GrantWise
HORIZON EUROPE TOPIC · Cluster 3 · Civil Security for Society

Detection and characterisation of threats or illegal/ smuggled goods in cargo

HORIZON-CL3-2027-01-BM-03 — the expected outcomes as checkable statements, what evaluators look for in this topic, and the conditions that shape the proposal.

Get the free Part B working draft for this topic ↓

ForthcomingRIA · lump sumDeadline 4 November 2027around EUR 3.5 million per project

GrantWise › Horizon Europe topics › HORIZON-CL3-2027-01-BM-03

TopicHORIZON-CL3-2027-01-BM-03
StatusForthcoming
CallHORIZON-CL3-2027-01 — Civil Security for Society 2027
DestinationEffective management of EU external borders (2026-27)
Type of actionResearch and Innovation Actions · lump sum
Opening5 May 2027
Deadline4 November 2027
Budgetaround EUR 3.5 million per project · 4 projects expected · EUR 14 million in total
TRL at the endTRL 4–5
Part B page limit45 pages (standard application form; check your call)
TemplateWork Programme 2026–2027 application form

Expected outcomes

Projects may contribute to some of the expected outcomes; say which ones and why. The topic says: “Project results are expected to contribute to some or all of the following expected outcomes:”

  1. EO1 Increased security of air, maritime, land, or postal transport, cargo and supply chain.
  2. EO2 Address accidental or intentional explosions, fires, noxious chemicals, material degradation, or autonomous threats in cargo.
  3. EO3 Enhanced capabilities to detect, characterise, track and trace, and seize dangerous, regulated, illicit devices, goods, or material.
  4. EO4 Increased mobility of the customs authorities’ resources and equipment and improved agility for a faster and more coordinated response.
  5. EO5 Interoperability of customs control equipment and interconnectivity with other systems, including integration of logistical operations, and/or increased inter-agency and cross border collaboration.

Expected impacts named in the destination

The wider, long-term effects the destination seeks. Your outcomes feed them; they are not project deliverables.

  1. EI1 explore and develop future capabilities for European users in the areas of border management, customs and supply chain security, and civilian maritime security, in particular in the capability areas of: border surveillance; facilitating travel and legitimate trade; assessing and managing risk; strengthening the Schengen area without introducing internal border controls; maritime, aviation, land transport, cargo and customs security; supply chain resilience; detecting and identifying threats; interoperability and cybersecurity of EU information systems and equipment; safeguarding and promoting fundamental rights in the context of border management.
  2. EI2 the Multiannual Strategic Policy for European Integrated Border Management.
  3. EI3 the implementation of the Capability Roadmap of the European Border and Coast Guard and its updates.
  4. EI4 the proposals to strengthen EU legislation to prevent and fight against migrant smuggling.
  5. EI5 the proposals on digitalisation of travel documents and facilitation of travel.
  6. EI6 the new European Internal Security Strategy.
  7. EI7 the new Counter-Terrorism Agenda.
  8. EI8 the European Preparedness Union Strategy.
  9. EI9 the EU Port Strategy.
  10. EI10 the civil security aspects of the updated EU Maritime Security Strategy and of the European Ocean Pact.
  11. EI11 the Copernicus service for Security improving crisis prevention, preparedness and response in four key areas: Border surveillance; Maritime surveillance; Support to EU External and Security Actions, R&D for Earth Observation Security.
  12. EI12 the EU Cable Security Action Plan.

What evaluators will look for in this topic

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.

  • “Today’s global economy and high-volume trade flows require much and fast transport to deliver products worldwide.”
  • “Customs authorities must ensure a high level of compliance with both security and revenue objectives: trafficked materials may represent a threat, and undetected smuggled licit materials entering the EU deprive the Member States of the revenue due if the material had been legally traded.”
  • “Logistical hubs also need to strengthen their capabilities to adapt to sudden changes, and customs authorities need to mobilise their available resources to ensure efficient and fast controls.”
  • “The need for better mobility and improved agility for customs is accompanied by the need to deploy scalable solutions, that are interoperable with other systems to facilitate co-sharing of equipment between BCPs and between Member States.”
  • “Innovation actions funded under this topic should develop and test solutions for cargo security, relevant to one or more transport modes (maritime, air, postal, road, or rail); and usable at one (or more) crucial point(s) of the supply chain.”
  • “Proposals are expected to address one of the following options that should be explicitly selected:.”
  • “Detection capabilities should target one or more type(s) of dangerous, illicit and/or illegal goods or materials, including: explosive or incendiary devices; illicit drugs and their precursors; illegally traded species, including covered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and considering the Regulation on Deforestation-free Products; illegally traded cultural property; contraband;…”
  • “Where the identification of illegal goods cannot be achieved without opening containers (for example, in the case of species or their parts), and where imagery, chemical, or molecular tests are required, appropriate measures should be established to reduce the response time between sampling and expert assessment, thereby minimizing disruption to the flow of goods.”
  • “Equipment and technologies enabling increased security of cargo should contribute to cost and energy efficiency, limit their environmental impact and being more sustainable when they will be taken up in the future.”
  • “An increased security of air cargo, furthermore, should not be regarded as an incentive to use air transport when this has a higher environmental and emissions impact, but prioritised on critical supply lines and/or situations.”
  • “Proposals received under this topic should demonstrate how the project would integrate the perspective for the whole supply chain, from load to delivery.”
  • “Proposed solutions should be interoperable with the different relevant equipment and systems deployed by the customs authorities.”

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 4–5 by the end of the project. State where you start and the evidence for it.
  • Other Eligible Conditions: “Subject to restrictions for the protection of European communication networks.”
  • Other Eligible Conditions: “The following additional eligibility criteria apply: This topic requires the active involvement, as beneficiaries, of at least 2 Customs Authorities from at least 2 different EU Member States or Associated Countries. For these participants, applicants must fill in the table “Information about security practitioners”…”
  • Evaluation and award: Award criteria, scoring and thresholds: “To ensure a balanced portfolio, grants will be awarded to applications not only in order of ranking but at least also to one proposal that is the highest ranked within each of the two options: Option a, and Option b; provided that the applications attain all thresholds”
  • Legal and financial set-up of the grants: “Beneficiaries must provide financial support to third parties. The support to third parties can only be provided in the form of grants. The maximum amount to be granted to each third party is EUR 100 000 to support the expected outcomes of the topic and effective collaboration and/or coordination with additional…”

Impact pathway and traps

  • Users or citizens are part of the scope. Show how they take part in the design and testing, not only that they are informed.
  • The scope expects pilots or demonstration. Name the sites, the partners who run them and what is measured there.
  • Policy or regulation is in scope. Name the policy owners you will reach and what you will give them.
  • Keep outputs, outcomes and impacts apart: what you deliver, what changes when others use it, and the long-term effect.
  • For each destination impact you claim, show which of your outcomes feeds it. 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.
The scope, as published

Today’s global economy and high-volume trade flows require much and fast transport to deliver products worldwide. Traders and consumers expect quick and easy transactions, while customs administrations face the challenge of controlling the goods without disrupting their flow. This is exploited by organised crime and terrorist organisations, which take advantage of the large amount of goods to conceal threats or illegal and/or dangerous materials in legal commercial cargo, with the aim of causing damage, disruption, or of it illegally crossing borders unnoticed. Customs authorities must ensure a high level of compliance with both security and revenue objectives: trafficked materials may represent a threat, and undetected smuggled licit materials entering the EU deprive the Member States of the revenue due if the material had been legally traded. In addition, illegal trafficking can have an impact in the environment (such as biodiversity loss or deforestation) or for the EU citizens’ safety and health. The air and maritime cargo contexts present security challenges as well as high potential consequences of threats, primarily but not limited to explosives and incendiary devices. Air cargo can represent continuity assurances to cope, at least in the short term and for critical lines, with supply chain and/or distribution crises; while maritime cargo remains the most common transport mode in global trade. The risk for well-concealed materials not being detected during screening, or the risk of concealment during the supply chain is pressing. Logistical hubs also need to strengthen their capabilities to adapt to sudden changes, and customs authorities need to mobilise their available resources to ensure efficient and fast controls. The need for better mobility and improved agility for customs is accompanied by the need to deploy scalable solutions, that are interoperable with other systems to facilitate co-sharing of equipment between BCPs and between Member States. Innovation actions funded under this topic should develop and test solutions for cargo security, relevant to one or more transport modes (maritime, air, postal, road, or rail); and usable at one (or more) crucial point(s) of the supply chain. Innovation can also develop enhanced capabilities for customs to detect illicit, regulated and / or dangerous goods and transactions, and to be able to effectively characterise them in a timely manner. Improved tracking and tracing capabilities will facilitate the seizing of the materials while contributing to collecting data and evidence to further support investigations and prosecutions. Proposals are expected to address one of the following options that should be explicitly selected: Option a: security of cargo Option b: detection of smuggled and trafficked goods/materials in cargo Detection capabilities should target one or more type(s) of dangerous, illicit and/or illegal goods or materials, including: explosive or incendiary devices; illicit drugs and their precursors; illegally traded species, including covered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and considering the Regulation on Deforestation-free Products; illegally traded cultural property; contraband; trafficked weapons; chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive (CBRN-E) material or precursors; F-gases; and/or various modi operandi related to cross-border trafficking, including involving cargo. Where the identification of illegal goods cannot be achieved without opening containers (for example, in the case of species or their parts), and where imagery, chemical, or molecular tests are required, appropriate measures should be established to reduce the response time between sampling and expert assessment, thereby minimizing disruption to the flow of goods. Examples of technologies and approaches that can be explored by the research actions include (non-prescriptive and non-exhaustive): smart active defuse systems, sensors, artificial intelligence, tracking and tracing systems, distributed ledger technologies, non-intrusive inspection, automated threat recognition systems, and screening and scanning systems. Equipment and technologies enabling increased security of cargo should contribute to cost and energy efficiency, limit their environmental impact and being more sustainable when they will be taken up in the future. An increased security of air cargo, furthermore, should not be regarded as an incentive to use air transport when this has a higher environmental and emissions impact, but prioritised on critical supply lines and/or situations. Proposals received under this topic should demonstrate how the project would integrate the perspective for the whole supply chain, from load to delivery. Proposed solutions should be interoperable with the different relevant equipment and systems deployed by the customs authorities. Proposals should demonstrate how their solutions would align with existing interoperability standards (if any), and consider issues of cybersecurity and EU technological sovereignty and strategic autonomy. Proposals submitted under this topic are expected to align with the customs reform (if adopted) and customs policy priorities, and the projects should, once started, align with the policy priorities of the proposed EU Customs Authority and its Data Hub (if established). Coordination among the successful proposals from this topic should be envisaged to avoid duplication and to exploit complementarities as well as opportunities for increased impact. To ensure the active involvement of and timely feedback from relevant security practitioners, proposals should plan a mid-term deliverable consisting in the assessment of the project’s mid-term outcomes, performed by the practitioners involved in the project. Research projects should consider, build on (if appropriate) and not duplicate previous research, including but not limited to research by…

Technology readiness, as published

Activities are expected to achieve TRL 4-5 by the end of the project – see General Annex B. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/forests/deforestation/regulation-deforestation-free-products_en

Other topics in HORIZON-CL3-2027-01

Source and attribution

Topic text from the official topic page on the EU Funding & Tenders Portal, retrieved 19 October 2026. © European Union, reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (CC BY 4.0). Changes: the expected outcomes and impacts are split into numbered statements, long passages are shortened, and the evaluator checklist is GrantWise's own commentary. Your call and the Work Programme always win; check them before you submit. GrantWise is independent and not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of the European Commission.