Expected Outcome:

Activities under this topic respond directly to the goal of the Mission ‘A Soil Deal for Europe' (Mission Soil) to set up 100 living labs and lighthouses to lead the transition to healthy soils by 2030. They support the specific objectives 1 to 8 of the Mission Soil (see the Mission implementation plan).

Activities should also contribute to meeting the European Green Deal ambitions and targets and more specifically those of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, the EU soil strategy for 2030 and theproposal for a Soil Monitoring and Resilience Directive, the Zero Pollution Action Plan, the Communication on Boosting Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing in the EU, as well as to Sustainable Development Goals 15 on Life on land and 3 on Good health and well-being.

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

• Increased capacities for participatory, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary R&I to co-create, and co-implement economically viable soil health solutions.
• Improved soil health monitoring and increased availability of high-quality, standardized soil data at both local and regional levels.
• Practice-oriented knowledge and tools are more easily available to land managers and land users resulting in an enhanced consideration and uptake of effective soil health solutions.
• Policy makers are more aware of local needs regarding soil health including the economic sustainability of solutions, and use this knowledge to design and implement more effective policies to enhance soil health.

Scope:

The Mission Soil proposes the deployment of living labs as a novel approach to research and innovation in soil health[1]. Living labs have the potential to facilitate a green 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. Projects funded under this topic should deploy a number of living labs to expand and complement the network of soil health living labs initiated in previous Mission Soil topics to gradually establish 100 living labs and lighthouses to lead the transition towards healthy soils by 2030[2].

Soil health living labs are long-term collaborations between multiple actors to address common soil health challenges in real-life sites at local or regional level[3] (10 to 20 sites in each living lab). 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. Living labs can address soil health challenges in or across different land uses (agricultural, (peri-)urban, (post)-industrial, forest and (semi-)natural). Individual sites can be farms, forest holdings, urban green[4] areas, industrial areas, etc., where work is carried-out and monitored under real-life conditions. 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 participatory process or build on existing ones. While normally projects run for four years, the duration of the projects should accommodate longer timescales required to establish participatory processes and/or for soils processes to take place.

Actors working on common shared soil health challenge(s) 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.

More specifically, each of the proposals should:

• Support the setup of four to five living labs at regional or local level in the Continental, Boreal or Alpine biogeographical region[5], to work together on common shared soil health challenge(s). Proposals should clearly indicate which of one of these three biogeographical regions they focus on, and should establish the majority of the living labs within the chosen biogeographical region. However, the remaining living labs can be still located in other biogeographical regions outside of the one selected. The living labs should work on relevant soil health challenges in the selected biogeographical region. The living labs should be located in at least three different Member States and/or Associated Countries. Proposals should explain the rationale and mechanism for cooperation within and across the living labs and explain how the work undertaken will contribute to one or more of the Mission’s specific objectives[6]. Proposals with all living labs located in brownfield areas[7] are excluded from this topic as a dedicated topic is opened in this work programme (HORIZON-MISS-2025-SOIL-01-02: Living Labs for soil remediation and green redevelopment of brownfields).
• Establish an interdisciplinary, participatory and multi-actor approach in the living labs to co-design, co-develop, and co-implement locally adapted solutions for the common shared soil health challenge(s) taking into account relevant soil health drivers and pressures[8]. Proposed solutions should be adapted to the different environmental, socio-economic and cultural contexts in which the living labs are operating.
• Establish for each living lab a baseline of the soil conditions to allow for an accurate co-assessment of the changes in the different sites over time, and to monitor soil health improvements. 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 depending on the soil health challenge(s) addressed, pedoclimatic conditions, land use, etc.”
• Monitor and evaluate the effects of the proposed solutions on soil health and associated ecosystem services, demonstrating their viability - technical, social, economic, cultural and environmental - scalability and transferability to diverse contexts.
• Identify sites that demonstrate high performance and that may be converted into lighthouses. This can be performed both at proposal stage or later on, during the living lab operation.
• Propose strategies (e.g., financial, organisational) to ensure the long-term sustainability of the established living labs beyond the Horizon Europe funding. Strategies should include the identification of possible 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, as well as attracting investors and entrepreneurs.

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