GrantWise
HORIZON EUROPE TOPIC · EU Missions

Demonstrating transformative solutions to increase cross-border climate resilience

HORIZON-MISS-2027-01-CLIMA-01 — 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 ↓

ForthcomingIADeadline 21 September 2027EUR 10 million to EUR 15 million per project

GrantWise › Horizon Europe topics › HORIZON-MISS-2027-01-CLIMA-01

TopicHORIZON-MISS-2027-01-CLIMA-01
StatusForthcoming
CallHORIZON-MISS-2027-01 — Supporting the implementation of the Adaptation to Climate Change Mission
Type of actionInnovation Actions
Opening9 February 2027
Deadline21 September 2027
BudgetEUR 10 million to EUR 15 million per project · 5 projects expected · EUR 72.32 million in total
Part B page limit40 pages (standard application form; check your call)
TemplateWork Programme 2026–2027 application form

Expected outcomes

Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes. The topic says: “In support to the implementation of the EU Adaptation Strategy, the EU Mission on Adaptation to Climate Change and the EU Preparedness Union Strategy and contributing to the upcoming European Climate Action Plan, project results are expected to improve adaptative capacities of European internal border regional and local authorities, allowing them to jointly address with their neighbours the…”

  1. EO1 Climate resilience solutions for cross-border risks have been developed and demonstrated. This includes social, governance or nature-based solutions.
  2. EO2 Regional and local authorities from each side of country borders are better prepared to withstand jointly the impacts of climate change, including systemic risks and cascading effects.
  3. EO3 National, regional and local authorities are taking on shared responsibilities and are actively involved in the development and testing of innovative solutions to deal with cross-border climate risks.

What evaluators will look for in this topic

Expected outcomes

  • Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes.
  • For each outcome (EO1 to EO3), 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.

  • “To be truly resilient, European regional and local authorities therefore need to integrate their action with their neighbours and consider seriously the cross-border dimension of climate risks.”
  • “Proposals should develop, test and demonstrate approaches and innovative solutions relevant for cross-border risks, leading to an increase of climate resilience in cross-border regions.”
  • “Moreover, particular attention should be given to coordination between the national and regional governance aspects of the bordering regions.”
  • “Services to better predict, monitor and report on cross-border climate events should be explored as a first step.”
  • “The proposals should address all of the following aspects:.”
  • “Those solutions should cover cross-border governance and/or socio-economic aspects (but are not limited to that).”
  • “Nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based adaptation should be explored as a priority, in line with the Mission Implementation Plan.”
  • “For the successful implementation of the solutions and to ensure their sustainability beyond the duration of the project, the development and testing of the proposed solutions should be embedded, as much as possible in the adaptation planning of the regional or local authority participating in the project and/or in national plans.”
  • “This topic requires the effective contribution of SSH disciplines and the involvement of SSH experts, institutions as well as the inclusion of relevant SSH expertise, in order to produce meaningful and significant effects enhancing the societal impact of the related research activities.”
  • “Must take place in at least two distinct cross-border demonstration sites located in EU Member States or Associated Countries.”
  • “The demonstration areas must span adjacent regions on both sides of a national border, fostering cross-border collaboration.”
  • “Regional or local authorities in these areas should actively participate in the project, ideally as beneficiaries or associated partners within the consortium.”

Conditions that shape the proposal

  • Part B, sections 1–3: 40 pages (standard application form). Text beyond the limit is not read; tables and figures count.
  • Innovation action: evaluators expect a plausible path to commercialisation and named first users or customers.
  • Other Eligibility Conditions: “The following additional eligibility criteria apply: Demonstration activities must take place in at least 2 distinct cross-border demonstration sites located in EU Member States or Associated Countries. The demonstration areas must span adjacent regions on both sides of a national border.”

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.
  • The scope expects pilots or demonstration. Name the sites, the partners who run them and what is measured there.
  • The topic expects cooperation with other projects or initiatives. Reserve effort and budget for it in the work plan.
  • 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.
The scope, as published

Rationale Cross-border risks and cooperation are crucial in the European Union, where 37.5% of the EU population lives in border areas, spanning 38 intra-EU borders that often involve both administrative and linguistic divides. While adaptation plans are usually prepared within a single territory (e.g. at national, regional or local levels), climate risks do not stop at the borders. For instance, around 70% of Europe's freshwater bodies are part of international river basins, making flooding and droughts typical cross-border risks. Similarly, wildfires pose a significant cross-border threat, as they can spread rapidly across national borders, affecting multiple countries simultaneously. The same applies to cross-border coastal areas affected by sea level rise and coastal erosion. At the regional and local level, the implementation of adaptation tends to be fragmented between different bodies such as managers of forests, water, protected areas or coastlines. To be truly resilient, European regional and local authorities therefore need to integrate their action with their neighbours and consider seriously the cross-border dimension of climate risks. Solutions sought Proposals should develop, test and demonstrate approaches and innovative solutions relevant for cross-border risks, leading to an increase of climate resilience in cross-border regions. Moreover, particular attention should be given to coordination between the national and regional governance aspects of the bordering regions. Services to better predict, monitor and report on cross-border climate events should be explored as a first step. The proposals should address all of the following aspects: Address at least one relevant cross-border climate risk (e.g. water scarcity, flooding, storms, wildfires, sea level rise) but are strongly encouraged to address risks systemically and to cover cascading and compound risks as well as risks emerging from the degradation of ecosystem services; Develop, and demonstrate a common classification of the climate risks and define what level of risks are acceptable across the national border. Develop and demonstrate innovative integrated solutions to make both sides of the border climate resilient. Those solutions should cover cross-border governance and/or socio-economic aspects (but are not limited to that). Nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based adaptation should be explored as a priority, in line with the Mission Implementation Plan. For the successful implementation of the solutions and to ensure their sustainability beyond the duration of the project, the development and testing of the proposed solutions should be embedded, as much as possible in the adaptation planning of the regional or local authority participating in the project and/or in national plans. This topic requires the effective contribution of SSH disciplines and the involvement of SSH experts, institutions as well as the inclusion of relevant SSH expertise, in order to produce meaningful and significant effects enhancing the societal impact of the related research activities. Demonstration sites and related activities The Mission encourages collaborations between regional and local authorities facing similar challenges and considers this to be a very efficient approach to secure a large impact. Therefore, the demonstration activities of the proposals: Must take place in at least two distinct cross-border demonstration sites located in EU Member States or Associated Countries. The demonstration areas must span adjacent regions on both sides of a national border, fostering cross-border collaboration. Regional or local authorities in these areas should actively participate in the project, ideally as beneficiaries or associated partners within the consortium. Should identify at least 1 “ replicating ” cross-border site spanning adjacent regions on either side of a national border, located in Member States or Associated Countries, interested in reapplying the lessons learnt (totally, partially or with the required adjustments) in their territories. For the replication, the consortium could include one or more partners that would provide support for the technical exchanges and the knowledge uptake in the “replicating” regions or local authorities. Replicating regions are not necessarily expected to carry out on the ground activities already in the course of the project. However, replicating regions should at least prepare the theoretical framework for replicating the successful solutions and explore means to fund the implementation of those solutions. Links to the Mission and to other projects and initiatives Proposals should build (when relevant) on existing knowledge and adaptation solutions developed by previous projects and explore synergies with ongoing projects from EU and national programmes. Synergies with other funding sources (EU and national) are encouraged to identify opportunities to scale up the solutions demonstrated and to foster their broad deployment across Europe through other programmes. Proposals should include a mechanism and the resources to establish operational links and collaboration with the Mission Implementation Platform (including on monitoring). Projects funded under this topic will be expected to participate in the Mission Community of Practice and to share relevant knowledge to feed the work of the project stemming from HORIZON-MISS-2026-01-CLIMA-02. All projects funded under this topic should work together as a cluster (under the umbrella of the Mission), coordinate their activities and align their outputs as much as possible to maximise their impact. Proposals are encouraged to (dedicate resources to) 1) link their monitoring to the framework developed by the project UNDERPIN; 2) to rely on the (updated) CLIMAAX framework for their climate risk assessments. Applicants should acknowledge these elements and already account for them in their proposal, making adequate provisions in terms of…

Other topics in HORIZON-MISS-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.