💰 Funding Details

Funding Overview

Key Facts

* Call identifier: HORIZON-HLTH-2025-03-ENVHLTH-02-two-stage

* Instrument: HORIZON-RIA (Research and Innovation Action) implemented as a lump-sum grant (`HORIZON-AG-LS`)

* Destination: Living and working in a health-promoting environment

* Indicative EU contribution per project: up to €50 000 000

* Total call budget: not disclosed, but stage-1 threshold designed so that invited proposals request roughly 3.5-4× the available budget

* Two-stage deadlines:

* Stage 1 short proposal (blind) – 16 September 2025 17:00 Brussels time

* Stage 2 full proposal – 16 April 2026 17:00 Brussels time

* Opening date: 22 May 2025

* Maximum project length (typical): 48–60 months

What is financed

The lump-sum covers 100 % of eligible costs for:

* experimental research on causal mechanisms and exposure pathways of micro- & nanoplastics (MNPs)

* development/validation of reference materials, in-silico & in-vitro models

* human biomonitoring and clinical studies (ethics & GDPR compliant)

* data FAIRification and deposition in IPCHEM / future Common Data Platform for Chemicals

* clustering activities (~2 % of budget) for policy uptake, joint dissemination, common data & policy strategies

Geographic eligibility

Most Horizon Europe associated states are eligible. Additionally, *any* legal entity established in the United States may receive funding. Always confirm with your National Contact Point in your country.

Co-funding

No compulsory co-funding is required, yet leveraging your country’s public or private co-investment can strengthen long-term sustainability and exploitation plans.

📊 Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Logic

Stage 1 (blind)

| Criterion | Weight | Threshold |

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

| Excellence | 50 % | ≥4/5 |

| Impact | 50 % | ≥4/5 |

Cumulative threshold is dynamically set so that admitted proposals request ~3.5–4× the call budget.

Stage 2

| Criterion | Weight | Threshold |

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

| Excellence | 1/3 | ≥4/5 |

| Impact | 1/3 | ≥4/5 |

| Quality & Efficiency of Implementation | 1/3 | ≥4/5 |

Overall minimum score: 12/15.

What evaluators look for

* Excellence – soundness of methodology, novelty in understanding MNP toxicity, realistic exposure scenarios, robust models, gender dimension.

* Impact – credible pathways to policy, standards, industry tools; measurable KPIs; exploitation & communication strategy; clustering commitment.

* Implementation – coherent work plan, balanced expertise, risk management, lump-sum logic, budget allocation (~2 % for networking).

📝 Application Strategy

Strategic Application Guide

1. Position your consortium

* Build a multidisciplinary team combining toxicology, polymer science, occupational health, social sciences & humanities, data science and regulatory expertise.

* Include partners from your country’s leading analytical chemistry labs to strengthen method standardisation tasks.

* Engage the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) and, where relevant, ECHA/EEA as *non-funded* partners to bridge research–policy interfaces.

2. Map your concept to expected outcomes

Align each work package with at least one expected outcome:

1. Evidence base for policy & standards

2. FAIR exposure and health-impact data

3. Citizen behaviour change

4. Industry safety & sustainability assessment support

5. Closing knowledge gaps and proposing mitigation measures

6. Guidance for regulators

3. Two-stage optimisation

* Stage 1 (max 10 pages): blind short proposal focusing on *Excellence* & *Impact* only. Remove all identifiers (organisation names, acronyms, staff).

* Stage 2: add detailed implementation, budget, ethics & clinical study annex. Allocate ~2 % of budget for mandatory clustering activities.

4. Leverage lump-sum logic

* Define clear, verifiable work packages with deliverable-based payment triggers.

* Use your country’s cost accounting experience to set realistic lump-sum values – under-budgeting cannot be adjusted post-award.

5. Regulatory & SSH integration

* Embed SSH experts to co-design citizen engagement, perception studies and behavioural interventions.

* Ensure protocols are pre-aligned with OECD and ISO standardisation processes to facilitate regulatory uptake.

6. Ethical and data considerations

* Prepare a robust Ethics Self-Assessment (animal alternatives, informed consent, data protection).

* Draft a Data Management Plan following FAIR principles and commit to deposit chemical monitoring data in IPCHEM.

💡 Success Factors

Co-creation with Regulators

Establish an advisory board including JRC, ECHA and national authorities from your country to validate protocols and maximise policy relevance.

Tiered Exposure Assessment

Combine environmental sampling, occupational surveys and **human biomonitoring** to deliver a comprehensive exposure matrix matched to toxicological testing.

Benchmark Reference Materials

Develop and openly distribute size-, shape- and polymer-defined MNP reference materials to European labs, boosting comparability and dissemination impact.

Adaptive Communication Campaigns

Use SSH insights to tailor messages for citizens, workers and industry, adjusting content based on real-time feedback analytics.

Lump-Sum Friendly Milestone Design

Break down work packages into **verifiable milestones** (e.g., ISO method drafted, in-silico model validated) to trigger payments smoothly.

Gender-Sensitive Study Design

Plan recruitment and data analysis to detect sex-specific differences in MNP toxicity, aligning with Horizon Europe gender requirements.

❌ Common Mistakes to Avoid

Disclosing Consortium Identity in Stage 1

The blind evaluation pilot forbids any reference to organisation names, acronyms, logos or staff. Including them results in ineligibility.

Ignoring Mandatory 2 % Clustering Budget

Applicants forget to reserve resources for joint meetings, common dissemination and data strategies, leading to negative implementation scores.

Testing Unrealistic Particle Concentrations

Using laboratory doses far above environmental levels weakens credibility and misaligns with the scope requirement for *realistic exposure scenarios*.

Missing SSH Integration

Neglecting social science competences undermines expected outcomes on citizen behaviour and policy uptake, lowering impact scores.

Overlooking IPCHEM Data Deposition

Failure to commit to depositing chemical monitoring data in IPCHEM or the future Common Data Platform for Chemicals breaches FAIR data expectations.

Static Risk Management Plan

Providing a generic, one-time risk register instead of a dynamic process with clear contingencies for clinical studies and supply of reference materials.

Advancing knowledge on the impacts of micro- and nanoplastics on human health

Quick Facts for Spain Applicants

Unlock Full Eligibility Report