Social, Economic And Cultural Drivers, And Costs Of Land Degradation
HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions
Basic Information
- Identifier
- HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-02
- Programme
- Supporting the implementation of the Soil Deal for Europe Mission
- Programme Period
- 2021 - 2027
- Status
- Closed (31094503)
- Opening Date
- May 6, 2025
- Deadline
- September 30, 2025
- Deadline Model
- single-stage
- Budget
- €5,000,000
- Min Grant Amount
- €5,000,000
- Max Grant Amount
- €5,000,000
- Expected Number of Grants
- 1
- Keywords
- HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-02HORIZON-MISS-2025-05(scientific) cultureAgricultureAgriculture / Forestry / Rural DevelopmentEconomicsPolitical systems and institutions, governanceSocial economicsSocial sciencesSoil conservationSoil contaminationSoil managementSoil protectionSoil science
Description
Expected Outcome:
Activities under this topic will help to progress EU efforts to better protect soils and reaffirm its commitment to achieve land-based climate neutrality in the EU by 2035 as outlined in the EU Soil Strategy for 2030. Moreover, results under this topic will contribute to progress on all the Mission ‘A Soil Deal for Europe’ objectives as well as on the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 15 on Life on land.
Project results are expected to contribute to all the following outcomes:
- Policy makers and relevant stakeholders have an enhanced understanding of the key social, economic, cultural, political, and regulatory factors driving soil management and degradation and the interaction of these factors.
- Policy makers and other relevant stakeholders have access to enhanced estimates of land degradation costs (e.g., GDP losses and negative externalities) and have a better understanding of the consequences of land degradation for food security and other ecosystem services, people’s well-being, markets and finance.
- Policy makers (at EU, national, regional and local level), land-managers, and other stakeholders have increased access to cost-benefit analysis and have improved capacities to develop evidence-based strategies or policies, and integrated approaches to overcome barriers to soil health protection and restoration and facilitate sustainable land management.
Scope:
The social, economic, cultural, political, and regulatory factors that drive land management and land degradation and the interaction among these factors has been insufficiently explored. Moreover, there is a knowledge gap in estimating the costs that land degradation generates on-site, directly affecting land users and managers, and offsite, borne by society. Currently, the lack of knowledge on the costs of land degradation hampers the development of cost-benefit scenarios for the adoption and implementation of soil conservation and restoration actions across the EU and Associated Countries. An improved understanding of the social, economic, political, regulatory, and cultural factors, together with quantification of the costs of land degradation, should lead to evidence-based strategies, policies and integrated approaches that support land managers in rural, intermediate, and urban areas to adopt and implement sustainable land management practices that reduce and eventually stop land degradation and enhance soil health.
Proposed activities should:
- Identify the social, economic, cultural, political, and regulatory factors that drive soil management and degradation and are key in the development of strategies, policies and integrated approaches for sustainable land management across different land uses. The analysis should include, among other factors, those related to gender, education, inequalities, and access to land.
- Review existing socio-economic methods and models for assessing land degradation costs and conduct pan-European assessments of the socio-economic costs of different aspects of land degradation (e.g. soil organic carbon losses, soil erosion, biodiversity decline, nutrient loss, soil contamination, soil sealing, and land subsidence) across all relevant land use types. Such assessments should be based on the integration of soil bio-physico-chemical indicators with socio-economic methods and models.
- Carry out cost-benefit analyses of soil conservation measures and sustainable land management approaches by building on other EU funded projects or initiatives.
- Evaluate the socio-economic impacts of EU Green Deal policies related to land degradation (scenario analysis) and the socio-economic costs and benefits of their implementation.
- Explore how existing patterns of thought and action can be modified to implement sustainable land management. This should include the analysis of successful examples of sustainable human-soil relations, and their replicability should be encouraged among stakeholders through peer-to-peer learning and capacity building.
- Develop a toolbox of policy solutions for different governance levels to promote sustainable land management and avoid land degradation and sealing, considering the diverse cultural, political, and administrative systems, land uses, and geographical and pedo-climatic conditions in the EU and Associated Countries.
In carrying out the activities, consortia should:
- Work in an interdisciplinary way bringing together environmental sciences and social sciences and humanities (SSH) disciplines (including economics, political science, sociology, history, geography, cultural anthropology, behavioural sciences).
- Regularly engage with policy makers and stakeholders to co-create and evaluate strategies to mitigate land degradation and sealing.
Finally, proposals should:
- Include dedicated tasks and appropriate resources for coordination measures and joint activities with the other project funded under this topic, as well as with other relevant projects and initiatives funded under the Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe”, including engagement with the relevant cluster activities.
- Demonstrate a route towards open access, longevity, sustainability and interoperability of knowledge and outputs through close collaboration with the EU Soil Observatory and the SoilWise[1] project.
Eligibility & Conditions
General conditions
1. Admissibility Conditions: Proposal page limit and layout
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.
4. Financial and operational capacity and exclusion
described in Annex C of the Work Programme General Annexes.
5a. Evaluation and award: Award criteria, scoring and thresholds
are described in Annex D of the Work Programme General Annexes.
5b. Evaluation and award: Submission and evaluation processes
are described in Annex F of the Work Programme General Annexes and the Online Manual.
5c. Evaluation and award: Indicative timeline for evaluation and grant agreement
described in Annex F of the Work Programme General Annexes.
6. Legal and financial set-up of the grants
Eligible costs will take the form of a lump sum as defined in the Decision of 7 July 2021 authorising the use of lump sum contributions under the Horizon Europe Programme – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2027) – and in actions under the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (2021-2025). [[This decision is available on the Funding and Tenders Portal, in the reference documents section for Horizon Europe, under ‘Simplified costs decisions’ or through this link: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/guidance/ls-decision_he_en.pdf]].
described in Annex G of the Work Programme General Annexes.
Specific conditions
described in the [specific topic of the Work Programme]
Application and evaluation forms and model grant agreement (MGA):
Application form templates — the application form specific to this call is available in the Submission System
Standard application form (HE RIA, IA)
Evaluation form templates — will be used with the necessary adaptations
Standard evaluation form (HE RIA, IA)
Guidance
Model Grant Agreements (MGA)
Call-specific instructions
Additional documents:
HE Main Work Programme 2025 – 1. General Introduction
HE Main Work Programme 2025 – 12. Missions
HE Main Work Programme 2025 – 14. General Annexes
HE Framework Programme 2021/695
HE Specific Programme Decision 2021/764
EU Financial Regulation 2024/2509
Rules for Legal Entity Validation, LEAR Appointment and Financial Capacity Assessment
EU Grants AGA — Annotated Model Grant Agreement
Funding & Tenders Portal Online Manual
Frequently Asked Questions About Social, Economic And Cultural Drivers, And Costs Of Land Degradation
Support & Resources
Online Manual is your guide on the procedures from proposal submission to managing your grant.
Horizon Europe Programme Guide contains the detailed guidance to the structure, budget and political priorities of Horizon Europe.
Funding & Tenders Portal FAQ – find the answers to most frequently asked questions on submission of proposals, evaluation and grant management.
Research Enquiry Service – ask questions about any aspect of European research in general and the EU Research Framework Programmes in particular.
National Contact Points (NCPs) – get guidance, practical information and assistance on participation in Horizon Europe. There are also NCPs in many non-EU and non-associated countries (‘third-countries’).
Enterprise Europe Network – contact your EEN national contact for advice to businesses with special focus on SMEs. The support includes guidance on the EU research funding.
IT Helpdesk – contact the Funding & Tenders Portal IT helpdesk for questions such as forgotten passwords, access rights and roles, technical aspects of submission of proposals, etc.
European IPR Helpdesk assists you on intellectual property issues.
CEN-CENELEC Research Helpdesk and ETSI Research Helpdesk – the European Standards Organisations advise you how to tackle standardisation in your project proposal.
The European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for their recruitment – consult the general principles and requirements specifying the roles, responsibilities and entitlements of researchers, employers and funders of researchers.
Partner Search help you find a partner organisation for your proposal.
Latest Updates
CALL UPDATE: FLASH EVALUATION RESULTS
Published: 06/05/2025
Deadline: 30/09/2025
Available budget: EUR 73.00 million
Budget per topic with separate ‘call-budget-split’:
Topic code | Type of action | Budget (EUR million) |
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-01 | RIA | 12.00 |
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-02 | RIA | 11.00 |
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-03 | RIA | 6.00 |
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-04 | RIA | 6.00 |
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-05 | RIA | 6.00 |
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-06 | RIA | 6.00 |
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-07 | RIA | 6.00 |
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-08 | CSA | 6.00 |
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-09 | CSA | 5.00 |
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-10 | CSA | 3.00 |
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-11 | RIA | 6.00 |
The results of the evaluation for each topic are as follows:
HE-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-01 | HE-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-02 | HE-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-03 | HE-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-04 | HE-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-05 | HE-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-06 | |
Number of proposals submitted (including proposals transferred from or to other calls) | 12 | 8 | 20 | 1 | 3 | 11 |
Number of inadmissible proposals | 1 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Number of ineligible proposals | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Number of above-threshold proposals | 4 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 7 |
Total budget requested for above-threshold proposals (EUR million) | 47.9 | 16.4 | 29.9 | 6.0 | 12.0 | 42.8 |
Number of proposals retained for funding | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Number of proposals in the reserve list | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Funding threshold | 14.5 | 13 | 12.5 | 11.5 | 14 | 14.5 |
Ranking distribution | ||||||
Number of proposals with scores lower or equal to 15 and higher or equal to 14 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Number of proposals with scores lower than 14 and higher or equal to 13 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Number of proposals with scores lower than 13 and higher or equal to 10 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
HE-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-07 | HE-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-08 | HE-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-09 | HE-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-10 | HE-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-11 | |
Number of proposals submitted (including proposals transferred from or to other calls) | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 |
Number of inadmissible proposals | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Number of ineligible proposals | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Number of above-threshold proposals | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
Total budget requested for above-threshold proposals (EUR million) | 18.0 | 6.0 | 15.0 | 6.0 | 18.0 |
Number of proposals retained for funding | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Number of proposals in the reserve list | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Funding threshold | 13 | 12.5 | 13.5 | 12.5 | 13 |
Ranking distribution | |||||
Number of proposals with scores lower or equal to 15 and higher or equal to 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Number of proposals with scores lower than 14 and higher or equal to 13 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Number of proposals with scores lower than 13 and higher or equal to 10 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Summary of observers’ report:
This report by the Independent Observers documents the fulfilment of all quality standards and an assessment of the appropriateness of the evaluation procedures. The principles of transparency, impartiality, and fairness guided the evaluation process which was managed by clearly defined evaluation procedures which were tightly monitored by external observers. The selected experts demonstrated competences and complementarity. The Consensus discussions focused exclusively on the published assessment criteria. Exclusion of any conflicts of interests at all steps of the evaluation was monitored by multiple actors and at various stages of the evaluation. Before the start of the individual evaluations, evaluators were trained and familiarised with the evaluation contents and standards while enabling multidisciplinary evaluation perspectives. After individual evaluation by three to four independent external experts, their reports were integrated by external rapporteurs. In dedicated consensus discussions, each proposal was discussed with the help of the Agency’s moderators and frequently monitored by Independent Observers. To enable homogeneity in the application of the evaluation principles, all Consensus Reports were independently reviewed by quality checkers, providing detailed feedback on any potential deviation from the quality standards and any risks of inconsistencies. For topics involving more than one panel, dedicated calibration meetings with quality checkers took place to implement the quality standards homogeneously and to ensure consistency. Based on their observations, analysis of written documentation, feedback from experts, analysis of research on grant peer review and a comparative analysis of national and international grant peer review procedures, the observers estimate that this evaluation process was of comparably excellent quality, constituting the state of the art in terms of ensuring a thorough, fair and transparent evaluation.
We recently informed the applicants about the evaluation results for their proposals.
For questions, please contact the Research Enquiry Service.
Flash information on proposal numbers
Call HORIZON-MISS-2025-05 has closed on 30/09/2025.
76 proposals have been submitted.
The breakdown per topic is:
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-01: 12 proposals
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-02: 8 proposals
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-03: 20 proposals
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-04: 1 proposal
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-05: 3 proposals
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-06: 11 proposals
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-07: 5 proposals
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-08: 4 proposals
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-09: 5 proposals
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-10: 4 proposals
HORIZON-MISS-2025-05-SOIL-11: 3 proposals
Evaluation results are expected to be communicated in January 2026.