💰 Funding Details

Funding at a Glance

Call identifier: HORIZON-CL6-2025-02-FARM2FORK-01-two-stage

Programme / Cluster: Horizon Europe – Cluster 6: Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture & Environment

Type of action: HORIZON-RIA – Research & Innovation Action (lump-sum)

Maximum EU contribution per project: €18 million

Two-stage deadlines:

*Stage 1:* 04 September 2025 (17:00 Brussels)

*Stage 2:* 18 February 2026 (17:00 Brussels)

Strategic Rationale

This topic supports the European Green Deal, the Biodiversity Strategy 2030 and Regulation 2016/2031 on plant health. Projects must address *emerging and future risks* to plant health, delivering:

1. Deeper insight into biological and socio-economic drivers of pest emergence under climate change and globalisation.

2. Cost-effective prevention and control tools consistent with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and One-Health principles.

3. Science-based policy advice that strengthens EU and your country plant-health measures while safeguarding trade, biodiversity and food security.

Eligible Activities (non-exhaustive)

- Advanced epidemiological modelling of entry, establishment & spread pathways.

- High-throughput diagnostics, remote sensing & digital surveillance.

- Development of biological/bio-pesticide or agro-ecological control solutions.

- Socio-economic impact assessment & risk-communication frameworks.

- Pilot deployment of early-warning systems with farmer, forester & policy actor engagement.

Budgeting Under Lump-Sum

The EC will fix a lump sum during grant agreement. Consortia therefore do not provide granular cost reporting but must build a robust, credible work-package-based costing. Allocate up to €60 000 per third-party grant where cascade funding helps reach SMEs, advisory services or farmers’ associations.

📊 Evaluation Criteria

How Evaluators Will Score You

| Criterion | Weight | Key Questions |

|-----------|--------|---------------|

| Excellence | 1/3 | • Is the concept scientifically credible and novel?
• Are objectives specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound (SMART)?
• Does the methodology integrate multi-actor & interdisciplinary approaches? |

| Impact | 1/3 | • Will the project measurably advance EU plant-health policy and Green Deal targets?
• Quality of impact pathways, KPIs & exploitation/communication measures.
• Is the lump-sum budget realistic and does it maximise EU added-value? |

| Quality & Efficiency of Implementation | 1/3 | • Consortium complementarity & operational capacity.
• Work-package structure, risk management & governance.
• Appropriateness of resources and justification of lump-sum amount. |

Thresholds: Excellence ≥ 4/5, Impact ≥ 4/5, Implementation ≥ 3/5, overall ≥ 12/15.

Blind review nuance: At Stage 1, Implementation is not scored; proposals are ranked mainly on Excellence & Impact without identifying data.

📝 Application Strategy

Strategic Application Guide

1. Align With Policy & Expected Outcomes

- Map each work package to one or more of the four expected outcomes (drivers, measures, IPM solutions, policy support).

- Explicitly reference Regulation 2016/2031 articles when proposing surveillance or border-control innovations.

2. Perfect the Two-Stage Tactic

1. Stage 1 (Max 10 pages, blind):

• Craft a *compelling needs statement* without naming organisations.

• Focus on novelty, credibility of concept, EU added-value, and how the multi-actor approach is embedded (specify types of actors – farmers, SMEs, policy bodies – rather than names).

2. Stage 2:

• Provide full methodology, consortium credentials, detailed lump-sum budget and exploitation plan.

• Showcase risk-mitigation for regulatory, biosafety and climate variability uncertainties.

3. Consortium Architecture

- Minimum: 3 legal entities from 3 different your country (EU/Associated).

- Recommended profile mix:

• Plant-pathology & entomology institutes

• Climate & data-science centres

• Agri-tech SMEs (biosensors, biocontrol)

• Farmer & forester organisations

• National plant-protection organisations (NPPOs) / EPPO observers

• Social-science & economics teams

- Appoint a strong industrial liaison to optimise exploitation & IPM uptake.

4. Impact & Exploitation

- Develop a Theory of Change diagram and KPI table (e.g., reduction in detection time by 50 %, at least three IPM prototypes reaching TRL 6 by project end).

- Include open-data provisions complying with FAIR and EU pesticide-usage statistics integration.

- Plan policy-brief workshops timed with the revision of the EU Sustainable Use Directive.

5. Gender, Diversity & Ethics

- Quantify gender balance targets in decision-making bodies (>40 %).

- Address dual-use bio-security issues through an ethics advisory board.

💡 Success Factors

Living Labs with Farmers & Foresters

Run **on-farm/forest pilot sites** that validate diagnostics and IPM in real conditions, generating data and testimonials for rapid uptake.

Integrated Data Ecosystem

Combine **remote sensing, citizen science apps and official surveillance** into a single interoperable dashboard following FAIR principles.

Regulatory Sandbox Engagement

Collaborate with NPPOs to **test novel biocontrol agents or digital certificates** under controlled, regulation-friendly settings.

Robust Climate-Scenario Modelling

Provide pest spread projections under multiple IPCC pathways, demonstrating preparedness for **long-term climate variability**.

Targeted Policy Briefings & Training

Schedule **policy roundtables** aligned with Plant Health Committee meetings and create **e-learning modules** for extension services.

Clear Commercialisation Pathways

Articulate IP strategy, licensing plans and **business cases for SMEs** producing diagnostics or biocontrol products.

❌ Common Mistakes to Avoid

Ignoring the Blind-Evaluation Rules

Many applicants accidentally disclose partner names, logos or personnel in Stage 1, leading to *automatic rejection*. Use neutral labels such as "University A", "SME B".

Superficial Multi-Actor Compliance

Listing stakeholders without **clear roles, responsibilities and co-creation mechanisms** fails to convince reviewers that farmer/end-user input will shape the research.

Over-focusing on a Single Pest

While depth is valued, proposals that ignore **transferability to additional emerging pests** score lower on impact and EU added-value.

Unsubstantiated Lump-Sum Figure

Providing a round number (e.g., *€18 M flat*) without linking it to WP deliverables and resource needs flags poor financial credibility.

Neglecting Policy Synchronisation

Failure to map outputs to **Regulation 2016/2031** or to upcoming CAP Strategic Plans diminishes the perceived policy relevance.

Weak Risk & Bio-security Management

Missing biosafety protocols or dual-use assessments indicates implementation weakness and can trigger ethics flags.

Emerging and future risks to plant health

Quick Facts for Italy Applicants

Unlock Full Eligibility Report