Ettevalmistustoetuse taotlus

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 03.09. 202 6 nr 11-10/48- 2 9 51004 Tartu Ettevalmistustoetuse taotlemine Käesolevaga taotleb Tallinna Tehnikaülikool ( reg nr 74000323, ak EE201010052037382001 ) ettevalmistustoetust järgmistele projekti del e : Remote Sensing Ocean Front Dynamics: Transport, Mixing and Exchange in Space and Time (FRONTSENSE) - ERC-2026-STG, 101304327. Vastutav täitja Nicole Delpeche-Ellmann, küberneetika instituut; Nimble Aquatic Technologies for Intelligent Low-cost Underwater Sensing (NAUTILUS) - HORIZON-MSCA-2026-COFUND-01, 101339691. Vastutav täitja Maarja Kruusmaa, arvutisüsteemide instituut; Empowering Circular Innovation through Collaboration ( CIRCULINK ) - HORIZON-MSCA-2026-SE-01 101344142 . Vastutav täitja Jiri Strouhal , ärikorralduse instituut; Accelerating Urban Challenge-based Academic Spinoffs and Startups ( UrbanSpin ) - HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-06, 101334604. Vastutav täitja Kaija Veskioja, Targa linna tippkeskus ; Lugupidamisega (allkirjastatud digitaalselt) Marika Lunden Teadusosakond Lisa: Hindamisleh ed left 284480 Riina Vilgats 620 3536 [email protected] 0 0 Riina Vilgats 620 3536 [email protected]  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  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-06 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101334604 Proposal acronym: UrbanSpin Duration (months): 24 Proposal title: Accelerating Urban Challenge-based Academic Spinoffs and Startups Activity: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-06-ERA-04 N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 567,125 28.57% 567,125 28.57% 2 BABLE SMART CITIES IBERIA, S.L ES 259,675 13.08% 259,675 13.08% 3 BABLE GMBH DE 28,125 1.42% 28,125 1.42% 4 FRAUNHOFER GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER DE 608,375 30.65% 608,375 30.65% ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG EV 5 POLITECHNIKA GDANSKA PL 423,400 21.33% 423,400 21.33% 6 EMPRESA MUNICIPAL DE LA INNOVACION Y ES 98,425 4.96% 98,425 4.96% DESARROLLO TECNOLOGICO SA Total: 1,985,125 1,985,125 Abstract: UrbanSpin integrates demand intelligence, pilot co-development and procurement pathway mapping into one coordinated European support process for academic spinoffs and startups. Instead of developing solutions first and searching for markets later, UrbanSpin begins with (1) verified city demand signals identified through the City Insights Manager, (2) matches them with research teams, and (3) supports pilots through continuous city engagement, business coaching and scale-up planning. This demand-led model transforms isolated pilots into market-ready solutions with clear deployment pathways, increasing the formation, survival and cross-border scaling of academic spinoffs. UrbanSpin brings together 3 technology universities (TalTech, Fraunhofer and GUT), 2 large smart city networks (FinEst Centre for Smart Cities under TalTech and BABLE) with strong experience in collaborating with researchers and building on world class piloting practices, networks and urban living labs alongside with Las Rozas Innova, a publicly funded entity, the consortium ensures solutions align with public sector needs, bridging startups, institutions, and citizens, and enhancing the ability to support the establishment and scaleup of challenge-based academic spinoffs and enable quick deployment and uptake of new smart, sustainable and resilient city solutions. Key Objectives of UrbanSpin are to: KO1: Increase the number of new academic spinoffs through translating R&I results into user-friendly and needed new smart city solutions KO2: Foster the market uptake of innovative smart city solutions developed by academic spinoffs and startups KO3: Build trust between academia and industry (cities, real estate developers, building, energy and mobility companies) to foster their hands-on cooperation for collaborative development and deployment of new smart city solutions KO4: Increase inclusiveness and gender equality in academic spinoffs and startups through encouragement activities Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 11.50 (Threshold: 10 ) 101334604/UrbanSpin-16/07/2026-14:49:08 1/4  Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.00 (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. - Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology. The objectives are clear as they are specific, measurable, achievable and realistic. This is demonstrated by a clear definition of four key problems addressed by the objectives and by the identification of appropriate key performance indicators (KPIs). This is good. The objectives are pertinent and aligned with scope of the call topic, as the proposal aims to develop a model, based on a pentahelix framing, that operationalises end‑user pull and institutionalises the intermediation layer into a repeatable pipeline. This is good. The proposed coordination and/or support measures are overall well described. It is sufficiently demonstrated how they will deliver the project’s objectives. The methodology is generally clear and is structured around two main focuses: challenge-based co-development and new market entry acceleration. The approach includes valuable elements, such as piloting solutions emerging from academia in response to urban challenges, and involving cities and urban industry stakeholders. At least 21 pilot actions across Europe are foreseen. This is good. However, not all elements of the methodological approach are described with the same level of detail and clarity, which is a minor shortcoming. The identification of key challenges and mitigation measures is limited. For instance, the mitigation of potential challenges related to pilot duration through the selection of solutions at TRL 5–7 is not fully realistic, given the academic origin of the innovations. Other challenges are only briefly mentioned and not sufficiently elaborated. This is a shortcoming. Open science practices are an integral part of the proposed methodology and research data management is very well addressed. For example, open sharing is operationalised through early publication of working drafts, open repositories, and clear commitments to reuse and reproducibility; research data management is proportionate to the project’s data‑intensive character; operational records and accession rules are well envisioned through GDPR compliant systems. Gender equality aspects are well considered, including efforts to ensure balanced participation and the integration of gender considerations into the methodology and promotion of inclusive academic entrepreneurship. This is good. Criterion 2 - Impact 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: - Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme. - 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 project results will contribute well to all of the expected outcomes as set out in the work programme by providing upgraded entrepreneurship support and delivering demand‑led, procurement‑aware and practice‑oriented services that directly address the main bottlenecks faced by early‑stage academic ventures when bringing innovations to market. For the medium and long-term impacts, the project results will contribute well to the ERA Structural Policy objectives by implementing and validating a demand‑led knowledge valorisation model to translate R&I results into societal and economic value. Overall, the proposal identifies a number of potential barriers to the expected outcomes and impacts, as well as generally suitable mitigation measures. However, barriers and mitigation measures are not always sufficiently specific for the different target stakeholders. This is a minor shortcoming. The overall approach to dissemination and communication is well designed and proportionate to the scale of the project, with a clearly specified set of actions and a very well defined set of target groups. However, the proposal remains too general in the definition of how the main channels, tools, and KPIs relate in a different way to the specific audiences or stakeholders. This is a shortcoming. The exploitation measures are clear, encompassing two innovation management pathways to support the uptake of project outputs. This credibly ensures appropriate replication. However, the proposed services depend on the continued access to structured city demand data through one of the developed tools, and the sustainability of this element is insufficiently demonstrated. This is a shortcoming. Overall, the strategy for IPR management is well outlined and is suitable to support exploitation of results. However, the mechanisms to govern the IP of the startup /spinoffs that will take part in the pilots remains underdeveloped. This is a shortcoming. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101334604/UrbanSpin-16/07/2026-14:49:08 2/4  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. - Capacity and role of each participant, and extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise. The work plan is of high quality; it is logical and very well includes quantified information to allow the monitoring of progress. The work plan reflects the proposed methodology in a good way. Tasks are well described and their outputs are clearly defined in terms of deliverables and timeframe. The proposal defines a convincing contribution to the EU Knowledge Valorisation Platform and credible synergies with ongoing projects under topic “Experimentation and exchange of good practices for value creation”. This is good. Efforts assigned to work packages and overall resources are in line with their objectives. However, WP3 absorbs a large share of the budget; this is not fully justified because there is insufficient clarity regarding how the pilot actions will be implemented and what types of costs will be allocated to that. Linked to it, a significant amount is allocated to equipment but it is not possible to fully assess or estimate the depreciation as the type of equipment needed will depend on the selected projects. This is a shortcoming. Critical risks for implementation are well identified, qualified, and appropriate mitigation measures are proposed. The consortium composition and expertise reflect the project’s objectives; the consortium brings together the necessary disciplinary and inter-disciplinary knowledge (including open science practices and gender aspects), as well as industrial/commercial capacity. The complementarity among partners is good. All the partners have clear roles and adequate resources to fulfil their role. This is good. 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 101334604/UrbanSpin-16/07/2026-14:49:08 3/4  If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments Not provided 101334604/UrbanSpin-16/07/2026-14:49:08 4/4  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-16T14:49:14 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  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe Framework Programme (HORIZON) Report - Staff Exchanges Call: HORIZON-MSCA-2026-SE-01 Type of action: HORIZON-TMA-MSCA-SE Proposal number: 101344142 Proposal acronym: CIRCULINK Duration (months): 48 Proposal title: Empowering Circular Innovation through Collaboration Activity: SOC N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 129,250 9.92% 129,250 9.92% 2 UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS CY 93,060 7.14% 93,060 7.14% 3 EUROPE FOR BUSINESS LTD UK 82,720 6.35% 82,720 6.35% 4 UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI MACERATA IT 129,250 9.92% 129,250 9.92% 5 UNIVERSITY OF CHESTER UK 82,720 6.35% 82,720 6.35% 6 UNIVERZITET U BANJOJ LUCI BA 124,080 9.52% 124,080 9.52% 7 REDECOEC S.L ES 67,210 5.16% 67,210 5.16% 8 PANEUROPSKA VYSOKA SKOLA NO SK 72,380 5.56% 72,380 5.56% 9 UNIVERZITA PARDUBICE CZ 62,040 4.76% 62,040 4.76% 10 TIAS Business School BV NL 62,040 4.76% 62,040 4.76% 11 UNIVERZITET U NISU RS 93,060 7.14% 93,060 7.14% 12 Collabwith Group B.V. NL 25,850 1.98% 25,850 1.98% 13 Lárionad Acmhainní Nádúrtha CTR IE 51,700 3.97% 51,700 3.97% 14 BLOOMER HOUSE EGITIM ARASTIRMA VE TR 82,720 6.35% 82,720 6.35% DANISMANLIK LTD. 15 MARMARA UNIVERSITY TR 82,720 6.35% 82,720 6.35% 16 Pardubický podnikatelský inkubátor z.ú. CZ 10,340 0.79% 10,340 0.79% 17 VAASAN YLIOPISTO FI 31,020 2.38% 31,020 2.38% 18 UNIVERSIDAD DE ALICANTE ES 20,680 1.59% 20,680 1.59% Total: 1,302,840 1,302,840 Abstract: 101344142/CIRCULINK-07/07/2026-17:22:21 1/4  The European Green Deal mandates a rapid transition to a Circular Economy (CE), yet European Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) remain trapped in fragmented, pilot-based initiatives. CIRCULINK pioneers a systemic paradigm shift, delivering the first transdisciplinary, institution-wide framework to transform universities into operational living laboratories for CE innovation.Mobilising a high-impact consortium of 18 academic, SME, and NGO partners across 13 countries, CIRCULINK responds directly to the MSCA Staff Exchanges objectives through a robust bi-directional knowledge-transfer engine. Driven by 252 person-months of strategic, cross-sectoral staff secondments, the project dismantles institutional silos by unifying governance, campus operations, education, and community engagement under a single, replicable strategy. The project's scientific and transversal objectives are executed through a rigorous methodological loop. Secondees will: (1) establish comparative circularity baselines; (2) co- design and validate CE interventions within dynamic campus Living Labs; (3) engineer an open-source Digital Circularity Toolkit aligned with ISO 59000 to resolve pervasive institutional data incompatibility ; and (4) deliver multi-criteria impact assessments, replication blueprints, and policy briefs. By embedding academic researchers within industry and bringing SME experts into universities, CIRCULINK cultivates high-demand green and digital competencies, directly advancing the EU Pact for Skills and future-proofing researchers' careers. Ultimately, CIRCULINK’s legacy—a formalised European Circularity Network and scalable open-access infrastructure—equips HEIs globally with the validated evidence and R&I capacity required to accelerate the systemic transition to a circular future. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 77.20 % (Threshold: 70 /100.00) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 3.70 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: 50.00% ) 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 pertinence of the project’s research and innovation objectives (and the extent to which they are ambitious, and go beyond the state of the art). • Soundness of the proposed approach to foster international intersectoral and interdisciplinary collaborations. • Soundness of the proposed methodology (including consideration of the gender dimension and other diversity aspects if relevant for the research project, and the quality of open science practices). • Quality of the proposed interaction between the participating organisations in light of the research and innovation objectives. The objectives are well-detailed, realistic, measurable, and coherently linked to the work plan, deliverables, and monitoring mechanisms. The proposal provides credible verification measures and quantitative targets, making the objectives realistically achievable within the project duration. The proposal presents relevant, well-structured, and innovative aspects by introducing a systemic, institution-wide framework for implementing the circular economy at universities. However, the proposal does not convincingly demonstrate how it advances beyond the state-of-the-art, as its innovation potential appears somewhat limited given existing tools and current research on the topic. The proposal convincingly explains the interdisciplinary aspects, integrating circular economy, sustainability, governance, environmental engineering, digitalisation, and social sciences within a coherent research framework. The proposal does not sufficiently demonstrate how it will foster international collaboration through the participation of organisations established in non-associated third countries. The proposal defines the intersectoral elements related to maximising R&I potential in general terms. The contribution by non-academic partners is not convincingly explained, thus making it difficult to appreciate the full extent to which the proposal capitalises on synergies between the academic and non-academic sectors. The methodological approach is mostly well presented and aligns with the proposed objectives. The potential methodological challenges and the subsequent solutions are sufficiently articulated. Gender and diversity aspects are addressed for the most part. However, their integration into the core research content and analytical design remains limited. Open science practices are well integrated. The proposed management of research data and outputs is credibly aligned with F.A.I.R. principles and supported by standardised metrics, interoperability measures, and data-sharing provisions. The contribution of each participating organisation is clearly described and well aligned with its expertise, infrastructure and role within the project. The allocation of scientific responsibilities is coherent and credibly supports the implementation of the planned activities. The networking activities are mostly justified and effectively integrated into the project design. These measures credibly support knowledge exchange and the achievement of the research and innovation objectives. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 3.90 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: 30.00% ) 101344142/CIRCULINK-07/07/2026-17:22:21 2/4  The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: • Developing new and lasting research collaborations, achieving transfer of knowledge between participating organisations and contributing to improving research and innovation potential at the European and global level. • Credibility of the measures to enhance the career perspectives of staff members and contribution to their skills development. • 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 magnitude and importance of the project’s contribution to the expected scientific, societal and economic impacts. The proposed activities have the potential to foster new and sustainable research collaborations across Europe. However, the mechanisms envisaged to achieve this objective are described at a rather formal level, and the evidence regarding their effectiveness and sustainability remains limited. The knowledge transfer actions are fairly specified through several mechanisms for bidirectional knowledge transfer between academic and non-academic partners. The concrete outputs each mechanism produces are well identified. Additionally, the knowledge types benefit both participating organisations and the researchers and teams. The proposal clearly explains how the project will improve the research and innovation potential in Europe, with reference to its contributions to Europe’s green and digital transition and its alignment with the most critical EU policy priorities. The contribution is credible, particularly in advancing circular economy practices and institutional innovation capacities across European higher education ecosystems. The proposal successfully explains the enhancement of career prospects and the acquisition of new skills for participating staff members by addressing research, technical, and transversal skills. The dissemination, exploitation, and communication plan is generally well-structured. The proposed tools, channels and engagement activities are credible and provide a convincing basis for maximising scientific, institutional and societal impact. The strategic alignment of the plan is well structured. However, it lacks a sufficiently clear focus on the key target groups most closely aligned with the project's objectives regarding universities' circularity. The rationale for targeting the proposed stakeholders is not always fully justified. The proposal presents an appropriate strategy for intellectual property management, including provisions for ownership, dissemination and exploitation of results. The foreseen protection and exploitation measures are appropriately identified, though described in moderate operational detail. The expected scientific impacts are convincingly described, and their scope is well defined. The expected contribution beyond the project duration is credible and well substantiated. The proposal has strong potential to generate economic and technological impact. The expected effects on institutional efficiency and circular innovation capacity are relevant and convincingly articulated. The expected societal impacts are well described, with credible long-term potential demonstrated through their alignment with the European Green Deal and the Sustainable Development Goals. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.20 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: 20.00% ) 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. • Quality, capacity and role of each participant, including hosting arrangements and extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise. The work plan is coherent and mostly well structured. Some of the activities are too broadly focused, and their relation to achieving the stated objectives is unclear. Furthermore, the feasibility of achieving meaningful results from the pilot interventions within the proposed timeline is insufficiently explained. The secondments are well planned, and their scope is effective in both project objectives and expected results. The secondments are clearly necessary to support the project’s interdisciplinary and intersectoral methodology. The staff profile is appropriately provided, and they are well-suited to implement the project. The proposal identifies relevant scientific, operational and coordination risks and provides appropriate mitigation measures. The risk analysis convincingly addresses the probability and potential impact of each identified risk. The contingency plan is credible and adequately supports the feasibility of project implementation. The infrastructure and capacity of each participating organisation are satisfactorily presented, and these are in line with the task allocations. The available technological, digital and organisational resources credibly support the planned activities and secondments. The participant organisations are clearly complementary, collectively bringing together convincing academic capabilities, research expertise, and professional experience to support the proposal's objectives. The proposed work clearly demonstrates strong expertise in the Social Sciences and Humanities and relevant experience with open science practices. However, gender aspects of R&I are less clearly demonstrated. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 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 101344142/CIRCULINK-07/07/2026-17:22:21 3/4  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 If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments Not provided 101344142/CIRCULINK-07/07/2026-17:22:21 4/4  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-07T17:22:26 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  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe Framework Programme (HORIZON) Report - MSCA- COFUND Call: HORIZON-MSCA-2026-COFUND-01 Type of action: HORIZON-TMA-MSCA-Cofund-D Proposal number: 101339691 Proposal acronym: NAUTILUS Duration (months): 60 Proposal title: Nimble Aquatic Technologies for Intelligent Low-cost Underwater Sensing Activity: HORIZON-MSCA-2026-COFUND-01-01 N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 2,184,000 100.00% 2,184,000 100.00% 2 UNIVERSITAET GRAZ AT 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI TRENTO IT 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 ILMATIETEEN LAITOS FI 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 LAPPEENRANNAN-LAHDEN TEKNILLINEN YLIOPISTO FI 0 0.00% 0 0.00% LUT 6 TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF US 0 0.00% 0 0.00% NEW YORK 7 AALTO KORKEAKOULUSAATIO SR FI 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 ABB OY FI 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 NORGES TEKNISK-NATURVITENSKAPELIGE NO 0 0.00% 0 0.00% UNIVERSITET NTNU 10 NORGES VASSDRAGS- OG ENERGIDIREKTORAT NO 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 11 SVEUCILISTE U ZAGREBU FAKULTET HR 0 0.00% 0 0.00% ELEKTROTEHNIKE I RACUNARSTVA 12 MALARDALENS UNIVERSITET SE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 13 MINDCHIP EE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 14 CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE FR 0 0.00% 0 0.00% CNRS 15 HELLENIC CENTRE FOR MARINE RESEARCH EL 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 16 UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI CASSINO E DEL LAZIO IT 0 0.00% 0 0.00% MERIDIONALE 17 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAET BERGAKADEMIE DE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% FREIBERG 18 Watergenics GmbH DE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 19 FRAUNHOFER GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER DE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG EV Total: 2,184,000 2,184,000 Abstract: 101339691/NAUTILUS-18/08/2026-14:49:27 1/5  To strengthen Europe’s global competitiveness and support the Green Deal, the EU has launched initiatives such as the Zero Pollution Action Plan and the Green Deal Industrial Plan. These require innovation driven by advanced knowledge, skills, and interdisciplinary collaboration. However, many ecosystems, particularly aquatic environments, remain poorly observed, creating critical data gaps due to their complexity and inaccessibility. NAUTILUS is a doctoral training programme designed to develop experts in environmental monitoring technologies addressing these challenges. It brings together 15 innovative PhD projects, ranging from underwater sensor networks for landslide monitoring to nanomaterial-based solutions for pollutant detection and remediation. The programme integrates natural sciences, engineering, IT, and data science to deliver solutions to real-world environmental problems. NAUTILUS is a structured, interdisciplinary, intersectoral and entrepreneurial training programme combining advanced research, international mobility, and collaboration with industry and public stakeholders. Doctoral candidates are embedded in an international network of academic and non- academic partners, ensuring strong cross-sectoral exposure and exploitation pathways. By combining scientific excellence with structured training and real-world application, NAUTILUS will train a new generation of researchers capable of addressing Europe’s environmental challenges and contributing to sustainable and resilient societies. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 82.80 % (Threshold: 70 /100.00) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 3.80 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: 50.00% ) 101339691/NAUTILUS-18/08/2026-14:49:27 2/5  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 pertinence of the programme’s research and innovation objectives (and the extent to which they are ambitious, and go beyond the state of the art) • Quality and novelty of the selection / recruitment process for the researchers (transparency, composition and organisation of selection committees, evaluation criteria, equal opportunities, the gender dimension and other diversity aspects) and quality and attractiveness of the appointment conditions, including competitiveness of the salary for the standards of the hosting countries. • Quality and novelty of the research options offered by the programme in terms of interdisciplinarity, inter-sectorality and level of international mobility. Quality of open science practices. • Quality, novelty and pertinence of the research training programme (including transferable skills, inter/multidisciplinary, inter-sectoral and gender as well as other diversity aspects). • Quality, novelty and pertinence of the supervision, career guidance and career development arrangements. STRENGTHS - The programme presents clear and ambitious research and innovation objectives that go beyond the state of the art through the development of integrated, AI- enabled aquatic monitoring systems for resilient deployment in extreme environments, combining robotics, sensorics, data science and communication technologies. - The recruitment and selection process is open, merit-based and clearly presented, with a robust oversight structure, well-defined evaluation criteria, appropriate procedures for handling ex aequo cases, and a strong commitment to equal opportunities, gender balance and diversity. - The composition of the evaluation panels (stage 1 and 2) is specified, maintaining interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral, gender and geographical balance throughout the process. Fairness of the evaluation is convincingly secured by the proportional participation of non-conflicted independent external experts, who are required to sign declarations of objectivity, impartiality and confidentiality and to receive unconscious-bias training. - The call dissemination strategy is comprehensive and properly outlined, employing institutional networks, international platforms and a dedicated programme webpage for effectively reaching out to a diverse international pool of candidates, while adopting a sustainable approach that minimises the use of hard promotional materials. - Transparency, fairness and impartiality are reinforced by explicitly prohibiting supervisors from participating in candidate selection and instructing doctoral candidates not to contact potential supervisors, thereby avoiding pre-selection and conflicts of interest. - The appointment conditions are appealing, including full-time contracts with competitive salaries, statutory employment benefits, relocation allowance, and mobility. The clear comparison of working conditions, covering rights, income and quality of involvement, alongside excellent family-friendly policies, convincingly demonstrates the programme's attractiveness. - The programme convincingly offers the doctoral candidates a broad choice of leading-edge, interdisciplinary research topics spanning environmental monitoring technologies and innovation-driven mobility, and strong international exposure. Projects are well structured across disciplines, with applicative outputs clearly described in a summarised table. The freedom granted to doctoral candidates (DCs) to develop their own research within these frameworks effectively fosters independence, motivation, and creativity. - Open Science practices are systematically integrated throughout the research life-cycle, are in compliance with relevant institutional and EU policies, and go beyond mandatory requirements. The proposal clearly addresses publication licensing, open-source outputs, use of relevant repositories in line with Open Science principles, with dedicated training ensuring effective implementation across the programme. - The training programme is robust, well designed and comprehensive, offering a sound selection of transferable skills courses with fair and plausible ECTS allocation, ICDPs and compulsory trainings, further strengthened by the inclusion of main training events and conferences. - The training programme convincingly integrates interdisciplinary, inter-sectoral exposure with gender and diversity dimensions. - The proposal presents a consistent secondment structure. The secondments are clearly foreseen and described across the proposal demonstrating sufficient ambition in terms of the overall duration and scope. - The supervision arrangements are of high quality and pertinent, supported by an international supervisory team with plausible time allocation, and complemented by a buddy system as a valuable mentoring addition. An institutional onboarding programme facilitates smooth integration into the research environment, while the annual structured “attestation” (aligned with internal regulations), effectively covers planning, progress, feedback and improvement. - The Career Development Plan is carefully designed and jointly developed by the supervisor and the doctoral candidate, serving as a comprehensive roadmap for career counselling and skills development, with clear milestones aligning research activities with individual aspirations and long-term career objectives. The inclusion of research publication goals is a notably positive element. - The proposal provides a clear and concrete presentation of all supervisors, including their names and research profiles, effectively demonstrating their high quality. Supervision professional training foreseen for younger supervisors further reflects a strong commitment to supervision quality. The inclusion of individual action plans alongside the Career Development Plan clearly demonstrates commitment to progress monitoring and personalised development. WEAKNESSES - The Redress Committee is highlighted, but there is no clear indication of its composition regarding any external member outside the coordinator, which leaves potential conflict of interest insufficiently mitigated. In addition, the redress procedure is limited to factual and procedural shortcomings without clear explanation why so. - The proposal presents several inconsistencies (e.g., number of DCs to be recruited) which undermines its quality. - It is unclear how the call for external evaluators will be organised, how evaluators will be selected and/or invited and what the target number of experts is. - It is not sufficiently clear why research costs are split, with only half guaranteed and the second portion based on supervisors' claims. This raises concerns about equal treatment of all DCs. - The description of the data management remains largely generic and lacks project-specific detail. Given that several of the proposed projects are data-intensive, the proposal does not sufficiently explain concrete data-flows, where and how individual datasets will be stored and preserved, or the specific mechanisms for making them accessible to the wider public. The proposal falls short in addressing potential exploitation pathways for commercial use. - The proposal lacks a clear demonstration of how advanced tools and methods (such as artificial intelligence or blockchain for data collection) will be integrated, despite several projects being data-intensive. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.60 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: 30.00% ) 101339691/NAUTILUS-18/08/2026-14:49:27 3/5  The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: • Strengthening human resources good practices at institutional, regional, national or international level, in particular through aligning the practices of participating organisations with the principles set out by the EU for human resources development in research and innovation. • Credibility of the proposed measures to enhance the career perspectives and employability of researchers and contribution to their skills development. • Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities. STRENGTHS - The proposal shows the potential to strengthen the doctoral candiates' skills and improve HR practices at EU level. The programme demonstrates alignment with Estonian RDIE2035 and EU strategies, additionally highlights synergies with MSCA and Erasmus+, and demonstrates alignment with key policies including knowledge transfer, international mobility, Open Science, HRS4R and the European Charter for Researchers. - The programme, by combining high-level interdisciplinary research, innovation-focused training, mandatory industry internships and secondments, and international exposure, creates perspectives for DCs to strengthen their future employability. - The Communication plan is robust, with well defined activities, target groups, and KPIs. Public engagement and science popularisation are well embedded. WEAKNESSES - Dissemination and exploitation are insufficiently addressed, with unclear links between them. The potential to exploit the results is not sufficiently demonstrated and IP management is addressed only in general terms. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.30 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: 20.00% ) 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, management structures, assessment of risks and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages. • Quality and capacity of the host institution(s) and participating organisations (where appropriate), including hosting arrangements and extent to which they bring together the necessary expertise to successfully implement the research training programme. STRENGTHS - The management structure is well detailed, robust and appropriately designed to support effective implementation of all aspects of the programme. - The work plan is coherent and comprehensive, with a realistic timeline accurately illustrated in the Gantt chart. The work packages are clearly structured and pertinent, with consistent alignment between well-defined tasks, deliverables and milestones. - The applicant convincingly presents the availability of the coordinator’s necessary infrastructure (laboratories, technical resources, etc.), adequate administrative resources, and well-described key staff with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, to demonstrate their experience and capacity to deliver a high-quality research programme and excellent hosting arrangements for the doctoral candidates. WEAKNESSES - The proposal does not address properly the risk of consortia collaboration issues, non-cooperation or underperformance by associated partners and non- academic partners (e.g., potential issues related to the implementation of secondments, data sharing, and commercialisation of outputs are not fully considered), despite the overall risk estimation. - The contribution and specific commitments of the associated partners are not presented with sufficient clarity to fully demonstrate the complementarity of the partnership and successful implementation of the project. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 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) 101339691/NAUTILUS-18/08/2026-14:49:27 4/5  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 If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments Not provided 101339691/NAUTILUS-18/08/2026-14:49:27 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-08-18T14:49:33 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