| Topic | HORIZON-MISS-2027-05-SOIL-01-two-stage |
|---|---|
| Status | Forthcoming |
| Call | HORIZON-MISS-2027-05-two-stage — Supporting the implementation of the Soil Deal for Europe Mission |
| Type of action | Research and Innovation Actions · two-stage |
| Opening | 4 February 2027 |
| Deadlines | 8 April 2027 (stage 1) · 14 September 2027 (stage 2) |
| Budget | around EUR 12 million per project · 2 projects expected · EUR 24 million in total |
| Part B page limit | 40 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: “Activities under this topic respond directly to the goal of the Mission Soil to set up 100 living labs and lighthouses to lead the transition to healthy soils by 2030 and support its specific objectives. Activities should also contribute to the Common Agricultural Policy and to meeting the European Green Deal ambitions and targets and more specifically those of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for…”
- EO1 enhanced capacities for participatory, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary R&I to co-create, and co-implement economically viable soil health solutions.
- EO2 improved soil health monitoring and increased availability of high quality, standardised soil data at local and regional levels.
- EO3 increased availability of practice-oriented knowledge for land managers and land users, leading to better adoption of effective soil health solutions in diverse contexts.
- EO4 policy makers are more aware of local needs regarding soil health including its drivers and can use this knowledge to design and implement more effective policies to enhance soil health, which take into account the economic sustainability of solutions.
What evaluators will look for in this topic
Expected outcomes
- Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes.
- For each outcome (EO1 to EO4), 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.
- “Projects funded under this topic should deploy a number of living labs to expand and complement the network of soil health living labs initiated in previous Mission Soil topics to gradually establish 100 living labs and lighthouses to lead the transition towards healthy soils by 2030.”
- “Projects funded under this topic are expected to kick-start the participatory process or build on existing ones.”
- “If building on existing processes, the new proposed living labs should complement the existing network of Mission Soil Living Labs and deliver unique results.”
- “While on average, projects run for around four years, the duration of the projects under this topic should accommodate longer timescales required to establish participatory processes and/or for soils processes to take place.”
- “Proposals should:. support the establishment of four to five living labs either in the Continental biogeographical region or in one or more of the following three biogeographical regions: Black Sea, Pannonian and Steppic.”
- “Proposals must clearly indicate their focus and should establish the majority of the living labs within the chosen focus biogeographical region or region(s).”
- “Living labs under each proposal should work together on common soil health challenge(s) relevant to the selected biogeographical region or region(s).”
- “The living labs should be located in at least three different Member States and/or Associated Countries.”
- “Proposals should explain the rationale and mechanism for cooperation within and across the living labs and how the work undertaken will contribute to one or more of the Mission’s specific objectives.”
- “Proposed solutions should be adapted to the different environmental, socio-economic and cultural contexts in which the living labs are operating;. establish, for each living lab, a baseline of the soil conditions to allow for an accurate co-assessment of the changes in the different sites over time.”
- “The set of soil health indicators/descriptors presented in the proposal for a Directive on Soil Monitoring and Resilience should be used as a basis; proposals may complement with additional indicators tailored to the addressed soil health challenge(s), pedoclimatic conditions, land use, and other local/regional factors;. assess and demonstrate the technical, social, economic, cultural and environmental viability of the proposed solutions, as…”
- “Strategies should include the identification of possible business models and actions involving a mix of public or private funding schemes, financial instruments, cooperation with local authorities, engagement of social economy entities, social enterprises, business communities, SMEs, as well as attracting investors and entrepreneurs.”
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.
- Two-stage submission: the first stage uses a shorter proposal and is assessed on Excellence and Impact only. Check the page limit and sections in the stage-one form of your call.
- Other Eligible Conditions: “Proposals must apply the multi-actor approach. See definition of the multi-actor approach in the introduction to this work programme part.”
- Evaluation and award: Award criteria, scoring and thresholds: “Proposals must focus either on the Continental biogeographical region or on one or more of the following three biogeographical regions: Black Sea, Pannonian and Steppic. This means that the majority of the living labs of each proposal must be located either within the Continental biogeographical region or within one…”
- Evaluation and award: Submission and evaluation processes: “The overall threshold for the second stage evaluation will be 12, with a minimum threshold of 4 for the ‘Excellence’ criterion’.”
- Legal and financial set-up of the grants: “Beneficiaries may provide financial support to third parties to facilitate active involvement of smaller actors (e.g. land managers and owners such as farmers, SMEs or civil societies) in one or more of the living labs of the project. The support to third parties can only be provided in the form of grants (further to…”
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.
- Standardisation is mentioned. Name the committees or bodies and the partner who engages with them.
- Market uptake is part of the scope. Evaluators look for a credible route to market with named first adopters.
- 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.
- 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
The Mission Soil proposes the deployment of living labs as a novel approach to research and innovation in soil health. Living labs have the potential to facilitate a green transition by involving multiple actors in real-life sites within a local/regional setting to co-create soil health solutions and achieve large-scale impacts on soil health and soil governance. Projects funded under this topic should deploy a number of living labs to expand and complement the network of soil health living labs initiated in previous Mission Soil topics to gradually establish 100 living labs and lighthouses to lead the transition towards healthy soils by 2030. Soil health living labs are long-term collaborations between multiple actors to address common soil health challenges in real-life sites at local or regional level (10 to 20 sites in each living lab). Living labs can address soil health challenges in or across different land uses (agricultural, (peri-)urban, (post)-industrial, forest and (semi-)natural). Depending on the level at which each living lab operates and the specific context (e.g. land use covered, or soil health challenge addressed), applicants can exceptionally propose living labs with fewer sites. Individual sites can be farms, forest holdings, urban green areas, industrial areas, etc. Sites that are exemplary in their performance in terms of soil health improvement and serve as places for demonstration of solutions, training and communication are lighthouses. Lighthouse sites can be part of a living lab or be situated outside a living lab. Projects funded under this topic are expected to kick-start the participatory process or build on existing ones. If building on existing processes, the new proposed living labs should complement the existing network of Mission Soil Living Labs and deliver unique results. While on average, projects run for around four years, the duration of the projects under this topic should accommodate longer timescales required to establish participatory processes and/or for soils processes to take place. Actors working on common shared soil health challenge(s) within and across the living labs of the same project, will be able to compare results, exchange good practices, validate methodologies, replicate actions and solutions and benefit from cross-fertilisation, thereby accelerating the transition towards the shared objective of improving soil health. Proposals should: support the establishment of four to five living labs either in the Continental biogeographical region or in one or more of the following three biogeographical regions: Black Sea, Pannonian and Steppic. Proposals must clearly indicate their focus and should establish the majority of the living labs within the chosen focus biogeographical region or region(s). Living labs under each proposal should work together on common soil health challenge(s) relevant to the selected biogeographical region or region(s). The living labs should be located in at least three different Member States and/or Associated Countries. Proposals should explain the rationale and mechanism for cooperation within and across the living labs and how the work undertaken will contribute to one or more of the Mission’s specific objectives. Proposals with all living labs working on soil management practices to decrease eutrophication within a specific river catchment area, are excluded from this topic as a dedicated topic is opened in this work programme (HORIZON-MISS-2027-05-SOIL-02-two-stage: Living Labs for co-creating solutions to reduce eutrophication from agriculture); establish an interdisciplinary, participatory and multi-actor approach in the living labs to co-design, co-develop, and co-implement locally adapted solutions (practices, tools, strategies, etc.) for the common soil health challenge(s) taking into account relevant soil health drivers and pressures. Proposed solutions should be adapted to the different environmental, socio-economic and cultural contexts in which the living labs are operating; establish, for each living lab, a baseline of the soil conditions to allow for an accurate co-assessment of the changes in the different sites over time. Monitor improvements on soil health and associated ecosystem services. The set of soil health indicators/descriptors presented in the proposal for a Directive on Soil Monitoring and Resilience should be used as a basis; proposals may complement with additional indicators tailored to the addressed soil health challenge(s), pedoclimatic conditions, land use, and other local/regional factors; assess and demonstrate the technical, social, economic, cultural and environmental viability of the proposed solutions, as well as their potential scalability and transferability to diverse contexts; identify high performing sites that may be converted into lighthouses, either at proposal stage or later. Engage with SOILL to assess the growth and development of these lighthouses and to support the establishment of a labelling process that could formally recognize these exemplary sites as lighthouses; propose strategies (e.g., financial, organisational) to ensure the long-term sustainability of the established living labs beyond the Horizon Europe funding. Strategies should include the identification of possible business models and actions involving a mix of public or private funding schemes, financial instruments, cooperation with local authorities, engagement of social economy entities, social enterprises, business communities, SMEs, as well as attracting investors and entrepreneurs. In line with the nature of living labs, projects must adopt the multi-actor approach. The actors involved in each living lab may vary, based on its unique characteristics and may include, among others, researchers, landowners or land managers, industry representatives (e.g., SMEs), public administrators and civil society representatives (e.g., consumers, local residents, environmental NGOs, youth…
Other topics in HORIZON-MISS-2027-05-two-stage
- HORIZON-MISS-2027-05-SOIL-02-two-stage — Living Labs for co-creating solutions to reduce eutrophication from agriculture
- HORIZON-MISS-2027-05-SOIL-03-two-stage — Agroforestry for soil health at landscape level
- HORIZON-MISS-2027-05-SOIL-04-two-stage — Participatory research on the health of communities in contact with polluted…
- HORIZON-MISS-2027-05-SOIL-05-two-stage — Innovative biotechnologies to restore soil health and improve agricultural…
- HORIZON-MISS-2027-05-SOIL-06-two-stage — Long-term drivers and consequences of soil degradation: learning from the past…
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.