GrantWise
HORIZON EUROPE TOPIC · EU Missions

Living Labs for co-creating solutions to reduce eutrophication from agriculture

HORIZON-MISS-2027-05-SOIL-02-two-stage — 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 ↓

ForthcomingRIADeadline 8 April 2027around EUR 12 million per project

GrantWise › Horizon Europe topics › HORIZON-MISS-2027-05-SOIL-02-two-stage

TopicHORIZON-MISS-2027-05-SOIL-02-two-stage
StatusForthcoming
CallHORIZON-MISS-2027-05-two-stage — Supporting the implementation of the Soil Deal for Europe Mission
Type of actionResearch and Innovation Actions · two-stage
Opening4 February 2027
Deadlines8 April 2027 (stage 1) · 14 September 2027 (stage 2)
Budgetaround EUR 12 million per project · 2 projects expected · EUR 24 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: “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 the objectives and targets of the Mission Soil. 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…”

  1. EO1 enhanced capacities for participatory, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary R&I to co-create, and co-implement economically viable soil health solutions to reduce eutrophication from agriculture and improve water quality.
  2. EO2 improved soil health monitoring and increased availability of high quality, standardised soil data at local and regional levels.
  3. EO3 increased availability of practice-oriented knowledge and tools for land managers and land users, leading to better adoption of effective soil health solutions to reduce eutrophication in diverse contexts.
  4. EO4 policy makers are more aware of risks associated with eutrophication and local needs regarding soil health, including its drivers, and can use this knowledge to design and implement more effective policies to reduce eutrophication and enhancing soil health while considering 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.”
  • “In the case of eutrophication, the selection of sites should be conducted to ensure a comprehensive representation of the different drivers that contribute to the eutrophication process in a small river catchment, and where solutions can be co-developed and co-implemented.”
  • “Sites should be located in nitrate vulnerable zones as designated by the EU countries or regional authorities in reporting period 7 (or more recent) or a clear rationale of the eutrophication challenge based on national, regional or local data should justify the location in other areas.”
  • “Projects funded under this topic are expected to kick-start a participatory process or build on existing processes.”
  • “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 to work together on soil health aspects that could affect eutrophication in nearby freshwater bodies.”
  • “The living labs must be located in at least three different Member States and/or Associated Countries and each living lab should focus on a specific small river catchment, clearly identifying up- and downstream eutrophication challenges.”
  • “Proposals should explain the rationale and mechanism for cooperation within and across the living labs while explaining how the work undertaken will contribute to one or more of the Mission’s specific objectives;. 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, and strategies) to reduce eutrophication.”
  • “Proposed solutions should be adapted to the different environmental, socio-economic and cultural contexts within the river catchment area in which the living labs are operating and take into account the current and future impact of climate change on nutrient exports during floods and droughts;. establish for each living lab a baseline of the soil and nearby water body conditions to allow for an accurate co-assessment of the changes in the…”
  • “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 eutrophication as well as to the specific 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: 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.
  • 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

Eutrophication is a critical environmental issue that primarily affects water bodies but is largely driven by nutrient dynamics in soils together with diffuse source contributions. Eutrophication leads to algal blooms, hypoxia, and biodiversity loss, which in turn disrupt the entire food chains threatening both food availability and safety, as well as other ecosystems functions and the services they provide (e.g. drinking water, recreation). Soil management practices, particularly in agricultural soils, can lead to an excessive accumulation of nutrients in soils, predominantly nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), and runoff or leaching into water bodies. Thus, soil management represents an important strategy to mitigate eutrophication. Moreover, degraded soils with low water retention and limited nutrient cycling capacity, exacerbate eutrophication. Therefore, the restoration of soil health offers a critical opportunity for nutrient interception and reduction of downstream aquatic impacts. 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). 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. Living labs can address soil health challenges in or across different land uses (agricultural, forest and (semi-)natural). Individual sites can be farms, forest holdings, (semi)natural areas etc., where work is carried out and monitored under real-life conditions. In the case of eutrophication, the selection of sites should be conducted to ensure a comprehensive representation of the different drivers that contribute to the eutrophication process in a small river catchment, and where solutions can be co-developed and co-implemented. Sites should be located in nitrate vulnerable zones as designated by the EU countries or regional authorities in reporting period 7 (or more recent) or a clear rationale of the eutrophication challenge based on national, regional or local data should justify the location in other areas. 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 a participatory process or build on existing processes. 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 and reducing eutrophication. Proposals should: support the establishment of four to five living labs to work together on soil health aspects that could affect eutrophication in nearby freshwater bodies. The living labs must be located in at least three different Member States and/or Associated Countries and each living lab should focus on a specific small river catchment, clearly identifying up- and downstream eutrophication challenges. Proposals should explain the rationale and mechanism for cooperation within and across the living labs while explaining how the work undertaken will contribute to one or more of the Mission’s specific objectives; 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, and strategies) to reduce eutrophication. Proposed solutions should be adapted to the different environmental, socio-economic and cultural contexts within the river catchment area in which the living labs are operating and take into account the current and future impact of climate change on nutrient exports during floods and droughts; establish for each living lab a baseline of the soil and nearby water body conditions to allow for an accurate co-assessment of the changes in the different sites over time. Monitoring improvements in soil health, ecosystem and associated services, and reductions in eutrophication level. 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 eutrophication as well as to the specific 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, including…

Other topics in HORIZON-MISS-2027-05-two-stage

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.