No % required for matching funds so it is up to the applicant to determine how much they will contribute to the total funding pot acknowledging that the EU funding will only cover the minimum remuneration required for the researchers.

Applicants can either require in the eligibility conditions that a candidate is from an under-represented group, or alternatively they can say that anyone can apply, but the evaluation criteria should include a statement of how the fellowship will boost diversity in this broad science field. It depends on the aims of the proposed programme. In case the eligibility conditions should be stricter, again it needs to be justified. The MSCA mobility/ eligibility conditions must be respected in all cases.

It is possible but it needs to be well justified in the proposal so that evaluators see the pertinence/ relevance/ added value of the proposed programme. There have been a few programmes focusing at specific target groups in the past. Examples:

Rosalind Franklin Fellowship Cofund Programme

REinforcingWomen In Research

VINNMER-PEOPLE

If the fellow was 1) performing their main activity in the lab based abroad and they were physically present there, and/ or 2) they were also residing abroad, then they should be considered eligible for France.

It is unlikely to have ethical issues identified for COFUND at the proposal stage (at least in most cases), given that the research is unknown in most cases, so the ethics issues would appear as ‘’NO’’ in the majority if not all cases. The part referred to in part A is for the applicant to explain the issues they have ticked “YES” in the table. Part B is very relevant for COFUND, as REA wants a detailed description of the ethics procedure to be carried out in order to identify ethics issues (if any) and how to follow up on them giving that at the proposal stage they are normally unknown.

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.

The change would be implemented from the time the allowance is or is no longer eligible according to the documentation. So if the divorce comes into force on 1September, then that is the month the researcher is no longer eligible for the family allowance.

Yes, if the situation of the researcher changes, the Family Allowance can become ineligible. If the relationship is no longer bound through marriage/ other legal agreement, then they are no longer eligible to receive the allowance.

The researcher is obligated to inform of this change of situation if it occurs.

Regarding the estimation of the family allowance budget for a Doctoral Network, there is a footnote (number 37) which starts on page 79 of the MGA for Unit Grants and continues on page 80, which states:

“Average based on the amount for the family allowance set out in the Horizon Europe Work Programme (MSCA Work Programme part) in force at the time of the call (75% of the number of units with family, 25% without).”

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 legal status that the EC has assigned to the organisation during the validation process has to be checked on the Funding and Tenders Opportunities Portal.

In addition, please note that non-academic placements can only take place in EU MS or HE AC, as clarified on p. 11 of the MSCA PF 2022 Guide for applicants.

Applicants can download the editable proposal templates by starting submission – it is not necessary to register the proposal, immediately at first step there is a button ’Download Part B templates’.

In the actual Part A of the European Fellowship proposal, there is no confusion. The PDF template has the Global Fellowship version of the budget table. In the submission system, European Fellowship applicants have the correct version.

This is an institutional decision of the organisation where the supervisor is meant to be recruited by the time the project starts: if it is possible for them to have somebody not employed acting as staff in a European project.

If the answer is yes, then the applicant should go ahead with that institution, they can include the information on the institution’s infrastructure and capacities.

If the answer is no, then the applicant should include information on the institution where the supervisor is recruited at present. In that case, if a change of host has to be asked for, it should happen at GAP stage.

Having in mind that the supervisor is the official contact for the beneficiary in the project proposal, another solution is that the applicant includes someone else as the main contact/ supervisor, for example head of the lab/ institute, and list the other one as co-supervisor. From the point of view of a reviewer, the fact that the actual supervisor is not yet employed by the organisation is a potential risk. It would make the proposal stronger, if the employment contract were already signed (with a future start date), or there would be something else in place to ensure that the person is employed by the start date of the project at the latest.

Yes, PACS is considered as an equivalent status to a marriage in France.

Associated Partners are entities, which participate in the action, but without the right to charge costs or claim contributions. They contribute to the implementation of the action, but do not sign the grant agreement. They must include a letter of commitment. Therefore, in SE they could send and host secondments, but they cannot claim costs.

Yes, the type of link and the activities of the Associated partners linked to a beneficiary should be indicated in Part B, and they will be assessed as part of the evaluation.

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.

On the Funding and Tender Opportunities Portal there is a possibility to find interested associated countries or member states, it depends on the exchange. In case of an exchange between a member state and an associated country (a beneficiary and a 3rd country part), one can find whatever organisation. There however cannot be any exchange between two associated partners.

The list of organisations is in form A. REA avoids including the list of organisations at the beginning of part B. All participating organisations in SE projects need to be included in part A, which is the predominant list of beneficiaries and associated partners.