Click any question to jump to its detailed answer.
General Rules & Consortium
Answered by: Petra Fedorova (Czech NCP)
Work packages
Q1 ↑Is there a minimum and maximum number of work packages you consider ideal?
No, the only condition mentioned in the WIDERA Work Programme (p. 29) is: If you include a research and innovation component, it should be presented in a dedicated workpackage (WP1) entitled ‘Research component’.
Q8 ↑Should the names and content of the work packages be exactly as presented here?
No, not necessarily (the recommendation was to structure the WPs according to the expected outcomes described on p. 28), except for WP1 entitled ‘Research component’.
Q14 ↑What are the necesary workpages?
The same as above
Q22 ↑Good morning, who should lead WP1 'Research component', the coordinator or the advanced partner?
It is up to the consortium to decide.
Q24 ↑What is more important in the workpackages : Reserach manhement Workpackages or scientific research workpackage in the point of viw of the evaluator?
Please keep in mind, that Twinning is not a RIA (research and innovation action) but CSA, but a research and innovation component not exceeding 30% of the total Horizon Europe grant (including the indirect costs) may be included.
Q35 ↑For the "Research Component" Work Package, who should lead this WP: the coordinator or Leading partners? Thanks.
It is up to the consortium to decide.
Q50 ↑Should a certain percentage of WP leaders be from the coordinator or one of the partners?
No, there is no limitation.
Q51 ↑Can the two advance partners jointly lead a WP? (ie they are contributing equally to the WP)
Yes.
Q59 ↑Is it allowed and strategicaly Ok to have co-leading on WP 1 (Coordinator + advanced partner), also within some tasks?
Yes.
Q89 ↑Would it be advisable for the Research Component (WP1) to be led by the project coordinator?
It is up to the consortium to decide.
Q103 ↑What deliverables are expected from us?
A standard deliverable is project final report (M36). Beneficiaries must also submit a Data Management Plan as a mandatory project deliverable (normally within 6 months after grant signature). Typical deliverables in twinning projects are different kind of reports or guidelines, strategic plans, handbooks, partnership agreements, project web page …
Consortium
Q9 ↑How minimum advanced parnets we need?
Twinning actions aim to enhance networking activities between the research institutions and research infrastructures of the Widening countries acting as co-ordinators by linking it with at least two internationally leading research institutions from two different Member States or Associated Countries. Participation as coordinators to the call is limited to legal entities established in Widening countries, as defined in the Horizon Europe regulation. So, minimum consortium size is 3 partners, 2 of them have to be "advanced".
Q13 ↑Regarding Research Management: we do not have a Research Management unit in each Faculty, only one at the University level. How can we address Research Management in the call?
Research management capacities of the coordinating institution should strengthened in line with the European Competence Framework for Research Managers, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team within the coordinating institution. We recommend to include a SWOT analysis - this is the basis of a good proposal. Describe the current status quo in your institution. Be self-critical and concentrate on the weaknesses and threats as these are the main reason why you prepare the proposal.
Q15 ↑Good morning. Is it eligible for an Insitute that is located in a Widening Country to participate as an advanced partner?
Yes.
Q18 ↑What is the ideal number of partners for a good application?
There is no ideal number of partners, in general the consortia are rather small including 3-5 partners.
Q19 ↑Is it possible to have two partners from a widening country and one advanced partner?
No, see the answer to the question above.
Q20 ↑We currently have two European partners from non-widening Member States. We would like to know whether it is possible to include a third European partner from a widening country and, if so, whether the proposal would still comply with the eligibility conditions of the call?
Indeed, it is possible, but then this additional partner from a Widenig country has to have a clearly explained and justified added value in the consortium. If you look at the expected outcomes of the call, you will see that they include "raised reputation, research profile and attractiveness of the coordinating institution, and improved research profile of its staff" and "strengthened research management capacities of the coordinating institution".
Q21 ↑How many countries should it be from? It says 5 countries.
There is no ideal number of partners, in general the consortia are rather small including 3-5 partners.
Q25 ↑Can organization be member as an associate partner? (without payment)
Yes, but please refer to the answer bellow.
Q26 ↑Moreover, how are associate partners different from regular advanced partners?
Entities that do not request funding or are not eligible for funding may participate in EU actions as associated partners, for example out of interest in contributing to the objectives of the action, gaining visibility, or participating due to ongoing (R&D) cooperation with a beneficiary. As with any other participant that does not sign the Grant Agreement, the beneficiaries need to ensure (e.g. through the consortium agreement) that associated partners implement their action tasks in accordance with the Grant Agreement. Advanced partners are the beneficiaries, i.e. they claim costs, sign the Grant Agreement and can implement ‘action tasks’ on its own.
Q27 ↑When the 2 advanced partners (universities) are already included, is it possible/recommended to also include a company as a third, either for research or for dissemination?
Yes, enterprises (incl. research intensive companies and SMEs) can participate in a Twinning proposal, provided that the minimum requirements relative to the participating organizations are respected. These are described in the Work Programme and in the General Annexes.
Q40 ↑We are also collaborating with a Canadian team that we would like to involve in this proposal. However, given that Canada is associated only to Pillar II of Horizon Europe, could you please confirm whether this team may participate as an associated partner within the framework of the Twinning project?
Yes, it may participate as an associated partner (i.e. without claiming any costs), however, we would not recommend it, since the Twinning projects should primarily focus on „enhanced strategic collaboration between the research institutions or higher education establishments of the Widening countries and at least two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments at European Union level“ as well as „closing the research and innovation gap within the European Union“ (please see the expected outcomes on p. 28, WIDERA Work Programme). Moreover, they will not receive funding and you will have high travel costs, when organising staff exchanges/workshops etc.
Q46 ↑Could an institution be part of several consortia as a partner?
Yes, if it has sufficient capacity.
Q52 ↑Can a start-up join twinning project as a partner?
Yes, enterprises (incl. research intensive companies and SMEs) can participate in a Twinning proposal, provided that the minimum requirements relative to the participating organizations are respected. These are described in the Work Programme and in the General Annexes.
Q54 ↑It is possible to involve an industrial partner into initiative?
Yes, enterprises (incl. research intensive companies and SMEs) can participate in a Twinning proposal, provided that the minimum requirements relative to the participating organizations are respected. These are described in the Work Programme and in the General Annexes.
Q57 ↑My consortium is the following: Research Organisation from Widening country supported by the advanced partners from Italy , Germany Hungary and Türkiye. None of the advanced partners are from Universities - is it ok if the advanced partners are research infrastructures, SMEs and Research Clusters coordinators?
The best positioned to maximize the expected impact, as described in the Work Programme, as coordinators or internationally-leading partners, are public or private research universities or public or private non-profit research organisations. The proposal will need to outline how and why the beneficiaries are the best choice to maximize the expected impact as described in the Work Programme. In other words, at least one of the advanced partners should be an university or a research centre.
Q98 ↑Could an international organization be considered as advanced partner?
Yes, they can participate (see General annexes to the Work Programme 2026-2027) if not stated in the relevant call otherwise.
B — Eligibility Entities eligible to participate
Any legal entity, regardless of its place of establishment, including legal entities from non-associated third countries or international organisations (including international European research organisations) is eligible to participate (whether it is eligible for funding or not), provided that the conditions laid down in the Horizon Europe Regulation have been met, along with any other conditions laid down in the specific call/topic.
BUT: International European research organisations are eligible to receive funding. International organisations with headquarters in a Member State or Associated Country are eligible to receive funding for ‘Training and mobility’ actions or when provided for in the specific call/topic conditions. This is not case of the TWINNING call, so we would advice not to involve them to be on the safe side.
Q108 ↑Is it possible to iclude a canadian partner as an associated partner in the project?
Yes, it may participate as an associated partner (i.e. without claiming any costs), however, we would not recommend it, since the Twinning projects should primarily focus on „enhanced strategic collaboration between the research institutions or higher education establishments of the Widening countries and at least two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments at European Union level“ as well as „closing the research and innovation gap within the European Union“ (please see the expected outcomes on p. 28, WIDERA Work Programme). Moreover, they will not receive funding and you will have high travel costs, when organising staff exchanges/workshops etc.
Partners' roles
Q6 ↑If we are planing to be two institutions from Widening country (we lead, other as partners), in that case, should we involve partner‘s institution research management team in the same way (and activities) as it was suggested for leading institution?
If you look at the expected outcomes of the call, you will see that they include "raised reputation, research profile and attractiveness of the coordinating institution, and improved research profile of its staff" and "strengthened research management capacities of the coordinating institution". For strengthening the research management capacities the experience and best practices of the internationally leading partners should be fully utilised.
Q10 ↑Is it an advantage to already have publications with the advanced partners?
They can act as leading partner in TWINNING 2026 call.
Q11 ↑When we write, who should say will benefit? coordiantor lab? coordinator university? or widening country?
For all partners there should be some added value/benefit. Partners should be complementary. Moreover, the proposals should illustrate quantitatively and qualitatively the expected impact of the twinning exercise within the coordinating institution. The proposal should also demonstrate how the leading scientific institutions in the consortium will contribute in terms of provision of access to new research avenues, creativity and the development of new approaches, as well as acting as a source for increased gender equality, inclusiveness and mobility (inwards and outwards) of qualified scientists and young researchers including doctoral candidates.
Q11 ↑When we write, who should say will benefit? coordiantor lab? coordinator university? or widening country?
For all partners there should be some added value/benefit. Partners should be complementary. Moreover, the proposals should illustrate quantitatively and qualitatively the expected impact of the twinning exercise within the coordinating institution. The proposal should also demonstrate how the leading scientific institutions in the consortium will contribute in terms of provision of access to new research avenues, creativity and the development of new approaches, as well as acting as a source for increased gender equality, inclusiveness and mobility (inwards and outwards) of qualified scientists and young researchers including doctoral candidates.
Q12 ↑Can a Twinning Project be focused on just one Faculty, or should it cover the entire University?
Both options are possible, depending on the size of the institution and expected impact and the specific field of research.
Q16 ↑Do you have a recommendation on the profile of the widening coordinator country.
It is not clear what is meant by this question.
Q23 ↑Can the leading partner hire a researcher from another HEI as a sub-contractor?
NO, it makes no sense, the leading partner should perform the activities as it is (if they want to hire an expert, this should not be mentioned in the proposal).
Q31 ↑How can i increase gender balance if my insstitution is already 50/50?
Also in leading positions and especially in the project as task or WP leaders? You might focus on other ERA priorities such as research integrity and responsible research and innovation (ethics, public engagement, science education, open access) and knowledge valorisation, thereby strengthening the institution’s overall research ecosystem.
Q32 ↑Hello, is UK eligible partner country? Thank you!
Yes, United Kingdom is associated to the entire Horizon Europe Programme, with the only exception of the EIC fund, for award procedures implementing Union budget for the year
2024 and onwards.
Q34 ↑Do we also need to prioritize/explain the Two or Three way of knowaldge transfer among partners within the proposal ? Do application needs to mention the benefit recived by non-widening/Experienced partners ?
For all partners there should be some added value/benefit. Partners should be complementary. Moreover, the proposals should illustrate quantitatively and qualitatively the expected impact of the twinning exercise within the coordinating institution. The proposal should also demonstrate how the leading scientific institutions in the consortium will contribute in terms of provision of access to new research avenues, creativity and the development of new approaches, as well as acting as a source for increased gender equality, inclusiveness and mobility (inwards and outwards) of qualified scientists and young researchers including doctoral candidates.
Q37 ↑Can you give a specific example of how an associated partner benefits?
It is not clear what is meant by this question.
Q39 ↑If a scientist is already associated with the Coordinator as well as with the Partner, would that be an advantage or disadvantage for the proposal.
It depends on the type of his/her involvement.
Q48 ↑What does the call intend for 'research infrastructure'? What is the difference with research institution?
Research infrastructures are facilities that provide resources and services for the research communities to conduct research and foster innovation in their fields. These include major equipment or sets of instruments.
Q53 ↑Can you give examples for "innovative collaboration approaches"?
It is up to the applicant to bring forward some new innovative approaches, methods and activities. You can find inspiration in the ongoing TWINNING projects from the two past calls on CORDIS - Projects´ basic data including abstracts and objectives, reporting and results (links for 2021 TWINNING projects and 2023 TWINNING projects bellow)
Q101 ↑What mentoring and capacity-building support will Advanced Partners provide?
It depends, you have to negotiate with them. The leading scientific institutions in the consortium may contribute in terms of provision of access to new research avenues, creativity and the development of new approaches, as well as acting as a source for increased gender equality, inclusiveness and mobility (inwards and outwards) of qualified scientists and young researchers including doctoral candidates. You should also fully utilise their experience and best practices to strengthen the research management capacities of the coordinating institution.
Q106 ↑Is it possible for non-EU (Latin America) PHD students to attend the summer school organised under Twinning initiative?
We would rather tend to say no but it is of course possible in principle under the condition that their travel costs will not be charged to the project budget.
It is compulsory to have a team composed only by researchers?
No, typically the team involves also project managers and may involve PhD students.
Submission
Q7 ↑Thanks, is it possible to submit two widening proposals as cordinator?
Yes this is possible.
Q28 ↑GEP: if the partner is NGO - is the GEP mandatory for them as well?
No.
Q44 ↑Does the gender equality plan be in place at submission or at signing the contract if awarded?
Under Horizon Europe, a Gender Equality Plan (GEP) is mandatory for all Twinning calls and represents an eligibility criterion. Participants that are public bodies, research organisations or higher education establishments from Members States (MS) and Associated countries (AC), must have a GEP, covering minimum process-related requirements. A self-declaration will be requested at proposal stage (for all types of participants) by ticking a box in the proposal submission tool . The self-declaration will be included in the entity validation process. This is not required at the proposal submission stage, but a GEP is required before the grant signature and during the duration of the grant. Entities which fail to have a GEP in place are not eligible for funding and will need to be removed from the consortium.
Q47 ↑Should we sign a Consortium Agreement before submitting the proposal?
Signing a consortium agreement between all the beneficiaries in the project is a requirement in the Twinning actions. Consortium agreement shall be signed after the project has been selected for funding and before the action starts.
Q105 ↑Are there specific rules valid for resubmissions, e.g., limited number of resubmissions possible, need for a point-to-point reply to previous evaluation, etc...?
No.
Impact & Work Packages
Answered by: Olga Sulema (Ukrainian expert)
Q33 ↑WP1 should be Research Component but it is optional. My understanding is that this is only for research that goes beyond the state of the art. How is this defined? For example, assume we build skills that are within the state of the art at EU level but far beyond the SoA in our institutional and even national context. I have in the proposal a series of small case studies that apply the skills we will obtain so that we see how things work and we refine the methodological tools so that they are indeed applicable in our context. Should these case studies be given as WP1, or as part of the capacity building WPs, and omit WP1 Research component in my proposal?
I would not recommend omitting WP1. These case studies are exactly the “collaborative sandbox” I mentioned in my presentation. With WP1, you will have a perfect logical chain: you build the capacity in other WPs, and then you immediately test, apply, and refine these new skills in real-world settings together with your EU partners.
So, instead of putting these use cases in the Capacity Building WPs, you could frame them in WP1 as pilot research studies. This way, you will be able to show that the application of the skills your researchers gain from EU partners to your specific local context creates new scientific insights that are valuable for the whole consortium, and specifically for your institutional and national context.
Q35 ↑For the "Research Component" Work Package, who should lead this WP: the coordinator or Leading partners? Thanks.
Since at least 50% of the WP1 budget must be allocated to the coordinator, they should lead the WP1 Research Component. This shows that the Widening institution is taking the initiative in the project.
However, for Part B, you could mention in the narrative part that there will be a co-leading arrangement with one of the advanced partners to strengthen the research part. This would perfectly demonstrate that the coordinator is driving the research but is closely supported by the leading EU experts.
Q38 ↑Re WP1: Could strategic research roadmap (short and mid-term goals) be defined and established with WP1 or it would be better to move it to another WP?
I would recommend moving the Strategic Research Roadmap to another WP (e.g., Capacity Building, Research Management, or Sustainability WP). Since WP1 has a strict budget limit of 30%, it is better to save this budget exclusively for the actual exploratory research activities (the “collaborative sandbox”), given that developing a strategic roadmap is rather an institutional capacity building activity.
Q49 ↑Can the open science component be a separate WP across the HO?
I highly recommend integrating Open Science practices directly into the WPs related to research, dissemination and publications. In Horizon Europe, Open Science is considered a core methodology that should run through the whole project, so there is no practical sense in separating this aspect into its own WP.
Q50 ↑Should a certain percentage of WP leaders be from the coordinator or one of the partners?
There are no official recommendations or rules regarding the percentage of WP leaders distributed between the coordinator and other partners. However, I would recommend assigning the coordinator to WP1 Research Component (if any) and WP Research Management, as these are the main capacity building benefits for the coordinating institution.
Q51 ↑Can the two advance partners jointly lead a WP? (ie they are contributing equally to the WP)
Since at least 50% of the WP1 budget must be allocated to the coordinator, they should lead the WP1 Research Component. This shows that the Widening institution is taking the initiative in the project.
However, for Part B, you could mention in the narrative part that there will be a co-leading arrangement with one of the advanced partners to strengthen the research part. This would perfectly demonstrate that the coordinator is driving the research but is closely supported by the leading EU experts.
Q55 ↑Summer schools for PhD students? or Master or Bachelor?
The main focus is Ph.D. students. I would not recommend including Bachelor students. Otherwise, the project might look too educational (rather “Erasmus-ish”). However, it could be worth including Master students to show how the project impacts the career paths of future researchers.
Q56 ↑Regarding the strengthening research management, how in depth we should go explaining the topics/skills that the training will cover?
You need to have a balance because of the strict page limits in Part B. You should not provide a full, day-by-day syllabus, but you must be specific about the core modules. For example, instead of just stating that you will provide training in research management, you should specify the exact gaps you are addressing. It could be some concrete modules like: Grant writing for Horizon Europe, IPR management or Open Science practices. But do not go into more specific details on these modules to save your page limit.
Q59 ↑Is it allowed and strategicaly Ok to have co-leading on WP 1 (Coordinator + advanced partner), also within some tasks? Or better to avoid it?
Since at least 50% of the WP1 budget must be allocated to the coordinator, they should lead the WP1 Research Component. This shows that the Widening institution is taking the initiative in the project.
However, for Part B, you could mention in the narrative part that there will be a co-leading arrangement with one of the advanced partners to strengthen the research part. This would perfectly demonstrate that the coordinator is driving the research but is closely supported by the leading EU experts.
Q62 ↑But the instructions say that WP1 Research Component "may" be included...how is this mandatory?
Indeed, formally, according to the Call, the research component is optional. However, the word “mandatory” that I used during my presentation is rather a strong strategic recommendation. Having this research component in the project (in the format of a “collaborative sandbox”, not a full-fledged research project) significantly strengthens the overall capacity building impact. Instead of simply discussing best research practices in various training activities, you show how these practices will be immediately put into practice with your EU partners. This gives your project actual added value and proves your capabilities, rather than just relying on theoretical statements. On the other hand, if your project does not cover any research studies in the chosen research field at all, then it is indeed not mandatory.
Q64 ↑Can the research component be two mostly distinct research projects (within the same research topic as stated in the proposal)?
The research component is not supposed to fund full-scale research. Putting two mostly distinct research projects into WP1 would enlarge the scale and budget of this component far beyond the scope and expectations of this call. So, I would not recommend this. Instead, it is much better to focus on one cohesive pilot study that unites all partners.
Q66 ↑Is it possible to have an increase in proposals / projects / collaborations be part of the impact? Do the metrics only refer to the time frame of the project or can they be more long-term?
Yes, absolutely. An increase in joint proposals, funded projects and new collaborations is a core part of the project’s expected impact. Regarding the metrics, they should not be limited to the project’s duration. It is actually highly recommended to estimate these measures for the long term (for example, 3 to 5 years beyond the project timeframe). This perfectly demonstrates the long-term sustainability of the institutional capacity you are building.
Q68 ↑Do you mean that all the training/exchanges/ summer schools which help to scientific excellence will be included in WP1?
Not necessarily. I would recommend being very careful here because of the strict 30% budget limit for WP1. General scientific capacity building activities (like summer schools, staff exchanges or theory-based scientific trainings) should be placed in your Capacity Building WPs. You should include an activity in WP1 only if it is a hands-on task directly dedicated to executing your specific research study. You build scientific excellence and gain skills through exchanges in the Capacity Building WPs, then you use WP1 strictly as the “sandbox” to apply them in practice, and this potentially could have the form of a workshop or a summer school.
Q69 ↑Are all of these impact areas compulsory or more suggestions? Industry collaborations might not be relevant for all projects.
You should cover only those impact areas that are relevant to the specific research topic of your project. The expected impact points listed in the presentation are more like suggestions rather than a compulsory checklist. So, if industry collaboration does not naturally fit your field, you should not force it into the proposal.
Q88 ↑For the research management workpackage: does it have to be upgrading the research management office, or can it be research support, such as a dedeicated Technology Transfer or Research Data Management or Internationalization team?
It does not have to be a research management office. Focusing on specific, dedicated research team(s) and support departments (e.g., a Technology Transfer Office, a Research Data Management team, or an International Grant/Projects Office) is often a much stronger and more competitive way to design Research Management WP. This approach also shows that you are targeting very specific institutional bottlenecks rather than just doing general administrative upgrades.
Q89 ↑Would it be advisable for the Research Component (WP1) to be led by the project coordinator?
Since at least 50% of the WP1 budget must be allocated to the coordinator, they should lead the WP1 Research Component. This shows that the Widening institution is taking the initiative in the project.
However, for Part B, you could mention in the narrative part that there will be a co-leading arrangement with one of the advanced partners to strengthen the research part. This would perfectly demonstrate that the coordinator is driving the research but is closely supported by the leading EU experts.
Q96 ↑How do you define "training beyond state of the art"? It seems like a thin line and depends a lot on framing and writing. Does it often kill a proposal, that there are supposedly "hidden research costs" on other WPs?
“Training beyond the state of the art” in a Twinning context basically means transferring the latest, cutting-edge methodologies in the chosen research area from your advanced EU partners to the Widening institution. You are upgrading your local team to the highest European standards. “Hidden research costs” in WPs other than WP1 can absolutely kill a proposal’s score. If there are any research equipment purchases, research work or extensive research staff PMs disguised as trainings or part of some other capacity building activities outside of WP1, this most likely will result in decreasing the proposal’s score. This is exactly why you must keep all actual research activities strictly within the 30% limit of WP1, and keep the other WPs strictly focused on knowledge transfer and networking.
Q97 ↑Participation to a conference in order to present the results under WP1 should be cover by the WP1 or by the WP dedicated to Widening project dissemination?
I would recommend putting such activities into the Dissemination WP. Since there is a strict 30% budget limit for WP1, any activities that are not directly related to conducting the actual research are better placed in other WPs.
Budget
Answered by: Maria Szlachta (Polish expert)
General Budget – preparation, structure, rules
Q2 ↑How can we prepare the lump sum budget?
At proposal stage you must present a detailed budget per work package; costs must follow the same eligibility logic as in actual‑cost grants (no ineligible items). After evaluation, the lump sums are fixed in the grant and paid by completion of WPs (Twinning has one reporting period). Use the Detailed Lump Sum Budget table and the EC guidance/videos linked in the slides.
Q5 ↑For the Twinning call, is there any recommended distribution of the budget across cost categories (e.g. personnel, purchase, subcontracting), or any “typical” budget patterns from successful Twinning proposals that evaluators tend to view positively?
There is no prescribed “ideal” pattern across categories. What matters is that distribution matches the effort, supports the objective of strengthening the coordinator, respects eligibility constraints (e.g., infrastructure and large equipment ineligible), keeps subcontracting limited, and documents justifications in the Detailed Lump Sum Budget table (esp. purchase costs and any C/D categories).
Q17 ↑The 70% is considered for capacity building for the widening countries
The Twinning documentation does not set a “70%” rule. It says the research component can be max 30% of the total budget, and at least 50% of that 30% must go to the coordinator. More broadly, the budget should primarily support the Widening coordinator, but there is no fixed 70% figure.
Q29 ↑One reporting period_ what does it mean on practice for Lump Sum? it is not stated in the call programme.. how much would be the advance payment?
Twinning has one reporting period at the end of the project. In practice, the consortium receives ~80% pre‑financing at project start (minus the Mutual Insurance Mechanism deduction), with the balance after acceptance of the final report and WP completion.
Q45 ↑Please give more info about the preparation of lump sum budget
Follow the EC’s “How to manage your lump sum grants” and evaluator tutorials. In the Excel budget, justify in the ‘Any comments’ sheet whenever: (i) purchase costs exceed 15% of personnel for a participant, (ii) you use other cost categories (e.g., internally invoiced goods/services), (iii) you include in‑kind contributions or (iv) any of the costs given differs from the general expectations - e.g.: your personnel costs rates are significantly different then the ones given in a Horizon Dashboard for Lump Sum Evaluations (
https://ec.europa.eu/…/upport/videos/support/PTcPc8qno1E). Remember the single reporting period and Twinning‑specific ineligible items.
Q73 ↑Would it be just one reporting period, meaning that we report to the EU at the end of the project?
Yes. One reporting period means a single final report at the end, with payments validated by work‑package completion.
Q102 ↑Is the budget based on the Lump Sum model?
Yes. The 2026 Twinning topic uses the Lump Sum funding scheme (payment by completed work packages rather than reimbursement of actual costs).
Costs related to non‑EU partners (Canada)
Q41 ↑Regarding the budget, given that Canada is not eligible for funding under this call, could you please clarify whether the costs related to the activities in which the Canadian team will participate should be excluded from the total project budget (€0.8–1.5 million), or whether they may be presented separately without affecting the overall budget ceiling? Furthermore, should this participation be reflected in the Detailed Lump Sum Budget table, even if no funding is requested?
Legal entities established in a non-associated third country (e.g.: Canada) can participate as an associated partner with no budget. Based on Horizon Europe general principles: if no EU funding is requested, such third‑country costs should not be included in the lump‑sum ceiling. You may describe the Canadian team’s role in Part B and, if there are in‑kind contributions affecting tasks, note their non‑funded nature (the ‘Any comments’ sheet is used when in‑kind items are costed—here they would be non‑costed). If any costs covered by the beneficiaries (e.g., travel of an invited external expert from this associated partner) are foreseen, those must be inside the ceiling, put in the Detailed Lump Sum Budget, and justified; otherwise keep them outside the project budget.
Travel, mobility, conference costs
Q74 ↑Should the mobility costs be allocated to the host institution or the home institution of the travelling researcher?
Costs should be claimed by the beneficiary that incurs them. Typically, the home institution budgets and claims its staff mobility, unless otherwise justified. Avoid double funding.
Q84 ↑Do conference travel costs count towards the 30% allocated for WP1?
Only if the conference trip is integral to WP1 (research component) and necessary to achieve WP1 objectives. Otherwise, conference travel for dissemination/networking goes to non‑research WPs and does not count against the 30% cap.
Q90 ↑How to combine in budget different travels - e.g. secondments and conferences? Make an average?
Budget travel & subsistence under C1 using your usual practices. It’s fine to use realistic unit assumptions/averages per trip type (short visit, secondment block, conference), provided you document the basis in the Detailed Budget ‘Any comments’.
Q97 ↑Participation to a conference in order to present the results under WP1 should be cover by the WP1 or by the WP dedicated to Widening project dissemination?
If the conference participation is an essential WP1 task (e.g., milestone tied to WP1 results), place it in WP1; if it is general dissemination, place it in the dissemination WP. Monitor the 30% WP1 limit.
Q109 ↑Is always a midterm project evaluation and do we need to add travel expenses for this in the application?
Yes, you may expect the midterm project evaluation. A mandatory mid‑term review usually happens online, so no trips should be budgeted for this reason. If a project officer and an expert are visiting you onsite their travel expenses will be covered directly by the European Commission.
Personnel costs, salaries, recruitment
Q83 ↑What would be the threshold for the salary of senior and jounior scientist? becouse it differs from country to contry
There is no EU‑wide threshold for the salaries. Budget personnel according to your normal practices and roles, observing the 215 day/year horizontal ceiling across EU grants to avoid double funding. Justify if it differs significantly from the salaries given in a Horizon Dashboard for Lump Sum Evaluations (
https://ec.europa.eu/…/upport/videos/support/PTcPc8qno1E).
Q92 ↑Budget: Can project management costs be budgeted under the “natural person” cost category?
The question is not clear to me, if I understood it correctly you are asking about project manager employment costs. A2. Natural persons under direct contract in our opinion are “Doubtful” for Twinning. Prefer A1 (employees) for project management; use A2 only if well‑justified and compliant with your institution practice/regulations.
Q93 ↑Regarding hiring new staff: If one of the expected outcomes is an upgrade of research management office, or even building a new one, can we not hire new staff if we can justify that they will stay after the project duration?
Twinning is not aimed at hiring staff solely for the project. Any recruitment should benefit the institution beyond the project; DG RTD cautions against project‑only hires (e.g., short‑term postdocs). For research management/admin capacity, roles actively involved in R&I management can be eligible personnel—make long‑term retention explicit.
Q95 ↑What about administrative staff working on financial reporting in research projects who definitely need training and gaining a lot of knowledge and experience? Could their remuneration be financed as they will be involved in the capacity building tasks?
Yes, if they are actively involved in R&I management/capacity tasks (e.g., RMAs, project coordinators, data stewards). Purely administrative roles (general accountants/HR, office services) should not be charged as direct personnel; they are covered by the 25% indirect costs.
Q107 ↑It was mentioned during session on budget that admin support cannot be funded, but here I see Project Manager involved, can someone please clarify if project manager salary can be funded/partially funded from the project?
Yes, a Project Manager’s salary can be funded or partially funded under a Twinning project, as long as their work is directly linked to implementing the project’s activities (coordination, organisation of networking/training, reporting, financial management, communication, etc.).
What cannot be funded is general administrative support that is not specific to the project (e.g., standard institutional admin staff who would be paid regardless of the project).
This distinction is consistent with Horizon Europe participation rules for CSAs, where personnel costs directly contributing to the action are eligible, while general administrative support is not.
Research costs (30% for WP1)
Q63 ↑Are there restrictions or specifications on how the research budget will be spent? (salary, travel, equipment)
We are also collaborating with a Canadian team that we would like to involve in this proposal. However, given that Canada is associated only to Pillar II of Horizon Europe, could you please confirm whether this team may participate as an associated partner within the framework of the Twinning project?
Q67 ↑If we put all research capacity building in WP1, which cannot exceed 30% of the project budget, we have about 500,000 for research and 1 million for RMA capacity building and outreach...does this make sense?
Yes—this matches Twinning’s primary objective (capacity building/networking) and the ≤30% research cap (with ≥50% of that research share to the coordinator). We would advise against research‑heavy budgets and emphasize networking/skills/management strengthening.
Q72 ↑Does 30% for research component is calculated in respect to the total amount or 30% of direct costs?
A research and innovation component is max. 30% of the total Horizon Europe grant (including the indirect costs). Please budget max. 30% of direct costs to a dedicated workpackage (WP1) entitled ‘Research component’. In addition, ≥50% of that research portion must be allocated to the coordinator.
Q75 ↑Are significant technical or digital capacity-building investments eligible under the Twinning lump sum model, if they directly strengthen the coordinator’s institutional capabilities?
Major investments (infrastructure/large equipment) are not eligible. Capacity building should focus on people, mobility, networking, training, and small‑scale tools, not big capital purchases.
Q77 ↑Is is possible to buy new equipment relevant for the realization of the project in coordinator institution? If yes, is there any limitation and which budget category we should use for this?
Large equipment and infrastructure are ineligible in Twinning. Only small equipment (budget under C2 Equipment, and claimed as depreciation if your accounting policy requires) is acceptable when necessary and proportionate.
Q78 ↑Are software development costs eligible?
If software development is part of research tasks in WP1 or supports networking/capacity‑building tasks, include it under personnel (A1) and/or C3 “Other goods, works and services” (e.g., licences/services) with justification. If research‑related, it counts within the 30% research cap.
Q80 ↑What is consider large equipment? Is there tentative price threshold?
The EC documentation gives no EU price threshold. “Small vs large” follows your organisation’s asset/depreciation policy aligned with accounting standards. Nevertheless, large equipment is ineligible for Twinning.
Q81 ↑Within the 30% for research, can we include consumables only? Or can we also add the cost of personnel involved in research, publication costs etc?
You should include personnel, consumables, small equipment, and other costs necessary for the research component, provided the total research share ≤30% and it is justified under WP1. Publication fees are not a research cost and you could budget it in e.g.: Dissemination, Communication and Exploitation WP.
Q82 ↑Given that cloud services are considerably more expensive and less sustainable in the long term after project duration for us, we would like to purchase dedicated hardware instead. Could we allocate €8,000 from WP1 to support this infrastructure investment?
In general, infrastructure costs are ineligible in Twinning. Dedicated hardware may be included only as small equipment (C2), proportionate to research tasks. Avoid infrastructure‑type investments or fund them from other sources.
Subcontracting
Q70 ↑Q on budget - why direct subcontracting would be doubtful? For instance, some specific part (sample analysis) for research component that no partner can perform
Please treat direct subcontracting with caution: Twinning expects advanced partners to provide most expertise internally. Use subcontracting only on a small scale, when clearly necessary, and justify why it cannot be done within the consortium.
Q87 ↑Is it allow to subcontract services for research component (for example omics analysis)?
Subcontracting is allowed but must cover only a limited part of the action; core tasks must not be subcontracted. However, we suggest to use it only in duly justified cases, Twinning expects advanced partners to provide most expertise internally. Justify why partners cannot perform the task (e.g., omics analysis), why it is neccessary to conduct it and ensure no double funding
Tax‑related costs and eligibility
Q91 ↑Can taxes such as value-added tax (VAT) be considered eligible within the scope of twinning projects? If not, how can beneficiaries be exempted?
Please follow general Horizon Europe guidance. Non‑recoverable VAT is eligible and recoverable VAT is ineligible. Please follow your national VAT recovery status and ensure consistency with the AGA/MGA references.
Other budget‑related questions
Q43 ↑How detailed should the capacity‑building plan be in the proposal, especially when creating a new research and innovation unit within the coordinating institution?
A capacity‑building plan in a Twinning proposal should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate feasibility, credibility, and strategic alignment, but not so granular that it prescribes every operational step that will only be defined during implementation. However, please bear in mind that Twinning main aim is not to create a new research and innovation unit within the coordinating institution.
Q61 ↑Could the PI of the Twinning project also be the research manager of the project?
There is no explicit rule in the Twinning call documentation stating that the PI/project main leader/scientific coordinator cannot simultaneously act as the research manager. Twinning is implemented as a CSA, and its core focus includes strengthening research management capacities within the coordinating institution.
Because of this, the structure of the project team is flexible, and institutions may choose how to distribute roles as long as the division of responsibilities is clear and the workload is realistic.
In many funded Twinning projects, the PI/roject main leader/scientific coordinator and the project manager are separate individuals, because Twinning places a strong emphasis on developing research management skills, and management tasks can be substantial in a CSA with international networking, workshops, mobility, and reporting obligations.
This setup is not a legal requirement but often seen as a more convincing organisational model.
Q71 ↑What about eligibility of partners are there any specific criteria?
A Twinning consortium must include one coordinator from a Widening country and at least two leading research institutions from two different EU Member States or Associated Countries. These partners should be strong, research‑performing organisations capable of providing excellence, training, and knowledge transfer. Other Horizon Europe‑eligible entities may participate if relevant. Industry/ SMEs/NGOs can also join, but the core partners must be research institutions fulfilling the Twinning excellence and capacity-building objectives.
Q76 ↑Expenses related to conference participation may differ from the budget allocated in the contract as a lump sum. Would that be a problem for the post (or during) project audit ?
In lump sum, audits focus on whether WPs are completed as agreed, not on detailed real‑cost lines. Variances at item level (e.g., a different split of conference vs other travel) are generally not a problem if the WP is delivered and the overall cost structure remains reasonable. Keep the C/D category justifications per the ‘Any comments’ guidance and follow your institution rules while covering the expenses.
Q79 ↑When planning major capacity‑building investments, should they be included in the optional R&I component or in the general capacity‑building budget?
Major capacity‑building investments (e.g., training systems, management processes, institutional development) should be placed in thegeneral capacity‑building budget, because Twinning is primarily a Coordination and Support Action focused on networking, training and management strengthening. The optional R&I component (up to 30% of the budget) is reserved only for research and innovation activities, not for institutional capacity‑building investments.
Q85 ↑Seems that most of the benefits are for the coordinator. What incentives do the partners have?
While the coordinator is the main beneficiary (capacity building in the Widening country), partners benefit from networking, joint visibility, collaborative outputs, and funded effort aligned with their tasks. Budgets should reflect effort and impact, without a fixed ratio—note the research share rule (≥50% of research budget belongs to the coordinator, if applicable).
Q86 ↑I was coming accross the title over Table 3.1.g. "Instructions please remove"- what is there to remove exactly?
Please use the clean template of a proposal form without "Instructions please remove" watermark. The clean template is located at the end of the "Tpl_Application Form (Part B) (HE CSA)" file.
Q94 ↑Are the cost of a PhD student e.g.visiting Workshops aiming for capacity building eligable?
Please have a look at the EC reply (Question: Under the topic HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02-WIDENING-01, is it possible to recruit Master or PhD students? (ID 82074 Published on 08/01/2026 10:18)) "Twinning does not aim to fund Master or PhD programmes and should not be used as a vehicle for increasing the population of Master or PhD students. However, while costs linked to master students will be considered ineligible, PhD students’ participation in Twinning is possible. Costs of PhD students that work for the beneficiary can be accepted, if the agreement is work-oriented (not training-oriented, i.e. not aimed at helping the student to acquire professional skills). PhD agreements will be considered work-oriented. However, time for training, if any, may NOT be charged to the action. Fellowships/scholarships/stipends can be charged to the action (as personnel costs), if they fulfil the conditions set out in Article 6 of the AGA, and in particular:
·the remuneration complies with the applicable national law on taxes, labour and social security;
·the assignment of tasks respects the laws in force in the country of the beneficiary;
·the students have the necessary qualifications to carry out the tasks allocated to them under the action."
Therefore, PhD students’ participation is allowed. Their remuneration can be eligible as personnel when they work for a beneficiary and standard conditions are met. Travel to capacity‑building workshops is eligible under C1 when part of project tasks.