| Topic | HORIZON-MISS-2027-05-SOIL-04-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 · lump sum · two-stage |
| Opening | 4 February 2027 |
| Deadlines | 8 April 2027 (stage 1) · 14 September 2027 (stage 2) |
| Budget | around EUR 5.5 million per project · 2 projects expected · EUR 11 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: “Activities under this topic will help progress towards the objectives and targets of the Mission Soil and should contribute to meeting the relevant targets of the EU Soil Strategy for 2030 and the Zero Pollution Action Plan, as well as to the Sustainable Development Goals. Project results are expected to contribute to all the following expected outcomes:”
- EO1 improved citizen awareness on the connection between soil pollution and human health and how to manage, adapt to, and mitigate risks.
- EO2 increased public access to FAIR data and knowledge on soil pollution and the emergence of human diseases and other health outcomes.
- EO3 policymakers enforce the implementation of long-term, sustainable solutions that enhance soil health, restore the environment, and protect public health.
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.
- “Proposals should:. implement community-based participatory research activities to engage with populations living or working in close contact with polluted (or potentially polluted) sites to identify and map human diseases and other health outcomes and their incidence in these areas;. consider and explore direct (e.g., skin contact with soils) and indirect (e.g., consumption of contaminated food, psychological impact of living near contaminated…”
- “Proposals should prioritise the conditions with significant unmet medical need and the populations most vulnerable to the detrimental effects of soil pollution.”
- “Proposed approaches should incorporate both qualitative and quantitative research and leverage lived experiences data where possible.”
- “This topic requires an interdisciplinary approach involving experts on land and soil contamination, epidemiology and in social-science and humanities (SSH) disciplines in particular sociology and anthropology.”
- “Proposals should include dedicated tasks and appropriate resources for coordination measures and joint activities with other relevant Horizon Europe projects (e.g. the sister projects funded under this topic, the projects resulting from the topic HORIZON-MISS-2027-06-SOIL-CANCER: Living labs to monitor and mitigate carcinogenic substances in and originating from soils: Evaluating their effects on human cancer risks) and initiatives funded under…”
- “Proposals should demonstrate a route towards open access, longevity, sustainability and interoperability of knowledge and outputs through close collaboration with the European Union Soil Observatory and SoilWise.”
- “Concrete efforts should prioritise making data from funded projects FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable).”
- “The population involved in the research activities should never be exposed to additional risks caused by soil pollution.”
- “If a proposal decides to work on potentially polluted sites, or sites at risk of pollution or sites which communities suspect to be polluted, appropriate tests that demonstrate that sites are polluted should be done by experts in soil contamination.”
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.
- 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.
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 topic expects cooperation with other projects or initiatives. Reserve effort and budget for it in the work plan.
- Open science or data practices are named. Make the data management plan concrete: which data, which repository, when.
- 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
Across the European Union, an estimated 2.8 million land sites are potentially contaminated. Exposure to soil pollution poses serious health risks and is estimated to contribute to around 500,000 premature deaths worldwide each year. People can be exposed directly, through skin contact or inhalation of dust from polluted soils, or indirectly, by consuming contaminated food or drinking water. Despite numerous studies clearly demonstrating the harmful effects of soil pollution on human health, public awareness of the risks associated with contaminated sites remains limited, as does the due diligence of polluting entities, and the response of public authorities. Community-based participatory research, which directly involves populations living and/or working in polluted or potentially polluted sites, will help, to identify and map human diseases and health outcomes driven by soil pollution, and increase public awareness of the environmental and health the risks related to soil pollution. Proposals should: implement community-based participatory research activities to engage with populations living or working in close contact with polluted (or potentially polluted) sites to identify and map human diseases and other health outcomes and their incidence in these areas; consider and explore direct (e.g., skin contact with soils) and indirect (e.g., consumption of contaminated food, psychological impact of living near contaminated sites) soil-related drivers of human disease and ill-health as relevant; engage private entities with industrial operations in polluted sites and which work with potential pollutants (including substances of concern), involving them as stakeholders in the research to jointly devise mitigation and remediation strategies and demonstrate corporate responsibility; propose locally relevant interventions that foster community resilience against soil pollution, encourage polluters due diligence, and deliver recommendations to policymakers at relevant level of governance to regulate decontamination, promote reuse of land when possible, and protect public health. Proposals should prioritise the conditions with significant unmet medical need and the populations most vulnerable to the detrimental effects of soil pollution. Proposed approaches should incorporate both qualitative and quantitative research and leverage lived experiences data where possible. This topic requires an interdisciplinary approach involving experts on land and soil contamination, epidemiology and in social-science and humanities (SSH) disciplines in particular sociology and anthropology. Proposals should include dedicated tasks and appropriate resources for coordination measures and joint activities with other relevant Horizon Europe projects (e.g. the sister projects funded under this topic, the projects resulting from the topic HORIZON-MISS-2027-06-SOIL-CANCER: Living labs to monitor and mitigate carcinogenic substances in and originating from soils: Evaluating their effects on human cancer risks) and initiatives funded under the Mission Soil, including engagement with the relevant cluster activities. Proposals should demonstrate a route towards open access, longevity, sustainability and interoperability of knowledge and outputs through close collaboration with the European Union Soil Observatory and SoilWise. Concrete efforts should prioritise making data from funded projects FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable). This includes exploring 'FAIR-by-design' workflows for data generation. In particular SDG 3- Good health and well-being, SDG 13 – Climate action, and SDG 15 – Life on Land Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. Landrigan et al. (2018). The Lancet Commission on pollution and health, The Lancet Volume 391, Issue 10119, 3–9 February 2018, Pages 462-512. Soil pollution and health — European Environment Agency This excludes the sampling of polluted soil by non-experts. The population involved in the research activities should never be exposed to additional risks caused by soil pollution. The participation of the population already exposed to soil pollution is meant through interviews/questionnaires/focus groups or other social science methodologies. Potentially polluted sites refer to areas of land where there is a high probability or it is strongly believed that the soil is contaminated with harmful substances, but it has not yet been fully confirmed or assessed. If a proposal decides to work on potentially polluted sites, or sites at risk of pollution or sites which communities suspect to be polluted, appropriate tests that demonstrate that sites are polluted should be done by experts in soil contamination.
Other topics in HORIZON-MISS-2027-05-two-stage
- HORIZON-MISS-2027-05-SOIL-01-two-stage — Living labs to enhance soil health in Continental, Black Sea, Pannonian and…
- 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-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.