STAATSCOURANT Officiële uitgave van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden sinds 1814. Trans-Atlantic Platform (T-AP) Call on Preparing for Tomorrow (P4T) application form and instructions, and assessment process, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Introduction The Trans-Atlantic Platform (T-AP) for Social Sciences and Humanities is a collaboration between humanities and social sciences research funders from South America, North America, Europe, and Africa. T-AP aims to enhance the ability of funders, research organizations and researchers to engage in transnational dialogue and collaboration. T-AP works to identify common challenges and promote a culture of collaboration and interdisciplinarity in social science and humanities (SSH) research by offering joint research calls in areas of strong potential for international collaboration. This document provides detailed instructions to potential applicants on how to apply to the Preparing for Tomorrow call (further referred to as the P4T call). It is organized into the following three sections:

1. Overview of the P4T call

2. P4T application form and associated instructions

3. Assessment process, including the evaluation criteria and scoring matrix.

These sections are followed by annexes, which include the Data Management Plan template and the Narrative Résumé template. Applicants must refer to the separate P4T Call Scope for information on the objectives and themes of the call and the types of research that can be funded. 1. Overview of the P4T call 1.1. Funding organizations The P4T call operates through a coordinated funding model, whereby each funding organization supports its own national research team(s) within a TAP P4T project partnership. The table below lists the funding organizations participating in the P4T call. Please note that each funding organization has its own eligibility rules for potential applicants and proposals. Before applying, applicants must consult the relevant Addenda, which set out each funding organization’s eligibility criteria, additional requirements, funding mandates, policies, eligible costs, and application procedures. All Addenda are available on the TAP P4T website. The table also outlines available contributions and the maximum budget that may be requested per project team. As funding is awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions of each participating funding organization, the actual eligible costs may vary across national teams. Applicants should therefore carefully review all regulations set out in the relevant funding organization’s Addendum. Table of participating funding organizations Country Funding organization Total available funds Maximum funding per proposal Contact details Brazil The São Paulo Research Foundation, FAPESP 800,000 EUR 120,000 EUR kavita@usp.br Canada Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council $ 3,000,000 (CDN) $ 250,000 (CDN) partnerships@sshrc-crsh.gc.ca Canada Fonds de recherche du Québec – secteur Société et culture $ 75,000 (CDN) $ 75,000 (CDN) genevieve.godbout@frq.gouv.qc.ca Finland Research Council of Finland 1,000,000 EUR n/a risto.vilkko@aka.fi France Agence Nationale de la Recherche 1,000,000 EUR 350,000 EUR for projects w/ French lead PIs, 200,000 EUR for projects w/ French co-PIs Solene.GALLERNE@agencerecherche.fr Germany Bundesministerium für Forschung, Technologie und Raumfahrt/DLR-Projektträger 2,000,000 EUR 400,000 EUR gaia.diluzio@dlr.de cornelia.riess@dlr.de Germany Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)/ German Research Foundation 3,200,000 EUR 400,000 EUR t-ap@dfg.de Netherlands Dutch Research Council (NWO) 2,800,000 EUR 400,000 EUR David Batelaan, Programme Officer: +31 703440605 Dr Martijn Wienia, Senior Programme Officer: +31 703494352 Poland National Science Centre (NCN) 800,000 EUR n/a przemyslaw.puchala@ncn.gov.pl magdalena.sobas@ncn.gov.pl South Africa National Research Foundation R7.2 Million R900,000 kw.baloyi@risa.nrf.ac.za 1.2. P4T tentative timeline Date Milestone 17^th April 2026 Call launches TBD, please check the call website Information webinar 8^th July 20261NB: The LOI and full application must be received by DFG before 23:59 in Germany the day of the deadline. Deadline to submit the required letter of intent to apply (LOI) 28^th October 2026 Deadline to submit full application March–April 2027 Experts Panel Evaluation April–May 2027 Notice of funding decisions July–September 2027 Start date of awards 1.3. Project roles Project teams are composed of a Lead Principal Investigator (Lead PI), co-principal investigators (co-PIs), and collaborators. Nominate one of the CO-PIs as the Lead PI. The Lead PI submits both the Letter of Intent to Apply (LOI) and the joint research proposal on behalf of the consortium. All co-PIs- share responsibility for the overall direction of the project, coordination of proposed research activities, and active participation in delivering the research. Collaborators are members of the consortium who contribute to executing the research project. Funders may use additional categories in their Addenda related to issuing their specific awards. 1.4. Eligibility requirements Applicants must apply as a transnational research partnership, comprising national research teams based in the participating T-AP countries listed above. Each proposal must include at least three eligible co-PIs from at least three different T-AP participating countries, with representation from both sides of the Atlantic. Applications must comply with all relevant eligibility requirements. If any research partner within a consortium is found to be ineligible, the entire consortium will be deemed ineligible. The funding organizations’ specific Addenda – which set out national eligibility rules and requirements – are available on the T-AP P4T website. All research teams are strongly encouraged to contact their respective funding organizations at least six weeks before the application deadline to confirm the eligibility of the national teams involved. Please note that formal eligibility checks will be carried out only after the submission deadline and will be based on the full set of formal requirements defined by each funding organization. Researchers may participate in only one proposal as a Lead PI or co-PI. However, lead PIs and co PIs- may be involved in multiple proposals as collaborators. Applicants must also comply with any additional participation limits set by the funding organizations, as outlined in their respective Addenda. Researchers based in nonparticipating countries and non academic partners (e.g., businesses, civil society organizations, and industry partners) may join projects as cooperation partners. However, they cannot receive funding from the T-AP P4T call, unless expressly permitted in the relevant funding organization’s Addendum. 1.5 Duration of projects Each project should have a duration of between 24 and 36 months. 1.6. Application process Applications must be submitted by the deadlines (compulsory Letter of Intent to submit by 8^th July 2026 and full proposal submission by 28^th October 2026). Applications failing to comply with eligibility requirements and application instructions will be declared ineligible and will not be evaluated. 1.6.1. Submission of Letter of Intent to Apply (LOI) form The Lead PI must submit a LOI form by 8^th July 2026. The LOI must be submitted online using the DFG’s elan Portal. Please note: The Lead PI of the project must complete and submit the LOI on behalf of the research team. Information to include in the LOI:

• Preliminary project title

• Lead PI (full name, position and institution)

• Co-PIs (full names, positions and institutionsFunding organization (in case of multiple funders per country, check their annexes)

• Call scope theme(s) covered

• Key words

• Project summary (max. 500 words)

Every lead PI must create an elan account to submit both the LOI and the full proposal on behalf of the consortium. The Lead PI should create the account well in advance of the deadline for the LOI as the registration is checked by a DFG employee, which might take a few days. This is not required of other team members at this stage. Please refer to the elan manual on the call website for further instructions. While project details and co-PIs- may be modified upon submission, it is anticipated that the Lead PI will not change. Proposals for which the Lead PI has not submitted an LOI by the deadline will not be considered for evaluation. 1.6.2. Application submission The proposal must be submitted online, in PDF format, on the elan Portal hosted by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) by 28^th October 2026. For submission of the full proposal the co-PIs must also create an elan account. The proposal must be written in English. Further instructions on how to upload and submit your application are available on the T-AP P4T website. Please note that some funding organizations also require applicants to submit the proposal through their national online submission systems. Applicants must consult the funding organizations’ Addenda for detailed instructions. Proposals submitted after the deadline, or those that do not meet the call requirements or the funders’ specific requirements outlined in the Addenda, will be rejected. 1.7 Communications between P4T call secretariat (DFG) and project members Please note that all communications between the P4T call secretariat (the German Research Foundation, DFG) and project teams will be via email messages sent to the Lead PI only. Some of these messages will be sent automatically by the elan system and therefore we encourage Lead PIs to make sure they receive and read the messages and check their spam folders regularly. Funding agencies may also contact co-PIs. 2. P4T Call Application Form and Instructions Proposal submission requires five files (2.1–2.5). The structure and required contents of each file are described in the following sections below. Applicants must follow the prescribed structure and use the headings exactly as indicated. The required components are: 2.1. Project Overview 2.2. Research Description 2.3. Bibliography 2.4. Narrative Résumés 2.5. Budget summary and Templates 2.1. Project overview Project Short Title/Acronym: Project Full Title: Project Lead PI (Full Name and Organization): Keywords (max. 10 separated by a semicolon “;”): Duration (24 to 36 months): Expected start date: Expected end date: Call scope theme(s) covered: Abstract (max. 3000 characters) Project Consortium Role Name Organization Email Position Country Funding Agency Lead PI Co-PIs Collaborators 2.2. Research Description Please include the following information in no more than 6,500 words (excluding the Data Management Plan). Your Research Description must be organized using the mandatory subsection titles (a–f), which must appear exactly as indicated below.

a. Aims and background of the proposed research Describe the key research questions and indicate which of the call scope themes your proposal addresses. Explain the challenge(s) your project seeks to respond to and how it aligns with and advances the objectives of the P4T call.

b. Methodology of the research proposed Outline the methodology you will use to address the research questions and challenges identified above. Where relevant, briefly explain how equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) considerations are integrated into your research design and approach.

c. Position in the context of existing research Provide a concise yet comprehensive literature review/“state of the art” overview of the relevant field(s). Clearly explain how the proposed project will contribute to, advance, or challenge existing knowledge.

d. Added value of the Trans-Atlantic partnership Describe how the Trans-Atlantic partnership will add value to the proposed research endeavor.

e. Project Management, Dissemination, and Communications Plan (PMDC) Your PMDC must be organized under the five mandatory headings below. Applicants should provide concise, coherent information without duplicating material across sections.

• Project Management Plan Provide a clear description of how the project will be governed and managed, including:

○ Management and governance structure (decision-making processes, coordination arrangements, leadership roles).

○ Roles and responsibilities of all co-PIs and collaborators. Describe present and past collaborations of the PIs and team members relevant to this proposal.

• Workplan and Timeline Include a workplan that outlines:

○ Tasks and activities

○ Deliverables and milestones, with anticipated dates

○ Work packages, if applicable, and linkages between them

• Outputs, Outcomes and Impact Describe:

○ The project’s key anticipated outputs (e.g., publications, datasets, tools, guidelines).

○ The project’s expected outcomes (e.g., knowledge gains, strengthened methods, policy insights).

○ The project’s potential impact, as defined by T-AP1Impact refers to the effects to which research has contributed, including advancements within the knowledge ecosystem (academic impact) and benefits generated for individuals and communities (societal impact). These effects can manifest across diverse spheres, including social, industrial, cultural, economic, environmental, and policy development, ultimately leading to the enhancement of the quality of life..

• Dissemination and Communication Plan Describe your strategy for disseminating outputs, engaging stakeholders, and facilitating knowledge mobilization, where applicable. Include:

○ Stakeholder Engagement, where applicable

– How interactions with key stakeholders will be strategically organized from project inception to uptake of results.

– How stakeholder engagement will feed into the research process and adapt over time.

○ Communication Strategy

– How communication will occur with stakeholders, and with wider audiences.

– Communication objectives and channels (e.g., project websites, social media, newsletters, community engagement, events, videos, publications).

• Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL)

○ How will project activities be monitored.

○ How learning will be documented and embedded across the project lifecycle.

• Capacity Strengthening and Training

○ If applicable, describe activities to strengthen the capacities necessary to enhance outcomes (e.g., skills development, institutional support), including methods and reflective practices used.

○ If relevant, describe how the project will contribute to training and professional development of students, postdoctoral researchers, and early career researchers within the consortium.

f. Data Management Plan (please use the guidelines provided in Annex I) A data management plan (DMP) describes how the data produced by a research project will be handled throughout and after a project, including preservation policies, and ethical and legal constraints. It applies to digital data only and should not include publications. When writing your DMP please use the 5 headings indicated in the template in Annex I.

2.3. Bibliography List all references cited or works referred to in the proposal. The funding organizations recognize and allow the use of different referencing styles. 2.4. Narrative Résumés Only the Lead PI and co-PIs should provide narrative résumés. Please see Annex II for the compulsory narrative résumé template. All narrative résumés should be put together at the end of the proposal. 2.5. Budget File The budget file should include a Budget Summary, followed by the individual funders’ budget forms (collated together), as required by their respective Addenda. Budget Summary Template – Please indicate the total amount of funding requested from each participating funding agency. Add additional columns as needed to reflect all funding agencies included in your application. Funding Agency A Funding Agency B Funding Agency C Funding Agency D Funding Agency E Total amount requested per funder (use the respective country’s currency for each agency) 3. Assessment Process 3.1. Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Matrix Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

1. Intellectual merit: What is the potential for the proposed project to advance knowledge, understanding, or new insights within its own field or across multiple fields?

2. Relevance to the objectives of the call: To what extent does the proposed project align with and advance the objectives of the P4T call? Does the project description clearly articulate the link between the identified challenges and the proposed activities?

3. Quality, innovation and feasibility of the research plan: Is the proposed project innovative and does it address new questions and/or new approaches? Is the research plan well-structured, methodologically sound and feasible within the proposed timeframe? Does the research team have the appropriate expertise and resources to deliver the project successfully? Does the proposal represent good value for money?

4. Broader impacts, Outputs, Outcomes and Knowledge Mobilization: Does the proposal clearly demonstrate the scientific contribution, either independently or in combination with societal benefits? Are the proposed outputs, outcomes and knowledge mobilization activities appropriate, feasible, and likely to achieve the intended results? Where relevant, does the proposal explain how key tools, resources or research outputs will be sustained beyond the life of the project?

5. Partnership and planning: Does the proposal present a well-balanced and effective transnational partnership? Is the partnership well-coordinated, with appropriate plans in place for joint working, data management, and overall project planning? Is the added value of the Trans-Atlantic cooperation clearly articulated?

Projects will be scored based on the following scoring matrix: Score Score Name Score description 1 Unacceptable A proposal that has a highly unsatisfactory level of originality, quality and significance. Has very limited potential to advance the field of knowledge. Falls short of meeting the assessment criteria of the call. 2 Weak A proposal of inconsistent quality with some strengths, innovative ideas and good components, but which has significant weaknesses. Unlikely to advance the field of knowledge significantly and/or generate societal benefits. Falls short of meeting the assessment criteria of the call. 3 Fair A proposal that offers some value to make a scientific contribution but presents significant weaknesses. It is not very likely to advance the field of knowledge and/or generate broader societal benefits. Falls short of meeting the assessment criteria of the call. 4 Average A proposal that offers value to make a scientific contribution but has weaknesses. It is not very likely to advance the field of knowledge and/or generate broader societal benefits. Meets the minimum requirements in terms of the assessment criteria of the call. 5 Satisfactory A proposal that is of value in its scientific contribution with no significant flaws but is not of a consistently high quality. Meets some requirements in terms of the assessment criteria of the call and is unlikely to advance the field of knowledge and/or generate broader societal benefits. 6 Good A proposal of considerable value that is likely to make an important scientific contribution, either independently or in combination with broader societal benefits. Meets all assessment criteria of the call at a good level. 7 Very good A proposal of significant value that is likely to make a very important scientific contribution, either independently or in combination with broader societal benefits. Meets all assessment criteria of the call at a very good level. 8 Excellent A proposal of significant value that is highly likely to make a very important scientific contribution, either independently or in combination with broader societal benefits. Meets all assessment criteria of the call at an excellent level. 9 Outstanding A proposal of excellent scientific merit, i.e., of such innovation, novelty, or timeliness that it is likely to make an outstanding scientific contribution, either independently or in combination with significant societal benefits. Meets all assessment criteria of the call at an outstanding level. 10 Exceptional A proposal of outstanding scientific merit, i.e., of such innovation, novelty, or timeliness that it is highly likely to make an exceptional scientific contribution, either independently or in combination with critical societal benefits. Meets all assessment criteria of the call at an exceptional level. 3.2. Evaluation Process Proposals submitted to the P4T call will be reviewed, evaluated and ranked by international interdisciplinary experts. The evaluation process involves the following steps:

• Eligibility checks: Following the submission deadline, the P4T call secretariat, in cooperation with the funding organizations, will conduct an eligibility and compliance check of all proposals. This will confirm that proposals meet the call’s formal requirements, including (but not limited to) the submission deadline, alignment with the remit and mandates of the relevant funding organizations, the required number of participating countries, compliance with page and length limits, and the provision of all required information. Applicants’ eligibility to submit proposals will also be assessed in accordance with the rules and regulations of the respective funding organizations.

• Expert Panel(s): Depending on the number and scope of eligible proposals received, one or more expert panels will be convened. Panels will consist of independent experts appointed by the participating funding organizations. Panel members will assess and discuss the proposals against the evaluation criteria outlined above and will formulate funding recommendations for consideration by the funding organizations.

• Funders Forum: Following the expert panel meeting(s), representatives of the T-AP P4T funding organizations will convene as a Funders Forum. The Forum will consider the funding recommendations made by the expert panel(s) and will collectively agree the proposed slate of projects to be supported. In determining the slate, the primary guiding principle will be scholarly merit, as reflected in the expert panel rankings.

• Funding decision: Final funding decisions will be subject to formal approval by the national T-AP P4T funding organizations, in accordance with their respective rules, procedures, and budgetary constraints.

4. P4T Call Terms and Conditions The following conditions apply to all research projects funded under the T-AP P4T call:

• Acknowledgement of support: All publications, outputs, and dissemination materials arising from the funded research must acknowledge the support of the Trans-Atlantic Platform using the following wording (or equivalent): “This work was supported in the framework of the Trans-Atlantic Platform by the following funding organizations ...”. A link to the T-AP website (http://www.transatlanticplatform.com/) must also be included.

• Reporting requirements: All co-PIs are required to submit scientific (and financial) reports in accordance with the reporting requirements of their respective funding organizations. This includes reporting on interim and final results, outputs, outcomes and progress of the collaborative project, as applicable.

• All funded projects will be required to submit a final project report (“white paper”) to the T-AP coordination team within 90 days of the end of the grant period (or final approved extension). The final report will summarise project progress, results, outcomes, impact, lessons learned, and overall success and will be published on the TAP website.

• Data and code sharing: Where data or code are generated under the grant, researchers are encouraged to deposit these outputs in an appropriate, recognised repository, in line with relevant open science practices and any additional requirements set by the participating funding organizations.

4.1. Midterm and End of Grant Forum To highlight the outcomes of funded projects and enable knowledge exchange and cross-project learning, a forum will be organized at the mid-term (online) and at the end of the grant (possibly in-person). These forums will provide funded project teams with the opportunity to present progress and results, share experiences, and reflect on lessons learned. The forums may also serve as a catalyst for future research collaborations. Project teams are encouraged, where appropriate, to organize additional exchanges or meetings with other funded teams throughout the lifetime of the grant. A kick-off meeting will be organized online for teams to connect with other projects and ask questions of the funders. Applicants are encouraged to include expenses related to attending the end of grant forum in their project budgets (for 1–2 participants). 4.2. Award Notification Once the final list of selected projects has been agreed, the Lead Principal Investigator (PI) will be notified by email of the outcome of the selection process and will receive a copy of the evaluation report prepared by the Review Panel for the proposal. Following this notification, each participating funding organization will formally notify the relevant PIs and award funding in accordance with its own rules, procedures, and timelines. For some funding organizations, the release of funds may be subject to the completion and signature of additional documentation, including agreements covering matters such as intellectual property rights, confidentiality, and publication arrangements. 4.3. Open Access to Research Outputs Open access to research outputs is strongly encouraged in order to maximise the dissemination, visibility, and impact of the funded research, and to enhance the return on public investment in research. Funding recipients are expected to ensure that research data, peer-reviewed publications, and software outputs are made openly accessible online wherever possible, in line with the policies, rules, and any constraints (e.g. ethical, legal, or security-related) of the relevant funding organizations. Annex I – Data Management Plan – Template A data management plan (DMP) describes how the data generated or used by a project will be managed during and after the project’s lifetime. This includes arrangements for data collection, documentation, storage, preservation, sharing, and consideration of ethical and legal requirements. The DMP applies to digital data only and should not include publications. Applicants must structure their DMP using the five headings set out below. T-AP grant recipients are expected to make their research data openly available for reuse by others, unless ethical, legal, or commercial constraints prevent this. The guiding principle is “as open as possible, as closed as necessary”. Any restrictions on data sharing must be clearly justified in the DMP. The T-AP funders support the principle that research data generated using public funds constitute a public good and must be managed in accordance with the FAIR Principles – i.e., the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reuse of digital assets.

1) Data Description Describe any existing datasets that will be used by the project. Specify the types of digital data and associated metadata that will be generated, collected, or processed, and how these will be recorded and formatted to support reproducibility and reuse. Examples include (but are not limited to): photographs, interview data, maps, graphs, videos, spreadsheets, audio recordings, databases, teaching materials, and software code.

2) Ethical and Legal Aspects Describe any any ethical, legal, or regulatory constraints that affect data collection, storage, or sharing. Explain how issues such as privacy, confidentiality, data security, intellectual property, and data protection will be addressed. Where data are collected from human participants, describe consent procedures and/or anonymisation strategies to enable future data sharing. Where applicable, clarify ownership of copyright and intellectual property rights for newly generated data.

3) Responsibilities and Management Methodology Outline roles and responsibilities for data management within the project, including across partner institutions. Describe procedures for data collection, quality control, documentation, storage, backup, and longterm-preservation.

4) Publication Formats, Standards, Mechanisms and Repositories Describe the formats, standards, and mechanisms through which the data will be made available to ensure compliance with the FAIR Principles. Where relevant, indicate data types (e.g. file formats), anticipated data volumes, and metadata standards (e.g. Dublin Core). Specify the repository or repositories where the data will be deposited (e.g. institutional repositories or recognised international repositories such as Zenodo).

5) Preservation and Sharing after Project Ends Describe policies for data preservation and sharing during and after the end of the project, including any embargo periods. Indicate how long the data will remain publicly accessible and who will be responsible for ensuring ongoing access and preservation. These arrangements are typically governed by the policies of the chosen data repository or repositories.

Annex II – The Narrative Résumé Template This document is mandatory for the Lead PI and co-PIs only. Please use the five sections described below, omitting the corresponding explanations. The narrative résumé is designed to allow you to make visible all the relevant contributions you have made to the research community. This document should occupy at most five pages per PI. If a résumé contains more than five pages, only the first five will be considered. For sections in which you do not desire to provide information, write “Not applicable” under the corresponding section title. There is no word limit for each section – you may choose to devote more space to certain sections depending on the nature of your past contributions and experience. Elan will provide a CV template, but applicants should use the T-AP template instead. Section 1 – Personal Information: Please indicate the following:

• Key qualifications

• Relevant positions held (list up to 5)

• Awards or prizes

• Any other experience directly relevant to the proposed research project

Section 2 – Independent contributions to the generation of new ideas, tools, methodologies or knowledge: List up to five of the most relevant research results, such as scientific articles, books, book chapters, videos, sound recordings, creative outputs, lectures as guest speakers, patents (filed, granted, and especially licensed), registered software, cultivars, new products, new processes or other types of documented results arisen from research that you consider to be among the five most relevant to your career. Section 3 – Human Capacity Development: The development or supervision of others and maintenance of effective working relationships. You can list up to five examples indicating the connection between these examples and the proposed research project. Section 4 – Scientific Impact: Contributions to the wider research community. You can list up to five examples of various activities you have engaged in to progress the research community, such as editing, reviewing, refereeing, committee work, your contributions to increasing research integrity and improving research culture. Section 5 – Societal Impact: Contributions towards wider social impacts which may include benefits for communities, partners’ organizations or practitioners (‘research-users’) through collaboration, influence on public policy, advancement of professional practices, contributions to the public discourse. Section 6 – Additions: Provide any further details relevant to your application (such as career breaks). Netherlands – Dutch Research Council (NWO) Last updated: 13 April 2026 Information on the funding organisation in the call Budget € 2,800,000 Anticipated number of projects to fund 7 Website https://www.nwo.nl/en/researchprogrammes/trans-atlantic-platform-t-ap Contact David Batelaan, Programme Officer: +31 703440605 Dr Martijn Wienia, Senior Programme Officer: +31 703494352 t-ap@nwo.nl National requirements and guidelines on proposals Call topics Applications for funding from NWO should fit the general call scope and additionally focus on one of the three global transitions described below: 1. Sustainable energy transition. A broad transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy sources with the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while ensuring long-term ecological, economic and social sustainability. 2. Mobility and spatial planning in transition. This transition refers to a profound shift in the way people and goods move on a regional to inclusive global scale and the new demands this places on spatial planning. 3. Global food and water transition. This transition refers to a gradual, broad shift in how food and water systems are managed, protected and connected. The transition is driven by environmental impacts, health, climate change, urbanisation, industrialisation and population growth. Your choice for one of these transitions should be explicitly described and explained in the application form (abstract and research description). Proposal submission Once proposals are selected for funding, the consortia will be notified by Call Management and subsequently, the national granting process will be initiated by NWO. An application for NWO funding has one national main applicant, responsible for scientific and financial management. National co-applicants within an application for NWO funding are allowed. • Researchers employed at a university in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, umc or a research organisation, as referred to in Article 1.1, first paragraph, subparagraphs c to h of the NWO Grant Rules 2024 may not apply for a scientific or post-doc position for themselves. Project consortium partners An application for funding from NWO may consider the following roles: 1. National main applicant (mandatory): the applicant who leads the application to NWO and is the foreseen national project leader, in case a project is granted. 2. National co-applicant (optional): national applicants in addition to the national main applicant with an active role and responsibility in realising the project and requesting funding from NWO. 3. Cooperation partners: practitioner partners who are not eligible to receive funding, but who are involved in the co-design and co-creation of the research. 1. National main applicants To be eligible to submit a proposal, researchers must be employed for an indefinite period (with the associated employment contract) or have a tenure track appointment at any of the following research organisations: – universities and universities of applied sciences, as described in Section 1.8, subsection 1 of the Dutch Higher Education and Research Act, or universities referred to in the Policy Rules for Universities in the Kingdom of the Netherlands; – university medical centres, as described in Section 1.13, subsection 1 of the Higher Education and Research Act; – KNAW institutes and NWO institutes; – TO2 Institutes; – UNESCO-IHE; – Netherlands Cancer Institute; – Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen; – Naturalis Biodiversity Center; – Advanced Research Centre for NanoLithography (ARCNL); – Princess Máxima Center. Individuals with a zero-hour or fixed-term employment contract (other than a tenure track appointment) cannot submit a proposal. Applicants with a part-time appointment must ensure adequate supervision of the project and all project members for whom funding is requested. It may be that the main applicant or a co-applicant’s tenure track employment contract ends before the intended completion date of the project for which grant funding is being requested, or that the main or co-applicant’s tenure agreement ends before this date due to their reaching retirement age. In such cases, the proposal must include a statement from the employer. In this statement, the research organisation in question guarantees that the project and all project members for whom funding is being requested will receive adequate supervision for the full duration of the project. 2. National co-applicants Researchers interested to apply as a national co-applicant, i.e. together with a national main applicant, may submit as a national co-applicant. Co-applicants must be affiliated with a research organisation referred to in this subsection or with other research organisations as described in Article 1.1, subsection 4 of the NWO Grant Rules 2024 that comply with the following cumulative conditions. The organisation must: – be established in the Netherlands; – or an organisation or body established and governed by public law (in Dutch: publiekrechtelijke rechtspersoon) (all other legal forms, including private and public limited companies, are excluded); – have as its primary goal the independent conduct of its own fundamental research, industrial research or experimental development or with widely disseminating the results of those activities through teaching, publications or knowledge transfer; – be able to state that the organisation keeps separate accounts with regard to economic/non-economic activities and that undertakings with decisive influence on the organisation do not enjoy preferential access to the organisation’s results. Foreign research organisations (other than participating T-AP members) can also be part of the consortium as co-applicants. For these organisations, the same conditions and assessment procedures apply, with the exception that the organisation must be established in the Netherlands. Note: Prior to submission of a proposal, NWO will assess whether an organisation complies with Article 1.1, subsection 4 of the NWO Grant Rules 2024 and is thus eligible to participate as co-applicant based on the above conditions. This assessment also helps to ensure NWO’s compliance with regulations prohibiting state aid. To enable the assessment to be carried out, the intended co-applicant’s organisation must submit the following documents by email to t-ap@nwo.nl no later than ten working days before the submission deadline (i.e. by 14 October 2026, 23:59:59 CEST): – a recent extract from the Chamber of Commerce; – a deed of establishment and/or current articles of association; – the most recently available annual accounts, including an audit report1No audit report is necessary for organisations not legally required to have their annual accounts audited. However, such organisations must be able to provide proof of exemption from this legal requirement.; – a completed Research Organisation Statement, which is available on the funding page of this Call for proposals. Documents must be in English or Dutch. Other relevant documents may also be included. NWO may also request additional information if the above documents do not allow for adequate determination of the organisation’s eligibility to act as co-applicant. If the intended co-applicant’s organisation has already been assessed and found to comply with these conditions as part of a different NWO programme, please contact NWO at the above email address well before the applicable deadline to determine whether further assessment is necessary. If the intended co-applicant’s organisation fails to submit the documents required for assessment on time, NWO will not accept the organisation as co-applicant. Project duration Maximum of 36 months Project budget Maximum of € 400,000 per project Types of cost The available budget modules are listed below: • Personnel ○ Personnel at a university in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, umc or a research organisation, as referred to in Article 1.1, first paragraph, subparagraphs c to h of the NWO Grant Rules 2024 salary costs can be claimed for the following positions: ○ Postdoc: at least 1 position, for at least 12 months, for at least 0.5 fte, according to UNL or UMCNL rates, a benchfee is available; ○ PhD Student: a PhD position can be part of the project, if the host organisation can guarantee (in a guarantee letter annexed to the application form) that the fourth year of the PhD position will be covered through other means; ○ Non-scientific personnel (NWP): according to UNL or UMCNL rates; ○ Research leave: max. 5% of the grant amount, according to UNL or UMCNL rates. ○ Personnel of universities of applied sciences, TO2 institutes and other research organisations using the Government Tariff Manual (HOT), Table 2, under 2.2 ‘average total salary cost per salary scale’, column ‘Hourly rate productive hours, excluding VAT’; ○ Scientific personnel at foreign research organisations who are co-applicants (other than participating T-AP members), up to 50% of the grant amount. ○ Students: according to the usual internship fee or HOT rates, may be added to material costs •Material: for project-specific material costs, up to 25% of the grant amount. Subsequently, up to 50% of the material budget can be used for work by third parties; •Knowledge utilisation: for activities that promote the use of knowledge from the research following the Impact Plan approach, mandatory 5–20% of the grant amount; •Project management: up to 5% of the grant amount. Please note the following: • NWO funds project-related costs. Therefore overhead costs are not eligible for NWO funding. A more detailed explanation of the budget modules and eligible costs can be found on the funding page on the NWO website. It is mandatory to submit the NWO budget form for the funding requested at NWO at the time of the transnational deadline. Please submit it to t-ap@nwo.nl. Do not hesitate to contact the national contact points in case of questions via the aforementioned email address. Other requirements/guidelines The NWO Grant Rules and the Agreement on the Payment of Costs for Scientific Research are applicable to all applications for NWO funding. Any arrangements made regarding the grant from NWO, for instance in a Consortium Agreement, must comply with the NWO Grant Rules 2024 and the European legislation on state aid. As stipulated in the NWO Grant Rules, Article 3.2, paragraph 2, the project cannot start until the conditions set out in the grant award decision regarding the start of the project are met. Please note that these conditions will include a signed Consortium agreement by all partners in the transnational project. Under the Dutch General Administrative Law Act, any interested party has the right to lodge an objection to the decision taken by NWO within six weeks of the date of the decision letter. Further information about the objections procedure can be found on the NWO website. NWO will, if necessary, apply a one-off indexation of personnel costs when awarding the grant. The UNL/UMCNL/HOT rate at the time of the decision date applies and the date on which the rates take effect is used for this purpose. Submission of financial and scientific reports at national level is required in accordance with the rules of NWO. Granted consortia will be informed in due time. Research integrity Research must be conducted in accordance with the standards set out in the 2018 Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. In the case of an actual or suspected violation of these standards, the project leader must immediately inform NWO and submit all relevant documents to NWO. Researchers can also report complaints to their research organisation’s Scientific Integrity Committee or to the NWO Scientific Integrity Desk. NWO places a high value on the scientific integrity of the research it funds and exerts itself to prevent and detect any integrity violations. Research irregularities can cause damage directly, for example to the environment or to patients, and prejudice public trust in scientific research as well as trust between individual researchers. International research projects (partially) funded by NWO should be characterised by fair, equitable and sustainable collaboration among the partners in the consortium and with relevant stakeholders. International research projects must therefore also comply with the Global Code of Conduct for Equitable Research Partnerships (TRUST). A link to this code and more information about Equitable Collaboration, including a free online training, can be found of the website: Equitable Collaboration in Science | NWO. Genetic resources and the Nagoya Protocol Researchers must take whatever measures are necessary to ensure compliance with the Nagoya Protocol. The Nagoya Protocol aims to ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the utilisation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources (Access and Benefit-Sharing; ABS). Researchers who make use of such resources, including in or from other countries, should familiarise themselves with the tenets of the Nagoya Protocol (ABS Focal Point). Principles of socially responsible licensing A project may generate knowledge that is applicable in society. When entering into licensing or transfer agreements for research results developed in this funding round, due consideration must be given to the ten principles of socially responsible licensing provided on the UMCNL website. Knowledge security Together, the Dutch knowledge sector, including NWO, and various branches of government have created the National Knowledge Security Guidelines as guidance on how to weigh opportunities and security risks for anyone involved in international collaboration at research organisations. The approach to knowledge security in the Netherlands relies heavily on self-regulation by the knowledge sector. NWO expects applicants to adhere to the research organisation’s knowledge security policy. In case of signs that a proposal or awarded project may present risks to knowledge security, NWO can ask the applicant or project leader to provide insight into risk mitigation measures. Additionally, NWO may impose further conditions to protect knowledge security in the award letter. The National Knowledge Security Guidelines are available on the central government website at: Home | National Contact Point for Knowledge Security T-A P FOO Call Scope (Narrative) Draft – Future-Oriented Orders: Transnational Challenges, Transitions and Transformations Purpose This paper outlines the scope (scientific narrative) of the T-AP Call on Future-Oriented Orders: Transnational Challenges, Transitions and Transformations (FOO). This narrative of the call has been developed and agreed by the academic expert group consisting of the following members: Prof. Steven Bernstein (Global Environmental and Sustainability Governance, Toronto) Prof. Marta Bucholc (Sociology, Warsaw) Prof. Georgina Endfield (Environmental History, Liverpool) Prof. Gabriele Gramelsberger (Theory of Science and Technology, RWTH Aachen) Prof. Thomas Grundmann (Epistemology, Philosophy of Science and Logic, Cologne) Prof. Daniel Laqua (Modern and Contemporary History, Northumbria University) Prof. Adriana Marotti de Mello (Economics, Business, and Accounting, São Paulo) Prof. Abraham Matamanda (Urban and Reginal Planning, Free State) Prof. Jason Ralph (International Relations, Leeds) Prof. Catharina von Koskull (Business administration, Marketing, Vaasa) Prof. James Ziliak (Economics, Kentucky) 1. Context, Scope and Principles of the Call In recent decades, the world has entered a period of profound turbulence. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, regional and global conflicts, political instability, financial and trade disruptions, the rise of disruptive emergent new technologies (such as generative AI), and widespread epistemic crises – exacerbated by disinformation and the fragmentation of public discourse – have all reshaped the global landscape. Political extremism, shifting international alliances, and emerging cultural divides, driven by socioeconomic and technological transformations, continue to influence how societies understand, interact, and envision the future. Yet, amidst this volatility, new and unforeseen opportunities are emerging – from advances in AI and medicine to breakthroughs in communication technologies. These innovations open up transformative possibilities and space for creative new solutions and developments. In light of these developments, a forward-looking challenge-based approach is urgently needed. This call seeks to foster research that is not only interdisciplinary and transnational, but also deeply reflective of the complex interplay between global crises, emerging technologies, and evolving societal values. We invite researchers to submit project proposals that contribute to new knowledge and tools to support a shared vision of a resilient and inclusive global future responsive to emerging challenges. The T-AP Call on Future-Oriented Orders (FOO) will

• catalyze and support transnational research teams from countries on both sides of the Atlantic to advance key insights from Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) research to advance interdisciplinary and trans-Atlantic research collaborations through the strengthening of existing and establishing new partnerships; and/or

• support outstanding, innovative, and interdisciplinary research proposals that contribute to the understanding of challenges, transitions and transformations affecting future-oriented orders; and/or

• co-develop robust and resilient work programs with communities and key stakeholders, including local, regional, national, and international policy makers.

2. Objectives The Trans-Atlantic Platform (T-AP) call on Future-Oriented Orders invites critical discussion on key questions that will define our shared future:

• How can we strengthen society’s ability to anticipate emerging challenges and opportunities – and understand their complex interdependencies?

• How can we design effective strategies for planning and responses in the face of uncertainty, fostering international collaboration on issues of global significance?

• What kind of futures do we envision for human life and coexistence? How do we want to shape it, and in which direction should our societies evolve in response to past crises and future trends?

These questions can be addressed from a wide range of disciplinary, methodological, theoretical, and applied perspectives within the social sciences and humanities. 3. Type of research that can be funded The FOO call supports humanities and/or social sciences interdisciplinary research focused on the challenges described below. We invite proposals that use all appropriate methodologies, whether qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. Proposals may also include methods or approaches that emphasize theory development, conceptual and normative inquiry, and future-oriented methodologies such as, but not limited to, simulations, visioning, risk analysis, modelling, and scenario construction. 4. Overarching themes for Future-Oriented Orders The FOO call will focus on themes derived from the following list of thematic areas that highlight core aspects and challenges of Future-Oriented Orders. The focus on these themes will encourage research teams of highly qualified applicants to develop innovative and outstanding interdisciplinary research proposals. It is also envisaged that proposals will potentially consider linkages between these topics as well as develop, and add to, the analysis of these challenges in ways that explore contemporary factors shaping future-oriented orders. Approaches may focus on dynamics, processes, contexts, and the making of meaning in relation to each of these. Historical inquiry into those factors that help us understand the present and the future are also welcome. The following four thematic areas highlight potential directions for research projects. Overview of themes for investigation of future-oriented orders

1. Uncertainty: Sources, Costs, Communication, and Improvement

2. The Many Faces of the Future and Crisis: Historical, Cultural, and Regional Perspectives

3. Scope and Coordination of Response Strategies

4. Normative Inquiry into Prevention and Preparation for Future Crises

4.1 Uncertainty: Sources, Costs, Communication, and Improvement Projections of the future are inherently uncertain. They are shaped by inductive reasoning and probabilistic thinking – often involving highly unlikely or indeterminate outcomes. Some events, such as “Black Swan” phenomena, arrive completely unexpectedly. Emerging technologies (such as AI, quantum computing) with the potential to affect various areas of society could generate significant impact and may introduce uncertainty across the broader societal landscape. There may also be areas in which uncertainty itself is helpful and non-detrimental. Possible research questions:

• How can we enhance our predictive and foresight capacities – through emerging technologies, creativity, evidence-based methods, and robust transnational collaborations?

• What are the societal consequences and policy implications of the emergence of new, and often unforeseen, uncertainties?

• How should researchers and communicators convey these uncertainties to the public, policymakers, and entrepreneurs?

• How should education improve on citizens’ uncertainty literacy?

• How does the deeper awareness of uncertainties influence strategic planning and policymaking?

• How do specific technologies affect our degree of uncertainty?

• When is uncertainty dangerous; and when can we live with it or even embrace it?

4.2 The Many Faces of the Future and Crisis: Historical, Cultural, and Regional Perspectives Modern Western societies often exhibit a low tolerance for risk and a heightened concern for the distant future. But conceptions of crisis, risk, and the future vary widely across time and cultures. Historical and non-Western perspectives – particularly from the Global South or indigenous populations – offer alternative frameworks for understanding and designing futures, articulating notions of progress and responding to uncertainty. They also point to the role of earlier experiences and heritage in times of transformation and crisis, and the role of the past in building future-oriented responses. Exploring these diverse viewpoints allows us to better contextualize dominant Western paradigms and enrich our understanding of global plurality. Comparative, historical, and/or regional analyses can help uncover overlooked insights and challenge conventional assumptions. Possible research questions:

• How have past societies responded to the challenges of building future-oriented orders?

• How have regional and cultural backgrounds or assumptions shaped the ways in which action in the global realm has been conceived or practiced?

• What is the relationship between on the one side, tangible and intangible heritage, including ancestral knowledge, and on the other side attempts to build a future-oriented order?

• How do historical experiences shape perceptions of future risk?

• In what ways do expectations of progress raise or limit the level of risk aversion?

4.3 Scope and Coordination of Response Strategies Recent global crises have underscored the importance – and the limitations – of existing institutional responses. Addressing challenges that transcend borders demands a reassessment of how we coordinate action at national, regional, and global levels. What kinds of transnational partnerships, institutions, and governance models are needed to respond effectively to future risks and opportunities? This theme invites an assessment, and possible rethinking, of international institutions, policies, and social movements regarding environmental issues (e.g., climate change), trade relations, public health, emergent technologies, geoeconomic or geopolitical dependencies, informal governance structures and mobilizations. Possible research questions:

• Where have current policies and institutions succeeded or fallen short?

• How should policies and institutions be designed to better address emergent technologies, environmental risk, trade relations, or public health crises in the face of new uncertainties?

• Should we prioritize more inclusive, regional, and bottom-up approaches that amplify voices previously unheard?

• If so, what implications does this have for the methodologies and epistemologies we employ in academic and policy research?

• In what domains (policy, culture, law, technology) are more bottom-up and regional approaches called for?

• And in what domains are top-down and global approaches needed or even desired?

4.4 Normative Inquiry into Prevention and Preparation for Future Crises Investing in crisis prevention and future preparedness raises complex normative and instrumental questions. Change and anticipated change is experienced differently. The identification of ‘crisis’ can therefore be a contested process with political implications. Normative inquiry is needed to identify principles, norms and rules that should guide this process. Possible research questions:

• How should we allocate limited resources between immediate needs and long-term resilience?

• What will be the implications and consequences of specific measures, practices, and regulations?

• What probability threshold should a future harm cross before it justifies present-day action?

• How do we balance the protection of liberal rights, such as privacy and individual freedom, with the imperative to prevent harm?

• What ethical trade-offs are acceptable between mitigating future risks and preserving the freedoms that define open societies?

• How have such questions been tackled in past contexts?