Verified

Ensuring continuous effectiveness of protected areas in conserving habitats and species while facing intensifying drivers of biodiversity loss

European Commission

Expected Outcome:

Project results are expected to contribute to all the following expected outcomes:

the effectiveness of the protection of habitats and species in protected areas is maintained even under intensifying impacts of the drivers of biodiversity loss, including climate change, thanks to an improved understanding of how they affect the conservation status of the protected habitats and species, for the benefit of society;
managers of protected areas are able to anticipate the future impacts of drivers of biodiversity loss and can take better informed decisions for the protection of terrestrial, freshwater and/or marine habitats and species.

Scope:

Protected areas are key to ensure the conservation of species and habitats. However, the intensification of the main drivers of biodiversity loss is raising questions on how their effectiveness will be maintained in the future.

This topic is expected to support the EU commitment to legally protect a minimum of 30% of the EU’s land area and a minimum of 30% of the EU’s sea area of the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 (target 1) and the related legislation, and the corresponding target of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (target 3). Knowledge generated under this topic is also expected to inform deliberations on EU biodiversity policy after 2030 and the design and implementation of climate policies. Proposals should seek to address some knowledge gaps identified by the relevant IPBES assessments and if appropriate provide recommendations to policy makers.

Proposals should:

analyse trends over time of the effects of drivers of biodiversity loss and their possible cumulative impacts. Direct drivers (changing use of sea and land, direct exploitation of organisms, climate change, pollution and invasive alien species) and indirect drivers should be considered, including socio-economic related ones;
develop predictive tools to anticipate how the intensity of impacts will develop in the medium and long terms, taking into account relevant possible cumulative impacts;
assess expected future impacts on the conservation status of protected habitats and species in protected areas;
assess whether novel adaptive approaches for protection are needed and if so, explore options, possibly building on results of relevant LIFE projects and on the experience of climate refugia (areas where ecosystems sustain stability and resilience despite climate change) and of bright spots (where targeted conservation actions, climate adaptation strategies, or natural resilience mechanisms mitigate biodiversity loss). Assess the opportunity to rely on (new) practices such as assisted migration;
define best practices and test innovative management approaches of protected areas, with performance indicators. To assess the effectiveness of management approaches, projects should build on methods and indicators developed under LIFE PAME Europe[1]. Proposals should address various types of protected areas and assess how the results might be transposable;
consider the need for long-term ecological monitoring of protected habitats and species, provide recommendations and consider possible options for such long-term monitoring;
involve public authorities and/or entities which manage protected areas, and civil society organisations to ensure that the processes and outcomes of the R&I align with the needs, including for policy implementation, and values and expectations of society.

Proposals should address research field A: terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystems or research field B: marine biodiversity and ecosystems. Both research fields may include freshwater ecosystems. The research field (A or B) should be clearly indicated on the application.

This topic requires the effective contribution of SSH disciplines and the involvement of SSH experts, institutions as well as the inclusion of relevant SSH expertise, in order to produce meaningful and significant effects enhancing the societal impact of the related research activities.

Proposals should foresee appropriate resources to ensure close cooperation with the EC Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity (KCBD) and its Science Service, and ensure cooperation with the European partnership Biodiversa+.

Proposals are encouraged to consider, where relevant, the data, expertise and services offered by European research infrastructures[2] in the environment domain.

International cooperation is encouraged especially when protected areas expand over different countries and for exchange of experiences.

AI Based Application Success Predictor

1️⃣ Strong, Mission-Aligned Impact (Most Important Across EC Calls)

The EC is impact-driven: proposals must show how the project will:

Solve a major European or global societal challenge

Deliver measurable, lasting benefits for EU citizens

Produce outputs that can be used by policymakers, industry, or society

Align with Horizon Europe missions, priorities, and strategic agendas

Predictor: Clear, quantifiable, EU-level impact → strongest scoring factor.

2️⃣ Clear, Ambitious, but Achievable Objectives

Successful proposals show:

2–4 well-defined objectives linked to the Work Programme call text

Clearly articulated research questions or innovation goals

Logical, realistic expected outcomes and deliverables

Feasible scientific and technical approaches

Predictor: Balanced ambition + feasibility.

3️⃣ Excellent, Cutting-Edge Science or Innovation

For RIA/IA/CSA or ERC-level grants, reviewers expect:

High novelty and innovation

Strong grounding in current state-of-the-art

Clear advancement beyond existing approaches

Solid theoretical or experimental foundations

Robust methodological design

Predictor: Scientific excellence is essential for competitive scoring.

4️⃣ Strong Consortium with Complementary Expertise

EC proposals are consortium-driven (except ERC/EIC Accelerator).

High-scoring consortia:

Cover all needed competencies (science, industry, policy, ethics, dissemination)

Include SMEs, industry partners, NGOs, and public bodies when relevant

Are geographically diverse across EU Member States and Associated Countries

Demonstrate strong leadership and communication structures

Predictor: Well-constructed consortium with clear roles.

5️⃣ Clear Pathway From Outputs → Outcomes → Impact

Evaluators look for a credible trajectory showing:

How research leads to specific outputs (data, tools, prototypes)

How outputs lead to uptake or use

How use produces societal, economic, scientific, or policy impact

Strong Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and impact metrics

Predictor: Clearly mapped impact pathway.

6️⃣ Strong Implementation Plan (Work Packages, Deliverables, Gantt Chart)

Winning proposals have:

Well-designed Work Packages (WPs) with clear scope and responsibilities

Interdependencies identified and risk-mitigation strategies

Detailed milestones and deliverables

Feasible budget aligned with tasks

Strong project management plan

Predictor: High implementation quality boosts the “Excellence” and “Implementation” scores.

7️⃣ Policy Relevance and Contribution to EU Strategies

Especially critical for health, climate, digital, and social calls.

Proposals score higher when they link to:

EU Cancer Mission

EU Green Deal

Digital Europe strategy

EU Biodiversity Strategy

EU Health Union & One Health

Open Science & FAIR data mandates

Predictor: Clear alignment with EU policies.

8️⃣ Strong Stakeholder & Citizen Engagement (Especially in Social & Health Missions)

EC values inclusivity:

Patient groups

Civil society organizations

Public sector bodies

Regulatory agencies

Citizen science components

Stakeholder letters of intent or commitment strengthen credibility.

Predictor: Engagement adds impact and relevance.

9️⃣ Robust Data Management, Open Science, and Ethics

Mandatory components include:

FAIR Data Management Plan

Open access publications

Ethics self-assessment

GDPR compliance

Data security, governance, and ethical approvals

Animal-use reduction and justification (if applicable)

Predictor: Clear compliance with ethical and data obligations.

10️⃣ Well-Justified Budget and Resource Allocation

Budget must be:

Proportional to tasks

Transparent and reasonable

Efficiently distributed among partners

Free from padding or unjustified costs

Predictor: Realistic budgets improve Implementation scores.

🚫 COMMON PITFALLS THAT LEAD TO EC GRANT REJECTION

Pitfall	Why It Fails
Weak connection to Work Programme text	Immediate score reduction
Vague or generic impact statements	Poor Impact score
Overly ambitious, unrealistic scope	Feasibility concerns
Poorly structured consortium	Low Implementation score
No policy relevance	Weak strategic alignment
Lack of concrete KPIs or outcomes	Impact unclear
Weak data or ethics plan	Eligibility/score penalties
No exploitation or dissemination plan	Insufficient impact credibility
Budget misalignment	Reviewer distrust

Specialties

Environmental Health

Eligibility Requirements

General conditions

1. Admissibility Conditions: Proposal page limit and layout

described in Annex A and Annex E of the Horizon Europe Work Programme General Annexes.

Proposal page limits and layout: described in Part B of the Application Form available in the Submission System.

2. Eligible Countries

described in Annex B of the Work Programme General Annexes.

A number of non-EU/non-Associated Countries that are not automatically eligible for funding have made specific provisions for making funding available for their participants in Horizon Europe projects. See the information in the Horizon Europe Programme Guide.

3. Other Eligible Conditions

described in Annex B of the Work Programme General Annexes.

Sponsor Details

Sponsor Institute/Organizations: European Commission

Sponsor Type: Government/Federal

Address: Berlaymont Building, Rue de la Loi 200, 1040 Brussels

Legal & Affiliation Disclaimer

Affiliation Disclaimer: Trialect operates independently and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or supported by any sponsors or organizations posting on the GrantsBoard platform. As an independent aggregator of publicly available funding opportunities, Trialect provides equal access to information for all users without endorsing any specific funding source, content, organization, or sponsor. Trialect assumes no responsibility for the content posted by sponsors or third parties.

Subscription Disclaimer: Upon logging into Trialect, you may choose to SUBSCRIBE to GrantsBoard for timely notifications of funding opportunities and to access exclusive benefits, such as priority alerts, reminders, personalized recommendations, and additional application support. However, users are advised to contact sponsors directly for any questions and are not required to subscribe to engage with funding opportunities.

Content Ownership and Copyright Disclaimer: Trialect respects the intellectual property rights of all organizations and individuals. All content posted on GrantsBoard is provided solely for informational purposes and remains the property of the original owners. Trialect does not claim ownership of, nor does it have any proprietary interest in, content provided by third-party sponsors. Users are encouraged to verify content and ownership directly with the posting sponsor.

Fair Use Disclaimer: The information and content available on GrantsBoard are compiled from publicly accessible sources in alignment with fair use principles under U.S. copyright law. Trialect serves as an aggregator of this content, offering it to users in good faith and with the understanding that it is available for public dissemination. Any organization or individual who believes their intellectual property rights have been violated is encouraged to contact us for prompt resolution.

Third-Party Posting Responsibility Disclaimer: Trialect is a neutral platform that allows third-party sponsors to post funding opportunities for informational purposes only. Sponsors are solely responsible for ensuring that their postings comply with copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. Trialect assumes no liability for any copyright or intellectual property infringements in third-party content and will take appropriate action to address any substantiated claims.

Accuracy and Verification Disclaimer: Trialect makes no warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information provided by sponsors. Users are advised to verify the details of any funding opportunity directly with the sponsor before taking action. Trialect cannot be held liable for any discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies in third-party postings.

Notice and Takedown Policy: Trialect is committed to upholding copyright law and protecting the rights of intellectual property owners. If you believe that content on GrantsBoard infringes your copyright or intellectual property rights, please contact us with detailed information about the claim. Upon receipt of a valid notice, Trialect will promptly investigate and, where appropriate, remove or disable access to the infringing content.

View Funding Opportunity