contractual research - health.belgium.be · a mixed virtual pot/non-competitive mechanism is often...

Call for submission of new

RT, RF & RI project proposals

2020 call

Deadline for submission of proposals: April 18th, 2019 at 12 noon sharp

Contractual Research

relating to food safety and animal and plant health policy

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. Introduction 3

1.1 General context 3

1.2 Thematic call (RT projects) 3

1.3 Open call (RF projects) 3

1.4 International call (RI projects): plant health – Euphresco 4

1.5 Using the food consumption survey data 6

1.6 Submitting proposals

2. Thematic call (RT projects) 8

2.1 Step 1 8

2.1.1 Writing the RT pre-proposal 8

2.1.2 Evaluation of the RT pre-proposal 8

2.2 Step 2

2.2.1 Writing the RT full proposal 10

2.2.2 Evaluation of the RT full proposal 10

3. Open call (RF projects) 12

3.1 Step 1 12

3.1.1 Writing the RF pre-proposals 12

3.1.2 Evaluation of the RF pre-proposals 12

3.2 Step 2 18

3.2.1 Writing of the RF full proposal 18

3.2.2 Evaluation of the RF full proposal 18

4. International call (RI projects): plant health – Euphresco 19

4.1 Step 1 19

4.1.1 Writing the RI Expressions of Interest 19

4.1.2 Evaluation of the RI Expressions of Interest 19

4.2 Step 2 20

5. Additional information 20

2

Annexes 21

Annex 1 – Research topics (RT projects) 22

Annex 2 – Template RT pre-proposal (RT project 1st step) 35

Annex 3 – Template RT full proposal (RT project 2nd step) 39

Annex 4 – Template RF pre-proposal (RF project 1st step) 47

Annex 5 – Template RF full proposal (RF project 2nd step) 51

Annex 6 – Important information about the budget 59

Annex 7 – Table to be used for the budgetary overview 64

Annex 8 – Template to be used for the detailed budgetary information 65

Annex 9 – Research topics (RI projects): plant health - Euphresco 67

Annex 10 – Template Expression of Interest (RI project 1st step) 73

3

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General context

The Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment (FPS Health) allocates

grants for scientific research that supports its food safety and plant and animal health policy.

All the Belgian research institutions may apply in response to this call for proposals.

The Contractual Research unit is in charge of organising the call for proposals and overseeing

the selection procedure.

Research grants may be allocated for RT (Targeted Research), RF (“Free” Research – open

call) and RI (International Research) projects.

Due to budgetary restrictions, it is possible that in 2020 only a small number of projects may

be funded.

1.2 Thematic call (RT projects)

The thematic call is a call for proposals based on targeted research topics. Because of budgetary

restrictions, the thematic call has been changed compared to the preceding RT calls.

A distinction is made between priority topics on the one hand, and additional topics on the

other hand. The FPS Health will prioritise the funding of research projects submitted in

response to the priority topics.

RT research projects submitted in response to the additional topics may be funded in case the

budgetary situation allows it. Moreover, they will have to compete with the RF projects

submitted in response to the open call (cf. 1.3 Open call).

The evaluation and selection of the proposals are performed in two steps. In the first step, an

RT pre-proposal is submitted. If selected for the second step, this is followed by the submission

of a detailed full proposal.

During the first step the RT pre-proposals will be selected based on the evaluation of their

relevance with respect to the topic, the applicability of their results for the Government and

their scientific quality.

For the selected pre-proposals a fully elaborated and detailed full proposal needs to be

submitted in the second step. Then it will be evaluated in-depth for its relevance and scientific

quality.

During the 2018 call the general success rate for the RT projects was 66,7 %. The average

success rate per topic was 79,2 %.

1.3 Open call (RF projects)

In the framework of the open call, RF research proposals in support of policy relating to food

safety and animal and plant health are submitted. The subject of the RF proposals is determined

by the researchers.

In the first step, the research proposals are submitted as RF pre-proposals, which will be used

in the pre-selection procedure for evaluation of the relevance of the proposed research for food

safety and plant and animal health policy and evaluation of its scientific quality.

The selected applicants will be asked to submit a fully elaborated and detailed project proposal

4

in the second step. The scientific quality of the full proposal is then evaluated in-depth.

During the 2018 call the RF applicants had a success rate of 17,5 %. Due to budgetary

restrictions, it is possible that for the 2020 call only a small number of RF projects may be

funded. Moreover, the projects of the open call will have to compete with RT research projects

submitted in response to the additional topics (cf. 1.2 Thematic call and annex 1).

Consequently, the success rate in the RF call may be lower than that of the preceding calls.

1.4 International call (RI projects): plant health - Euphresco

The international call for proposals relates to targeted international research topics in the field

of plant health. These topics were selected out of a list drafted by the Euphresco network.

1.4.1 Introduction

Euphresco is an international network of organisations in the phytosanitary area. It currently

comprises ca. 70 organisations from more than 50 countries. The network office is hosted by

the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO, Paris). The network

aims to enhance coordination and collaboration in phytosanitary research funding.

More information about the network can be found on the website www.euphresco.net.

Every year Euphresco organizes a call to fund transnational research projects. Euphresco

transnational research funding is considered most appropriate for applied research in relatively

small projects of short to medium duration (1–3 years), i.e. enabling rapid and customized

answers to needs related to quarantine plant pests.

The funding mechanism and the project budget will be determined by the funders involved.

Within the Euphresco network, three main funding mechanisms are applied: real pot, virtual

pot and non-competitive mechanism.

The FPS Health can, within its regulatory framework, only participate via the virtual pot

mechanism, meaning that it can only fund its own, national research institutes, and only through

projects selected via a competitive procedure.

As many Euphresco-partners are able and prefer to work via the non-competitive mechanism,

a mixed virtual pot/non-competitive mechanism is often set up, as is the case here : the

Contractual Research unit of the FPS Health launches a virtual pot call for Belgian research

institutes. The selected Belgian consortium then joins the research consortium built by the

non-competitive partners.

http://www.euphresco.net/

5

1.4.2 Procedure

The FPS Health has selected five priority topics out of the list of 22 research priorities identified

by the Euphresco network (see annex 9).

The project proposals will be selected in a two-stage process.

In the first step, there is a call for the submission of Expressions of Interest (see annex 10) for

the five topics.

In a second step, invitations for submission of full proposals will be sent out for those

Expressions of Interest that are judged to be eligible.

The fully elaborated and detailed full proposals must describe the specific tasks of the Belgian

research providers as part of the transnational research project.

It will be evaluated for its relevance and scientific quality by an international Expert panel.

This second stage is managed by the Euphresco secretariat (Mr Baldissera Giovani). Based

on the results of the evaluation and after consultation of the Evaluation Committee of the

Contractual Research unit, the competent Minister will decide on the funding of the selected

proposals, taking into account the available budget.

Attention: this call is launched early in order to align the timing of the national call as closely

as possible with the overarching Euphresco timing. This has the following consequences.

• A number of the selected topics could drop out in a later stage, for instance because of

insufficient interest from the other transnational partners. Not later than Friday,

March 22nd, 2019 the Contractual Research unit will publish a first update of the topics

on its website. A final list will only be available mid-November 2019. This means that

even after the start of the second stage, topics may still be dropping out.

• Some topic descriptions, describing the transnational research ideas, are only concisely

developed. Fully elaborated topic descriptions will be available early July 2019, and

will be communicated to the coordinators of the proposals selected for the second stage.

The FPS Health will allocate a maximum total budget of € 200,000 for the current RI call.

This means that it’s possible that not all proposals receiving a positive evaluation will be

funded.

The requested grant must correspond with the real cost in relation to the duration, the nature,

the required equipment and expertise of the research needed to achieve the objectives pursued.

6

1.5 Using the food consumption survey data

Regarding project proposals that require using the data of the Belgian national food

consumption survey 2014 (FCS 2014), the options are the following.

1. Either you obtain access to the database containing the gross individual consumption

data, for use within a single specific project, by paying a €5,000 fee. The

pseudonymised dataset is put at your disposal after following the procedure of the

Information Security Committee (Chamber of Social Security and Health), as explained

on the FCS website. As an alternative, for risk exposure assessments, an anonymised

dataset can be put at your disposal without the procedure of the Information Security

Committee. Such a dataset comprises, besides food and food supplement consumption

data (i. e. 24-hour recalls linked with the food composition tables and food frequency

questionnaires), only the following information: age, gender, province, education level,

pregnancy/breast feeding, height, weight and waist circumference. In this case, the

researchers themselves need to provide the software, the expertise and the staff to

perform the calculations. For any questions on this subject, please contact Dr Karin De

Ridder ([email protected]) or Dr Jean Tafforeau

([email protected]) ;

2. or you commission Sciensano to perform the intake estimates. If you wish to do so,

please contact Dr Mirjana Andjelkovic of Sciensano's Chemical and physical health

risks service ([email protected]) prior to submitting the detailed

project proposal.

To give you an idea of the available data, the FPS Health is putting at your disposal the

frequency tables set up by Sciensano, on the Contract Research website, free of charge. These

tables show the consumption frequency of foodstuffs, grouped in several levels according to

the food classification system FOODEX. More specifically it shows how many people have

consumed a particular foodstuff or group of foodstuffs during the survey. Different variables

are shown:

• intake on the 1st day of the 24-hour recall (N_d1)

• intake on the 2nd day (N_d2)

• intake on 1 day only (N1day)

• intake on both days of the survey (N2days)

• fulfilment of criterion “At least 10 people consumed this foodstuff both on the 1st and

2nd day” (SPADE=1) or “Less than 10 people consumed this foodstuff both on the 1st

and 2nd day” (SPADE=0).

These frequency tables can be used, for instance:

• for setting priorities;

• for defining a sampling scheme;

• for assessing the feasibility of intake calculations. To calculate the “usual intake” with

the SPADE software, the number of people consuming the foodstuff both on the 1st and

2nd day must be at least equal to 10 (criterion “SPADE=1”).

https://fcs.wiv-isp.be/fr/sitepages/accueil.aspx

mailto:[email protected]



https://www.health.belgium.be/fr/recherche-contractuelle/appels-projets-ouverts

7

1.6 Submitting the proposals

Step 1

the RT and RF pre-proposals and the RI Expressions of Interest must be submitted no later

than

THURSDAY APRIL 18th, 2019 at 12 noon sharp.

Only an electronic version must be provided.

This is to be sent to: [email protected]

Project proposals submitted after this deadline will be considered ineligible.

Step 2

the RT, RF and RI full proposals must be submitted no later than

FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 27th, 2019 at 12 noon sharp.

Only an electronic version must be provided.

RT and RF full proposals are to be sent to: [email protected]

RI full proposals are to be sent to: [email protected]

Project proposals submitted after this deadline will be considered ineligible.




8

2. THEMATIC CALL (RT PROJECTS)

The RT project proposals are evaluated in two steps:

• step 1: submission of an RT pre-proposal

• step 2: submission of an RT full proposal.

The maximum duration of an RT project is mentioned in the topic description.

For the 2020 call a distinction is made between priority topics on the one hand, and additional

topics on the other hand : see also 2.1.2.2.

2.1 STEP 1

2.1.1 Writing the RT pre-proposal

All the required templates are available online on the website of the Contractual Research unit

(www.health.belgium.be/contractualresearch), under “Submitting a project proposal”.

• The research topics of the thematic call are listed in annex 1. The RT pre-proposals

must be drafted based on the listed information and the requirements set out in the topic

descriptions.

• Annex 2 provides the template to be used for the RT pre-proposals.

• Annex 6 contains important information for estimating the budget.

For your information: Annexes 7 and 8 must only be submitted in the second step.

The project pre-proposals are to be submitted digitally only (Word and pdf).

2.1.2 Evaluation of the RT pre-proposals

2.1.2.1 Eligibility of the RT pre-proposals

The eligibility of the RT pre-proposals will be evaluated based on:

1. their timely submission: by Thursday 18th of April, 2019, 12 NOON SHARP. The

date and the time of the e-mail shall constitute proof.

2. their form

• the proposals must be submitted in accordance with the guidelines set out in annex

2

• the indicated limits must be respected and the font of the text (Times New Roman,

font size 12) may not be modified

• the application shall consist of no more than 6 pages, excluding the title page and

the identification of the promoters

• the application shall be drawn up either in one or a combination of the national

languages, or else entirely in English.

3. their accordance with a topic

Only RT pre-proposals that correspond with one of the the topics listed in annex 1 and

which take into account the listed research questions and requirements shall be eligible

4. the absence of an overlap with existing or ongoing research

5. composition of the consortium

Only Belgian research institutions may participate in the consortium.

Please note: if you do not comply with these conditions, your pre-proposal

will be considered ineligible.

2.1.2.2 Evaluation of the contents of the RT pre-proposals

9

Only the RT pre-proposals that are deemed eligible will be evaluated according to the criteria

below:

1. the relevance score (out of 30 points) as an indication of the extent to which the pre-

proposal corresponds to a topic and the potential impact of the proposed research.

In particular, the following elements will be evaluated :

• the extent to which the proposal answers the requirements listed in the topic

description

• the value and applicability of the expected results

• the solution-oriented approach of the research

• the added value with regard to ongoing or existing research

• the potential contribution to policy decisions

Only the RT pre-proposals obtaining a relevance score of at least 21/30 will be included

in the scientific evaluation.

2. the scientific score (out of 20 points) as an indication of

• the scientific quality

• the methodology

• the originality

• the feasibility

of the proposed research.

The Evaluation Committee will normally be completing this evaluation by early July 2019.

The pre-proposals will be ranked by topic, based on the overall score out of 50 points. An

additional requirement is that the projects must have obtained a score of at least 13/20 for the

scientific aspect. A priority list of RT pre-proposals will be drafted based on this ranking.

Priority pre-proposals are the proposals at the top of the ranking list and for which the

Evaluation Committee gives a positive recommendation for inclusion in the priority list to the

competent Minister.

As mentioned under 1.2, the FPS Health will prioritise the funding of research projects

submitted in response to the priority topics. RT research projects submitted in response to

additional topics may be funded if the budgetary situation allows it. Moreover, they will need

to compete with the RF proposals in the open call.

During the second stage of the evaluation, priority RT proposals may be evaluated in

competition with other proposals submitted within the same topic. The scientific counsellor

will inform the promoters whether or not their proposal is in competition with (an)other one(s).

In addition, the promoters will be informed about any adjustments needed in the research

programme, the budget or the duration of the project.

10

2.2 Step 2

The coordinators of the priority RT pre-proposals will be asked to submit a detailed and fully

elaborated full proposal for the second step.

2.2.1 Writing the RT full proposals



• Annex 3 is the template to be used for the description of the RT full proposal.

• Annex 6 contains important information regarding the budget estimate.

• Annexes 7 and 8 are the templates to be used for the budget estimate.

The full proposals need to be submitted digitally only (Word and pdf). The budgetary tables

are to be provided in Excel.

2.2.2 Evaluation of the RT full proposals

2.2.2.1 Eligibility of the RT full proposals

The eligibility of the RT full proposals will be evaluated based on:

1. their timely submission: by Friday, 27th of September, 2019, 12 noon sharp. The

date and the time of the e-mail shall constitute proof.

2. their form


3




the identification of the promoters, but including the budgetary tables

• the application shall be drafted either in one or a combination of the national


Please note: if you do not comply with these conditions, your full

proposal will be considered ineligible.

http://www.health.belgium.be/contractualresearch

11

2.2.2.2 Evaluation of the contents of the RT full proposals

An Expert panel will evaluate the full proposals based on the following five criteria:

i. the scientific quality compared with international standards, and the researchers’

level of expertise

ii. the quality of the work plan

iii. the originality of the approach

iv. the feasibility in relation to the proposed objectives, the work plan, the

organisation and the requested budgetary resources

v. the relevance of the project with regard to the objectives described in the call.

When necessary, an oral defence may be permitted during the consensus meeting of the Expert

panel. Nonetheless, it is essential that a clear, complete project proposal be drawn up, and with

the greatest care.

The evaluation of the submitted RT proposals will normally be finalised in the period of

December 2019 – February 2020.

12

3. OPEN CALL (RF PROJECTS)

The RF proposals are evaluated in two steps:

• step 1: submission of an RF pre-proposal

• step 2: submission of an RF full proposal.

The running time allowed for RF projects is minimum 12 months and maximum 48 months.

Due to budgetary restrictions, it is possible that in 2020 only a small number of RF projects

may be funded.

3.1 STEP 1

3.1.1 Writing the RF pre-proposals



• Annex 4 is the template to be used for the RF pre-proposal.


For your information: Annexes 7 and 8 must only be submitted in the second step.

The project proposals are to be submitted digitally only (Word and pdf).

3.1.2 Evaluation of the RF pre-proposals

3.1.2.1 Eligibility of the RF pre-proposals

The eligibility of the RF pre-proposals will be evaluated based on administrative criteria and

criteria related to the contents:

Administrative criteria:

1. their timely submission: by Tuesday 18th of April, 2019, 12 noon sharp. The date

and the time of the e-mail shall constitute proof.

2. their form


4







3. composition of the consortium : only Belgian research institutions may participate in

the consortium.


13

Criteria related to the contents:

1. the absence of an overlap with the topics in the RT call or with existing or ongoing

research

2. the fields of research involved

The research topic must fit within the competences of Contractual Research:

Please note: if you do not comply with these conditions, your pre-proposal


In general, the research topics should fall within the fields of food safety, animal health

and / or plant health. The research must support or help prepare the policies in these

fields. More specifically this means that the research must provide knowledge which

supports the Government, in particular the FPS Health and the Federal Agency for the

Safety of the Food Chain (FASFC), in one or more of its tasks, including:

• drafting or adjusting legislation, recommendations or opinions

• drafting or adjusting control programs or (auto)control guides

• developing strategies for risk assessment or risk management

• implementing (analysis) methods for checking compliance with regulatory

requirements

• taking measures in crisis situations

• setting priorities or responding to new developments.

The valorisation of new knowledge by the Government can be situated at national,

European and / or international level.

The research topic may not fall within the competence of the regional authorities unless

the aspects that fall within the regional competence are co-funded.

If the project proposal contains work packages or parts of these that are outside the

specific scope of Contractual Research, they must be funded by an external funding

source as well.

The Government is entitled to a general and no-cost use of the results for supporting its

policies. The project proposal must therefore be designed in such a way that all results

can be communicated in detail to the Government (FPS Health and FASFC).

The following table gives a (non-exhaustive) overview of subjects that may and may

not fit within the scope of Contractual Research. Since a clear delineation is not always

possible, experts of the FPS Health and the FASFC assess the substantive admissibility

of each pre-proposal. Some of the examples included arise from the eligibility

evaluation of recent calls.

We recommend that you’d consult the overview of running and concluded projects as

well, which is published on the website of Contractual Research.

If you are unsure of the admissibility of your research idea, you can, before submitting

it, contact the scientific counsellors of the Contractual Research unit (Dr. Dominique

Vandekerchove or Dr. Ria Nouwen, see also "5. Additional information" on page 20).

https://www.health.belgium.be/en/overview-running-and-concluded-projects

14

General Eligible Not eligible

Food Safety

Research into the safety

of foodstuffs • throughout the chain (primary production, processing,

storage) up to the time of consumption: chemical and

microbial contaminants, toxins, additives, food

contact materials, nutritional supplements, novel

foods, GMOs, allergens, …

• emerging risks

• antimicrobial resistance

• developing new risk assessment aspects or methods

• developing new methods for sampling and/or analysis

• risk assessments

• intake studies

• research into contamination

• research into sources, routes, reduction and

prevention of contamination

• exploring the impact of possible control measures

• in vitro toxicological examination or animal tests for

contaminants

• investigating the transfer of chemical and microbial

contaminants of animal feed via animals to animal

products

• research in preparation for admission or reassessment

files for additives, novel foods, flavours, food

enzymes, plant protection products, decontamination

products, ….

• research into evidence of health claims

• research into food safety of crops grown by

individuals

• drug research

• human clinical examination

• environmental research

• biodiversity research

• sustainability research, unless there is a clear link

with food safety

• nutritional policy-based research (intake of sugar,

salt, fat, ...) unless there is a clear link with food

safety

• research into nutrient enrichment, unless this affects

food safety policy (e.g. overdose risk)

• research into the impact of exposure to chemical

agents (e.g. plant protection products) by inhalation

or skin contact on the health of employees or

individuals

• routine checks on compliance with existing standards

15


Animal Health

Research into diseases,

pathogens and/or

zoonotic agents in

livestock and bees, and

in wildlife if it can act

as a reservoir for

diseases in livestock

Research into

contaminants

• development of new diagnostic methods for animal

diseases

• epidemiological research

• risk factor research

• antimicrobial resistance and other cross-species risks


• developing new or improved methods for sampling

and/or analysis

• basic research for the identification of vaccine

antigens / proof-of-concept research for the testing of

vaccine antigens and vaccine applications under

specific Belgian animal husbandry conditions

• exploring the impact of possible disease control

measures

• study of zoonotic diseases

• research into chemical and microbial contaminants,

toxins, ... which may adversely affect animal health,

via animal feed or other contamination routes

• (re-)emerging risks

• disease warning and monitoring systems

• mere clinical research in pet animals

• mere zootechnical research

• genetic selection except when it is related to disease

resistance

• nutritional research

• mere animal welfare research (e.g. lameness)


16


Plant Health

Research into

organisms that are

harmful to cultivated

and / or wild plants,

including quarantine

organisms, organisms

that are new, unknown

or whose dissemination

is limited and for which

more information is

required in the context

of future regulation or

policy

• determination of the occurrence, distribution (pest

status) and settlement potential

• study of biology

• epidemiological research

• exploring the impact of possible control measures


• development of new methods for sampling and / or

diagnosis, identification or quantification

• risk assessments

• providing scientific elements for Pest Risk

Assessments (PRA)

• research into quality organisms

• research into invasive species under Regulation

1143/2014

• plant breeding research, except when the breeding

concerns greater (phytosanitary) disease resistance

• research into sustainable agriculture, except when it is

in the field of phytosanitary policy

• environmental research, except when it is in the field

of phytosanitary policy

• biodiversity research, except when it is in the field of

phytosanitary policy


17

3.1.2.2 Evaluation of the contents of the RF pre-proposals

Only the RF pre-proposals that are deemed eligible will be evaluated further, according to the

criteria below:

1. the relevance score (out of 30 points) as an indication of the expediency and the suitability

as research in support of policy and its potential impact. More specifically the following

elements will be evaluated :

a. is the research situated within the federal authorities’ priorities

b. the value and applicability of the expected results

c. the solution-oriented approach of the research

d. the added value with regard to ongoing or existing research

e. the potential contribution to policy decisions

f. the timing in relation to the policy agenda

g. the quantitative importance

h. the gravity of the problem

i. the budgetary impact

j. the social and ethical impact

k. the relevance in relation to sectoral needs

Only the RF pre-proposals obtaining a relevance score of at least 21/30 will be included in

the scientific evaluation.

2. the scientific score (out of 20 points) will be allocated as an indication of

l. the scientific level

m. the methodology

n. the originality

o. the feasibility

of the proposed research.

The Evaluation Committee will normally be completing this evaluation by early July 2019.

A ranking by field of activity will be drafted, based on the overall score out of 50 points. An

additional requirement is that the projects must have obtained a score of at least 13/20 for the

scientific aspect. Moreover, as mentioned under 1.3 the RF projects will need to compete with the

RT projects submitted in response to the additional topics. A priority list and a reserve list of RF

pre-proposals will be drafted based on this ranking.

Priority RF pre-proposals are the pre-proposals at the top of the ranking list and for which the

Evaluation Committee gives a positive recommendation for inclusion in the priority list to the

competent Minister. In addition, the pre-proposals must also fit in with the available research

budget of the FPS Health.

RF pre-proposals on the reserve list have a somewhat lower ranking than the priority pre-

proposals. They also require a positive recommendation from the Evaluation Committee before

they can be included in the reserve list. These projects will only receive a research grant if a budget

becomes available in the RT call or the priority RF group. Nonetheless, the reserve project

proposals shall be submitted to the same evaluation procedure as the priority proposals.

18

3.2 STEP 2

The coordinators of the priority and reserve RF pre-proposals will be asked to submit a detailed

and fully elaborated full proposal for the second step.

3.2.1 Writing the RF full proposals



• Annex 5 is the template to be used for the description of the RF full proposal.

• Annex 6 contains important information regarding the budget estimate.

• Annexes 7 and 8 are the templates to be used for the budget estimate.

The full proposals are to be submitted digitally only (Word and pdf). The budgetary tables are to

be provided in Excel.

3.2.2 Evaluation of the RF full proposals

3.2.2.1 Eligibility of the RF full proposals

The eligibility of the full proposals shall be evaluated based on:

1. their timely submission: by Friday, 27th of September, 2019, 12 noon sharp. The date

and the time of the e-mail shall constitute proof.

2. their form

• the proposals must be submitted in accordance with the guidelines set out in annex 5

• the indicated limits must be respected and the font of the text (Times New Roman, font

size 12) may not be modified

• the application may not exceed 30 pages; the only admissible annex is a bibliography

(not included in the 30 pages)



Please note: if you do not comply with these conditions, your full proposal


3.2.2.2 Evaluation of the contents of the RF full proposals

An Expert panel will evaluate the full proposals based on the following four criteria:

i. the scientific quality compared with international standards, and the researchers’

level of expertise

ii. the quality of the work plan

iii. the originality of the approach

iv. the feasibility in relation to the proposed objectives, the work plan, the organisation

and the requested budgetary resources.

If necessary, an oral defence may be permitted during the consensus meeting of the Expert panel.

Nonetheless, it is essential that a clear, complete project proposal be drawn up, and with the

greatest care.

The evaluation of the submitted RF full proposals will normally be finalised in the period

December 2019 – February 2020.


19

4. INTERNATIONAL CALL (RI-PROJECTS):

plant health – Euphresco

The RI proposals are evaluated in two steps:

• step 1: submission of an RI Expression of Interest

• step 2: submission of an RI full proposal

4.1 STEP 1

4.1.1 Writing the RI Expressions of Interest


(www.health.belgium.be/contractualresearch, under “Submitting a project proposal”.


• The research topics of the RI-call are listed in annex 9. The RI Expressions of Interest

must be drafted based on the listed information and the requirements set out in the topic

descriptions

• Annex 10 is the template to be used for the RI Expression of Interest.

The “Expressions of Interest” are to be submitted digitally only (Word and pdf).

4.1.2 Evaluation of the RI Expressions of Interest

The “Expressions of Interest” will be evaluated based on their eligibility only.

The eligibility of the RI Expressions of Interest will be evaluated based on:

1. their timely submission: by Thursday, 18th of April, 2019, 12 noon sharp. The date and

the time of the e-mail shall constitute proof.

2. their form

• the proposals must be submitted in accordance with the guidelines set out in annex 10

• the indicated limits must be respected and the font of the text (Times New Roman, font

size 12) may not be modified

• the application shall consist of no more than 4 pages, excluding the title page and the

identification of the promoters

• the application shall be drawn up in English.

3. their accordance with a topic

Only RI proposals that correspond with one of the topics listed in annex 9 shall be eligible.

4. the absence of an overlap with existing or ongoing research.

5. the composition of the consortium

Only Belgian research institutions may participate in the consortium.

Please note: if you do not comply with these conditions, your Expression of

Interest will be considered ineligible.


20

If you are unsure of the admissibility of your research idea, you can, before submitting it, contact

the competent scientific counsellor of the Contractual Research unit (Dr. Ria Nouwen, see also

"5. Additional information" below).

4.2 STEP 2

The applicants of the eligible RI Expressions of Interest will be asked to submit a detailed and

fully elaborated full proposal for the second step.

This step will be managed by the Euphresco-secretariat coordinator, i.e. by Mr Baldissera Giovani.

The applicants will receive the guidelines and templates by mid-July 2019.

The full proposals must be submitted no later than Friday, September 27th, 2019, 12 noon sharp.

The evaluation of the submitted RI full proposals is to be finalised no later than mid-November

2019.

After consultation of the Evaluation Committee, the competent Minister will decide on the funding

of the selected projects.

5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION You can contact the scientific counsellors of the Contractual Research unit for additional

information:

Dr. Dominique VANDEKERCHOVE

(Tel.: 02/524.90.91 – [email protected]) or

Dr. Ria NOUWEN

(Tel.: 02/524.90.92 – [email protected])

21

ANNEXES

22

Annex 1

Research topics (RT projects)

PRIORITY TOPICS Maximum

duration

(years)

Maximum

grant

Animal health

1 Evaluation of new vaccines and developpement of appropriate

vaccination schedules for Newcastle disease (NCDVAC)

3 € 300.000

Plant health

2 Phytosanitary status of pests for plants and plant products

(HARMSTAT)

2 € 200.000

Food safety

3 Intake of free glutamate (FREEGLUTAMATE) 2 € 200.000

4 Study on the toxicity of Alternaria toxins (ALTERTOX) 2 € 200.000

ADDITIONAL TOPICS Maximum

duration

(years)

Maximum

grant

Animal health

5 Surveillance indicators for the monitoring of side effects

resulting from reduced antibiotic use in livestock (SEREDAB)

2 € 200.000

Plant health

6 Development of a practical phytosanitary analysis for

Vaccinium berries (BERRYPEST)

2 € 200.000

Food safety

7 Development, on the basis of glyphosate and neonicotinoids as

case-control studies, of a decision support grid to integrate the

issue of alternatives when examining or considering decisions

to withdraw pesticides (DECALPE)

2 € 150.000

23

1. Evaluation of new vaccines and development of appropriate vaccination schedules for

Newcastle disease (NCDVAC)

Context

The recent epidemic of Newcastle disease with a genotype not previously circulating in our region

(i.e. genotype VII i) has shown that in the professional sector as well, despite compulsory

vaccination and prescribed vaccination schedules, protection is insufficient. This may be partly

due to sub-optimal execution of vaccination but, certainly in broilers, incomplete or no active

immunity is induced (due to the short life span of broilers).

In order to get a better view of the situation and to be able to provide more optimal vaccination

schedules, it is necessary to assess the effectiveness of the available and recently developed

vaccines and vaccination schedules.

Research questions

• Assessment of existing vaccination schedules for the protection of backyard poultry,

broilers, laying hens and breeding poultry against Newcastle disease

• Develop and assess new vaccination schedules using existing or newly developed vaccines

to provide optimal protection for backyard poultry, broilers, laying hens and breeding

poultry against Newcastle disease. Priority should be given to new vaccination schedules

for those poultry categories for which existing vaccination schedules do not provide

sufficient protection

• Development of methods to measure the immunity of vaccinated poultry in field

conditions.

Maximum duration : 3 years

Maximum research grant : € 300,000

24

2. Phytosanitary status of pests for plants and plant products (HARMSTAT)

Context

When noticing outbreaks of pests that had not previously been encountered (within the EU or in a

Member State), the Member State concerned must take measures to at least prevent their spread to

other Member States. Based on a risk analysis, further measures (e. g. monitoring) can be taken

against such plant pests.

Under the new plant health legislation, work is being carried out for updating the lists of regulated

organisms according to their spread. Moreover, the lists of registered pests can vary depending on

updated data on the presence of those pests and a recent analysis of their risk. New lists are then

established based on a pest categorisation or a complete risk analysis of the pest, performed

following the initiative of a Member State or, for instance, a request made to the EFSA. In turn,

those bodies are referred to national authorities for providing the specific information needed as

an input for the risk analysis.

For some pests, too little information is available to surely assign their plant health status and there

is no certainty about their presence or absence in Belgium. Performing a survey is the most reliable

way to determine or verify such a status (ISPM 8). Besides, for some of those pests, the

development of a diagnostic method or the acquisition of know-how about it is required.

Under the new plant health legislation, more accent is laid on prevention than previously, which

means that a timely sensitization of scientists, operators as well as the wide public plays a major

role. Research into the presence of specific pests about which a problem has arisen can provide an

important contribution to this.

Research questions

• The research to be carried out will make it possible for the FPS Health to determine the status

of the pests to be studied for plants and plant products in Belgium, while essentially providing

a deeper investigation into their biology, geographic spread, host plants, entry and establisment

potential. A precise methodology is needed, combined with a thorough monitoring plan.

Additional research for finalising diagnosis methods may be included if necessary.

• The list of pests to be examined that is provided below, is mainly based on the EPPO alert list,

completed with pests about which new problems have arisen (as reported chiefly by the

Permanent Plant Health Committee and its working groups). The consortium shall include as

many pests mentioned as possible, with a minimum of six, within the requested budget.

25

EPPO alert list

• Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens pv. poinsettiae

• Meloidogyne ethiopica and Meloidogyne luci (+ possibly other tropical organisms such as

M. enterolobii)

• Meloidogyne graminicola

• Agrilus fleischeri

• Agrilus bilineatus

• Xylotrechus chinensis

• Sirococcus tsugae

Recent outbreaks in the EU:

• Tetranychus mexicanus

• Tomato brown rugose fruit virus

Maximum duration : 2 years

Maximum research grant : € 200,000

26

3. Intake of free glutamate (FREEGLUTAMATE)

Context

In the past, additives of the glutamate group were assigned an ADI 'not specified' by the European

Scientific Committee for Food. Such conclusion is made for substances of a very low safety

concern. Consequently, these additives were listed in Group I and the additives were authorised

in all food except some food categories.

Under the review programme of all additives (Regulation 257/2010), the EFSA published in 2017

a re-evaluation of the glutamates. With this re-evaluation, the situation has changed: there is now

a quantitative ADI (acceptable daily intake) of 30 mg/kg body weight per day for the group

consisting of glutamic acid (E620), monosodium glutamate (E621), monopotassium glutamate

(E622), calcium diglutamate (E623), monoammonium glutamate (E624) and magnesium

diglutamate (E625). In this group of additives, monosodium glutamate (MSG) is the most

frequently used. The ADI is expressed in terms of free glutamic acid. It applies to all people except

infants below 16 weeks of age and hence not only to hypersensitive people. The ADI is derived

from a neurotoxicity study.

At least certain persons are sensitive to the so-called MSG symptom complex involving, among

others, headache and neurological effects.

EFSA has also estimated the exposure and compared it with the ADI. The ADI is exceeded even

for the mean consumer of all population groups. Excess doses are greater with children than with

adults. EFSA estimated that for Belgian children, the exposure was the highest of all children in

the EU.

At the moment of re-evaluation, EFSA was not ready to use the most recent Belgian national food

consumption data.

For a food category such as fine bakery wares, more refined estimates are needed than what EFSA

did; e.g. it is appropriate to assign another glutamate concentration level to savoury biscuits than

to sweet biscuits.

Data on free glutamate in foods for infants and toddlers are very limited. More data are needed.

Concentration data are not only needed to estimate the exposure, but also to provide targeted

knowledge to serve as a basis for the elaboration of risk management options aimed to reduce the

exposure.

Exposure comes from several sources. The use of additives is relevant for the exposure resulting

from foods with umami taste such as meat products, soups, snacks and (salty) biscuits, sauces,

noodles and ready-to-eat foods. Other sources than the use of additives are the use of hydrolysed

proteins such as in yeast extract, the development of free glutamate during fermentation and so on.

There are no data on free glutamate in food in Belgium as far as we are aware.

The analytical data obtained during the project should be sent to EFSA.

27

Research questions

1. Identification/development and validation of an appropriate analysis method for free

glutamate in a large number of food categories

2. Elaboration of a sampling scheme, sampling and analysis of free glutamate (survey

occurrence data) in at least 300 foods pertaining to many kinds of food categories that

potentially contribute to the total exposure of consumers to free glutamate, focussing in the

first place on the refined exposure estimate for children. The survey should include foods

for infants containing hydrolysed proteins.

3. Refined exposure estimate of free glutamate and contribution of different food categories

to the total intake, for several groups of age: children, adolescents, adults, (very) elderly

people. The estimate should be using the new analytical data as well as European analytical

data and the most recent refined Belgian national food consumption data.

4. Specific investigation into the potential exposure of infants and young children (< 3 years),

including consumers of food containing hydrolysed proteins

5. Investigation into factors influencing the concentration of free glutamate (besides the use

of additives) and estimation of their relative importance: estimated contribution to

glutamate intake resulting from additives, from yeast extract, ...

Maximum duration: 2 years

Maximum research grant: € 200,000

28

4. Study on the toxicity of Alternaria toxins (ALTERTOX)

Context

Alternaria toxins are secondary metabolites produced by fungi that contaminate cereals, oil seeds,

fruits and vegetables.

In 2011, the EFSA Expert Group on Chemical Contaminants (CONTAM Panel) assessed the risks

to public health from the presence of Alternaria toxins in food. This risk assessment covered 4 of

the known Alternaria toxins, namely alternariol (AOH), alternariol monomethyl ether (AME),

tenuazonic acid (TeA) and tentoxin (TEN). The data reported at the time were characterized by a

high proportion of left-censored data. The highest concentrations were reported in sunflower seeds

and the contribution to dietary exposure was mainly due to grains and seed products, vegetables

and vegetable products and in particular tomato products, fruits and fruit products, alcoholic

beverages, oil seeds and plant oils.

The CONTAM Panel noted that the available toxicity data were limited. Therefore the Threshold

of Toxicological Concern (TTC) approach was used to assess the level of health concern of these

mycotoxins. The TTC approach has been developed to set priorities in assessing the toxicity of

chemical compounds. If the toxicity threshold is exceeded, specific toxicity studies on the

compound should be carried out to further characterize the risks.

In 2016, the CONTAM Panel estimated the dietary exposure of Alternaria toxins in the European

population.

The foodstuffs contributing to dietary exposure were similar to those described in the 2011

opinion. The main difference was the contribution of tomatoes and tomato products especially for

TeA exposure.

EFSA's chronic exposure estimate shows that the TTC threshold for the toxins AOH, AME and

TeA has been exceeded, which means additional toxicity data on these compounds are needed.

While chronic exposure to the main Alternaria toxins appears to be well described, this is not the

case for toxicity data. The EFSA opinion (2011) reported a lack of toxicological data. From a

toxicokinetic point of view, data on the absorption, distribution and excretion of Alternaria toxins

in animals and humans are missing. No data is available on the metabolism of Alternaria toxins

in animals, except for AOH, AME and ALT. Reproductive and developmental studies are limited.

There are no data demonstrating either toxic effects related to food intake and carcinogenicity or

in vivo genotoxicity of Alternaria toxins.

In the 2011 opinion the CONTAM Panel recommended the need for more toxicity data, and

specifically

- data on toxicokinetics, including metabolic data,

- toxicity data on OAH and AME to assess risks, and

- data on the genotoxicity of Alternaria toxins.

29

Research questions

The objective is to investigate the toxicity of Alternaria toxins and particularly the toxins AOH,

AME and TeA in order to contribute to the establishment of a specific toxicological end-point for

these toxins.



30

5. Surveillance indicators for the monitoring of side effects resulting from reduced antibiotic

use in livestock (SEREDAB)

Context

Belgium - and by extension Europe - is making great efforts to drastically reduce antibiotic use in

(intensive) livestock production, hoping to stop the emergence of antibiotic resistance. In this

scheme, the accent is laid on reducing the use of major human critical antibiotics next to a general

decrease of the use.

The first studies on the impact of a reduced antibiotic use do not indicate any negative effects on

animal health or profitability (Rojo-Gimeno et al., 2016). Nevertheless, one should be aware that

antibiotics are and remain important for maintaining the health and welfare of production animals.

Possibly can a more dramatic decrease of antibiotic use really involve negative consequences for

animal health and welfare, and for the economic and technical performance of cattle farming.

In its report on the One-Health AMR country visit, the European Commission recommends

maintaining a surveillance when setting ambitious goals to make sure this does not jeopardize

animal health, animal welfare, the economic feasibility of animal production and the profitability

of farms. One of the actions within the Belgian Federal AMR action plan 2019-2020 is monitoring

the mortality of calves.

To get a better sight of the situation, it is essential to rely on several parameters. A higher mortality

is not necessarily the result of reduced antibiotic use, other factors too can induce an increased

mortality. Moreover, mortality is a very advanced stage of the disease process. Other indicators

can possibly provide a view on earlier disease stages and on the prevalence of endemic diseases

and production diseases.

Besides, one of the reasons why too many antibiotics are used is precisely a poor animal health

and/or welfare and these aspects should be improved first to obtain better results with less

antibiotic use. Surveillance indicators should take both aspects into consideration to avoid the

acceptance of high antibiotic use in certain situations.

Possible indicators:

- mortality

- morbidity percentage

- prevalence of injuries in slaughterhouses

- production facts (daily growth, duration of the fattening phase, milk production, ...)

- acute protein phase (Tothova et al., 2014)

- certain blood values

- etc.

31

Research questions

• Development and validation of surveillance indicators for the monitoring of side effects

resulting from reduced antibiotic use in livestock. Veal calves, pigs, broilers and breeding

poultry are a priority. Inclusion of other cattle types and laying hens is a plus.

• Finalization of a manual for using the selected surveillance indicators.



32

6. Development of a practical phytosanitary analysis for Vaccinium berries (BERRYPEST)

Context

The part of fruit crops represents 17% of the total EU agricultural production. The estimated EU

trade in fruit and vegetables amounts to €120 billion, involving 550,000 workers and 1.4 million

producers. Pests destroy 14% of the potential food production, which means an impact of about

€10 billion.

New emerging pests and quarantine pests keep on threatening fruit production with as most recent

example the introduction and rapid spread of Drosophila suzukii in the EU. The search for a

solution to control this problematic pest led to the European research project DROPSA. One part

of this project, coordinated by the EPPO, consisted in searching for historic introductions and other

new threats to EU fruit farming, linked with fruit import. The outcome of the study was the

establishment of alert lists of potential pests possibly introduced with apple, mandarin/orange

fruits, table grapes or Vaccinium berries. The study also laid the basis for a methodology for

analysing the risk of commodities, compared with historic risk analyses that rather focus on

individual pests (https://www.eppo.int/RESOURCES/special_projects/dropsa).

Within the new European plant health legislation under Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, European

work has been carried out in 2017-2018 to establish a list of high risk plants for planting, plant

products and other items. Plants for planting are hereby already considered separately in the

legislation due to their risk. Notably through the DROPSA project analysis, fruit also has been

identified as a pathway, while it is traditionally considered as presenting a lower risk in comparison

with plants for planting.

The cultivation of Vaccinium berries in Belgium is an upcoming crop, going together with an

increasing demand for plants (through importation or own production). In a recent past, too, new

pest infestations have been discovered in Belgium and the EU that were possibly linked with the

import of plant material such as Thekopsora minima. Each new pest goes together with new

problems such as the question of the necessity of a regulation, the origin and extent of the

dissemination, the sensitivity of indigenous species and control options.

Based on the abovementioned situation, Vaccinium is a good candidate for practical testing of the

alert list established in the DROPSA project concerning the pests linked with fruit import as well

as for the determination of the status of that crop in general.

https://www.eppo.int/RESOURCES/special_projects/dropsa

33

Research questions

• Which pests can be identified in Vaccinium that have possibly been imported or are

being imported through the international trade of plant material and consumption

products (fruit)?

o To what extent can pests identified in the EPPO study, be found when importing

fruit or after import?

o Which ones are present (whether or not in a latent state) in imported and/or own

plant material?

• What is the present spectrum of pests in Vaccinium berries production in Belgium?

• What is the status of recent EU introductions (Thekopsora minima, Blueberry scorch

virus, …) and the associated risk in Belgium (possible control options, sensitivity of

indigenous species, …)

• Which preventive measures and control strategies can be proposed based on EPPO-

DROPSA recommendations and the results of this project?



34

7. Development, on the basis of glyphosate and neonicotinoids as case-control studies, of a

decision support grid to integrate the issue of alternatives when examining or considering

decisions to withdraw pesticides (DECALPE)

Context

Recent cases of scientific and societal controversies concerning plant protection products suggest

that withdrawals of approvals of substances will be more frequent in the future, in particular for

reasons of health and environment protection, or even as a result of court decisions or choices

made by approval holders. However, these withdrawals must be considered in full knowledge of

the facts, in order to avoid having sectors that do not have alternatives, but also to prevent practices

or alternatives that are harmful to health or the environment from being implemented.

Research questions

• The main objective of this work is to initiate complementary work to the “National

Pesticide Reduction Plans”, in order to create the conditions for developing and

encouraging sustainable alternatives to the use of plant protection products, with priority

given to the most problematic substances of concern.

• This work should be based on two case-control studies leading to the development of a

decision support grid:

o can a ban on glyphosate lead to exposure to other herbicidal substances?

Elaborating a benefit/risk balance in terms of consumer exposure in proportion to

food safety under realistic exit scenarios

o prohibiting neonicotinoids may prove counterproductive in the case of beet

growing for pollinators: elaborating a benefit/risk balance in terms of exposure of

pollinators if the use could not benefit from emergency authorizations. The

risk/benefit analysis should also consider the potential effect of an adapted

herbicide policy on the contamination of food with toxic weeds and the associated

risks to food safety (pyrrolizidine and tropane alkaloids, etc.)

o development of a decision support grid to integrate the issue of alternatives when

examining or considering withdrawal decisions.



35

Annex 2

Send this form in digital form (Word and pdf) to:

[email protected]

CONFIDENTIAL

RT PRE-PROPOSAL

(RT PROJECT 1st STEP)

MAX. 6 PAGES (EXCL. TITLE PAGE AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROMOTERS

1. CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT PROPOSAL

[TITLE OF THE TOPIC]

[ACRONYM OF THE TOPIC]

[Title of the project proposal]

2. IDENTIFICATION OF THE COORDINATOR Name

First name

Title or position

Institute and department

Address for correspondence

Phone

Mobile phone

E-mail

Will this research be conducted in a consortium (with the partners included in the

budget)? If yes, please list the other promoters here (name, affiliation and e-mail

address)

36

3. REPETITION OF THE ACRONYM OF THE TOPIC AND PROJECT TITLE

4. CONTEXT

4.1 Description of the context of this project proposal, taking into account the topic

description (about 20 lines)

4.2 To which extent are you involved in the general problem on which this project proposal

is based? (about 20 lines)

What is your expertise in this field? Have you already conducted research in this field or are

you currently conducting research? If yes, please list the project title(s), the start and end

dates of your research and identify the institution that provided a grant for the research.

Are you working with other institutions in Belgium and/or abroad? If yes, are you a member

of a network?

4.3 To your knowledge, which other projects were recently conducted or are currently

ongoing or planned on the subject, excluding the projects listed under 4.2? (about 10

lines)

Please list the project title(s), the start and end dates of your research and identify the funding

institutions..

5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS (about 20 lines)

To which research question(s) must the proposed study provide an answer to contribute to a

solution to the problem described in the topic?

6. IMPACT OF THE RESEARCH SUBJECT (about 10 lines)

Can the proposed research provide a solution to the described problem?

What will be the (direct or indirect) applicability of the intended results for the authorities,

in the short, medium or long term?

7. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT PROPOSAL

If necessary, brief references may be included in the text (e.g. Johnson et al., 2012).

7.1 Methodology (about 40 lines)

Describe the methodology you will use for this research. Has this methodology been

previously used, by the applicants, by other Belgian researchers or by foreign researchers?

7.2 Available scientific proof in relation to the proposed research (about 20 lines)

Has other research in relation to the proposed subject already yielded convincing elements

(“proof”) which can be used as a starting point for this project? List this research in order of

importance. In which respect is the current project proposal innovative?

37

7.3 Required data (about 10 lines)

Are there any data and/or preliminary knowledge available, which is required for this study?

If yes, is it available in accessible databases? If no data are available yet, then please explain

how these data can be obtained.

7.4 Risks (about 10 lines)

What are the inherent obstacles and/or risks to the proposed project that may compromise its

chances of success? Which solutions do you propose?

8. USE OF THE RESEARCH RESULTS (about 10 lines)

How do you intend to use the results?

- as an intermediary stage for complementary research activities

- for the development, realisation, or dissemination of a procedure or a service

- for the dissemination of new knowledge through scientific publications

9. BUDGETARY INFORMATION

Please refer to the important information in Annex 6.

For your information: Annexes 7 and 8 must only be submitted in the second step

9.1 Total duration of the proposed project … months

9.2 Total budget for this project proposal € …….

9.3 Requested research grant € …….

The requested grant – 1 figure only – can be equal to the overall budget or to a percentage of

this budget. In the latter case, please state the origin of your external financial contribution.

9.4 In which case: percentage of co-funding …… %

9.5 In which case: origin of the co-funding

38

9.6 Persons included in the budget, their qualification (e.g. PhD, PhD student, engineer,

Ma., pharmacist, lab technician, et al.), affiliation and time spent on the research in

person-months (P-M)

Qualification Name (if known) Affiliation (research

centre)

P-M

NB : have the conditions below been

respected?

If not, your proposal will be

considered ineligible:

- timely submission: by Thursday, 18thof

April, 2019, 12 noon sharp

- the application shall consist of no more

than 6 pages, excluding the title page and


- the font of the text (Times New Roman,


- the application shall be drawn up either in

one or a combination of the national

languages, or else entirely in English

- only Belgian research institutions may

participate in the consortium.

Date, name and signature of the coordinator, as

representative of the consortium

39

Annex 3 Send this form in digital form (Word and pdf, and Excel for annexes 7 and 8) to:

[email protected]

CONFIDENTIAL

FULL THEMATIC PROPOSAL

(RT PROJECT 2nd step) MAX. 30 PAGES (excluding title page and identification of the consortium, but including

the budgetary tables)

[TITLE OF THE TOPIC]

[ACRONYM OF THE TOPIC]


Total budget required for the research: € …….

Requested research grant and % of the overall budget: € …….

…… %

In which case: origin of the co-funding:

Proposed start date: …/…/………

Proposed duration of the project: ……. months

40

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE CONSORTIUM

1.1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE COORDINATOR

NB : maximum one coordinator Name

First name

Title or position



Phone

Mobile phone

E-mail

1.2 IDENTIFICATION OF PROMOTER 2 (optional)

NB: maximum one promoter per research group Name

First name

Title or position



Phone

Mobile phone

E-mail



First name

Title or position



Phone

Mobile phone

E-mail


NB: maximum one promoter per research group

Name

First name

Title or position



Phone

Mobile phone

E-mail

41



First name

Title or position



Phone

Mobile phone

E-mail

Box for completion by the Contractual Research Unit

Expert panel

Title

Name

Affiliation

42

2. GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1 Title of the project in English and Dutch or English and French + acronym

2.2 Research questions to which the candidate shall provide an answer in this study, in

English and Dutch or English and French (about 20 lines each)

2.3 Executive summary of the project (about 20 lines)

2.4 Motivation for submitting the project proposal under this topic (about 15 lines)

When stating the research objectives, the applicability of the results for the federal authorities

(direct or indirect; short, medium or long term) must be explained.

2.5 Context: scientific specificity and setting in relation to existing research (about 2.5

pages)

• How is the current project proposal scientifically and technically innovative? Has other

research in relation to the proposed subject already yielded convincing elements that can

be used as a starting point for this project? Which data and preliminary knowledge are

required for this study and are these available or accessible? A bibliography may be

appended.

• What are the achievements of the applicants and/or the researchers in this field? Have you

already conducted research in this field or are you currently conducting research? If yes,

please list the project title(s), the start and end dates of your research and identify the

institution that provided a grant for the research.

• The proposed specific approach to the problem must be justified.

2.6 Use of the expected research results (about 5 lines)






What are the inherent obstacles and/or risks to the proposed project that may compromise

the chances of achieving the objectives within the term you propose? Which solutions do

you propose?

2.8 Proposal for a steering committee (minimum 8 persons, listing affiliation and e-mail

address)

Title – Name – First name Organisation E-mail

43

2.9 Name and identification of the persons who must sign the contract if the project is

eligible for a research grant

Institution Name Position

[NAME]

… ...

[NAME]

… ...

[NAME]

… ...

[NAME]

… ...

[NAME]

… ...

[NAME]

… ...

[NAME]

… ...

44

3. SPECIFIC INFORMATION

3.1 Scientific and operational methodology of the proposed research (about 15 pages)

• This section constitutes the core of the project proposal. It must contain a clear description

of the research activities as planned for the total duration of the project.

• Important elements in the description of the various subtasks of the research programme

are:

- an overview of the proposed research, subdivided into work packages and (sub)tasks,

including an indication of the estimated budget for every work package;

- the proposed methods and technologies with their respective (dis)advantages,

limitations, risks and alternatives,…

- the milestones to be achieved, linked to possible reorientations in the project where

applicable;

- the time frame and evolution over time based on the following chronogram, including

milestones and deliverables:

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total

budget

per WP* Code t1 t2 t3 t4 t1 t2 t3 t4 t1 t2 t3 t4 t1 t2 t3 t4

WP1

T1.1.

T1.2.

…

WP2

T2.1.

T2.2.

T2.3.

WP3

…

t: trimester

* total budget per work package: staffing + operational + general costs

45

3.2 Structure and organisation of the research (about 2 pages)

• Indicate the distribution of the various tasks among the consortium partners using the

following table:

Code Task description Contracting

institution(s)

Required

personnel

(qualifications)

P-M

WP1

T1.1.

T1.2.

….

WP2

T2.1.

T2.2.

T2.3.

…

WP: work package

T: task

P-M: person-months

• Please also state whether you are working with foreign partners or participating in

networks, insofar as this is relevant to this project proposal.

• Also indicate whether you are planning a cooperation or whether complementarity exists

with research groups that do not request a financial contribution from the FPS Health for

this project but receive research grants from other bodies to conduct their own research.

• Indicate whether you submitted your project (or sub-project) to another body than the FPS

Health.

3.3 Own publications in peer-reviewed international journals in this field of research in the

past five years

46


Please refer to the important information in Annex 6

4.1 Budgetary overview table

Please insert the table which you can find in annex 7 on the website

(www.health.belgium.be/contractualresearch) under “open calls” here and submit the table

separately as well as an Excel sheet.

4.2 Detailed budget proposal

Please draft the detailed budget proposal using the Excel sheet provided in annex 8, which

can be downloaded from the website (www.health.belgium.be/contractualresearch) under

“open calls”. The budget proposal is to be inserted here and submitted separately as an Excel

sheet.

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY


respected?



- timely submission: by Friday, 27th of

September, 2019, 12 noon sharp



the identification of the promoters, but

including the budgetary tables











https://www.health.belgium.be/en/contractual-research/open-calls

http://www.health.belgium.be/contractualresearch)

https://www.health.belgium.be/en/contractual-research/open-calls

47

Annex 4

Send this form in digital form (Word and pdf) to:

[email protected]

CONFIDENTIAL

RF PRE-PROPOSAL

(RF PROJECT 1st STEP)

MAX. 6 PAGES (excluding the title page and identification of the consortium)

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROJECT PROPOSAL

Project title (max. 3 lines) + proposal for an acronym

Most important field of activity to which

this project proposal relates (only tick

one field please)

Additional field(s) of activity to which this

project proposal relates

Food safety

Animal health

Plant health

Food safety

Animal health

Plant health

2. IDENTIFICATION OF THE COORDINATOR Name

First name

Title or position



Phone

Mobile phone

E-mail



address)

48

3. REPETITION OF THE PROJECT TITLE + PROPOSAL FOR AN ACRONYM

4. CONTEXT

4.1 Description of the context of this project proposal (about 20 lines)

What is the problem? What causes it?

4.2 To which extent are you involved in the general problem on which this project proposal

is based? (about 20 lines)

What is your expertise in this field? Have you already conducted research in this field or are

you currently conducting research? If yes, please list the project title(s), the start and end

dates of your research and identify the institution that provided a grant for the research.

Are you working with other institutions in Belgium and/or abroad? If yes, are you a member

of a network?

5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS (about 20 lines)

To which research question(s) must the proposed study provide an answer to contribute to a

solution to the problem listed under 4.1?

6. IMPACT OF THE RESEARCH SUBJECT

6.1 Incidence (about 5 lines)

Does this research proposal relate to a quantitatively important problem, which occurs

frequently or affects a large number of individuals?

6.2 Seriousness of the problem (about 5 lines)

Does the research subject present a serious risk or could it present a serious risk for food

safety or the health policy of animals and plants in terms of

- their health, quality of life?

- the effectiveness or the quality of actions (cures, recommendations, drugs or measures)?

- social or ethical questions?

6.3 Financial impact (about 5 lines)

Does the subject potentially have an influence on

- the current impact of the problem (including on sustainable development)?

- the resources that are used for the problem and their effectiveness?

6.4 Does the research subject correspond with a concern of society or the population?

(about 5 lines)

6.5 Is the implementation of the results yielded by this research acceptable for the sector

involved? In other words, does the research fulfil the sector’s expectations? (about 5

lines)

49

6.6 Possibilities for improving the situation (about 5 lines)

Can the proposed research provide a solution to the described problem? If yes, for which of

the levels listed under 6.2.-6.3 would this be the case and is this a short, medium or long-

term solution?

7. RELEVANCE FOR THE AUTHORITIES’ DECISIONS (about 10 lines)

How can this research potentially support the decisions that the Authorities must take? What

would be the risk if the situation remains “as is”?

Who is involved in the execution of this study and who are the stakeholders for the

implementation of the research results?

8. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT PROPOSAL

If necessary, brief references may be included in the text (e.g. Johnson et al., 2012).

8.1 Methodology (about 40 lines)

Describe the methodology you will use for this research. Was this methodology previously

applied, by the applicants, by other Belgian researchers or by foreign researchers?

8.2 Available scientific proof in relation to the proposed research (about 20 lines)

Has other research in relation to the proposed subject already yielded convincing elements

(“proof”) which can be used as a starting point for this project? List this research in order of

importance. In what respect is the current project proposal innovative?

8.3 Required data (about 10 lines)

Are there any data and/or preliminary knowledge available, which is required for this study?

If yes, are these data available in accessible databases? If no data are available yet, then

please explain how these data can be obtained.


What are the inherent obstacles and/or risks to the proposed project that may compromise its

chances of success? Which solutions do you propose?

9. USE OF THE RESEARCH RESULTS (about 10 lines)







For your information: annexes 7 and 8 are only to be submitted in the second step of the

selection procedure.

10.1 Total duration of the proposed project

(min. 12 months – max. 48 months) …… months



50

The requested grant – 1 figure only – can be equal to the overall budget or to a percentage

of this budget. In the latter case, please state the origin of your external financial

contribution.


10.5 In which case: origin of the co-funding …….

10.6 Persons included in the budget, their qualification (e.g. PhD, PhD student, engineer,

Ma., pharmacist, lab technician, et al.), affiliation and time spent on the research in

person-months (P-M)

Qualification Name (if known) Affiliation P-M


respected?



- timely submission: by Thursday, 18th of

April, 2019, 12 noon sharp













51

Annex 5 Send this form in digital form (Word and pdf, and Excel for annexes 7 and 8) to:

[email protected]

CONFIDENTIAL

RF FULL PROPOSAL

(RF PROJECT 2nd STEP) MAX. 30 PAGES (excluding title page and identification of the consortium, but including

the budgetary tables)

[ACRONYM]


Total budget required for the research: € …….

Requested research grant and % of the overall budget: € …….

…… %

In which case: origin of the co-funding:

Proposed start date: …/…/………

Proposed duration of the project: ……. months

52

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE CONSORTIUM

1.1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE COORDINATOR

NB : maximum one coordinator Name

First name

Title or position



Phone

Mobile phone

E-mail



First name

Title or position



Phone

Mobile phone

E-mail



Name

First name

Title or position



Phone

Mobile phone

E-mail



Name

First name

Title or position



Phone

Mobile phone

E-mail

53



Name

First name

Title or position



Phone

Mobile phone

E-mail

Box for completion by the Contractual Research Unit

Expert panel

Title

Name

Affiliation

54

2. GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1 Title of the project in English and Dutch or English and French + acronym

2.2 Research questions to which the candidate shall provide an answer in this study, in

English and Dutch or English and French (about 20 lines each)

2.3 Executive summary of the project (about 20 lines)

2.4 Context: scientific specificity and setting in relation to existing research (about 2.5

pages)

• How is the current project proposal scientifically and technically innovative? Has other

research in relation to the proposed subject already yielded convincing elements (“proof”)

that can be used as a starting point for this project? Which data and preliminary knowledge

are required for this study and are these available or accessible? A bibliography may be

appended.

• What are the achievements of the applicants and/or the researchers in this field? Have you

already conducted research in this field or are you currently conducting research? If yes,

please list the project title(s), the start and end dates of your research and identify the

institution that provided a grant for the research.

• The proposed specific approach to the problem must be justified.

2.5 Use of the expected research results (about 5 lines)

• How do you intend to use the results?





• What are the inherent obstacles and/or risks to the proposed project that may compromise

the chances of achieving the objectives within the term you propose? Which solutions do

you propose?

2.7 Proposal for a steering committee (minimum 8 persons, listing affiliation and e-mail

address)

Title – Name – First name Organisation E-mail

55

2.8 Name and identification of the persons who must sign the contract if the project is

eligible for a research grant

Institution Name Position

[NAME]

… ...

[NAME]

… ...

[NAME]

… ...

[NAME]

… ...

[NAME]

… ...

[NAME]

… ...

[NAME]

… ...

56

3. SPECIFIC INFORMATION

3.1 Scientific and operational methodology of the proposed research (about 15 pages)

• This section constitutes the core of the project proposal. It must contain a clear description

of the research activities as planned by you for the total duration of the proposed project.

• Important elements in the description of the various subtasks of the research programme

are:

- an overview of the proposed research, subdivided into work packages and (sub)tasks,

including an indication of the estimated budget needed for every work package;

- the proposed methods and technologies with their respective (dis)advantages,

limitations, risks and alternatives…

- the milestones to be achieved, linked to possible reorientations in the project where

applicable;

- the time frame and evolution over time based on the following chronogram, including

milestones and deliverables:

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total

budget

per WP* Code t1 t2 t3 t4 t1 t2 t3 t4 t1 t2 t3 t4 t1 t2 t3 t4

WP1

T1.1.

T1.2.

…

WP2

T2.1.

T2.2.

T2.3.

WP3

…

t: trimester

* total budget per work package: staffing + operational + general costs

57

3.2 Structure and organisation of the research (about 2 pages)

• Indicate the distribution of the various tasks among the consortium partners using the

following table:

Code Task description Contracting

institution(s)

Required

personnel

(qualifications)

P-M

WP1

T1.1.

T1.2.

….

WP2

T2.1.

T2.2.

T2.3.

…

WP: work package

T: task

P-M: person-months

• Please also state whether you are working with foreign partners or participating in

networks, insofar as this is relevant to this project proposal.

• Also indicate whether you are planning a cooperation or whether complementarity exists

with research groups that do not request a financial contribution from the FPS Health for

this project but receive research grants from other bodies to conduct their own research.

• Indicate whether you have also submitted your project (or sub-project) to another body

than the FPS Health.

3.3 Own publications in peer-reviewed international journals in this field of research in the

past five years

58


Please refer to the important information in Annex 6

4.1 Budgetary overview table

Please insert the table which you can find in annex 7 on the website

(www.health.belgium.be/contractualresearch) under “open calls” here and submit the table

separately as well as an Excel sheet.

4.2 Detailed budget proposal

Please draft the detailed budget proposal using the Excel sheet provided in annex 8, which can

be downloaded from the website (www.health.belgium.be/contractualresearch) under “open

calls”. The budget proposal is to be inserted here and submitted separately as an Excel sheet.

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY


respected?



- timely submission: by Friday, 27th of

September, 2019, 12 noon sharp



the identification of the promoters, but

including the budgetary tables










59

Annex 6

Important information about the budget

1. Generalities • We firmly recommend you involve your accountancy service when drawing up your

budget.

• Apart from the information in this annex, the information which is mentioned in chapter 5

of the manual of Contractual Research can be useful (cf. website

www.health.belgium.be/recherchecontractuelle under “Project follow-up”).

• The expenses covered by this grant must be made in accordance with the statutory and

regulatory provisions governing public procurement (see

https://www.publicprocurement.be/fr/publicprocurementbe-english-0). This applies in

particular for purchases and subcontracting.

2. Allocated grant • The requested grant and its distribution must correspond with the real cost in relation to

the duration, the nature, the required equipment and expertise of the research needed to

achieve the objectives pursued.

• For RT proposals, the research grant is capped on the amount indicated in the topic

description (Annex 1).

• The requested grant must be rounded off to an amount in k€; if not the amount will be

automatically rounded off by our services (e.g. a requested grant of € 215,321 will be

rounded down to € 215,000).

• When drawing up your budget, you must bear in mind that all non-lump sum expenses,

those at the expense of the FPS as well as those from own contributions, will be checked

against the vouchers to be provided.

• Maximum share of the allocated grants: 100% (royal decree of November18th, 2015).

• In principle, any financial contribution is acceptable as an own contribution as long as it

does not give rise to a conflict of interests and as long as it is not granted by the federal

authorities. The restrictions in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 below must also be taken into account.

3. Staffing costs • The staffing costs for the coordinator and the promoters may not be included in the project

budget, nor at the expense of the FPS, nor as an own contribution.

• All staffing costs related to the project’s execution, excluding the staffing costs for the

coordinator and the promoters, must be indicated in this section. Exceptions to this rule

include labour costs included in the budget for subcontracted work.

If your project is selected for a grant, staffing expenses declared in the financial reporting

that are included in the operational costs (e.g. analysis costs) will be rejected.

• In order for doctoral grants to be considered as an own contribution, these must be funded

with the research institution’s own resources or must be funded by another body than the

federal government.

• The staffing costs are calculated based on the pay scales of the institutions where the staff

is employed.

• The detailed budget is to show the pay scale, seniority and time spent on the project (in

person-months) per calendar year. If the names of the staff members are known, they must

be stated.

• The staffing costs are split in gross wages on the one hand and other costs on the other

http://www.health.belgium.be/recherchecontractuelle

https://www.publicprocurement.be/fr/publicprocurementbe-english-0

60

hand. The costs for a research fellow (PhD student), who per definition is not considered

an employee, are to be presented as a whole in a single article.

3.1 Staffing costs which can be paid with the research grant

Research grants can be used to cover the following staffing costs:

- indexed gross monthly salary or grant (including and if applicable NSSO employee

contribution, withholding tax and if applicable, the employee contribution for meal

vouchers);

- employer contribution NSSO, holiday pay and year-end bonus;

- other wage costs, if applicable, including:

o statutory insurance (e.g. for occupational accidents);

o statutory compensation or benefit as a supplement to the employee’s salary (e.g.

household or residence allowances if applicable, a premium for bilingual

employees, benefits in kind set out in a CLA…);

o statutory interventions in the cost for commuting from home to work based on the

price of a public transport pass (for train passes: 2nd class only);

o bike allowances as stated on the employee’s pay slip or the individual annual

statements in accordance with the Federal Authorities’ statutory tariff;

o if applicable, the flat-rate contribution for the work of prevention advisors of the

External Services for Prevention and Protection at Work (royal decree of March

27th, 1998, royal decree of May 28th, 2003 - health monitoring).

3.2 Staffing costs which cannot be covered with the research grant

The following costs (non-limitative list) cannot be covered with a research grant unless they are

statutory benefits1:

- extra-legal insurance costs (hospitalisation, group insurance plan …);

- administration costs of the social secretariat;

- extra-legal benefits (overtime, employer contribution for meal vouchers, company car,

benefits in kind, supplementary family allowance, child-care allowance, representation costs,

work clothes, extra-legal pension, extra-legal premiums);

- attendance fees.

1 For example legislation for staff working in public administrations, as set out in a royal decree or decree published

in the Belgian Official Gazette, a CLA which is declared to be universally applicable following its publication in the

Belgian Official Gazette

61

4. Operational costs

Operational costs are project-related costs that are incurred with a view to the purchase and/or the

operational use of goods or services, and costs that are directly related to the project activities.

The operational costs will be split into flat-rate standard operational costs and specific operational

costs.

4.1 Standard operational costs

The standard operational costs are flat-rate costs and include usual expenses related to the project’s

execution such as:

- ordinary supplies and products for the lab (e.g. glassware, pipettes, detergents), the

workplace (e.g. recipients, carts, commonly used tools) and the office (e.g. perforators, ink

cartridges)

- documentation (e.g. purchase of books, fees for ordering scientific articles)

- travel and accommodation in Belgium and abroad

- the use of computers

- frequently used software

- …

No own contributions can be budgeted under the standard operational costs.

The amount of these operational costs is a lump sum that is established based on a percentage of

the staffing costs funded by the FPS Health. This percentage may not exceed 15% of the funded

staffing costs for the coordinator and 10% of these costs for the other promoters.

4.2 Specific operational costs

Specific operational costs include all the special operational costs that are directly related to the

project’s execution. Specific operational costs include:

- usage costs for equipment (includes specific IT equipment needed for the use of this

equipment);

- maintenance costs for equipment;

- costs for analyses ;

- subcontracted work.

62

a) The cost for the usage of equipment acquired through purchase or hire purchase are calculated

as follows:

𝑝𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒

𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 × 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 × % 𝑜𝑓 𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡

The amortisation period (economic lifespan) is the period indicated in your accounts. In general,

this period is 5 to 10 years for scientific equipment.

An example:

- you have a device that costs 30,000 euros at purchase

- The device is written off over a period of 60 months

- although the duration of the project is 36 months, the device will only be used for 10 months

of the project

- during these 10 months the device will also be used for other projects. The average usage

percentage for the project during this period is 20%

The usage cost is then calculated as follows:

𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 = € 30,000

60 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠 × 10 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠 × 0.2 = € 1,000

b) When renting equipment the usage cost is calculated as follows:

𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 × 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 × % 𝑜𝑓 𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡

If the device in the above example costs € 600 a month to rent, the usage cost is calculated as

follows:

𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 = € 600 × 10 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠 × 0.2 = € 1,200

c) The cost of subcontracting work comprises the cost that a promoter pays to a third party to carry

out tasks or to provide services, for which specific scientific or technical skills are required and

which are not part of the consortium’s ordinary activities.

Subcontracting is only admissible if

- it provides demonstrable added value for the project;

- the subcontractor does not take over the core activity and only is responsible for part of the

project;

- the cost of subcontracting is no more than 25% of the overall grant to the promoter;

- detailed budgetary information is provided;

- the budget for subcontracting the work is not provided as a lump sum (as a % of the total

budget).

63

In case no or insufficient standard operational costs can be reported for one or more partners due

to limited or lacking staffing costs funded by the FPS Health, costs related to for example inland

or foreign duty travel may be introduced as specific operational costs, provided that this can be

well motivated.

5. General costs

The general costs include the costs for administration, phone, postage, the maintenance of the

premises, heating, lighting, electricity, rent or insurance.

No own contributions may be budgeted under general costs.

These general costs must be budgeted as a lump sum based on maximum 10% of the staffing costs

funded by the FPS Health.

64

Annex 7

Table to be used for the budgetary overview (to be inserted in the RT and RF full proposal in step 2)

Type of cost

[Identification

Coordinator]

[Identification

Promoter 2]

[Identification

Promoter 3]

[Identification

Promoter 4]

Total per

item

Staffing

Operational

General

Total per

partner

Own

contribution

% own

contribution

FPS Grant

% FPS Grant

65

Annex 8

Template to be used for the detailed budgetary information (to be inserted in the RT and RF full proposal in step 2)

All promoters of the consortium must be listed for each category of expenses, even if for some

of them no expenses are foreseen in one or more of the categories.

Indicate own contributions with *

4.1. Staffing costs 0

year seniority

in years number of

person-months budget

in euros

4.1.1. Lab of X (Affiliation) 0

4.1.1.1. N. 0

Fellow 2020 [0] [3] …

2021 [1] [12] …

….

4.1.1.2. N. 0

Pay scale 2020 [4] [1] …

2021 [5] [9] …

… …. …

4.1.1.3. - double holiday pay …

- employer contributions (social security, insurance)

- year-end bonus

- other

4.1.2. Lab of Y (Affiliation) 0

4.1.2.1. N. 0

Pay scale 2020 [4] [3] …

2021 [5] [12] …

… …. … …

4.1.2.2. - double holiday pay …


- year-end bonus

- other

66

4.1.2.3. N. 0

Pay scale 2020 [4] [1] …

2021 [5] [9] …

… … … …

4.1.2.4. - double holiday pay … …


- year-end bonus

- other

4.2. Operational costs 0


4.2.1.1. Standard operational costs (flat-

rate) …

4.2.1.2. Specific operational costs 0

4.2.1.2.1. e.g. Reagents for PCR …

4.2.1.2.2. … …

4.2.1.2.3. … …

4.2.1.2.4. … …

…


4.2.2.1. Standard operational costs (flat-

rate) …

4.2.2.2. Specific operational costs 0

4.2.2.2.1. e.g. Purchase of plants …

4.2.2.2.2. Cell cultures …

4.2.2.2.3. … …

…

4.3. General costs 0


4.3.1.1. Overheads …


4.3.2.1. Overheads …

TOTAL 0

67

Annex 9

Research topics (RI projects): plant health – Euphresco

Topic code Topic title

2019-F-310 PhyLib III

2019-C-315 Efficacy of Anaerobic Digestion as a means of destruction for infected plant

material

2019-E-328 Next generation sequencing in bacterial diagnostics: WGS & meta-barcording

2019-A-330 Detecting virus-carrying Xiphinema spp. as an alternative to Xiphinema

identification up to species level in trade

2019-A-331 Remote sensing in plant health: expanding the scene (PLANTRESENS)

68

2019-F-310 PhyLib III

Short description

The number of psyllid species known to harbor Liberibacter solanaceum (Lso) is increasing. It is

necessary to understand the ability of these psyllids to vector Lso and the potential risks they pose

to crop plants. This will require the establishment of Lso +ve and –ve psyllid colonies for lab-

based transmission studies, plant choice experiments, host plant interaction studies and psyllid

behaviour studies. This will be complemented by genome analysis of a range of newly identified

Lso haplotypes via genome sequencing, MLST and gene expression approaches. This will enable

comparison of: different haplotypes, geographical differences between the same haplotypes; genes

responsible for pathogenicity and microbe-plant/ microbe-psyllid interactions. Psyllid diversity

across Europe will be monitored via field surveys and suction trap sampling, along with the

prevalence and distribution of Lso and Phytoplamas and potential weed/over wintering reservoirs

of these microbes.

The project should include :

- characterization of new Lso haplotypes/ Liberibacter spp. from new psyllid hosts

- genome seq / MLST of haplotype U (from multiple locations)

- screening psyllid specimens for Lso (field and suction trap)

- screening psyllid specimens for Phytoplasmas

- screening alternative insect groups for Lso and Phytoplasmas (aphids, hoppers, other

hemiptera)

- set-up colonies of T. urt, T. anthrisci and N. subpunctata

- transmission studies on T. urticae and T. anthrisci, N. subpunctata (host plant, transmission

to carrot and potato)

- plant choice studies on T. urticae and T. anthrisci, N. subpunctata

- overwintering hosts

- EPG on T. anthrisci

Description of the end product

An enhanced understanding of Lso populations and their vectors and the risk they pose to crop

health.

Provisional other funders (to be completed in a later stage)

Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA), UK (contact: Dr. David Kenyon,

[email protected])

Provisional project duration

> 2 years

69

2019-C-315 Efficacy of Anaerobic Digestion as a means of destruction for infected plant

material

Short description

Investigate the efficacy of Anaerobic Digestion as a means of destruction for infected plant

material, rather than landfill or incineration, such as required following a diagnosis of Xylella,

Xanthomonas, and other quarantine pathogens and pests.

Determine culture viability following processing, for example through molecular analysis.


Methodology to test output for pathogen viability; protocol as means of processing of infected

planting material.


• Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK (Contact: Ms Laura Pinney,

[email protected])


1 - 2 years

70

2019-E-328 Next generation sequencing in bacterial diagnostics: WGS & meta-barcording

Short description

Next generation sequencing (NGS) in its various forms has provided significant benefits to the

viral diagnostics. In bacteriology, it is used to a limited extent. The aim of the project would be to

facilitate exchange of knowledge and experience with NGS in bacteriology and to identify critical

points and potential benefits. The exchange would take place in the form of symposia, exchange

of protocols and/or laboratory visits. Two broad areas will be examined, whole genome sequencing

(WGS) and meta-barcoding.

WGS and tools of comparative genomics allow characterization of completely unknown

pathogens, resolving taxonomy issues, informed selection of novel targets for detection tests, more

efficient outbreak analysis, identification of novel relevant characteristics (effectors, virulence

factors, antibiotic resistance). Meta-barcoding is a rapid method of biodiversity assessment that

combines two technologies: DNA-based identification and high-throughput DNA sequencing. It

is particularly useful when it is preferable to use a combination of a more generic detection method

with more or less targeted approach.

Capacity of laboratories to perform WGS and/or meta-barcoding analysis will be mapped from

both infrastructure and knowledge requirements and the critical challenges for its adoption will be

identified. This would allow for a coordinated further activity of the reference laboratories in the

transfer of WGS and comparative genomics into routine use.


Identification of NGS potential and plans for further collaboration (white paper or publication)


• Ministry of Agriculture Foresty and Food, Slovenia (Contact: Ms Erika Oresek,

[email protected])


> 2 years

71

2019-A-330 Detecting virus-carrying Xiphinema spp. as an alternative to Xiphinema

identification up to species level in trade

Short description

Nematodes of the genus Xiphinema (dagger nematodes) are migratory root ectoparasites with a

broad host range. There are more than 260 species, of which approximately 50 belong to the

Xiphinema americanum group (X. americanum sensu lato). This group has a quarantine status as

some of the species can transmit certain nepoviruses. The identification up to species level is quite

difficult based on morphological and morphometric data, and most of the time impossible due to

lack of specimen or appropriate stadia. There is not enough molecular information available of all

species to develop reliable tools such as PCR or barcoding. However, the main issue is that some

specimen are potential carriers of viruses. Therefore, it has been suggested that only those species

that have been shown to carry viruses are considered quarantine organisms, although their

identification is very difficult. Focusing on a direct detection of these viruses in the nematodes

could be an alternative to correctly identifying these Xiphinema species that are able to transmit

viruses. This way, only specimen of the X. americanum group that are carrying viruses can be

considered as a Plant Health risk, and consignments carrying Xiphinema spp. free of viruses could

enter trade.

In this project, reliable techniques to detect viruses in Xiphinema nematodes will be developed and

validated, with an emphasis on sensitivity and specificity. The tool could later be applied to other

nematode genera transmitting viruses.


A validated technique for detection of viruses in Xiphinema nematodes that are of quarantine

concern.


• Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Belgium (Contact: Mr Kris De Jonghe,

[email protected])


1 - 2 years

72

2019-A-331 Remote sensing in plant health: expanding the scene (PLANTRESENS)

Short description

In recent years, great progress has been made in the use of remote sensing in various domains,

including plant health. The state-of-the art has been presented during the scientific colloquium

“perspectives on the use of remote sensing in plant health” co-organised by EPPO and Euphresco

in September 2018.

Building on today’s knowledge, the scientific community as well as policy makers acknowledged

that further research and enlarged transnational collaboration is needed to bridge the gap between

research and application of remote sensing in practice.

The Euphresco project PHeRS, presented at the Colloquium, has shown that remote sensing has a

large potential as a tool for official monitoring of regulated harmful organisms. In the PHeRS

report, recommendations for further research were identified in view of overcoming current

limitations for plant health application. For example, research is needed to identify wavelength

packages for detecting specific biotic and abiotic stresses, to develop near-ground or other sensors

targeting harmful organisms of phytosanitary concern, and to advance algorithms and software in

a way that Remote Sensing can easily be used by inspectors in the field.

It is encouraged to expand the applicability of the technique towards different fields in plant health

(forestry, field crops, fruit, potatoes, ….) and to target a wide range of harmful organisms.


Advances in remote sensing for official monitoring, practical applications


not identified yet


3 years

73

Annex 10

Submit this form electronically (Word and

.pdf) to:

[email protected]

CONFIDENTIAL

Contractual Research Euphresco call

EXPRESSION OF INTEREST

(RI PROJECT 1st stage)

MAX. 4 PAGES

(excluding the title page and identification of the consortium)

1. TITLE OF THE PROJECT PROPOSAL

[CODE AND TITLE OF THE TRANSNATIONAL TOPIC]

[Title of the Belgian consortium’s project proposal]

[proposed acronym]

2. IDENTIFICATION OF THE COORDINATOR

Surname

First name

Title or position



Phone

Mobile phone

E-mail



address)

74

3. EXPRESSION OF INTEREST – PROPOSAL DETAILS

3.1 Description of the context of this project proposal, taking into account the topic

description (about 20 lines)

3.2 Proposed transnational project outline (about 15 lines)

Please outline the transnational project approach you would propose to the future transnational

research consortium in order to reach the objectives of the topic. The specific Belgian tasks are

to be described under 3.3.

3.3 Research capacity (about 30 lines)

Please describe your own research capacity within the project. Which part of the proposed

transnational project programme could you address? Which research questions / objectives could

you address? Consequently, which work packages / tasks do you propose to address? Which

infrastructure and staff (qualification, proposed number of person-months) can you deploy?

3.4 Expertise and experience (about 30 lines)

Please describe the relevant expertise and experience that you have in the topic area.

Please list up to 5 key relevant publications per partner.



4.1 Total duration of the proposed project … months




In which case: origin of the co-funding

NB : have the conditions listed below been

respected? If not, your Expression of

Interest will be considered ineligible:

- timely submission: by Tuesday April 18th, 2019,

12 noon sharp

- the application shall consist of no more than 4

pages, excluding the title page and the

identification of the promoters

- the font of the text (Times New Roman, font size

12) may not be modified

- the application is drawn up entirely in English

- only Belgian research institutes may participate

in the consortium proposed by this Expression of

Interest.

Date, name and signature of the coordinator,

on behalf of the consortium

Copyright:

Melissa Schalke – fotolia.fr

Larisa Lofitskaya – fotolia.fr

OlegDoroshin

Contact:

Dominique Vandekerchove

DG Animals, Plants and Food – Unit Contractual Research

Tel: 02 524 90 91

Mail: [email protected]

www.health.belgium.be/contractualresearch

Resp. Ed.: Tom Auwers, Victor Horta square, 40/10, 1060 Brussels



contractual research - health.belgium.be · a mixed virtual pot/non-competitive mechanism is often...

Documents