Innovative biotechnologies to restore soil health and improve agricultural competitiveness and resilience

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.

• “Proposals should:. develop, identify, upscale, pilot and validate biotechnology solutions, particularly leveraging the soil microbiome (such as novel bio-based fertilizers or microbial inoculants but not only) which remediate, restore and improve soil health across diverse pedoclimatic and cropping conditions;. address the following issues: bioremediation of contaminated soils (i.e. by heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, PFAS); increasing soil…”
• “The pathways should ensure regulatory compliance including risk assessment considerations, stakeholder engagement strategies, market acceptance analysis and policy foresight.”
• “Proposals must implement the 'multi-actor approach' and ensure adequate involvement of all relevant actors of the value chain, such as academia, research-technology organizations, small-medium enterprises (including start-ups), investors, product developers, intellectual property and legal advisors, manufacturing and distribution partners, as well as end-users, like farmers and practitioners.”
• “Proposals should include a dedicated task, appropriate resources and a plan on how they will collaborate with other project funded under this topic and other relevant topics.”
• “They should participate in joint activities, workshops, focus groups or social labs, as well as organise common communication and dissemination activities and show potential for upscaling and cross-fertilisation.”
• “Applicants should plan the necessary budget to cover these activities.”

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.
• Innovation action: evaluators expect a plausible path to commercialisation and named first users or customers.
• 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.”

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.
• 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.