Table 1: Funding Organizations

STAATSCOURANT Officiële uitgave van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden sinds 1814. 2026 International Joint Initiative for Research Harnessing Disruptive Technologies to Address Global Challenges, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek

The International Joint Initiative for Research Harnessing Disruptive Technologies to Address Global Challenges represents a collaboration among research funders from the Åland Islands, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom to support international, interdisciplinary, and transformative research aimed at harnessing disruptive technology to address major global societal challenges Description

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by all member states of the United Nations in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. They are a call to action for all countries to work together to tackle major and interlinked global challenges to ensure long-term peace and prosperity. There has been global recognition that the world is behind on achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by their 2030 target date. Indeed, the challenges facing humanity instead seem to be intensifying. Concurrently, advances in science, communication and disruptive technology are changing the world around us. This call aims to harness the potential of disruptive technology to offer novel solutions to global challenges and accelerate progress towards achieving the SDGs. More research is needed on how disruptive technologies can be used in contextually appropriate interventions to have transformative economic or societal impacts to improve the lives of people and the planet. In this call, Disruptive Technology is defined as “an innovation whose application replaces or radically alters systems, processes and/or behaviours to have transformative economic or societal impacts. The impact may be localized or far-reaching. Disruptive technology may include cutting-edge and novel innovations, or the application of an existing innovation in a new context, bringing about substantial change or paradigm shifts.” Research harnessing disruptive technologies to address global challenges requires an interdisciplinary approach involving expertise across disciplines – including the natural sciences, engineering, health sciences, social sciences, and humanities – and across sectors, including academia, government, not-for-profit organizations, community organizations, and private industry. Co-development of research and solutions in partnership with affected stakeholders is essential for long-term success. This interdisciplinary and stakeholder-oriented approach is instrumental to pushing forward change at an international scale to help make progress towards achieving the SDGs. Projects in this call must directly address at least one of the SDGs. The seventeen Sustainable Development Goals are:

1. No Poverty End poverty in all its forms everywhere

2. Zero Hunger End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

3. Good Health and Well-Being Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

4. Quality Education Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

5. Gender Equality Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

6. Clean Water and Sanitation Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

7. Affordable and Clean Energy Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

8. Decent Work and Economic Growth Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

10. Reduced Inequalities Reduce inequality within and among countries

11. Sustainable Cities and Communities Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

12. Responsible Consumption and Production Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

13. Climate Action Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

14. Life Below Water Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

15. Life on Land Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

17. Partnerships for the Goals Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development

In recognition that there are gaps in the SDGs, particularly related to Indigenous communities, projects may also apply if they are addressing a global challenge that is not captured by the SDGs.

Other If ‘other’ is selected, the proposal will have to justify that its focus is a relevant global challenge for this call, and it will be up to the review panel to assess fit to program. Projects that do not pass fit to program at the LOI stage will not be invited to the full application stage. Expectations for funded projects The International Joint Initiative for Research Harnessing Disruptive Technologies to Address Global Challenges call will support research projects focused on harnessing disruptive technologies to address at least one of the Sustainable Development Goals or another recognized global challenge. Projects may be focused on developing or implementing a disruptive technology, or research on the impact of a disruptive technology on society and/or economies.

Projects must be interdisciplinary, integrating information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts or theories from two or more disciplines or bodies of specialized knowledge. Projects must involve disciplines from at least two of the following three areas: natural sciences & engineering; social sciences and humanities; and health and life sciences. Projects are expected to include appropriate stakeholders and end-users in the co-development and co-leadership of the project. Engagement with other sectors, as appropriate, will help identify barriers to implementation and develop strategies to overcome them. A trans-sectoral approach, involving the academic, research, economic (businesses), societal (governmental and non-governmental organizations), and/or community sectors, as appropriate, ensures relevant outcomes and positions research for uptake and use, which will maximize impact in the long-term. Non-academic stakeholders may be included as team members or collaborators. Several Funding Organizations allow funds to be transferred to team members from outside of their country. Teams are encouraged to include and budget for members from non-Funding Organization countries, particularly the Global South. See Table 1 for more information on which funders allow for international funds transfer and any limitations. A virtual kick-off meeting will be organized on-line for funded teams to connect with other projects and ask questions of the funders. To highlight the outcomes of funded projects and enable knowledge mobilization and cross-project learning, a forum will be organized at the mid-term (on-line) and at the end of the grant (possibly in-person). Stakeholders, including policymakers from governments and non-government organizations will be invited to the end of grant forum. The fora may also be a springboard for new research collaborations. Applicants are encouraged to include expenses related to attending the end of grant forum in their project budgets.

Timeline Date Milestone January 2026 Competition launches Convergence Portal opens for NOIs February 2026 Information Webinars March 3, 2026 Deadline to submit a required Notice of intent to apply (NOI) March 9, 2026 Convergence Portal opens for Letters of intent to apply (LOI) June 9, 2026 Deadline to submit a LOI August 26, 2026 LOI results released August 27, 2026 Convergence Portal opens for full applications November 3, 2026 Deadline to submit full application March 2027 Notice of funding decisions March 2027 Start date of awards

Value and Duration Projects should be designed to be completed within three years. Funding is available for three-year projects. One-year no-cost extensions may be available in some circumstances, on request and requiring appropriate justification. The total amount of funding available for each project will depend on the Funding Organizations that will be supporting the project. Refer to the information provided in the annexes (links in Table 1) for information on the level of financial support available. Eligibility Requirements

Applicants must apply as a transnational research project partnership. Project teams must be interdisciplinary, incorporating required disciplinary expertise. It is strongly recommended that all project teams include at least one expert in social sciences or humanities among the co-Principal Investigators, fostering successful implementation for maximum impact. Each Funding Organization may have additional eligibility rules for applicants and proposed projects. Use the links in Table 1 to review each funding organization’s eligibility rules, requirements, funding mandates, policies, eligible costs, and procedure.

Project team

Each project team must be eligible to receive funds from at least three Funding Organizations. To fulfill this requirement, the project team must include a minimum of three Principal Investigators, each eligible to receive funding from a different participating funding organisation. At least one of the three Principal Investigators must be eligible to apply to the NFRF program. The Principal Investigators eligible for the three Funding Organizations will be co-Principal Investigators (co-PIs) on the proposal. The project team will be able to identify a “Project Lead” from among the co-Principal Investigators, who will be the primary contact point for the project as a whole. Project teams will be comprised of the minimum of 3 co-PIs, as well as other co-PIs, co-applicants, and collaborators. Co-PIs share responsibility for the direction of the project and the coordination of proposed research activities, in addition to participating in the execution of the research project. Co-applicants and collaborators contribute to the execution of the research project; however, collaborators’ research activities may not be supported by grant funds. See each Funding Organization’s annex for more details on eligibility.

Role Minimum Requirement Definition and description of the role Co-Principal Investigator • 3 co-PIs, including: ○ 1 NFRF-eligible PI ○ 1 PI eligible to receive funds from 2^nd funding organization ○ 1 PI eligible to receive funds from 3^rd funding organization • Share responsibility for the direction of the project and the coordination of proposed research activities, in addition to participating in the execution of the project • Projects must include a PI eligible to apply to each funding organization from which they are requesting funds • One of the co-PIs must be designated project lead, the primary point of contact for the project as a whole. • Each co-PI receiving funds is responsible for the management of the grant received from the respective Funding Organization. • The co-PI eligible for funding from NFRF is responsible for initializing and submitting the application on the Convergence Portal • Individuals may participate as a co-PI on only one application to this competition • Teams are encouraged to include at least one co-PI with expertise in the social sciences or humanities • Teams are permitted to include more than 3 co-PIs if these team members will share responsibility for the direction of the project and the coordination of project activities. These additional co-PIs could fall under 2 categories: ○ 1. Individual(s) eligible to receive funds from additional funding organization(s); or ○ 2. Individual(s) whose research activities will be supported through one of the grants to the other co-PIs, but who are still sharing responsibility for the direction and coordination of the project Co-applicant None Contribute to the execution of the research project. Research activities may be supported funds from this grant. Collaborator None Contribute to the execution of the research project. Funds from this grant may not be used to support their research activities or collaboration.

To reflect the expertise required to deliver on the ambitious and interdisciplinary nature of the project, proposals must be submitted by interdisciplinary teams. The appropriate team size and composition will depend on the proposed project and may include individuals from any discipline and sector. Additional team members may be added at the LOI and full application stages, but the minimum eligibility requirements must be met at every stage of the competition. To foster the participation of many and to ensure that teams have sufficient time to dedicate to the project, individuals may participate as a co-PI (or PI) on only one application to this competition. An individual who is listed as a co-PI on multiple applications will have their status changed to a co-Applicant on all but one application, determined by the order in which they are received. This may affect the eligibility of applications on which they are no longer co-PI.

Early career researchers Project teams are encouraged to support the next generation of researchers. The suitability of the research environment and the research project for students and trainees will be assessed as part of the Feasibility criterion at the full application stage (see below and the evaluation matrices). Contact List If you would like to connect with other researchers interested in this call, join our contact list. Complete this Survey before February 9, 2026 and you will be added to a list where your information will be shared with others interested in participating in the call, and their information will be shared with you. By submitting the survey, you consent to the information you provide being shared with other potential applicants. Application process To apply to this call, teams must submit a notice of intent to apply (NOI) by March 3, 2026. This is a mandatory step in the application process. The NOI is used for administrative purposes and is not assessed. After the NOI deadline has passed, the research team will immediately be able to work on their Letter of Intent to apply (LOI). The team must submit the Letter of Intent to apply (LOI) by June 9, 2026. Submitted LOIs will be evaluated, for the purpose of identifying selected teams to be invited to the full application stage. Funding principles

The call will be implemented through a coordinated funding approach: for successful applications, each Funding Organization will award funding to a researcher within the project team who is eligible to receive funding from them. Funding will be awarded according to the rules, regulations, terms and conditions of the Funding Organization. Eligible expenses may vary across a project team. Applicants must review the documentation from the relevant Funding Organizations (links in Table 1) to ensure the proposed project and associated budget meets all eligibility requirements. Project team members who are not eligible to receive funds from other Funding Organizations may be eligible for support from NFRF. Using the links in Table 1, research teams should check the eligibility of expenses before submitting the full application.

Merit review Considerations Indigenous research For proposals involving Indigenous research, SSHRC’s Indigenous Research Statement ofPrinciples and Guidelines for the Merit Review of Indigenous Research may be used as a reference. The guidelines are provided to merit reviewers to help build understanding of Indigenous research and research-related activities, and to help committee members interpret the specific evaluation criteria in the context of Indigenous research. The guidelines may also be useful to external assessors, postsecondary institutions and partner organizations that support Indigenous research. Equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) considerations in research design The goal in considering EDI in research design is to promote rigorous research that is sensitive to sex and gender, as well as many other identity factors, such as race, ethnicity, religion, age, and mental or physical disability. EDI considerations must be integrated in the project design. A rationale must be provided in cases where a research team believes no aspect of their research may benefit from an analysis to consider sex, gender or other identity factors. Research Security Applications submitted to NFRF are subject to Canada’s Policy on Sensitive Technology Research and Affiliations of Concern. The policy prohibits funding of research that advances a sensitive technology research area if any of the researchers involved are affiliated with or in receipt of funding or in-kind support from a university, research institutes or laboratory connected to military, national defence, or state security entities that could pose a risk to Canadas national security’. For proposals that fall under a sensitive technology research area, the research team members will need to provide an attestation as part of their submission, if they are invited to the Full Application stage. Read the tri-agency guidance on the STRAC policy to understand how this may impact your application. More details can be found in the NFRF annex. Selection criteria There are seven selection criteria for this funding opportunity. An overview of the criteria as they apply to the evaluation of proposals follows. Not all criteria and elements are evaluated at the LOI stage. The elements considered under each criterion at both stages of evaluation (LOI and full application) are outlined in more detail in the evaluation matrices. Fit-to-program Disruptive technology must be central to the project. The proposed research must also directly address at least 1 of the Sustainable Development Goals. Applications must explain how it meets the competition definition of disruptive technology and clearly outline the SDG that the proposed work addresses. Interdisciplinarity

The proposed research must present an interdisciplinary approach. The interdisciplinary approach – integrating information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts or theories from two or more disciplines or bodies of specialized knowledge – brings a new perspective to the challenge. To meet the minimum requirement to be considered interdisciplinary, the proposed research project must include at least two of the following three broad areas of science: natural sciences and engineering; social sciences and humanities; and health and life sciences. Projects may involve any disciplines, thematic areas, approaches or subject areas and may address fundamental or applied challenges, but the interdisciplinary approach is considered essential to ensure that project outcomes have real impact and the potential to drive societal change. Proposals must explain how the disciplinary perspectives, methodologies and techniques will be integrated, maintained and implemented. In addition, proposals must demonstrate that the team has the required expertise to execute the approach.

Equity, diversity and inclusion in research practice

Applicants must clearly demonstrate their commitment to EDI in their research teams, including among students, postdoctoral fellows, co-PIs, co-applicants and/or collaborators, as applicable. Teams should also consider diversity as it applies to career stages, sectors, institutions, regions and countries. They must explain what actions they will take, the outcomes expected, and the assessment planned for each of the following three key areas:

• team composition and recruitment processes

• training and development opportunities

• inclusion

Actions taken are expected to remove barriers and provide opportunities for the meaningful integration of individuals from all groups (including women, Indigenous Peoples, members of racialized minorities and persons with disabilities). Approaches should be appropriate to the team’s context, considering the countries where the members are and where project activities will be undertaken. An application must not include any personal information about members of the research team in the EDI section; the focus is on the team’s commitment to EDI, not its EDI profile. For more information, see NFRF’s Best Practices in Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Research.

Strength of the Project Consortium The quality of the project consortium will be evaluated under this criterion. It includes elements such as:

• knowledge, expertise, capacity and availability of the project team;

• how the approach builds on, integrates, and benefits from expertise, perspectives and resources of a wide variety of regions and disciplines, as appropriate.

Note that size of consortium is not an evaluation element – smaller consortium will not be considered to be less qualified. The focus is on the integration of the team and expertise required to achieve the proposed project’s objectives. High risk – novelty of approach/scientific rigour

High risk refers to the novelty of the proposed approach to the challenge and the quality of the research proposed. Proposals that address a rarely tackled SDG or a combination of SDGs; and/or that involve a novel disruptive technology or a novel approach to a disruptive technology may be considered higher risk. Proposals will have to explain:

• how the project is novel, as it relates to the latest methods, concepts, information and techniques, as well as other major projects currently underway; and

• why the approach is expected to lead to change.

High reward – anticipated societal impact

Funded proposals must have the potential to create a significant and real societal change or impact, including contributing to addressing at least one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Applications must explain the anticipated change or impact that is likely to result and its significance. Proposals must outline the major short-, medium- and long-term changes that are expected with a projected timeline, the likelihood of their being achieved, and who (or what) will be affected by the changes. This includes what is expected to be achieved during the three-year project, but also how outcomes will be positioned to maximize potential for longer-term uptake and impact. High reward can be defined by elements such as, but not limited to:

• having an economic, scientific, artistic, cultural, social, technological or health impact;

• impacting and/or affecting large communities, or unique communities or subpopulations with the potential to provide lessons for other contexts;

• significantly advancing current knowledge, methods and/or technologies, and positioning them for uptake; and/or

• implementing, testing and refining solutions for maximum impact.

Feasibility – capacity to execute the project

Feasibility considers the plan and the ability to execute the activities. It includes elements such as:

• workplan and timeline;

• value for money;

• the plan for research uptake, partnering with stakeholders and end users;

• the plan for monitoring, evaluation and learning;

• proposed approach, including EDI considerations in research design where appropriate;

• project’s approach to co-production with communities and other stakeholders, where applicable;

• project’s partnership and reciprocity with Indigenous Peoples, where applicable;

• suitability of the research environment;

• management and governance plans; and

• assessment of and approach to minimize the environmental footprint of the project (reuse of data, collaboration on field data collection, hybrid meetings, means of transportation, etc.)

Diversity

Following the assessment of full applications based on the criteria noted above, the multidisciplinary/multisectoral review panel may consider diversity as a second-order consideration. This consideration will only apply between equally-rated applications to prioritize an application that addresses:

• disruptive technologies not tackled by other proposals ranked as high or higher in the call;

• an uncommon combination of technology and SDGs; and/or

• challenges faced in unique geographic regions not tackled by other proposals ranked as high or higher in the call.

Applications will be assessed against each of these elements. Those that meet multiple diversity elements will be prioritized above those that meet fewer or none. If there is a need to prioritize amongst applications that meet the same number of diversity elements, they will be prioritized according to the order they are listed above. Review process Notice of intent to apply stage Notices of intent to apply (NOIs) will be used for administrative purposes to assess indicative eligibility of the project team, and to compose the multidisciplinary/multisectoral review panel at the full application stage. NOIs are not assessed for scientific merit; project teams should begin working on their LOI once the NOI deadline has passed. Letter of intent to apply stage Letters of intent to apply (LOIs) will be evaluated using a distributed peer review process (DPR). In DPR, applicants are also the reviewers and review other proposals submitted to the same funding opportunity. By submitting a LOI, applicants agree to act as reviewers and to have their proposal reviewed by other applicants to the call. For this competition, all co-Principal Investigators (co-PIs) must be available and willing to act as reviewers.

Please note that by submitting a LOI, you accept the following terms and conditions:

• selected co-PIs will receive a maximum of 10 LOIs to review;

• the reviewer is expected to carefully read all the assigned proposals, rate them and provide feedback that will go to the applicants following the rules and guidelines;

Completion of timely and high-quality reviews is considered an eligibility requirement for the full application stage. Failure to complete the reviews by the deadline, or submission of reviews of consistently poor quality by a co-PI will result in the proposal they are part of being deemed ineligible to proceed to the full application stage.

By using different reviewer clusters and an allocation algorithm, LOIs will be assigned to reviewers in such a way that the reviewer’s assessment of other LOIs have no bearing on the outcome of the reviewer’s own proposal, other than the situations noted above. Applications submitted in French may be translated into English before being shared with reviewers to ensure all co-PIs are able to review fairly. Reviewers will have access to all sections of the NOI and LOI, except the participants’ personal profiles; reviewer exclusions; and certifications. The reviewers will assess proposals against the following selection criteria:

• fit to program (pass/fail)

• interdisciplinarity (pass/fail)

• strength of project consortium (30%)

• high risk (25%)

• high reward (25%)

• feasibility (20%)

The outcome of the evaluation at the LOI stage is a recommendation to project teams whether to proceed with the preparation and submission of a full application. Project teams that are invited to submit a full application will have their proposals automatically transitioned to the full application stage in the Convergence Portal, allowing them to work on their full applications. Project teams which receive negative advice, i.e. are advised not to continue, may still choose to submit a full application. IN order to continue in the competition, project teams must reach out to the NFRF team at NFRF-FNFR@chairs-chaires.gc.ca and request access to the full application in Convergence, including a short justification for continuing against the advice received, within two weeks of receiving the outcome of the LOI stage review. Proposals which do not pass the fit to program or interdisciplinarity criterion will be advised not to proceed to the full application stage. Reviewers’ ratings for the high risk, high reward and feasibility criteria will determine an overall score for each LOI.

Selection of the LOIs invited to the Full Application Stage

The list of proposals to be invited to submit a full application will be determined by the Funding Organizations and will be based on the ratings and the following additional conditions:

• The invited proposals represent funding requests that do not exceed three times the available budget of each funding organization;

• Additional proposals may be invited to ensure that all funding organizations are represented in the full application stage;

Full application stage

Full applications will be reviewed by members of the multidisciplinary/multisectoral review panel. Each application will be assigned to a minimum of three members of the multidisciplinary/multisectoral review panel. Members will have access to the entire application. The members will assess proposals against the following selection criteria, using the evaluation matrices as a guide:

• Fit-to-program (pass/fail)

• EDI in research practice(pass/fail)

• Interdisciplinarity (pass/fail)

• Strength of project consortium (20%)

• High risk (25%)

• High reward (25%)

• Feasibility (30%)

Members’ ratings for the high risk, high reward and feasibility criteria will determine an overall score for each application. The review panel will meet virtually to discuss the applications. An application with an overall rating of fail for any or all of the fit-to-program, EDI-RP or interdisciplinarity criteria is not considered fundable. The multidisciplinary/multisectoral review committee will agree to a final list ranking all applications according to their overall merit. The ranked list will be used in discussions with the Funding Organizations to determine which applications will be funded. Applications will be funded in order from highest score to lowest. An application in the list will only be skipped in cases where one Funding Organization has no budget remaining to award to it. If there are insufficient funds to support a group of applications of equal merit, the multidisciplinary-multisectoral review panel’s assessment of diversity will be used to prioritise applications from among them for funding.

Funding Organisations This call is supported by selected funders from different countries. Table 1: Funding Organizations Country Funding organization Eligible principal investigators Maximum value per project Contact Canada New Frontiers in Research Fund (NFRF), on behalf of the Canada Research Coordinating Committee and administere d through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Canadian postsecondary researchers eligible to apply to one of the three federal research funding agencies. CA$1,500,000 NFRF-FNFR@chairs-chaires.gc.ca Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Åland Islands. NordForsk The principal investigator must be a qualified researcher with a PhD and employed by the Nordic host institution throughout the duration of the project. The host institution must be eligible to apply to NordForsk under this call. NOK 17,000,000 bjornar.komissar@nordforsk.org kristin.andersen@nordforsk.org Switzerland Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) All Swiss applicants must meet the eligibility requirements of the SNSF. The SNSF Funding Regulations,. the General implementation regulations and the Regulations on Project Funding are applicable or applicable mutatis mutandis Cost-neutral extensions up to one year are possible. Private companies are not eligible for funding. CHF 400,000 International@snf.ch Brazil Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) It depends on the grant modality. A preliminary eligibility check will be required in accordance with FAPESP guidelines. Regular Research grant: BRL$600.000 Thematic Project grant: not limited (but chamada-NFRF@fapesp.br The usual eligibility criteria and restrictions should apply to both Regular and Thematic Grants. exceptionally short duration of 3+1 years). The Netherlands Dutch Research Council (NWO) The eligibility criteria stated in the national annex apply. For NWO funded research the NWO Grant Rules apply. € 760,000 eagle@nwo.nl +31 647 038275 +31 651 803778

Terms and conditions

The Funding Organizations reserve the right to:

• determine the eligibility of applications, based on the information therein;

• interpret the regulations and policies governing their funding opportunities;

• apply conditions to individual grants; and

• alter, without advance notice, the terms and conditions of grant awards, with any and all major changes in regulations being announced promptly.

2026 INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVE FOR RESEARCH HARNESSING DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGY TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CHALLENGES: MERIT INDICATORS FOR THE REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS Using the Matrices

For each criterion, the reviewer is asked to consider relevant elements, which may include a few, several or all of the elements outlined in the matrix. The matrices are intended to be used as a guide. Unless otherwise noted, a proposal does not have to be rated Exceptional against all elements to receive an Exceptional rating for the criterion overall. It is left to the discretion of the reviewer to balance assessments of individual elements and to provide an overall rating per criterion. For the Strength of Consortium, High-Risk, High-Reward, and Feasibility evaluation criteria, the matrices describe four ratings: Exceptional, Very Good, Fair and Poor. However, members can use a seven-point scale in their assessments, selecting ratings that fall between the four described. The seven-point rating scale for the High-Risk, High-Reward and Feasibility evaluation criteria is as follows:

• Exceptional (described)

• Excellent (between Exceptional and Very Good)

• Very Good (described)

• Good (between Very Good and Fair)

• Fair (described)

• Inferior (between Fair and Poor)

• Poor (described)

Criterion: Fit to Program Projects must receive a Pass rating for this criterion to be considered for funding. This Pass/Fail assessment considers whether the minimum requirements are met; proposals will be assessed on how well both elements are addressed within the High Risk and High Reward criteria. FIT TO PROGRAM Pass Fail Focus Disruptive technology, as defined in the competition overview, is central to the project The proposed project directly addresses at least 1 Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) The proposal does not convincingly justify that the technology in question meets the definition of a disruptive technology and/or that the project will directly address 1 or more SDGs

Criterion: Interdisciplinarity To meet the expectation for interdisciplinary projects must pass each of the following elements: INTERDISCIPINARITY RESEARCH Pass Fail Project design Designed from an interdisciplinary perspective. The proposal seems to describe an interdisciplinary component “added on” to a more conventional project or program of research. Integration & Perspective Integrates information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts or theories from two or more disciplines or bodies of specialized knowledge. The project incorporates disciplines from at least two of the three broad areas: natural sciences and engineering; social sciences and humanities; and health and life sciences. Explains how the disciplinary perspectives, methodologies and techniques will be integrated, maintained, and implemented throughout the project The various disciplinary approaches and perspectives are fully integrated; the project is not an amalgamation of disciplinary-specific approaches. The interdisciplinary nature of the project is achieved through an amalgamation of projects or activities that are disciplinary, reflecting a multidisciplinary rather than an interdisciplinary approach. Does not adequately explain how the interdisciplinary will be integrated, implemented and maintained throughout the project. Team The interdisciplinary approach is reflected in the team. The team does not reflect the expertise required to execute the interdisciplinary approach.

Criterion: Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Research Practice1EDI in Research Practice will only be evaluated at the full application stage To meet the program’s expectations for equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in research practice, projects must pass each of the following elements. EQUITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION in RESEARCH PRACTICE Pass Fail Analysis of context Shows understanding of EDI considerations / systemic barriers in the context of the research team. Concrete and specific examples are cited in analysis. Demonstrates a strong commitment to EDI overall. Analysis of context is generic and/or does not point to one or more systemic barriers. Evidence of commitment to EDI overall is lacking. Concrete practice for each area Lists at least one concrete practice that targets the specific context listed for each area. A concrete practice is not listed for one or more of the areas, or the concrete practices listed are not related to the context that was described. Implementation Provides a description of how the concrete practice has been/will be realistically implemented. Careful thought has been given to inclusion considerations in the recruitment, training and mentoring plan. Efforts to establish a diverse team, inclusive working environment and equitable opportunities for all team members are apparent. Strong evidence of accounting for members’ needs and engaging support systems (as necessary) to ensure equitable contributions of each person. Provides no or an unclear description of how the concrete practice will be implemented. The implementation plan is unrealistic or does not offer a well-thought-out plan to address inclusion considerations. Impact Explains how the concrete practice will impact EDI, and describes an appropriate methodology for measuring success, including specific stepwise and overall evaluation criteria. Gives no indication of how the impact will be measured. Does not explain the anticipated impact of the concrete practice on EDI, or how it will be measured.

Reminder: For the remaining four criteria, a seven-point rating can be used in assessments. Criterion: Strength of Project Consortium A project consortium’s strength is defined by the following elements. Note that the evaluation should not be based on the size of the consortium, but rather on whether they have the necessary expertise and a clear plan to work together to achieve the proposed project’s objectives. Exceptional Very Good Fair Poor Integration of Disciplinary and Regional Expertise International team that fully integrates, in a manner that can be a model for other projects, expertise and perspectives from a variety of regions and disciplinary backgrounds, as appropriate, to meet the objectives of the project. International team that integrates expertise and perspectives from a variety of regions and disciplinary backgrounds, as appropriate, to meet the objectives of the project. Team includes expertise and perspectives from more than one region and/or disciplinary background, but the level of integration between the perspectives is not evident. Team is missing expertise and/or perspectives that would have made the project approach more novel, and the outcomes more impactful. Research team The application clearly demonstrates that the research team has the required expertise in all relevant disciplines to meet the objectives. The application demonstrates that the research team likely has the required expertise in all relevant disciplines to help meet the objectives. The application demonstrates that the research team has most of the required expertise, though some aspects may be missing or insufficiently described. The application does not clearly demonstrate that the research team has all the required expertise to complete the work.

Criterion: High Risk Projects that meet the expectation for high risk can be defined by the following elements: HIGH RISK Exceptional Very good Fair Poor Novelty of Approach An exceptionally innovative approach, building on the latest methods, concepts, information and techniques. A significantly innovative approach that incorporates advanced techniques and methodologies from several disciplines. Represents a well-thought-out approach that is an innovative variation on a conventional approach. Represents a conventional approach to the problem. Scientific Rigour Research objectives, design, methodology, and proposed analysis approaches are clearly articulated, comprehensive, and follow best practices that will ensure high quality, reproducible research results Research objectives, design, methodology, and proposed analysis approaches are clear and comprehensive, and mostly follow best practices that will ensure high quality, reproducible research results Research objectives, design, methodology, and proposed analysis approaches are lacking clarity. It is difficult to assess if best practices for high quality research will be followed. There are concerns regarding the quality and rigour of the project due to a lack of clarity in research objectives, design, methodology and/or analysis approaches. Cogent (or: persuasive, plausible) Highly compelling case for why the approach is likely to succeed where others have failed Compelling case for why the approach is plausible and likely to succeed The application is somewhat persuasive in terms of the potential of the approach The application is not convincing in terms of the potential of the approach (Note: The viability of the project plan is assessed under the Feasibility criterion. The focus of this element is on the persuasiveness of the argument.)

Criterion: High Reward Projects that are high reward are those with the potential to contribute to addressing at least 1 SDG, and can be defined by the following elements: HIGH REWARD Exceptional Very good Fair Poor Impact Very significant scientific impact. Significant scientific impact Notable scientific impact Limited scientific impact Very significant economic, artistic, cultural, social, technological or health impact. Significant economic, artistic, cultural, social, technological or health impact. Notable economic, artistic, cultural, social, technological or health impact. Limited economic, artistic, cultural, social, technological or health impact. The substantial change that is likely to result is clearly defined and specific and relates directly to a SDG. The substantial change that is likely to result is clearly described and relates directly to a SDG. The substantial change that is likely to result is described in broadThe anticipated change aligns with a SDG terms. There is lack of clarity or specificity about the substantial change that is likely to result or the change does not relate to a SDG. There is a solid plan to measure the impact, with a focus on implementing, testing and refining solutions to maximize potential impact. There is a sound approach to measure the impact. An implementation, testing and refinement of solutions to maximize impact is planned, though limited in scope. There is a vague approach to measure the impact. An implementation, testing and refinement process to maximize impact is mentioned but not well-described. The proposal lacks a plan or approach to measure the impact. There is no implementation, testing and refinement processes planned to maximize impact. The significance of the stepwise and overall anticipated change is clearly described. The significance of the overall anticipated change is described, but there is lack of detail regarding the stepwise approach. The significance of the anticipated change is broadly described. The significance of the anticipated change is not sufficiently articulated. Reach Major impact on a single or small number of groups, communities or subpopulations, with lessons for other contexts and strong potential for impact on large or multiple communities. Substantial impact on a single or small number or groups, communities or subpopulations, with lessons for others and potential to impact large or multiple communities. Limited impact on a single or small number of groups, communities or subpopulations, with either limited or no lessons for others, or limited impact on multiple communities. No meaningful impact on any groups or communities, with limited or no lessons for others, and no impact on multiple communities. The project is likely to produce effective strategies related to technology, policy, communication, and community engagement, which will encourage implementation in other groups, communities or subpopulations. There are plans to develop strategies related to policy, communication, and community engagement, which should help implementation in other groups, communities or subpopulations. There is mention of plans to develop strategies related to policy, communication, and community engagement, but the plans lack details. There is no mention of plans or means to investigate and develop strategies related to policy, communication and community engagement. Likelihood There is a strong likelihood that the significant impact will be realized. There is a reasonable likelihood that the significant impact will be realized. There is a chance that the significant impact will be realized. It is unlikely that the significant impact will be realized. Potential for knowledge uptake and use is high, as evidenced by thoughtful consideration and involvement of potential users in the co-creation of the research. Knowledge uptake is likely. Potential users are involved in the project. The potential for knowledge uptake is limited. The potential for knowledge uptake is low because there is insufficient engagement of potential users. Short-term benefits Short-term benefits are significant, clearly defined and specific, and a detailed measurement plan is in place. Short-term benefits are notable, clearly described, and a detailed measurement plan is in place. Short-term benefits are described and will be measured, but the measurement plan lacks details. There is a lack of clarity or specificity about the short-term benefits that will result.

Criterion: Feasibility A project’s feasibility is defined by the following elements: FEASIBILITY Exceptional Very Good Fair Poor Building on current knowledge or prior art The application demonstrates that the research team has strong awareness of current and relevant research and prior art or knowledge. The application demonstrates that the research team is aware of most current and relevant research, and prior art or knowledge. The application demonstrates that the research team lacks awareness of relevant research or prior art or knowledge in one aspect/discipline related to the prorject The proposed project does not seem to consider current and relevant research and prior art or knowledge (for example, proposing approaches that have been tested and failed). Work plan The proposed work plan, including the methodological approach, is well described, reasonable and likely to be achievable within the proposed time frame. The proposed work plan, including the methodological approach, is described, reasonable and likely to be mostly achievable within the proposed time frame. The proposed work plan is reasonable. The methodological approach is lacking detail. The project objectives might be met within the proposed time frame. The proposed work plan is not reasonable/feasible. The methodological approach is missing or flawed. It is unlikely that the project objectives will be met within the proposed time frame. EDI Considerations in Research Design (EDI- RD) 1 The overall rating for the Feasibility criterion cannot be higher than the rating of these elements in the matrix. For example, if a reviewer considers most of the elements to be Very Good, but the Approach to co-production or EDI-RD element to be Fair, then the overall rating for Feasibility cannot be higher than Fair. EDI-RD considerations have been integrated into the methodological approach The impact on the. methodological approach and/or design has been clearly described. EDI-RD considerations have been integrated into the methodological approach. The impact on the methodological approach and/or design has been described. EDI-RD considerations have been integrated. The impact on the methodological approach or design has not been described. EDI-RD considerations have not been integrated into methodological approach or design. Approach to co-production with relevant stakeholders Co-creation, co-leadership and co-ownership with relevant stakeholders is clearly integrated in the project’s design Attention to equitable processes and procedures for fair and respectful inclusion of stakeholders is evident. The proposed budget reflects an equitable approach, with funds flowing to engaged communities, where applicable. Positioning for uptake The research is designed with use in mind, with a very well-considered and detailed plan for engagement with stakeholders and end users (including ensuring findings are accessible and user-friendly) The research is designed with use in mind, with a plan for engagement with stakeholders and end users (including ensuring findings are accessible and user-friendly) There is engagement of potential users in the project but no plan to ensure uptake. There is no engagement with potential users and/or no plan to ensure uptake Value for money2Assessed at the full application stage only The proposed project is excellent value for money, proposing efficient and effective use of resources to achieve the intended impact. The proposed project is good value for money, though lacking in some detail to assess the efficient use of resources. The intended impact(s) of the project are acceptable in relation to the level of resources requested. The intended impact of the project is deemed insufficient for the level of resources requested. Environmental Footprint A thorough assessment of the potential environmental impact of the project has been completed, and a sound approach to minimize the environmental footprint is in place. An assessment of the potential environmental impact of the project has been completed, and some consideration as to how to minimize the environmental footprint is evident A limited assessment of the potential environmental impact of the project has been completed, and/or little consideration as to how to minimize the environmental footprint is included No assessment of the potential environmental impact of the project has been completed and/or no consideration has been given as to how to minimize the environmental footprint. Management There are sound plans in place related to: • the administration/ management of the project and grant; • performance measurement; • training (if applicable); and data management. There are sound plans in place related to most of the following: • the administration/ management of the project and grant; • performance measurement; • training (if applicable); and data management. There are sound plans in place related to some of the following: • the administration/ management of the project and grant; • performance measurement; • training (if applicable); and data management. There are a lack of sound plans in place related to: • the administration/ management of the project and grant; • performance measurement; • training (if applicable); and/or data management. Suitability of the research environment The research environment is enriching for and provides numerous opportunities and support for the next generation of researchers. The research environment is enriching for and provides numerous opportunities and support for the next generation of researchers. The research environment is enriching for and provides numerous opportunities and support for the next generation of researchers. The research environment is enriching for and provides numerous opportunities and support for the next generation of researchers. Resources The research team has acquired or has concrete plans to acquire the necessary resources to complete the work. All aspects have been described. The research team has acquired or has concrete plans to acquire the necessary resources to complete the work. Some aspects have not been well described. The application demonstrates that the research team has acquired or has concrete plans to acquire most of the resources to complete the work. Some aspects may be missing or insufficiently described. The application does not clearly demonstrate that the research team has acquired or has concrete plans to acquire the necessary resources to complete the work.

2026 INTERNATIONAL JOINT INITIATIVE FOR RESEARCH HARNESSING DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CHALLENGES: FULL APPLICATION GUIDE On this page

• Completing the Full Application

• Required information

• Submitting a Full Application

• Submitting an application I as the research administrator

• Contact information

This guide is intended to be used in conjunction with the information provided in the 2026 International Joint Initiative for Research Harnessing Disruptive Technologies to Address Global Challenges Competition Overview and Review Process guides. Your application must be received by the funding agency (New Frontiers in Research Fund) by 8:00 p.m. (eastern) on the deadline date. Your institution may have earlier internal deadlines. Check with your research administrator regarding internal deadlines. The research administrator at the institution of the co-principal investigator (co-PI) eligible to receive funding from NFRF is responsible for submitting the full application to the agency. All team members, including the co-PIs and/or co-applicants, should inform the research administrator at their institution (if applicable) of their involvement in the application.

Completing the application To be eligible to create and submit an application, you must have been invited to the full application in the letter of intent to apply (LOI) process, or made a request to the NFRF team within two weeks of receiving the LOI results to continue against the negative advice received.

You must complete the application using the Convergence Portal. The portal is supported only on the latest versions of Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Apple Safari and Mozilla Firefox. The portal may appear to function in other browsers, but technical problems can occur, such as information being improperly captured in the system without the user being aware. Use of an unsupported browser is strongly discouraged. Follow the instructions provided in the Convergence Portal to complete the application. The information needed to complete the application is outlined below. All sections of the application must be completed in the Convergence Portal and submitted via the research administrator at the NFRF-eligible co-PI’s institution. Any new team members (co-PIs and co-applicants) must each complete their own profile before the application is submitted to the research administrator. All co-PIs have full access to all sections of the application. Co-applicants will be able to see all sections of the application but will not have edit access. Only the NFRF-eligible co-PI can finalize and submit the application.

It is the responsibility of the co-PIs to verify the page lengths and formatting of any uploaded attachments. Should a submitted application contain one or more attachments that do not comply with the page length or formatting standard, the application may be withdrawn from the competition

All attachments must adhere to the following requirements below:

1. Any acronyms and abbreviations must be explained.

2. Pages must be 8 ½" x 11" (216 mm x 279 mm).

3. Text must be single-spaced, with no more than six lines of type per inch.

4. All text must be in black, using the 11 pt Arial font; condensed fonts will not be accepted.

5. Margins must be set at a minimum of ¾" (1.87 cm).

6. In multi-page attachments, pages must be numbered sequentially.

7. The application identification number (i.e., NFRFx-xxxx-xxxxx) must appear at the top of each page of the attachment.

8. No personally identifying information should be included in the headers and/or footers (e.g., name, PIN, institution, etc.).

9. The name of the document must appear at the top (e.g., Literature References).

10. Tables, graphics and charts can be included. They must comply with the above text formatting requirements (e.g., minimum font size) and fit within the page limits of the relevant document.

Required information All relevant information from the letter of intent (LOI) will be prepopulated into the full application. Additional team members may be added at this stage and information updated for existing members, if needed. Profiles for any additional members of the research team

Complete profiles include (see the NOI guide for more detail):

a. Completed eligibility profile

b. Fields of research and keywords

c. Equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) self-identification

After co-PIs and co-applicants have completed their profile, they will be listed in the Participants screen with a status of “Complete.” While a participant’s status may show as “Accepted” in the List of Invitations, a status of “Pending eligibility” in the Participants screen indicates that they have not completed their profile. Full Application content This includes all information in the LOI (updated as necessary) as well as:

a. Any changes to the list of collaborators (additions or deletions)

b. Certifications, licenses and permits Answer the questions as they relate to the proposed research project. Consult the Requirements for Certain Types of Research for more information or clarification, if needed. With the exception of research taking place outdoors, which may require submission of an Impact Assessment at the time of application (follow the instructions in the Portal), no forms or certifications are required at the time of application. If you are awarded a grant, the necessary certification requirements must be met in accordance with the Agreementon the Administration of Agency Grants and Awards by Research Institutions

c. Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Research Practice (EDI-RP) Applications must not include any self-identifying information about members of the research team in the EDI-RP section. Focus on the team’s commitment to EDI, not on its EDI profile. See NFRF’s Best Practices in Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Research guide for more details. Applicants may draw on institutional EDI policies and practices where these exist, but they must be tailored to the particular context of the fields and teams involved. Applicants are encouraged to be specific and concise. In this section, provide the following:

1. Information about the team’s specific circumstances related to EDI-RP, including identification of structural biases that could affect members of underrepresented groups (character limit: 2500);

2. the best practices that will be applied to each of the following elements (character limit: 250):

■ team composition and recruitment processes

■ training and development opportunities

■ inclusion

For each, a brief explanation must be provided, including: how each practice applies to the team’s specific context; how it will be implemented; the expected impacts; and how the impacts will be measured (character limit: 2500). Information that reveals team members’ affiliations (including departments, lab groups, etc.) can be included in this section, if relevant.

d. Supporting documents

1. Proposal (maximum 20 pages if written in English; maximum 24 pages if written in French) Applications may be written in either English or French, Canada’s official languages. The following sections must be included in one document and uploaded following the instructions for attachments. The page limits indicated for each section are suggestions, but the maximum limit of 20 pages for proposals written in English or 24 pages for proposals written in French is firm. The order of the sections must be followed, and the use of headings is highly encouraged. Use language that can be understood by a multidisciplinary review panel.

• Introduction/overview (maximum 2 pages if written in English; maximum 2.4 pages if written in French)

○ Identify the technology involved and explain how it meets the competition definition of disruptive technology.

○ Describe which Sustainable Development Goal(s) the project will address and how it will be addressed from an interdisciplinary and trans-sectoral perspective.

○ Explain the approach to addressing the challenge and its potential to have real and lasting change.

○ Describe any stakeholder engagement and how the proposal has been co-developed (if applicable)

• Biographical information about team members (maximum 4 pages if written in English; maximum 4.8 pages if written in French) Applicants must protect the privacy and confidentiality of all team members. Do not provide information about the composition of the research team in a way that can reveal any member’s personal information (i.e., race, colour, place of origin, religion, immigrant and newcomer status, ethnic origin, ability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and age). Refer to the Best Practices in Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Guide for guidelines on privacy and confidentiality.

○ Provide an overview of the research team, demonstrating that it has the required knowledge, background and expertise to execute the interdisciplinary approach.

○ Identify the anticipated contributions of each team member (co-PIs, co-applicants and collaborators, as applicable) and explain how their contributions will be coordinated and integrated.

○ If a team member’s self-identification (gender, Indigenous identity, disability or racial background) is relevant to the research project, that self-identifying information may be included here, but only with their consent.

• Research proposal (maximum 8 pages if written in English; maximum 9.6 pages if written in French, including diagrams and illustrations)

○ Describe the proposed research project, outlining the major short-, medium- and long-term changes that are expected, the likelihood of their achievement, and who (or what) will be impacted by the changes.

○ Describe the anticipated scientific impact of the project.

○ Describe the anticipated societal impact of the project.

○ Describe the research methodology and design, including:

■ how interdisciplinary perspectives will be applied and integrated;

■ how they relate to current and relevant research, prior art or knowledge;

■ how the approach minimizes the environmental footprint of the research.

○ Provide a work plan with a timeline.

○ Discuss the approach to co-production with relevant stakeholders (if applicable); and

○ Describe how the project will engage with stakeholders and end users and other measures the project will use to position the research for uptake.

○ Explain how the methodological design has been informed by EDI in research design (if appropriate)

• Management plans (maximum 3 pages if written in English; maximum 3.6 pages if written in French)

○ Describe how various aspects of the project will be managed, including:

■ governance/management approach (how the project will be managed and the grant administered);

■ performance measurement plan, including risk assessment and management and results frameworks (how achievement of short-, medium-and long-term anticipated outcomes will be monitored and assessed according to established indicators and timelines; mitigation plans);

■ data management (how research data from the project will be managed and safeguarded; for guidance on research data management considerations to include in the research proposal, refer to the NFRF Research Data Management page); and

■ training (the training, development and mentoring plan for students and other highly qualified personnel).

• Budget justification (maximum 3 pages, if written in English; maximum 3.6 pages if written in French)

○ Provide a breakdown and explanation of the direct costs of the project. Use a separate section to justify the funds requested from each Funding Organization. Provide sufficient information to allow reviewers to assess the appropriateness of the requested resources and the value for money. Describe how funds will flow to/support team members/communities in non-Funding Organization countries (if applicable). If needed, this section can also describe other resources, including funding, materials or equipment that will also contribute to the project.

2. Budget table Use the budget table provided in the Supporting Documents section. The document must be downloaded, filled in, then uploaded as a pdf. Enter the planned amount of funds to be spent in each category (direct and indirect costs) for each year of the project, as well as the level of in-kind support anticipated. There are three tables on each tab, one each for direct costs, indirect costs and in-kind support. The three tables should be completed for each Funding Organization from which funding is requested; a different tab should be used for each. Applicants are encouraged to ensure that the requested amounts conform to the policies of the relevant Funding Organization, including related to eligible expenses and maximum total amount requested.

• Funding and costs requested by São Paulo researcher(s) to FAPESP must be in accordance with FAPESP norms for Thematic research projects

3. Literature references (maximum 5 pages if written in English; maximum 6 pages if written in French) Provide a list of literature references cited in the application. This document will be uploaded separately from the proposal.

4. Supplementary information for Funding Organizations (if applicable) FAPESP (Brazil), the National Science and Technology Council (Taiwan), Research Ireland, and SNSF (Switzerland) require additional documents for determining applicant eligibility, such as CVs, to be uploaded at the full application stage for any additional team members. See each organization’s funding annex for details on what is required and the correct format.

5. Other documents Any additional information requested by Funding Organizations (see Annexes) may be uploaded here.

Submitting the Application

Only the NFRF-eligible co-PI is able to submit the application. Review the application to ensure that it is complete. From the Finalize Application section in the Convergence Portal, follow the prompts to submit the application. After accepting the terms and conditions, the status of your submission will change to Received by Administrator. If you want to make any changes at this point, you may request that your research administrator return the application to you. Once your research administrator has approved and submitted your application, the application status will change to Received by Agency. No changes can be made at that point, and the application will not be returned to you.

Submitting the Application as the research administrator

When you receive an application submitted by a NFRF-eligible co-PI at your institution, you will be asked to approve the application and submit it. Before being able to submit the application, the research administrator, on behalf of the institution, will be required to confirm that:

• the NFRF-eligible participants meet the eligibility requirements; and

• the proposed research project meets the eligibility requirements.

Contact information

If you have questions:

• about the NFRF program, contact NFRF-FNFR@chairs-chaires.gc.ca

• about the Convergence Portal, contact the Online Services Helpdesk at websupport@convergence.gc.ca or 613-995-4273

FUNDING ORGANISATIONS This call is supported by selected funders from different countries.

Canada New Frontiers in Research Fund (NFRF), administered by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) on behalf of all three Canadian federal granting agencies. International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Fonds de recherche du Québec (FRQ)

Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Åland Islands. NordForsk

The Netherlands Dutch Research Council (NWO)

Ireland Taighde Éireann – Research Ireland

Brazil Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP)

Switzerland Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF)

United Kingdom UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)

Spain Spanish State Research Agency (AEI)

Taiwan National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)

2026 INTERNATIONAL JOINT INITIATIVE FOR RESEARCH HARNESSING DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CHALLENGES: LETTER OF INTENT TO APPLY GUIDE Note: Applicants and research administrators are encouraged to attend one of the information webinars to learn how to complete the letter of intent to apply (LOI) and about the overall international initiative application process. Webinars are recorded and made available after the session. On this page

• Before completing a LOI

• Completing the LOI

• Required information

• Submitting a LOI

• Submitting the LOI as the research administrator

• Contact information

This guide is intended to be used in conjunction with the information provided in the 2026 International Joint Initiative for Research Harnessing Disruptive Technologies to Address Global Challenges Competition Overview and Review Process guides. Your LOI must be received by the funding agency (New Frontiers in Research Fund) by 8:00 p.m. (eastern) on the deadline date. Your institution may have earlier internal deadlines. Check with your research administrator regarding internal deadlines. The research administrator at the institution of the co-principal investigator (co-PI) eligible to receive funding from NFRF is responsible for submitting the LOI to the agency. All team members, including the co-PIs and/or co-applicants, should inform the research administrator at their institution (if applicable) of their involvement in the application.

Completing the LOI You must have submitted a notice of intent to apply (NOI) by the deadline to be eligible to create and submit an LOI. You must complete the LOI using the Convergence Portal. The portal is supported only on the latest versions of Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Apple Safari and Mozilla Firefox. The portal may appear to function in other browsers, but technical problems can occur, such as information being improperly captured in the system without the user being aware. Use of an unsupported browser is strongly discouraged. Follow the instructions provided in the Convergence Portal to complete the LOI. The information needed to complete the LOI is outlined below. All sections of the LOI must be completed in the Convergence Portal and submitted via the research administrator at the NFRF-eligible co-PI’s institution. The co-PIs and co-applicants, if applicable, must each complete their own profile before the LOI is submitted to the research administrator. All co-PIs have full access to all sections of the LOI. Co-applicants will be able to see all sections of the LOI but will not have edit access. Only the NFRF-eligible co-PI can finalize and submit the LOI. It is the responsibility of the co-PIs to verify the page lengths and formatting of any uploaded attachments. Should a submitted application contain one or more attachments that do not comply with the page length or formatting standard, the application may be withdrawn from the competition.

All attachments must adhere to the following requirements below:

1. Any acronyms and abbreviations must be explained.

2. Pages must be 8 ½" x 11" (216 mm x 279 mm).

3. Text must be single-spaced, with no more than six lines of type per inch.

4. All text must be in black, using the 11 pt Arial font; condensed fonts will not be accepted.

5. Margins must be set at a minimum of ¾" (1.87 cm).

6. In multi-page attachments, pages must be numbered sequentially.

7. The application identification number (i.e., NFRFx-xxxx-xxxxx) must appear at the top of each page of the attachment.

8. No personally identifying information should be included in the headers and/or footers (e.g., name, PIN, institution, etc.).

9. The name of the document must appear at the top (e.g., Literature References).

10. Tables, graphics and charts can be included. They must comply with the above text formatting requirements (e.g., minimum font size) and fit within the page limits of the relevant document.

Required information The following information is required to complete a LOI: Profiles for any additional members of the research team

Complete profiles include (see the NOI guide for more detail):

a. Completed eligibility profile

b. Fields of research and keywords

c. Equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) self-identification

After co-PIs and co-applicants have completed their profile, they will be listed in the Participants screen with a status of “Complete.” While a participant’s status may show as “Accepted” in the List of Invitations, a status of “Pending eligibility” in the Participants screen indicates that they have not completed their profile. LOI content This includes all information in the NOI (updated as necessary) as well as:

a. Any changes to the list of collaborators (additions or deletions)

b. Reviewer exclusions (if applicable) The team can suggest individuals who should not be considered to review the proposal.

c. Equity, diversity and inclusion in research design (EDI-RD) Indicate whether EDI considerations are appropriate for the project and whether they have been integrated into the proposed research. If the team believes no EDI considerations are applicable to the research design, provide a rationale for this. These fields must be completed before your application can be submitted.

d. Proposed Budget Fill in the table with the total funding amount requested each year from the relevant Funding Organization in the appropriate currency. Ensure that the amount requested is less than the maximum allowable amount as noted in the Funding Organization annexes.

e. Supporting documents. Each of these documents is uploaded as a separate attachment following the instructions for attachments.

1. Research proposal (including diagrams and illustrations: maximum 10 pages if written in English; maximum 12 pages if written in French). The research proposal should address the points below. The allocation of space and the order are not prescribed. The use of headings is highly encouraged

a. Disruptive Technology

• Explain how the technology involved meets the competition definition of disruptive technology and how it is central to the project.

b. Interdisciplinarity and trans-sectoral approach

• Describe the interdisciplinary and trans-sectoral nature of the proposed approach.

• Explain who will bring the different disciplinary and sectoral perspectives to the project and how they will be integrated.

c. Feasibility

• Provide a brief overview of the work plan, including the methodological approach.

• Indicate how EDI-RD considerations impacted the methodological approach.

• Describe the plan for engagement with stakeholders and end users.

d. Anticipated impact/global challenge

• Outline the Sustainable Development Goal(s) that the proposed work addresses.

• Describe the anticipated impact of the proposed work and the significance of the change, including short-term benefits and impacts that may occur after the project lifecycle.

• Specify the likelihood that the impact will be realized and provide an explanation.

2. References (maximum 5 pages if written in English; maximum 6 pages if written in French) Applicants are strongly encouraged to include only the main references required to support the proposal

3. Supplementary information for Funding Organizations (if applicable) FAPESP (Brazil), the National Science and Technology Council (Taiwan), Research Ireland, and SNSF (Switzerland) require additional documents for determining applicant eligibility, such as CVs, to be uploaded at the LOI stage for any new team members. See each organization’s funding annex for details on what is required and the correct format.

Submitting the LOI

Only the NFRF-eligible co-PI is able to submit the LOI. Review the LOI to ensure that it is complete. From the Finalize Application section in the Convergence Portal, follow the prompts to submit the LOI.

After accepting the terms and conditions, the status of your submission will change to Received by Administrator. If you want to make any changes at this point, you may request that your research administrator return the application to you. Once your research administrator has approved and submitted your application, the application status will change to Received by Agency. No changes can be made at that point, and the LOI will not be returned to you.

Submitting the LOI as the research administrator When you receive a LOI submitted by a NFRF-eligible co-PI at your institution, you will be asked to approve the application and submit it. Before being able to submit the application, the research administrator, on behalf of the institution, will be required to confirm that:

• the NFRF-eligible participants meet the eligibility requirements; and

• the proposed research project meets the eligibility requirements.

Contact information

If you have questions:

• about the NFRF program, contact NFRF-FNFR@chairs-chaires.gc.ca

• about the Convergence Portal, contact the Online Services Helpdesk at websupport@convergence.gc.ca or 613-995-4273

2026 INTERNATIONAL JOINT INITIATIVE FOR RESEARCH HARNESSING DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CHALLENGES: NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPLY GUIDE Note: Applicants and research administrators are encouraged to attend one of the information webinars hosted by NFRF to learn how to complete the notice of intent to apply (NOI) and about the overall international initiative application process. Webinars are recorded and made available after the session. On this page

• Before completing a NOI

• Completing the NOI

• Required information

• Submitting a NOI

• Submitting the NOI as the research administrator

• Contact information

This guide is intended to be used in conjunction with the information provided in the 2026 International Joint Initiative for Research Harnessing Disruptive Technologies to Address Global Challenges Competition Overview and Review Process guides. Your NOI must be received by the funding agency (New Frontiers in Research Fund) by 8:00 p.m. (eastern) on the deadline date. Your institution may have earlier internal deadlines. Check with your research administrator regarding internal deadlines. The research administrator at the institution of the co-principal investigator (co-PI) eligible to receive funding from NFRF is responsible for submitting the NOI to the agency. All team members, including the co-PIs and/or co-applicants, should inform the research administrator at their institution (if applicable) of their involvement in the application.

Before completing a notice of intent to apply (NOI)

• Read the 2026 International Joint Initiative for Research Harnessing Disruptive Technologies to Address Global Challenges Competition Overview to ensure your project fits this funding opportunity.

• See the eligibility section to ensure you are eligible to apply as a co-PI or co-applicant. Participants who do not meet the eligibility criteria, including by participating on more than one application as a co-PI, may have their status changed or be removed from the application. If none of the co-PIs is eligible to receive funds from NFRF, the application will be withdrawn from the competition.

• If you are the NFRF-eligible co-PI, consult the research administrator at your institution’s research grants office about internal deadlines. The research administrator at your institution is responsible for submitting your NOI by 8:00 p.m. (eastern) on the deadline date. Late NOIs will not be accepted. An NOI cannot be changed after the research administrator has submitted it.

• Check that your proposed project meets all the basic eligibility requirements:

○ The team consists of at minimum of 3 co-PIs, with a project lead identified

■ Each co-PI is participating in only this project in this competition as co-PI

○ The team, as a whole, is eligible to receive funding from at least 3 different Funding Organizations

■ At least one co-PI is eligible to receive funding from each selected Funding Organization

■ At least one co-PI is eligible to apply for funding from NFRF

○ The proposed project is interdisciplinary, involving disciplines from at least two of the following three areas:

■ Natural sciences and engineering

■ Social sciences and humanities

■ Health and life sciences

○ The project focuses on harnessing disruptive technology, as defined in the call overview.

○ The project will clearly address at least one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, or can justify how it addresses another global challenge

Completing the NOI You must complete the NOI using the Convergence Portal. The portal is supported only on the latest versions of Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Apple Safari and Mozilla Firefox. The portal may appear to function in other browsers, but technical problems can occur, such as information being improperly captured in the system without the user being aware. Use of an unsupported browser is strongly discouraged. If you do not have a profile on the Convergence Portal, you will be prompted to create one the first time you access it. If you have a Research Portal account, you can use the same username and password to log into the Convergence Portal. If you are not sure that you have already created a Convergence Portal account, please contact NFRF staff. Follow the instructions provided in the Convergence Portal to complete the NOI. The information needed to complete the NOI is outlined below. All sections of the NOI must be completed in the Convergence Portal and submitted via the research administrator at the NFRF-eligible co-PI’s institution. The co-PIs and co-applicants, if applicable, must each complete their own profile before the NOI is submitted to the research administrator. All co-PIs have full access to all sections of the NOI. Co-applicants will be able to see all sections of the NOI but will not have edit access. Only the NFRF-eligible co-PI can initialize, finalize and submit the NOI. Required information The following information is required to complete a NOI: Completed profiles for research team members

Applications to this call must be submitted by a team of at least three co-principal investigators and any number of co-applicants. Each project team must be eligible to receive funds from at least three Funding Organizations. Additional team members (co-PIs, co-applicants and/or collaborators) can be added at this stage or at the letter of intent and/or full application stages. Each team member must include the following in their profile:

a. Eligibility profile Information about their participation in any other International Joint Initiative application, their consent for the application to be shared with other Funding Organizations, as well as affiliations and the eligibility of their institution.

b. Equity, diversity and inclusion In setting up their profile, each participant must complete the equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) self-identification form. The Canadian funding agencies collect self-identification data to monitor the equity of their programs and strengthen EDI in the research enterprise. The questions are framed from the Canadian perspective and may not be applicable to all participants. You may select “Prefer not to answer” for any or all questions. The self-identification information is collected as part of your user profile when you register in the Convergence Portal. It is not part of your application and is not accessible to, or shared with, reviewers. Access to the information is also restricted to most agency staff; the information is only used in aggregate following competitions.

c. Fields of research The fields of research here relate to the individual’s area of expertise and do not need to be directly related to the project. They should select a minimum of two fields of research (maximum of five), of which at least one must be a primary area of research.

d. Keywords Individuals should list between two and 10 keywords that best describe their main areas of research.

a. Application title Provide a short, descriptive title that can be used for publication purposes. You can use common abbreviations (e.g., DNA), but avoid uncommon or discipline-specific abbreviations, as well as company and trade names.

b. Language of the application Indicate whether the NOI, LOI, and full application will be written in English or French (Canada’s official languages). This information helps reviewer recruitment efforts. Note that you may change this between the stages.

c. Indigenous research Indicate whether the project involves Indigenous research.

d. Keywords List between five and 10 keywords to describe the proposed research.

e. Up to five fields of research Select the fields of research from the Canadian Research and Development Classification (CRDC) codes that relate to the proposed research. You must include at least two disciplines as primary fields of research (as defined by a group-level classification based on the CRDC codes).

f. Summary of the proposal (maximum 2,500 characters) Include the objectives of the proposed project and a summary of the approach. Describe how disruptive technology is central to the project. Indicate which of the SDGs the proposal addresses and how the anticipated changes and impacts will contribute to addressing a global challenge. If your application is successful, this summary may be used for promotional purposes outside the research community to inform the government, media and members of the public who request information about research funded by this call.

g. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Indicate to which SDG(s) the research related.

h. Funding Organizations – Supplement/Joint Initiative Indicate from which Funding Organizations you are seeking funding support for this project. A minimum of 3 Funding Organizations must be selected. At least one co-PI must be eligible to receive funds from each of the selected partners.

i. Participants Identify the co-PI who will act as Project Lead for the project overall

j. Collaborators List the collaborators on the project. Collaborators do not need to create an account in the Portal.

k. Socio-economic objectives Select the socio-economic objective from the CRDC codes that relate to the potential outcomes of the research. This selection is for information purposes only and will not be used in the review process.

l. Supporting documents (if applicable). Each of these documents is uploaded as a separate attachment following the instructions for attachments. FAPESP (Brazil), the National Science and Technology Council (Taiwan), Research Ireland, and SNSF (Switzerland), NWO (The Netherlands) require additional documents for determining applicant eligibility, such as CVs, to be uploaded at the NOI stage. See each organization’s funding annex for details on what is required and the correct format.

Submitting the NOI

Only the NFRF-eligible co-PI is able to submit the NOI. Review the NOI to ensure that it is complete. From the Finalize Application section in the Convergence Portal, follow the prompts to submit the NOI.

Submitting the NOI as the research administrator

When you receive a NOI submitted by a NFRF-eligible co-PI at your institution, you will be asked to approve the application and submit it. Before being able to submit the application, the research administrator, on behalf of the institution, will be required to confirm that:

• the NFRF-eligible participants meet the eligibility requirements; and

• the proposed research project meets the eligibility requirements.

Contact information

If you have questions:

• about the NFRF program, contact NFRF-FNFR@chairs-chaires.gc.ca

• about the Convergence Portal, contact the Online Services Helpdesk at websupport@convergence.gc.ca or 613-995-4273

INTERNATIONAL JOINT INITIATIVE FOR RESEARCH HARNESSING DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CHALLENGES: REVIEW PROCESS

This document describes the review process for the 2026 International Joint Initiative for Research Harnessing Disruptive Technologies to Address Global Challenges. It is intended to explain the review process and provide a guide for reviewers involved in the assessment of applications. The International Joint Initiative for Research Harnessing Disruptive Technologies to Address Global Challenges represents a collaboration among research funders from the Åland Islands, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom to support international, interdisciplinary, and transformative research aimed at harnessing disruptive technology to address major global societal challenges. Applicants involved in Distributed Peer Review (DPR) and members of the multidisciplinary/multisectoral review panel are required to read the relevant sections of this document before beginning to review applications assigned to them. Please ask for clarification on any subject from NFRF program staff at any time.

Overview of the International Joint Initiative for Research Harnessing Disruptive Technologies to Address Global Challenges

Competition stages

To apply to this call, teams must submit a notice of intent to apply (NOI) by March 3, 2026. The research team must then submit a letter of intent to apply (LOI) by June 9, 2026. Selected applicants will be invited to submit a full application by November 3, 2026. The review process occurs in three stages, as depicted in Figure 1. NOIs will be used for administrative purposes to assess the eligibility of team members to apply for funding from the selected Funding Organizations LOIs will be reviewed using a Distributed Peer Review (DPR) process Full applications will be assessed by members of the multidisciplinary/multisectoral review panel

Figure 1: Summary of review process Principles of Merit Review LOIs are reviewed by applicants in a DPR process. Full applications are assessed by members of the multidisciplinary/multisectoral review panel. Review panel members and applicants acting as peer reviewers are all considered to be “reviewers”, to whom the following principles apply. Fairness The success of the merit review system depends on the willingness and ability of all reviewers in the process to be fair and reasonable; to exercise rigorous judgment; and to understand–and consider in a balanced way–the context of each application. Bias All reviewers are asked to consistently guard against the possibility of conscious or unconscious bias influencing the decision-making process, whether this bias is based on a school of thought; fundamental versus applied research; certain subdisciplines; areas of research or approaches (including emerging ones); size or reputation of an institution; size of the consortium; or the age, personal factors, sex or gender of the applicants. All reviewers are cautioned against judging an application based on these factors. Before review panel members are able to view any applications, they must first complete the required Unconscious Bias Training Module. Conflict of interest and confidentiality The Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations ensures the effective management of conflict of interest of any participant in the review process and, during the review process, ensures the confidentiality of personal and commercial information submitted to the program. Conflict of interest

Reviewers are responsible for evaluating the merits of applications assigned to them for review, except for those for which they have a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is a conflict between a person’s duties and responsibilities as a participant in the review process and that person’s private, professional, business or public interests. There may be a real, perceived or potential conflict of interest when the review panel member, external reviewer, referee or observer:

• would benefit professionally or personally if the application being reviewed is successful or unsuccessful;

• has a professional or personal relationship with any of the applicants (this includes nominated principal investigators, co-principal investigators, co-applicants and collaborators) or applicants’ institutions; or

• has a direct or indirect financial interest in the application being reviewed.

A conflict of interest may be deemed or perceived to exist when a reviewer or observer:

• is a relative or close friend, or has a personal relationship with any of the applicants;

• could gain or lose financially/materially from the success of the application;

• has had longstanding scientific or personal differences with any of the applicants;

• is currently affiliated with any of the applicants’ institutions, organizations or companies–

○ including research hospitals and research institutes;

• is professionally affiliated with any of the applicants as a result of having, in the last six years:

○ had frequent and regular interactions with any of the applicants while carrying out their duties at their department, institution, organization or company;

○ been a supervisor or a trainee of any of the applicants;

○ collaborated, published or shared funding with any of the applicants, or made plans to do so soon; or

○ been employed by any of the applicants’ institutions; and/or

• feels for any reason unable to impartially review the application.

All reviewers are subject to the same conflict of interest guidelines. If any of these situations apply, the reviewer must declare a conflict of interest. NFRF staff are responsible for resolving areas of uncertainty. A conflict of interest can be declared at any time during the competition cycle. Please contact NFRF program staff if your conflict of interest status changes.

Confidentiality

The information included by applicants in their applications is protected by Canada’s Privacy Act and is provided for the purposes of review only. Details of the application, scoring and recommendation for a specific application are confidential and must never be divulged. Under no circumstances should reviewers disclose to anyone the recommendations from the scoring; this also applies after the competition is over and award recipients are announced. Recommendations made by the review panel are subject to approval and may be changed for reasons of budget, administrative error or lack of full adherence to policies. Review panel members and peer reviewers are asked not to communicate any information about the review of a specific application or offer to applicants or anyone outside of the panel to share opinions on the applicants’ chances of success or failure. In turn, applicants are not to contact review panel members or peer reviewers regarding the status of their applications (ratings, rank, etc.). By law, applicants have access to their own application files. Therefore, all written materials used in evaluating an application are made available to the applicants when they are notified of the funding decision. This does not include any notes or feedback a reviewer has provided that were not shared in writing with other reviewers.

Roles and responsibilities Peer Reviewers (Applicants in a co-PI role)

For this competition, all co-Principal Investigators (co-PIs) must be available and willing to act as reviewers at the LOI stage. Selected co-PIs will receive a maximum of 10 LOIs to review. The reviewer is expected to carefully read all the assigned proposals, rate them and provide thorough feedback following the rules and guidelines that will go to the applicants. Specific responsibilities of peer reviewers include:

• ensuring that they follow the program’s Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations before, during and after the evaluations;

• ensuring the integrity and quality of the merit review process, and that each application gets a fair assessment (free of bias and equitable to all applicants) based on the evaluation of all criteria;

• participating in preparatory information sessions before conducting evaluations;

• reviewing, in depth, the applications assigned to them;

• providing ratings for applications assigned to them by the deadline;

• providing thorough feedback to applicants; and

• ensuring that all review materials provided are handled safely and disposed of according to program policy.

Note that fulfilment of these responsibilities is an eligibility requirement for the Full Application stage. The outcome of the peer review stage is a ranked list that is used to identify the project teams to be invited to submit a full application.

Multidisciplinary/Multisectoral Review Panel

A multidisciplinary/multisectoral review panel composed of international members with expertise across a broad range of research disciplines and sectors will evaluate the applications. To uphold the call’s commitment to EDI and to ensure the highest quality of review, members of the panel will be diverse, taking into consideration factors such as area of expertise; sector; language; diversity; region; institution size; career stage; knowledge of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) best practices; and experience in research by and with Indigenous Peoples and vulnerable groups. Members are selected to ensure the panel has the capacity to review applications in both of Canada’s official languages. The review panel recommends which applications should be funded and prepares a ranked list of applications based on their relative merit.

Members

Review panel members evaluate applications and, with other members, make recommendations based on their assessments. Specific responsibilities of members include:

• ensuring that they follow the program’s Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations before, during and after the evaluations and/or meeting;

• completing the online training module on unconscious bias in peer review;

• participating in preparatory meetings/discussions and information sessions before conducting evaluations and attending the meeting;

• reviewing, in depth, the applications assigned to them;

• ensuring that all documents are considered in their assessments;

• providing ratings for applications assigned to them by the deadline;

• ensuring availability to attend meetings during the designated days;

• participating in the review of applications assigned to them by providing a verbal assessment to the panel during the meeting, where applicable;

• preparing feedback to applicants; and

• ensuring that all review materials provided are handled safely and disposed of according to program policy.

Co-chairs

Co-chairs are responsible for ensuring that the multidisciplinary/multisectoral review panel deliberations function smoothly, effectively and objectively, according to the call’s policies. The co-chairs establish a positive, constructive and fair-minded environment in which the applications are evaluated. They fulfill an oversight role and participate in the review of applications. The co-chairs’ responsibilities include:

• ensuring that the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations is followed before, during and after the meeting;

• ensuring the integrity and quality of the merit review process, and that each application receives a fair assessment (free of bias and equitable to all applicants) based on the evaluation of all criteria;

• completing the online training module on unconscious bias in peer review;

• participating in preparatory meetings/discussions and information sessions before the merit review meeting;

• including all assigned members in the discussion of applications;

• ensuring that all documents are considered in the panel’s assessments;

• guiding the panel to discuss and come to a consensus on diversity considerations, where applicable;

• assisting with the preparation of feedback to applicants, where applicable;

• contributing to discussions on policy issues; and

• ensuring that all confidential review materials provided to them are handled safely and disposed of according to program policy.

Joint Initiative for Harnessing Disruptive Technologies to Address Global Challenges Funding Organizations’ Committee The Committee consists of representatives of each Funding Organization involved in the multilateral international initiative. The Committee receives recommendations from the multidisciplinary/multisectoral review panel and identifies projects to be recommended to be funded, considering the ranked order of applications following merit review, the funding requested in each application, and the funding available from each Organization. The Committee members, on behalf of their organizations, also ensure the evaluation process is rigorous, objective and transparent, in keeping with the standards of excellence expected by the Funding Organizations and consistent with the call’s objectives. NFRF staff

NFRF staff are responsible for delivering the competition according to the policies and processes of the call. The staff’s responsibilities include:

• ensuring that the peer reviewers and panel follow the program’s Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations before, during and after the review meeting;

• ensuring the integrity and quality of the merit review process and that each application gets a fair assessment (free of bias and equitable to all applicants) based on the evaluation of all criteria;

• assigning applications to reviewers;

• providing advice and guidance on the program’s policies;

• ensuring that all documents are considered in the peer reviewers and panel’s assessments;

• keeping notes on procedural aspects of the panel’s functions;

• recording diversity considerations of the panel for each application, where applicable;

• working with the co-chairs to manage conflicts of interest, where applicable;

• recording concerns raised by the panel on issues requiring subsequent attention by staff;

• ensuring that all review materials provided are handled safely and disposed of according to program policy; and

• facilitating the final approval of recommended applications.

Review process Letter of Intent stage

The purpose of the LOI stage if to identify the most meritorious proposals to be invited to submit full applications, while adhering to the principles of merit review.

Review Timeline Date Milestone June 9, 2026 LOI deadline June 23, 2026 Reviewers receive assignments June 30, 2026 Deadline for reviewers to indicate conflicts of interest August 7, 2026 Deadline for reviewers to submit scores August 26, 2026 LOI results released

Evaluation by Peer Reviewers (DPR)

Letters of intent to apply (LOIs) will be evaluated using a distributed peer review process (DPR). In DPR, applicants are also the reviewers and review other proposals submitted to the same funding opportunity. By submitting a LOI, applicants agree to act as reviewers and to have their proposal reviewed by other applicants to the call. For this competition, all co-Principal Investigators (co-PIs) must be available and willing to act as reviewers. Please note that by submitting a LOI, you accept the following terms and conditions:

• Selected co-PIs will receive a maximum of 10 LOIs to review;

• the reviewer is expected to carefully read all the assigned proposals, rate them and provide thorough feedback following the rules and guidelines that will go to the applicants;

Applications submitted in French may be translated into English before being shared with reviewers to ensure all co-PIs are able to review fairly. Assignment Each application is assigned to a minimum of 10 peer reviewers. Institutional conflicts of interest will be considered in assigning applications. By using different reviewer clusters and an allocation algorithm, LOIs will be assigned to reviewers in such a way that the reviewer’s assessment of other LOIs have no bearing on the outcome of the reviewer’s own proposal. Check for conflicts of interest Shortly after the deadline, peer reviewers will receive an email informing them that their list of assignments is ready. Reviewers are asked to log in to the Convergence Portal, review the summary of each of their assigned applications in the “Ability to Review” tab, and indicate if there is a conflict of interest. Once a reviewer has checked all assigned applications for conflicts, they immediately gain access to the applications for which they are not in conflict in the “Committee Assignments” tab. Any problems should be brought to the attention of NFRF program staff as soon as possible, or at any point in the process. Assessment

Reviewers will have access to all sections of the NOI and LOI (except the participants’ personal profiles; reviewer exclusions; and certifications.). The reviewers will assess proposals against the following selection criteria:

• fit to program (pass/fail)

• interdisciplinarity (pass/fail)

• strength of project consortium (30%)

• high risk (25%)

• high reward (25%)

• feasibility (20%)

Reviewers can assign one of seven ratings for the high risk, high reward and feasibility criteria (see Merit indicators). In assessing feasibility, reviewers must consider the approach to Indigenous research (if applicable) and EDI considerations in the research design. Reviewers will provide written comments for all applications they review.

Results

Reviewers’ ratings for the strength of project consortium, high risk, high reward and feasibility criteria will determine an overall score for each application. The final rating by criterion will be determined by the mean of members’ individual ratings for the criteria, after removing the highest and lowest scores that each application received. The overall score for an application is a weighted average of the final rating by criterion: 30% strength of project consortium, 25% high risk, 25% high reward, 20% feasibility. Overall scores will be used to produce a ranked list with the strongest applications having the highest scores. The overall assessment of fit to program and interdisciplinarity will be determined by considering the majority assessment of reviewers’ individual ratings (pass or fail). If the majority of individual assessments for either criterion is “Pass”, the overall assessment will be “Pass”. In cases where there are an equal number of “Pass” and “Fail” assessments, the overall assessment will be recorded as a “Pass”.

The outcome of the evaluation at the LOI stage is a recommendation to project teams whether to proceed with the preparation and submission of a full application. Proposals that are advised to continue will be invited to the full application stage. Those that are not advised to continue will not be invited to the full application stage. Proposals which do not pass the fit to program or interdisciplinarity criterion will be advised not to proceed to the full application stage. Selection of the LOIs invited to the Full Application Stage

The decision of which proposals will be invited to submit a full application will be jointly taken by the Funding Organizations and will be based on the ratings and the following additional conditions:

• The invited proposals represent funding requests that do not exceed three times the available budget of each funding organization;

• Additional proposals may be invited to ensure that all funding organizations are represented in the full application stage;

To fulfil the above-mentioned conditions, it may be necessary to deviate from the ratings. This means that LOIs that are placed lower in the ranking may be invited if they ensure that all Funding Organizations are represented in the list of invited proposals. At the same time, higher ranking LOIs may not be invited if the budget requested from the involved Funding Organizations exceeds three times the available budget for one or more of the involved funders. Project teams that are invited to submit a full application will have their proposals automatically transitioned to the full application stage in the Convergence Portal, allowing them to work on their full applications. Project teams which receive negative advice, i.e. are advised not to continue, may still choose to submit a full application. In order to continue in the competition, project teams must reach out to the NFRF team at NFRF-FNFR@chairs-chaires.gc.ca and request access to the full application in Convergence, including a short justification for continuing against the advice received, within two weeks of receiving the outcome of the LOI stage review.

Full Application Stage The purpose of the full application stage if to identify the most meritorious proposals to be funded, while adhering to the principles of merit review. Evaluation by the multidisciplinary/multisectoral review panel Review Timeline Date Milestone November 3, 2026 Full Application deadline November 13, 2026 Members receive assignments November 20, 2026 Deadline for members to indicate conflicts of interest January 15, 2027 Deadline for members to submit scores January 25-29, 2027 Review panel meetings March 2027 Full application results released

Assignment Each application is assigned to a minimum of three review panel members. Language abilities and institutional conflicts of interest will be considered in assigning applications to members. Check for conflicts of interest Shortly after the deadline, review panel members will receive an email informing them that their list of assignments is ready. Members are asked to log in to the Convergence Portal, review the summary of each of their assigned applications in the “Ability to Review” tab, and indicate if there is a conflict of interest. Once a member has checked all assigned applications for conflicts, they immediately gain access to the applications for which they are not in conflict in the “Committee Assignments” tab. Some changes to assignments may occur as conflicts of interest are identified by members. If there are any changes, the panel member will be notified by NFRF program staff. Any problems should be brought to the attention of NFRF program staff as soon as possible, or at any point in the process. Assessment

Multidisciplinary/multisectoral review panel members receive access to all content from the NOI, LOI and full application stages (except the participants’ personal profiles; reviewer exclusions; and certifications). All assigned applications are to be reviewed and scored according to the merit indicator matrices for the selection criteria:

• Fit-to-program (pass/fail)

• interdisciplinarity (pass/fail)

• EDI in research practice (pass/fail)

• strength of project consortium (20%) of overall score

• high risk: 25% of overall score

• high reward: 25% of overall score

• feasibility: 30% of overall score

Members can assign one of seven ratings for the strength of project consortium, high risk, high reward and feasibility criteria (see Merit indicators). In assessing feasibility, members must consider the approach to Indigenous research (if applicable) and EDI considerations in the research design.

Members will provide written comments for all applications they review. Results

Members’ ratings for the strength of project consortium, high risk, high reward and feasibility criteria will determine an overall score for each application. The final rating by criterion will be determined by the mean of members’ individual ratings for the criteria. The overall score for an application is a weighted average of the final rating by criterion: 20% strength of project consortium, 25% high risk, 25% high reward, 30% feasibility. Overall scores will be used to produce a ranked list with the strongest applications having the highest scores. The overall assessment of fit to program, EDI in research practice, and interdisciplinarity will be determined by considering the majority assessment of reviewers’ individual ratings (pass or fail). If the majority of individual assessments for a criterion is “Pass”, the overall assessment will be “Pass”. In cases where there are an equal number of “Pass” and “Fail” assessments, the overall assessment will be recorded as a “Pass”.

Multidisciplinary/multisectoral review panel meetings The review panel meets virtually to discuss applications and identify those to be recommended for funding. Applications to be discussed will be divided between multiple virtual rooms and members will discuss applications across their assigned rooms. Each discussion is presided by a co-chair. NFRF program staff are present to help the co-chairs and answer program- and policy-related questions. Discussion of applications Twenty-five minutes are allocated to discuss each application. The discussion is moderated by one of the co-chairs, who ensures that all assigned members participate in discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the application according to each criterion. Following discussion, members will be invited to adjust their ratings if the discussion changed their assessment of one or more criteria. Final meeting The final list ranking all applications according to their overall merit will be agreed to. The ranked list will be created based on the final overall scores of each application. An application with an overall rating of fail for any or all of the fit-to-program, EDI or interdisciplinary criteria is not considered fundable. Feedback to applicants Concise consensus feedback is prepared for each application. One of the reviewers is identified in advance to lead preparation of the feedback for each application. Funding Organizations Committee The Funding Organizations Committee will meet to review the ranked list resulting from the review process. The list will be used to determine which applications will be recommended for funding to each of the Funding Organizations. Applications will be funded in their ranked order from highest score to lowest. An application in the list will only be skipped in cases where one Organization has no budget remaining to award to it. Applications and review material Incomplete or non-adherent applications

To maintain fairness in the competition, applicants must adhere to the guidelines in preparing application materials. If staff determine that information provided is incomplete or does not adhere to guidelines or instructions, the application may be removed from the competition. The onus is on the applicants to provide complete and sufficient information that adheres to the Convergence Portal instructions for attachments and the instructions for completing the NOI, LOI and full application. Problems related to application content should be brought to the attention of NFRF program staff, which can be done at any point during the competition.

Eligibility of applicants Eligibility decisions are the responsibility of the Funding Organizations’ staff. Reviewers who have doubts about a researcher’s eligibility should review the application on the same basis as all others and alert NFRF staff to potential eligibility problems as soon as possible. The eligibility criteria for applicants can be found in the eligibility sections of the call material annexes. Indigenous research

If a proposal involves Indigenous research as defined by SSHRC, the reviewer must use SSHRC’s Indigenous Research Statement of Principles and Guidelines for the Merit Review of Indigenous Research as references in assessing the application related to or involving Indigenous research. The guidelines are provided to help reviewers build understanding of Indigenous research and research-related activities, and to assist them in interpreting the specific evaluation criteria in the context of Indigenous research.

Merit indicators

The merit indicators include pass/fail indicators for the fit-to-program, interdisciplinarity and EDI in research practice criteria, and a seven-point evaluation scale for the strength of consortium, high risk, high reward and feasibility indicators. Although only four ratings are described for each evaluation scale, reviewers may select a rating between each rating described (e.g. between exceptional and very good), for a seven-point scale. All applications are evaluated using the same merit indicators. A sub-set of criteria are used at the LOI stage as noted in the merit indicators. Reviewers are encouraged to use the full range of ratings, as appropriate, to achieve a distribution of ratings that reflects the quality of the applications being evaluated. Members at the full application stage are expected to discuss and justify (or adjust) their ratings during the review panel meeting.

Areas of concern

All reviewers can comment about any areas of concern in the application, including ones related to any of the selection criteria, including EDI in research practice (review panel members only); fit to program; interdisciplinarity; EDI in the research design; Indigenous research; budget; or others. Please note that reviewers must not include any identifying information about the team members (names, research groups, departments, institutions, etc.) when entering their comments in the Convergence Portal.

Budget While the proposed budget is not assessed as part of the selection criteria, it will be reviewed and discussed, particularly where it may affect the feasibility of completing the research with the proposed resources. Handling documents used in peer review Merit review documents contain personal information as well as information that the unauthorized disclosure of could reasonably be expected to cause serious injury (such as prejudicial treatment, loss of reputation or competitive advantage) to an individual, organization or government. Therefore, these documents are subject to regulation under Canada’s Privacy Act, the Access to Information Act and the Policy on Government Security. Protocols must be followed to ensure that information contained in applications, internal and external reviews, and panel discussions remains strictly confidential. Improper or unauthorized collection, use, disclosure, retention and/or disposal of this information can result in a privacy breach. Refer to the Guide on Handling Documents Used in Peer Review for further details. How to access applications for review All reviewers will access the applications for review through the Convergence Portal, and will only have access to applications they have been assigned. Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers will receive an email with detailed instructions asking them to log in to the ConvergencePortal. Following this, they will receive an email asking them to accept the T&Cs of the Convergence Portal. Reviewers must accept the T&Cs before they can continue with the review process. Once the reviewer has accepted these, a new tab will appear on their home screen when they are logged into the Portal: “Reviewer Assignments.” Shortly after the application deadline, reviewers will receive an email informing them that the applications assigned to them are ready under the “Ability to Review” tab. Any problem with the assignment of applications (e.g. conflict of interest) should be brought to the attention of NFRF program staff as soon as possible, or at any point in the process. Once the reviewer indicates that there is no conflict, they will be able to access the application in the “Reviewer Assignments” tab.

Multidisciplinary/multisectoral review panel members

Potential review panel members will receive an email with detailed instructions asking them to log in to the Convergence Portal and complete the biographical information section, including their fields of research, in their personal profile. Shortly after the application deadline, review panel members will receive an email asking them to accept the terms and conditions (T&Cs) in the Convergence Portal. Members must accept the T&Cs before they can continue with the review process. After acceptance, two new tabs will appear on the home screen when the member logs into the Convergence Portal: “Ability to Review” and “Committee Assignments.” If the T&Cs are accepted before applications are assigned, both tabs will remain blank until applications are assigned. Following this step, members will receive an email informing them that the applications assigned to them are ready under the “Ability to Review” tab. Any problem with the assignment of applications should be brought to NFRF program staff attention as soon as possible, or at any point in the process.

Legal and ethical information Responsible conduct of research Canada’s federal research funding agencies–CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC–are committed to fostering and maintaining an environment that supports and promotes the responsible conduct of research. The Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research sets out the responsibilities and corresponding policies for researchers, institutions and the agencies that, together, help support and promote a positive research environment. Confidentiality Reviewers must read and agree to the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement for Review Committee Members, External Reviewers, and Observers describing expectations and requirements. Canada’s Privacy Act Personal information refers to any information about an identifiable individual. Based on Canada’s Privacy Act, personal information provided by applicants must be used only for assessing applications, making funding decisions, and related uses at the time that their personal information is collected. Members are reminded that the use or disclosure of this information for any other purpose is illegal. It is important for panel members to adhere strictly to the guidelines set out in the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement for Review Committee Members, External Reviewers, and Observers. Canadian Human Rights Act The activities of CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC are subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The purpose of the act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect to the principle that all individuals should have opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have. They should also have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. Canada’s Official Languages Act All review panel members and NFRF program staff must be aware of their obligations and rights as legislated in Canada’s Official Languages Act. A word of thanks

On behalf of the Canada Research Coordinating Committee (CRCC) and the Funding Organizations, we would like to thank peer reviewers, members of the multidisciplinary/multisectoral review panel, and co-chairs for agreeing to participate in the review process for the International Joint Initiative for Research Harnessing Disruptive Technology to Address Global Challenges. The success of the review process is made possible by dedicated people like you who generously give your time and expertise. The CRCC, the Funding Organizations and the global research community greatly appreciate your efforts.

THE NETHERLANDS Dutch Research Council (NWO) Contact point Name Cheryl Roumen, Julia Ratter, Kata Balogh Email eagle@nwo.nl Phone +31 647 038275 +31 651 803778 Funding commitment EUR 3.800.000,– Anticipated number of projects to be funded 5 projects Maximum funding per awarded project / per partner EUR 760.000,– Who can apply? Eligibility of a partner as a beneficiary institution Researchers may submit an application if all applicants (= co-PI(s) and co-applicant(s)) have a tenured position (and therefore a paid position for an indefinite period) 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; – Netherlands Cancer Institute; – The Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen; – Naturalis Biodiversity Center; – Advanced Research Centre for NanoLithography (ARCNL); – Princess Máxima Center – National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM); – TO2-institutions (Deltares, MARIN, NLR, TNO, WUR); – IHE Delft Institute for Water Education. Lectors employed at a university of applied sciences and researchers employed at a TO2-institution may also submit as a co-PI provided that they have at least a salaried position for the duration of the project. Persons with a zero-hour employment agreement or with a contract for a limited period of time (other than a tenure track appointment or the exception for lectors and TO2 institutes) 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 research 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. Applicants with a part-time contract should guarantee adequate supervision of the project and all project members for whom funding is requested. Submission of the NOI at the national level Applicants (= co-PI(s) and co-applicant(s)) requesting funding from NWO are required to submit a mandatory signed letter from their organisation in which their position, tenured/tenure track or salaried position for the duration of the project is confirmed. Submission of the LOI and Full proposal at the national level Applicants from Dutch organisations are required to submit a mandatory NWO budget form in ISAAC in the Full proposal stage. Additional eligibility criteria NWO funding can be requested for projects addressing the following SDGs: – Zero Hunger (SDG 2) – Clean Water and Sanitation (SDG 6) – Affordable and Clean Energy (SDG 7) – Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11) An application for funding from NWO may consider the following roles: – National co-PI (mandatory): the applicant who submits 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 co-PI with an active role and responsibility in realising the project and requesting funding from NWO. The national co-PI or co-applicant from a Dutch organisation may only request NWO funding for one project (part of a transnational consortium) in this call in which he or she is involved. Please note: The eligibility check of the administrative-technical criteria (see the ‘Eligibility criteria’ for submission) and the possible reinstatement for corrections is carried out by the NFRF and differs from the standard NWO procedures. Any changes made during this stage are purely administrative and will not affect the substantive evaluation of your proposal. Eligible costs What type of activities are eligible for funding? 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 realize the project. A more detailed explanation of the budget modules and the financial details form can be found on the webpage of the call, via www.nwo.nl Money follows cooperation The budget module Money follows cooperation cannot be applied for in this call. Personnel Funding may be requested for salary costs of personnel contributing to the project. The amount depends on the type of appointment and the organisation where the personnel is employed. Personnel at a university in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, umc or a research organisation For personnel working at a university in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, university medical centre (umc) or another research organisation, as referred to in Article 1.1, first paragraph, subparagraphs c to h of the NWO Grant Rules salary costs can be claimed for the following positions: • postdoc - at least 12 full-time months and at most 36 full-time months; • Engineering Doctorate (Eng): Funding for the Engineering Doctorate (EngD) position can only be applied for if funding for a PhD student or postdoc is also applied for; • non-scientific staff at (NSS) universities; • research leave - for up to 5% of the grant amount. The rates are determined using the salary tables of UNL and NFU. Personnel of universities of applied sciences, TO2 institutes, educational institutions and other organisations It is possible to claim salary costs of personnel of universities of applied sciences, TO2 institutes, educational institutions and other organisations. The rates are determined using the Government Tariff Manual (HOT), Table 2 average total salary cost per salary scale, column 'Hourly rate productive hours, excluding VAT'. The salary scale of the requested position determines the rate from the HOT table. Students It is possible to engage students in the project if they are studying at a research organisation. You can enter the costs of these students as material costs within the project. There is no maximum number of students who can participate in the project. Funding may not be requested for PhD students. If students contribute as a secondary job alongside their study as student assistants, the rate according to HOT table 2, under 2.2 ‘average total salary cost per salary scale’, column 'Hourly rate productive hours, excluding VAT', scale 1 applies. Material Funding may be requested for all project-specific material costs. These costs are subject to a maximum of 30% of the grant amount allocated for personnel costs. Knowledge utilization Funding can be requested for activities that promote the use of knowledge from the research1All 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)., in order to increase the societal impact of the research. It is mandatory to include an amount for knowledge utilisation. These costs are at least 5% and maximum 20% of the grant amount. Project management Funding can be requested for project management that is at most 5% of the total budget requested from NWO. This budget can only be used for activities that solely support the project for which the grant is requested. The applicant must satisfactorily justify this budget. At the Full proposal phase, it is required to submit a financial detail form separately to NWO. This form will be available via the NWO website. Do not hesitate to contact the national contact person in case of questions. Additional information For NWO funded research the NWO Grant Rules apply. In accordance with the NWO Grant Rules , the project that NWO funds must be carried out in accordance with the nationally and internationally accepted standards for scientific conduct as stated in the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2018) and the Global Code of Conduct for Equitable Research Partnerships . In case research is conducted in fragile states, it is advised to consult the Security Guidelines for field research in complex, remote and hazardous places. By submitting the proposal, the applicant commits to these codes. In the case of a (possible) violation of these standards during a project funded by NWO, the applicant should immediately inform NWO of this and should submit all relevant documents to NWO. More information about the code of conduct and the policy regarding research integrity can be found on the website: Scientific integrity | NWO Applicants are required to submit a mandatory NWO budget form in the Full Proposal stage. For full details of the general NWO funding process, please refer to the NWO website. Information about lodging an objection at NWO is available on our website. NWO strives to achieve an inclusive culture in which there is no place for conscious or unconscious barriers due to cultural, ethnic or religious background, gender, sexual orientation, health or age (www.nwo.nl/en/diversity-and-inclusion). Compliance with the National Knowledge Security Guidelines In the National Knowledge Security Guidelines, the Dutch knowledge sector (including NWO) and various government departments have laid down guidelines for those within research organisations who are involved in international collaboration and who need to weigh up the opportunities and (security) risks involved. Self-regulation by the knowledge sector is central to the approach to knowledge security within the Netherlands. NWO expects applicants to comply with the knowledge security policy of their research organisation. If NWO receives indications that a proposal or an allocated project entails knowledge security risks, NWO may request the applicant or project leader to provide insight into the risk mitigation measures. In addition, NWO may decide to include further conditions in the award letter to protect knowledge security. The National Knowledge Security Guidelines can be found on the website of the Dutch government: Home | National Contact Point for Knowledge Security (loketkennisveiligheid.nl). The co-PI must declare by means of a signed statement that the proposal has been drawn up in accordance with the knowledge security policy of the research organisation and that the officer responsible for knowledge security within the research organisation has been consulted for this purpose. This statement must be enclosed with the complete proposal. The NWO data management protocol applies to projects funded by NWO. NWO processes data from applicants received in the context of this Call in accordance with the NWO Privacy Statement, Privacy Statement | NWO. The system used by the Canadian New Frontiers in Research Fund contains optional questions regarding race and ethnicity. These questions are part of the standard questions asked in Canada and cannot be removed. We ask all applicants applying funding from NWO not to fill in these questions, since according to our legal regulations we are not allowed to ask these questions. Not filling in these questions will have no affect on the assessment of your proposal. Furthermore, submission of financial and substantive reports at national level is required in accordance with the rules of NWO.

SPECIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE COSTS BELONGING TO THE NATIONAL ANNEX OF THE 2026 INTERNATIONAL JOINT INITIATIVE FOR RESEARCH HARNESSING DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CHALLENGES Material

Funding may be requested for all project-specific material costs. These costs are subject to a maximum of 30% of the grant amount allocated for personnel costs. Funding may be requested for all project-specific costs relating to, among others, consumables, purchase of services, materials, small instruments, access to (inter)national facilities, software and research resources that have no economic value after use. Travel and accommodation costs (national and international) for all people working on the project incl. foreign guest researchers, costs for the organisation of (international) workshops and symposia, costs for data management, publications, and costs in the context of citizen science also fall under this module. Travel expenses (national and international) will only be reimbursed on the basis of second class/economy class fares. For publications, the provisions in Section 5.1.6 Open Access apply. Costs for an audit statement can only be claimed for organisation that are not subject to OCW's education audit protocol for a maximum of € 5,000 per audit statement. It is not permitted to include costs for: − organisational infrastructure and overhead, including a fully functioning workplace, accommodation, office automation, personnel administration, commuting expenses, training, facilities, HR advice and business care, documentary information provision and home office allowance; − the use and maintenance of in-house developed scientific infrastructure; − regular teaching activities; − members of the user committee.

Knowledge utilization

Funding can be requested for activities that promote the use of knowledge from the research2All 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). , in order to increase the societal impact of the research. It is mandatory to include an amount for knowledge utilisation. These costs are at least 5% and maximum 20% of the grant amount. The budget requested should be adequately specified in the proposal. To determine the rates, use the provisions of Personnel and Material. Examples of possible costs, but not limited to, are the creation of a teaching curriculum, a feasibility study on application possibilities, costs for filing a patent application or engaging a business developer.