Horizon Europe CSA Proposal Template: 7 Differences From RIA

By Aoba Works · Published October 28, 2026 · 16 min read

How this guide was made: drafted with AI assistance from the official sources linked below, then passed an automated editorial check before publishing. Our process

• Horizon Europe
• Csa
• Proposal Template
• Part B

The Horizon Europe CSA proposal template uses the same three Part B sections as the RIA template (Excellence, Impact, Implementation), but it has a shorter page limit: 25 pages, or 28 for lump-sum topics, against 40 and 45 for RIA/IA under the 2026–2027 forms (NCP Flanders). The other big differences are in what the sections ask for. In a CSA, Excellence is judged on the "quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures" rather than how far you go beyond the state of the art. TRL, SSH integration and sex/gender analysis are not required. Funding is up to 100% for every type of organisation. Always download the template from your topic's own submission system, because the version attached to your call is the one that counts (criteri.ai).

Which option is right for you?

Start from your situation. The table below tells you which template version and which page to open first.

Why these picks: beginners get stuck on registration before they ever reach the template. RIA veterans tend to overwrite Excellence. Two-stage applicants who use the full form waste pages on Implementation, which isn't scored at stage 1 (HE CSA evaluation form).

What Is a CSA in Horizon Europe (Coordination and Support Action)?

A CSA (Coordination and Support Action) pays for coordination, networking, dissemination and policy support. It does not pay for original research the way an RIA or IA does. EMDESK describes CSAs as actions that "do not fund research or innovation" and instead facilitate cooperation, capacity building, knowledge dissemination and policy support (EMDESK). The binding definitions are in the Work Programme General Annexes (General Annexes 2026–2027) and the Horizon Europe Programme Guide.

Typical CSA work includes stakeholder workshops, standardisation, strategy and roadmap development, and aligning national and European priorities (EMDESK). Some CSAs also re-grant money to third parties. Examples from 2026–2027 topics include caps of EUR 60,000 per third party in some research-infrastructure and EIC ecosystem topics, and EUR 750,000 per third party in a cross-domain open science topic (Work Programme 2026–2027, Annex III).

Who can apply also differs from RIA. Standard RIA/IA consortia need at least three independent legal entities from three different countries, at least one of them in a Member State. CSA applications "may be submitted by one or more legal entities," so a single organisation can apply unless the topic says otherwise (General Annexes). Entities from non-associated third countries can join CSAs as associated partners unless the topic excludes this.

Example (from a real 2026 topic): the EIC Scaling Club 2.0 call (HORIZON-EIC-2026-BAS-02-SCALEUP) was a CSA with a EUR 4 million budget and one expected grant. Its deadline was 25 June 2026. It had to support at least 70 deep-tech companies through networking and learning, at least 35 of them from the EIC portfolio (EIC). There is no lab work and no prototype. The deliverables are a support programme and its reach.

CSA vs RIA: What Sections Are Different in the Proposal Template?

Both templates use the same Part B skeleton (1 Excellence, 2 Impact, 3 Quality and efficiency of implementation). What differs is the page budget, the wording of the criteria and several sub-elements. Here are the seven differences that change how you write:

Some things are the same in both templates. In 2026–2027 the "scale and significance" guidance was dropped from section 2.1, the 2.3 summary became optional, and the tables for "other cost categories" and "in-kind contributions" were removed from 3.1 (NCP Flanders; Accelopment). The scoring thresholds also match: at least 3 per criterion and 10 overall for single-stage proposals (HE CSA evaluation form). If you want the RIA side page by page, see the RIA 40-page section map.

Pitfalls when converting an RIA draft into a CSA:

• Pasting a state-of-the-art review into 1.1. Evaluators score the pertinence of your objectives, not novelty. Keep the context to a few paragraphs on the gap your coordination fills. Evaluators do still sometimes comment on state-of-the-art awareness in CSA reports (proposia), so show you know the field without turning it into a literature review.
• Using an old 30-page template. The pre-2026 CSA limit was 30 pages (33 lump sum) (Accelopment). Pages beyond the limit are not considered by evaluators, so download a fresh copy.
• Keeping empty RIA headings such as "Gender dimension in research content" with "N/A" under them. Just follow the CSA headings.

How Is the Funding Rate Different for CSA Proposals?

CSAs are funded at up to 100% of eligible costs for every type of organisation. In an IA, by contrast, profit-making beneficiaries get 70% (General Annexes). RIAs are also at 100% for all beneficiaries, so for a university the RIA and CSA rates are the same. The gap only matters to companies that compare a CSA with an IA.

Rates as of October 2026 (criteri.ai summary of the General Annexes and MGA). A topic can set a different rate in its conditions, so the 100% is a maximum and not a guarantee (General Annexes).

The flat 25% for indirect costs is where CSA budgets often go wrong. It applies to eligible direct costs excluding subcontracting and financial support to third parties (criteri.ai). CSAs often subcontract venues, translation or event logistics, and they often re-grant money. None of that earns overhead.

Example (illustrative numbers): a CSA plans EUR 600,000 in personnel, EUR 150,000 in travel and other goods, EUR 200,000 in subcontracted event organisation and EUR 1,000,000 in third-party grants. Indirect costs are 25% × (600,000 + 150,000) = EUR 187,500. The subcontracting and the third-party grants add nothing to that figure. If you had planned overheads on the full EUR 1.95 million, you would be EUR 300,000 short.

What Goes in the 'Excellence' Section of a CSA Proposal?

The CSA Excellence section is scored on clear, pertinent objectives and on the quality of your coordination and support measures. Scientific novelty and advances beyond the state of the art are not scored (HE CSA evaluation form). Section 1.2 asks you to "describe and explain the coordination and/or support measures and the overall methodology, including the concepts, models and assumptions that underpin your work," to explain how this delivers your objectives, and to name challenges in the chosen methodology (HE CSA form).

For the pre-2026 30-page CSA form, Enspire Science's analysis recommended about 2 pages for 1.1 and 6 pages for 1.2 (4 for the core measures and methodology, 2 for other elements), compared with 4 and 15 for RIA/IA (Enspire Science). With 25 pages in 2026–2027, check the indicative allocations printed in your template rather than reusing those numbers.

Steps to draft it:

1. Open your topic on the Funding & Tenders Portal. Under Topic conditions and documents, read the "Expected outcome" and "Scope" text and copy every expected outcome into a scratch list.
2. In 1.1 Objectives and ambition, write 3–6 objectives, and have each one name the outcome it serves. Make them measurable in coordination terms (number of Member States aligned, number of stakeholders engaged, roadmap adopted by a named body).
3. Under ambition, explain why this coordination is needed now, for example fragmented national programmes or missing standards. Leave out TRL claims.
4. In 1.2 Coordination and/or support measures and methodology, separate the concept (why this mix of measures works) from the method (how you'll run each one). Enspire recommends this split even though the CSA template blurs it (Enspire Science).
5. List each measure type, such as mapping study, mutual-learning workshops, an open call for third parties or policy briefs. For each, give its target group, its format and how you will select participants.
6. End 1.2 with the methodological challenges you see (low attendance, no buy-in from ministries) and how you'll handle them. The template asks for this explicitly.

Example (illustrative): for a topic asking for "better alignment of national circular-economy funding programmes," a weak objective reads "Promote cooperation among funders." A stronger one reads "Bring at least 12 national funding agencies to agree a joint call roadmap by month 24, adopted in a signed memorandum." The second version gives evaluators something they can score under "clarity and pertinence."

Open science practices are mandatory across Horizon Europe in general, but the CSA template does not ask for the dedicated open-science research-output plan found in RIA 1.2 (Enspire Science). If your CSA produces datasets (for example a stakeholder mapping database), say how you'll make them open, and check your template wording.

Do CSA Proposals Need to Show Own Resources or Co-financing?

Usually not. At a 100% funding rate there is no co-financing gap to cover from your own resources, and the 2026–2027 template no longer has the "in-kind contributions" table in section 3.1 (NCP Flanders). The co-financing question mostly belongs to IAs: a profit-making beneficiary funded at 70% covers the other 30% itself (criteri.ai). What counts as an eligible cost is set out in Article 6 of the Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement.

"100%" still doesn't mean every euro you spend is reimbursed. Pitfalls and fixes:

• Ineligible costs. Anything outside the Article 6 eligibility rules (MGA) is paid by you, even at 100%. Fix: have your finance office check costs like hospitality, recoverable VAT and equipment depreciation before you finalise the budget.
• Topic-specific rates. A topic can set a rate below 100% in its conditions (General Annexes). Fix: read the "Specific conditions" block on the topic page before planning anything.
• Equipment justification. In 2026–2027, purchase costs only need justifying in 3.1 when equipment exceeds 15% of personnel costs (Accelopment). CSAs rarely buy equipment, so a large equipment line will look odd to evaluators.
• Lump-sum CSAs. You still submit a detailed budget, but you are paid on completed work packages rather than on reported costs. Fix: use the lump-sum template (28 pages) and define work packages whose completion can be checked.

Is TRL (Technology Readiness Level) Required in a CSA Proposal?

No. TRL is not applicable to CSA proposals because CSAs don't develop technology (Enspire Science). In the RIA template, by contrast, 1.1 asks for start and end TRL where relevant (proposia). RIAs typically sit around TRL 2–5/6 and IAs around TRL 5–8 (EMDESK). The TRL scale itself is defined in the General Annexes.

Pitfalls:

• Promising TRL progression in a CSA. Writing "we will advance the platform from TRL 4 to 6" suggests research or innovation work that a CSA isn't meant to fund. Evaluators may read it as a scope mismatch. Fix: describe what your measures change, such as access, alignment, skills or uptake.
• Leaving maturity out completely when the topic is about technology uptake. Example (illustrative): a CSA that helps SMEs adopt results from earlier EU projects can say those results "come from completed IA pilots." That describes other people's work, which is fine. Just don't make TRL an objective of your project.

What Impact Section Content Is Expected in a CSA vs RIA?

CSA impact sections centre on stakeholder uptake, dissemination networks and policy or practice change. RIA impact sections are built around scientific results and their exploitation. The sub-sections are the same in both: 2.1 pathways, 2.2 measures to maximise impact, and an optional 2.3 summary. The criterion wording is also shared: "Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme" and "Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities" (HE CSA evaluation form).

For RIA, the 2026–2027 template cut the pathways allocation from 4 to 3 pages (Accelopment). CSA pages are tighter still, so a compact table usually does more work than prose.

Example (illustrative 2.1 entry): Outcome from the topic: "Funders coordinate calls." Your result: "Joint call roadmap." Pathway: "Roadmap presented to the national funders' board at month 20, followed by a signed memorandum at month 24." Barrier: "Election cycles in two countries." Mitigation: "Engage agency-level staff as well as political representatives."

For the ranking, CSA and RIA criteria are weighted equally. The 1.5 weighting of Impact for ranking applies to Innovation Actions (General Annexes). For how each sub-criterion turns into a score, see the Part B scoring map.

How to Write the Implementation Section for a CSA Proposal?

In section 3, the work packages should be the coordination engine itself: mapping, events, mutual learning, third-party calls and dissemination. Management and governance should be visible in their own work package. This section gives you no room to rebuild an RIA-style methodology. The award criterion is the same for every action type: quality and effectiveness of the work plan, allocation of resources, and the capacity and role of each participant (HE CSA evaluation form). The 2026–2027 form removed the 3.1 tables on other cost categories and in-kind contributions (NCP Flanders).

Steps:

1. Draft the WP list first. Example structure (illustrative): WP1 Management, WP2 Mapping and baseline, WP3 Mutual learning and events, WP4 Open call for third parties (only if the topic allows it), WP5 Roadmap and policy recommendations, WP6 Communication, dissemination and sustainability.
2. Give each WP measurable deliverables: event reports with attendance, a database, a roadmap or a policy brief. Use milestones for decisions, such as "Open call launched" or "Roadmap endorsed."
3. Fill in the risk table with coordination risks, for example low participation, partner drop-out or a delayed political endorsement, each with a mitigation.
4. Justify effort per partner. CSAs are mostly person-months, so show why each partner's months match its role: who chairs which working group and who runs which country's outreach.
5. In 3.2 Capacity of participants, show networks rather than research track records: members, existing mandates, past events of a similar size.
6. If a single entity applies (allowed for CSAs), explain how you'll reach stakeholders across countries without consortium partners, for example through associated partners or subcontracted national hubs. Remember that subcontracting earns no 25% overhead.

Common mistakes and fixes:

• A "research" WP with experiments or surveys sold as studies. Fix: frame them as mapping or analysis that feeds coordination. If the topic really needs new research, it's probably the wrong action type for you.
• Communication bundled into management. Fix: give dissemination its own WP so evaluators can see it under Impact too.
• No plan for after the project. Fix: add a sustainability deliverable, for example a network charter or a hand-over to an existing association.
• An open call without selection rules. Topics that allow financial support to third parties may require independent review and grants as the only form of support (Work Programme 2026–2027, Annex III). Fix: describe the eligibility rules, evaluation, maximum amounts and conflict-of-interest handling.

Exact UI path to get the right template:

1. On the Funding & Tenders Portal, search the topic ID and open the topic page.
2. Under Topic conditions and documents, open Standard application form (HE CSA) and the matching evaluation form to read them.
3. Click Start submission, sign in with your EU Login (two-factor guide), select the organisation by PIC and create the draft.
4. In the submission system, use Download Part B templates. This is the version bound to your call.
5. Upload the finished PDF and click Validate before Submit. You can then track the proposal in My Proposals.

Next steps

Things you can do today:

1. Open your target topic, check the Type of action says CSA, and download the Part B template from the submission system rather than from an old shared drive.
2. Copy the HE CSA evaluation form criteria into your draft as hidden headings, then delete anything you wrote that doesn't serve one of them, starting with TRL and state-of-the-art text.
3. Recalculate indirect costs leaving out subcontracting and third-party support.

If you'd rather not do it alone:

• National Contact Points (NCPs). Every Member State and Associated Country has Horizon Europe NCPs, listed on the Funding & Tenders Portal NCP page. Their advice is generally free of charge (as of October 2026; check your national NCP). They suit first-time applicants and anyone who needs a rules check. They don't suit people who want someone to write the text: NCPs advise but won't draft your proposal, and their capacity before big deadlines is limited.
• Private grant consultants. These suit organisations with a confirmed topic and little in-house writing time. Fees aren't published centrally and vary by firm and by model (fixed fee, success fee or both), so ask for a written quote and what's included (as of October 2026). They don't suit very small budgets, and a consultant can't make up for a weak consortium or a topic that doesn't fit. If you need technical help with the Portal itself, use the official helpdesk route.

Related guides on this site:

• Horizon Europe Proposal Template RIA: 40-Page Section Map
• Horizon Europe Proposal Template Part B: 2026 Scoring Map
• Cascade Funding Open Calls: Portal Filters and 2026 Dates
• EU Funding and Tenders Portal Registration: PIC in 6 Steps

FAQ

What is the difference between RIA and CSA in Horizon Europe?

An RIA funds research that creates new knowledge or tests new technology, typically at TRL 2–5/6. A CSA funds coordination, networking, dissemination and policy support without original research (EMDESK). The CSA template is shorter (25 vs 40 pages) and judges Excellence on the quality of the coordination measures. A CSA can also be submitted by a single legal entity.

Can a CSA include research activities?

As a rule, no. CSAs are for coordination and support, and research and innovation activities belong in RIAs and IAs (EMDESK). Mapping studies or analyses that feed coordination are normal. If the topic's expected outcomes need new scientific results, check the General Annexes and the topic text, or look for an RIA topic instead.

What is the funding rate for CSA Horizon Europe?

Up to 100% of eligible costs for all beneficiaries, plus a 25% flat rate for indirect costs on eligible direct costs other than subcontracting and financial support to third parties (criteri.ai). A topic can set a different rate in its specific conditions (General Annexes).

Where can I download the Horizon Europe CSA proposal template?

The reference copy is the "Standard application form (HE CSA)" linked from each CSA topic page under Topic conditions and documents (HE CSA form). The editable Part B you actually submit comes from Download Part B templates inside the submission system after Start submission. Use that one, because the version tied to your call is the one that applies (criteri.ai).

Sources

• NCP Flanders – Revised Standard Application Form, Horizon Europe WP 2026–2027
• Accelopment – Horizon Europe 2026–2027: what changed in the proposal template
• criteri.ai – Horizon Europe page limits & Part B template
• criteri.ai – Horizon Europe funding rates explained
• European Commission – Standard application form (HE CSA)
• European Commission – Standard application form (HE CSA stage 1)
• European Commission – Evaluation form (HE CSA)
• European Commission – Horizon Europe Work Programme 2026–2027, General Annexes
• European Commission – Horizon Europe Work Programme 2026–2027, Annex III
• European Commission – Horizon Europe Programme Guide
• European Commission – Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement
• European Commission – National Contact Points
• European Innovation Council – Call for CSA: EIC Scaling Club 2.0
• Enspire Science – The Excellence section in Horizon Europe proposals
• proposia – Horizon Europe Part B template: every section
• EMDESK – RIA, IA, CSA in Horizon Europe

Spotted something out of date or wrong? Tell us at shigoto.ai.note@gmail.com. Guides are re-checked against official sources on a rolling schedule.