Long-term drivers and consequences of soil degradation: learning from the past to improve future soil health

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.

• “Proposals should:. study past soil degradation processes and their socio-economic, cultural and natural drivers and consequences across different pedo-climatic regions, based on multiple lines of evidence coming from, for instance, historical documents, historical records, archaeological data, sediment archives, buried fossil soils and archived soil and plant samples;. apply, validate and advance the development of methodologies to study past…”
• “In carrying out the activities, consortia should work in an interdisciplinary way bringing disciplines, expertise and approaches from the soil sciences, environmental sciences and social sciences and humanities (including history, archaeology, sociology and social geography).”
• “Proposals are expected to collaborate with and build on the results of the projects funded under HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-02: Social, economic and cultural drivers, and costs of land degradation.”
• “Proposals should also demonstrate a route towards open access, longevity, sustainability and interoperability of knowledge and outputs through close collaboration with the EU Soil Observatory and the SoilWise project.”

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.
• International cooperation is part of the scope. Explain what the non-EU partners add and how the cooperation is organised.
• Open science or data practices are named. Make the data management plan concrete: which data, which repository, when.
• 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.