| Topic | HORIZON-MISS-2027-06-SOIL-CANCER |
|---|---|
| Status | Forthcoming |
| Call | HORIZON-MISS-2027-06 — Joint Call between the Soil Deal for Europe Mission and the Cancer Mission |
| Type of action | Research and Innovation Actions |
| Opening | 4 February 2027 |
| Deadline | 21 September 2027 |
| 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 will directly progress towards the goal of the Mission Soil to set up 100 living labs and lighthouses to lead the transition to healthy soils by 2030. Activities will also contribute to the goal of the Cancer Mission, i.e.: ‘to improve the lives of more than 3 million people by 2030, through prevention, cure and for those affected by cancer including their families,…”
- EO1 increased capacities for participatory, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research and innovation to co-create, and co-implement economically viable soil health solutions tailored to soils contaminated with or at risk of contamination by carcinogenic substances.
- EO2 enhanced understanding of the environmental pathways through which these substances affect humans and the food chain, and the links (drivers and processes) between carcinogenic substances in soil and cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence in humans.
What evaluators will look for in this topic
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.
- “Projects funded under this topic are expected to kick-start the participatory process.”
- “If building on existing processes, the new proposed living labs should complement the existing network of Mission Soil Living Labs and deliver unique project 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 soil processes to take place.”
- “Proposals should:. support the establishment of four to five research-and-innovation-centred living labs to work together across different land uses to: 1) deliver research-based remediation solutions for soil contamination by carcinogenic substances; 2) investigate links between carcinogenic substances in soil and transfer of pollutants from soil to humans (e.g. via air, water, or the food chain), and long-term impact on cancer incidence,…”
- “Proposed solutions should be adapted to the different environmental, socio-economic and cultural contexts in which the living labs are operating.”
- “Living labs should be located in at least three different Member States and/or Associated Countries.”
- “Special attention should be given to their regions with the greatest need (hotspots of carcinogenic substances).”
- “Proposals should explain the rationale and mechanism for cooperation within and across the living labs. establish an interdisciplinary, participatory and multi-actor approach in the living labs to co-implement locally adapted solutions to isolate, immobilise, reduce and/or eliminate carcinogenic substances to and from soils, and to monitor how these solutions affect the pathways of carcinogenic substances in soils within the soil-water-air…”
- “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;. analyse bioavailable fractions of contaminants, their potential bioaccumulation in crops; identify most critical exposure…”
- “Strategies should include 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, or attracting investors and entrepreneurs.”
- “In line with the nature of living labs, projects must adopt the multi-actor approach.”
- “Care should be taken to describe the capabilities, roles and resources of the different actors involved in the living labs.”
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.
- Other Eligible Conditions: “Proposals must apply the multi-actor approach. See definition of the multi-actor approach in the introduction to the Mission Soil work programme part.”
- 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 society) 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.
- 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.
The scope, as published
Environmental and occupational cancer risks are estimated to contribute to over 10% of the total cancer burden in Europe, with soil pollution by carcinogenic substances, such as PFAS, and heavy metals like arsenic and cadmium, posing significant concerns for human and environmental health. However, the complex relationships between land management practices, soil parent material, soil properties, and presence of carcinogenic substances remain largely unknown. Moreover, significant knowledge gaps exist regarding biomonitoring, the bioaccumulation and transfer processes of soil pollutants into the food chain, water, and air, the pathways of human exposure and the impact of such exposure on cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence. Projects under this topic are intended to expand and complement the network of Mission Soil living labs and lighthouses initiated with projects funded under Work Programmes 2023, 2024 and 2025 of the Mission Soil, with the aim of gradually establishing 100 living labs and lighthouses to lead the transition towards healthy soils by 2030. The Mission Soil proposes a novel approach to research and innovation in the area of soil health, including the implementation of living labs. Living labs have the potential to facilitate a green and fair 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. 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. If building on existing processes, the new proposed living labs should complement the existing network of Mission Soil Living Labs and deliver unique project 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 soil processes to take place. Actors working on common shared soil health challenges 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 research-and-innovation-centred living labs to work together across different land uses to: 1) deliver research-based remediation solutions for soil contamination by carcinogenic substances; 2) investigate links between carcinogenic substances in soil and transfer of pollutants from soil to humans (e.g. via air, water, or the food chain), and long-term impact on cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence in humans. Proposed solutions should be adapted to the different environmental, socio-economic and cultural contexts in which the living labs are operating. Living labs should be located in at least three different Member States and/or Associated Countries. Special attention should be given to their regions with the greatest need (hotspots of carcinogenic substances). Proposals should explain the rationale and mechanism for cooperation within and across the living labs. establish an interdisciplinary, participatory and multi-actor approach in the living labs to co-implement locally adapted solutions to isolate, immobilise, reduce and/or eliminate carcinogenic substances to and from soils, and to monitor how these solutions affect the pathways of carcinogenic substances in soils within the soil-water-air nexus and its mobility and uptake in the food chain; establish for each living lab a baseline of the soil conditions (both naturally occurring and exogenous contaminants) to allow an accurate monitoring of soil health improvements over time and across the different sites of the living lab, as well as the impact of research-based remediation solutions on pathways of soil carcinogenic substances within the soil-water-air nexus and its mobility and uptake in the food chain. 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; analyse bioavailable fractions of contaminants, their potential bioaccumulation in crops; identify most critical exposure pathways of carcinogenic substances in soils within the soil-water-air nexus and its mobility and uptake in the food chain; analyse its correlation with the incidence and prevalence of cancer in humans across the different sites of the living labs using biomonitoring of contaminants (individually and in combination) in humans, combine this research with model l ing and desk research, integrating environmental pollution data with health outcome data, for example using biomonitoring data from the European Human Biomonitoring Initiative (HBM4EU) or the Partnership for the…
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.