Ettevalmistustoetuse taotlemine - Just CoE; TERA-Science

5873115 428625 0 0 -3810 9724390 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL Ehitajate tee 5 19086 Tallinn Rg-kood 74000323 Tel 620 2002 E-post [email protected] www.taltech.ee 0 0 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL Ehitajate tee 5 19086 Tallinn Rg-kood 74000323 Tel 620 2002 E-post [email protected] www.taltech.ee -3810 428625 0 0 Sihtasutus Eesti Teadusagentuur Soola 8 14 . 0 5 .202 6 nr 11-10/48- 20 51004 Tartu Ettevalmistustoetuse taotlemine Käesolevaga taotleb Tallinna Tehnikaülikool ( reg nr 74000323, ak EE201010052037382001 ) ettevalmistustoetust järgmistele projekti de le : Just Urban Futures Centre of Excellence - Just CoE ( 101250405 , HORIZON-WIDERA-2025-ACCESS-01 ), vastutav täitja Lill Sarv , ehituse ja arhitektuuri instituut; Estonian CERN Research and Innovation Centre - TERA-Science ( 101250382 , HORIZON-WIDERA-2025-ACCESS-01 ), vastutav täitja Martti Raidal, küberneetika instituut. Lugupidamisega (allkirjastatud digitaalselt) Marika Lunden Teadusosakond Lisa: Hindamislehed left 284480 Riina Vilgats 620 3536 [email protected] 0 0 Riina Vilgats 620 3536 [email protected] Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)3989088 - 17/04/2026 Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2025-ACCESS-01 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101250405-2 Proposal acronym: Just CoE Duration (months): 72 Proposal title: Just Urban Futures Centre of Excellence Activity: HORIZON-WIDERA-2025-ACCESS-01-01-two-stage N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 6,670,063.75 51.31% 6,670,063.75 51.31% 2 TARTU ULIKOOL EE 1,893,356.25 14.56% 1,893,356.25 14.56% 3 AALTO KORKEAKOULUSAATIO SR FI 1,630,372.5 12.54% 1,630,372.5 12.54% 4 UNIVERSITY OF STUTTGART DE 1,246,875 9.59% 1,246,875 9.59% 5 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT DELFT NL 1,559,332.5 11.99% 1,559,332.5 11.99% 6 EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL BE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% EDUCATION - ASSOCIATION EUROPEENNE POUR L'ENSEIGNEMENT DE L'ARCHITECTURE 7 IMD International Institut for Management Development CH 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 KLIIMAMINISTEERIUM EE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 SOTSIAALMINISTEERIUM EE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 10 Justiits- ja Digiministeerium EE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 11 Krulli kvartal AS EE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total: 13,000,000 13,000,000 Abstract: Just Urban Futures Centre of Excellence (Just CoE), led by TalTech, in close collaboration with Uni. Tartu and advanced partners TU Delft, Aalto & Stuttgart, mission is to tackle leading injustices in cities across the globe through research and practice in architecture & urban studies. Despite strong policy ambition at EU level, urban planning and governance systems lack integrated, justice-oriented methodologies capable of translating scientific knowledge into inclusive, climate-resilient, and implementable solutions. In response, Just CoE focuses on socio-ecological transition in lived spaces, positioning Estonia as a reference-point for justice-oriented urban science by integrating architecture, engineering, ecology, law, and data science. Just CoE advances urban science from a 4-helix model to an innovative 5-helix approach, recognising non-human residents—urban fauna and flora— alongside academia, public authorities, industry, and civil society as legitimate stakeholders in urban development. CoE research strategy is grounded in a care-based methodology connecting human and more-than-human needs, enabling socially inclusive, ecologically grounded, and technologically robust solutions. Through Living Labs, real-world testbeds, and Estonia’s nationwide Urban–Rural Digital Twin, Just CoE co-creates and validates planning tools, participatory design, and digital decision-support systems with cities, residents, private sector, and ecologists. Just CoE delivers an integrated training ecosystem, including interdisciplinary PhD education, researcher mobility, and training for urban professionals (architects, planners). Expected results include validated justice-oriented planning tools, high-impact research, policy guidance, and new business models. Long- term sustainability is ensured through national co-investment, private-sector partnerships, and an autonomous governance model supporting talent development as well as continuous scientific renewal. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result 101250405-2/Just CoE-17/04/2026-10:22:09 1/5  Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)3989088 - 17/04/2026 Total score: 9.00 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 3.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives. The objectives correctly identify challenges that cities around the world are faced with. They are thematically rich and highly relevant to the Teaming for Excellence Call and to the Work Programme’s emphasis on transformative R&I and societal relevance. However, the objectives are primarily oriented toward social, political, and regulatory influence, with less emphasis on scientific research or on other technical or industrial objectives. In addition, the global outreach attributed to the centre is, in some aspects, excessively broad, and lacks credibility. The measurability of the objectives is not consistently clear. While some objectives are clearly measurable, due to quantified targets, milestones, and verifiable outputs (e.g. operational CoE, validated tools, policy briefs, spin-offs), others rely on qualitative or systemic transformations (e.g. changes in governance culture, justice-oriented planning) that are inherently difficult to verify during the project. Therefore, the causal link between certain activities and long-term outcomes is not supported by sufficiently demonstrated empirical evidence. Furthermore, some quantitative targets related to the research output (e.g. at least 60 international research proposals submitted, 50 open-access high impact publications) and talent attraction (at least 25 full-time researchers hired) are overly ambitious relative to the initial capacity baseline, raising questions about their achievability within the project time-frame. The strategy on how the Centre will develop scientific excellence beyond the state-of-the-art is, for some cases, described in a too generic way (e.g. AI or Digital Twins applied in urban environments). The multitude of methodological elements raises concerns about conceptual overload and unclear delimitation of highly diverse disciplines and epistemologies. Benchmarking against leading centres is limited and the advancement beyond the state of the art is not fully substantiated. The research component is well embedded across the proposal. The human resources strategy is not described in sufficient depth and therefore does not cover all the required aspects. For example, some commitments, such as inclusive and flexible career paths, are not always aligned with competitive performance pressure, particularly in early project phases. The gender dimension in recruitment does not provide sufficient details on specific action or strategy that goes beyond the current set of principle. Recruitment procedures are open, international, merit-based, and explicitly aligned with the European Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct. Non-linear career paths and care responsibilities, as well as inclusive and competitive recruitment criteria are clearly recognised. The proposal partly demonstrates the pathway to full autonomy. Relevant elements include a dedicated legal status within TalTech governance, independent Scientific and Expert Advisory Boards, a multi-stakeholder Steering Committee, financial autonomy mechanisms (e.g. overhead retention), and independent recruitment and career progression policies. However, how the dedicated legal status will strengthen autonomy is not convincingly demonstrated. Moreover, the scientific advisory board does not offer a specific guarantee given that decisions will be taken by other boards and that the proposal does not clearly specify a binding link between decision of the advisory board or between the Steering Committee, and the lean management structure. - Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology. The overall methodology is clearly articulated and conceptually coherent. Coordination measures are clearly defined through structured governance bodies, dedicated management roles, phased CoE establishment and collaboration with leading partners. However, the methodology has some conceptual sophistication that raises concerns on operational feasibility, especially across multiple disciplines and stakeholder groups. Although the proposal focuses on establishing a new CoE, it clearly explains the development trajectory from existing capacities at TalTech and UT towards a fully operational, autonomous Centre by year 2. The step-by-step evolution (capacity building, integration of partners, scaling of infrastructures and services) is well justified. Main challenges in the chosen research methodology are not well identified and their formulation is relatively generic. A clear view of how they affect the project is not provided and some identified challenges (e.g. epistemic bias, societal inequality) are structural and systemic, reducing confidence that they can be effectively addressed within the scope of a single CoE. Given the insufficient identification of the main challenges affecting the project, viability and effectiveness of the proposed solutions are not demonstrated. Overall, open science aspects are developed in the proposal. Beyond outlining the guiding principles, the methodologies to be applied are specified and the tools to be used are clearly detailed. The Data Management Plan is comprehensive and sound. However, the commitment to openness and FAIR/CARE principles generates tensions with data protection, commercialisation, and sensitive policy experimentation that are not sufficiently acknowledged. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 2.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101250405-2/Just CoE-17/04/2026-10:22:09 2/5  Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)3989088 - 17/04/2026 The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - 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. The proposal describes the impact strategy and demonstrates alignment with the expected outcomes of the Call, as well as with the wider expected impacts included in the Destination text. However, systemic spill-over at national R&I system level and measurable baselines for medium-term progress are only partly substantiated and the distinction between outputs, outcomes, and impacts is occasionally blurred. Furthermore, the impact narrative is very broad and ambitious, which reduces clarity as to which impacts are directly attributable to the project and which depend on external dynamics. Quantitative benchmarks, diffusion mechanisms beyond the immediate ecosystem and evidence of wider European reach are not convincingly addressed. The proposal demonstrates a fair awareness of external barriers, which are grounded in realistic contextual analysis of urban governance and R&I systems. The impact of some external barriers (e.g. political change, shifting policy priorities, macroeconomic conditions) is not sufficiently analysed. Mitigation measures are not convincingly conceptualized and sometimes too generic and without a clear correlation to a potential solution of the problem. Moreover, the effectiveness of some of the mitigation measures proposed is limited by their reliance on stakeholder willingness, cooperation, and behavioral change, which are inherently uncertain. Overall, the social and structural impacts are carefully elaborated and well-reasoned. However, the growth potential and expected economic outreach of the proposed CoE for the benefit of the host country or region is not sufficiently discussed. Direct economic impacts are less precisely quantified than scientific and societal impacts, and spillover effects to industry and markets are less convincing than public-sector and policy impacts. The contribution to supporting reforms of the R&I system and the alignment with the Smart Specialisation Strategy at national level are adequately described. The emphasis on openness, interdisciplinarity and internationalisation supports ERA objectives. The Investment Plan allocates resources to research, infrastructure, Living Labs, HR and operational structures. The indicative cost-benefit analysis outlines qualitative returns in R&I performance and socio-economic benefits. However, quantitative modelling and sensitivity analysis are limited, and the cost-benefit analysis lacks details (mainly consists of listing the expected benefits of the main investment packages). The proposal lacks sufficient level of detail on measures to ensure the long-term self-sustainability of the Centre. Long-term financial assumptions depend on continued success in competitive funding environments, and some investments assume smooth scaling and uptake, which is uncertain. Moreover, revenue streams remain partly conceptual. The letter of commitment from the Ministry does not sufficiently describe important elements of the complementary funding, such as the cost categories, the activities planned and the payment timetable. Another letter of commitment from AS Mainor misses on mentioning the payment timetables. - Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities. The proposal presents a coherent plan for communication, dissemination and exploitation aligned with the Centre’s objectives. It clearly identifies target audiences. For each audience, a broad set of specific initiatives is structured, demonstrating sufficient quality, diversity, and proportionality. In addition, a series of clear and practical indicators are proposed to monitor their effective implementation during the project. Dissemination is well integrated with research and piloting activities, particularly through the validation of planning tools and digital decision-support systems. Regarding exploitation, several lines of action do not provide enough substantiated arguments to demonstrate clear feasibility. This is particularly evident in relation to the creation of spin-offs and startups. Moreover, the proposal lacks sufficient details on actions after the end of the project and quantified targets. Prioritisation of exploitation streams and differentiation between short-term dissemination and post-project exploitation are also not fully developed. The IP strategy, the protection measures to be implemented and how these will effectively support the exploitation plan are not convincingly outlined. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 3.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources overall. The work plan is proportionate to the project’s objectives. Task description is well provided. The proposed duration of the work plan is realistic and well justified. The structure and timing of the work plan components are appropriate to implement the project. The work packages are logically structured, internally coherent and interdependent. Their timing reflects a logical progression from setup to piloting and consolidation. Deliverables and milestones are generally relevant and aligned with the objectives of the proposal, but not marking any step in time for the CoE becoming legally autonomous. The effort allocation is well aligned with the project objectives and activities. However, the effort distribution across WPs looks highly front-loaded on coordination and planning, and the linkage between effort allocation and specific outputs is not fully transparent. Risk assessment remains largely qualitative, and prioritisation by severity is not fully differentiated. Because of their interrelations, some risks present too amplified combined impacts. Many mitigation measures depend on managerial responsiveness and coordination capacity, which makes them insufficient given the project’s scale. Contingency planning, thresholds and mitigation triggers are not sufficiently detailed. The EU budget is generally appropriate to the objectives of the proposal. Budget distribution across beneficiaries describes well the differentiation of roles, with higher allocations to the coordinator and widening partners. However, the limited allocations to tangible assets remain insufficiently grounded nor specified. The planned budget for the proposed research component is limited to 10% of the total EU contribution. 101250405-2/Just CoE-17/04/2026-10:22:09 3/5  Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)3989088 - 17/04/2026 - Capacity and role of each participant, and extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise. The consortium adequately brings together the necessary knowledge to deliver the project’s objectives. It is balanced between academic and non-academic organisations, with an emphasis on widening countries. The combination of local institutions and internationally recognised partners provides critical mass and credibility. Complementarity between partners is well articulated in relation to research, training, and institutional development. However, several areas of expertise of the partners overlap to various degrees, raising questions about role differentiation in strategic leadership vs support roles. While the mutual benefit for the coordinator and the leading institutions is credible and logically structured, the long-term strategic gains for the leading partners are described more generally than those for the coordinator. Moreover, the proposal includes a relatively large number of associated entities, for which the specific benefits are not articulated with comparable clarity. Partners generally have strong institutional capacity, including access to infrastructure, experienced staff, and international networks. The coordinator demonstrates its sufficient institutional and administrative capacity to host the CoE. The proposal demonstrates the necessary expertise of the consortium in some cross-cutting aspects, but it is less evident about the expertise in social sciences and humanities, and gender aspects of R&I. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No 101250405-2/Just CoE-17/04/2026-10:22:09 4/5  Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)3989088 - 17/04/2026 If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided 101250405-2/Just CoE-17/04/2026-10:22:09 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-04-17T10:27:01 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111