| Topic | HORIZON-CL6-2027-01-BIODIV-06 |
|---|---|
| Status | Forthcoming |
| Call | HORIZON-CL6-2027-01 — Call 01 - single stage (2027) |
| Destination | Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (2026-27) |
| Type of action | Research and Innovation Actions · lump sum |
| Opening | 20 April 2027 |
| Deadline | 22 September 2027 |
| Budget | around EUR 7 million per project · 2 projects expected · EUR 14 million in total |
| Part B page limit | 45 pages (standard application form; check your call) |
| Template | Work Programme 2026–2027 application form |
Expected outcomes
Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes. The topic says: “Project results are expected to contribute to all the following expected outcomes:”
- EO1 society and decision-makers are provided with enhanced governance frameworks that integrate knowledge across ecosystems (terrestrial, freshwater and marine) and/or societal challenges, helping overcome institutional barriers, power asymmetries, and policy fragmentation to accelerate transformative change towards a nature positive economy and support EU climate goals.
- EO2 practitioners and public authorities co-create and have access to living labs as innovation hubs for testing, and scaling both governance and socio-economic models that integrate diverse knowledge systems, actively engage stakeholders and support bottom-up and participatory approaches.
Expected impacts named in the destination
The wider, long-term effects the destination seeks. Your outcomes feed them; they are not project deliverables.
- EI1 Knowledge on biodiversity status and trends and drivers of biodiversity loss is improved.
- EI2 Innovations, methods, pathways, models and tools are available and used to protect healthy and resilient ecosystems and to restore degraded ones, ensuring the continuous provision of ecosystem services, including for adaptation and/or mitigation to climate change.
- EI3 The ongoing biodiversity crisis and its consequences, notably on ecosystem functioning and their services, and the need to monitor, protect, restore and sustainably use biodiversity are better understood to better benefit the whole society in an inclusive way.
- EI4 Policymakers and stakeholders, all relevant economic sectors and society are aware and well informed of relevant challenges and opportunities of biodiversity protection, restoration and sustainable use, leading to better implementation of the biodiversity legislation and better valuation of ecosystem services, leading to transformative change towards a nature positive economy.
- EI5 Farmers, foresters, land and sea managers, fishers and aquaculture producers have access to key information, and test and implement biodiversity-friendly management practices, while safeguarding food and water security and fostering competitiveness, demonstrating the long-term sustainability of these sectors.
- EI6 Progress towards international commitments worldwide on biodiversity is made.
What evaluators will look for in this topic
Expected outcomes
- Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes.
- For each outcome (EO1 to EO2), 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.
- “Relevant stakeholders should be actively involved in shaping new solutions adapted to different and local contexts.”
- “Proposals should align with key policies including the European Green Deal and the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030, the Sustainable Development Goals, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), the Paris Agreement, the European Climate Law and the One Health approach.”
- “Proposals should:. establish living labs as real-world testing environments to experiment with policy solutions, stakeholder engagement, and new economic models, while strengthening collective capacities and well-being, and identifying and overcoming barriers that limit participation in living labs;. develop inclusive, intersectional and adaptive governance strategies that foster systemic transformative change, based on both biodiversity and…”
- “In particular, actions are expected to:. conduct a comprehensive review and analysis of policies related to both direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, with the aim of identifying conflicting or competing objectives and informing more coherent, nature positive policy frameworks;. analyse the legal, financial and institutional barriers to inclusive governance in Europe, including the assessment of political and economic obstacles and…”
- “Proposals should address Area A: living labs per ecosystem (marine, freshwater, terrestrial (including agriculture, forestry, cities)) or Area B: living labs per societal challenge (climate change, water, food, health, pollution, spatial planning).”
- “The area (A or B) should be clearly indicated on the application.”
- “Proposals should ensure close collaboration with the other project selected under this topic.”
- “They should also offer training for policymakers, community leaders, and researchers on co-governance and knowledge integration and develop educational materials and ensure coordination and exchanges between all living labs.”
- “Proposals should adopt interdisciplinary approaches and ensure policymakers, business leaders and stakeholders co-create, experiment, and validate new solutions in an open, user-centred way.”
- “Solutions should be adapted to the environmental, socio-economic, and cultural contexts of each living lab, considering both cultural and natural heritage.”
- “Scaling and transferability challenges should be addressed through collaborative approaches combining scientific knowledge with local expertise.”
- “The gender dimension should also be integrated.”
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.
- Other Eligible Conditions: “The following additional eligibility criteria apply: The proposals must apply the multi-actor approach. See definition of the multi-actor approach in this work programme part.”
- Evaluation and award: Award criteria, scoring and thresholds: “To ensure a balanced portfolio, grants will be awarded to proposals not only in order of ranking but at least also to one proposal within the area A that is the highest ranked, and one proposal highest ranked within the area B, provided that the applications attain all thresholds. Proposals shall clearly indicate the…”
Impact pathway and traps
- The topic asks for social sciences and humanities (SSH) expertise. Evaluators look for SSH partners with a real role in the methodology, not a token task.
- 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.
- The gender dimension is named in the topic. Show how sex and gender analysis enters the research content, not only team balance.
- 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
As nature positive actions gain momentum and biodiversity is increasingly integrated into policies, it is essential to ensure governance frameworks can support large-scale, coordinated implementation. Relevant stakeholders should be actively involved in shaping new solutions adapted to different and local contexts. Living labs have the potential to empower a green transition and a transformative change towards nature positive society and economy by developing solutions in a co-creative manner and involving actors in real life settings to achieve large-scale impact and foster collaboration between sectors and communities. Proposals should align with key policies including the European Green Deal and the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030, the Sustainable Development Goals, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), the Paris Agreement, the European Climate Law and the One Health approach. Proposals should: establish living labs as real-world testing environments to experiment with policy solutions, stakeholder engagement, and new economic models, while strengthening collective capacities and well-being, and identifying and overcoming barriers that limit participation in living labs; develop inclusive, intersectional and adaptive governance strategies that foster systemic transformative change, based on both biodiversity and socio-economic metrics and emphasising equity and sustainability. In particular, actions are expected to: conduct a comprehensive review and analysis of policies related to both direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, with the aim of identifying conflicting or competing objectives and informing more coherent, nature positive policy frameworks; analyse the legal, financial and institutional barriers to inclusive governance in Europe, including the assessment of political and economic obstacles and of active strategies by actors and develop proposals to pilot and test innovative policy instruments, such as citizens’ assemblies, participatory budgeting and, if and when relevant, nature credits as proposed in the Nature Credits Roadmap, to foster transformative change; develop multi-level governance models and policy proposals to integrate all relevant nature positive actions (including protection and restoration of ecosystems, Nature-based Solutions, circular economy, sustainable bioeconomy, regenerative agriculture, agroecology, agroforestry, bioremediation, etc.) into all relevant EU policies and strategies in a synergetic and coherent way; identify relevant existing EU funded communities of practices, such as the Nature-based Solutions hubs, the circular economy hubs and the adaptation hubs, and group them per ecosystem or societal challenge; set-up living labs to co-develop enabling pathways for transformative change and test them to ensure positive impacts on the ground, drawing on best practices (including emerging nature positive actions), identifying knowledge gaps and addressing research and innovation needs in collaboration with all relevant stakeholders; develop digital tools to synthesise and visualise diverse knowledge sources and create decision-support systems for inclusive governance, in view to inform all stakeholders about all existing nature positive actions per ecosystem or societal challenge and to propose the best options in terms of both biodiversity and socio-economic gains for a specific and/or local context (e.g. surface area, available budget, main challenge, specific regional area). Proposals should address Area A: living labs per ecosystem (marine, freshwater, terrestrial (including agriculture, forestry, cities)) or Area B: living labs per societal challenge (climate change, water, food, health, pollution, spatial planning). The area (A or B) should be clearly indicated on the application. Proposals should ensure close collaboration with the other project selected under this topic. They should also offer training for policymakers, community leaders, and researchers on co-governance and knowledge integration and develop educational materials and ensure coordination and exchanges between all living labs. Proposals should adopt interdisciplinary approaches and ensure policymakers, business leaders and stakeholders co-create, experiment, and validate new solutions in an open, user-centred way. Solutions should be adapted to the environmental, socio-economic, and cultural contexts of each living lab, considering both cultural and natural heritage. Scaling and transferability challenges should be addressed through collaborative approaches combining scientific knowledge with local expertise. In this respect, particular attention could be paid to the specific characteristics of the outermost regions. The gender dimension should also be integrated. Proposals must implement the multi-actor approach, involving a range of stakeholders, including when relevant farmers, foresters and land managers, fishing and aquaculture communities, spatial planners and landscape architects, tourism actors, water governance bodies, business leaders, energy producers, local authorities, NGOs and youth organisations, to ensure that the knowledge and needs from various sectors are integrated and the results are impactful. Proposals should seek to address knowledge gaps identified by IPBES assessments and, if relevant, provide recommendations to policymakers. They should build on existing knowledge from and ensure complementarity with other relevant EU-funded projects under Horizon Europe Work Programmes, including Biodiversa+ and NetworkNaturePLUS, and foresee appropriate resources to ensure close cooperation with the EC Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity (KCBD) and its Science Service. This topic requires the effective contribution of SSH disciplines to collect and validate both technical and socio-economic data. EUR-Lex - 52025DC0374 - EN - EUR-Lex EU-funded projects leading the way to transformative change for biodiversity - European Commission,…
Other topics in HORIZON-CL6-2027-01
- HORIZON-CL6-2027-01-BIODIV-01 — Integrating Remote Sensing and in-situ observations of Biodiversity, towards a…
- HORIZON-CL6-2027-01-BIODIV-02 — Science-policy support to the implementation of EU and global biodiversity…
- HORIZON-CL6-2027-01-BIODIV-03 — Technical innovation to protect ecosystems and to scale up their restoration
- HORIZON-CL6-2027-01-BIODIV-04 — Living Labs for the eradication and/or management of invasive alien species
- HORIZON-CL6-2027-01-BIODIV-05 — Accelerating the transition to a nature positive economy: Integrating…
- HORIZON-CL6-2027-01-BIODIV-07 — Health of ecosystems and wild species, predictions and impacts on human…
- HORIZON-CL6-2027-01-BIODIV-08 — Fostering common farmland birds and mammals for resilient food production…
- HORIZON-CL6-2027-01-BIODIV-09 — Enhancing the competitiveness of organic crop breeding: focus on intercropping…
- HORIZON-CL6-2027-01-CIRCBIO-01 — Enhancing ecodesign and circularity of consumer electronics
- HORIZON-CL6-2027-01-CIRCBIO-02 — Enhancing ecodesign and circularity of construction products
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.