💰 Funding Details

Funding Opportunity Overview

Grant at a Glance

* Call Identifier: HORIZON-CL6-2025-02-CLIMATE-01-two-stage

* Programme / Cluster: Horizon Europe – Cluster 6 “Land, ocean and water for climate action”

* Type of Action: HORIZON-IA (Innovation Action)

* Max. EU Contribution per Project: €18 million (Budget-Based MGA)

* Submission Model: Two-stage (blind evaluation at Stage 1)

* Opening Date: 6 May 2025

* Stage 1 Deadline: 4 Sep 2025, 17:00 (Brussels)

* Stage 2 Deadline: 18 Feb 2026, 17:00 (Brussels)

Strategic Policy Fit

This topic underpins the European Green Deal, the Climate Adaptation Strategy, the upcoming European Water Resilience Strategy and the Nature Restoration Regulation. Funded projects must generate demonstrable innovation that:

1. Assesses and manages the changing hydrological cycle at fine spatial scales.

2. Fosters water-resilient land use and natural water cycle restoration supporting biodiversity.

3. Improves cross-sector & transboundary catchment cooperation within the Water-Energy-Food-Ecosystem (WEFE) nexus.

4. Delivers basin-level water-use efficiency, rebalancing demand & supply and restructuring water governance/economics.

5. Enables policy makers to plan future-proof water infrastructure ensuring fair access to drinking water & essential uses.

Budget & Cost Rules

* Funding covers up to 70 % of eligible costs for for-profit entities (exceptionally 100 % for non-profit).

* Indirect costs reimbursed at 25 % flat-rate of direct eligible costs.

* No co-funding from other EU programmes for the same activities (no double financing).

* “Equipment” costing method: depreciation only.

* Large-scale demonstration expenses (pilots, living labs, digital twins, citizen science) are eligible if clearly linked to objectives.

Consortia Requirements

* Minimum: 3 independent legal entities from 3 different eligible your country, incl. at least 1 Member State.

* Multidisciplinary consortia are encouraged: hydrology, climate science, ecology, economics, social science, digital twins, satellite EO, governance.

* Joint Research Centre (JRC) may join as beneficiary.

* If using EO/PNNT services, proposals must exploit Copernicus and/or Galileo/EGNOS.

Intellectual Property & Open Science

* Mandatory Data Management Plan (DMP) with FAIR principles.

* Open Access to peer-reviewed publications.

* Exploitation strategy for foreground IP (freedom to operate, licensing, standardisation pathways).

📊 Evaluation Criteria

How Evaluators Will Score You

1. Excellence (Threshold 4/5)

* Clarity & Relevance of Objectives – Are objectives SMART, aligned with topic, and tackling hydrological cycle change?

* Soundness of Methodology – Integration of climate attribution, EO, digital twins, NbS pilots, social science.

* Degree of Innovation – Beyond state-of-the-art; TRL progression (target 6-8 for demos).

* Interdisciplinarity & SSH Integration – Evidence of socio-economic methods, gender dimension.

2. Impact (Threshold 4/5)

* Scale & Significance – Quantified water-risk reduction, biodiversity restoration, climate-resilience benefits.

* Credibility of Pathways to Impact – Policy uptake, exploitation, IPR, standardisation, replication plan.

* Suitability of KPIs – Output–Outcome–Impact chain with baselines & targets.

* Contribution to EU Policies – Green Deal, Water Framework Directive, Adaptation Mission.

3. Quality & Efficiency of Implementation (Threshold 3/5)

* Quality of Work Plan – Logical WPs, risk management, critical path to demonstrations.

* Consortium Competence & Complementarity – Role clarity, balanced leadership, SME involvement ≥20 % (recommended).

* Resource Allocation – Budget realism, person-months vs outputs, leverage of other funds.

* Governance & Decision-Making – IP management, gender equality plan, data governance.

Scoring Nuances

* Blind Stage 1: only Excellence & Impact scored (0-5); min. total 8/10 & each ≥4/5.

* Stage 2: Full criteria; proposals ranked; budget availability cut-off.

* Ties settled by higher Impact score, then Excellence, then gender-balance provisions.

Typical Weak Spots Observed by Experts

1. Vague replication strategy beyond demo basins.

2. Under-developed economic incentives for water governance reform.

3. Over-ambitious sensors/IT stack without TRL evidence.

4. Insufficient engagement of policy makers & end-users.

📝 Application Strategy

Winning Application Blueprint

1. Design a Water-Centric Mission

Provide a clear, measurable mission statement such as: *“Restore natural hydrological functioning in three transboundary basins, reducing drought risk index by 25 % and increasing ecological flow compliance to 90 % by 2032.”*

2. Build a Nexus-Ready Consortium

1. Science Pillar – leading research institutes for advanced hydrological modelling & climate attribution.

2. Technology Pillar – SMEs/industry delivering sensors, EO analytics, digital twins.

3. Socio-Economic Pillar – economists, governance experts, citizen-engagement NGOs.

4. Implementation Pillar – water utilities, basin authorities, farmers’ organisations, energy operators.

5. Policy/Replication Pillar – ministries, your country agencies, JRC to anchor policy impact.

3. Two-Stage Tactics

* Stage 1 (10 pp limit, blind):

* Focus on *excellence & impact narratives*—no partner names.

* Provide quantified KPIs, a lean work-plan (WPs titles only), and a compelling value proposition.

* Stage 2:

* Expand methodology, governance, risk management, gender & SSH dimensions.

* Include detailed Living Labs and “Source-to-Sea” demonstrators showing scalability.

* Present convincing budget-impact ratio (€/m³ water saved, €/tCO₂-eq mitigated).

4. Impact Amplification

* Map outputs to Green Deal scoreboards, EU Mission “Adaptation”, and SDG 6/13/15.

* Provide policy uptake letters from basin authorities & ministries.

* Develop an Exploitation & Business Plan: service subscriptions, Nature-based Solutions (NbS) procurement, climate-resilient infrastructure bonds.

5. Risk & Ethics Governance

* Climate, social, data-privacy, gender, youth engagement risk matrices.

* Water justice & affordability ethics protocol, co-developed with vulnerable groups.

6. Budget Engineering

* Aim for €12-15 M requested leaving headroom.

* Allocate ≥20 % to large-scale demos, ≤7 % to coordination, ≥3 % to communication & citizen science.

7. Alignment with Evaluation Grid

* Write section headers mirroring Excellence–Impact–Implementation criteria.

* Insert in-text *“(ref. Evaluation Criterion 1.3)”* cues for reviewers.

8. Visual & Narrative Quality

* Use infographics for WEFE nexus, Gantt, PERT.

* Provide a 2-page Plain-Language Summary for non-specialist evaluators.

💡 Success Factors

Living Lab Demonstrators

Set up **multi-sectoral Living Labs** in at least three climatically contrasting basins to showcase NbS, digital twins and participatory governance in real time.

Policy Co-Creation Panels

Embed **formalised panels with ministries & basin authorities** to co-author policy briefs, ensuring immediate uptake of project outputs.

Copernicus-Enabled Monitoring

Leverage **Copernicus Sentinel-2 & Sentinel-1 time series** plus Galileo positioning to deliver near-real-time drought/flood dashboards.

Robust Exploitation & Business Model

Articulate post-project revenue streams such as **subscription-based water risk analytics** or NbS service contracts with utilities.

Cross-Border Data Governance Framework

Develop a **GDPR-compliant, FAIR data space** for hydrological, socio-economic and biodiversity data, signed by all basin actors.

Gender-Responsive Water Innovation

Implement **Gendered Innovations 2** methodologies to ensure technologies & governance reforms benefit all genders equitably.

❌ Common Mistakes to Avoid

Ignoring Blind Evaluation Rules

Mentioning organisation names, logos or identifiable references in **Stage 1** documents leads to automatic rejection under the blind evaluation pilot.

Over-Focusing on Technology, Under-Addressing Governance

Proposals stuffed with sensor & modelling tech but lacking concrete plans to **restructure water tariffs, allocation rules, or legal frameworks** score low on Impact.

Poor Spatial & Temporal Resolution in KPIs

Using basin-wide averages instead of **fine-scale metrics (e.g., sub-catchment ecological flow compliance)** weakens the credibility of adaptation outcomes.

Underestimating Social Acceptance and Equity

Failing to include **citizen science, gender, youth and vulnerable communities** engagement undermines both Excellence (SSH integration) and Impact.

Budget Skewed Toward Coordination

Allocating >10 % of budget to management signals inefficiency; evaluators expect majority spending on **innovation & demonstration activities**.

Neglecting Source-to-Sea Perspective

Focusing only on upstream measures without considering **downstream coastal/marine impacts** contradicts the topic’s explicit ‘source to sea’ scope.

Strengthening the resilience of water systems and water sector to climate and global socio-economic change impacts

Quick Facts for Spain Applicants

Ready to Apply from Spain?