wentorai/eu-horizon-guide

EU Horizon Europe Guide

A skill for navigating the EU Horizon Europe Framework Programme, identifying relevant funding calls, understanding eligibility rules, building consortia, and writing competitive proposals. Covers the three-pillar structure, key instruments (ERC, MSCA, collaborative projects), budget planning, and the evaluation process.

Horizon Europe Structure

Three Pillars

Horizon Europe (2021-2027) has a total budget of approximately EUR 95.5 billion, organized into three pillars plus a horizontal component.

Pillar I - Excellent Science (~EUR 25B):
  - European Research Council (ERC): frontier research
    - Starting Grants: 2-7 years post-PhD, up to EUR 1.5M
    - Consolidator Grants: 7-12 years post-PhD, up to EUR 2M
    - Advanced Grants: established leaders, up to EUR 2.5M
    - Synergy Grants: 2-4 PIs, up to EUR 10M
  - Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA): researcher mobility
    - Postdoctoral Fellowships: individual mobility
    - Doctoral Networks: structured PhD programs
    - Staff Exchanges: inter-sector mobility
  - Research Infrastructures: access to facilities

Pillar II - Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness (~EUR 53.5B):
  - Six clusters:
    1. Health
    2. Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society
    3. Civil Security for Society
    4. Digital, Industry and Space
    5. Climate, Energy and Mobility
    6. Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture, Environment
  - Missions: Cancer, Climate Adaptation, Oceans, Cities, Soil

Pillar III - Innovative Europe (~EUR 13.6B):
  - European Innovation Council (EIC)
  - European Innovation Ecosystems
  - European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

Finding Relevant Calls

Step-by-step call identification:

1. Funding and Tenders Portal (primary source):
   https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/
   - Search by keyword, cluster, instrument type
   - Filter by open calls, upcoming deadlines
   - Subscribe to email alerts for your topics

2. Work Programme documents:
   - Published every 2 years (2023-2024, 2025-2027)
   - Detailed topic descriptions with expected outcomes
   - Specify eligible participants, budget, project duration
   - Read the FULL topic description, not just the title

3. National Contact Points (NCPs):
   - Each EU member state has NCPs for each cluster
   - Free advice on eligibility, partner search, proposal review
   - Often organize information days and matchmaking events

4. Partner Search:
   - CORDIS Partner Service
   - Enterprise Europe Network
   - NCP matchmaking events
   - Conference networking sessions

Proposal Writing

Structure of a Collaborative Proposal (RIA/IA)

Part A: Administrative forms (online)
  - Participant information
  - Budget tables
  - Ethics issues table
  - Call-specific declarations

Part B: Technical description (PDF upload)
  Section 1 - Excellence (scored):
    1.1 Objectives and ambition
    1.2 Methodology
    1.3 Interdisciplinary/intersectoral approach (if relevant)

  Section 2 - Impact (scored):
    2.1 Project results and expected impacts
    2.2 Communication, dissemination, exploitation
    2.3 Summary of measures to maximize impact

  Section 3 - Implementation (scored):
    3.1 Work plan: work packages, tasks, deliverables, milestones
    3.2 Management structure, milestones, critical risks
    3.3 Consortium composition and partnership

  Note: Page limits are STRICTLY enforced.
  Typical limits: 40-50 pages for Part B.

Writing Tips for High Scores

Excellence section:
  - Start with the specific call topic text, show exact alignment
  - State objectives as SMART goals (specific, measurable, achievable,
    relevant, time-bound)
  - Methodology: explain WHY this approach, not just WHAT you will do
  - Include a Gantt chart showing work package timing
  - Describe beyond-state-of-the-art contributions explicitly
  - Use the exact terminology from the call topic

Impact section:
  - Use the Impact Canvas framework: outputs -> outcomes -> impacts
  - Quantify impacts where possible (publications, patents, jobs,
    policy changes, training beneficiaries)
  - Name specific stakeholders who will use your results
  - Include a credible exploitation plan (not just "we will publish")
  - Show knowledge of the Target and Expected Impacts in the call

Implementation section:
  - Work packages should have clear, non-overlapping scope
  - Each partner should lead at least one work package
  - Include a dedicated management WP (WP1) and dissemination WP
  - Risk register with likelihood, impact, and mitigation measures
  - Pert chart or Gantt chart is expected

Consortium Building

Partner Selection

Ideal consortium characteristics:

Composition:
  - 5-15 partners for a standard RIA (Research and Innovation Action)
  - At least 3 partners from 3 different EU member states
  - Mix of universities, research institutes, SMEs, industry, CSOs
  - Include at least one partner from a widening country (bonus)

Partner roles:
  - Coordinator: strong project management track record
  - Scientific leads: top researchers in the field
  - Industry partners: exploitation and market access
  - SMEs: agility, innovation, close to market
  - End users: validation, real-world testing
  - CSOs/NGOs: societal engagement, responsible innovation

Red flags:
  - Partners who do not respond to emails promptly
  - Partners with no relevant publications or experience
  - Duplicate competencies (no justification for overlap)
  - Partners from the same country as the coordinator (too many)
  - Partners who cannot provide co-funding if required

Budget Planning

Eligible Costs

Budget categories in Horizon Europe:

A. Personnel costs:
   - Actual salary costs or unit costs (daily rates)
   - Include employer social charges
   - Personnel must be directly working on the project
   - Time sheets or equivalent time recording required

B. Subcontracting:
   - Must be justified and identified in the proposal
   - Cannot subcontract core scientific work
   - Subject to best value-for-money procurement

C. Purchase costs:
   - Travel and subsistence
   - Equipment (depreciation during project period)
   - Other goods, works, and services

D. Other cost categories:
   - Financial support to third parties (cascading grants)
   - Internally invoiced goods and services

E. Indirect costs:
   - Flat rate of 25% of eligible direct costs
   - No need to justify or document

Funding rates:
  - RIA (Research and Innovation Action): 100% of eligible costs
  - IA (Innovation Action): 70% (100% for non-profit)
  - CSA (Coordination and Support Action): 100%
  - MSCA: unit costs (fixed amounts per researcher-month)
  - ERC: 100% + 25% indirect

Evaluation Process

How Proposals Are Scored

Evaluation criteria and weights:

Criterion         Weight  Threshold  Score Range
-----------       ------  ---------  ----------
Excellence        varies  3/5        0-5
Impact            varies  3/5        0-5
Implementation    varies  3/5        0-5
Overall           -       10/15      sum of above

Score descriptors:
  5 = Excellent: successfully addresses all relevant aspects
  4 = Very good: addresses the criterion very well but has
      a small number of shortcomings
  3 = Good: addresses the criterion well but with
      a number of shortcomings
  2 = Fair: broadly addresses the criterion but with
      significant weaknesses
  1 = Poor: fails to convincingly address the criterion
  0 = Not applicable or missing

Process:
  1. Individual remote evaluation (4-5 evaluators per proposal)
  2. Consensus meeting (evaluators discuss and agree scores)
  3. Panel review (ranking, budget allocation)
  4. Ethics review (if flagged)
  5. Grant Agreement preparation (6-9 months after deadline)

Typical success rate: 10-15% for most calls
ERC success rate: 10-12% for Starting Grants

Horizon Europe proposals require significant investment of time and resources. Starting preparation 6 to 12 months before the deadline, engaging National Contact Points early, and assembling a balanced consortium with complementary expertise are the strongest predictors of success, alongside the scientific quality of the proposed research itself.