Pillar: Food, Bioeconomy Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment
Opening Date:
Deadline: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 17:00:00 (Brussels local time)
Modification Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024
Latest information:
CALL UPDATE: FLASH EVALUATION RESULTS
HORIZON-CL6-2024-CLIMATE-01
EVALUATION results
Published: 07.12.2022
Deadline: 22.02.2024
Available budget: EUR 75.00 million
Budget per topic with separate ‘call-budget-split’:
|
Topic code |
Type of action |
Budget |
|
HORIZON-CL6-2024-CLIMATE-01-1 |
IA |
10.00 |
|
HORIZON-CL6-2024-CLIMATE-01-2 |
RIA |
5.00 |
|
HORIZON-CL6-2024-CLIMATE-01-3 |
IA |
20.00 |
|
HORIZON-CL6-2024-CLIMATE-01-4 |
RIA |
12.00 |
|
HORIZON-CL6-2024-CLIMATE-01-5 |
RIA |
14.00 |
|
HORIZON-CL6-2024-CLIMATE-01-6 |
RIA |
9.00 |
|
HORIZON-CL6-2024-CLIMATE-01-7 |
RIA |
5.00 |
The results of the evaluation for each topic are as follows:
|
|
HORIZON-CL6-2024-CLIMATE-01-4 |
HORIZON-CL6-2024-CLIMATE-01-5 |
HORIZON-CL6-2024-CLIMATE-01-6 |
HORIZON-CL6-2024-CLIMATE-01-7 |
|
Number of proposals submitted (including proposals transferred from or to other calls) |
15 |
12 |
5 |
9 |
|
Number of inadmissible proposals |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Number of ineligible proposals |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
|
Number of above-threshold proposals |
11 |
9 |
4 |
4 |
|
Total budget requested for above-threshold proposals |
66.0 |
63.0 |
18.2 |
20.0 |
|
Number of proposals retained for funding |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
Number of proposals in the reserve list |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
Funding threshold |
12.5 |
13.0 |
13.5 |
12.0 |
|
Ranking distribution |
||||
|
Number of proposals with scores lower or equal to 15 and higher or equal to 14 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
Number of proposals with scores lower than 14 and higher or equal to 13 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
Number of proposals with scores lower than 13 and higher or equal to 10 |
10 |
6 |
2 |
4 |
————-
Summary of observer report:
Call HORIZON-CL6-2024-CLIMATE-01 has been successful in terms of number of applications. The analysis of the Guide for experts shows that all actors have the full information about scope, rationale, procedures and goals of the HE framework. The independent observers have access to all the guides and topic-specific briefings via the secured EC repository CIRCABC, which facilitates the work.
Some difficulties were found in the evaluation of the budgets, particularly for the lump sum. The experts requested to have more detailed instructions for the evaluation.
The Quality Check by experts not involved in the evaluation is suitable in terms of preparing better the ESR, but at the level of general discussion of each proposal it can give rise to long discussions and, exceptionally, a change of score. A revision of the way the suggestions from the QC are incorporated into the revised consensus report is suggested, to try and limit the long discussions.
The Cross reading of the best ranked proposals is well programmed, however a more active role, in some cases, of the TL as moderator is highly recommended in order to guide the discussion of the Experts panel.
Having observed many remote meetings and also central meetings, the general conclusion is that the SEP tool to access the remote discussions (JOIN) works perfectly well and the Experts are clearly at ease. The role of the moderators is in any case crucial in order to guide the discussion, to introduce the topic, to let everyone present their opinion. These meetings can last up to two hours or, in a few cases, even longer, and this aspect has to be considered in the correct schedule.
The highly demanding evaluation exercise has been run within the given deadline, in a fair and transparent way, and in compliance with the applicable EC rules.
————-
We recently informed the applicants about the evaluation results for their proposals.
For questions, please contact the Research Enquiry Service.