Targeted innovative capabilities for the resilience of critical entities to natural and human-induced disasters, including hybrid scenarios

Expected outcomes

• Projects may contribute to some of the expected outcomes; say which ones and why.
• For each outcome (EO1 to EO5), name who will use or adopt your results (a specific group, not “industry” or “society”), how they get them, and the indicator that shows the change, with baseline, target and date.
• Use the topic's own words for each outcome, so the evaluator can tick it off.

What the scope asks for

Evaluators check the proposal against these sentences of the scope. Answer each one visibly, in the call's own words.

• “Recent compound and cascading disasters have demonstrated the urgent need to reinforce the resilience of critical entities against a wide spectrum of hazards, including both human-induced incidents, natural events such as floods, wildfires, earthquakes, and storms, and natural hazard triggered technological (NaTech) accidents, including hybrid scenarios.”
• “Proposals should be grounded in existing risk assessments and draw on lessons learned from recent disruptive events.”
• “They are expected to deliver measurable improvements in both technological and organisational resilience through the identification and prioritisation of critical capability gaps, especially where cascading and cross-sectoral risks are likely to arise.”
• “In parallel, adaptive continuity planning and decision-making tools should be designed to enhance situational awareness, support dynamic response coordination, and maintain service continuity in fast-evolving crisis scenarios.”
• “Proposals should also demonstrate cross-border, multi-actor coordination mechanisms through simulations or testing in real operational environments, involving public authorities, emergency responders, and critical service operators or representative environments where critical infrastructure is particularly exposed to multi-hazard risks.”
• “International cooperation is encouraged, particularly in regions with cross-border infrastructure or shared vulnerabilities.”
• “Actions should take due account of the relevant EU legal and policy frameworks and are expected to address all applicable considerations expressed in the Introductions of the Resilient Infrastructure and Disaster-Resilient Society for Europe Destinations.”
• “Coordination among the successful proposals from this topic and projects funded under HORIZON-CL3-2025-01-INFRA-01: Open topic for improved preparedness for, response to and recovery from large-scale disruptions of critical infrastructures and HORIZON-CL3-2025-01-INFRA-02: Open topic for role of the human factor for resilience of European critical entities, and HORIZON-CL3-2024-DRS-01-04: Hi-tech capacities for crisis response and recovery…”

Conditions that shape the proposal

• Part B, sections 1–3: 45 pages (standard application form). Text beyond the limit is not read; tables and figures count.
• Lump sum: the budget is fixed per work package and paid when each work package is completed. Every work package needs activities and deliverables an evaluator can verify, and the effort must match the money.
• TRL: the topic expects TRL 6–7 by the end of the project. State where you start and the evidence for it.
• Innovation action: evaluators expect a plausible path to commercialisation and named first users or customers.
• Other Eligible Conditions: “In line with the “ restriction on control in innovation actions in critical technology areas ” delineated in General Annex B of the General Annexes, entities established in an eligible country but which are directly or indirectly controlled by China or by a legal entity established in China are not eligible to…”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “This topic requires involvement as beneficiaries of at least 3 relevant practitioners from EU Member States or Associated Countries. Depending on the specific proposal submitted, these practitioners should represent one or several of the following portfolios: critical infrastructure operator,”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “authority responsible for critical infrastructure resilience,”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “civil protection authority,”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “first responders’ organisations or agencies,”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “authority in charge of managing NaTech (Natural Hazard Triggered Technological) events,”

Impact pathway and traps

• The scope expects pilots or demonstration. Name the sites, the partners who run them and what is measured there.
• International cooperation is part of the scope. Explain what the non-EU partners add and how the cooperation is organised.
• Keep outputs, outcomes and impacts apart: what you deliver, what changes when others use it, and the long-term effect.
• Link your outcomes to the destination's expected impacts in the Work Programme. Destination impacts are long-term effects, not project deliverables.
• Name the barriers outside the project (regulation, markets, user behaviour) that could block uptake, and what you will do if they do.
• Section 2.3 (the summary canvas) is optional on this call; the old split into scientific, economic and societal impact is no longer required.