Established between the following Funding Organisations

FWF, Austria

BELSPO, Belgium

F.R.S.-FNRS, Belgium

FWO, Belgium

CONFAP, Brazil

FAPESP, Brazil (São Paulo)

BNSF, Bulgaria

TACR, Czech Republic

IFD, Denmark

ETAG, Estonia

AKA, Finland

ANR, France

GUA-REG, France

REU-REG, France

DFG, Germany

DLR-PT, Germany

GSRT, Greece

EPA, Ireland

MoEP, Israel

VIAA, Latvia

RCL, Lithuania

RCN, Norway

NCN, Poland

FCT, Portugal

FRCT, Portugal (Azores)

UEFISCDI, Romania

SAS, Slovakia

DST, South Africa

AEI, Spain

GOBCAN, Spain (Canary Islands)

FORMAS, Sweden

SNSF, Switzerland

MHESR, Tunisia

TAGEM, Turkey

Referred hereinafter as “the Participating Organisations”

Preamble

BiodivERsA is a network of national and regional Funding Organisations promoting pan-European research on biodiversity, ecosystem services and Nature-based Solutions, and offering innovative opportunities for the conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity.

Together, major Funding Organisations of BiodivERsA will implement a joint call for research proposals on biodiversity and climate change, which will promote the integration of natural sciences, social sciences and humanities, and stakeholder engagement in the research projects. This call will be launched in the context of the BiodivERsA Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) & the BiodivClim ERA-Net COFUND programme.

As part of the ERA-NET COFUND scheme, this call will be co-funded by the European Commission (EC). The EC is increasing the available research budget by providing additional funding to that made available by the EC-eligible national/regional Funding Organisations.

Through their national/regional budget and the use of the EC “top-up” funding for EC-eligible countries, the Participating Organisations will strive to maximize the number of high quality transnational research projects that can be funded through this call.

Glossary

Associated Countrie	Associated Countries are countries who signed an association agreement with the European Union and its Members. In Horizon 2020, legal entities from Associated Countries can participate under the same conditions as legal entities from the Member States. The list of Associated Countries is available here: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/ grants_manual/hi/3cpart/h2020-hi-list-ac_en.pdf
Call Secretariat	The Call Secretariat is established by one of the Participating Organisations’ Head Offices, which, for the entire period of the call, is entrusted by the Participating Organisations to prepare, publish, and manage the call in cooperation and consultation with the CSC.
Call Steering Committee (CSC)	The CSC practical implementation of the call. It is composed of one mandated representative from each Participating Organisation taking part in the call, who will be the reference point for the participation of his/her organisation in the development and implementation of the call. According to Funding Organisation’s regulations, members of the CSC either can decide personally on the issues addressed or forward the decision taken or to be taken by his/her organisation to BiodivERsA.
Evaluation Committee (EvC)	The EvC is a committee of experts that reviews and ranks pre- and full proposals. The EvC meets to agree on a final evaluation and ranking of pre- and full proposals.
External reviewer	An external expert that provides a (remote) written peer review of a proposal.
Funding Organisation or Participating Organisation	A Funding Organisation or Participating Organisation is an Organisation participating in the 2019-2020 BiodivERsA call on “Biodiversity and Climate Change”, which requires signing the present Memorandum of Understanding.
Funding Organisation Contact Point (FCP)	A FCP represents a Participating Organisation and can be contacted by applicants and the Call Secretariat to give information on or explain the call procedures as well as national rules and procedures.
Partner	Depending on the Funding Organisation, a “Partner” is a researcher, an institution or an organisation, a laboratory, or a department of an institution and is contributing to the implementation of the research project.
Rapporteur	The rapporteurs for a given project are the members of the EvC to whom the project proposal has been allocated.

The Participating Organisations therefore agree as follows:

I. General objective

The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is to establish the procedures for the 2019/2020 joint COFUND call under an international funding programme within the context of BiodivERsA and BiodivClim. The Participating Organisations agree to jointly define the topic, disseminate the call and establish the application, review and funding procedures.

The Participating Organisations’ objective will be to maximize the number of high quality transnational research projects that can be funded through this call.

This MoU is a mutual statement of intention among the Participating Organisations who agree to make every reasonable effort to fulfil the intentions herein.

II. Procedures

1. Funding Model

The Participating Organisations agree to launch a joint call and use a joint evaluation with national/regional funding and additional EC co-funding for EC-eligible Funding Organisations.

The grants for the funded research projects will be awarded on a national/regional basis by the relevant Funding Organisations and administered according to their terms and conditions, taking into account all other applicable regulations and legal frameworks, including – for EC-eligible Funding Organisations – the regulations of the European Commission.

The Participating Organisations agree to endeavour to fund as many of the highest ranked proposals as possible.

The EC top-up funding for each EC-eligible Participating Organisations shall be predominantly allocated according to the Participating Organisation’s respective actual financial contribution to the joint call.

The EC-eligible Participating Organisations agree to use the EC contribution for research as a “mix-mode” funding model composed of

- 80% pro rata actual spent, i.e. 80% of the EC contribution to support research will be allocated pro rata to the Funding Organisations, based on their respective actual contributions

- 20% "flexibility" common pot, i.e. 20% of the EC contribution will be put into a "flexibility" common pot that will be used to close the gaps of funding within the ranking list. National/regional Funding Organisations first have to fulfil their commitments indicated as Indicative budget (low) (see table in 1) Annex 1) before they are allowed to get money from the common pot.

The Call Steering Committee reserves the right to adjust the redistribution of EC funding between a virtual (pro-rata) and real common pot during the funding meeting, where agreed unanimously by the funding organisations eligible to EC funding.

This funding model and the different levels of flexibility that can be implemented to ensure that the highest number of research projects is funded are described in Annex 2.

2. Management of the call

The Participating Organisations agree on the creation of a joint Call Steering Committee (CSC) for this call. The CSC is composed of one mandated representative from each Participating Organisation. The CSC will be responsible for the practical implementation of the call.

The Call Secretariat Organisations leading the call, i.e. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR), and will assist the CSC. The Call Secretariat will coordinate the smooth implementation of the call with involvement of staff from ANR, either electronically or physically. The mandate of the Call Secretariat is detailed in Annex 11.

In addition, each Participating Organisation will indicate a Funding Organisation Contact Point (FCP) whom the applicants can approach to enable an effective implementation of the call. This means taking into account and paying particular attention to Funding Organisations’ rules and eligibility criteria and the legal form of project leaders (natural person or institution). The FCPs will be coordinated by the Call Secretariat to avoid duplication of efforts. The Call Secretariat will provide a FAQ available on the BiodivERsA website.

3. Defining the topic and disseminating the call

The Participating Organisations intend to arrange a call for transnational research projects on the topic “Biodiversity and Climate Change” (Annex 1).

The call will be announced on 2^nd BiodivERsA website (http://www.biodiversa.org/2019-call) and the participating Organisations’ respective websites. The call documents will be available on the BiodivERsA website.

4. Appointment of an independent observer

Within the framework of the co-funded joint call of Horizon 2020 ERA-NET COFUND Action, the European Commission requires that the Consortium appoints an external observer, who will follow the whole evaluation process and especially the final EvC meeting where the final ranking list is established. Based on his/her observations, the independent observer will produce a report for the EC.

The main purpose of the independent observer is to report on whether the evaluation process complied, as expected, with the rules that govern the EC COFUND calls. In particular, this concerns the manner in which the expert evaluators apply the evaluation criteria, the process of arriving at a fair and transparent consensus decision and the establishment of the final ranked list of proposals. The observer may also offer suggestions on how the procedure could be improved.

Guidelines for the independent observer, as well as their tasks throughout the call evaluation process are detailed in Annex 16.

5. Application procedure

The Participating Organisations agree on procedures, eligibility and proposal requirements, summarized below and specified in Annex 1.

- A two-step procedure for joint applications will be followed, consisting of the submission of pre-proposals at step 1 and full proposals at step 2.

- The submission of pre-proposal is compulsory. Applicants cannot submit a proposal at a later stage otherwise.

- The language of the call and applications is English.

- The eligibility of research Partners will be checked according to the Funding Organisations’ criteria (see Funding Organisations’ rules). The Call Secretariat cannot be held responsible for ineligibility decision taken by another Funding Organisations with regard to its own rules.

- The eligibility of budget items will be checked according to Funding Organisations’ rules.

- For projects willing to include Partners beyond the ones eligible for Participating Organisations: these Partners may take part in the project

· either if they are subcontracted, which should be made clear, and remain subject to the terms and conditions of each Funding Organisation;

· or if they are self-financed. In the latter case, it should be clearly indicated how their participation to the project will be funded and self-funded Partners will have to provide a letter of support to the Call Secretariat.

- The information given in the pre-proposals is binding. No changes regarding the proposals’ content will be allowed by the CSC between the pre-proposals and full proposals. Regarding the administrative details, a limited number of changes may be allowed by the FCP and CSC, provided they are in line with the general rules of the call and the rules of the Funding Organisations:

• Minor change of budget can be allowed by the relevant Funding Organisation . The Funding Organisation can decide according to its own rules whether it needs a justification for it. If the national/regional Funding Organisation agrees to the budget change, the project coordinator has to inform the Call Secretariat about the change with the Funding Organisation Contact Point (FCP) in copy.

• No changes of Partners are allowed between the pre-proposals and full proposal stages, except if explicitly requested by the Funding Organisations or in case of force majeure. In both cases, a detailed justification of the changes will have to be communicated to the Call Secretariat and CSC by the project coordinator as soon as possible. Please note that the following actions are considered as changes: addition, removal or replacement of a Partner. If a researcher in charge (person) remains the same but changes the institutions, this won’t be considered as a change, provided the institution fulfils eligibility criteria. Individual cases will be examined.

- The project must be transnational project involving eligible Partners from at least three different countries participating in the call and requesting support from at least three different Participating Organisations. In addition, part of the eligible Partners, at least two must be from different EU Member States or Associated Countries [1] participating in the call. Provided the latter criterion is met (Partners from at least two different EU Member States or Associated Countries participating in the call), for proposals including Partners from outermost regions and overseas countries and territories participating in the call, if two outermost regions and overseas countries and territories are from the same country, these are counted as two participating countries (for the criteria: at least three different countries). Where a proposal includes three or more Partners from outermost regions and overseas countries and territories from the same country, these will be counted as two participating countries (for the criteria: at least three different countries).

- The maximum project duration is 3 years.

6. Review and evaluation procedure

The CSC shall establish an EvC, comprising both scientific experts from natural, climate and social sciences and policy/management experts.

The CSC will appoint an EvC Chair and Vice-Chair from the EvC members. The EvC will be chaired by a scientific expert and co-chaired by a policy/management expert.

A two-step evaluation process will be organised:

(i) STEP 1: it will consist of an eligibility check of pre-proposals by the Call Secretariat and FCPs and an evaluation of pre-proposals by members of the EvC against the following criteria: fit to the scope of the call, novelty of the research and transnational added value (Annex 7). The CSC will decide on the number of projects to be invited to step 2, based on the list made by the members of the Evaluation Committee and their explanations. Consortia that should not be invited to step 2 receive a clear indication that based on their pre-proposal, their chance of being successful with a full-proposal is very low in this high-competitive call. However, this is only a recommendation, a full proposal cannot be formally rejected, solely because the consortium did not receive an invitation to step 2. The CSC will make sure to invite enough pre-proposals to step 2, to ensure that the funding rate at step 2 won’t exceed 30%.

(ii) STEP 2: it will consist of an eligibility check of full proposals by the Call Secretariat and FCPs and an evaluation of full proposals by the EvC and external reviewers. Each proposal should be preferably reviewed by two external scientific reviewers and one external societal reviewer. External reviewers are suggested by the CSC and EvC, with the support of the Call Secretariat, and with a particular support of the Chair and Vice-Chair. If necessary, the Call Secretariat will identify additional reviewers. In case of an insufficient number of reviews, the Call Secretariat is in charge of identifying experts, with the agreement of the given proposal’s rapporteurs in the EvC. If the proposal’s rapporteurs do not respond within 24 hours, the Call Secretariat can use the identified experts. If in spite of all efforts, the targeted numbers of external reviews cannot be reached for a significant number of proposals, the CSC will meet to decide how to handle this situation. The solutions would however have to meet the terms and conditions of each Funding Organisation. The EvC will convene to evaluate and make the final ranking of the submitted full proposals according to the following assessment criteria: (scientific) excellence, quality and efficiency of the implementation and impact; and moderating the reviews obtained. The final ranking list will be communicated to the CSC for final funding decision. Selection criteria are specified in Annex 7 and the details on the procedure are specified in Annexes 11 and 12.

Anticipated time schedule

June 2019:	Pre-announcement of the call
2 September 2019:	Official launch of the call
10 September 2019:	CSC meeting to appoint the chair and vice-chair
5 November 2019, 16:00 CET (local time in Brussels):	Deadline for submitting pre-proposal
21 November 2019:	Eligibility check completed by the Call Secretariat and FCP
26 November 2019:	CSC meeting agree on the final eligibility decision to be sent to applicants and to appoint the EvC
Late January / early February 2020	1st EvC meeting > Results of the first EvC meeting
13 February 2020	CSC meeting to agree on proposals invited in Step 2 > proposals (max.14/02)
10 April 2020, 16:00 CEST (local time in Brussels):	Deadline for submitting full proposals
28 April 2020:	Second quick eligibility check completed by the Call Secretariat and FCPs
30 April 2020:	CSC meeting to agree on the final eligibility decision to be sent to applicants
Late June/early July 2020:	EvC meeting > Ranked list of proposals established by the EvC
Mid-Late September 2020:	Recommendation for funding projects by the CSC
1 December 2020	Earliest possible start of funded projects
1 April 2021:	Latest possible start of funded projects

Evaluation costs

The EvC should meet three times:

- Once for the evaluation of the pre-proposals submitted in the 1st step

- Once (either physically or electronically) for the allocation of proposals amongst rapporteurs after the submission of the full proposals;

- And once for the evaluation and ranking of full proposals.

Each EvC member will receive a fee for his/her participation to the evaluation process that is fixed to a standard rate of 450 EUR if he/she participates to only one step of the evaluation process (either evaluation of pre-proposals only, or evaluation of full proposals only) and 900 EUR if he/she participates in both step (i.e. evaluation of both pre-proposals and full proposals). The Chair and Vice-Chair will receive a fee for his/her participation to the evaluation process that is fixed at a standard rate of 1,500 and 1,250 EUR respectively. These rates are net of any taxes (however, social charges apply).

In addition, travel costs, accommodation and meals for attending the EvC meetings will be covered.

Anonymity of EvC members and external reviewers

EvC members and External reviewers remain anonymous throughout the whole evaluation process, except to EvC members and to the Funding Organisations participating in the call. Information on the EvC and the CSC members who have suggested the names of reviewers will be maintained in strict confidentiality by the Call Secretariat during and after the completion of the entire evaluation process.

The composition of the EvC will be made public only after the CSC has made its final decision about which projects are recommended for funding (without indication as to which members evaluated which proposal). The names of external reviewers won’t be made public, even after the completion of the evaluation process.

Conflict of interest/good scientific practice

The Participating Organisations agree to use their best endeavours to avoid conflicts of interest and to safeguard good scientific practice. The Guidelines (Annex 10) apply to the CSC, EvC and external reviewers.

7. Final funding decision (at step 2)

The CSC decides on which projects to recommend for funding while strictly adhering to the order of the ranking list established by the EvC, taking into consideration that around the threshold some proposals considered of equal quality might be ranked ex-aequo by the EvC.

The Participating Organisations are aiming to fund as many of the highest ranked proposals as possible, following the funding model presented in Annex 2. Formal funding decisions are made by the Funding Organisations.

The Call Secretariat will notify the applicants of the results of the evaluation process. No oral or written information will be given by the Participating Organisations before the notification by the Call Secretariat.

After communication of the results, selected applicants will enter into the administrative process with their corresponding regional/national Funding Organisations. Participating Organisations will coordinate the establishment of contracts with their respective funded teams.

8. Funding procedure

- Funding of selected projects should start during the period 1 December 2020 – 1 April 2021, using 2020 and/or 2021 budget;

- Research Partners of successful project consortia will be funded directly by their respective Funding Organisations and funding will be administered according to the regulations of the respective national/regional Funding Organisations. In addition, the EC funding for the projects will be distributed through the national/regional Funding Organisations;

- Funding Organisations’ procedures for joint programme funding will be made explicit to the Call Secretariat, Steering Committee and applicants in order to avoid any unexpected delays or issues.

9. Monitoring and evaluation / dissemination of results

Funded projects are required to provide a mid-term report (ca. 18 months) and a final report (ca. 36 months) on research progress and financial aspects.

In addition, the administrative rules of the relevant Funding Organisation apply.

The mid-term and final reports will allow the Funding Organisations to evaluate the implementation status of the research according to the initial work plan. The mid-term reports will be sent to the CSC for information and discussion, while the final reports will be sent to the CSC for assessment.

Funded projects are required to participate in activities that allow networking between the projects and the dissemination of the projects’ results. This includes:

- a kick-off meeting at the beginning of the funding period that will be organised back-to-back with a data management workshop and a clustering workshop and

- a final meeting, to be organised back-to-back a foresight workshop, to present and disseminate the project result.

Applicants should include the costs for their participation in these meetings in the budget of their proposals.

Note that in their data management plans, the projects funded will be strongly encouraged to make available publicly the new databases, with metadata, they will have produced.

The dissemination of the project outputs is the responsibility of the funded projects. Plans for dissemination of the results shall form part of the proposals and are included in the evaluation procedure.

In addition, BiodivERsA will help selected projects make use of relevant knowledge transfer platforms (e.g. IPBES, Oppla, MAES, BISE, GBIF, etc.) and can also further disseminate key results of projects (e.g. through policy briefs, see: https://www.biodiversa.org/).

III. Duration of the Memorandum of Understanding

This Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) shall be effective as of the date of the last signature and shall remain in force until the last final project report is approved. This MoU may be amended or modified by consensus by mutual written agreement of the signatories or their replacements.

We, the undersigned, do hereby agree to the terms and conditions specified in this Memorandum of Understanding including:

IV. Signatures

1) Annex 1: Announcement of Opportunit (volta ao índice)

The Funding Organisations in the BiodivERsA network

have joined efforts to organize and fund a

International call for transnational research proposals on

“Biodiversity and Climate Change”

Introduction

BiodivERsA is a network of 39 organisations from 24 European countries programming and funding excellent research in the field of biodiversity, ecosystem services and Nature-based Solutions (www.biodiversa.org). BiodivERsA Partners aim to develop a long-lasting collaboration in research programming and funding policy and practice, thereby creating added value in high quality biodiversity research across national boundaries. One objective of BiodivERsA is to organise a Pan-European research programme for research on biodiversity, ecosystem services and nature-based solutions (http://www.biodiversa.org/1226).

34 Funding Organisations (including 27 BiodivERsA Funding Organisations and 7 other national/regional Funding Organisations) are contributing to the funding of the present BiodivERsA joint call for research projects to be co-funded by the European Commission part of the BiodivClim ERA-NET COFUND Action (see the updated list on http://www.biodiversa.org/2019-call).

(1) Context

Globally agreed priorities for the next decade have been expressed in the seventeen United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [2] . These include two goals explicitly linked to biodiversity and the value of nature to society (i.e. Goal 14, Life below water, and Goal 15, Life on Land), as well as Goal 13, which focuses on climate action and refers to the key role of the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement process. Initial work has revealed that the 17 goals are intimately connected with one another [3] such that it will be difficult and undesirable to achieve any one of them without simultaneously considering the others [4] . The link is in some cases synergistic, meaning that addressing one goal will at the same time advance progress on another goal or make such achievements easier or more robust. In other cases, there are tensions and trade-offs between goals; here, the single-minded pursuit of one goal may undermine the possibilities of progress on another. Actions to achieve the SDGs should, as far as possible, be designed and implemented in an integrated manner. This is particularly important in cases where interactions are very strong, such as for challenges related to climate change and biodiversity, as also stressed in the recent IPBES Global Assessment report [5] .

Connections between biodiversity and climate change are now recognised as being of vital importance. On one hand, the Aichi target 15 of the Convention on Biological Diversity states that improving biodiversity status can greatly help to enhance ecosystem resilience and the contributions biodiversity can make towards climate change mitigation and adaptation [6] . On the other hand, climate change affects other biodiversity pressures [7] , highlighting the importance of considering interactions between direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity and of climate change [8] . These interactions are strong, bi-directional, and often - but not always - positive (i.e. actions in favour of addressing one are also beneficial to the other). For instance, the recent IPCC report on global warming of 1.5°C highlighted the synergies and trade-offs between actions that are often envisaged to tackle climate change-related threats to biodiversity loss. The recent IPBES global assessment [9] , the assessment on Land Degradation and Restoration Assessment [10] and IPCC Special Report on warming of 1.5°C [11] also showed the considerable demands that may be placed on biodiversity due to both mitigation and/or adaptation actions to address the causes and consequences of climate change. While the main pressures on terrestrial biodiversity are currently habitat loss and degradation and the main drivers of biodiversity loss in the aquatic domain are overharvesting, pollution and habitat degradation [12] , drivers such as human population growth, urbanisation, land use change, consumption life style and resource exploitation present key threats to biodiversity as a whole and some of these drivers can be directly or indirectly associated with climate change [13] .

Climate-induced biodiversity changes have also subsequent effects on a range of ecosystem functions and services - and more generally nature’s contributions to people - from the local to global scales [14] . This includes impacts on the processes by which ecosystems help to regulate the climate (e.g. regulation of greenhouse gas emissions) as well as diminishing valued landscapes and challenging long-held belief systems related to nature and stewardship. Feedback processes involving biodiversity and ecosystems may in turn amplify or diminish the effect of climate change, while societal responses to changing biodiversity and natural systems may shape the possible range of actions and approaches to biodiversity conservation and climate change [15] . Such feedback processes may also act through feedbacks of altered biodiversity status and ecosystem services on climate change drivers.

This growing understanding of the intricate relationships and feedback processes between climate change and biodiversity shows that our capacity to avoid approaching or overstepping these two planetary boundaries [16] ^{, [17]} requires that both aspects are considered in a holistic way. Addressing the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and feedbacks on climate requires integrative knowledge and new ways of thinking. Necessary approaches should not only identify challenges, but also lead to the actions and solutions that are needed to better preserve biodiversity, regulate climate and reinforce the resilience of socio-ecological systems. Such research could greatly contribute to the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework [18] and the Paris Agreement.

The tight coupling between climate, ecological processes and biological diversity offers important opportunities. Indeed, many studies have shown that actions nurturing diverse living organisms and their interactions and making ecosystem processes more resilient may be among the lowest-cost, least-regret and most rapidly-deployable ways of limiting global temperature rise to below the Paris Accord target [19] . Further, there are promising signs that in many circumstances, nature-based solutions (NbS [20] ^{, [21] , [22]} ) have the potential to act as a cost-effective and sustainable approach to climate change mitigation along with adaptation of (socio-)ecological systems and land/sea-scapes to climate change, while providing wider sustainability benefits to people. In some cases, however, working with nature to mitigate or adapt to climate change can have detrimental and unintended or unanticipated consequences for biodiversity (e.g. widespread afforestation or planting of bioenergy crops) and consequently for the ecosystem processes underpinning the delivery of ecosystem services. It is therefore imperative that the interactions between biodiversity and climate change are understood with sufficient detail and confidence so they can be incorporated into decision-support models and tools – ranging from global earth system models to local best-practice guidelines. Such approaches should consider the role that climate change has on biodiversity and vice versa, the potential of nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation greenhouse gas emissions while conserving and expanding carbon sinks) and for climate change adaptation (the maintenance of ecosystem services that are necessary for good quality of human life and for reducing the impact of anticipated negative effects of climate change). In this way it may be possible to plot pathways which address these two great issues of our time, while improving human well-being [23] .

(2) Priorities of the call

This call aims to support transnational research projects jointly addressing issues at the interface between biodiversity and climate change, and across a range of spatial and temporal scales in order to advance knowledge and support evidence-based and reflected decision-making. Projects addressing only biodiversity issues or only climate change issues will not be considered within the scope of the call.

Broad definitions of climate and biodiversity changes are considered for this BiodivERsA-EC COFUND programme. Applications should consider one or more of the different facets of biodiversity (i.e. changes in the different levels of biological diversity [24] ) and their drivers. Applications should also consider one or more of the multiple components of climate change (including changing atmospheric composition and changes in the mean, variability and extremes of many relevant climate variables) and its drivers. This implies to account as needed for the social, political, economic and/or cultural phenomena directly and indirectly underlying these biological and biophysical changes.

Projects may cover a broad range of methodological approaches (experimentation, data analysis from observations and monitoring [25] , modelling, scenarios, quantitative and qualitative social science methods [26] , participatory processes, or a combination of these). Preference will be given to projects that will seek to inform strategy and actions contributing to the achievement of major international policy goals (e.g. CBD Aichi targets, post-2020 global biodiversity agenda, UNFCCC Paris Agreement goals, UNCCD land degradation neutrality, UN Sustainable Development Goals) and regional policy goals (in particular EU policies). Applicants should consider how the knowledge they will produce can be scaled up or generalized beyond the studied location(s), disseminated in outreach actions and if possible embedded in order to maximize expected societal impact. Research projects should also look to provide information that will inform policy makers, authorities, institutions and practitioners concerned with decision-making, planning, designing and managing a broad range of environments and outreach to society.

The intention of this BiodivERsA programme co-funded by the European Commission is to support research projects in which the approaches and skills of natural sciences, social sciences and humanities are integrated as needed to address the specific objectives of each research proposal.

This programme also aims at funding transdisciplinary research projects demonstrating potential societal and policy impact. In this context, the participation of stakeholders (including private stakeholders) in research proposals is welcome.

This programme covers both continental and insular areas. Research on insular systems such as those of the Outermost Regions (ORs) and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) will be of particular interest [27] .

Research under this COFUND call will focus on the four following themes:

- Consequences of climate change on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people

- Climate-biodiversity feedback processes

- Potential of nature-based solutions for mitigating and adapting to climate change

- Synergies and trade-offs between policies on biodiversity, climate and other relevant sectors, and the role of agents of change

All environments can be considered, i.e. marine, freshwater and terrestrial –including urban.

Projects can address one theme or more. Projects combining aspects from two or more of the following themes are encouraged.

Theme #1: Consequences of climate change on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people

Studies within this theme should address the individual/combined effects of multiple components of climate change on genetic, species, structural, functional and/or ecosystem diversity and the induced effects on nature’s contributions to people at relevant spatial and temporal scales. The climate drivers of biodiversity change should be understood as both rather direct, biophysical drivers (changing climate conditions) and more indirect, social/political/economic/cultural drivers linked to climate change. Research on the cascading effects of climate change on biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and services will be highly welcomed.

In particular, we wish to improve the capacity to forecast biodiversity responses to ongoing and/or projected climate change and impacts, both in scope and confidence. As an example, how will species distributions be modified with climate change, considering important processes like dispersal, migration, biotic interactions and adaptation capacity of organisms [28] , as well as the role of changed climatic variability? What is the sensitivity of different diversity facets (taxonomic, genetic, functional, structural, etc.) to climate change? How will climate change alter trophic webs and species assemblages? To what extent will species conservation statuses be altered by climate change (and with what implications for nature conservation approaches and actions in terms of, e.g., operative conservation units, in situ conservation strategies, reintroduction, reinforcement and/or translocation protocols) and what are possible comprehensive adaptation measures to prevent species loss and habitat changes? To what extent continental and insular biodiversity responses to climate change will differ considering, e.g., sea level rise, drought, extreme events? Will introduced species become invasive under an altered climate, how will societal responses to climate change affect these dynamics, and what will the implications for native species and habitats be? How will climate change modify species migrations? Research could support the development of early-warning indicators and observation systems to monitor and respond to accelerating future climate-driven biodiversity change and loss. Evaluation of vulnerability of species and habitats and analysis of the relationship between biodiversity change and climate change in relation to other factors such as land use patterns (agriculture, forestry, fisheries and water management, construction, mining of raw materials), fragmentation and habitat loss would also be welcomed.

In relation to the societal impact of climate change-altered biodiversity, relevant issues include: Will different ecosystem services and other related benefits be increased, decreased or become more vulnerable [29] ? What will the impacts of these changes be in terms of the (re)distribution of benefits across society, and particularly regarding already disadvantaged groups [30] ? More broadly, research analysing how social, political, economic and cultural responses to climate change – for example in terms of shifting values for nature, changing consumption practices, emerging forms of environmental behaviour [31] , or changing forms of economic production - may lead to impacts on biodiversity will be highly welcomed.

Research should account for the extent and speed at which climate change will impact biodiversity (both above and below the ground) and associated ecosystem services across regions and under different conditions/projections. It should also evaluate the thresholds of climate change above which biodiversity will be irreversibly changed and after which ecosystems will no longer function and deliver services in their current form (i.e. identification of tipping points) or which will lead to the loss of culturally important places with low degree of human intervention.

It is expected that research projects will clarify the relative importance for biodiversity of climate change in relation to other major drivers, like habitat loss or change, pollution, change in land/sea use including agriculture and fisheries, and underlying drivers of environmental degradation like consumption, modes of production, uneven development, and urbanisation. Research on how such pressures combined with climate change will affect biodiversity and the consequent changes in nature’s contributions to people will be welcomed.

Theme #2: Climate-biodiversity feedback processes

Research addressing theme 2 will focus on the feedbacks of biodiversity change to climate, e.g., consequences of major modifications or loss of biodiversity on biophysical fluxes, biogeochemical cycles, and biogenic greenhouse gas emissions and removals in the Earth system (terrestrial and marine), with demonstrated effects on climate change. It will also encompass research seeking to understand how societal responses to biodiversity change (e.g. biodiversity status in food production, exploitation of biodiversity in land and ocean, changing values for nature and its conservation, set up of green bound or green taxes, shifting practices of consumption in relation to biodiversity) may have consequences for both the climate system and for the ways in which societal actors are (and are not) able to undertake effective mitigation of and adaptation to climate change.

Quantifying the feedback of biodiversity change on the climate system is often more difficult than analysing the impact of climate change on biodiversity dynamics and ecosystem processes. This is because the latter can be manipulated experimentally at local scales or studied in plot networks along climate gradients, while feedback to the climate system not only operates at the local scale but also emerges at the regional to global scales. Analysing climate feedbacks thus requires a range of approaches including the analysis of regional to global data, e.g., from remote-sensing to socio-ecological models representing biodiversity and qualitative studies of socio-cultural changes related to biodiversity change

Research may address the following questions: To what extent may changes in biodiversity and ecosystem functioning induced by climate change plus other global change factors buffer or reinforce climate change? What are the direct and indirect effects of biodiversity on the climate system? How can remote-sensing data be used to detect both changes in biodiversity and changes in the energy balance, carbon cycle and water balance influencing climate change? What are the social, governance, cultural and economic processes underlying the feedbacks of biodiversity change onto climate change? What role can human behaviours directly related to biodiversity have on the drivers of and responses to climate change (e.g. how might social protests over the loss of nature or conservation efforts also serve to keep key fossil fuel reserves in the ground)?

Theme #3: Potential of nature-based solutions for mitigating and adapting to climate change

Projects will analyse the potential for and effectiveness of nature-based solutions (NbS [32] ) for climate change mitigation and adaptation along with other environmental, economic and social benefits, while preserving or strengthening biodiversity. This includes the qualitative and quantitative assessment of NbS’s multiple benefits as compared to conventional grey/purely technological solutions and their cost-effectiveness. Relevant NbS in this context encompass, e.g., the use and management of an increased agrobiodiversity for more sustainable food supply systems in the face of climate change and for agrosystems promoting carbon sequestration and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; the development of forests with diverse and native tree species that can better cope with climate change; the preservation of coastal ecosystems –including mangroves– with low degree of human intervention helpful to mitigate and adapt to climate change and reduce associated disaster risks; the sustainable management of seagrass habitats or coral systems as CO₂ suppliers; and more generally the promotion of nature to tackle issues linked to climate change while delivering societal benefits like improved wellbeing and quality of life or alternative employment in urban, peri-urban, rural and coastal areas.

While research on NbS is growing, it tends to focus on single interventions, sites or scales in the analysis of their benefits, limitations and potential. Research under this call could increase the understanding of the interaction between different kinds of NbS over different scales to enhance the delivery of multiple benefits and their assessment. This would explore, for instance: What are the landscape-wide effects of climate relevant NbS? What are the cumulated effects of the implementation of different NbS in a given territory? Under which circumstances can NbS enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of climate change adaptation and mitigation, while benefiting biodiversity and wider societal goals? How are the benefits and trade-offs in different NbS generated and distributed across space and time (e.g. which people/social actors/groups will benefit from NbS)? To what degree can NbS address relevant goals (e.g. SDGs) for different communities and stakeholders? Such research would also help reveal the potential as well as possible limitations of NbS to address these challenges.

Research may also evaluate social, technical, economic, cultural and political levers and obstacles to implementation of NbS to tackling the climate change challenge. Projects studying how local/national/regional authorities and stakeholders (e.g. national agencies and governments, municipal governments, regional authorities, utilities, insurance companies, urban development industry, financing sector, community groups etc.) can design, implement and manage NbS strategies to enable benefits for climate change and biodiversity will be welcomed.

Theme #4: Synergies and trade-offs between policies on biodiversity, climate and other relevant sectors, and the role of agents of change

Under this theme, research will assess the synergies and trade-offs between policies and strategies developed for (i) the preservation and restoration of biodiversity and related ecosystem services, (ii) climate change mitigation including future requirements for negative emissions and adaptation and development of the resilience of natural and managed socio-ecological systems, and (iii) tackling other key societal challenges like food and fibre supply and energy supply, poverty alleviation, alternative employment opportunities, and social equity. Research may also consider the actions of multiple ‘agents of change’ (e.g. private corporations, investors, cities, communities) that are taking action on biodiversity and climate change to understand the impacts and consequences of this kind of action for biodiversity/climate change.

Research could address questions concerning structure, agency, politics and power that shape policy and governance processes related to biodiversity changes and their direct and indirect drivers. This could include the interactions between biodiversity policies/strategies (e.g. for protected areas, genetic resources, requirements for urban development), land-based climate mitigation policies/strategies (e.g., bioenergy, reforestation, increase in soil carbon), a wide range of adaptation policies/strategies (e.g., sea walls, flood control infrastructure), policies/strategies to develop renewable energies (e.g., wind, solar and hydro-power), agricultural/fisheries/aquaculture policies, as well as policies and strategies focusing on infrastructure development (housing, transport and utility provision), food security and health.

Studies will be welcomed which analyse how synergies and trade-offs between these different policies/strategies may be better taken into account in approaches, methods and policies used for nature protection (including the identification of areas to be protected), and how these approaches, methods and policies should change in the future due to climate change [33] .

Research should study how integrated policy approaches and multilevel governance dynamics and processes can deliver multiple benefits in parallel, not least helping to improve biodiversity status and the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. How can such integrated and holistic systems be designed, operationalized and promoted at international, regional, national and/or local scale? How can these systems and approaches contribute more effectively achieving the SDGs? What unintended consequences must be avoided and what are strategies to do so?

(3) Expected international added value

The richness and specificities in various places and regions mean that it is necessary to understand the details of local biodiversity, ecosystems and socio-cultural conditions if we are to develop a robust framework for action, since much of the decisions should be made at and relate to sub-global scales. However, research to be funded through this BiodivERsA programme supported by the European Commission will have to go beyond single study cases. The physical, biological and social processes associated with biodiversity loss and climate change both take place at a range of spatial scales, ranging from the local to regional and global. Therefore, a sufficient understanding of the spread and connection of these processes cannot be revealed by research at a single scale, but rather relies on studies at multiple scales. These in turn need to take explicit account of the ways in which processes at one scale drive or constrain processes at one or more other scales. Similarly, both biodiversity and climate phenomena contain unique details that are specific to a given location, but also include generalities that apply across many places. A robust understanding of biodiversity-climate change interactions is thus most efficiently and effectively developed through transnational collaboration. In addition, the contemporary situation of vast regional interactions/teleconnections often requires to take into account the global context.

In term of methods, transnational collaboration in model development and the inter-comparison of different models is a logical way to advance research on biodiversity-climate interactions. Further, the sharing of observations, experimental outcomes and case studies is a key approach to developing resilience to climate change of socio-ecological systems. Learning and information sharing is key to social adaptation. Therefore, all project participants will benefit from a collaborative approach to the problem; which by its nature has many international-scale elements.

As usual, it is expected that applicants will ensure that their work has clear novelty and adds to the existing knowledge base, including regarding previously funded, ongoing projects.

Overlap with on-going international, European and national projects on this theme should thus be avoided. Complementing on-going research is however possible but should be clearly explained.

Applicants are encouraged to use existing resources and infrastructures for their project, including the data and information from the Copernicus programme - the European Union's Earth Observation Programme, the existing biodiversity research infrastructures, listed in the BiodivERsA mapping of biodiversity research infrastructures [CB1] , etc.

(4) Procedures, eligibility and selection criteria

Submission, deadlines and time schedule

Submission

A two-step process will apply, with a mandatory submission of pre-proposals at step 1 and submission of full proposals at step two. Pre-proposals and full proposals (in English) must be submitted electronically with the Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS). Instructions for electronic submission will be available at http://www.biodiversa.org/2019-call in September 2019.

- The online platform will stay open 5 minutes after the official deadline. Any proposals not correctly submitted at this moment will be declared ineligible.

- All completed proposals will be submitted automatically when the platform closes, to avoid a situation where an applicant does not have time to click on the submit button. In this situation, the proposal will be evaluated as it stands.

Applicants have to submit pre-proposals: information (in English) on the project consortia, a 5-page description of the project and the required budget for each Partner must be submitted on the EPSS. Submission of pre-proposals is mandatory not possible to enter the procedure at a later stage.

The information will be used to complete an eligibility check, to help find appropriate reviewers for the evaluation of pre- and full proposals and for the evaluation of pre-proposals.

Only eligible pre-proposals can be invited to submit full proposals.

For technical questions regarding submission, please contact the Call Secretariat:

Céline Bilière: celine.biliere@agencerecherche.fr.

For technical questions regarding the EPSS, please contact the EPSS technical helpdesk:

Taavi Tiirik: epss.biodivclim@g.etag.ee.

For budgetary questions and other national/regional issues, please contact the relevant Funding organisation Contact Point - who are listed on the BiodivERsA website. Funding organisations’ rules are advertised on the BiodivERsA website and are mandatory. For any help on these, please contact the relevant national/regional Funding organisation Contact Point.

Deadlines and time schedule

The call will go through the following processes and applicants must pay attention to the deadlines outlined below in the time schedule:

June 2019:	Pre-announcement of the call
2 September 2019:	Official launch of the call
5 November 2019, 16:00 CET (local time in Brussels):	Deadline for submitting pre-proposal
November 2020	First eligibility check completed
Late January / early February 2020	1st Evaluation Committee (EvC) meeting > Results of the 1st step communicated mid-February to the applicants
10 April 2020, 16:00 CEST (local time in Brussels):	Deadline for submitting full proposals
April 2020	Second eligibility check completed
Late June/early July 2020:	Final EvC meeting > Ranked list of proposals established by the EvC
Mid-Late September 2020:	Recommendation for funding projects by the CSC
1 December 2020	Earliest possible start of funded projects
1 April 2021:	Latest possible start of funded projects

During the entire procedure, strict confidentiality will be maintained with respect to the identities of applicants and the contents of the proposals.

Eligibility of projects and Partners

The call is open to proposals and research consortia that meet the following criteria:

- The international, scientific research projects are performed by eligible organisations. National/regional eligibility criteria (see Funding Organisations’ rules) apply to research entities and for participation by private sector (profit and non-profit) organisations;

- The project coordinator is eligible and employed by an eligible organisation according to the terms and conditions of the participating Funding Organisation from which he/she applies for support;

- The project must be transnational project involving eligible Partners from at least three different countries participating in the call and requesting support from at least three different Participating Organisations. In addition, part of the eligible Partners, at least two must be from different EU Member States or Associated Countries [34] participating in the call. Provided the latter criterion is met (Partners from at least two different EU Member States or Associated Countries participating in the call), for proposals including Partners from outermost regions and overseas countries and territories participating in the call, if two outermost regions and overseas countries and territories are from the same country, these are counted as two participating countries (for the criteria: at least three different countries). Where a proposal includes three or more Partners from outermost regions and overseas countries and territories from the same country, these will be counted as two participating countries (for the criteria: at least three different countries).

- Proposals must be written in English.

- The scope or scale of the proposed research should exceed a single country.

- The information given in the pre-proposals is binding. No changes regarding the proposals’ content will be allowed by the CSC between the pre-proposals and full proposals. Regarding the administrative details, a limited number of changes may be allowed by the FCP and CSC, provided they are in line with the general rules of the call and the rules of the Funding Organisations:

• Minor change of budget can be allowed by the relevant Funding Organisation . The Funding Organisation can decide according to its own rules whether it needs a justification for it. If the national/regional Funding Organisation agrees to the budget change, the project coordinator has to inform the Call Secretariat about the change with the Funding Organisation Contact Point (FCP) in copy.

• No changes of Partners are allowed between the pre-proposals and full proposal stages, except if explicitly requested by the Funding Organisations or in case of force majeure. In both cases, a detailed justification of the changes will have to be communicated to the Call Secretariat and CSC by the project coordinator as soon as possible. Please note that the following actions are considered as changes: addition, removal or replacement of a Partner. If a researcher in charge (person) remains the same but changes the institutions, this won’t be considered as a change, provided the institution fulfils eligibility criteria. Individual cases will be examined.

Compliance with Funding Organisation eligibility criteria and rules (e.g. eligible budget items) is mandatory; it is thus strongly recommended that applicants approach their respective Funding organisation Contact Point to make sure they respect all the eligibility criteria and rules (contact list and main Funding organisations’ rules are available in the call documents published on the BiodivERsA website). If one Partner is not eligible, the whole proposal will be considered ineligible and will not be evaluated.

Project duration

The maximum project duration is 3 years.

Evaluation and selection

Potential applicants are advised to take careful note of the aims and scope of the call as described above in the Announcement of Opportunity. Applicants are strongly advised to assess the relevance of their proposed research against the thematic priorities set forth in the scientific text of the call. Any project that does not fit within the thematic priorities identified will not be recommended for funding, regardless of its quality.

Emphasis will be placed on the link between excellence and relevance to policy and practice.

Proposals from the natural, climate and social sciences are welcome.

The following evaluation procedure will apply:

1) First step:

An eligibility check of pre-proposals will be performed by the Call Secretariat and national/regional Funding organisation Contact Points (FCPs).

Eligible pre-proposals will be evaluated by an independent Evaluation Committee (EvC) composed of scientific and policy/management experts against the following criteria:

(i) fit to the scope of the call,

(ii) novelty of the research,

(iii) transnational added value.

Only successful pre-proposals will be invited to submit full proposals.

2) Second step:

An eligibility check of full proposals will be performed by the Call Secretariat and national/regional Funding organisation Contact Points.

Eligible full proposals will be evaluated by both an independent Evaluation Committee (EvC), composed of scientific and policy/management experts and external reviewers (as far as possible 3 external reviewers per proposal, 2 scientific and 1 policy/management) against the following criteria:

(i) Excellence,

(ii) Quality and efficiency of the implementation,

(iii) Impact.

The EvC will consist of experts in the natural, climate and social sciences, as well as professionals from the field of biodiversity policy and biodiversity conservation and management. It is comprised such so that it can cover, as far as possible, the range of topics within the scope of the call.

Members take part in the EvC as independent experts and do not represent any organisation nor can they send any replacements. This means that their work on this Committee does not represent any organization or nation.

At step 1: The EvC will assess the pre-proposals according to the criteria defined (see “Assessment [CB2] criteria”)

At step 2: The EvC will assess the full proposals according to the criteria defined (see “Assessment [CB3] criteria”) and moderate the assessments provided by the external reviewers.

The EvC will discuss about the proposals and establish the final ranking of pre- and full proposals based on the set of criteria defined.

After Step 1: The CSC will decide on which projects to invite to Step 2, following the eligibility check and evaluation made by the EvC.

After Step 2: The CSC will decide on which projects to recommend for funding, strictly adhering to the order of the ranking list established by the EvC.

Upon the final decision by the Funding Organisations, a list of funded projects will be published on the BiodivERsA website.

Please note that no appeal can be brought to challenge the results of the selection procedure .

(5) Funding

For this call a total amount of 20.4 [CB4] M€ has been provisionally reserved by the participating Funding Organisations.

The European Commission will also provide funding for the funded projects depending on the final total funding amount for research proposals by the participating Funding Organisations eligible for EC-funding.

The indicative total budget for this call is thus of 24.4 [CB5] M€.

Indicative budgets for each Funding Organisation are given below. Each participant in a funded project will be preferentially funded by his or her national/regional Funding Organisation(s) participating in the call. The additional funding provided by the EC for the funded project will be distributed through the H2020-eligible national/regional Funding Organisations.

Upon the final decision by the Funding Organisations, a list of funded projects will be published on the BiodivERsA website.

PROVISIONAL LIST OF PARTICIPATING ORGANISATIONS WITH COMMITMENTS

Country	Funding organisation	Indicative budget (low) (EURO)	Indicative budget (high) (EURO)
Austria	FWF	800 000	800 000
Belgium	BelSPO#	500 000	500 000
Belgium	F.R.S.-FNRS#	200 000	200 000
Belgium	FWO#	700 000	700 000
Brazil	CONFAP#	Tbc	Tbc
Brazil	FAPESP#	400 000	400 000
Bulgaria	BNSF#	300 000	300 000
Czech Republic	TACR#	1 640 000	1 640 000
Denmark	IFD	1 000 000	1 000 000
Estonia	ETAG#	100 000	100 000
Finland	AKA	850 000	850 000
France	ANR#	2 000 000	2 000 000
France	GUA-REG#	100 000	100 000
France	REU-REG#	200 000	200 000
Germany	DFG	1 500 000	1 500 000
Germany	DLR-PT	2 000 000	2 000 000
Greece	GSRT#	750 000	750 000
Ireland	EPA#	650 000	650 000
Israel	MoEP#	100 000	100 000
Latvia	VIAA#	400 000	400 000
Lithuania	RCL#	100 000	100 000
Norway	RCN#	1 000 000	1 000 000
Poland	NCN	500 000	500 000
Portugal	FCT#	100 000	100 000
Portugal	FRCT#	100 000	100 000
Romania	UEFISCDI#	500 000	500 000
Slovakia	SAS#	240 000	240 000
South Africa	DST#	150 000	150 000
Spain	AEI#	700 000	700 000
Spain	GOBCAN#	200 000	200 000
Sweden	Formas#	1 500 000	1 500 000
Switzerland	SNSF	CHF 2 000 000	CHF 2 000 000
Tunisia	MHESR#	Tbc	Tbc
Turkey	TAGEM#	200 000	200 000

* The Funding Organisations marked by “#” have defined maximum allowed budget per project and/or per Partner. Please consult the Funding Organisations’ rules and contact your Funding organisation Contact Point for more information.

Please note that all Funding Organisations have defined specific rules (read carefully the Funding Organisations’ rules and contact your Funding organisation Contact Point in case of any questions or doubts regarding these rules).

(6) Programme structure and management

Programme activities

The funded projects are considered to form part of an international research programme for which joint activities will be organized, in particular:

- a kick-off meeting at the beginning of the funding period, to be organised back-to-back with a data management workshop and a clustering workshop, and

- a final meeting to present and disseminate the project results at the end of the funding period, to be organised back-to back with a foresight workshop.

At least the Coordinator of each funded consortium should participate in these joint activities. The cost for attendance to joint activities should be included in the budgets of the proposals .

Project management and reporting

Funded projects will be required to submit a mid-term report and a final report progress. Some Funding Organisations may request additional specific reports.

(7) Eligible budget items

Eligible costs and the maximum allowed requested budget per project and/or per Partner are governed by Funding Organisations’ specific rules. Specific questions should be addressed to the Funding organisation Contact Points (updated list available on the BiodivERsA website)

In case of a significant financial pressure on a Funding Organisation due to the high number of teams from its country/region in the submitted applications, the applicants may be asked to adjust downward their budget.

(8) Further information

The Call Secretariat, ensured by ANR, is responsible for organizing the procedure and for all communication with applicants related to joint aspects of the call and procedure.

However, for national/regional Funding Organisation eligibility criteria, the Funding Organisations’ documented rules must be consulted and Funding organisation Contact Points should be approached (both lists are available in the call documents published on the BiodivERsA website), in particular with regard to eligibility of research Partner, eligible costs and other country-specific aspects of the call. The compliance with Funding organisations’ rules is mandatory, and relevant Funding organisation Contact Points should be contacted to obtain further information if needed.

According to their respective rules, the Funding Organisations may require that the project members selected for funding establish a project consortium agreement. The requirement will thus apply to all the project members, even if their respective Funding Organisation does not require a project consortium agreement.

We draw the attention of the applicants to the fact that if they plan to use genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources in their project, they will have to ascertain towards the competent authorities and focal point that these used genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources have been accessed in accordance with applicable access and benefit-sharing legislation or regulatory requirements, and that benefits are fairly and equitably shared upon mutually agreed terms, in accordance with any applicable legislation or regulatory requirements. ^[35] Please refer to the competent authorities for more information.

Annex 2: Funding model (volta ao índice)

The Participating Organisations agree on launching a joint call and using a joint evaluation with national and regional funding and additional EC co-funding. In principle, each Funding Organisation will fund its own national/regional scientific teams (i.e. following the ‘juste retour’ model); yet using different levels of flexibility depending on their national/regional rules, they might fund foreign teams.

The EC-eligible Participating Organisations agree to use the EC contribution for research as a “mix-mode” funding model composed of

- 80% pro rata actual spent pot”), i.e. 80% of the EC contribution to support research will be allocated pro rata their respective actual contributions

- 20% "flexibility" common pot (“real common pot”), i.e. 20% of the EC contribution will be put into a "flexibility" common pot that will be used to close the gaps of funding within the ranking list. National/regional Funding Organisations first have to fulfil their commitments indicated as Indicative budget (low) (see table below) before they are allowed to get money from the common pot.

The Call Steering Committee reserves the right to adjust the redistribution of EC funding between a virtual (pro-rata) and real common pot during the funding meeting, where agreed by the Funding Organisations eligible to EC funding.

Participating Organisations are aiming to fund as many of the highest ranked proposals as possible. Funding gaps may arise in the ranking when one of the Participating Organisations runs out of money. Participating Organisations intend to deal with these gaps through the following level of flexibility:

- A Funding Organisation does not have to spend all the money that has been provisionally reserved, if the funding requests by its researchers is lower than its reserved budget;

- In order to avoid early funding gaps, each Participating Organisation is asked to match as accurately and realistically as possible the financial demand from their respective research communities with the budget earmarked for the call. It means that all solutions to unblock situations at the national/regional level will be explored, such as:

o Some Funding Organisations may be able to come up with extra money to fund good proposals;

o Some Funding Organisations may ask the applicants to reduce realistically their requested contribution and/or may add maximum threshold values for budget requested from the Funding Organisation per proposal or per team in the Funding Organisation eligibility rules;

o Some Funding Organisations may be able to fund foreign teams;

o Some Funding Organisations may be able to fund foreign teams via subcontracting.

These different levels of flexibility will be explored (i) before the launch of the call, (ii) after the first evaluation step, and (iii) after the final evaluation of the proposals.

Funding particularities [36]

Some Funding Organisations have defined specific rules. These rules will be detailed in the annexes dedicated to each Funding Organisation’s national eligibility and funding rules.

Table: Anticipated national/regional funding commitments to the call

The budget reserved to the call by the National/Regional Funding organisations is listed below:

Country	Funding organisation	Indicative budget (low) (EURO)	Indicative budget (high) (EURO)
Austria	FWF	800 000	800 000
Belgium	BelSPO#	500 000	500 000
Belgium	F.R.S.-FNRS#	200 000	200 000
Belgium	FWO#	700 000	700 000
Brazil	CONFAP#	Tbc	Tbc
Brazil	FAPESP#	400 000	400 000
Bulgaria	BNSF#	300 000	300 000
Czech Republic	TACR#	1 640 000	1 640 000
Denmark	IFD	1 000 000	1 000 000
Estonia	ETAG#	100 000	100 000
Finland	AKA	850 000	850 000
France	ANR#	2 000 000	2 000 000
France	GUA-REG#	100 000	100 000
France	REU-REG#	200 000	200 000
Germany	DFG	1 500 000	1 500 000
Germany	DLR-PT	2 000 000	2 000 000
Greece	GSRT#	750 000	750 000
Ireland	EPA#	650 000	650 000
Israel	MoEP#	100 000	100 000
Latvia	VIAA#	400 000	400 000
Lithuania	RCL#	100 000	100 000
Norway	RCN#	1 000 000	1 000 000
Poland	NCN	500 000	500 000
Portugal	FCT#	100 000	100 000
Portugal	FRCT#	100 000	100 000
Romania	UEFISCDI#	500 000	500 000
Slovakia	SAS#	240 000	240 000
South Africa	DST#	150 000	150 000
Spain	AEI#	700 000	700 000
Spain	GOBCAN#	200 000	200 000
Sweden	Formas#	1 500 000	1 500 000
Switzerland	SNSF	CHF 2 000 000	CHF 2 000 000
Tunisia	MHESR#	Tbc	Tbc
Turkey	TAGEM#	200 000	200 000

Due to a possible high financial pressure, several agencies have defined a maximum request per project and/or per Partner for their national/regional teams. These agencies are marked by “#” in the above table.

Failure to honour funding commitment and fall-back procedure

National/regional organisation’s procedures for joint programme funding will be made explicit to the Call Secretariat and CSC in order to avoid any unexpected delays or issues. Each Participating Organisation will be asked to confirm – by signing the present MoU – that it accepts a joint evaluation procedure.

However, in the implementation of joint calls, it can happen that a Participating Organisation will fail to honour its commitment to fund research teams in the selected projects, due to force majeure. In case of failure from a Participating Organisation, there will not be any judicial proceedings, except if this results from gross negligence or deliberate malevolence.

If a Participating Organisation cannot confirm the funding of its research teams four months after the CSC made its decision on funding recommendation, a procedure for re-evaluation will be launched. The proposal will be reviewed without the considered research teams and re-assessed. The exact process of the re-evaluation procedure will be decided by the CSC.

Call management budget

The costs related to the call management (evaluation procedure, incl. fees for EvC members, travel and accommodation costs for EvC members; travel and accommodation costs for the independent observer, costs of the EPSS, etc.) are not eligible to EC. However, the Participating Organisations have chosen to use part of the EC contribution to support their activities, agreeing that the corresponding costs cannot be declared as eligible and that the EC contribution will not exceed 33% of Participating Organisations’ funding of transnational projects. This means in practice that EC-eligible Participating Organisations agree to replace any EC contribution that is used to support their activities with additional national/regional contributions to the funding of transnational projects.

Annex 3: Pre-proposal application form (volta ao índice)

This template is an indicative model of pre-proposal application form. All pre-proposals have to be submitted online via the electronic proposal submission system (EPSS). The format of the pre-proposal application form will be modified to fit the EPSS.

PRE-PROPOSAL APPLICATION FORM

Call for transnational research projects on “Biodiversity and Climate Change”

Project title*
Short name / Acronym*

* Please note that the project title and acronym should be considered as definitive

Keywords:

Indicate the overall requested consortium budget (in €):

General guidance for all applicants:

· the proposal must be written in English;

· the different sections of the application should not exceed the prescribed maximum space;

· any documents other than those requested as part of the proposal will not be forwarded to Evaluation Committee members.

I. Administrative details

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

Coordinator – Partner 1
Researcher in charge:				ORCID id.
Family name				First name
Title				Gender
Phone				E-mail
Web site
Research organisation / Company
Status: Private or public?
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory
Street name and number
PO Box			Postal code		Cedex
Town				Country
Employment status information				on permanent position
				on fixed-term position
				If on fixed term position:
				Duration of contract:
				Funding body:
Other team members involved in the project
Team member 1: Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member 2: Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member N : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id.
Requested total budget of Partner 1 (in €)

Partner 1a (Subcontracted)
Researcher in charge:			ORCID ID:
Family name			First name
Title			Gender
Phone			E-mail
Web site
Research organisation / Company
Status: Private or public?
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory
Street name and number
PO Box		Postal code		Cedex
Town			Country
Other team members involved in the project
Team member 1: Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member 2: Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member N : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id.

Please insert as many copies of the above table as necessary for other Partners 1b, 1c

Partner 2
Researcher in charge:			ORCID id.
Family name			First name
Title			Gender
Phone			E-mail
Web site
Research organisation / Company
Status: Private or public?
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory
Street name and number
PO Box		Postal code		Cedex
Town			Country
Employment status information			on permanent position
			on fixed-term position
			If on fixed term position
			Duration of contract:
			Funding body:
Other team members involved in the project
Team member 1: Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member 2: Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member N : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id.
Requested total budget of Partner 2 (in €)

Partner 2a (Subcontracted)
Researcher in charge:			ORCID ID:
Family name			First name
Title			Gender
Phone			E-mail
Web site
Research organisation / Company
Status: Private or public?
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory
Street name and number
PO Box		Postal code		Cedex
Town			Country
Other team members involved in the project
Team member 1: Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member 2: Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. … Team member N : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id.

Please insert as many copies of the above table as necessary for other Partners 2b, 2c…

Partner 3
Researcher in charge:			ORCID ID:
Family name			First name
Title			Gender
Phone			E-mail
Web site
Research organisation / Company
Status: Private or public?
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory
Street name and number
PO Box		Postal code		Cedex
Town			Country
Employment status information			on permanent position
			on fixed-term position
			If on fixed term position
			Duration of contract:
			Funding body:
Other team members involved in the project
Team member 1: Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member 2: Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member N : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id.
Requested total budget of Partner 3 (in €)

Partner N
Researcher in charge:			ORCID ID:
Family name			First name
Title			Gender
Phone			E-mail
Web site
Research organisation / Company
Status: Private or public?
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory
Street name and number
PO Box		Postal code		Cedex
Town			Country
Employment status information			on permanent position
			on fixed-term position
			If on fixed term position
			Duration of contract:
			Funding body:
Other team members involved in the project
Team member 1: Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member 2: Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member N : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id.
Requested total budget of Partner N (in €)

Please insert as many copies of the above table as necessary for other applicants

Self-financed Partner A
Researcher in charge:			ORCID ID:
Family name			First name
Title			Gender
Phone			E-mail
Web site
Research organisation / Company
Status: Private or public?
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory
Street name and number
PO Box		Postal code		Cedex
Town			Country
Other team members involved in the project
Team member 1: Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member N: Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email

Please insert as many copies of the above table as necessary for other Partners B, C…

II. Abstract

(max 3,000 characters including spaces)

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

Theme(s), environment(s) and/or socio-economic sector(s) targeted if relevant, scientific discipline(s) involved and study area(s)/country(ies) covered in the project

Please indicate the theme addressed by your project, and the type of environment(s) that are studied in your project (please tick the yes/no box – if more than one theme and/or one type of ecosystem is addressed in your project, please use the percentage box), and list the socio-economic sectors, the scientific disciplines involved and the study areas/countries covered by the project.

Themes in the joint 2019-2020 BiodivERsA call	YES	%	NO
T1: Consequences of climate change on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people
T2: Climate-biodiversity feedback processes
T3: Potential of nature-based solutions for mitigating and adapting to climate change
T4: Synergies and trade-offs between policies on biodiversity, climate and other relevant sectors, and the role of agents of change

Environment(s) studied if relevant	YES	%	NO
1. Terrestrial
2. Inland water
3. Coastal
4. Marine
5. Other: … [to be specified]

Socio-economic sector(s) studied if relevant (max 3,500 characters including spaces)

Scientific disciplines involved

To be selected from a standardised list (available on the EPSS)

Study areas/countries covered by the project (please do not indicate here the nationality of the members of the consortium but the areas and countries studied in your proposals (research scope, studied sites, etc.) (max 3,500 characters including spaces)

III. Short project description

(max. 5 pages – including title and citations –, Arial font, 11pts, single spaced, margins of 1.27 cm

Footnotes are allowed, if you respect the above mentioned layout criteria. Hyperlink are not allowed).

NB : This part will have to be upload as a single pdf on the EPSS.

The project description should include the following elements:

- Scientific objectives and main research questions;

- A short description of the hypothesis and theories;

- Explanation of the novelty of the research planned, in relation to the present state-of-the-art.

- Research plan: brief description of the methodologies and work planned;

- Relevance for policy and/or society, and importance of the research for solving pressing issues related to biodiversity; this can include elements indicating how stakeholder engagement and results dissemination are envisaged. [39]

- Fit to the call and thematic priorities;

- Transnational added value of the research proposed.

IV. Brief CVs for the principal investigator of each Partner involved in the project

NB : This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS, using the CV template below.

Please include the CVs of self-financed and sub-contracted Partners.

Participation status: <Coordinator, PI or WP leader>

Name :

Nationality :

Institution, City, Country :

E-mail :

URL / website of the researcher (including complete list of publications):

Professional status : <Professor, Assistant professor, Associate professor, Senior scientist, Post-Doc, PhD-student, other>

Education <Year; type of education > <Year ; type of education > …

Academic Positions <Year; Position> <Year; Position> …

Awards received / other responsibilities

General expertise and its relevance for the project (max 1,000 characters including spaces)

Up to 5 most important publications relevant to the proposal over 2015-2019 <…> <…> <…> <…> <…>

V. Exclusion of potential reviewers (optional)

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

List here potential reviewers who, you think, should not be asked to evaluate the project for reasons of direct competition and partiality (Table V.a). Also provide the names of significant collaborators that should not be used as reviewers due to conflicts of interest (Table V.b).

V.a. Potential competitors

	First Name	Last Name	Organisation	Country	E-mail address	Rationale for excluding the reviewer
1
2
3
N

Insert as many lines as needed

V.b. Collaborators with conflict of interest

	First Name	Last Name	Organisation	Country	E-mail address	Rationale for excluding the reviewer
1
2
3
N

Insert as many lines as needed

VI. Suggestion of potential reviewers (optional)

Please indicate up to 4 experts who could review your proposal, including their field expertise. The rules on conflict of interest set forth in Annex 10 apply to these suggestions.

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

	First Name	Last Name	Organisation	Country	E-mail address	Link to his/her website	Field of expertise
1
2
3
4

For point Va and VI: Please note that these are only suggestions for consideration by the Evaluation Committee (EvC) and Call Steering Committee (CSC). The final attribution of reviewers to proposals is the responsibility of the EvC and CSC.

VII. Budget

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

(Please insert as many lines in the table below as necessary for other Partners)

	Funding organisation(s)* that should fund the research of this Partner	Permanent salaries (k€)**	Non-permanent salaries (k€)	Fellowships (k€)**	Other costs (k€)	Subcontracting costs (k€)**	Overheads (k€)**	Total requested budget (k€)
Partner 1 (name and country)
Partner 1 a (name and country)
Partner 2 (name and country)
Partner 3 (name and country)
Self-financed Partner A	/	0 (the Partner will be funded through XX***)	0	0	0	0	0	0

* If more than one Funding Organisation from your country is participating in the call, please indicate which one should fund your project (it may be possible to indicate all of them). If you are eligible for funding from different funding organization within one country, and if budget calculations (e.g. for non-permanent salaries or overheads) differ between the Funding Organisations of a same country, please insert the higher amount in each cell.

** Only if fundable by Funding Organisations

*** For self-financed Partners, please indicate how their participation to the project will be funded.

VIII. Signature & use of data

The data provided in this pre-proposal application form will be used for the purpose of the evaluation procedure and for the production of statistics on this call only. Anonymity and confidentiality will be maintained throughout processing of these data for the production of statistics. Please note that these data will be accessible to Funding agencies participating to the call, including the ones based in non-EU-countries (i.e. Brazil, Israel, Norway, South Africa, Switzerland, Tunisia and Turkey).

ˆ By ticking this box, applicants give their consent for the collection and use of their data, as well as for the transfer of their data to non-EU countries mentioned above for the purpose of the evaluation procedure and the production of anonymous statistics on the call only.

Annex 4: Full Proposal application form (volta ao índice)

This template is an indicative model of full proposal application form. All proposals have to be submitted online via the electronic proposal submission system (EPSS). The format of the full proposal application form will be modified to fit the EPSS.

FULL PROPOSAL APPLICATION FORM

Call for transnational research projects on “Biodiversity and Climate Change”

Project title*
Short name / Acronym*

Keywords:

Duration of the project*:

DD/MM/YYYY - DD/MM/YYYY

* Please note that the maximum duration is 3 years.

General guidance for all applicants:

· the proposal must be written in English;

· the different sections of the application should not exceed the prescribed maximum space;

· any documents other than those requested as part of the proposal will not be forwarded to External Reviewers or EvC Members.

I.A. Administrative details

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

Coordinator – Partner 1
Researcher in charge:			ORCID ID:
Family name			First name
Title			Gender
Phone			E-mail
Web site
Research organisation / Company
Status: Private or public?
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory
Street name and number
PO Box		Postal code		Cedex
Town			Country
Employment status information	on permanent position
	on fixed-term position
	If on fixed term position
	Duration of contract:
	Funding body:
Other team members involved in the project
Team member 1 : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member 2 : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member N : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id.

Partner 1a (Subcontracted)
Researcher in charge:			ORCID ID:
Family name			First name
Title			Gender
Phone			E-mail
Web site
Research organisation / Company
Status: Private or public?
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory
Street name and number
PO Box		Postal code		Cedex
Town			Country
Team members involved in the project (when the Partner is an institution, a laboratory, a department)
Team member 1 : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email Team member 2 : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email Team member N : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email

Please insert as many copies of the above table as necessary for other Partners 1b, 1c

Partner 2
Researcher in charge:			ORCID ID:
Family name			First name
Title			Gender
Phone			E-mail
Web site
Research organisation / Company
Status: Private or public?
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory
Street name and number
PO Box		Postal code		Cedex
Town			Country
Employment status information	on permanent position
	on fixed-term position
	If on fixed term position
	Duration of contract:
	Funding body:
Other team members involved in the project
Team member 1 : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member 2 : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member N : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id.

Partner 2a (Subcontracted)
Researcher in charge:			ORCID ID:
Family name			First name
Title			Gender
Phone			E-mail
Web site
Research organisation / Company
Status: Private or public?
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory
Street name and number
PO Box		Postal code		Cedex
Town			Country
Other team members involved in the project
Team member 1 : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member 2 : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member N : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id.

Please insert as many copies of the above table as necessary for other Partners 2b, 2c…

Partner 3
Researcher in charge:			ORCID ID:
Family name			First name
Title			Gender
Phone			E-mail
Web site
Research organisation / Company
Status: Private or public?
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory
Street name and number
PO Box		Postal code		Cedex
Town			Country
Employment status information	on permanent position
	on fixed-term position
	If on fixed term position
	Duration of contract:
	Funding body:
Other team members involved in the project
Team member 1 : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email Team member 2 : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email Team member N : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email

Partner 4
Researcher in charge :			ORCID ID :
Family name			First name
Title			Gender
Phone			E-mail
Web site
Research organisation / Company
Status : Private or public ?
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory
Street name and number
PO Box		Postal code		Cedex
Town			Country
Employment status information	on permanent position
	on fixed-term position
	If on fixed term position
	Duration of contract :
	Funding body :
Other team members involved in the project
Team member 1 : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member 2 : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member N : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id.

Partner N
Researcher in charge:			ORCID ID:
Family name			First name
Title			Gender
Phone			E-mail
Web site
Research organisation / Company
Status: Private or public?
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory
Street name and number
PO Box		Postal code		Cedex
Town			Country
Employment status information	on permanent position
	on fixed-term position
	If on fixed term position
	Duration of contract:
	Funding body:
Other team members involved in the project
Team member 1 : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member 2 : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member N : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id.

Please insert as many copies of the above table as necessary for other applicants

Self-financed Partner A
Researcher in charge:			ORCID ID:
Family name			First name
Title			Gender
Phone			E-mail
Web site
Research organisation / Company
Status: Private or public?
Division / Department / Unit or Laboratory
Street name and number
PO Box		Postal code		Cedex
Town			Country
Team members involved in the project (when the Partner is an institution, a laboratory, a department)
Team member 1 : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member 2 : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id. Team member N : Family name, First name, gender, title, phone, email, ORCID id.

Please insert as many copies of the above table as necessary for other Partners B, C…

I.B: Time to be dedicated to the project per member

In the following table, please specify the names and countries of each Partner.

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

Partners	Teams	Time to be dedicated to the project in person month
Participating Organisation 1 Name Country	Member 1 Member 2 Member N
Participating Organisation 1a Name Country	Member 1 Member 2 Member N
Participating Organisation 2 Name Country	Member 1 Member 2 Member N
Participating Organisation 2a Name Country	Member 1 Member 2 Member N
Participating Organisation 3 Name Country	Member 1 Member 2 Member N
…
Participating Organisation N Name Country	Member 1 Member 2 Member N
Self-financed Participating Organisation A Name country	Member 1 Member 2 Member N

I.C: Declaration of parallel submissions of this proposal (whole or parts) to other funding programmes or to the same programme

Provide details of any proposal related to this one, which you or another project Partner have submitted to other funding opportunities, including title, funding source, extent of overlap and expected decision date.

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

Duplication of funding is not allowed for the same (whole or part) research project.

!! Please note that some Funding Organisations have specific rules on the possibility to apply as applicant in different proposals. Make sure you comply with your Funding Organisations’ rules. !!

II. Summary of the project

(max 3,000 characters including spaces)

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

Theme(s), environment(s) and/or socio-economic sector(s) targeted if relevant, scientific discipline(s) involved and study area(s)/country(ies) covered in the project

Please indicate the theme addressed by your project, and the type of environment(s) that are studied in your project (please tick the yes/no box – if more than one theme and/or one type of ecosystem is addressed in your project, please use the percentage box), and list the socio-economic sectors, the scientific disciplines involved and the study areas/countries covered by the project.

Themes in the joint 2019-2020 BiodivERsA call	YES	%	NO
T1: Consequences of climate change on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people
T2: Climate-biodiversity feedback processes
T3: Potential of nature-based solutions for mitigating and adapting to climate change
T4: Synergies and trade-offs between policies on biodiversity, climate and other relevant sectors, and the role of agents of change

Environment(s) studied if relevant	YES	%	NO
1. Terrestrial
2. Inland water
3. Coastal
4. Marine
5. Other: … [to be specified]

Socio-economic sector(s) studied if relevant (max 3,500 characters including spaces)

Scientific disciplines involved

To be selected from a standardised list (available on the EPSS)

Study areas/countries covered by the project (please do not indicate here the nationality of the members of the consortium but the areas and countries studied in your proposals (research scope, studied sites, etc.) (max 3,500 characters including spaces)me

Work packages (WP) - Title only, detailed descriptions should be included in the project description section
No. of WP	Responsible Partner	Title
1
2
3
N

(Use as many lines as needed)

Estimated working time (in person/month) per work package 1)
No. of WP	Partner 1	Partner 1a	Partner 2	Partner 3	Partner N	Self-financed Partner A
1
2
3
N

(Expand this table [rows, columns] as required)

¹⁾ This estimation should include the estimated total working time of all the team members involved in the project (financed, subcontracted and self-funded Partners, permanent & non-permanent staff, etc.)

Deliverables
No.	Title	Delivery date1)
1
2
3
4
5
N

(Use as many lines as needed)

¹⁾ Indicate month number from the start of the project, e.g. month 12, month 24…

Milestones
No.	Title	Date 1)
1
2
3
4
5
N

(Use as many lines as needed)

¹⁾ Indicate month number from the start of the project, e.g. month 12, month 24…

II. Scientific publications

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

Selection of top 5 recent scientific publications of the researchers in charge relevant to the application

In the following table, please specify the names and countries of each Partner.

Partner 1 Name Country	1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Partner 1.a (subcontracted) Name Country	1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Partner 2 Name Country	1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Partner 3 Name Country	1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Partner N Name Country	1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Self-financed Partner A Name Country	1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Other relevant publications

Other reference cited in the text (max 3,500 characters including spaces)

-

-

III. Description of the project

NB : This part will have to be submitted as a single pdf in the EPSS.

(In total, the project should be of max. 15 pages, Arial font, 11pts, single spaced, including references if necessary, margins of 1.27 cm

Footnotes are allowed, if you respect the above mentioned layout criteria. Hyperlink are not allowed)

(max. 11 pages, Arial font, 11pts, single spaced, including references if necessary, margins of 1.27 cm)

III.B. Communication and outreach plan

(max. 1 page, Arial font, 11pts, single spaced)

III.C Description of project coordination and management

(max. 1,5 pages, Arial font, 11pts, single spaced, margins of 1.27 cm)

III.D. Time schedule and working programme (use a Gantt chart or equivalent)

(max. 1 page, Arial font, 11pts, single spaced, margins of 1.27 cm))

III.E. Proposed Data Management Approach

(max.1 page, Arial font, 11pts, single spaced, margins of 1.27 cm)

In this section, please address the following questions:

1. What types of datasets and other digital outputs of long-term value do you expect the project will produce or reuse?

○ “Long-term” means those data and digital outputs that will or may be of value to others within your research community and/or the wider research, innovation and stakeholder communities.

2. How do you intend to ensure that the data and digital outputs from your project confirm to the present Data policy and the FAIR principles (i.e. they should be findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable)?

3. Which member(s) of your team will be responsible for developing, implementing, overseeing, and updating the Data and Digital Outputs Management Plan?

4. How do you intend to manage the data and digital outputs during the project to ensure their long-term value is protected?

○ For example, where will the data be held during the project, who will have access, and will a specialised data manager be part of the project team?

5. How and by whom will the data and other digital outputs be managed after the project ends to ensure their long-term accessibility?

○ For example, will the outputs be published with a Persistent Unique and Resolvable Identifier (such as a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), Accession Number, Handle, etc.), and/or be placed in a recognized, trustworthy long-term domain or other repository or data centre. When will this occur? (Further information about repositories include, but are not limited to, the Re3data.org registry of research data repositories, CoreTrustSeal list of certified data repositories, etc.)

6. What restrictions, if any, do you anticipate could be placed on how the data and digital outputs can be accessed, mined or reused?

○ The present policy is that the data should be as open as possible to commercial and non-commercial users, though with managed access where appropriate and necessary; for example, if there are sensitive data involving human subjects.

7. How will you ensure that any data security, privacy, and intellectual property restrictions associated with datasets and digital outputs will be honoured and preserved in derivative products?

8. What supporting documentation and other information (e.g. metadata) do you plan to make publicly accessible to support the longer-term re-use of the data and digital outputs?

9. How have you accounted for the costs required to manage the data and digital outputs to ensure long-term accessibility?

III.F. Links to national and transnational research projects and programmes

(max. 1/2 page, Arial font, 11pts, single spaced, margins of 1.27 cm)

IV. CVs

NB : This part will have to be filled in directly in the EPSS using the CV template below

When relevant, please include the CVs of self-financed and sub-contracted Partners.

When relevant, please specify in the CVs, the Partners’ capacity to involve stakeholders.

Participation status: <Coordinator, PI or WP leader>

Name :

Nationality :

Institution, City, Country :

E-mail :

URL / Website of the researcher (including complete list of publications):

Professional status : <Professor, Assistant professor, Associate professor, Senior scientist, Post-Doc, PhD-student, other>

Education <Year; type of education > <Year ; type of education > …

Academic Positions <Year; Position> <Year; Position> …

Awards received / other responsibilities

General expertise and its relevance for the project (max 1,000 characters including spaces)

Up to 5 most important publications relevant to the proposal over 2015-2019 <…> <…> <…> <…> <…>

V. Budget

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

Budget tables

Please provide clear evidence of how the funds requested will be used to fulfil the activities of each Partner and a clear justification that the requested funds are sufficient to achieve the work proposed.

VI. Exclusion of potential reviewers (optional)

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

List here potential reviewers who, you think, should not be asked to evaluate the project for reasons of direct competition and partiality (Table VI.a). Also provide the names of significant collaborators that should not be used as reviewers due to conflicts of interest (Table VI.b).

VI.a. Potential competitors

	First Name	Last Name	Organisation	Country	E-mail address	Rationale for excluding the reviewer
1
2
3
N

Insert as many lines as needed

VI.b. Collaborators with conflict of interest

	First Name	Last Name	Organisation	Country	E-mail address	Rationale for excluding the reviewer
1
2
3
N

Insert as many lines as needed

VII. Suggestion of potential reviewers (optional)

Please indicate up to 4 experts who could review your proposal, including their field expertise. The rules on conflict of interest set forth in Annex 10 apply to these suggestions.

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

	First Name	Last Name	Organisation	Country	E-mail address	Field of expertise
1
2
3
4

For point VII and VIII: Please note that these are only suggestions for consideration by the Evaluation Committee (EvC) and Call Steering Committee (CSC). The final attribution of reviewers to proposals is the responsibility of the EvC and CSC.

VII. Ethics self-assessment

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

1. HUMAN EMBRYOS/FOETUSES	Y / N	If yes, please detail and indicate how you plan to deal with this ethic issue.
Does your research involve Human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESCs) ?	Y / N
Does your research involve the use of human embryos?	Y / N
Does your research involve the use of human foetal tissues / cells?	Y / N
2. HUMANS
Does your research involve human participants?	Y / N
Does your research involve physical interventions on the study participants?	Y / N
3. HUMAN CELLS / TISSUES
Does your research involve human cells or tissues (other than from Human Embryos/Foetuses, i.e. section 1)?	Y / N
4. PERSONAL DATA
Does your research involve personal data collection and/or processing?	Y / N
Does it involve the collection and/or processing of sensitive personal data (e.g.: health, sexual lifestyle, ethnicity, political opinion, religious or philosophical conviction)?	Y / N
Does it involve processing of genetic information?	Y / N
Does it involve tracking or observation of participants?	Y / N
Does your research involve further processing of previously collected personal data (secondary use)?	Y / N
5. ANIMALS
Does your research involve animals?	Y / N
6. THIRD COUNTRIES
In case non-EU countries are involved, do the research related activities undertaken in these countries raise potential ethics issues?	Y / N
Do you plan to use local resources (e.g. animal and/or human tissue samples, genetic material, live animals, human remains, materials of historical value, endangered fauna or flora samples, etc.)? [43]	Y / N
Do you plan to import any material - including personal data - from non-EU countries into the EU?	Y / N
Do you plan to export any material - including personal data - from the EU to non-EU countries?	Y / N
In case your research involves low and/or lower middle-income countries, are any benefits-sharing actions planned?	Y / N
Could the situation in the country put the individuals taking part in the research at risk?	Y / N
7. ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH and SAFETY
Does your research involve the use of elements that may cause harm to the environment, to animals or plants?	Y / N
Does your research deal with endangered fauna and/or flora and/or protected areas?	Y / N
Does your research involve the use of elements that may cause harm to humans, including research staff?	Y / N
8. DUAL USE
Does your research involve dual-use items in the sense of Regulation 428/2009, or other items for which an authorisation is required?	Y / N
9. EXCLUSIVE FOCUS ON CIVIL APPLICATIONS
Could your research raise concerns regarding the exclusive focus on civil applications?	Y / N
10. MISUSE
Does your research have the potential for misuse of research results?	Y / N
11. OTHER ETHICS ISSUES
Are there any other ethics issues that should be taken into consideration?	Y / N

For more information, please consult the Horizon 2020 Programme Guidance “How to complete your ethics self-assessment ” [44] .

IX. Declaration of changes between pre-proposals and full proposals

· Was there any change made in your proposal between the pre-proposal and full proposal stage?

ˆ YES ˆ NO

If yes, please detail the change(s) made and detail the rationales for such change:

· Has the Call Secretariat already been informed about the change?

ˆ YES ˆ NO

· Has the Call Secretariat already approved the change?

ˆ YES ˆ NO ˆ DECISION STILL PENDING

If yes, please indicate the date on which the Call Secretariat was informed and/or the date of approval by the Call Secretariat.

X. Signatures

1. Each Partner MUST carefully read the documents and – in case of any questions or doubts – contact his national/regional Funding organisation Contact Point (FCP) regarding any original official paperwork required by his national/regional Funding Organisation.

This must be submitted in accordance with Funding Organisations’ rules and in any case as soon as possible. You will NOT be funded without the fulfilment of requirements of each relevant national/regional Funding Organisation.

Further information is available on BiodivERsA website (www.biodiversa.org/2019-call)

2. “Self-financed” Partners must provide evidence that their organisations will support their activities. They should send a signed official letter of support from their Head of Department or Financial administrator (as appropriate) to the Call Secretariat. This letter must be received electronically (.pdf) by the proposal deadline.

Further information is available on the BiodivERsA website (www.biodiversa.org/2019-call)

3. Use of data: the data provided in this full proposal application form will be used for the purpose of the evaluation procedure and for the production of statistics on this call only. Anonymity and confidentiality will be maintained throughout processing of these data for the production of statistics. Please note that these data will be accessible to Funding agencies participating to the call, including the ones based in non-EU-countries (i.e. Brazil, Israel, Norway, South Africa, Switzerland, Tunisia and Turkey).

ˆ By ticking this box, applicants give their consent for the collection and use of their data, as well as for the transfer of their data to the non-EU countries mentioned above for the purpose of the evaluation procedure and the production of anonymous statistics on the call only.

Annex 5: Checklist for applicants (volta ao índice)

In order to make sure that your application is eligible to this call, please collect the information required to tick all the sections below before starting to complete the pre-proposal and full proposal application forms :

GENERAL CONDITIONS:

The project proposal addresses the AIM(S) of the call

The project proposal meets the THEMES of this call

Nota bene : any project that does not fit within the thematic priorities described in the complete announcement of opportunity will not be recommended for funding, regardless of its scientific quality.

COMPOSITION AND ELIGIBILITY OF THE CONSORTIUM:

The project proposal involves eligible Partners from at least three different countries participating in the call and is supported by at least three different Participating Organisations. In addition, part of the eligible Partner, at least two are from different EU Member States or Associated Countries [45] participating in the call. Provided the latter criterion is met (Partners from at least two different EU Member States or Associated Countries participating in the call), for proposals including Partners from outermost regions and overseas countries and territories participating in the call, if two outermost regions and overseas countries and territories are from the same country, these are counted as two participating countries (for the criteria: at least three different countries). Where a proposal includes three or more Partners from outermost regions and overseas countries and territories from the same country, these will be counted as two participating countries (for the criteria: at least three different countries).

The project coordinator is eligible and is or will be employed by an eligible organisation in one of the countries participating to the call.

I have carefully checked that the all Partners within my proposal are eligible, as no changes of Partners are allowed between the pre-proposal and full proposal stage, except if explicitly requested by the Funding Organisations or in case of force majeure. Please note that the following actions are considered as changes: addition, removal or replacement of a Partner. If a researcher in charge (person) remains the same but changes the institutions, this won’t be considered as a change, provided the institution fulfils eligibility criteria. Individual cases will be examined.

Each Partner involved in the project has carefully read its respective Funding Organisations rules and – in case of any questions or doubts – has contacted its national/regional Funding Organisations to confirm their eligibility and make sure it complies with its national/regional Funding Organisation’s rules. No changes of Partner (person) will be allowed between pre-proposal and full proposal stage.

Non-eligible self-funded Partners are aware that they cannot request funding and that they must provide a letter of support signed by their organisation or financial department which declares that the organisation will cover the full costs of their activities at the second step.

BUDGET SECTIONS:

I have correctly made the difference between the total costs of the project and requested costs (i.e. the total costs comprise all the costs related to the project independently of national funding rules; whereas the requested costs comprise the costs for which you will request funding to your Funding Organisation. For requested funding budget, the cost calculation has to be based for each Partner on its Funding Organisations’ rules).

Each Partner involved in the project has carefully read its respective Funding Organisations rules and in case of doubt has contacted its national/regional Funding Organisations to make sure it complies with its national/regional Funding Organisation’s rules.

The budget of subcontracted Partners is detailed in the lines dedicated to subcontracted Partner, yet the subcontracted Partners do not request any funding. The budget requested for the subcontracted Partners is included in the requested budget of the subcontracting Partner in the section “Subcontract”.

Note: The language below is intended to be an annex to the call text to guide applicants regarding data management and data sharing.

Annex 6: Data policy (volta ao índice)

Why Data Management Plans (DMPs) are required.

BiodivERsA supports transnational transdisciplinary research with the goal of providing knowledge for understanding, mitigating and adapting to global environmental change. To meet this challenge, BiodivERsA emphasizes open sharing of research data and digital outputs to stimulate new approaches to the collection, reuse, analysis, validation and management of data and information, thus increasing the transparency of the research process and robustness of the results. However, BiodivERsA fully recognizes that there are legitimate reasons to constrain access, for example, when an individual’s privacy would be at risk from sharing data containing (or derived from) personally identifiable information.

For this call, the participating agencies consider that the development and implementation of project-specific Data Management Plans is an essential to enable the sharing of research data.

Research data and digital outputs include, but are not limited to:

· Quantitative and qualitative digital information and objects created during or reused in research activities such as experiments, analyses, surveys, interviews, measurements, instrumentation, observations, video, audio, and computer simulations;

· All metadata describing the data and digital outputs, their acquisition (including model description and related metadata for simulations and workflows), and other details for the use and the reuse of the data;

· Secondary data resulting from data reduction, transformation, analyses, and results, together with the associated code, software, workflows, and provenance information;

· Stakeholder-oriented digital outputs such as maps (including GIS layers), decision support tools, tutorials, videos, local language resources, lesson plans, curricula, policy memos, and whitepapers; and

· Descriptions of, and metadata relating to, physical samples connected with the call - but not the actual physical samples.

Each project awarded through this call is required to develop and implement a Data and Digital Outputs Management Plan to ensure ethical approaches and compliance with the present data policy, as well as the FAIR Data Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable).

Project specific Data Management Plans should adhere to relevant standards and community best practices, which may vary by subject and disciplinary area. Data and Digital Outputs Management Plans should also comply with public access policies and applicable national laws for the respective Funding Organisations supporting this call. Research data and digital outputs should be open by default, and publicly accessible, possibly after a short period of exclusivity, unless there are legitimate reasons to constrain access. Data and digital outputs must be discoverable through machine readable catalogues, information systems and search engines. To enable data and digital outputs (including models, workflows, software and methods, etc.) with acknowledged long-term to be discoverable, accessible, understandable, interoperable and effectively reused by others (including those outside the discipline of origin and the context of acquisition), sufficient metadata must be provided and made openly accessible. Data and digital outputs must be curated, including maintaining integrity, quality and veracity, using internationally or community agreed standards and protocols. Data and digital outputs must be preserved, protected from loss and remain accessible and usable for future research in sustainable and trustworthy repositories.

Resulting publications must list where or how to locate the underlying supporting data and other research materials, including agreed persistent identifiers, processing details and any workflows, software, and code. Academic journals may also set specific requirements for Data Accessibility Statements to be included within published research results (primary research articles). Researchers should ensure that metadata created to support research datasets and other digital outputs retained for the long-term is sufficient to allow other researchers a reasonable understanding and trust of those materials, thereby minimising unintentional misuse, misinterpretation or confusion.

In the development of data infrastructures, it is important to leverage existing resources, platforms, standards, and recognized practices together with a clear sustainability plan. Projects that propose to develop data infrastructures are asked to work closely with, and support relevant international networks, infrastructures, and standards organisations. They should make as much use as possible of existing certified domain, national or international data repositories (for further information, possible resources include, but are not limited to, re3data.org, CoreTrustSeal, Group on Earth Observations (GEO) FAIRsharing.org, etc.). Projects should also coordinate with, and make use of, the products and practices developed by recognized research and operational data policy and sharing organisations such as the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA), the Research Data Alliance (RDA), and the ICSU-World Data System (WDS).

For assistance in developing data and digital outputs management plans, project leaders are encouraged to first consult with relevant domain repositories, librarians and information specialists at their respective institutions. When appropriate repositories have been identified for depositing and sharing data and digital outputs, staff at these repositories can provide additional guidance on the preparation of data and digital outputs management plans, as well as processes for fulfilling specific requirements for organizing and formatting data and metadata.

Applicants are strongly recommended to follow these guidelines when developing their data management plan, at the pre-proposal and full proposal phases. Teams must agree to cooperate with BiodivERsA, who will provide a support to the funded projects to further develop their Data Management Plans and ensure that they comply with these guidelines.

A data management workshop will indeed be organized at the beginning of the funded projects (back-to-back the kick-off meeting) to exchange best practices related to data management, present hands-on advices, and work with the funded projects on how they can improve their data management plans (DMPs) and practices related to open data.

At least the coordinator of each funded projects is expected to participate to this workshop and should plan resources to attend. It is recommended to also plan resources to allow the data manager of the project (if different from the coordinator) to attend this workshop.

Data Management Planning Process

It is important to consider data management issues from the inception of a research project submitted to this call, in order to plan and budget appropriately for data sharing, management and curation. This section explains the expectations for Data Management Plans (DMPs) at the stages of Full Proposal, and Awarded Projects.

Full Proposals - Proposed Data Management Plan Approach

In the data management section (to be included in your single pdf to be uploaded on the EPSS), please address the following questions (those that are repeated from the earlier stage should be elaborated on as appropriate):

1. What types of datasets and other digital outputs of long-term value do you expect the project will produce or reuse?

○ “Long-term” means those data and digital outputs that will or may be of value to others within your research community and/or the wider research, innovation and stakeholder communities.

2. How do you intend to ensure that the data and digital outputs from your project confirm to the present Data policy and the FAIR principles (i.e. they should be findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable)?

3. Which member(s) of your team will be responsible for developing, implementing, overseeing, and updating the Data and Digital Outputs Management Plan?

4. How do you intend to manage the data and digital outputs during the project to ensure their long-term value is protected?

○ For example, where will the data be held during the project, who will have access, and will a specialised data manager be part of the project team?

5. How and by whom will the data and other digital outputs be managed after the project ends to ensure their long-term accessibility?

○ For example, will the outputs be published with a Persistent Unique and Resolvable Identifier (such as a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), Accession Number, Handle, etc.), and/or be placed in a recognized, trustworthy long-term domain or other repository or data centre. When will this occur? (Further information about repositories include, but are not limited to, the Re3data.org registry of research data repositories, CoreTrustSeal list of certified data repositories, etc.)

6. What restrictions, if any, do you anticipate could be placed on how the data and digital outputs can be accessed, mined or reused?

○ The present policy is that the data should be as open as possible to commercial and non-commercial users, though with managed access where appropriate and necessary; for example, if there are sensitive data involving human subjects.

7. How will you ensure that any data security, privacy, and intellectual property restrictions associated with datasets and digital outputs will be honoured and preserved in derivative products?

8. What supporting documentation and other information (e.g. metadata) do you plan to make publicly accessible to support the longer-term re-use of the data and digital outputs?

9. How have you accounted for the costs required to manage the data and digital outputs to ensure long-term accessibility?

Awarded Projects - Full Data Management Plan

A full Data and Digital Outputs Management Plan (DMP) for an awarded project is a living, actively updated document that describes the data management life cycle for the data and other digital outputs to be collected, reused, processed and/or generated. As part of making research data as open as possible, findable, accessible, interoperable and re-usable (FAIR), the DMP for a funded project should elaborate on the information provided at the Full Proposal stage, and include the following additional information:

1. Agreed standards to be used for data and metadata format and content (where existing standards are absent or deemed inadequate, this should be documented along with any proposed solutions or remedies);

2. Policies for broad access and sharing including provisions for appropriate protection of privacy, confidentiality, security, intellectual property, or other rights or requirements;

3. Policies and provisions for mining, reuse, re-distribution, and the production of derivatives;

4. Contact information for the person(s) responsible for updating the DMP as needed to comply with these guidelines, and

5. A list of anticipated trustworthy, long-term repositories or data centres that will be used to ensure preservation of access to data and digital outputs following completion of the project.

Applicants are advised to include the full costs of implementing the data management plan in the proposed project budget.

Annex 7: Assessment criteria (volta ao índice)

A two-step evaluation process will be organised:

- The first step will consist in an eligibility check and an evaluation (peer-review) of pre-proposals by the Evaluation Committee against the following criteria: fit to the scope of the call, novelty of the research and transnational added value. The CSC will decide on the number of projects to be invited to step 2, following the evaluation made by the EvC. Only successful pre-proposals will be invited to submit full proposals.

- The second step will consist in an eligibility check and an evaluation of full proposals by the EvC and external reviewers . The EvC will convene to evaluate and make the final ranking of the submitted full proposals according to the following assessment criteria: (scientific) excellence, quality and efficiency of the implementation and impact; and taking into account the reviews obtained from external reviewers.

The criteria below will be used to assess the quality of pre- and full proposals.

I. CRITERIA FOR STEP 1

Pre-proposals will be evaluated by the Evaluation Committee according to the three criteria detailed below.

Each criterion will be evaluated by both scientific and policy/management EvC members.

1. Fit to the scope of the call (1-5; threshold: 3,5)

Evaluation Committee members will assess the relevance of the proposed research against the thematic priorities and objectives set forth in the scientific text of the call. Any project that does not fit within the thematic priorities described or does not address the objectives identified in the call text will not be recommended for funding, regardless of its scientific quality.

2. Novelty of the research performed (1-5; threshold: 3)

Evaluation Committee members will assess the novelty / originality and innovation of the research goals and objectives, i.e.:

Ø To what extent the proposed work has innovation potential, and is beyond the state of the art (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches);

Ø To what extent the proposed work would lead to novel / original contribution for tackling societal and or policy challenges.

3. Transnational added value (1-5; threshold: 3)

Evaluation Committee members will assess the transnational added value to be expected from the collaboration (cf. below for more information)

II. CRITERIA FOR STEP 2

Proposals will be evaluated by the Evaluation Committee and external reviewers according to the three criteria detailed below.

No additional criteria will be used for evaluation and selection.

1. Excellence (1-5; threshold: 3.5)

A- Fit to thematic priorities (1-5; threshold: 3.5): Evaluation Committee members will assess the relevance of the proposed research against the thematic priorities set forth in the scientific text of the call. Any project that does not meet the threshold (3.5) for this criterion will not be recommended for funding, regardless of its scientific quality.

B- Scientific excellence aspects, including transnational added value (1-5; threshold: 3.5), will be assessed by means of the following criteria:

a) Scientific quality of the proposed research goals and objectives: how well does the activity advance knowledge and understanding within its own field and across different fields? Does the proposal contribute to scientific excellence and significant progress toward the state of the art?

b) Novelty / Originality and innovation of the research goals and objectives: to what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original concepts?

c) Clarity of the hypothesis, theories and/or research questions

d) Level of inter/multi/trans-disciplinarity

e) Transnational added value to be expected from the collaboration (cf. below for more information)

f) Relation to other projects (does the project plan to link-up with other relevant existing projects ?)

Considering that a given project fits within the thematic priorities of the call, its scientific quality is considered before all other criteria and is a prerequisite for funding.

2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation (1-5; threshold: 3)

a) Quality and efficiency of the management structure and procedures, its organisation and coordination: how well conceived and organised is the proposed activity? Is there an operational plan with well-defined milestones in place?

b) Competence and expertise of the consortium (including complementarity, balance): how well qualified are the applicants in terms of science knowledge, expertise and experience to conduct the project? What is the quality of previous work in terms of past or potential contributions to, and impact on the proposed and other areas of research? Is the Leading Principal Investigator team (including any identified Co-Principal Investigators) able to lead the project, e.g. having strong management and leadership skills, or having complementarity of expertise and synergy of the members of the team?

c) Level of integration and collaboration

d) Appropriateness of resources and funding requested, with justification (budget, staff, equipment): are the requested investments well justified and relevant?

e) Project feasibility and risk management

f) Data management plan overview and data sharing

3. Impact (1-5; threshold: 3)

The expected Impact of the proposed research for policy and/or society and the quality and efficiency of plans for stakeholder engagement will be assessed by means of the 3 following criteria.

Criteria A (approach to stakeholder engagement) relates to the engagement activities planned in the project, while criteria B relates to the wider expected policy and/or societal impact the proposed work seeks to achieve.

A- Approach to stakeholder engagement:

The criteria used to evaluate stakeholder engagement planned in the project - which applicants and members of the Evaluation Committee are invited to consider – are the following:

a) Rationale for the stakeholder engagement planned in the project

b) Identification of appropriate stakeholders to be engaged in the project and why they are relevant (what role they could play), and the desired outcomes of engaging with specific stakeholders

c) Substantiated interest and/or support from appropriate stakeholders on the specific aims of the project [46]

d) Methods/activities proposed for engagement and collaborative learning, planning and resources

e) Evidence that the necessary skills to engage are available in the project team or will be obtained (e.g. through relevant training, or the use of external sources)

f) Knowledge and/or technology transfer methods and plans

BiodivERsA produced a stakeholder engagement handbook for researchers to help them to engage with stakeholders all along their research projects.

This handbook is accessible online (http://biodiversa.org/stakeholderengagement) and we recommend you to use it when designing your project and preparing your proposal.

B- Policy and/or societal relevance and importance of the research for solving pressing issues

The criteria used to evaluate policy and/or societal relevance - which applicants and members of the Evaluation Committee are invited to consider – are the following:

a) Clear statement of the application for policy and/or society. Any proposal must contain details which cite the relevance of the research to e.g. policy instruments and current legislation, and highlight the importance of this work for solving pressing societal issues related to the scope of the call.

b) Clearly identified end users of the research results, including policy makers as relevant, and ways to engage them. The proposal will be expected to identify specific end-user organisations, and, if possible, to name individuals within these organisations.

c) Arrangements for the wider uptake of knowledge and results in policy and/or society .

BiodivERsA produced a guide on policy relevance and science-policy interfacing for researchers preparing a proposal.

This guide is accessible online (http://www.biodiversa.org/1543) and we recommend you to use it when designing your project and preparing your proposal

C- Transnational added value

III. SCORING SYSTEM

Scoring system at step 1

The three criteria will be evaluated by both scientific experts and policy/management experts of the EvC.

For each criterion, a score out of a scale of five will be assigned to each proposal.

The Evaluation Committee has the possibility to use half scores.

Threshold:

There is no shared interest for proposals with a score lower than 3,5 for fit to the scope of the call and lower than 3 for novelty of the research and for transnational added value. These proposals will not be ranked, and not be considered for invitation to step 2.

Aggregation of scores

During the evaluation meeting, the EvC has to agree on a score for all pre-proposals in order to rank the pre-proposals and recommend the ones to be invited to step 2.

As the criteria are evaluated by both scientific and policy/management experts (i.e. fit to the scope of the call and transnational added value), the different rapporteurs (both scientific and policy/management) have to agree as much as possible by consensus on the grade to be given to the proposals for these criteria. In case a consensus cannot be reached, the score given for the criteria will correspond to the average of the scores given by policy/management rapporteurs and scientific rapporteurs.

Final score:

The final score given to a proposal will correspond to an aggregation of the scores given to the three criteria (equal weight for the 3 criteria). The overall score will correspond to a score out of a scale of fifteen points.

The EvC ranks the pre-proposals based on their scores and assigns them to one of the following three categories:

- “A” very favourable for invitation to Step 2;

- “B” could be invited to Step 2;

- “C”, not favourable for invitation to Step 2.

The CSC will decide on the number of projects to be invited to step 2, based on the list made by the members of the Evaluation Committee and their explanations. Consortia that should not be invited to step 2 receive a clear indication that based on their pre-proposal, their chance of being successful with a full-proposal is very low in this high-competitive call.

Scoring system at step 2

The overall aim of the ranking system is to allow a transparent ranking that still allows for some flexibility, and to fund as many high-level projects as possible.

The two first criteria (excellence and quality and efficiency of the implementation) will be assessed by the scientific experts of the EvC and scientific external reviewers, while the impact criteria will be assessed by the policy/management experts of the EvC and external reviewers.

For each criterion, a score out of a scale of five will be assigned to each proposal.

The Evaluation Committee has the possibility to use half scores.

Threshold:

Proposals with a score lower than 3.5 for the criterion “Fit to thematic priorities” won’t be ranked nor considered for funding.

Besides, there is no shared interest for proposals with a score lower than 3.5 for excellence and lower than 3 for quality and efficiency of the implementation and for impact. These proposals will not be ranked, and not be considered for funding.

Weighting system:

The following weighting system will apply for the different criteria:

The final score given to a proposal will correspond to an aggregation of the scores given to the three criteria, taking into account their respective weights. The overall mark will be transformed into a score out of 15 points.

The EvC ranks as many projects as possible. However, around the threshold, the EvC can use ex-aequo for proposals with a same final score that it considers of equal quality.

Example:

If a proposal receives a score of 4 for excellence, 4 for quality and efficiency of the implementation and 5 for impact, the aggregation of the scores taking into account their respective weight will give a score of 70. This score will be transformed into a score out of 15 points, i.e. 13.

Annex 8: Review forms (volta ao índice)

The format of the review forms will be modified to fit the electronic proposal submission system (EPSS) of the call.

Review forms are confidential and should not be disclosed.

Name of applicant : Title of proposal:

Project Nr.: Reviewer Nr.:

1. Evaluation form for fit to the scope of the call (assessed by both scientific and policy/management EvC members)

Score	Fit to the scope of the call
1- Very poor	The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner: the proposal does not fit to the scope of the call at all
2- Poor	The proposal does not really address the scope of the call
3- Good	The proposal addresses the criterion, although the scope of the call could be more directly addressed
4- Excellent	The proposal fits to the scope of the call
5- Outstanding	The proposal fits very well to the scope of the call

Criteria: How do you value this proposal regarding the its fit to the scope of the call?	Score (1-5)
Comments / explanations:

2. Evaluation form for novelty of the research (assessed by both scientific and policy/management EvC members)

Score	Novelty of the research
1- Very poor	The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses
2- Poor	Quality science, but not leading edge
3- Good	Generally novel science
4- Excellent	At the forefront of the field, will significantly advance understanding
5- Outstanding	Exceptional merit and originality; major scientific impact expected

Criteria: How do you value this proposal regarding the novelty and originality of the research proposed ?	Score (1-5)
Comments / explanations:

3. Evaluation form for transnational added value (assessed by both scientific and policy/management EvC members)

Score	Transnational added value
1- Very poor	The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses
2- Poor	Strong or very significant weaknesses
3- Good	The proposal addresses the criterion well, although some improvements would be necessary
4- Excellent	The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although there are some minor shortcomings
5- Outstanding	The proposal addresses the criterion very well. Shortcomings are minor.

Criteria: How do you value this proposal its transnational added value ?	Score (1-5)
Comments / explanations:

Annex 9: Review form (volta ao índice)

The format of the review form will be modified to fit the electronic proposal submission system (EPSS) of the call

Review forms are confidential and should not be disclosed.

SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION FORM

EXCELLENCE & QUALITY/EFFICIENCY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION

(for both scientific EvC members and scientific external reviewers)

Name of applicant : Title of proposal:

Project Nr.: Reviewer Nr.:

1. Evaluation form for excellence

Score	Excellence
1- Very poor	The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses
2- Poor	Quality science, but not leading edge
3- Good	Generally competitive science
4- Excellent	At the forefront of the field, will significantly advance understanding
5- Outstanding	Exceptional merit and originality; major scientific impact expected

Criterion	Score (1-5)
Fit to thematic priorities

Criteria for overall project excellence	Score (1-5)
1. Scientific quality of the proposed research goals and objectives
2. Novelty/originality and innovation of the research goals and objectives
3. Clarity of the hypothesis/ theories/research question(s)
4. Level of inter/multi/trans-disciplinarity
5. Transnational added value
6. Relation to other projects

Comments:

FINAL ASSESSMENT:

How do you value this proposal regarding the above-mentioned qualifications? Please substantiate your qualification in one or two concluding sentences:

¨ Outstanding

¨ Excellent

¨ Good

¨ Poor

¨ Very poor

2. Evaluation form for quality/efficiency of the implementation

Score	Quality/efficiency of the implementation
1- Very poor	Major or very significant weaknesses that might impact the success of the proposals
2- Poor	Strong or very significant weaknesses
3- Good	The proposal addresses the criterion well, although some improvements would be necessary
4- Excellent	The proposal addresses the criterion very well., although there are some minor shortcomings
5- Outstanding	The proposal addresses the criterion very well. Shortcomings are minor.

Criteria for overall quality/efficiency of the implementation	Score (1-5)
1. Quality and efficiency of the management structure and procedures, its organisation and coordination, including the management and sharing of data.
2. Competence and expertise of the consortium (including complementarity, balance)
3. Level of integration and collaboration
4. Appropriateness of resources and funding requested, with justification (budget, staff, equipment), project feasibility and timeless
5. Project feasibility and risk management
6. Data management and data sharing

Comments:

FINAL ASSESSMENT:

How do you value this proposal regarding the above-mentioned qualifications? Please substantiate your qualification in one or two concluding sentences:

¨ Outstanding

¨ Excellent

¨ Good

¨ Poor

¨ Very poor

FORM FOR EVALUATION OF IMPACT

(for both policy/management EvC members and external reviewers)

Review forms are confidential and should not be disclosed.

Name of applicant : Title of proposal:

Project Nr.: Reviewer Nr.:

Score	Impact
1 – Very poor	No discernible link of scientific advances to application in policy and/or practice
2 - Poor	Moderate link of scientific advances to application in policy and/or practice
3 - Good	Generally competitive in linking scientific advances to application in policy and/or practice
4 - Excellent	At the forefront of the field, potential to advance significantly coherence of biodiversity research and its application in policy and/or practice
5 - Outstanding	Exceptional merit; major impact expected in the field of biodiversity conservation, management and policy

Criteria	Score (1-5
1. Approach to stakeholder engagement: Please provide an overall score for the approach to stakeholder engagement and sub-scores for the following sub-criteria for stakeholder engagement assessment, including: Rationale for the stakeholder engagement planned in the project Identification of appropriate stakeholders to be engaged in the project and why they are relevant (what role they could play), and the desired outcomes of engaging with specific stakeholders Substantiated interest and/or support from appropriate stakeholders on the specific aims of the project Methods/activities proposed for engagement and collaborative learning, planning and resources Evidence that the necessary skills to engage are available in the project team or will be obtained (e.g. through relevant training, or the use of external sources) Knowledge and/or technology transfer methods and plans to stakeholders
2. Policy and/or societal relevance and importance of the research for solving pressing issues a. Clear statement of the application for policy and/or society (relevance of the research to e.g. policy instruments and current legislation; importance of this work for solving pressing societal issues. b. Clearly identified end users of the research results, including policy makers as relevant and ways to engage them . Arrangements for the wider uptake of knowledge and results in policy and/or society
3. Transnational added value

Comments:

FINAL ASSESSMENT:

How do you value this proposal regarding the above-mentioned qualifications? Please substantiate your qualification in one or two concluding sentences:

¨ Outstanding

¨ Excellent

¨ Good

¨ Poor

¨ Very poor

Annex 10: Conflict of interest, confidentiality and non-disclosure policy a (volta ao índice)

This code applies to the Call Steering Committee, the Evaluation Committee and the external reviewers.

Conflict of interest

An important aspect of this code is the avoidance of any conflicts between personal interests and the interests of the applicants. A conflict of interest might arise, for example, if there is or has been a close working relationship, financial or personal connections with any individual(s) in the academic department(s) or organisation from which a proposal originates. Such interests may be indirect and relate to immediate family members or any other persons living in the same household as the reviewer.

Definition of the conflict of interest .

A conflict of interest may include the following:

- Relatives, personal ties or conflicts;

- Close scientific collaboration, e.g. implementation of joint projects or joint publications within the past three years (e.g., have co-authored and published an article with the applicant during the past three years, have been involved in the preparation of the application, or are involved in the publication or exploitation of the results);

- Direct scientific competition with personal projects or plans;

- Close proximity, e.g. member of the same scientific institution with a hierarchical or department relation or impending change of the reviewer/rapporteur to the institution of the applicant in a position with a hierarchical or department relation or vice versa;

- Teacher/student relationship, unless independent scientific activity of more than 10 years exists;

- Dependent relationship in employment during the past 5 years;

- Participation in ongoing or recently concluded professional appointment proceedings;

- Current or prior (past 5 years) activity in advisory bodies of the applicant’s institution, e.g. scientific advisory boards;

- Direct or indirect benefits directly if the proposal is accepted;

- Personal economic interests in the funding decision.

Rules for the prevention of conflict of interest

Call Steering Committee members, Evaluation Committee members and External Reviewers have to sign a conflict of interest, confidentiality and non-Disclosure declaration to confirm that they will comply with the principles state herein. For each proposal they have to evaluate, Evaluation Committee members and External reviewers will have to declare online, through the electronic evaluation Submission system (EPSS) that they do not have a conflict of interest with the concerned proposal.

People included in a proposal submitted to this call may not serve as Evaluation Committee members or external reviewers.

Reviewers must be independent experts and should not be used in case of a conflict of interest.

Evaluation Committee members and Call Steering Committee members must leave the room during the discussion of a proposal in case of a possible conflict of interest. Reviewers and Evaluation Committee members may not apply for a project in the call.

Confidentiality and non-disclosure policy

All submitted proposals, the correspondence forwarded to you, the reviews and the identity of the reviewers must be treated as strictly confidential. They must not be revealed to third parties.

Therefore, the responsibilities of a reviewer may only be undertaken personally and may not be delegated to third parties.

The scientific content of the proposal may not be exploited for personal or other scientific purposes.

A reviewer should not identify himself/herself to the applicant or any third party.

Conflict of Interest, Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Declaration for members of the Call Steering Committee (CSC), Evaluation Committee (EvC) and External Reviewers

The external reviewers, the Evaluation Committee members and the Call Steering Committee members are requested to sign the following declaration:

1. Your Potential Conflicts of Interests.

Your participation in this joint call requires that you be aware of potential conflict situations that may arise. Read the examples of potentially biasing affiliations or relationships listed in the “Conflict of interest, confidentiality and non-disclosure”.

As a member of the Evaluation Committee, an External Reviewer or member of the CSC, you will be asked to contribute to the evaluation process. You might have a conflict or be perceived to have a conflict with one or more submitted proposals. Should any conflict arise during your term, or when asked to do a review, you must bring the matter to the attention of the Call Secretariat who will determine how the matter should be handled and will tell you what further steps, if any, to take.

2. No Use of “Insider” Information.

Your designation gives you access to information not generally available to the public. You must not use that information for your personal benefit or make it available for the personal benefit of any other individual or organization.

3. Your Obligation to Maintain the Confidentiality of Proposals and Applicants.

Proposals are received with the expectation of protection of the confidentiality of their contents. For this reason, you must not copy, quote, or otherwise use or disclose to anyone, including your graduate students or post-doctoral or research associates, any material from any proposal you are asked to review. If you believe a colleague can make a substantial contribution to the review, please obtain permission from the Call Secretariat who asked that you review the proposal before disclosing either the content of the proposal or the name of any applicant or principal investigator.

You must respect the confidentiality of all applicants and of other reviewers, as appropriate. You cannot disclose their identities, the relative assessments or rankings of proposals by a peer review panel, or other details about the peer review of proposals.

4. Confidentiality of the Review Process and Reviewer Names.

The names of external experts won’t be made public.

The names of the Evaluation Committee members will be made public after the announcement of awards. Which EvC members assessed which proposals will however be kept confidential.

YOUR CERTIFICATION

Annex 11: Instructions for the Call Secretariat (volta ao índice)

I. GENERAL

This document gives an overview of the practical aspects of the BiodivERsA joint call on “Biodiversity and Climate Change”. It describes the procedures to be followed from the launch of the call until the evaluation phase, as agreed by the Participating Organisations, as well as the mandate of the Call Secretariat. It will serve as a guideline for the Call Secretariat.

Instructions for the Evaluation Committee are described in a separate document (Annex 12).

II. MANDATE OF THE CALL SECRETARIAT

The Call Secretariat will be located at ANR.

The Call Secretariat will coordinate the call process with involvement (either electronically or physically) of staff from Participating Organisations.

The procedures to be followed by the Call Secretariat are described in this document.

Responsibilities of the Call Secretariat include:

- Preparing the documents required for the call implementation;

- Prepare the launch of the call (prepare all documents to be published on the BiodivERsA website for the launch of the call, including the FAQ) and make sure the information on the website are updated all along the call process;

- Coordinating the Funding organisation Contact Points and making sure the eligibility check is performed in due time;

- Establishing the EvC together with the CSC;

- Establishing a list of external reviewers with the CSC and EvC;

- Supporting the CSC and the EvC during the evaluation procedure, by:

o Checking the eligibility of the proposals with support from the FCPs;

o Assisting the CSC in proposing potential external reviewers;

o Assisting the EvC in proposing external reviewers and assigning them proposals;

o Allocating proposals to EvC members (rapporteurs);

o Organising the EvC meetings and inviting CSC members as observers;

o Gathering scores and reviews from the EvC members;

o Circulating information to the CSC at each single step of the procedure.

- Organising the CSC meetings, for the agreement on the present Memorandum of Understanding, the evaluation process to be followed, the selection of pre-proposals to be invited to step 2, the funding decision, and then for the monitoring of the funded projects;

- Coordinating the funding of the projects recommended for funding, and in case of funding failure, implementing the re-evaluation procedure decided by the CSC;

- Informing applicants about the funding recommendations and sending them the final feedbacks made by the EvC on their proposal;

- Providing support for the organisation of the kick-off meeting and the final conference of the funded projects;

- Providing support for the organisation of the follow-up of the selected projects (i.e. collecting the interim and final reports, organise CSC meetings to discuss the interim reports and validate the final reports, inform the applicants about the feedbacks from the CSC).

III. COORDINATION OF THE FUNDING ORGANISATION CONTACT POINTS

Each Participating Organisation has to:

- send to the Call Secretariat their Funding Organisations’ rules, following the template provided by the Call Secretariat. These rules will be made available on the BiodivERsA website for the applicants.

- indicate a contact person, whom the applicants can contact to have information on the call and on the Funding Organisations’ rules and procedures.

IV. GUIDELINES TO ESTABLISH THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE

The Evaluation Committee consists of experts in the natural, climate and social sciences as well as professionals from the field of biodiversity policy and conservation management.

Particular attention should be paid to the balance between natural, climate and social sciences when establishing the EvC, with respect to the proportions in the project applications.

Guidance on what is a policy/management expert (for both EvC and external reviewers)

The EvC includes experts in policy or management of biodiversity and natural resources which are able to evaluate the credibility and means presented by a research proposal in achieving expected societal and/or policy impacts . These EvC Members should either be:

• Non-academic experts with an experience of working with or within academic research projects. They can have a background and/or experience in e.g. managing and/or using natural resources in the field, or from a business, policy-making or policy advising perspective, or be civil servants from global to local administrations.
• Academic experts with extensive and demonstrable/justifiable experience in engaging non-academic stakeholders and promoting societal and/or policy impacts of research .

Policy and/or management experts for the evaluation of BiodivERsA calls should NOT be:

• Non-academic experts without any prior knowledge of or experience with academic research projects in their career.

· Academic experts with no or only superficial experience of stakeholder engagement or promoting non-academic impacts of research. Social scientists, including in management and policy sciences, do not a priori satisfy the conditions for becoming a policy and/or management expert for the evaluation of BiodivERsA calls. Evaluating social sciences in proposals is the responsibility of the scientific evaluation panel.

Chair and Vice-Chair

The Chair and the Vice-Chair of the EvC are suggested by the CSC members and are appointed by a consensus of the CSC. If no consensus is reached, there will be a voting procedure to elect the Chair and Vice-Chair of the EvC. The Chair of the EvC is a scientific expert, and the Vice-Chair is a policy/management expert. The choice of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the EvC will take gender balance into account.

Each CSC member should suggest maximum 2 scientific experts to be Chair of the EvC and maximum 2 policy/management experts to be Vice-chair.

Composition of the rest of the EvC

According to the needs for expertise foreseen, each CSC member has to provide (mandatory) a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 names of scientific experts and a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 names of policy and management experts they recommend to be part of the EvC.

These suggestions should be made prior to the pre-proposal submission deadline, while the final Evaluation Committee will be set up after the pre-proposal submission in order to guarantee that any possible conflict of interest is avoided.

Participating Organisations can request that a member of the board of their agencies be part of the EvC.

Based on the suggestions of the CSC, the Chair and Vice-Chair of the EvC suggest a composition for the EvC to the CSC, with attention to the relevance of their expertise for this particular call and balance in the field of expertise according to the themes addressed by the submitted proposals. In the end, the final composition of the EvC is approved by the CSC.

As soon as the submission of pre-proposal is closed, the Call Secretariat provides the CSC with information about the foreseen themes, ecosystems studied, geographical range, disciplines of the projects and provisional budget requests per project Partner.

Recommendations for the composition of the EvC

- A particular effort in setting up the EvC will be made to ensure the gender balance among the EvC members, with the objective to have at least 40% of one gender.

- As far as possible, scientific experts of the EvC will be from countries that do not participate in the call to allow further flexibility in case of conflicting interests. If this is not possible, scientific EvC members will not, as far as possible, evaluate proposals involving teams from their country. This limitation does not apply to policy/management experts of the EvC.

- The Chair and Vice-Chair will be from a country that does not participate in the call.

- The choice of the Chair and Vice-Chair will take gender balance into account.

- The number of EvC members is not fixed, as it is linked to the number of submitted proposals. Yet, as far as possible:

o The size of the EvC should not exceed 32 people to keep the discussion manageable during EvC meetings;

o As far as possible, members from the EvC should not evaluate more than 30 pre- or full proposals (both as rapporteur);

o This may lead to having scientific EvC members and policy/management EvC members meeting separately for the evaluation of pre-proposals (step 1).

Members take part in the Evaluation Committee as independent experts and do not represent any organisation nor can they send any replacements.

V. GOOD PRACTICE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

A code has been drafted to ensure good practice and avoid conflict of interest (Annex 10). These guidelines apply to the CSC, the EvC and the external Reviewers.

The Call Secretariat make sure that all CSC, EvC members and external reviewers sign the conflict of interest, confidentiality and non-disclosure declaration.

VI. GUIDELINES FOR THE EVALUATION PROCEDURE

1. Eligibility check of pre-proposals and evaluation of pre-proposals (1^st step)

a. Eligibility Check

After the pre-proposals are received, an eligibility check is performed by the Call Secretariat and FCPs.

Pre-proposals that do not meet the requirements are rejected.

b. Peer review of pre-proposals

Pre-proposals passing the eligibility check will be sent to the Evaluation Committee for a first evaluation according to the 3 following criteria: fit to the scope of the call, novelty of the research and transnational added value (see Annex 7 for a more detailed information about evaluation criteria).

Allocation of proposals to EvC members

The Chair, the Vice-Chair of the EvC and the Call Secretariat meet to assign pre-proposals to members of EvC. To guarantee the quality of discussions and of the evaluation process, for each proposal there will be:

- two scientific experts nominated within the EvC to review the pre-proposal, one as principal rapporteur and one as secondary rapporteur, and

- one policy/management expert nominated as rapporteur

Evaluation of pre-proposals and EvC meeting

Both scientific and policy/management experts will assess the three criteria.

The EvC will meet to establish the ranking list of pre-proposals.

In case a very large number of pre-proposals is received, scientific EvC members and policy/management EvC members may meet separately, in order to ensure that the size of the EvC does not exceed 32 people for the majority of the discussion, while ensuring that EvC members do not evaluate more than 30 pre-proposals (both as principal and secondary rapporteur).

In that case, the scientific and policy/management experts will first meet separately to convene of a grade for each proposal. They will then meet in plenary to agree on one final grade to be given to each proposal, and decide on the ranking of pre-proposals.

The Call Secretariat will bring support if needed during the meeting. In addition, all CSC members, the BiodivClim coordinator and the BiodivERsA Coordinator & Secretariat should be invited by the Call Secretariat to attend the Evaluation Committee meetings as observers.

Prior to the EvC meeting, the EvC members are requested to provide a written pre-assessment of the proposals assigned to them using the relevant criteria, preferably no later than 3 working days prior to the evaluation meeting.

Aggregation of scores and ranking of pre-proposals

During the meeting, for each proposal, scientific and policy/management experts discuss the quality of the proposals, The EvC has to agree on a score for all pre-proposals in order to rank the pre-proposals and recommend the ones to be invited to step 2.

As the criteria are evaluated by both scientific and policy/management experts, the different rapporteurs (both scientific and policy/management) have to agree as much as possible by consensus on the grade to

be given to the proposals. In case a consensus cannot be reached, the score given for the criteria will correspond to the average of the scores given by policy/management rapporteurs and scientific rapporteurs.

The final score will correspond to an aggregation of the scores given to the three criteria (equal weight for the 3 criteria; final score out of 15 points).

The EvC ranks the pre-proposals based on their scores and assigns them to one of the following three categories:

- “A” very favourable for invitation to Step 2;

- “B” could be invited to Step 2;

- “C”, not favourable for invitation to Step 2.

Decision on the pre-proposals invited to step 2

The CSC will decide on the projects to be invited to submit full proposals, based on these categories established by the EvC.

A meeting of the CSC will be organized (either electronically or physically) to decide on the number of proposals to be invited to step 2. If needed, the CSC might decide to add selection criteria (e.g. maximum oversubscription factor, etc.), in particular in case of situations that could jeopardize the success of the call.

In any case, the CSC should invite a number of proposals allowing to reach a success funding rate of no more than 30% at the 2^nd step.

The applicants of the selected pre-proposals will be invited to submit full proposals by the Call Secretariat.

Consortia that should not be invited to step 2 receive a clear indication that based on their pre-proposal, their chance of being successful with a full-proposal is very low in this high-competitive call. However, this is only a recommendation, a full proposal cannot be formally rejected, solely because the consortium did not receive an invitation to step 2.

The information given in the pre-proposals is binding. No changes regarding the proposals’ contents will be allowed by the CSC between the pre-proposals and full proposals.

C. Administrative and financial adjustment

The information given in the pre-proposals is binding. Only a limited number of administrative changes regarding the proposals may be allowed by the CSC between the pre-proposals and full proposals, provided they are in line with the general rules of the call and the Funding Organisations’ rules:

- No changes of Partners are allowed between the pre-proposals and full proposal stages, except if explicitly requested by the Funding Organisations or in case of force majeure. In both cases, a detailed justification of the changes will have to be communicated to the Call Secretariat and CSC by the project coordinator as soon as possible. Please note that the following actions are considered as changes: addition, removal or replacement of a Partner. If a researcher in charge (person) remains the same but changes the institutions, this won’t be considered as a change, provided the institution fulfils eligibility criteria. Individual cases will be examined.

- Minor change of budget can be allowed by the relevant Funding Organisation . The Funding Organisation can decide according to its own rules whether it needs a justification for it. If the national/regional Funding Organisation agrees to the budget change, the project coordinator has to inform the Call Secretariat about the change with the Funding Organisation Contact Point (FCP) in copy.

If the financial pressure for a country is too high, negotiations will be entered into with the Funding Organisations representing this country to see if:

- The concerned country/region can increase its budget allocated to the call and thus reduce the financial pressure and/or;

- Ask the applicants to reduce their requested budget and/or set out a maximum of funding per research teams or per proposals in the Funding Organisation eligibility rules.

2. Evaluation of full proposals (2^nd step)

a. Eligibility check of full proposals

An eligibility check of full proposals is performed by the Call Secretariat and FCPs.

Applicants declared eligible after the first eligibility check cannot be declared ineligible after the second eligibility check, unless they made changes in their application justifying this change in eligibility status.

b. Assignment of proposals to external reviewers

As specified on the review form (Annex 9), the proposals are sent to:

- scientific external reviewers, who report on the sets of criteria on excellence and quality/efficiency of the implementation, and;

- policy/management external reviewers, who report on the sets of criteria on impact

Each proposal is preferably reviewed by two external scientific experts and by one external policy/management expert.

The Call Secretariat will endeavour as far as possible to collect the same number of external reviews for all proposals.

External review process:

- Reviewers are recommended by the Evaluation Committee. If necessary, the Call Secretariat identifies additional reviewers and mobilize the CSC as much in advance of the deadline as possible to provide suggestions of experts when there are missing reviews.

- After the submission of pre-proposals, a common meeting is planned (either physical or electronic) with the EvC (at least Chair and Vice-Chair) to allocate proposals amongst the EvC members and start collecting and allocating external reviewers. The CSC members are informed about the time of the meeting and can attend as observers.

- In the proposals, the participants are invited to give the names of experts they do not want to be reviewed by and the names of 4 experts they consider most relevant to review their proposal: the EvC rapporteurs and Call Secretariat are recommended to assign them after checking for potential conflicts of interest (in case of conflict, the whole list will be neglected).

- The Call Secretariat will allocate at least two proposals per external reviewer, if possible and accepted by the external reviewer.

- In case the number of external reviewers for a proposal is reached, the Call Secretariat will reallocate the remaining suggestion of reviewers to another proposals, where relevant.

- The external reviews should be provided to the EvC two weeks before the evaluation meeting, where possible.

- The rules for conflicts of interest should be followed (Annex 10), and scientific reviewers from the same country as the teams carrying the proposal should be avoided, as far as possible. This limitation does not apply to policy/management reviewers.

- In case the Call Secretariat identifies an external review of poor quality (i.e. an external review for which the rationales supporting the evaluation are not clear, not enough detailed or not in relation with the concerned evaluation criteria), the Call Secretariat should contact the principal rapporteur of the concerned proposal to check if he considers the external review of poor quality. If yes, the Call Secretariat shall – as far as possible - find a replacement to this external review and delete the bad review from the list of reviews submitted.

The external reviewers are individuals who are qualified to evaluate a research proposal by virtue of his/her scientific background and/or knowledge of broader aspects relevant to the evaluation process.

Reviewers should be clear, but polite and tactful, and have to provide sufficient information to enable both the applicants and the members of the EvC to understand why particular grades had been assigned.

b. Evaluation Committee meeting

a) Preparation of the Evaluation Committee meeting: re-allocation of proposals to the EvC members and suggestions of external reviewers

The Chair, the Vice-Chair of the EvC and the Call Secretariat meet to re-allocate full proposals to members of EvC, based on the list of pre-proposals invited to step 2. This should be done as quick as possible after the list of pre-proposals invited to step 2 is known.

For each proposal there will be two scientific experts and two policy/management experts within the EvC nominated to review the proposals, one principal and one secondary, to guarantee the quality of discussions and of the evaluation meetings.

Following the allocation of full proposals to EvC members, the latter will be invited to suggest names of external reviewers for the proposals assigned to them.

As far as possible, EvC members will receive external reviews sufficiently in advance of the meeting to allow time for any objections to be made on the reviewers’ work and nominate potential replacements.

Prior to the EvC meeting, the EvC members are requested to provide a written pre-assessment of the proposals assigned to them using the relevant criteria, preferably no later than 3 working days prior to the evaluation meeting. This pre-assessment should take into account and moderate the different grades and assessment received by the external reviewers.

b) Organisation of the Evaluation Committee meetings

The EvC meets to establish the final ranking list of proposals.

The Call Secretariat will bring support if needed during the meeting. In addition, all CSC members, the BiodivClim coordinator and the BiodivERsA Coordinator and Secretariat should be invited by the Call Secretariat to attend the Evaluation Committee meetings as observers.

For each proposal, scientific and policy/management experts discuss the quality of the proposals, taking into account their own review and moderating the external reviews received to give a grade to the different criteria.

- Assessment of the excellence and quality/efficiency of the implementation criteria : the rapporteur among the scientific experts gives a short introduction to the proposal assigned to him/her. The score for excellence and for quality/efficiency of the implementation is given based on the moderation of the reviews made by the rapporteurs and external reviewers, and a recommendation is given for the proposal.

The principal rapporteur must provide a written explanation of the evaluation results for all his/her proposals to be used in the final assessment for the CSC and as a basis for a synthesis of the evaluation results to the applicants.

- Assessment of the impact criteria: the rapporteur among the policy/management experts gives a short introduction to the proposal assigned to him/her. The score for the impact is given based on the moderation the reviews made by the rapporteurs and external reviewers and a recommendation is given for the proposal.

The principal rapporteur must provide a written explanation of the evaluation results for all his/her proposals to be used in the final assessment for the CSC and as a basis for a synthesis of the evaluation results to the applicants.

Final ranking :

The overall aim of the ranking system is to allow a transparent ranking that still allows for some flexibility, and to fund as many high-level projects as possible.

In order to do this, the final score given to a proposal will correspond to an aggregation of the scores given to the three criteria, taking into account their respective weights:

- 7 for excellence;

- 3 for implementation, and

- 6 for impact.

The overall score will be transformed into a score out of 15 points.

The EvC ranks as many projects as possible. However, the EvC can use ex-aequo for proposals with a same final score that it considers of equal quality.

The Evaluation Committee is asked to provide a written summary to explain its decisions to the CSC. For the proposals regarded “fundable”, the Evaluation Committee is asked to consider the suitability of the budgets and possibilities for budget cuts, as well as to give advice, when possible, on the importance for the entire undertaking of each task or work package in the collaborative projects.

VII. CSC meeting – Funding Meeting

The CSC decides on the projects to be recommended for funding strictly following the ranking list established by the EvC, taking into consideration that some proposals considered of equal quality might be ranked ex-aequo around the threshold by the EvC.

The CSC meets soon after the EvC meeting.

The CSC will determine the total number of projects to be recommended for funding according to the ranking made by the EvC, its advices and taking into account the national/regional budgets and the additional EC co-funding available.

The CSC will endeavour to fund the highest possible number of top ranked proposals.

Funding possibilities will depend on available budgets of individual Funding Organisations, the European Commission co-funding, and the different levels of flexibility in funding described in the funding model (cf. Annex 2).

The Participating Organisations will synchronize communication of the result to applicants. In particular, no oral or written information will be given before the notification by the Call Secretariat.

Once the applicants have been notified by the Call Secretariat of the funding recommendations and these recommendations are formally approved by each Participating Organisation, the successful applicants will be contacted by their Funding Organisation regarding the award process and will enter into the administrative process with their corresponding national Participating Organisations.

Each Participating Organisation funds and administers the awards made by their respective organisations.

All the research teams involved in a same project should as much as possible have the same contract start and end dates.

VIII. Monitoring and evaluation of funded projects

The Call Secretariat supports the CSC to coordinate the funding of the projects. In case of funding failure from one Participating Organisation, the Call Secretariat implements a re-evaluation procedure, based on the decision of the CSC.

AEI – the Spanish State Research Agency will be in charge of the follow-up of the funded projects. With support from the Call Secretariat, AEI will ask for and gather information about the status of the projects regularly and transfer this information to the CSC. If needed, CSC meetings will be organised to discuss specific issues about the projects (status, reporting etc.). AEI will become the main contact point for the project leaders regarding issues which do not include Funding Organisation requirements.

Funded projects are required to provide a mid-term and a final report on research progress and financial aspects. The administrative rules of the relevant Funding Organisations also apply.

Funded projects are required to participate in activities that allow networking between the projects, the exploitation of synergies between projects and the dissemination of the projects’ results, carried out by the leader of the relevant task. This includes :

- a kick-off meeting at the beginning of the funding period , to be organised back-to-back with a data management workshop and a clustering workshop, and

- a final meeting to present and disseminate the project results at the end of the funding period, to be organised back-to-back with a strategic workshop.

Funded projects cover the costs related to their participation in these meetings.

Annex 12: Information and guidelines for the Evaluation Committee (volta ao índice)

You were nominated to become a member of the Evaluation Committee (EvC) of the 2019/2020 joint BiodivERsA call for proposals on “Biodiversity and Climate Change”. Your role will be as a science or policy/management expert in your field of experience rather than as a representative of any organisation or nation. You cannot send any replacement.

The BiodivERsA network thanks you very much for your interest in this joint call and for your willingness to participate in the evaluation procedure.

Each committee member will receive a fee for his/her participation to the evaluation process that is fixed to a standard rate of 450€ per step. Committee member participating in the two steps of the evaluation process will thus receive a total fee of 900€.

Besides, your travel and accommodation expenses to attend to EvC meeting will be covered.

NB : Please note that you cannot be a member of the EvC if you are involved in a proposal submitted to the call . In case you were invited while you are involved in a proposal within the present call, please let the Call Secretariat know as soon as possible.

NB: Please note that all documents you will receive during the evaluation process are strictly confidential

I. OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION PROCEDURE

The following two step evaluation will be used:

- The first steps will consist of an eligibility check by the Call Secretariat and Funding Organisations Contact Points (FCP) and evaluation of pre-proposals by the Evaluation Committee (EvC); and

- the second step will consist of an evaluation of full proposals by external reviewers and the Evaluation Committee.

A. EVALUATION OF PRE-PROPOSALS (STEP 1):

The first step will consist in an eligibility check and a first evaluation (peer-review) of pre-proposals.

Pre-proposals will be evaluated by the Evaluation Committee against the following criteria: fit to the scope of the call, novelty of the research and the transnational added value. Only successful pre-proposals will be invited to submit full proposals.

Allocation of pre-proposals to EvC members

The Call Secretariat allocates the proposals to the EvC members. Each proposal is assigned to:

- min 2 scientific experts (one acting as principal rapporteur, and one as secondary rapporteur);

- min 1 policy/management expert (acting as principal rapporteur).

Evaluation of pre-proposals and EvC meeting

Both scientific experts and policy/management experts will assess the three following criteria: fit to the scope of the call, novelty of the research and the transnational added value;

The EvC will meet to establish the ranking list of pre-proposals, based on the scores of the different criteria. The final score will correspond to an aggregation of the scores given to the three criteria (equal weight for the 3 criteria; final score out of 15 points).

The EvC ranks the pre-proposals based on their scores and assigns them to one of the following three categories:

- “A” very favourable for invitation to Step 2;

- “B” could be invited to Step 2;

- “C”, not favourable for invitation to Step 2.

Decision on the pre-proposals invited to step 2

The CSC will decide on the projects to be invited to submit full proposals, based on these categories established by the EvC.

The applicants of the selected pre-proposals will be invited to submit full proposals by the Call Secretariat.

Consortia that should not be invited to step 2 receive a clear indication that based on their pre-proposal, their chance of being successful with a full-proposal is very low in this high-competitive call. However, this is only a recommendation, a full proposal cannot be formally rejected, solely because the consortium did not receive an invitation to step 2.

B. EVALUATION OF FULL PROPOSALS (STEP 2):

The evaluation procedure of full proposals will take place as described below, once the full-proposals have been received by the Call Secretariat (deadline: April 10, 2020).

1. Evaluation by external reviewers

Each proposal is reviewed by preferably:

- 2 external scientific experts; and

- 1 external policy/management expert.

As far as possible, scientific external reviewers should avoid assessing proposals involving participants from their own country.

Eligible proposals are sent

Ø to external reviewers with scientific expertise, who report on the set of criteria on excellence and quality/efficiency of the implementation (see part III);

Ø and to external reviewers with policy/management expertise, who report on the set of criteria on impact (see part III);

Reviewers should be clear, but polite and tactful, and have to provide sufficient information to enable both the applicants and the members of the EvC to understand why particular grades have been assigned.

2. Assessment by the Evaluation Committee based on external reviews

Allocation of full proposals to EvC members

The Call Secretariat allocates the proposals to the EvC members. Each proposal is assigned to:

- min 2 scientific experts (one acting as principal rapporteur, and one as secondary rapporteur);

- min 2 policy/management experts (one acting as principal rapporteur, and one as secondary rapporteur).

Evaluation of full proposals and final EvC meeting

Ø Scientific experts assess the following criteria: excellence and quality/efficiency of the implementation (see part III);

Ø Policy/management experts assess the following criteria: impact (see part III);

Final EvC meeting

The EvC will meet to establish the final ranking list of proposals, based on the final score given to a proposal.

The final score given to a proposal will correspond to an aggregation of the scores given to the different criteria, taking into account their respective weights:

- 7 for excellence;

- 3 for implementation, and

- 6 for impact.

The overall score will be transformed into a score out of 15 points

Each EvC ranks as many projects as possible. However, the EvC can use ex-aequo for proposals with a same final score that it considers of equal quality.

3. Next steps, after the final Evaluation Committee meeting

Shortly after the Evaluation Committee meetings, the CSC meets to decide on the projects to be funded, strictly following the final ranking list established by the EvC. The CSC has the intention to fund as many of the highest ranked proposals as possible within the possibilities of national/regional budgets.

C. SUMMARY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE:

2 September 2019	Launch of the call and Announcement of opportunity published
5 November 2019	Deadline for submitting pre-proposals
November 2019	Eligibility check - The proposals are checked by each Funding Organisation according to their eligibility criteria
November 2019 – January 2020	EvC members: - Read and assess the pre-proposals into the EPSS. Ø Deadline to enter pre-assessment:one week prior to the EvC meeting
Late January / early February 2020	First Evaluation Committee meeting Objectives : evaluate the pre-proposals and decide on the scores and ranked list of pre-proposals recommended for the 2 nd step
10 April 2020	Deadline for submitting full proposals
April – June 2020	External reviewers: - The proposals are sent to the external reviewers; - The external reviewers enter their evaluation on the EPSS. Ø Indicative deadline for external reviewer to enter their evaluation on the EPSS: Early-Mid June EvC members: - Read the proposals “blind”, with no other input than your own expertise and experience and form your own first idea of the proposals. You can enter your own evaluation into the EPSS - Then, synthetize and discuss the grades given by the external reviewers in the pre-assessment entered into the EPSS. Ø Deadline to enter pre-assessment: one week prior to the final EvC meeting
Late June/ early July 2020	Final Evaluation Committee meeting Objectives : to decide on the final scores and final ranked list of proposals recommended for funding.

II. ROLE & RESPONSABILITIES OF EvC MEMBERS

1. Support for the identification of external reviewers

Prior to the evaluation of full proposals, the members of the Evaluation Committee will advise on the selection of external reviewers for the assessment of proposals.

Please note that:

- Each external expert will be attributed 2 proposals, when possible.

- Scientific reviewers from the same country as the teams carrying the proposal should be avoided, as far as possible. This limitation does not apply to policy/management reviewers.

NB : external reviewers must remain anonymous, even after the end of the evaluation process.

2. Evaluation of pre- and full proposals

SUMMARY OF THE ROLE OF RAPPORTEURS: Role of both principal and secondary rapporteurs: - Check for potential conflicts of interest. AT STEP 1 - read pre-proposals and provide a written assessment of the pre-proposals assigned to them using the relevant criteria before the evaluation meeting. Ø Both rapporteurs enter their pre-assessments into the Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS) (see part IV). - Present the pre-proposals and the evaluation made of the pre-proposals to the EvC during the evaluation meeting (principal rapporteur first, and then – for scientific EvC members only – secondary rapporteur).

AT STEP 2 - Suggest external reviewers for the proposals assigned to them. - Read full proposals (“blind” first, before looking at external reviews) and provide a written assessment of the proposals assigned to them using the relevant criteria moderating their own review and the external reviews, before the final evaluation meeting. Ø Both rapporteurs enter their pre-assessments into the Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS) (see part IV). - Present the proposals and synthesize the evaluation made of the proposals to the EvC during the final evaluation meeting (principal rapporteur first, and then secondary rapporteur). Role of principal rapporteur only: - AT STEP 1: provide a written explanation of the evaluation made of the pre-proposals to be sent to applicants; - AT STEP 2: Provide a written explanation on the final evaluation made of the proposal to be sent to applicants.

a) Evaluation of pre-proposals

Once allocated to them, the members of the EvC will evaluate the pre-proposals allocated to them and will enter their own evaluation into the EPSS.

Ø The deadline for the EvC members to submit their pre-assessments on the EPSS is fixed to one week before the EvC meeting, as far as possible.

(i) Evaluation criteria

You will score the proposals according to the three following criteria:

- Fit to the scope of the call;

- Novelty of the research;

- Transnational added value.

b) Evaluation Committee meeting and ranking of pre-proposals

Conflicts of interest:

Before starting the discussion of pre-proposals in the meeting, possible cases of conflict of interest are identified. The Call Secretariat reminds the EvC members that they must identify their potential conflicts of interest for all the submitted proposals and not only the ones assigned to them, as they will be asked to leave the meeting room during discussion of the pre-proposals where he/she might have a conflict of interest.

Objective of the evaluation meeting: do the ranking of pre-proposals

During the evaluation meeting, the EvC has to agree on a score for all pre-proposals in order to rank the pre-proposals and recommend the ones to be invited to step 2.

As the criteria are evaluated by both scientific and policy/management experts, the different rapporteurs (both scientific and policy/management) have to agree as much as possible by consensus on the grade to be given to the proposals for these criteria. In case a consensus cannot be reached, the score given for the criteria will correspond to the average of the scores given by policy/management rapporteurs and scientific rapporteurs.

The final score will be achieved by aggregating the scores given to the three criteria (equal weight for the 3 criteria). The overall score will be transformed into a score out of 15. The aggregation of this information is made using a file prepared by the Call Secretariat before the meeting.

The EvC ranks the pre-proposals based on their scores and assigns them to one of the following three categories:

- “A” very favourable for invitation to Step 2;

- “B” could be invited to Step 2;

- “C”, not favourable for invitation to Step 2.

The CSC will decide on the projects to be invited to submit full proposals, based on these categories established by the EvC.

Feedbacks for applicants:

The EvC has to provide a written summary to explain its decision to the applicants and CSC.

The rapporteurs of each pre-proposal will write a short text explaining the rationales of the decision. This will be done after at the end of the EvC meeting.

The feedback has to be validated by the Chair and the Vice-Chair, and will be checked for the sake of consistency by the BiodivERsA Secretariat and Coordinator.

c)Evaluation of full proposals

Once allocated to them, the members of the EvC will first read the proposals “blind”, with no other input that their own expertise and experience and form their own first idea of the proposals. They will then enter their own evaluation into the EPSS.

After having performed their own evaluation, the rapporteurs will synthetize and discuss the grades given by the external reviewers. They will reflect it in their pre-assessment of the proposal to be entered into the EPSS before the final EvC meeting.

This should be done with a view to prepare the feedback that will be sent out to the CSC and the applicants.

Ø The deadline for the EvC members to submit their pre-assessments on the EPSS is fixed to one week before the EvC meeting, as far as possible.

(i) Evaluation by scientific experts:

They will score the proposals according to the excellence criteria (1^st assessment criteria) and quality/efficiency of the implementation criteria (2 ^nd assessment criteria), based on a discussion and moderation of the scores and comments given by the external reviewers and the judgement of the EvC members. This process may be influenced by the coherence of the external reviews.

(ii) Evaluation by policy/management experts

They will score the proposals according to the impact criteria (3^rd assessment criteria), based on a discussion and moderation of the scores and comments given by the external reviewers and the judgement of the EvC members. This process may be influenced by the coherence of the external reviews.

Ø See part III of this document for the detailed assessment criteria

d) Final Evaluation Committee meeting and final ranking of proposals

Conflicts of interest:

Before starting the discussion of proposals in the meeting, possible cases of conflict of interest are identified. The Call Secretariat reminds the EvC members that they must identify their potential conflicts of interest for all the submitted proposals and not only the ones assigned to them, as they will be asked to leave the meeting room during discussion of the proposals where he/she might have a conflict of interest.

Objective of the final evaluation meeting: do the final ranking of proposals

During the final evaluation meeting, the EvC has to compose the final ranked list of proposals recommended for funding.

This will be achieved by aggregating the scores given to the three criteria taking into account their respective weights. The overall mark will be transformed into a score out of 15. The aggregation of this information is made using a file prepared by the Call Secretariat before the meeting.

The EvC ranks as many projects as possible. However, around the threshold, the EvC can use ex-aequo for proposals with a same final score that it considers of equal quality.

Proposals that do not reach the threshold for one or more criteria and / or with a score obviously not high enough to be considered for funding because of budget constraints, do not need to be ranked by the EvC.

Final feedbacks for applicants:

The EvC has to provide a written summary to explain its decision to the applicants and CSC.

The principal rapporteurs of each proposal will write a short text explaining the final score awarded to the proposal. This will be done at the end of the EvC meeting.

The final feedback has to be validated by the Chair and the Vice-Chair

NB: Please note that for the proposals regarded “fundable”, the EvC is asked to consider whether the proposed budget is appropriate and realistic for the proposal as written including balance across the Partners in relation to contribution to the project and is cost-effective, thus representing good value for money requested. However, the EvC should keep in mind that costs vary greatly according to the countries, and that large differences in budgets requested by different teams do not necessarily mean an incoherent budget.

III. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUATION OF FULL PROPOSAL

Refer to Annex 7

Please note that:

- You are invited to use the full range of scoring available to you. Please note that you are allowed to use half scores;

- Any project that does not fit within the thematic priorities described will not be recommended for funding, regardless of its scientific quality;

- For each criterion: proposals which do not meet the threshold for one criterion won’t be ranked nor recommended for funding.

IV. USE OF THE ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION SYSTEM (EPSS)

NB: For more information, please refer to the “How to use the EPSS?” on the EPSS. For technical help, please contact the helpdesk

1. Short definition of the EPSS

The Electronic proposal submission system (EPSS) is an online platform where:

- The applicants submit their proposals;

- The members of the EvC and the external reviewers access to the proposals they have to review and enter their evaluation.

2. Relevant information available on the EPSS

- The list of the pre- and full proposals you have to evaluate;

- The information related to the pre- and full proposals you have to evaluate (title, abstract, Partners, budget, etc. but also the .pdf containing the full proposal and the CVs of the principal investigators and workpackage leaders in the proposal).

3. Use of the EPSS:

You will have to implement the following actions on the EPSS:

- Suggest external reviewers for the proposals allocated to you

- Declare online that you do not have any conflict of interest for the proposals you have to evaluate and that you accept the confidentiality and non-disclosure policy.

- Enter your evaluation of the pre- and full proposals your responsible for, i.e.:

1. FOR SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS

STEP 1

Evaluate the pre-proposal according to the following set of criteria:

i. You will have to score the sub-criteria related the three following criteria: fit to the scope of the call, novelty of the research and transnational added value

ii. You have to enter a final comment (pre-assessment) & a single score per criteria

STEP 2:

a. Evaluate the excellence of the proposal (criteria 1)

i. You will have to score between the sub-criteria related the excellence of the proposal

ii. You can enter your own evaluation of the excellence of the proposal

iii. You have to enter a final comment (pre-assessment) & a single score for the overall excellence of the proposal, moderating the external reviews submitted

b. Evaluate the quality/efficiency of the implementation of the proposal (criteria 2)

i. You will have to score the sub-criteria related the quality/efficiency of the implementation of the proposal

ii. You can enter your own evaluation of the quality/efficiency of the implementation of the proposal

iii. You have to enter a final comment (pre-assessment) & a single score for the overall quality/efficiency of the implementation of the proposal, moderating the external reviews submitted.

2. FOR POLICY MANAGEMENT EXPERT

STEP 1:

Evaluate the pre-proposal according to the following set of criteria:

i. You will have to score the sub-criteria related the three following criteria: fit to the scope of the call, novelty of the research and transnational added value

ii. You have to enter a final comment (pre-assessment) & a single score per criteria

STEP 2:

Evaluate the impact of the proposal (criteria 3)

i. You will have to score the sub-criteria related the impact of the proposal

ii. You can enter your own evaluation of the impact of the proposal

You have to enter a final comment (pre-assessment) & a single score for the overall impact and criteria of the proposal, moderating the external reviews submitted

4. Access to the reviews (for step 2):

1. For rapporteurs:

a. You can access the external reviews before submitting your review, so that you can synthetize the evaluations made by the external reviewers.

b. After submitting your review, you will also have access to the review submitted by the other rapporteur. Please read it before the final evaluation meeting to ease the discussion.

ANNEX 1: List of abbreviations

- CSC: Call Steering Committee

- EPSS: Electronic Proposal Submission System

- EvC: Evaluation Committee

ANNEX 2: Resources

The Call Secretariat will provide you with the following documents, which might be useful to help you in the evaluation process.

Documents on stakeholder engagement and policy relevance in proposals:

- BiodivERsA Policy guide: http://www.biodiversa.org/1543

- BiodivERsA Stakeholder engagement handbook: http://www.biodiversa.org/stakeholderengagement

- Gardner S., Stott A. & Vindimian E. 2013. How to assess policy relevance in research projects. BiodivERsA report, available at www.biodiversa.org/254/download

Example of feedback:

- Examples of feedback sent to applicants (on both excellence and quality/efficiency of the implementation)

- Examples of feedback on impact of proposals

ANNEX 3: Conflict of interest, confidentiality and non-disclosure declaration

After accepting to act as member of the EvC, you will be required to sign Conflict of interest, confidentiality and non-disclosure declaration

Refer to Annex 10

Here is a summary of potential conflicts of interest and other circumstances that may raise questions about the impartiality of your expert evaluation. Before submitting any written reviews or before participating in any meeting in which proposals are discussed, please inform the Call Secretariat whether circumstances exist that could be interpreted as a conflict of interest.

NB : You cannot be a member of the EvC if you are involved in a proposal submitted to the call.

Annex 13: Information and Guidelines for the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Evaluation Committee (volta ao índice)

NOTE : This document should be read in conjunction with the Guidelines for the Evaluation Committee

You were nominated to chair or co-chair the Evaluation Committee (EvC) of the 2019/2020 joint BiodivERsA call for proposals on “Biodiversity and Climate Change”.

The BiodivERsA networks thank you very much for your willingness to act as Chair or Vice-Chair of the EvC.

The Chair and Vice-Chair of the EvC, given the increased amount of work they have to undertake, will receive a fee of 1,500€ and 1,250€, respectively.

Besides, your travel and accommodation expenses to attend to EvC meeting will be covered.

Particular role of the Chair and Vice-Chair

- Contribute to the composition of the EvC;

- Support the Call Secretariat in the identification of external reviewers and assignment of proposals to external reviewers;

- Chair the EvC meetings.

1) COMPOSITION OF THE EvC

The EvC members are selected upon a first suggested list of experts provided by each member of the Call Steering Committee (CSC).

The Chair and Vice-Chair of the EvC will select a limited number of experts (depending on the number of submitted proposals), with attention to the relevance of their expertise for this particular call and balance in the field of expertise according to the themes addressed by the submitted proposals.

EvC Members

A particular effort in setting up the EvC will be done to ensure the gender balance among its members.

As far as possible, scientific EvC members will be from countries that do not participate in the call to allow further flexibility in case of conflicting interests. If this is not possible, scientific EvC members will not, as far as possible, evaluate proposals involving teams from their country. This limitation does not apply to policy/management EvC members).

The final composition of the EvC has to be approved by the CSC.

2) IDENTIFICATION OF EXTERNAL REVIEWERS AND ASSIGNMENT OF PROPOSALS TO EXTERNAL REVIEWERS

The Experts fulfilling the role of scientific and policy/management external reviewers are suggested primarily by the EvC members for the proposals assigned to them.

In case reviews are missing, the Chair and Vice-Chair will particularly support the Call Secretariat for the identification of additional relevant external reviewers.

3) CHAIRING OF THE EVC MEETINGS

EvC Meetings – Aims

- To ensure open, democratic discussion of proposals where everyone is heard and which are based on the specified evaluation criteria (see Annex 7)

- To arrive at a recommendation of which proposals fully reflect the ambitions of the 2019-2020 BiodivERsA call on “Biodiversity and Climate Change”

- Provide a final overall grade for each pre-proposal and full proposal based on the review criteria and provide a final ranking of pre-proposals and full proposals based on this overall grade, giving particular attention to those in the threshold region that may or may not get funded depending on available resources.

To note: in addition to the Chair, Vice-Chair, EvC members and Call Secretariat, members of the Call Steering Committee (CSC), who represent each of the Funding Organisations involved in the call, may also be present at the EvC Meetings as observers

EvC Meeting – Role of Call Secretariat:

The Call Secretariat for the call is provided by ANR (France).

The Call Secretariat will provide support for the organisation of the evaluation process and during the Evaluation Committee meetings.

EvC Meeting - recommendation for chairing

During the meeting, the role of the Chair is to:

- Invite the Rapporteur to start the introduction, etc., of each proposal;

- Ensure that sufficient time is allowed to discuss each proposal, but also that discussions on specific proposals don’t over-run to the detriment of others. In particular, the Chair should make sure that the EvC does not spend too much time discussing poorly scored proposals.

In addition, the Chair may need to:

- Remind EvC Members of the ambition and aims of the call if the meeting is going off-track;

- Help EvC Members come to a consensus over the ranking of the proposals (Note: The EvC is comprised of different countries with differing cultures and potentially different EvC procedures – some care may be needed to ensure that all panellists are involved in the appropriate discussions);

- Ensure that both scientific and policy/management experts assess pre-proposals (if applicable) and full proposals strictly according to the particular set of criteria they have to evaluate; and that they do not interfere with the assessment of criteria they are not supposed to evaluate;

- For proposals where major differences of opinion exist between the scientific experts and policy/management expert; between rapporteurs (principal and secondary) and/or external reviewers, the EvC may be split into two groups (scientific experts on one side and policy/management experts on the other side) in order to first reach a consensus among the two groups before coming back together and discuss the proposals among the whole EvC;

- If no consensus on a proposal can be reached within the EvC, the Chair can decide to nominate a third rapporteur.

At the start of each day, the Chair is invited to:

- Welcome EvC Members to the meeting and set expectations in terms of the aims and ambitions of the call and the EvC process;

- Ensure that EvC Members understand that they are present at the meeting for their expertise and not to represent their host countries;

- Ensure that EvC Members understand, that at the end of the process, they will be providing a recommendation to the Funding Organisations, not a decision;

- Remind EvC Members of the need to disclose any vested interests and of the Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure declarations that they have signed.

At the close of the Day 1 (and 2 in case of 3-days meeting), the Chair may wish to:

- Give a brief summary of the progress made during the day;

- Remind EvC Members of the timetable for the next day and of the need for confidentiality;

- Remind the EvC of any further issues arising from the day’s discussion which have the potential to be relevant to the rest of proceedings (in consultation with the Call Secretariat).

At the end of last day, the Chair needs to:

- Ensure that a consensus is reached on the ranked list of projects recommended for funding;

- Make sure that the ranking is based only on the evaluation of the agreed criteria;

- Remind EvC Members of the confidential nature of the meeting and of the Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure declarations that they have signed;

- Thank EvC Members for their contribution to the meeting.

Annex 14: Information and guidelines for the scientific external reviewers (volta ao índice)

NB : Please note that you cannot act as external reviewer if you are involved in a proposal submitted to the call . In case you were invited while you are involved in a proposal within the present call, please let the Call Secretariat know as soon as possible.

I. GENERAL EVALUATION PROCEDURE OF THE CALL

The evaluation process for the full proposals submitted in the 2019/2020 joint BiodivERsA call is based on:

1. An Evaluation Committee (EvC) composed of experts in the natural, climate and social sciences as well as professionals from the fields of biodiversity policy and biodiversity conservation and management.

The role of the EvC is to assess the submitted proposals, taking into account the reviews made by external reviewers, and to establish the final ranking of the submitted proposals.

2. External reviewers who assess the submitted proposals according to a set of pre-defined criteria (see section III below). Each proposal will be reviewed by preferably 2 external scientific experts and 1 external policy/management expert. As far as possible, external reviewers should avoid assessing proposals involving participants from their own country.

After the final EvC meeting, the Call Steering Committee – who represent each of the Funding Organisations involved in the call – will meet to decide on the projects to be funded, strictly following the final list established by the EvC.

II. YOUR MANDATE

You were invited to act as external reviewer and will have to evaluate online (through the EPSS – electronic Proposal Submission System) one or several full proposals by virtue of your scientific background and/or knowledge of broader aspects relevant to the evaluation process.

As external scientific expert, you will have to score the proposal(s), comment on your evaluation and write some concluding sentences commenting on the overall grades according to two assessment criteria: the excellence criteria and quality/efficiency of the implementation criteria (see part III for the detailed assessment criteria).

NB : please note that your identity as an external reviewer of this call will be kept confidential to applicants. You should not indicate to applicants of a proposal you are reviewing that you acted as reviewer of their proposal.

Recommendations for writing the comments / concluding sentences on your evaluation:

You should be clear, but polite and tactful, and provide sufficient information to enable the members of the EvC to understand why particular grades have been assigned.

Steps to follow to submit your review:

1) Before starting your evaluation, you should first agree to the conflict of interest policy and confidentiality agreement.

Ø You will have to accept online on the EPSS the conflict of interest policy and confidentiality agreement

Ø For each proposal you have to evaluate, you will have to declare online on the EPSS you do not have a conflict of interest.

2) You will then be able to access the proposal(s) information (title, abstract, Partners, budget, but also the .pdf containing the full proposal and the CVs of the principal investigators and work package leaders in the proposal) on the EPSS.

3) After having read the proposal, you will have to enter and submit your final evaluation(s) onto the EPSS.

!! Please read carefully the information on how to use the EPSS. To do so, please login to your EPSS account using the username and password you received from the EPSS helpdesk (epss.biodivclim@g.etag.ee) and download the guidelines in the section “How to use the EPSS” !!

Please note that on the EPSS you can save your review(s) several times but submit it/them only once .

III. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Refer to annex 7

Please note that:

- a ny project that does not fit within the thematic priorities described will not be recommended for funding, regardless of its scientific quality;

- The external reviewers are invited to use the full range of scoring available to them.

Annex 15: Information and guidelines for the policy/management external reviewers (volta ao índice)

NB : Please note that you cannot act as external reviewer if you are involved in a proposal submitted to the call . In case you were invited while you are involved in a proposal within the present call, please let the Call Secretariat know as soon as possible.

I. GENERAL EVALUATION PROCEDURE OF THE CALL

The evaluation process for the full proposals submitted in the 2019/2020 joint BiodivERsA call is based on:

1. An Evaluation Committee (EvC) composed of experts in the natural, climate and social sciences as well as professionals from the fields of biodiversity policy and biodiversity conservation and management.

The role of the EvC is to assess the submitted proposals, taking into account the reviews made by external reviewers, and to establish the final ranking of the submitted proposals.

2. External reviewers who assess the submitted proposals according to a set of pre-defined criteria (see section III below). Each proposal will be reviewed by preferably 2 external scientific experts and 1 external policy/management expert. As far as possible, external reviewers should avoid assessing proposals involving participants from their own country.

After the final EvC meeting, the Call Steering Committee – including a representative from each of the Funding Organisations involved in the call – will meet to decide on the projects to be funded, strictly following the final list established by the EvC.

IV. YOUR MANDATE

You were invited to act as external reviewer and will have to evaluate online (through the EPSS – electronic Proposal Submission System) one or several full proposals by virtue of your scientific background and/or knowledge of broader aspects relevant to the evaluation process.

As external policy/management expert, you will have to score the proposals, to comment on your evaluation and write some concluding sentences commenting on the overall grades according to the impact criteria (see part III for the detailed assessment criteria).

NB : please note that your identity as an external reviewer of this call will be kept confidential to applicants. You should not indicate to applicants of a proposal you are reviewing that you acted as reviewer of their proposal.

Recommendations for writing the comments / concluding sentences on your evaluation:

You should be clear, but polite and tactful, and provide sufficient information to enable the members of the EvC to understand why particular grades have been assigned.

Steps to follow to submit your review:

1) Before starting your evaluation, you should first agree to the conflict of interest policy and confidentiality agreement.

Ø You will have to accept online on the EPSS the conflict of interest policy and confidentiality agreement

Ø For each proposal you have to evaluate, you will have to declare online on the EPSS you do not have a conflict of interest.

2) You will then be able to access the proposal(s) information (title, abstract, Partners, budget, but also the .pdf containing the full proposal and the CVs of the principal investigators and work package leaders in the proposal) on the EPSS.

3) After having read the proposal, you will have to enter and submit your final evaluation(s) onto the EPSS.

!! Please read carefully the information on how to use the EPSS. To do so, please login to your EPSS account using the username and password you received from the EPSS helpdesk ( epss.biodivclim@g.etag.ee) and download the guidelines in the section “How to use the EPSS” !!

Please note that on the EPSS you can save your review(s) several times but submit it/them only once.

V. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Refer to annex 7

Please note that:

- a ny project that does not fit within the thematic priorities described will not be recommended for funding, regardless of its scientific quality;

- The external reviewers are invited to use the full range of scoring available to them.

Annex 16: Guidelines for the Independent Observer (volta ao índice)

The requirement to provide an independent observer’s report on the evaluation is mandatory for all EC co-funded joint calls including co-funded joint call of Horizon 2020 ERA-NET COFUND projects.

These guidelines cover:

1. The appointment of the external observer

2. The process of carrying out the independent observer task (for EC co-funded joint calls)

3. A typical template for the observer’s report

1. Appointment of the independent observer

The independent observer will be appointed by the Call Steering Committee (CSC), ensuring he/she is not concerned by conflict of interests.

The independent observer will be appointed no later than the date of the launch of the joint call (i.e. early September 2019).

The Call Secretariat will ensure the independent observer has all the documents he/she needs to properly evaluate the evaluation process.

The Call Secretariat will make all the necessary arrangements so that the independent observer can assist to the main EvC meetings.

The travel, accommodation and meals costs for the independent observer for attending the Evaluation Committee meetings will be covered.

2. The process of carrying out the independent observer task

Whilst the main task of the observer is to attend the central evaluation and prepare an independent report it is important to consider, and make a judgement on, the whole evaluation process. This will normally include:

· Review of the publications associated with the call

The conclusion on compliance with EC co-funding rules and observations on the efficiency/quality of the evaluation process are the main requirements of the independent observer. An initial judgement on these can be made by reviewing the information and documents that are provided to guide the applicants.

· Review of the selection process for evaluators and briefing materials

The competence and balance of expert evaluators is absolutely critical to the quality and fairness of the evaluation and selection of proposals. It is important, therefore, that the observer fully understands the process and is provided with the necessary evidence to verify it.

· Participation in the central evaluation as an observer

The central evaluation is the main opportunity for the observer to formulate his or her conclusions on compliance with the EC co-funding rules and scope for process improvement.

· Preparation of the independent observer’s report

The final stage of the observer’s task is to prepare the report. The prepared draft should be submitted to the Call Secretariat and CSC to check for any factual errors before finalising and submission to the European Commission. An example template for the report is provided below.

Example of a template for the observer’s report

1. Introduction

a. Overview of the call (e.g. objectives and scope)

b. Terms of Reference for the independent observer

c. Approach to the task

2. Observations on the Evaluation Process

a. Stage 1 evaluation

b. Selection and briefing of evaluators for Stage 2

c. Remote evaluation

d. Central evaluation

1. Organisation & logistics

2. Briefing of the evaluators

3. Consensus meetings

4. Ranking of the evaluated proposals

3. Overall Impressions

a. Compliance with the rules for EC co-funding

b. Conformity of the evaluation process witnessed with the published evaluation procedures

c. Transparency, fairness and confidentiality of the selection process

d. Efficiency and speed of the call/evaluation process

e. Quality of the overall call/evaluation process

4. Summary of Recommendations

a. Major issues

b. Minor issues

---

---