---
id: ch9-open-calls
type: spine
title: "Open calls: a four-step ladder from local ideas to tested tools"
readingTime: 3
standalone: true
core: true
teaser: "€900,000 set aside for outside organisations, split into four calls that each fund the next step, and how the delivered scheme differed from the plan."
voice: universal
diagram: diagram-open-call-ladder
recallQ: "What does each of the four PoliRural+ open calls fund, and how did the delivered scheme differ from the plan?"
recallA: "Outreach (€5,000 lump sums) mapped local needs and stakeholders, Mobilise (€10,000) ran hackathons and ideathons, Develop (€30,000–100,000) built working digital applications, and Enhance (up to €25,000) tested JackDaw in real use. Of the €900,000 planned, D6.3 reports €850,968 paid to 26 projects. Develop took about 68 % of it, against half of the planned envelope."
highlights:
  - "Four calls, four steps: map needs, mobilise, develop, test"
  - "Planned €900,000 (16 % of the requested EU contribution, including evaluation costs); reported €850,968 for 26 projects"
  - "339 applications, 30 approved, 26 funded"
  - "Each criterion scored at least 3/5 and at least 11/15 in total; one project per pilot preferred"
status: accepted
concept: open-calls
conceptTitle: "The open-call ladder"
parents: consortium
lang: en
lens: generic
depth: standard
formalism: none
visuality: balanced
lengthBand: deep
genre: explainer
state: core
carriers: prose|table|diagram
---

**Financial Support to Third Parties (FSTP)** lets a Horizon Europe project pass part of its grant to organisations outside the consortium. PoliRural+ set aside **€900,000** for this in the coordinator's budget, with a cap of €60,000 per recipient. D6.1 puts the amount at 16 % of the requested EU contribution, including the cost of evaluating proposals. The money was not spent through one big call. It was split into **four calls, each funding the next step of a ladder**.

## The design

| Call (window) | What it funds | Who may apply | Per project | Plan | Delivered (D6.3) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| **Outreach** (Jun–Aug 2024) | Regional workshops; collecting grassroots ideas; mapping local stakeholders and needs | A single legal entity in a pilot region | €5,000 lump sum | 9 projects, €45,000 | 6 projects, €30,000 |
| **Mobilise** (Jan–Mar 2025) | A hackathon, datathon or ideathon on at least two regional themes, with mentoring on PoliRural+ tools (JackDaw, Map Whiteboard, Policy Advisor) | A single entity in an EU Member State or Associated Country; at most one per pilot | €10,000 lump sum | 9, €90,000 | 7, €69,870 |
| **Develop** (May–Jul 2025) | Building and deploying a working place-based digital application (AI, IoT, GIS) that sends its data back to the project | A single entity or a consortium of up to three | €30,000–100,000 | 5–15, €450,000 | 6, €577,203 |
| **Enhance** (Sep–Dec 2025) | Testing JackDaw on real use cases: structured user feedback, a 10–15 page validation report, training | A single entity only | up to €25,000 | 7–15, €315,000 | 7, €173,895 |

Planned budgets come from the project fact sheet; planned project numbers come from D6.1.

Each step builds on the one before. The two cheap early calls build up the local stakeholder base and the list of needs. The expensive call builds tools that answer those needs. The last call has outside organisations, who did not build [JackDaw](#c/jackdaw), test it. Develop was first planned on real costs and was then run on lump sums, like the other three calls.

## Selection and payment

Applicants submitted proposals through the PoliRural+ Knowledge Hub. Evaluators scored **Objectives, Impacts and Implementation** from 0 to 5 in half-point steps. A proposal had to score at least 3 on each criterion and at least 11 of 15 overall. Projects from different pilot regions were preferred, one per region. Develop and Enhance received many proposals, so an AI tool did a first screening for clustering, completeness and baseline relevance. Two human experts then evaluated every proposal, and a consensus panel set the final ranking. Winners signed a sub-grant agreement with CVUT and were paid per milestone, once their reports, media outputs or data packages were approved.

## Plan versus delivery

The four calls drew **339 applications**: 46 for Develop and 160 for Enhance. Thirty were approved and 26 went ahead. Two changes stand out. Outreach and Mobilise funded fewer projects than the planned nine (6 and 7). Money also moved up the ladder: Develop received **67.8 %** of the €850,968 reported, while the plan gave it half. Enhance used about 55 % of its planned €315,000. D6.3 notes that €850,968 is the final eligible value of the 26 projects and should not be read as the Grant Agreement envelope.

[Open-call results](#c/open-call-results) covers what the 26 projects built, region by region.

**Sources:**
- Public project fact sheet (Grant Agreement 101136910): FSTP budget, per-recipient cap, planned call budgets. Website: [poliruralplus.eu](https://www.poliruralplus.eu/)
- D6.1 Open Calls Detailed Strategy and Timeline, Executive Summary; §2.2 Expected Results; §2.6 Selection Process — [PDF](https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/146/Attachment_0_58.pdf)
- D6.3 Comprehensive Report on Funded Activities and Impact Assessment, §1.2 Overview of the Open Calls; §2.1 Open Calls design; §2.2 Distribution of funding; §2.3.1 Evaluation methodology — [PDF](https://www.poliruralplus.eu/docs/437/D6.3_Comprehensive_report.pdf)