Shaping the Future of Animal Health and Welfare

The European Partnership for Animal Health and Welfare (EUPAHW) is launching this research and innovation call to tackle critical challenges in the health and welfare of terrestrial and aquatic animals. This initiative forms part of a broader strategic effort to accelerate the transition towards sustainable, resilient, and ethically responsible livestock and aquaculture systems across Europe.

Universities and other higher education institutions, public research institutions, non-profit organisations, consumers/citizens as individuals and civil society representatives and private companies can apply to this call, subject to the national/regional regulations and eligibility criteria (Annex VII). Partners that are not eligible for funding from any of the Funder Organisations may participate in research consortia if they provide with their own resources and submit a valid “Letter of Commitment” (see Annex V). However, these applicants cannot act as the coordinator, and they will not count towards the minimum or maximum number of partners. To support consortium building, a partnering tool will be available on the submission tool homepage (https://EUPAHW.ptj.de/).

Research Performing Organisations (RPOs) that are beneficiaries of the EUPAHW and are interested in participating in external research calls may do so in cases defined in the Grant Agreement (list provided as Annex II).

●Proposals must be written in English.

●Proposals must be submitted before the submission deadline via the submission website (https://EUPAHW.ptj.de/).

●The project duration must not exceed 3 years.

●Researchers and entities may participate in more than one research proposal, provided there is no double funding of the same work or cost item, and the same work is proposed only once, and that FO national regulations allow it. In case of multiple participation, partners must list all proposals and explain clearly how their work within the respective proposals differs in the section “Partners” (via Partner Login) under “Tasks within the project”.

●Duplication with internal activities is forbidden and will make the proposal ineligible.

●The proposed research project must align with the scope of this call.

●Applicants must also respect the national/regional eligibility criteria of the FO they are requesting funding from. Please consider that some FOs also request the submission of a separate national/regional application (See Annex VII).

●The submission of a pre-proposal is mandatory. Applicants cannot submit a full-proposal at a later stage without having submitted a pre-proposal and having been invited for full-proposal submission.

●Proposals must follow the rules outlined under “consortium structure”.

●Only at Full-proposal stage: Applicants must submit a Communication and Dissemination Plan (Annex III) and a Data Management Plan (Annex IV).

The application process is a two-step process (pre- and full-proposal steps). Throughout the entire process, the Call Office (CO) will be the central communication point for all applicants. The entire application procedure will be carried out online using the EUPAHW call management tool templates and online forms (https://EUPAHW.ptj.de/).

In some cases, submission of additional documents to the national/regional FOs is also required. Applications not complying with national requirements will be rejected. Therefore, applicants are strongly advised to review the national/regional regulations provided in Annex VII and contact their funding contact persons (FCPs, Annex I).

Pre-Proposal Evaluation

The CO will check pre-proposals that are submitted correctly and within the deadline for eligibility. The general eligibility check performed by the CO will focus on the “Eligibility Criteria” (Section 5.1.2). Additionally, the FO will conduct a national eligibility check focusing on the national/regional regulations and the national/regional eligibility criteria (see Annex VII).

Three to five experts will evaluate eligible pre-proposals. The information provided in the pre-proposal will be used to find appropriate experts from the International Evaluation Panel of Experts (IEPE) for its evaluation. The Evaluation Office will ensure that conflict of interest is avoided. Conflict of interest will be described in detail in the evaluator guideline prepared by the EO.

The eligible pre-proposals will be reviewed and evaluated against the two following criteria:

Excellence

a)Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives, and the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious and goes beyond the state of the art

b)Soundness of the proposed overall methodology

Impact

a)  Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, and the likely scale and significance of the contributions from the project.

Evaluation scores will be awarded for the two main criteria, and not singularly for the different aspects listed below the criteria. The scoring system uses a 5-point scale for each review criteria, half scores are allowed. Scores for the different evaluation criteria will have equal weight. The threshold for each single criterion will be 3 out of 5.

Scoring system:

5 = Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all aspects of the criterion in question.

4 = Very good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but small improvements are possible.

3 = Good. The proposal addresses the criterion in question well, but certain improvements are necessary.

2 = Fair. The proposal generally addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses that need corrections.

1 = Poor. The proposal shows serious weaknesses in relation to the criterion in question.

0 = Failure. The proposal fails to address the criterion in question, or cannot be judged because of missing or incomplete information.

Pre-proposal evaluation will be held remotely via the online evaluation tool. For each pre-proposal, one IEPE member will be assigned as rapporteur. The rapporteur will draft a summary report according to a template provided by the evaluation office for each proposal reflecting the individual evaluation reports to be sent to applicants. The draft summary reports shall also be submitted to the EO and shall include a recommendation on whether the proposal should be invited for the full proposal submission or not.

Full-Proposal Evaluation

A minimum of three experts will evaluate each full-proposal against the following criteria:

Excellence

a)Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives, and the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious and goes beyond the state of the art

b)Soundness of the proposed methodology, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions, inter-disciplinary approaches, appropriate consideration of the gender dimension in research and innovation content, and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end-users where appropriate.

Impact

a)Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, and the likely scale and significance of the contributions from the project.

b)Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities.

Quality and efficiency of the implementation

a)Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources overall.

b)Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise

Evaluation scores will be awarded for the three main criteria, and not singularly for the different sub-criteria. Full proposals will be evaluated using the same scoring system used at the pre-proposal step, but only full scores will be allowed. Scores for the different evaluation criteria will have equal weight.

Full-proposal evaluation will include a meeting (face-to-face, virtual meeting or hybrid) of all members of the IEPE. At the IEPE meeting, each full-proposal will be jointly evaluated by the IEPE members on the basis of the written evaluation reports. One IEPE member will be assigned as a rapporteur for each full-proposal. The rapporteur will draft a summary report for each proposal which reflects the individual evaluation reports and will introduce the proposal during the IEPE meeting.

After the proposal discussion, IEPE members should agree on a scoring per criterion. The three agreed-upon scores will be summed up, so the overall score per project can range between 0 and 15. The threshold will be 3 out of 5 for each criterion and 10 out of 15 for the overall score. Proposals with a score lower than 3 for any criterion or lower than 10 for the overall threshold will not be selected for funding.

Full information can be found here; https://EUPAHW.ptj.de/