. All proposals have to be submitted online via the electronic proposal submission system (EPSS). The format of the full proposal application form will be modified to fit the EPSS.
The Project Partner Coordinator of a proposal (i.e., person in charge of the whole project, identified as Partner 1 will invite all involved Partners to log in on the EPSS following creation of the proposal. All Partners must accept the invitation and log in on the EPSS before submission of the proposal in order to confirm their participation and provide their related information.
FULL PROPOSAL APPLICATION FORM
Call for transnational research projects on ““Restoration of ecosystem functioning, integrity and connectivity (BiodivConnect),”
Project Title 1 Please note that the project title and acronym should be the same as in the pre-proposal. (max 255 characters including spaces) |
Short name / Acronym 2 Only letters, numbers and space are allowed, but no special characters (e.g., -, _,?,!, etc.) (max 20 characters including spaces) |
NB: This section will be pre-filled with information submitted in the pre-proposals.
Keywords:
(min 1 keyword, max 10 keywords)
NB: This section will be pre-filled with information submitted in the pre-proposals.
General guidance for all applicants:
- • The proposal must be written in English;
- • Any documents other than those requested as part of the proposal will not be forwarded to EvC members or external reviewers or. This includes letter(s) of support, which are not expected (except for “Self-financed” Partners who must provide a letter of commitment to demonstrate that their organisations will support their activities).
1.

Administrative details
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS. This section will be pre-filled with information submitted in the pre-proposal.
Please note that these fields (highlighted by ○) won’t be evaluated and will be collected by the European Commission for the purpose of doing anonymous statistics.
You will have to provide in this section information on the Project Partner Coordinator and Participants involved, time to be dedicated per Partner to the project and declare if you have submitted this proposal to other funding programmes in parallel and currently under evaluation.
Here participants refer to Partner, self-financed Partner, and subcontractors.
What is a Partner?
Note that depending on the Funding Organisation, a “Partner” can be:
- • a researcher,
- • an institution,
- • a laboratory, a department of an institution
- • a private, for- or non-profit organisation
Please make sure to respect the eligibility rules of the call and funding organisations
Please also consult Funding Organisations’ rules advertised on the Biodiversa+ website which are compulsory.
Applicants are strongly advised to contact their respective Funding Organisations (list available on the Biodiversa+ website) and to confirm their eligibility with their Funding Organisations before submitting the full proposal.
Please indicate the acronym of your project in the subject line of your email when you contact the Call Secretariat and/or your Funding Organisation.
Please note that the information given in the pre-proposals regarding the research questions and objectives of a proposed project was binding. No major changes regarding the proposals’ content will be allowed by the Call Steering Committee (CSC) between the pre-proposals and full proposals (if invited to Step 2). However, applicants still have the possibility to make minor changes to improve their proposals as long as the objectives remain unchanged. Regarding the administrative details, a limited number of changes may be allowed by the Funding Organisation Contact Points (FCP) and CSC, provided they are in line with the general rules of the call and the rules of the Funding Organisations:
- •
Change of budget can be allowed by the relevant Funding Organisation. The FCP can decide according to its own rules whether it needs a justification for it.
There is no need to inform the Call Secretariat.
- •
Changes in the consortium composition:
  - ○ No change of Project Partner Coordinator (person in charge) will be allowed, except in case of force majeure. A request of change of Project Partner Coordinator must be submitted to the Call Secretariat, at least one week before the deadline for submitting full proposals and it will be discussed on a case-by-case basis by the CSC.
  - ○ Changes in the consortium composition are allowed (maximum three changes of Partners), provided approval by the concerned Funding Organisations. Please note that the following actions are considered as changes: addition or removal of a Partner (incl. self-financed Partners). Please note that the maximum number of changes applies to “Partner”; it does not apply to “team member” or “subcontractor”.
  - ○ In case of a removal of a Partner, consortia have to make sure that their consortium still includes the minimum number of requested Partners. If this is not the case, the project will be declared ineligible and won’t be evaluated.
  - ○ All new Partners have to comply with their respective Funding Organisation’s rules. If a new Partner is declared ineligible at Step 2, the whole consortium will be declared ineligible and won’t be evaluated.
In terms of procedure: The eligibility of new Partners should be confirmed by the concerned Funding Organisation(s) at least one week before the full proposal submission deadline. Applicants are strongly advised to seek confirmation of the changes and the eligibility of new Partners from the FCP, who needs to check the national/regional eligibility of the new Partner and agree with the change, before it is implemented on the EPSS. The changes must be declared on the EPSS in the “disclosure of changes” box.
Please note that the following cases are not considered as one of the maximum three changes but the procedure mentioned above remains the same:
- ■ If the change is explicitly requested by a Funding Organisation after the eligibility decision at Step 1 If a researcher in charge (person) remains the same but changes the institutions (within the same country), provided the institution fulfils eligibility criteria of the same funding organisation. This does not apply to the Project Partner Coordinator.
- ■ Similarly, if the institution remains the same but the researcher in charge (person) changes, provided the researcher in charge fulfils eligibility criteria of the same funding organisation. This does not apply to the Project Partner Coordinator
Important: Please indicate the acronym of your project in the subject line of your email when you contact the Call Secretariat and/or your Funding Organisation.
ACCESS AND BENEFIT SHARING
Please note that if you plan to use genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources in your project, you will have to ascertain towards the competent authorities and focal point that these used genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources have been accessed in accordance with applicable access and benefit-sharing legislation or regulatory requirements, and that benefits are fairly and equitably shared upon mutually decided terms, in accordance with any applicable legislation or regulatory requirements
12
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity
.
Please also note that if the utilisation of genetic resources or traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources takes place in an EU Member State, users in those states will have to comply with the general due diligence obligation under Art. 4 of Regulation (EU) No 511/2014, as well as the obligation to file due diligence declarations under Art. 7 of Regulation (EU) No 511/2014
13
Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation in the Union
.
For funding, there are 2 categories of Partners:
- 1.
Partners from countries (and organisations) eligible for direct funding (designated Partners 1, 2... N)
- 2.
Fully self-financed Partners from any country who bring their own secured budget. (designated Partner A, B, etc.).
Other participants – subcontractors:
Participants ineligible for direct funding under this call that are subcontracted by eligible Partner(s). Subcontractors are designated Sa, Sb... Sx). Subcontractors are subject to the terms and conditions of each Funding Organisation providing the subcontracting costs and need to comply with their rules. Generally speaking, subcontracting is understood as the externalization of the execution of a (minor) project task that Partner(s) cannot execute.
Project Partner Coordinator -Partner 1
Researcher in charge: | ORCID ID(XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX or enter N, if not applicable):
Family name | | First name |
Title | | Gender |
Phone | | E-mail |
Career Stage 1 Category A: the single highest grade/post at which research is normally conducted. • Example: “director of research” or “full professor” Category B: Researchers working in positions not as senior as top position (a) but more senior than newly qualified doctoral graduates • Example: “senior researcher”, “principal investigator” or “associate/assistant professor”. Category C: the first grade/post into which a newly qualified doctoral graduate would normally be recruited. • Examples: “researcher”, “investigator” or “post-doctoral fellow”. Category D: Either doctoral students at the IsCED level 8 who are engaged as researchers, or researchers working in posts that do not normally require a doctorate degree. • Examples: “Ph.D. students” or “junior researchers” (without a Ph.D). These categories are defined in Frascati manual from OECD www.oecd.org/sti/inno/frascati-manual.htm (page 249) | Category A: Top grade researcher Category B: Senior researcher Category C: Recognised researcher Category D: First stage researcher | Nationality○ |
| N: Not applicable | |
Website |
Legal full name of the research organisation / Company | | Short name (acronym) of the research organisation/Company – if any: |
Participant Identification Code (PIC) number of the organisation 2 A PIC (Participation identification code) is a 9-digit number serving as a unique identifier for organisations (legal entities) participating in EU funding programmes / procurements. A search tool for organisations and their PICs is available at the following link: ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-participate/participant-register-search. ○ |
Status: Private or public? | | If private, Small or Medium-sized Enterprise (SME status) ○: Yes/No Enterprises other than SME⁂: Yes/No | | Statistical Classification of Economic Activities (NACE) 3 The NACE code is a Statistical Classification of Economic Activities of the organisation. You can find further information about NACE at Eurostat website ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nace and the classification can be downloaded at ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST_CLS_DLD&StrNom=NACE_REV2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntCurrentPage=1&StrLayoutCode=LINEAR# ⁂: |
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory |
Street name and number |
PO Box (optional) | | Postal code | | Cedex (optional) |
Town | | Country |
Employment status information | □ on permanent position
□ on fixed-term position
If on fixed term position:
Start date of the contract (YYYY-MM-DD):
End date of the contract (YYYY-MM-DD):
Funding body 4 The “Funding body” can be the funding organisation you will be requesting money from under this call or another body responsible for your salary as PI. :
Are you planning to cover your own position/salary as a PI with funding requested under this Call? 5 If yes, please make sure that your Funding Organisation’s rules and regulations allow it. | □ Yes
□ No
Other team members involved in the project 6 Please include all the team members to be involved in the project, would they be funded or not by your Funding Organisation. Do not repeat the principal investigator here. If you do not have yet this information for one team member (e.g. for a postdoc), you can indicate “to be determined (TBD)”
Team member 1: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id. Team member 2: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id. (...) Team member N: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id.
Partner 2, 3... N
Researcher in charge: | ORCID ID(XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX or enter N, if not applicable):
Family name | | First name |
Title | | Gender |
Phone | | E-mail |
Career Stage 1 Category A: the single highest grade/post at which research is normally conducted. • Example: “director of research” or “full professor” Category B: Researchers working in positions not as senior as top position (a) but more senior than newly qualified doctoral graduates • Example: “senior researcher”, “principal investigator” or “associate/assistant professor”. Category C: the first grade/post into which a newly qualified doctoral graduate would normally be recruited. • Examples: “researcher”, “investigator” or “post-doctoral fellow”. Category D: Either doctoral students at the IsCED level 8 who are engaged as researchers, or researchers working in posts that do not normally require a doctorate degree. • Examples: “Ph.D. students” or “junior researchers” (without a Ph.D). These categories are defined in Frascati manual from OECD www.oecd.org/sti/inno/frascati-manual.htm(page 249) | Category A: Top grade researcher Category B: Senior researcher Category C: Recognised researcher Category D: First stage researcher N: Not applicable | Nationality⁂ |
Website |
Legal full name of the research organisation / Company | | Short name (acronym) of the research organisation/Comp any – if any: |
Participant Identification Code (PIC) number of the organisation 2 A PIC (Participation identification code) is a 9-digit number serving as a unique identifier for organisations (legal entities) participating in EU funding programmes / procurements. A search tool for organisations and their PICs is available at the following link: ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-participate/participant-register-search. ⁂ |
Status: Private or public? | | If private, Small or Medium-sized Enterprise (SME status)⁂: Yes/No | | Statistical Classification of Economic Activities (NACE) 3 The NACE code is a Statistical Classification of Economic Activities of the organisation. You can find further information about NACE at Eurostat website ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nace and the classification can be downloaded at ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST_CLS_DLD&StrNom=NACE_REV2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntCurrentPage=1&StrLayoutCode=LINEAR# ⁂: |
| | Enterprises other than SME⁂: Yes/No | | |
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory |
Street name and number |
PO Box (optional) | | Postal code | | Cedex (optional) |
Town | | Country |
Employment status information | □ on permanent position
□ on fixed-term position
If on fixed term position:
Start date of the contract (YYYY-MM-DD):
End date of the contract (YYYY-MM-DD):
Funding body 4 The “Funding body” can be the funding organisation you will be requesting money from under this call or another body responsible for your salary as PI. :
Are you planning to cover your own position/salary as a PI with funding requested under this Call? 5 If yes, please make sure that your Funding Organisation’s rules and regulations allow it. | □ Yes
□ No
Total time to be dedicated to the project in person-months (costs associated to the working time spent on the project can be covered either by the money requested in this call or as a self-contribution from the institution):
Other team members involved in the project 6 Please include all the team members to be involved in the project, would they be funded or not by your Funding Organisation. Do not repeat the principal investigator here. If you do not have yet this information for one team member (e.g. for a postdoc), you can indicate “to be determined (TBD)”
Team member 1: Family name, first name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id., time to be dedicated to the project in person-months (...) Team member N: Family name, first name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id., time to be dedicated to the project in person-months
[Please insert as many copies of the above tables as necessary for other applicants.]
Subcontractor Sa, Sb, ... Sx (participant subcontracted by Partner(s) funded under this call)
Researcher in charge: | ORCID ID (XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX or enter N, if not applicable):
Family name | | First name |
Title | | Gender |
Phone | | E-mail |
Career Stage 1 Category A: the single highest grade/post at which research is normally conducted. • Example: “director of research” or “full professor” Category B: Researchers working in positions not as senior as top position (a) but more senior than newly qualified doctoral graduates • Example: “senior researcher”, “principal investigator” or “associate/assistant professor”. Category C: the first grade/post into which a newly qualified doctoral graduate would normally be recruited. • Examples: “researcher”, “investigator” or “post-doctoral fellow”. Category D: Either doctoral students at the IsCED level 8 who are engaged as researchers, or researchers working in posts that do not normally require a doctorate degree. • Examples: “Ph.D. students” or “junior researchers” (without a Ph.D). These categories are defined in Frascati manual from OECD www.oecd.org/sti/inno/frascati-manual.htm(page 249) | (Category A: Top grade researcher Category B: Senior researcher Category C: Recognised researcher Category D: First stage researcher N: Not applicable) | Nationality⁂ |
Website |
Legal full name of the research organisation / Company | | Short name (acronym) of the research organisation/Company – if any: |
Participant Identification Code (PIC) 2 A PIC (Participation identification code) is a 9-digit number serving as a unique identifier for organisations (legal entities) participating in EU funding programmes / procurements. A search tool for organisations and their PICs is available at the following link: ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-participate/participant-register-search. number of the organisation⁂ |
Status: Private or public? | | If private, Small or Medium-sized Enterprise (SME status) ○: Yes/No Enterprises other than SME⁂: Yes/No | | Statistical Classificatio n of Economic Activities (NACE) 3 The NACE code is a Statistical Classification of Economic Activities of the organisation. You can find further information about NACE at Eurostat website ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nace and the classification can be downloaded at ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST_CLS_DLD&StrNom=NACE_REV2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntCurrentPage=1&StrLayoutCode=LINEAR# ⁂: |
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory |
Street name and number |
PO Box (optional) | | Postal code | | Cedex (optional) |
Town | | Country |
Total time to be dedicated to the project in person-months (costs associated to the working time spent on the project can be covered either as subcontracting costs requested in this call or as a self-contribution from the institution):
Other team members involved in the project 4 Please include all the team members to be involved in the project, would they be funded or not by your Funding Organisation. If you do not have yet this information for one team member (e.g. for a postdoc), you can indicate “to be determined”.
Team member 1: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id., time to be dedicated to the project in person-months (...) Team member N: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id., time to be dedicated to the project in person-months
Indicate by which Partner(s) you will be subcontracted by: <...> <...> <...>
[Please insert as many copies of the above table as necessary for other Subcontractors]
Self-financed Partner A, B, ...X
Researcher in charge: | ORCID ID (XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX or enter N, if not applicable):
Family name | | First name |
Title | | Gender |
Phone | | E-mail |
Career Stage 1 Category A: the single highest grade/post at which research is normally conducted. • Example: “director of research” or “full professor” Category B: Researchers working in positions not as senior as top position (a) but more senior than newly qualified doctoral graduates • Example: “senior researcher”, “principal investigator” or “associate/assistant professor”. Category C: the first grade/post into which a newly qualified doctoral graduate would normally be recruited. • Examples: “researcher”, “investigator” or “post-doctoral fellow”. Category D: Either doctoral students at the IsCED level 8 who are engaged as researchers, or researchers working in posts that do not normally require a doctorate degree. • Examples: “Ph.D. students” or “junior researchers” (without a Ph.D). These categories are defined in Frascati manual from OECD www.oecd.org/sti/inno/frascati-manual.htm(page 249) | (Category A: Top grade researcher Category B: Senior researcher Category C: Recognised researcher Category D: First stage researcher N: Not applicable) | Nationality⁂ |
Website |
Legal full name of the research organisation / Company | | Short name (acronym) of the research organisation/Company – if any: |
Participant Identification Code (PIC) 2 A PIC (Participation identification code) is a 9-digit number serving as a unique identifier for organisations (legal entities) participating in EU funding programmes / procurements. A search tool for organisations and their PICs is available at the following link: ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-participate/participant-register-search. number of the organisation⁂ |
Status: Private or public? | | If private, Small or Medium-sized Enterprise (SME status) ○: Yes/No Enterprises other than SME⁂: Yes/No | | Statistical Classificatio n of Economic Activities (NACE) 3 The NACE code is a Statistical Classification of Economic Activities of the organisation. You can find further information about NACE at Eurostat website ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nace and the classification can be downloaded at ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST_CLS_DLD&StrNom=NACE_REV2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntCurrentPage=1&StrLayoutCode=LINEAR# ⁂: |
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory |
Street name and number |
PO Box (optional) | | Postal code | | Cedex (optional) |
Town | | Country |
Total time to be dedicated to the project in person-months:
Other team members involved in the project 4 Please include all the team members to be involved in the project, would they be funded or not by yourFunding Organisation. If you do not have yet this information for one team member (e.g. for a postdoc), you can indicate “to be determined”.
Team member 1: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id., time to be dedicated to the project in person-months (...) Team member N: Family name, First name, gender, job title, main discipline(s) (3 max to be chosen from a standardised list), email, ORCID id., time to be dedicated to the project in person-months
[Please insert as many copies of the above table as necessary for other Self-financed Partners]
2. B.

Declaration of parallel submissions of this proposal (whole or parts) to other funding programmes or to the same programme and currently under evaluation:
Provide details of any proposal related to this one, which you or another project Partner have submitted to other funding opportunities, including title, funding source, extent of overlap and expected decision date.
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS.
Duplication of funding is not allowed for the same (whole or part) research project.
/!\ Please note that some Funding Organisations have specific rules on the possibility to apply as applicant in different proposals. Make sure you comply with your Funding Organisations’ rules. /!\
2.

Summary of the project
(min 500 and max 3,000 characters including spaces)
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS. This section will be pre-filled with information submitted in the pre-proposal.
Please note that this summary could be published online by Biodiversa+ and/or your respective Funding Organisation, should you be selected for funding.
3.

Topic(s), environment(s) and/or socio-economic sector(s) targeted if relevant, scientific discipline(s) involved, and study site(s)/country(ies) covered in the project
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS. This section will be pre-filled with information submitted in the pre-proposal.
Please indicate:
- (1)
Indicate in % the topic(s) addressed by your project,
- (2)
Indicate in % the type of environment(s) that are studied in your project,
- (3)
Indicate in % the general disciplines involved in the project (NB | you should indicate disciplines that are actually mobilised in your consortium, based on the expertise of whole research consortium)
- (4)
list (4.1) the socio-economic sectors, (4.2) the number of stakeholders involved in your project, (4.3) the scientific disciplines involved and (4.4) the study sites/countries covered by the project.
(1) Topics in the joint 2025–2026 Biodiversa+ call | %
T1: (...) |
T2: (...) |
T3: (...) |
TOTAL | Should be 100%
(1) Environment(s) studied where relevant | %
1. Terrestrial |
2. Inland water (including wetlands) |
3. Coastal |
4. Marine |
5. Air |
TOTAL | Should be 100%
(2) Interdisciplinarity of the proposed research | %
1. Natural sciences |
2. Social and humanities sciences |
3. Technical sciences |
4. Other |
TOTAL | Should be 100%
(3.1) Socio-economic sector(s) studied and policies if relevant
To be selected from a standardised list (available on the EPSS) – multiple choices • Agriculture/ forestry/ food/ aquaculture • Biological resources management (including cultivated plants, pollinators, pests, invasive alien species, genetic resources, ...) • Business/private sector • Climate change • Conservation/ protection/restoration/ nature-based solutions/ ecosystems services • Education/communication • Environmental policy and governance • Health/well-being • Infrastructure (including linear infrastructures, green and blue infrastructures, ...) • Non-biological natural resources management (including soil protection, water management, natural renewable resources, ...) • Sustainable development • Tourism/ recreation • Urban planning/spatial planning and management (including landscape and land-use planning and management) • Other (please specify):
(3.2) Stakeholders involved in your project
Please indicate the number of concrete stakeholders that are involved in your project. This number must reflect the different stakeholders mentioned in the description of your full proposal (see 5.A. Detailed description of the research area and research plan and approach to stakeholder engagement and expected societal impact, including policy impact)
(3.3) Scientific disciplines involved
Please indicate in this section the scientific disciplines mobilised in your project, depending on the expertise of the members of your consortium
To be selected from a standardised list (available on the EPSS) – multiple choices
(3.4) Study sites/countries covered by the project
(please do not indicate here the nationality of the members of the consortium but the areas and countries studied in your proposals (research scope, studied sites, etc.) (max 3,500 characters including spaces)
Under this project, is the research to be carried out “non-profit research”?
□ Yes □ No
4.

Work packages, deliverables and milestones
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS.
Work packages (WP) Title only, detailed descriptions should be included in the project description section
No. of WP | Responsible Partner(s) | Title
1 | |
2 | |
3 | |
N | |
(Use as many lines as needed)
Estimated working time (in person/months) per work package 1 This estimation should include the estimated total working time of all the team members involved in the project (financed and self-financed Partners, subcontractors, permanent & non-permanent staff, etc.)
No. of WP | Partner 1 | Partner 1a | Partner 2 | (...) | Partner N | Self-financed Partner A
1 | | | | | |
2 | | | | | |
3 | | | | | |
N | | | | | |
(Expand this table [rows, columns] as required)
Deliverables
No. | Title | Delivery date 1 Indicate month number from the start of the project, e.g. month 12, month 24... | Related No. of WPs
1 | | |
2 | | |
3 | | |
4 | | |
5 | | |
N | | |
(Use as many lines as needed)
Milestones
No. | Title | Date 1 Indicate month number from the start of the project, e.g. month 12, month 24... | Related No. of WPs
1 | | |
2 | | |
3 | | |
4 | | |
5 | | |
N | | |
(Use as many lines as needed)
5.

Description of the project
NB: This part will have to be submitted as a single pdf in the EPSS.
Please start by indicating the Acronym of your project at the top.
Page limit: The short project description should not be longer than 16 pages. All tables, figures, references and any other element pertaining to this section must be included as an integral part of these sections and are thus counted against this page limit.
The page limit will be applied automatically. After the deadline, excess pages (in over-long proposals/applications) will be automatically made invisible and will not be taken into consideration by the evaluators.
The proposal is a self-contained document. Links and hyperlinks are not allowed unless specifically asked for in the full proposal application form. Evaluation Committee members and external reviewers will be instructed to ignore any information that is specifically designed to expand the proposal, thus circumventing the page limit.
You are however welcome to include references and all relevant information that would allow them to be found without links nor hyperlinks. There are no specific formatting rules regarding how references should be included or listed in the project description other than the general formatting conditions described below.
The following formatting conditions apply:
- • The reference font for the body text of proposals is Arial. The minimum font size allowed is 11 points. Standard character spacing and a minimum of single line spacing is to be used. This applies to the body text, including text in tables.
- • Text elements other than the body text, such as headers, foot/end notes, captions, formula's, may deviate, but must be legible (links and hyperlinks are not allowed in the project description).
- • The page size is A4, and all margins (top, bottom, left, right) should be at least 1.27 cm (not including any footers or headers).
- • A full proposal can be declared as ineligible if formatting conditions are not followed.
The structure of this template must be followed when preparing your proposal. It has been designed to ensure that the important aspects of your planned work are presented in a way that will enable the evaluators to make an effective assessment against the assessment criteria.
Please be aware that proposals will be evaluated based on their submitted content and written information only and following the assessment criteria defined in the Document 6.
5.A.

Detailed description of the research area and research plan and approach to stakeholder engagement and expected societal impact, including policy impact
Part 5.A. should include:
- • A short description of the hypothesis, theories and/or main research questions, and explanation of the novelty of the research planned;
- • Scientific objectives with detailed account of their relationship to the scope and objectives of the call and to ongoing relevant projects. Organise the objectives into a list so that each objective is accurately defined and quantified;
- • Give a detailed description of the approach and methodology chosen to achieve the objectives. Highlight the particular advantages of the methodology chosen; quantify the expected project result(s);
- • Break down the research program into individual tasks, showing the interrelationship between the tasks. Explain why there is synergy between different tasks of the project and how this is going to be exploited;
- • Added-value – In instances where the proposed work builds on previous activities, describe how this collaborative proposal will complement or build on previous activities.
- • Transnational added value of the proposed research (including overseas) and of the transnational collaboration: demonstrate how the project will increase synergy between teams across Partner countries and how transnational collaboration adds a particular value;
- •
Approach to stakeholder engagement and expected societal impact, including policy impact, encompassing:
  - ○ Describe the relevance of your project for application to society, including policy, and the importance of the research for solving pressing issues related to biodiversity.
  - ○ Detail the proposed plan for the exploitation of results by end-users, as well as plans for knowledge and/or technology transfer to practitioners, policy makers, and/or other relevant end-users
  - ○ Describe how you plan to engage stakeholders directly in your project and at which stage of the project; identify the stakeholders to be engaged in your project (see Table 3.1 below, extracted from the Biodiversa+ Stakeholder Engagement Handbook), describing their specific interest and/or contributions to the project and the status of their engagement at the proposal development stage.

Table 3.1. Example of stakeholder identification, categorisation, reasons for engagement, and potentialstakeholder benefits for engaging.
NB: • Biodiversa produced a stakeholder engagement handbook for researchers to help them to engage with stakeholders all along their research projects. This handbook is accessible online (www.biodiversa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/stakeholder-engagement-handbook.pdf) and we recommend you to use it when designing your project and preparing your proposal. • Similarly, Biodiversa developed a guide for policy relevance of research projects to help researchers understand what is meant by policy and societal relevance and how this is evaluated in proposals. This guide is available online (www.biodiversa.org/1563/download) and we recommend you to use it when designing your project and preparing your proposal.
Please note that letters of support are NOT requested and will NOT be considered for the evaluation except for self-financed Partners.
5.B.

Communication and outreach plan
(max. 1 page out of 16 pages)
Describe how the consortium will deal with the transfer, dissemination, publication, and, protection of results generated in the project. Specify who will receive information on the project (scientists, non-scientific stakeholders, general public...). Describe what, why, when and how they will receive it.
Specify planned project publications and outputs (scientific and other), and their expected exploitation and impact.
5.C.

Description of project coordination and management
(max. 1.5 pages out of 16 pages)
Describe how the overall coordination, monitoring and control of the project will be implemented. Outline the management processes foreseen in the project (decision boards, coordination meetings, etc.) and clearly indicate the distribution of tasks among the consortium members.
It is recommended that milestones be presented in a detailed diagram (e.g. PERT or Gantt charts) providing the time schedule of the tasks and marking their interrelationships; add when decisions on further approaches will have to be made; indicate a critical path marking those events which directly influence the overall time schedule in case of delays. [Please note that the Pert or Gantt chart can be included in the part below “Time schedule and working programme”]
Explain how information flow and communication will be managed and enhanced within the project (e.g. collaboration and task meetings, exchange of scientists, dissemination of results and engagement with stakeholders).
Risk management: Indicate where there are risks of not achieving the objectives and describe potential solutions, if appropriate.
5.D.

Interconnection to national and transnational research projects and programmes
(max. 0.5 page out of 16 pages)
Indicate here interconnection to national and transnational research projects / programmes / networks that are relevant for your project. This should include a description of existing involvement of Partners in on-going projects / programmes / networks, as well as cooperation you plan to develop during your project with national or transnational research projects / programmes / networks
5.E.

Time schedule anworking programme (use a Gantt chart or equivalent)
(max. 1 page out of 16 pages)
5.F.

Proposed Data Management Approach
(max.1 page out of 16 pages)
For this section, we recommend you to first consult the Open Access and Fair Data in the Call Documents (document 5) and the Biodiversa and Belmont Forum guidance document on data management, open data, and the production of Data Management Plans.
In this section, please address the following questions:
- 1.
What types of datasets and other digital outputs of long-term value do you expect the project will produce or reuse?
  - ○ “Long-term” means those data and digital outputs that will or may be of value to others within your research community and/or the wider research, innovation and stakeholder communities.
- 2.
How do you intend to ensure that the data and digital outputs from your project comply with the FAIR principles (i.e. they should be findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable)?
- 3.
Which member(s) of your team will be responsible for developing, implementing, overseeing, and updating the Data and Digital Outputs Management Plan?
- 4.
How do you intend to manage the data and digital outputs during the project to ensure their long-term value is protected?
  - ○ For example, where will the data be held during the project, who will have access, and will a specialised data manager be part of the project team?
- 5.
How and by whom will the data and other digital outputs be managed after the project ends to ensure their long-term accessibility?
  - ○ For example, will the outputs be published with a Persistent Unique and Resolvable Identifier (such as a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), Accession Number, Handle, etc.), and/or be placed in a recognised, trustworthy long-term domain or other repository or data centre. When will this occur? (Further information about repositories include, but are not limited to, the Re3data.org registry of research data repositories, CoreTrustSeal list of certified data repositories, etc.)
- 6.
What restrictions, if any, do you anticipate could be placed on how the data and digital outputs can be accessed, mined or reused?
  - ○ The present policy is that the data should be as open as possible to commercial and non-commercial users, though with managed access where appropriate and necessary; for example, if there are sensitive data involving human subjects.
- 7.
How will you ensure that any data security, privacy, and intellectual property restrictions associated with datasets and digital outputs will be honoured and preserved in derivative products?
- 8.
What supporting documentation and other information (e.g. metadata) do you plan to make publicly accessible to support the longer-term re-use of the data and digital outputs?
- 9.
How have you accounted for the costs required to manage the data and digital outputs to ensure long-term accessibility?
5.

CVs for the principal investigator of each Partner involved in the project
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS using the CV template below. This section will be pre-filled with information submitted in the pre-proposal.
Where relevant, please include the CVs of self-financed Partners and subcontractors. Where relevant, please specify in the CVs, the Partners’ capacity to involve stakeholders.
Participation status: <Project Partner Coordinator or principal investigator of a Partner>
Name:
Nationality:
Institution, City, Country:
E-mail:
URL / website (including complete list of publications if any):
Professional status: <Professor, Assistant professor, Associate professor, Senior scientist, Post-Doc, PhD-student, Other>
Education: <Year; Degree (e.g., Bachelor, Master, Doctorate, Certificate, etc.); Major discipline(s); organisation; country > <Year; Degree (e.g., Bachelor, Master, Doctorate, Certificate, etc.); Major discipline(s); organisation; country > ...
Positions: <Year; Position; organisation; country > <Year; Position; organisation; country > ...
Awards received / other responsibilities (max 1,000 characters including spaces):
General expertise and its relevance for the project, incl. capacity to involve stakeholders (max 1,500 characters including spaces):
Up to 5 most important publications relevant to the proposal released in the past 5 years at the launch of the call, if any: <...> <...> <...> <...> <...>
Other relevant publications from the consortium
Other publications from the consortium relevant to the full proposal (author(s), title, journal, year) (max 15 publications) <...> <...>
6.

Budget
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS.

Budget instructions
FUNDING RULES:
Please note that each Partner will be funded by his own Funding Organisation.
Please make sure to comply with the Funding Organisations’ rules (e.g. subcontracts, overheads, inclusion of VAT...). The compliance with Funding Organisations’ eligibility rules is mandatory. Funding Organisations’ rules are advertised on the Biodiversa+ website, together with the list of the Funding Organisation Contact Points (FCPs), which should be contacted for further help on Funding Organisation eligibility rules.
MANDATORY COSTS (for at least one Consortium Partner, preferably the Coordinator):
The funded projects are considered to form part of an international research programme for which activities will be organised, namely a kick-off meeting, a mid-term meeting and a final meeting. These events will be possibly organised back-to-back with other workshops (such as clustering workshops, data management workshops, synthesis workshops, etc.). At least the Project Partner Coordinators of funded projects should participate in these joint activities. The cost for attendance to two of these meetings must be included in the budgets of the full proposals (at least one of these meetings will be organised remotely). Given the intercontinental collaborations expected under this call, it is recommended that proposals reserve a total of approximately 3,000 euros for the attendance to these two meetings.
PARTNERS INELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING
Partners from countries (and organisations) ineligible for direct funding under this call:
- • Can be associated in the projects, as NON-FUNDED PARTNERS, if they can bring a secured budget from a different source of funding (specify below in the first budget table); (= Self-financed Partners A, B...)
- • CANNOT REQUEST FUNDING. In Table 1, please do not request funding for countries ineligible for direct funding (Self-financed Partners A, B): indicate 0€ in the column “Funding request”. The whole proposal will be ineligible if a Partner from a country not participating in the call requests funding.
Alternatively, participants may be subcontracted by eligible Partners in some cases (= Subcontractors Sa, Sb,...). Subcontractors are subject to the terms and conditions of each Funding Organisation and need to comply with their specific rules. Generally speaking, subcontracting is understood as the externalization of the execution of a (minor) project task that this Partner cannot execute. Please, refer to the Funding Organisations’ rules, as some Funding Organisations have specific restrictions about subcontracting costs and your proposal will be ineligible if you do not follow national / regional rules. The list of Funding Organisations’ rules is available on www.biodiversa.eu/research-funding/open-call/participating-funding-organisations.
The different categories of subcontracting costs will have to be filled by the subcontracting Partners requesting funding under the call.

Budget tables
Please provide clear evidence of how the funds requested will be used to fulfil the activities of each Partner and a clear justification that the requested funds are sufficient to achieve the work proposed.
Table 1: Total costs per Partner
14
The total duration of projects cannot exceed 36 months and starting dates shall be comprised between 1 December 2025 and 1 April 2026.
(in Euro, incl. VAT depending on national / regional rules) Applicants have to consult the FCP chart available in the call documents on the Biodiversa+ website and should contact their relevant FCP to verify the level of detail required, in particular for the inclusion of VAT and permanent salaries.
Please note that for each Partner you are requested to indicate both the total costs of the project and the requested funding budget:
- • The total costs/expenses (column Total costs) comprise all the costs related to the project independently of national / regional funding rules. You have to indicate here all the costs of the project (including personnel costs of permanent staff not eligible; etc.)
- • Requested funding budget (column Funding request) comprises costs or expenses for personnel (including permanent salaries depending on Funding Organisations’ rules), travelling, consumables, overheads (if fundable), subcontracts etc. that you will request to your Funding Organisation. For requested funding budget, the cost calculation has to be based for each Partner on its Funding Organisations’ rules; for questions, please contact your Funding organisation Contact Point.
- • Please note that some Funding Organisations cannot provide 100% of eligible costs. Please make sure to follow your Funding Organisations’ rules!
| | Funding organisation(s) to which you are applying for funding 1 Please indicate to which Funding Organisation you are requesting funds. If more than one Funding Organisation from your country is participating in the call, please indicate which one should fund your project. Note that it may be possible to indicate all of the funding organisation from one country. In such cases, and if your project is selected for funding, the Funding Organisations will decide which one of them will fund your project. | Total cost 2 The total for the column “Total cost (in EURO, incl. VAT)” should include the costs of subcontractors and self-financed Partners (Partners A, B, S1, S2, Sa, Sb, etc); (in EURO, incl. VAT) | Funding request (in EURO, incl. VAT depending on rules) 3 This is the recommended amount to participate to the joint activities of the call (kick-off meeting, mid-term meeting and final meeting): please note that you are free to adjust this amount depending on your needs and please make sure that this is in line with your Funding Organisations’ rules.
Partner 1, 2, ...N Name Country | Salari es | Permanent | | |
Fellowships | | |
Non-permanent | | |
Total | | |
Travel | | |
Participation to joint activities of the call | | 3,000€ 4 Self-financed Partners have to indicate the total budget per cost category (column ‘Total costs’). Please note that for subcontractors, you should indicate 0€ in the column ‘Funding request’. The share of their costs for which you will request funding to your Funding Organisation should be included in the ‘Funding request’ of the subcontracting Partner (Partner 1, 2, 3, etc.). | 3,000€
Consumables | | |
Equipment | | |
Other costs | | |
| Overheads | | |
Sub-contracting costs 5 Indicate here the total budget and requested budget for your subcontractor and/or any other subcontracting costs. | Salaries | Permanent | | |
Fellowships
Temporary
Total
Travel
Consumables
Equipment
Other costs
Overheads
Total
Total direct project costs (without Overheads) | | | |
| Overheads 6 Please make sure that VAT is eligible according to the national/regional legal framework and Funding Organisations’ rules. If not, please do not include VAT. Please calculate Overheads according to your Funding Organisations’ rules. | | | |
| Total (including Overheads ) | | | |
Self-financed 7 The totals for the column “Funding request (in EURO, incl. VAT)” should not include the costs of self-financed Partners as these participants do not directly request funding to a funding organisation. Partner A, B, ...X Name Country | Salari es | Permanent | | | 0 €
Fellowships | | 0 €
Non-permanent | | 0 €
Total | | 0 €
Travel | | 0 €
Consumables | | 0 €
Equipment | | 0 €
Other costs | | 0 €
Overheads | | 0 €
Total | | 0 €
Total | | | | |
Table 2: Costs per Partner and requested funding budget
Please note that this table will be partly generated automatically in the EPSS, based on the information provided in table 1.
Partner | Funding organisation(s) to which you are applying for funding | A – Total costs/ expenses Including subcontracts (in EURO, incl. VAT) | B – Total Funding request Including subcontracts (in EURO, incl. VAT depending on rules) | C – Total Funding request Including subcontracts (in national / regional currency-when other than EURO if requested) | Funding rate (B/A)
Partner 1, 2, ...N Name Country | | | | |
Subcontractor Sa, Sb,... Sx Name / Country | | Subcontracting value | 0 € | 0 € |
Self-financed Partner A, B,...X | | | 0 € | 0 € |
Total | | | | |
Explanation and/or remarks concerning the proposed budget (table 1 and 2):
Please give explanation regarding your budget.
Please also indicate here the other sources of funding you have for your project (co-funding, self-funding, etc.) that will cover the costs for which you do not request funding.
Please note that Funding Organisations might ask for more details separately, if needed.
Partner 1, 2... N Name Country |
Subcontractor Sa, Sb, ...Sx Name / Country |
Self-financed Partner A, B, ...X Name Country |
7.

Exclusion of potential reviewers (optional)
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS.
List here potential reviewers who, you think, should not be asked to evaluate the project for reasons of direct competition and partiality (Table 8.a). Also provide the names of significant collaborators that should not be used as reviewers due to conflicts of interest (Table 8.b).
8.a. Potential competitors
| First Name | Last Name | Organisation | Country | E-mail address | Rationale for excluding the reviewer
1 | | | | | |
2 | | | | | |
(...) | | | | | |
N | | | | | |
Insert as many lines as needed
8.b. Collaborators with conflict of interest
| First Name | Last Name | Organisation | Country | E-mail address | Rationale for excluding the reviewer
1 | | | | | |
2 | | | | | |
(...) | | | | | |
N | | | | | |
Insert as many lines as needed
8.

Suggestion of potential evaluators (optional)
Please indicate up to 4 experts who could review your proposal, including their field expertise. The rules on conflict of interest set forth in document 7 ‘Code of conduct for conflict of interest, confidentiality and non-disclosure’ in the Call documents apply to these suggestions.
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS.
| First Name | Last Name | Organisation | Country | E-mail address | Link to their website | Field of expertise
1 | | | | | | |
2 | | | | | | |
3 | | | | | | |
4 | | | | | | |
Please note that these are only suggestions for consideration by the Evaluation Committee (EvC) and Call Steering Committee (CSC). The final attribution of reviewers to proposals is the responsibility of the EvC and CSC.
9.

Ethics self-assessment and do no significant harm principle
NB: This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS.
Please go through the table below and indicate which elements concern your proposal by answering ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. If you answer ‘Yes’ to any of the questions, please detail how you plan to deal with the mentioned ethic issue.
For more information on each of the ethics issues and how to address them, including detailed legal references, please consult the Horizon Europe Programme Guidelines “How to complete your ethics self-assessment”
15
ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/how-to-complete-your-ethics-self-assessment_en.pdf
.
1. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS AND HUMAN EMBRYOS | | If yes, please detail and indicate how you plan to deal with this ethic issue.
Does this activity involve Human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESCs)? | Y/N |
If yes, will they be directly derived from embryos within this project? | Y/N |
If yes, are they previously established cells lines? | Y/N |
If yes, are the cell lines registered in the European registry for human embryonic stem cell lines? | Y/N |
Does this activity involve the use of human embryos? | Y/N |
If yes, will the activity lead to their destruction? | Y/N |
2. HUMANS | |
Does your research involve human participants? | Y/N |
If yes, are they volunteers for nonmedical studies (e.g. social or human sciences research)? | Y/N |
If yes, are they healthy volunteers or medical studies? | Y/N |
If yes, are they patients for medical studies? | Y/N |
If yes, are they potentially vulnerable individuals or groups? | Y/N |
If yes, are they children / minors? | Y/N |
If yes, are they other persons unable to give informed consent? | Y/N |
Does your research involve physical interventions on the study participants? | Y/N |
If yes, does it involve invasive techniques? | Y/N |
If yes, does it involve collection of biological samples? | Y/N |
Does this activity involve conducting a clinical study as defined by the Clinical Trial Regulation (EU 536/2014)?(using pharmaceuticals, biologicals, radiopharmaceuticals, or advanced therapy medicinal products). | Y/N |
If yes, is it a clinical trial? | Y/N |
If yes, is it a low-intervention clinical trial? | Y/N |
3. HUMAN CELLS / TISSUES | |
Does this activity involve the use of human cells or tissues? | Y/N |
If yes, are they human embryonic or foetal cells or tissues? | Y/N |
If yes, are they available commercially? | Y/N |
If yes, are they obtained within this project? | Y/N |
If yes, are they obtained from another project, laboratory or institution? | Y/N |
If yes, are they obtained from biobank? | Y/N |
4. PERSONAL DATA | |
Does this activity involve processing of personal data? | Y/N |
If yes, does it involve the processing of special categories of personal data (e.g.: sexual lifestyle, ethnicity, genetic, biometric and health data, political opinion, religious or philosophical | Y/N |
If yes, does it involve profiling, systematic monitoring of individuals, or processing of large scale of special categories of data or intrusive methods of data processing (such as, surveillance, geolocation tracking etc.)? | Y/N |
Does this activity involve further processing of previously collected personal data (including use of pre-existing data sets or sources, merging existing data sets)? | Y/N |
Is it planned to export personal data from the EU to non-EU countries? | Y/N |
If yes, specify the type of personal data and countries involved: |
Is it planned to import personal data from non-EU countries into the EU or from a non-EU country to another non-EU country? | Y/N |
If yes, specify the type of personal data and countries involved: |
5. ANIMALS | |
Does your research involve animals? | Y/N |
If yes, are they vertebrates? | Y/N |
If yes, are they non-human primates (NHP)? | Y/N |
If yes, are they genetically modified? | Y/N |
If yes, are they cloned farm animals? | Y/N |
If yes, are they endangered species? | Y/N |
6. NON-EU COUNTRIES | |
Will some of the activities be carried out in non-EU countries? | Y/N |
If yes, specify the countries |
In case non-EU countries are involved, do the activities undertaken in these countries raise potential ethics issues? | Y/N |
If yes, specify the countries |
Is it planned to use local resources (e.g. animal and/or human tissue samples, genetic material, live animals, human remains, materials of historical value, endangered fauna or flora samples, etc.)? 1 Please note that for access to genetic resources, you must also comply with the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing and EU Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 which implements this Protocol. You will also have to ascertain towards the competent authorities and focal point that these used genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources have been accessed in accordance with applicable access and benefit-sharing legislation or regulatory requirements, and that benefits are fairly and equitably shared upon mutually agreed terms, in accordance with any applicable legislation or regulatory requirements. | Y/N |
Is it planned to import any material (other than data) from non-EU countries into the EU or from a non-EU country to another non-EU country? For data imports, see section 4. | Y/N |
If yes, specify material and countries involved: |
Is it planned to export any material (other than data) from the EU to non-EU countries? For data exports, see section 4. | Y/N |
If yes, specify material and countries involved: |
Does this activity involve low and/or lower-middle income countries? (if yes, detail the benefit-sharing actions planned in the self-assessment) | Y/N |
Could the situation in the country put the individuals taking part in the activity at risk? | Y/N |
7. ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH and SAFETY | |
Does this activity involve the use of substances or processes that may cause harm to the environment, to animals or plants (during the implementation of the activity or further to the use of the results, as a possible impact)? | Y/N |
Does this activity deal with endangered fauna and/or flora / protected areas? | Y/N |
Does this activity involve the use of substances or processes that may cause harm to humans, including those performing the activity (during the implementation of the activity or further to the use of the results, as a possible impact)? | Y/N |
8. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | |
Does this activity involve the development, deployment and/or use of Artificial Intelligence? (if yes, detail in the self-assessment whether that could raise ethical concerns related to human rights and values and detail how this will be addressed). | Y/N |
9. OTHER ETHICS ISSUES | |
Are there any other ethics issues that should be taken into consideration? | Y/N |
Please specify: (Maximum number of characters allowed: 1,000) |
10. DO NO SIGNIFICANT HARM PRINCIPLE 2 The Do no significant harm principle was introduced in the European Green Deal to ensure that the research and innovation activities do not make a significant harm to any of the six following environmental objectives (EU Taxonomy Regulation): climate change mitigation, climate change mitigation, sustainable use & protection of water & marine resources, Pollution prevention & control, Transition to a circular economy and Protection and restoration of biodiversity & ecosystems. You can find more information on what is considered as doing significant harm to the above objectives in the following note: ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/c2021_1054_en.pdf (section 1: what is do no significant harm). |
Does your project comply with the "Do no significant harm principle" | Y/N
If no, please specify: (Maximum number of characters allowed: 1,000) |
10.

Declaration of changes between pre-proposals and full proposals
REMINDER: the information that was given in the pre-proposals regarding the research questions and objectives of a proposed project is binding. No major changes regarding the proposals’ content will be allowed by the Call Steering Committee (CSC) between the pre-proposals and full proposals. However, applicants still have the possibility to make minor changes to improve their proposals as long as the objectives remain unchanged. Regarding the administrative details, a limited number of changes may be allowed by the Funding Organisation Contact Point (FCP) and CSC, provided they are in line with the general rules of the call and the rules of the Funding Organisations:
- • Change of budget can be allowed by the relevant Funding Organisation. The FCP can decide according to its own rules whether it needs a justification for it. There is no need to inform the Call Secretariat.
- •
Changes in the consortium composition:
  - ○ No change of Project Partner Coordinator (person in charge) will be allowed, except in case of force majeure. A request of change of Project Partner Coordinator must be submitted to the Call Secretariat, at least one week before the deadline for submitting full proposals and it will be discussed on a case-by-case basis by the CSC.
Changes in the consortium composition are allowed (maximum three changes of Partners), provided approval by the concerned Funding Organisations. Please note that the following actions are considered as changes: addition or removal of a Partner (incl. self-financed Partners). Please note that the maximum number of changes applies to “Partner”; it does not apply to “team member” or “subcontractors”.
- ■ In case of a removal of a Partner, consortia have to make sure that their consortium still includes the minimum number of requested Partners. If this is not the case, the project will be declared ineligible and won’t be evaluated.
- ■ All new Partners have to comply with their respective Funding Organisation’s rules. If a new Partner is declared ineligible at Step 2, the whole consortium will be declared ineligible and won’t be evaluated.
In terms of procedure: The eligibility of new Partners should be confirmed at least one week before the full proposal submission deadline. Applicants are strongly advised to seek confirmation of the changes and the eligibility of new Partners from the FCP, who needs to check the national/regional eligibility of the new Partner and agree with the change, before it is implemented on the EPSS. The changes must be declared on the EPSS in the “disclosure of changes” box.
Please note that the following cases are not considered as one of the maximum three changes but the procedure mentioned above remains the same:
- • If the change is explicitly requested by a Funding Organisation after the eligibility decision at Step 1
- • If a researcher in charge (person) remains the same but changes the institutions (within the same country), provided the institution fulfils eligibility criteria of the same funding organisation. This does not apply to the Project Partner Coordinator.
- • Similarly, if the institution remains the same but the researcher in charge (person) changes, provided the researcher in charge fulfils eligibility criteria of the same funding organisation. This does not apply to the Project Partner Coordinator.
Please indicate the acronym of your project in the subject line when you contact the Call Secretariat and/or your Funding Organisation.
In this section, please do not declare changes which are explicitly requested by a Funding Orgnisation after the eligibility check at Step 1.
- •
Was there any change made regarding the total budget requested to a funding organisation between the pre-proposal and full proposal stage?
□ YES □ NO
Insert as many lines as needed
Give the name of the principal investigator/organisation/country of the Partner(s) concerned by the change For example: Anna Dupont (Institute of applied ecology in Paris, France) | Has the Funding Organisation(s) already approved the change? | Detail the change and give rationales for such change
| Yes/ No/ Decision still pending |
- •
Was there any change made regarding the Project Partner Coordinator and/or the Partner(s) between the pre-proposal and full proposal stage? (This question does not apply to “team members” or “subcontractors”).
□ YES □ NO
Insert as many lines as needed
Give the name of the principal investigator/organisation/country of the Partner(s) concerned by the change For example: Anna Dupont (Institute of applied ecology in Paris, France) | Has the Funding Organisation(s) already approved the change? | Has the Call Secretariat already approved the change? | Detail the change and give rationales for such change
| Yes/No/Decision still pending | Yes/No/Decision still pending |
11.

Confirmation of submission
- 1.
Each Partner MUST carefully read the documents and – in case of any questions or doubts – contact the concerned Funding Organisation Contact Point (FCP) regarding any original official paperwork required by the concerned Funding Organisation.
This must be submitted in accordance with Funding Organisations’ rules and in any case as soon as possible. You will NOT be funded without the fulfilment of requirements of each relevant Funding Organisation.
Further information is available on the Biodiversa+ website: www.biodiversa.eu/research-funding/open-call/participating-funding-organisations
- 2.
“Self-financed” Partners must provide evidence that their organisations will support their activities by providing a letter of commitment.The letter of commitment should be maximum 1 page for each self-financed Partner and should be written in English. It is the responsibility of the Project Partner Coordinator to compile the letters of all self-financed Partners. The letters of commitment are only requested for self-financed Partners. Any other letters of support WILL NOT be considered for the evaluation.
As Project Partner Coordinator:
  - 1.
Please ask all of your self-financed Partners to send such letters of commitment from their Head of Department or Financial administrator (as appropriate) to you;
  - 2.
Combine the letters (in case there are several self-financed Partners) into one PDF document;
  - 3.
Upload a single PDF file containing all the letters of commitment of all self-financed Partners on the EPSS
- 3.
Use of data:
For information: the data provided in this full proposal application form will be used to:
  - • Communicate with you about the call and application process
  - • Allow the Funding Organisations to perform an eligibility check of the applicants
  - • Assess the competencies and complementarities of your proposal and consortia by the Evaluation Committee (EvC) members and external reviewers where relevant
  - • Award funding if your application is successful
  - • Analyse and describe our applicant pool (the names of applicants are anonymised in our analysis)
  - • Collect your feedbacks and improve our communications with potential future applicants in future Joint Calls
Anonymity and confidentiality will be maintained throughout processing of these data for the production of statistics. Please note that these data will be accessible to Funding Organisations participating to the call, including the ones based in non-EU or non-EEA countries (i.e. Brazil, Faroe Islands, Israel, Moldova, South Africa, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tunisia and Türkiye). Protection of personal data and compliance with the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) (GDPR) is however ensured.
Retention of personal data shall take an end in accordance with the EPSS General Data Protection Policy and Biodiversa+ Privacy and Data Policy.
You can find more information in the EPSS General Data Policy and Biodiversa+ Privacy and Data Policy.
Document
4:

Checklist for applicants
Please note:
- • Proposals must be written in English.
- • Proposals that do not meet the Funding Organisations’ eligibility criteria and requirements will be declined without further review (see Funding Organisations’ rules here: www.biodiversa.eu/research-funding/open-call/participating-funding-organisations/).
- • For the pdf to be submitted on the EPSS: you should use Arial 11, single-spaced, margins of 1.27 cm.
- • Please make sure to follow the page limit. The page limit will be applied automatically. After the deadline, excess pages (in over-long proposals/applications) will be automatically made invisible, and will not be taken into consideration by the evaluators.
- • The proposal is a self-contained document. Links and hyperlinks are not allowed unless specifically asked for in the proposal application form. Experts will be instructed to ignore any information that is specifically designed to expand the proposal, thus circumventing the page limit.
- • Self-financed Partners have to provide evidence that their organisation supports their activity (official letter(s) of commitment from their Head of Department to be uploaded on the EPSS). The letter of commitment should be maximum 1 page for each self-financed Partner and should be written in English).
- • Letters of support, apart from self-financed Partners who need to provide a letter of commitment, are NOT requested and WILL NOT be forwarded to the Evaluation Committee.
In order to make sure that your application is eligible to this call, please collect the information required to tick all the sections below before starting to complete the pre-proposal and full proposal application forms:
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
- □ The project proposal addresses the SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE(S) of the call
- □ The project proposal meets one or more of the TOPICS of this call
Nota bene: any project that does not fit within the scope and objectives of the call described in the complete announcement of opportunity will not be recommended for funding, regardless of its scientific quality.
COMPOSITION AND ELIGIBILITY OF THE CONSORTIUM:
- □
The project proposal involves eligible Partners from at least three different countries participating in the call and are supported by at least three different Funding Organisations; including eligible Partners from at least two different EU Member States or Associated Countries
16
To know if a non-EU member state is an “associated country”, you can consult the following document: ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/list-3rd-country-participation_horizon-euratom_en.pdf. NB: not all associated countries listed at this link participate in this call. Only researchers from countries that confirmed their participation and reserved a budget for this call can be eligible for funding. See TABLE 1: LIST OF FUNDING ORGANISATIONS AND THEIR FUNDING COMMITMENTS below to verifywhether your country participates or not in this call.
participating in the call. NB: not all EU Members States or Associated Countries are eligible in this call; only the ones who confirmed their financial participation.
- □ The Project Partner Coordinator is eligible and is or will be employed by an eligible organisation in one of the countries participating in the call. No change of Project Partner Coordinator (person in charge) will be allowed between pre-proposal and full proposal stage, except in case of force majeure. A Project Partner Coordinator (person in charge) can only participate as Project Partner Coordinator in one proposal of this call.
- □ I have carefully checked that all Partners within my proposal are eligible in particular in case of changes(s) in the consortium.
- □ Each Partner involved in the project has carefully read its respective Funding Organisations rules and – in case of any questions or doubts – has contacted its Funding Organisations to confirm their eligibility and make sure it complies with its Funding Organisation’s rules.
- □ Non-eligible self-financed Partners are aware that they cannot request funding and that they must provide a letter of commitment signed by their organisation or financial department which declares that the organisation will cover the full costs of their activities at the second Step.
BUDGET SECTIONS:
- □ I have correctly made the difference between the total costs of the project and requested costs (i.e. the total costs comprise all the costs related to the project independently of national / regional funding rules; whereas the requested costs comprise the costs for which you will request funding to your Funding Organisation. For requested funding budget, the cost calculation has to be based for each Partner on its Funding Organisations’ rules).
- □ Each Partner involved in the project has carefully read its respective Funding Organisations rules and in case of doubt has contacted its Funding Organisations to make sure it complies with its Funding Organisation’s rules.
- □ The budget of subcontractors is detailed in the lines dedicated to subcontractors, yet the subcontractors do not request any funding. The budget requested for the subcontractors is included in the requested budget of the subcontracting Partner in the section “Subcontracting costs”.
Note: The language below is intended to be an annex to the call text to guide applicants regarding data management, data sharing and open science.
Document
5:

Open Science and Fair Data
Open Science
In accordance with the principles of Open Science, Biodiversa+ projects must also comply with full and immediate Open Access for scientific publications. This implies publishing in full and immediate Open Access journals or publishing platforms, or full and immediate open access via a trusted Open Access Repository. The open access publishing platform Open Research Europe can especially be used. When using the repository option, Partners should ensure that electronic copies of published articles are machine-readable and openly licensed, including bibliographic metadata. Information should be provided about all the other scholarly objects, tools and instruments that are needed to validate the conclusions of the publication.
Biodiversa+ and the Belmont Forum have developed a guide on data management, open data and the production of data management plan. This guide is available here: www.biodiversa.eu/research-funding/guides-capacity-building. You can also find more information on Science Europe website.
Why Data Management Plans (DMPs) are required.
Biodiversa+ supports transnational transdisciplinary research with the goal of providing knowledge in the context of this call related to biodiversity and ecosystem protection across land and sea.
To meet this challenge, Biodiversa+ emphasises open sharing of research data and digital outputs to stimulate new approaches to the collection, reuse, analysis, validation and management of data and information, thus increasing the transparency of the research process and robustness of the results. However, Biodiversa+ fully recognises that there are legitimate reasons to constrain access, for example, when an individual’s privacy would be at risk from sharing data containing (or derived from) personally identifiable information.
For this call, the participating Funding Organisationsconsider that the development and implementation of project-specific Data Management Plans is an essential to enable the sharing of research data.
Research data and digital outputs include, but are not limited to:
- • Quantitative and qualitative digital information and objects created during or reused in research activities such as experiments, analyses, surveys, interviews, measurements, instrumentation, observations, video, audio, and computer simulations;
- • All metadata describing the data and digital outputs, their acquisition (including model description and related metadata for simulations and workflows), and other details for the use and the reuse of the data;
- • Secondary data resulting from data reduction, transformation, analyses, and results, together with the associated code, software, workflows, and provenance information;
- • Stakeholder-oriented digital outputs such as maps (including GIS layers), decision support tools, tutorials, videos, local language resources, lesson plans, curricula, policy memos, and whitepapers; and
- • Descriptions of, and metadata relating to, physical samples connected with the call – but not the actual physical samples.
Each project awarded through this call is required to develop and implement a Data and Digital Outputs Management Plan to ensure ethical approaches and compliance with the FAIR Data Principles(Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable).
Biodiversa and the Belmont Forum developed a guide on data management, open data, and the production of Data Management Plan.
Project should adhere to relevant standards and community best practices, which may vary by subject and disciplinary area. Data and Digital Outputs Management Plans should also comply with public access policies and applicable national / regional laws for the respective Funding Organisations supporting this call. Research data and digital outputs should be open by default, and publicly accessible, possibly after a short period of exclusivity, unless there are legitimate reasons to constrain access. Data and digital outputs must be discoverable through machine readable catalogues, information systems and search engines. To enable data and digital outputs (including models, workflows, software and methods, etc.) with acknowledged long-term to be discoverable, accessible, understandable, interoperable and effectively reused by others (including those outside the discipline of origin and the context of acquisition), sufficient metadata must be provided and made openly accessible. Data and digital outputs must be curated, including maintaining integrity, quality and veracity, using internationally or community agreed standards and protocols. Data and digital outputs must be preserved, protected from loss and remain accessible and usable for future research in sustainable and trustworthy repositories.
Resulting publications must list where or how to locate the underlying supporting data and other research materials, including agreed persistent identifiers, processing details and any workflows, software, and code. Academic journals may also set specific requirements for Data Accessibility Statements to be included within published research results (primary research articles). Researchers should ensure that metadata created to support research datasets and other digital outputs retained for the long-term is sufficient to allow other researchers a reasonable understanding and trust of those materials, thereby minimising unintentional misuse, misinterpretation or confusion.
In the development of data infrastructures, it is important to leverage existing resources, platforms, standards, and recognised practices together with a clear sustainability plan. Projects that propose to develop data infrastructures are asked to work closely with, and support relevant international networks, infrastructures, and standards organisations. They should make as much use as possible of existing certified domain, regional, national or international data repositories (for further information, possible resources include, but are not limited to, re3data.org, CoreTrustSeal, Group on Earth Observations (GEO) FAIRsharing.org, etc.). Projects should also coordinate with, and make use of, the products and practices developed by recognised research and operational data policy and sharing organisations such as the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA), the Research Data Alliance (RDA), and the ICSU-World Data System (WDS).
For assistance in developing data and digital outputs management plans, project leaders are encouraged to first consult with relevant domain repositories, librarians and information specialists at their respective institutions. When appropriate repositories have been identified for depositing and sharing data and digital outputs, staff at these repositories can provide additional guidance on the preparation of data and digital outputs management plans, as well as processes for fulfilling specific requirements for organising and formatting data and metadata.
Applicants are strongly recommended to follow these guidelines when developing their data management plan, at the pre-proposal and full proposal phases. Teams must agree to cooperate with Biodiversa+ who will provide a support to the funded projects to further develop their Data Management Plans and ensure that they comply with these guidelines.
A data management workshop will indeed be organised at the beginning of the funded projects to exchange best practices related to data management, present hands-on advices, and work with the funded projects on how they can improve their data management plans (DMPs) and practices related to open data.
At least the Project Partner Coordinator of each funded projects is expected to participate to this workshop. The data manager of the project (if different from the Project Partner Coordinator) should also attend this workshop.

Data Management Planning Process
It is important to consider data management issues from the inception of a research project submitted to this call, in order to plan and budget appropriately for data sharing, management and curation. This section explains the expectations for Data Management Plans (DMPs) at the stages of pre-proposals, full proposals, and Awarded Projects.
Pre-proposals – Preliminary Data Management Information
Please refer to the document 2 “Pre-proposal application form” – section “Preliminary Data Management Information”
Full proposals – Proposed Data Management Plan Approach
Please refer to the document 3 “Full proposal application form” – section “Description of the project”
Awarded Projects – Full Data Management Plan
Awarded projects will be requested to provide a data management plan at the beginning of their project. They’ll also have to report on updates made in their data management plan in their mid-term and final reports.
Please note that your Funding Organisation may also have specific requirements related to data management and data open access.
A full Data and Digital Outputs Management Plan (DMP) for an awarded project is a living, actively updated document that describes the data management life cycle for the data and other digital outputs to be collected, reused, processed and/or generated. As part of making research data as open as possible, findable, accessible, interoperable and re-usable (FAIR), the DMP for a funded project should elaborate on the information provided at the Full proposal stage, and include the following additional information:
- 1.
Agreed standards to be used for data and metadata format and content (where existing standards are absent or deemed inadequate, this should be documented along with any proposed solutions or remedies);
- 2.
Policies for broad access and sharing including provisions for appropriate protection of privacy, confidentiality, security, intellectual property, or other rights or requirements;
- 3.
Policies and provisions for mining, reuse, re-distribution, and the production of derivatives;
- 4.
Contact information for the person(s) responsible for updating the DMP as needed to comply with these guidelines, and
- 5.
A list of anticipated trustworthy, long-term repositories or data centres that will be used to ensure preservation of access to data and digital outputs following completion of the project.
Applicants are advised to include the full costs of implementing the data management plan in their proposed project budget.
Document
6:

Assessment criteria
A two-step selection process
17
In case very few proposals are received, the CSC can decide with absolute majority to invite all eligible consortia to submit a full proposal in Step 2 without organising an Evaluation Committee in Step 1. Note however that the eligibility check will still be done in Step 1.
will be organised:
- –
Step 1 will consist in an eligibility check by the Call Secretariat and relevant Funding Organisations and an evaluation of the (eligible) pre-proposals by the independent Evaluation Committee(EvC) against the following assessment criteria: fit to the scope of the call, novelty of the research and impact.
The Call Steering Committee (CSC) will decide on the number of proposals to be invited to Step 2, following the evaluation made by the EvC. Only successful pre-proposals will be invited to submit full proposals.
- – Step 2 will consist in an eligibility check by the Call Secretariat and relevant Funding Organisations and an evaluation of full proposals by the EvC. Upon explicit request by the EvC members, external reviewer(s) may also be asked to review a given full proposal. The EvC will convene to evaluate and make the final ranking of the submitted full proposals according to the following assessment criteria: excellence, quality and efficiency of the implementation, and impact; and taking into account the reviews obtained from external reviewers, where relevant.
The criteria to be used to assess the quality of pre- and full proposals are detailed below.
1.

CRITERIA FOR STEP 1
1.

Fit to the scope of the call (yes/no)
Evaluation Committee members will assess the relevance of the proposed research against the scope and objectives set forth in the text of the Call; any project that does not fit this will not be recommended for funding, regardless of its scientific quality.
Please note that for the criterion ‘Fit to the scope of the call’, proposals should be evaluated according to the adequacy of their objectives and research questions with the scope and objectives of the present call. The quality of the methods however should not be evaluated as part of this criterion.
2.

Novelty of the research (1–5; threshold: 3)
Evaluation Committee members will assess the following sub-criteria:
- a)
The novelty and originality of the research objectives:
Explanation of the novelty of the planned research; e.g. how does the activity go beyond the state-of-the-art and advance knowledge; to what extent does the proposed work explore novel concepts and the advancement with respect to the scope and objectives of the call? To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original concepts?
- b)
Relevance of the proposed work and clarity of the theoretical framework, research questions, andhypothesis to be tested:
To what extent the proposed work can lead to the purpose of the call?
To what extent are the proposed theoretical framework, research questions and hypothesis to be tested clear?
NB: When reading the Call Text, please keep in mind that both research projects generating knowledge from the production of new primary data and research projects conducting research by making use of available data are equally welcome in this call and should thus be equally evaluated.
3.

Impact (1–5; threshold: 3)
Evaluation Committee members will assess the expected impact of a proposed project based on the following sub-criteria:
- a)
Potential contribution of the proposed research to society, including policy (sub-score 1–5):
To what extent could the proposed work lead to novel / original contribution for tackling societal challenges, including policy challenges?
To what extent does the project appear to have a credible approach/ambition towards stakeholder and/or end-user engagement to achieve the expected societal impact, including policy impact?
- b)
Transnational added value (sub-score 1–5):
What is the transnational added value to be expected from the collaboration from the perspective of society, including policy (see Box 1 – what is meant by transnational added value?)
2.

CRITERIA FOR STEP 2
1.

Excellence (1–5; threshold: 3.5)
- A.
  - –
Fit to the scope and objectives of the call (yes/no):
Experts will assess the relevance of the proposed research against the scope and objectives set forth in the scientific text of the call. Any project that does not fit this will not be recommended for funding, regardless of its scientific quality.
Please note that for this criterion, proposals should be evaluated according to the adequacy of their objectives and research questions with the scope and objectives of the present call. The quality of the scientific methods however should not be evaluated part of this criterion but part of the sub-criterion “scientific excellence” (see sub-criterion 1.B); and the quality of, e.g. stakeholder engagement, will be evaluated part of the “impact” criteria (see criterion 3) by policy/management experts.
- B.
  - –
Scientific excellence (1–5; threshold: 3.5), including transnational added value will be assessed by means of the following sub-criteria:
    - a)
Scientific quality of the proposed research goals and objectives: how well does the activity advance knowledge and understanding within its own field and across different fields? Does the proposal contribute to scientific excellence and significant progress toward the state of the art?
    - b)
Novelty / Originality and innovation of the research goals and objectives: to what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original concepts? Clarity of the hypothesis, theories and/or research questions.
    - c)
Transnational added value to be expected from the collaboration from a scientific perspective (see Box 1 – what is meant by transnational added value?)
    - d)
Level of mobilisation and integration of different scientific disciplines and competencies in the proposed research (level of interdisciplinarity; see Box 2 – what is meant by interdisciplinarity?). This should be evaluated in terms of relevance regarding the topics and research questions addressed (i.e. to what extent the right disciplines and skills have been mobilised to tackle these topics and research questions)
    - e)
Relation to other relevant programmes (does the project plan to link-up with other relevant existing programmes and initiatives with a similar focus than the topic of the call?)
Considering that a given project fits within the scope and objectives of the call, its scientific quality is considered before all other criteria and is a prerequisite for funding (as reflected by the threshold value and weighting system of the scores).
NB: When reading the Call Text, please keep in mind that both research projects generating knowledge from the production of new primary data and research projects conducting research from existing data sets are welcome in this call. They should thus be equally evaluated.
2.

Quality and efficiency of the implementation (1–5; threshold: 3)
Evaluation Committee members will assess the quality and efficiency of the implementation of the project plan based on the following sub-criteria:
- a)
Quality and efficiency of the management structure and procedures, its organisation and coordination: how well conceived and organised is the proposed activity? Is there an operational plan with well-defined milestones in place?
- b)
Composition, complementarity, competence and expertise of the consortium (including knowledge and skills complementarity, and balance in terms of gender and career stage): how well qualified are the applicants in terms of scientific knowledge, expertise and experience to conduct the project? What is the quality of previous work in terms of past or potential contributions to, and impact on the proposed and other areas of research? Is the Leading Principal Investigator team (including any identified Co-Principal Investigators) able to lead the project, e.g. having strong management and leadership skills, or having complementarity of expertise and synergy of the members of the team?
Is the team composition adequate and did the consortium consider gender balance and career stage balance in its composition?
- c)
Level of integration and collaboration between Partners involved in the proposal
- d)
Appropriateness of resources and funding requested, with justification (budget, staff, equipment): are the requested investments well justified and relevant?
- e)
Project feasibility and risk management, including demonstration of data availability/access where relevant
- f)
Data management plan overview and data sharing
3.

Impact (1–5; threshold: 3)
The expected Impact of the proposed research for society, including policy, and the quality and efficiency of plans for stakeholder engagement (see Box 3) will be assessed by means of the two following criteria.
Criterion A relates to the expected societal impact, including policy impact, the proposed work seeks to achieve, and its transnational added value from the impact perspective, while criterion B relates to the approach to stakeholder engagement and precise engagement activities planned in the project.
- A.
  - –
Societal relevance, including policy relevance, and importance of the research for solving pressing issues (sub-score 1–5):
The criteria used to evaluate societal and policy relevance – which will be used by the experts and which applicants are invited to consider – are the following:
    - a)
Clear statement of the application for society, including policy. Any proposal must highlight the importance of the proposed work for solving wider pressing societal issues, includingpolicy issues, related to the scope and objectives of the call, specify how the results will be translated to policy, decision makers and/or other relevant stakeholders, and contain details on the relevance of the proposed research to, e.g., specific management plans and processes, policy instruments or current legislation.
    - b)
Clearly identified end-users of the research results and ways to engage them. End-users may be different (e.g. wider group) than stakeholders directly mobilised in the project (criterion B), while stakeholders may often also be end users of project outcomes. The proposal will be expected to clearly identify end-users of the project outcomes, highlight potential arrangements for their wider uptake of knowledge and results and, as far as possible, to name organisations and individuals with whom the project plans to work on towards the wider uptake of its results
18
Biodiversa produced a stakeholder engagement handbook and a guide on policy relevance and science-policy interfacing for researchers preparing a proposal, both relevant to help plan the wider uptake of knowledge results in policy and/or society. These are accessible online (Stakeholder Engagement Handbook: www.biodiversa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/stakeholder-engagement-handbook.pdf;Guide on Policy Relevance: www.biodiversa.org/1563/download) and will be given as background information to the experts. We recommend you to use them when designing your project and preparing your proposal.
.
    - c)
Transnational added value to be expected from the collaboration from the perspective of society, including policy (see Box 1 – what is meant by transnational added value?)
- B.
  - –
Approach to stakeholder engagement (sub-score 1–5):
The criteria used to evaluate the level of transdisciplinarity, as defined in Box 3, and stakeholder engagement planned at the different stages of the project – which will be used by the experts and which applicants are invited to consider – are the following:
    - a)
Rationale for the stakeholder engagement planned in the project
    - b)
Identification of appropriate stakeholders to be engaged in the project, i.e. precise organisations and as far as possible, individual representatives of these organisations, what role they would have, and the desired outcomes of their engagement.
    - c)
Description of precise interests and support/investment from identified stakeholders on the specific aims of the project, including of their involvement at the proposal development stage2 (e.g. relating precise project objectives to specific stakeholders’ ongoing and/or future activities).
    - d)
Methods/activities proposed for engagement of relevant stakeholders, planning of the engagement and allocation of sufficient resources to its implementation
    - e)
Evidence that the necessary skills to engage stakeholders are available in the project team or will be obtained (e.g. through relevant training, or the use of external sources)
    - f)
Methods and plans for knowledge and/or technology transfer
Box 1 – What is meant by Transnational added value?
Transnational added value is the value resulting from the transnational research project, which is additional to the value that would have resulted from research projects funded at national or regional level.
Evidence of transnational added value can either be found directly among the countries involved in the research, or through indirect value accrued as a result of their joint work. Such value could for example include relevance to international policy and management processes, linking expertise and efforts across international teams, or upscaling or downscaling of efforts, methodology and knowledge across countries and regions.
Furthermore, for this call, the transnational added value should be end-user oriented and benefit environmental and societal actors beyond researchers, generating insights on the way.
Box 2 – What is meant by interdisciplinarity?
Interdisciplinary science refers to the involvement of multiple academic disciplines. Research teams should therefore span all disciplines of relevance for their project, be it from natural, social, and technical sciences, humanities and/or arts. Proposals should demonstrate how they will ensure the equitable and appropriate combination and inclusion of relevant academic disciplines, collaboratively integrating their approaches and skills.
- • This will be evaluated by scientific experts, part of the criterion “Excellence”
Box 3 – What is meant by transdisciplinarity?
Transdisciplinarity refers to the inclusion of non-academic stakeholders working together with researchers from multiple scientific disciplines at the different stages of the project to co-produce new knowledge relevant for society. Where relevant, stakeholders should be involved in different stages of the project (e.g., initial phase when defining research objectives and strategies, in implementing the project through data collection or analysis, to contribute to better dissemination of the knowledge gained, and/or to facilitate a systemic approach to a challenge. However, this involvement must not be an end in itself, but should be designed to add clear value to the project.
- • Transdisciplinarity will be evaluated by policy/management experts, part of the criterion “Impact”
Box 4 – What is meant by stakeholders vs end-users?
A stakeholder is a person or group or anyone who is affected by or has an interest or stake in a particular issue. Examples of stakeholders include policy makers, governments; business leaders and industry representatives; representatives from non-profit groups or other citizen organisations; and individuals from loosely defined user groups.
An end-user is defined as a person or group that makes use of the knowledge and/or tools in a position to apply the information or tools being generated by a research project in a way that is of direct consequence to the concerned issue.
All end users could also be considered stakeholders, but not all stakeholders are end users.
3.

SCORING SYSTEM

Scoring system at Step 1
The first two criteria (“fit to the scope of the call” and “novelty of the research”) will be assessed by the scientific EvC members, while the “impact” criteria will be assessed by the policy/management EvC members.
No additional criteria should be used for the evaluation.
For the criteria ‘novelty of the research’ and ‘impact’, a score out of a scale of five will be assigned to each proposal. The EvC members have the possibility to use half scores.
Threshold:
Proposals that do not meet the criterion ‘Fit to the scope of the call’ will not be ranked nor considered for invitation to Step 2.
Besides, there is no shared interest for proposals with a final score lower than 3 for ‘novelty of the research’ and for ‘impact’. These proposals will not be ranked nor considered for invitation to submit full proposals evaluated at Step 2.
Final score:
The final score given to a proposal will correspond to an aggregation of the scores given to the two criteria (equal weight for the two criteria). The overall score will correspond to a score out of a scale of ten points.
The EvC groups the pre-proposals based on their scores and assigns them to one of the following three categories:
- • “A” very favourable for invitation to Step 2;
- • “B” could be invited to Step 2;
- • “C” not favourable for invitation to Step 2.
As needed, and if deemed relevant, the EvC can differentiate proposals within group B (i.e. define sub-groups within group B).
The CSC will decide on the number of projects to be invited to Step 2, based on the groups made by the Evaluation Committee and their explanations.
Nota Bene:
- • A general feedback from the evaluation committee will be communicated to the applicants invited to submit a full proposal in Step 2. However, no individual feedbacks will be sent to them at this stage.
- • Applicants that are not invited to submit a full proposal will receive feedbacks from the EvC regarding the strengths and weaknesses of their pre-proposals with respect to the assessment criteria used in Step 1. They will receive this feedback in May, following the first step of the selection process. No score nor rank will be communicated.

Scoring system at Step 2
The overall aim of the ranking system is to allow a transparent ranking that still allows for some flexibility, and to fund as many high-level projects as possible.
The two first criteria (‘excellence’ and ‘quality and efficiency of the implementation’) will be assessed by the scientific EvC members and potentially external reviewer(s), if explicitly requested by the latter. The third criterion ‘impact’ will be assessed, by the policy/management EvC members and potentially by external reviewer(s) if explicitly requested by the latter.
No additional criteria should be used for the evaluation.
For each criterion, a score out of a scale of five will be assigned to each proposal. The EvC and external reviewers have the possibility to use half scores.
Threshold:
Proposals that do not meet the criterion ‘Fit to the scope and objectives of the call’ will not be ranked nor considered for funding.
Besides, there is no shared interest for proposals with a final score lower than 3.5 for ‘excellence’ and lower than 3 for ‘quality and efficiency of the implementation’ and for ‘impact’. These proposals will not be ranked, and not be considered for funding.
Weighting system:
The following weighting system will apply for the different criteria:
Criteria | Weight
Excellence | 7
Quality/efficiency of the implementation | 3
Impact | 6
The final score given to a proposal will correspond to an aggregation of the scores given to the three criteria, taking into account their respective weights. The overall score will be transformed into a score out of 15 points.
The EvC ranks as many projects as possible. However, around the threshold, the EvC can decide to equally rank proposals with a same final score that it considers of equal quality.
Example:
If a proposal receives a score of 4 for excellence, 4 for quality and efficiency of the implementation and 5 for impact, the aggregation of the scores taking into account their respective weight will give a score of 70. This score will be transformed into a score out of 15 points, i.e. 13.
Nota Bene: Both selected and non-selected applicants will receive feedbacks from the EvC regarding the strengths and weaknesses of their full proposals with respect to the assessment criteria used in Step 2 following the selection process. No score nor rank will be communicated.
Document
7:

Conflict of interest, confidentiality and non-disclosure policy
This code applies to the independent observer, the Evaluation Committee and the external reviewers.
Conflict of interest
An important aspect of this code is the avoidance of any conflicts between personal interests and the interests of the applicants. The independent observer, the Evaluation Committee and the external reviewers must perform their work impartially and take all measures to prevent any situation where the impartial and objective implementation of the work is compromised for reasons involving economic interest, political or national affinity, family or emotional ties or any other shared interest (‘conflict of interests’).
Definition of the conflict of interest.
The following situations will automatically be considered as conflict of interest:
- • Being involved in (the preparation of) any pre- and/or full proposal;
- • Having submitted a proposal as a principal investigator or a team member, under the call;
- • Being director, trustee or Partner or in any way involved in the management of an applicant;
- • Being employed or contracted by one of the applicants;
- • Having close professional proximity, e.g. being a member of the same scientific institution with a hierarchical or department relation or impending change of the external reviewer/EvC member to the institution of the applicant in a position with a hierarchical or department relation or vice versa;
- • Having close family ties (spouse, domestic or non-domestic Partner, child, sibling, parent etc.) or other close personal relationship with the applicants of the proposal;
- • Having (or having had during the last five years) a close scientific collaboration (for e.g., but not restricted to, acting as co-author on a publication) with an applicant of the proposal;
- • Having (or having had) a relationship of scientific rivalry or professional hostility with an applicant of the proposal;
- • Having (or having had), a mentor/mentee relationship with the principal investigator of the proposal;
- • Having a current or prior (past five years) activity in advisory bodies of the applicant’s institution, e.g. scientific advisory boards;
- • Having direct or indirect benefit if any proposal submitted is accepted or rejected;
- • Having personal economic interests in the funding decision.
Other situation preventing the EvC members or external reviewers to participate in the evaluation impartially could be considered as conflict of interest and should be reported as such by the EvC members or external reviewers.
Biodiversa+ Partners (the list is available here: www.biodiversa.eu/about-us/Partners) and funding organisations that are part of the CSC (the list is available here: www.biodiversa.eu/research-funding/open-call/participating-funding-organisations/) cannot be part of a research proposals submitted under Biodiversa+ calls (would their participations be in-kind or in-cash). Their participation to a proposal makes it non-eligible. It will be the responsibility of the funding organisations to check during the eligibility check that no one from their organisation is part of a consortium.
Rules for the prevention of conflict of interest
The independent observer, Evaluation Committee members and external reviewers have to sign online a conflict of interest, confidentiality and non-Disclosure declaration to confirm that they will comply with the principles stated herein.
For each proposal they have to evaluate, Evaluation Committee members and external reviewers will have to declare online, through the electronic evaluation Submission system (EPSS) that they do not have a conflict of interest with the concerned proposal.
If Evaluation Committee members and external reviewers are (or become) aware of a conflict of interest, they must immediately inform the Call Secretariat and stop working until further instructions. External reviewers and EvC members must work independently, in a personal capacity and not on behalf of any organisation and should not be used in case of a conflict of interest.
Evaluation Committee members and the independent observer must leave the room during the discussion of a proposal in case of a possible conflict of interest.
Applicants included in a pre-proposal or a full proposal submitted to this call (including all the team members) may not serve as Evaluation Committee members or external reviewers.
The independent observer, external reviewers and EvC members may not apply for a project in the call.
Confidentiality and non-disclosure policy
All submitted proposals, the correspondence forwarded to you, the reviews and the identity of the EvC members / external reviewers must be treated as strictly confidential. They must not be revealed to third parties.
Therefore, the responsibilities of an EvC member / external reviewer may only be undertaken personally and may not be delegated to third parties.
The scientific content of the proposal may not be exploited for personal or other scientific purposes. An EvC member / external reviewer should not identify themselves to the applicant or any third party.
The obligations under this document shall not extend to confidential information which is required to be disclosed by national applicable law or by order of a court of competent jurisdiction or other regulatory body.
Code of conduct for the independent observers, Evaluation Committee (EvC) members and external reviewers
Performing the task (for Evaluation Committee members and external eviewers only)
- 1.
You must work independently, in a personal capacity and not on behalf of any organisation.
- 2.
You must:
  - • Evaluate each proposal in a confidential and fair way,
  - • Perform your work to the best of your abilities, professional skills, knowledge and applying the highest ethical and moral standards;
  - • Follow the instructions and time-schedule given by the Call Secretariat
- 3.
You may not delegate the work to another person or be replaced by another person
- 4.
If a person or entity involved in a proposal approaches you before or during the evaluation, you must immediately inform the Call Secretariat.
- 5.
You may not be (or become) involved in any of the actions resulting from the proposal(s) that you evaluated (at any stage of the procedure).
Impartiality and Conflicts of Interests (for all)
As a member of the Evaluation Committee, an external reviewer or an independent observer, you will be asked to contribute to the evaluation process.
You must perform your work impartially and take all measures to prevent any situation where the impartial and objective implementation of the work is compromised for reasons involving economic interest, political or national affinity, family or emotional ties or any other shared interest (‘conflict of interests’).
You might have a conflict of interest (see definition above) with one or more submitted proposals. Should any conflict arise during your term, or when asked to do a review, you must bring the matter to the attention of the Call Secretariat who will determine how the matter should be handled and will tell you what further steps, if any, to take.
No Use of “Insider” Information (for all)
Your designation gives you access to information not generally available to the public. You must not use that information for your personal benefit or make it available for the personal benefit of any other individual or organisation.
Confidentiality of Proposals and Applicants (for all)
Proposals are received with the expectation of protection of the confidentiality of their contents.
You must thus keep confidential all call related data, documents or other material (in any form) that are disclosed to you (whether in writing, orally, or any other form).
You must keep your work under this Call strictly confidential, and in particular:
- • not disclose (directly or indirectly) any confidential information relating to proposals or applicants, without prior written approval by Call Secretariat
- • not discuss proposal(s) with other persons that are not directly involved in the evaluation of the proposals
- •
not disclose:
  - ○ details on the evaluation process or its outcome, without prior written approval by the Call Secretariat
  - ○ details on your position/advice;
  - ○ the names of other experts participating in the evaluation (both external reviewers and Evaluation Committee members).
- • not communicate with applicants during the evaluation or afterwards.
Confidentiality of the Review Process and Reviewer Names (for all)
The names of external reviewers won’t be made public.
The names of the Evaluation Committee members will be made public after the announcement of awards. Which EvC members assessed which proposals will however be kept confidential.
SIGNATURE
When signing in on the EPSS, you will be asked to confirm reading and accepting the Code of conduct for conflict of interest, confidentiality and non-disclosure and its terms.
[END OF CALL DOCUMENTS]

FUNDING ORGANISATION ELIGIBILITY RULES AND PAPERWORK TO COMPLETE
For advertisement to all applicants
The Netherlands – NWO
CONTACT
Country / Region | The Netherlands
Funding Organisation Full Name (Acronym) | Dutch Research Council (NWO)
Funding Organisation Contact Point(s) | Floor Hugenholtz Policy Officer +31 (0) 703494071 biodiversa@nwo.nl
FUNDING CONTRIBUTION AND BUDGET CAPS
Funding contribution to the Call (in EUR) | 3,000,000 For this call, the budget for the Kingdom of the Netherlands is brought together by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security and Nature (LVVN).
Minimum amount of funding per awarded partner or project (in EUR) | Min. 50,000 / project
Maximum amount of funding per awarded project (in EUR) | Max. 325,000 / project
GENERAL ELIGIBILITY RULES
Eligible environment(s)/realm(s) | All (no restrictions)
Eligibility of a partner as a beneficiary institution | An application for funding from NWO may consider the following roles: – National main applicant (mandatory): the applicant who leads the application to NWO and is the foreseen national project leader, in case a project is granted. National co-applicant (optional): national applicants in addition to the national main applicant with an active role and responsibility in realising the project and requesting funding from NWO.
| National main applicants Researchers may submit an application as a national main applicant if they have a tenured position (and therefore a paid position for an indefinite period 1 Professors employed at a university of applied sciences and researchers employed at a TO2 institute may also submit as a main national applicant provided that they have at least a salaried position for a limited period of time. or a tenure track agreement at one of the following research organisations: – universities and universities of applied sciences (UAS) as referred to in Article 1.8 paragraph 1 of the Higher Education and Scientific Research Act and universities listed in the Policy Rules for Universities located in the Kingdom of the Netherlands; – university medical centres by which is meant academic hospitals as referred to in Article 1.13 paragraph 1 of the Higher Education and Scientific Research Act; – institutes affiliated to the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) or NWO; – TO2 institutions; – Netherlands Cancer Institute; – the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen; – Naturalis Biodiversity Center; – Advanced Research Centre for NanoLithography (ARCNL); – Princess Máxima Center. Persons with a zero-hour employment agreement or with a contract for a limited period of time (other than a tenure track appointment) may not submit a proposal. It could be the case that the applicant’s tenure track agreement ends before the intended completion date of the project for which funding is applied for, or that before that date, the applicant’s tenured contract ends due to the applicant reaching retirement age. In that case, the applicant needs to include a statement from their employer in which the organisation concerned guarantees that the project and all project members for whom funding has been requested will receive adequate supervision for the full duration of the project. Such a statement should be submitted in the full proposal stage. The main national applicant employed by a university of applied sciences or TO2 institute whose employment ends before the intended completion date of the project for which the grant is being applied for must also attach such a statement. Applicants with a part-time contract should guarantee adequate supervision of the project and all project members for whom funding is requested.
| National co-applicants Researchers interested to apply as a national co-applicant, i.e. together with a national main applicant, may submit as a national co-applicant if they have a tenured position (and therefore a paid position for an indefinite period*) or a tenure track agreement at one of to the research organisations listed under ‘National main applicants’ or at other research organisations as referred to in Article 1.1, paragraph 4 of the NWO Grant Rules 2024 that meet the following cumulative conditions: – be established in the Netherlands; – be a foundation, association or legal entity governed by public law (“publiekrechtelijke rechtspersoon”); have as its primary goal the independent conduct of its own fundamental research or industrial research or with widely disseminating the results of those activities through teaching, publications or knowledge transfer; – be able to state that the organisation keeps separate accounts with regard to economic/non-economic activities and that undertakings with decisive influence on the organisation do not enjoy preferential access to the organisation's results. Please note: Prior to the submission of an application, NWO assesses on the basis of the above-mentioned conditions whether an organisation complies with Article 1.1, paragraph 4 of the NWO Grant Rules 2024 and may therefore participate as a national co-applicant. NWO performs this assessment to preclude the granting of prohibited state aid. The organisation of the prospective national co-applicant must provide the following documents no less than 10 working days prior to the submission deadline for pre-proposals (meaning no later than 24 October 2025, 12:00:00 CET) by email to biodiversa@nwo.nl: – a recent extract from the Netherlands Chamber of Commerce; – the deed of incorporation or current articles of association; – the latest available annual accounts accompanied by an audit statement 2 Organisations that are not legally obliged to have their annual accounts audited do not need to provide such an auditor’s statement. They must however be able to demonstrate that this legal requirement is not applicable to the organisation concerned. ; – the completed form ‘Declaration research organisation’, available on the funding page of this Call for proposals on the NWO website. Other relevant documentation may be added. NWO may request additional information if the above documents are not sufficiently conclusive to determine whether the organisation may act as a – national co-applicant. If the organisation of the prospective national co-applicant does not submit the necessary documents for this assessment in time, NWO cannot accept the organisation as a national co-applicant. If the addition of new co-applicants to the consortium is allowed in the full proposal and these new co-applicants are not affiliated to a research organisation listed above, these conditions will also be checked for this organisation/these organisations. The documents listed above as a requirement in the pre-proposal stage must then be submitted by email no less than 10 working days before the submission deadline for full proposals (meaning no later than 4 April 26, 12:00:00 CEST).
Eligibility of costs, types and their caps | The NWO budget modules (including the maximum amount) available for this Call for proposals are listed below. Apply only for funding that is vital to realise the project. The available budget modules are listed below: Personnel – Personnel at a university in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, umc or a research organisation, as referred to in Article 1.1, first paragraph, subparagraphs c to h of the NWO Grant Rules 2024 salary costs can be claimed for the following positions: • Postdoc: at least 1 position, for at least 12 months, for at least 0.5 fte, according to UNL or NFU rates, a benchfee is available; • Research leave: max. 5% of the grant amount, according to UNL or NFU rates. – Personnel of universities of applied sciences, TO2 institutes and other research organisations using the Government Tariff Manual (HOT), Table 2, under 2.2 ‘average total salary cost per salary scale’, column 'Hourly rate productive hours, excluding VAT'; – Students: according to the usual internship fee or HOT rates, may be added to material costs Material: for project-specific material costs, up to 25% of the grant amount. Subsequently, up to 50% of the material budget can be used for work by third parties; Knowledge utilisation 3 All activities applied for under this budget module must fit within the definition of "Knowledge Transfer Activities" used by the European Commission in the Framework for State Aid for Research, Development and Innovation (OJEU 2022, C 414). : for activities that promote the use of knowledge from the research following the Impact Plan approach, mandatory 5–20% of the grant amount; Project management: up to 5% of the grant amount. Please note the following: – PhD positions cannot be applied for in this call, due to the maximum project duration of 3 years. – NWO funds project-related costs. Therefore overhead costs are not eligible for NWO funding. – The budget items “fellowships”, “overheads”, “equipment” and “subcontracting costs” in the Biodiversa+ format are not eligible for NWO funding. A more detailed explanation of the budget modules and eligible costs can be found on the funding page on the NWO website. It is recommended to use the NWO budget template in the pre-proposal stage to confirm eligibility of budget items. For full proposals, it is mandatory to submit the NWO budget form for the funding requested at NWO at the time of the transnational deadline. Please submit it to biodiversa@nwo.nl. Do not hesitate to contact the national contact point in case of questions via the aforementioned email address.
Should VAT be included in the budget figures provided? | No
Additional specific eligibility rules | An application for NWO funding has one national main applicant, responsible for scientific and financial management. National co-applicants within an application for NWO funding are allowed. A researcher may only request NWO funding for one project (part of a European consortium) in this Call for proposals, either as main applicant or co-applicant within an application for NWO funding. Researchers employed at a university in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, umc or a research organisation, as referred to in Article 1.1, first paragraph, subparagraphs c to h of the NWO Grant Rules 2024 may not apply for a scientific or post-doc position for themselves.
INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT: | Full details for project funding in this call and relevant forms are available on the NWO website: www.nwo.nl/biodiversa For full details of the general NWO funding process: www.nwo.nl/en/funding/funding+process+explained
OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
Submission of the pre- and full proposal and other administrative requirements to be completed at the national/regional Level | Applicants are required to submit a mandatory NWO budget form by the deadline for full proposals. The completed budget form can be submitted to NWO via biodiversa@nwo.nl.
Submission of financial and scientific reports at the national/regional level | Submission of financial and scientific reports at national level is required in accordance with the rules of NWO. Granted consortia will be informed in due time.
Do you allow the addition of a new research partner between step 1 and step 2 at your national / regional level? | Yes, however the Dutch main applicant should remain the same. In case of changes between step 1 and 2 applicants must contact the national contact point at NWO before submitting the full proposal.
Does your organisation request funded researchers to sign a consortium agreement? | Yes, funded researchers must submit a consortium agreement to NWO. Consortia to be funded will be informed by NWO.
Other important information | Impact of the research is at the heart of this call. Please refer to the detailed description of requirements and evaluation criteria, including impact, in the full call announcement by Biodiversa+. The NWO Grant Rules 2024 and the Agreement on the Payment of Costs for Scientific Research are applicable to all applications for NWO funding. Any arrangements made regarding the grant from NWO, for instance in a Consortium Agreement, must comply with the NWO Grant Rules 2024 and the European legislation on state aid. Once proposals are selected for funding, the consortia will be notified by the Biodiversa+ Call Secretariat and subsequently, the national granting process will be initiated by NWO. As stipulated in the NWO Grant Rules, Article 3.2, paragraph 2, the project cannot start until the conditions set out in the grant award decision regarding the start of the project are met. Please note, these conditions will include a signed Consortium agreement by all partners in the transnational project. Under the Dutch General Administrative Law Act, any interested party has the right to lodge an objection to the decision taken by NWO within six weeks of the date of the decision letter. Further information about the objections procedure can be found on the NWO website: www.nwo.nl/en/lodging-an-objection . NWO will, if necessary, apply a one-off indexation of personnel costs when awarding the grant. The UNL/NFU/HOT rate at the time of the decision date applies and the date on which the rates take effect is used for this purpose.