Taking the Work programme (WP) wording as reference: “Implementing partners means third parties receiving financial support from the beneficiary and implementing the MSCA COFUND Doctoral or Postdoctoral programmes” (p.75 of the Horizon Europe MSCA Work Programme). An implementing partner that employs researchers but does not get funding would not strictly fall within the WP definition of implementing partners.

However, if a partner plays an important role in the implementation of the project but does not receive financial support from the beneficiary, the situation will be assessed by the evaluators at the proposal stage. In this case, the partner could still be considered implementing partner and still, partners recruiting researchers and playing a major role in the implementation of the project would need to comply with the specific eligibility conditions (e.g., country eligible for funding). The corresponding EU contribution (researcher-months) should be properly used by the beneficiary in some cost of the project though.

Yes, of course. The letter of commitment must state if Associated Partners contribute financially and how much is this contribution; however Associated partners cannot recruit researchers or receive EU funding, they can only host/ train researchers.

Implementing partners can also contribute financially even though they will receive financial support via the beneficiary.

Yes, as indicated in the GfA (page 9) https://rea.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-10/MSCA%20COFUND%202021%20-%20Guide%20for%20Applicants.docx.pdf: Associated partners known at the proposal stage must be included under the participants section in the part A of the proposal as well as in the relevant section in the part B2 (section 5).

The applicant shall only fill out this section if relevant, otherwise it can be left blank. There is already a table to be completed for the partners (Implementing or Associated) in part B2.

Both implementing partners and associated partners can provide co-financing. The money for the implementing partners can come from the coordinator, whereas the money for the associated partners has to come from a different source as they can’t receive EU money.

There are 3 possible links: [Same group] if the legal entity is under the same direct or indirect control as another legal entity; [Controls] if a legal entity directly or indirectly controls another legal entity; or [Is controlled by] if a legal entity is directly or indirectly controlled by another legal entity.

It depends because some proposals can be very similar, for instance in the case of resubmission; and others are not quite similar, but they are still considered similar, for instance in the case of continuation. Even if the applicant mentions that a similar proposal has been submitted, this will be checked very carefully by REA. If after checking REA sees it is not the case, they will not consider it to be similar.

Formally if there is not an accreditation, then it would not be counted as a joint, double or multiple degrees.The policy objective behind the DNs is mutual recognition and capacity building and to have the same recognition of the doctoral degrees from the different universities and different countries at the same level. It is difficult but just providing mentorship would not qualify completely.

The answer is in between. It is not necessary to have already at proposal stage the programmes officially recognised and the joint or multiple doctorates in place but for joint doctorates, there is a commitment of several doctoral degree awarding institutions, who have this mutually official recognition of the different curricula. So it is necessary that at the end of the projects, all the fellows involved in the joint doctorates, have a joint, multiple or double degree. It’s a very lengthy process, usually underestimated by applicants. There are strong rules about curriculum design in different universities from different countries.

In the MSCA-DN template ‘other diversity aspects’ refers to biological characteristics and social/ cultural factors respectively, aspects that are not fully under ‘gender’ but are considered as ‘other diversity aspects’. In MSCA the scope is a little bit wider than in the other Horizon Europe parts.

Timesheets and declarations are not requested in MSCA projects (contrary to other Horizon Europe actions based on actual costs). To prove that the researcher worked on their MSCA project, it is sufficient to present a contract with the host institution together with additional documents proving the fellow’s dedication to the project, if needed.

Moreover, declarations are not allowed by the auditors. REA has confirmed that the declaration on exclusive work is not applicable for audits carried out in MSCA ITN, IF and COFUND actions to determine time spent working on the action. It is expected this will continue in Horizon Europe.

As outlined in the H2020 Indicative Audit Programme, such evidence may include lab books, attendance lists, conference abstracts, library records, travel expenses, timesheets, reports to supervisor, meeting minutes, e-mail exchanges, etc. and other open sources (e.g. the internet) to see if the researcher worked on activities other than their  project. The auditors will also look at the researcher’s employment contract or corresponding agreement to see if it complies with Article 32 of the H2020 Annotated Model Grant Agreement, including but not limited to the obligation that the researcher works exclusively for the action.

Fellows need documentation in the form of a contract that shows the 50% commitment or something similar since MSCA does not typically operate with timesheets.

When talking about impact, this is prospective, it is in the future, assuming that the project is successful and that it achieves everything that it set up to achieve. The applicants could base themselves on some other studies to strengthen or build their case about the impact they could have, before the impact is actually achieved.

There are different scientific panels and proposals are ranked within their scientific panel. Proposals in some panels are more STEM-oriented and would have a different kind of impact than proposals in the SOC panel for instance, but these proposals would not compete against the STEM-oriented proposals. It should also be considered that the impact is now broadened to encompass not only a purely scientific impact but also impact on the society at large. This can be an area where the SSH proposals could actually have a competitive advantage.

The first thing to note is, that even though they cannot directly claim costs, it does not mean that they cannot indirectly receive some funding for the role they have in the DN. Typically for each unit cost, there is one part that goes to the researcher and then there is the institutional part, and this part should not be seen as funding for just this particular fellow, and this beneficiary. It is rather a common pot for the whole consortium to run the project. In the consortium agreement the consortium defines how this is split. This funding can be distributed to the different partners according to their needs in the project: some partners provide more trainings, for instance, the coordinator typically has more management costs, so this funding can be redistributed, and some of this money can go to associated partners to cover the costs of them hosting researchers for secondments, or for them to provide trainings. So these are internal arrangements within the consortium (in the broader sense with the associated partners) so they can get indirectly money for their action. Of course, there are also non-financial incentives; the interest for them to participate could be transfer of knowledge or being part of a dynamic network and being associated to the research project.

For PF, direct financial benefits may not be there but there are plenty indirect benefits – scientific contributions, networking, getting experience in this type of projects, hosting events.

The resubmission 70% rule applies as of 2021 proposals and re-submission in 2022. The conditions for MSCA-PF as stated on page 83-91 of the MSCA Work Programme 2021-2022 apply to both 2021 and 2022 calls, so it means that 2021 proposals cannot be resubmitted in 2022 and 2022 proposals cannot be resubmitted in 2023. Quoting page 85: “Proposals involving the same recruiting organisation (and for Global Postdoctoral Fellowships also the associated partner hosting the outgoing phase) and individual researcher submitted to the previous call of MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships under Horizon Europe and having received a score of less than 70% must not be resubmitted the following year.” It means also that the researcher can (re)submit the proposal with a different host, so they are not totally banned from applying the following year.

In principle, yes, if for the 3 months the main activity would be in the other country, they would be eligible. However, if for example this is a secondment and their employment contract remains with the organisation in their home country, it probably does not classify as such and would rather be a ’short visit’ in the sense of the mobility rule.

Timesheets and declarations are not requested in MSCA projects (contrary to other Horizon Europe actions based on actual costs). To prove that the researcher worked on their MSCA project, it is sufficient to present a contract with the host institution together with additional documents proving the fellow’s dedication to the project, if needed.

Moreover, declarations are not allowed by the auditors. REA has confirmed that the declaration on exclusive work is not applicable for audits carried out in MSCA ITN, IF and COFUND actions to determine time spent working on the action. It is expected this will continue in Horizon Europe.

As outlined in the H2020 Indicative Audit Programme, such evidence may include lab books, attendance lists, conference abstracts, library records, travel expenses, timesheets, reports to supervisor, meeting minutes, e-mail exchanges, etc. and other open sources (e.g. the internet) to see if the researcher worked on activities other than their  project. The auditors will also look at the researcher’s employment contract or corresponding agreement to see if it complies with Article 32 of the H2020 Annotated Model Grant Agreement, including but not limited to the obligation that the researcher works exclusively for the action.

Fellows need documentation in the form of a contract that shows the 50% commitment or something similar since MSCA does not typically operate with timesheets.

Organisations can only encode secondments that are eligible for EC funding. So organisations could encode the secondments going to the UK, but not those from the UK to a beneficiary. It is the dates included in the mobility declarations (previously researchers’ declarations) which are used for financial reporting.  

The researcher is eligible to participate, the change of status does not affect their eligibility.

The UK partners will be funded with the UKRI Horizon Europe Guarantee, in line with the original budget line. They will no longer be able to be included as a beneficiary but will need to become Associated Partners (APs).  Secondments to UK APs from Member States (MS) and/ or Associated Countries (AC) will be funded by the EC as originally foreseen in the proposal. Secondments from UK APs to MS/ AC/ other APs will be funded via UKRI, in line with the budget line and secondment plan in the proposal. Secondments from another AP to the UK will also be funded via UKRI.