Shaping the Future of Animal Health and Welfare

Description

Proposals submitted under this call must focus on one of two topics: Topic 1: Animal Welfare Topic 2: Prevention & Control Each proposal must address at least one core SRIA Action within the selected topic (Animal Welfare or Prevention & Control). Proposals may also include one or more socio‑economic SRIA Actions (OO9‑2 and/or OO9‑4) provided they directly support the core Action(s). Socio‑economic Actions alone are not eligible as a standalone main focus in this call. 1. Animal Welfare Proposals in this area should aim to improve animal welfare throughout the production cycle, including birth, rearing, transport, and slaughter. Each proposal must address one core welfare SRIA Action from the list below. Where appropriate, it is strongly encouraged to also add a supporting a socio-economic action (OO9-2 or OO9-4). For example, to explore trade-offs between welfare improvements and environmental, economic, or societal impacts. Industry involvement is also encouraged under this topic. Core Welfare SRIA Research Actions: OO4-1: Advance understanding of positive welfare, including identification and validation of indicators of positive emotional states via behavioural, endocrine, and neurological measures. OO4-2: Develop technologies to assess welfare on-farm and during transport, including slaughter-line innovations and suitable animal-based measures (ABMs). OO4-3: Improve procedures and technologies for welfare assessment during slaughter or emergency killing, ensuring reliable detection of consciousness and death. OO4-6: Enhance welfare monitoring during transport through sensor-based technologies and decision-support tools to detect early signs of distress (e.g. lameness, heat stress, aggression, exhaustion). OO6-4: Advance humane stunning and killing methods for livestock and fish to minimise pain and stress during slaughter. OO6-5: Develop innovative systems for the transport of livestock and fish. Supporting Socio-economic SRIA Research Actions: OO9-2: Assess socio-economic implications of changes in livestock and fish farming, including shifts in public demand for higher welfare standards and new legislative requirements. OO9-4: Develop practical solutions to integrate AID mitigation and enhanced welfare measures, addressing trade-offs within sustainable livestock and aquaculture systems in the EU. Proposals related to sustainable farming, breeding, and feeding are within scope if directly linked to animal welfare. All production systems are considered, including organic farming, and all phases of production: on-farm, during transport, in the abattoir, and post-fishing. 2. Prevention & Control Proposals under this topic should support the development of innovative therapeutics and vaccines to prevent and control animal infectious diseases, reduce antimicrobial use, and enhance livestock resilience. Each proposal must address at least one core Prevention & Control SRIA Action from the list below. Industrial partner involvement is mandatory for proposals addressing OO7-2 and OO7-3 and strongly encouraged for OO3-3 and OO5-4. Research may include socio-economic actions (OO9-2 or OO9-4) as supplementary components. Core Prevention & Control SRIA Research Actions: OO7-2: Develop and apply tools and models (experimental farms, in vivo/in vitro/in silico infection models) to test efficacy and safety of new therapeutics including vaccines and delivery systems, with reduced reliance on animal testing. Create bioinformatic pipelines for microbiome and pathogen data analysis. OO7-3: Collaborate with industry to develop or improve interventions and treatments and deliver first proof of concept, where appropriate demonstrate immunogenicity and efficacy (minimum immunizing dose) in target species; representative (small scale) animal (challenge) model (TRL 3-4). OO3-3: Develop and standardise tools to: a) Differentiate between infected and vaccinated animals (DIVA). b) Detect whether pathogens in the environment, including waste remain infectious., c)Study transmission dynamics of pathogens and resistant variants across species, including wildlife. OO5-4: Reinforce animal resilience to disease through research into feeding, breeding, and other biological factors that enhance natural immunity. Supporting SRIA Socio-economic Actions: OO9-2: Assess socio-economic implications of changes in livestock and fish farming, including shifts in public demand for higher welfare standards and new legislative requirements. OO9-4: Develop practical solutions to integrate AID mitigation and enhanced welfare measures, addressing trade-offs within sustainable livestock and aquaculture systems in the EU.

Beneficiary & submission

The European Partnership for Animal Health and Welfare (EUPAHW) is launching this research and innovation call to tackle critical challenges in the health and welfare of terrestrial and aquatic animals. This initiative forms part of a broader strategic effort to accelerate the transition towards sustainable, resilient, and ethically responsible livestock and aquaculture systems across Europe. Universities and other higher education institutions, public research institutions, non-profit organisations, consumers/citizens as individuals and civil society representatives and private companies can apply to this call, subject to the national/regional regulations and eligibility criteria (Annex VII). Partners that are not eligible for funding from any of the Funder Organisations may participate in research consortia if they provide with their own resources and submit a valid “Letter of Commitment” (see Annex V). However, these applicants cannot act as the coordinator, and they will not count towards the minimum or maximum number of partners. To support consortium building, a partnering tool will be available on the submission tool homepage (https://EUPAHW.ptj.de/). Research Performing Organisations (RPOs) that are beneficiaries of the EUPAHW and are interested in participating in external research calls may do so in cases defined in the Grant Agreement (list provided as Annex II). ●Proposals must be written in English. ●Proposals must be submitted before the submission deadline via the submission website (https://EUPAHW.ptj.de/). ●The project duration must not exceed 3 years. ●Researchers and entities may participate in more than one research proposal, provided there is no double funding of the same work or cost item, and the same work is proposed only once, and that FO national regulations allow it. In case of multiple participation, partners must list all proposals and explain clearly how their work within the respective proposals differs in the section “Partners” (via Partner Login) under “Tasks within the project”. ●Duplication with internal activities is forbidden and will make the proposal ineligible. ●The proposed research project must align with the scope of this call. ●Applicants must also respect the national/regional eligibility criteria of the FO they are requesting funding from. Please consider that some FOs also request the submission of a separate national/regional application (See Annex VII). ●The submission of a pre-proposal is mandatory. Applicants cannot submit a full-proposal at a later stage without having submitted a pre-proposal and having been invited for full-proposal submission. ●Proposals must follow the rules outlined under “consortium structure”. ●Only at Full-proposal stage: Applicants must submit a Communication and Dissemination Plan (Annex III) and a Data Management Plan (Annex IV). The application process is a two-step process (pre- and full-proposal steps). Throughout the entire process, the Call Office (CO) will be the central communication point for all applicants. The entire application procedure will be carried out online using the EUPAHW call management tool templates and online forms (https://EUPAHW.ptj.de/). In some cases, submission of additional documents to the national/regional FOs is also required. Applications not complying with national requirements will be rejected. Therefore, applicants are strongly advised to review the national/regional regulations provided in Annex VII and contact their funding contact persons (FCPs, Annex I). Pre-Proposal Evaluation The CO will check pre-proposals that are submitted correctly and within the deadline for eligibility. The general eligibility check performed by the CO will focus on the “Eligibility Criteria” (Section 5.1.2). Additionally, the FO will conduct a national eligibility check focusing on the national/regional regulations and the national/regional eligibility criteria (see Annex VII). Three to five experts will evaluate eligible pre-proposals. The information provided in the pre-proposal will be used to find appropriate experts from the International Evaluation Panel of Experts (IEPE) for its evaluation. The Evaluation Office will ensure that conflict of interest is avoided. Conflict of interest will be described in detail in the evaluator guideline prepared by the EO. The eligible pre-proposals will be reviewed and evaluated against the two following criteria: Excellence a)Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives, and the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious and goes beyond the state of the art b)Soundness of the proposed overall methodology Impact a)  Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, and the likely scale and significance of the contributions from the project. Evaluation scores will be awarded for the two main criteria, and not singularly for the different aspects listed below the criteria. The scoring system uses a 5-point scale for each review criteria, half scores are allowed. Scores for the different evaluation criteria will have equal weight. The threshold for each single criterion will be 3 out of 5. Scoring system: 5 = Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all aspects of the criterion in question. 4 = Very good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but small improvements are possible. 3 = Good. The proposal addresses the criterion in question well, but certain improvements are necessary. 2 = Fair. The proposal generally addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses that need corrections. 1 = Poor. The proposal shows serious weaknesses in relation to the criterion in question. 0 = Failure. The proposal fails to address the criterion in question, or cannot be judged because of missing or incomplete information. Pre-proposal evaluation will be held remotely via the online evaluation tool. For each pre-proposal, one IEPE member will be assigned as rapporteur. The rapporteur will draft a summary report according to a template provided by the evaluation office for each proposal reflecting the individual evaluation reports to be sent to applicants. The draft summary reports shall also be submitted to the EO and shall include a recommendation on whether the proposal should be invited for the full proposal submission or not. Full-Proposal Evaluation A minimum of three experts will evaluate each full-proposal against the following criteria: Excellence a)Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives, and the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious and goes beyond the state of the art b)Soundness of the proposed methodology, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions, inter-disciplinary approaches, appropriate consideration of the gender dimension in research and innovation content, and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end-users where appropriate. Impact a)Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, and the likely scale and significance of the contributions from the project. b)Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities. Quality and efficiency of the implementation a)Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources overall. b)Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise Evaluation scores will be awarded for the three main criteria, and not singularly for the different sub-criteria. Full proposals will be evaluated using the same scoring system used at the pre-proposal step, but only full scores will be allowed. Scores for the different evaluation criteria will have equal weight. Full-proposal evaluation will include a meeting (face-to-face, virtual meeting or hybrid) of all members of the IEPE. At the IEPE meeting, each full-proposal will be jointly evaluated by the IEPE members on the basis of the written evaluation reports. One IEPE member will be assigned as a rapporteur for each full-proposal. The rapporteur will draft a summary report for each proposal which reflects the individual evaluation reports and will introduce the proposal during the IEPE meeting. After the proposal discussion, IEPE members should agree on a scoring per criterion. The three agreed-upon scores will be summed up, so the overall score per project can range between 0 and 15. The threshold will be 3 out of 5 for each criterion and 10 out of 15 for the overall score. Proposals with a score lower than 3 for any criterion or lower than 10 for the overall threshold will not be selected for funding.

Further information

Full information can be found here; https://EUPAHW.ptj.de/