Clean Maritime Demonstration Competition 7: 2026 Pre-Deployment Trials — Historical Reference

This page is a historical reference, not an open call. Innovate UK and the Department for Transport (DfT) ran Clean Maritime Demonstration Competition 7: pre-deployment trials as a 2026 competition for clean maritime technology. The official UKRI opportunity page now marks it Closed. Its closing date was 15 July 2026 at 11:00 UK time, so an organisation cannot submit a new application to this cycle.

The competition offered up to £121 million across three strands. This page concerns the pre-deployment trials strand, but the total fund covered the wider competition. The UKRI summary described the opportunity as open to UK registered organisations, with applications allowed only through collaborations. To lead a collaborative project, the lead organisation had to be a UK registered business and had to work with other UK registered organisations.

No successor competition or new deadline is announced on the official UKRI page checked for this update. Readers should therefore keep the closed date in mind and should not treat the guidance below as permission to apply now. It records what the 2026 cycle asked applicants to prepare and how the strand was distinguished from the companion deployment-trials and feasibility-study strands.

At a glance: the closed 2026 competition

What the pre-deployment strand was for

The pre-deployment strand was aimed at testing innovative clean maritime technologies before deployment in an operational setting. The distinction matters. A proposal could design, develop and test technology for on-vessel or maritime-infrastructure use, but it could not use this strand to deploy the solution in the water or in an operational environment.

For an on-vessel technology, the detailed competition guidance described land-based testing, such as work in a factory or dry dock. A team that intended to develop, test and deploy a technology in an operational environment, including on the water, belonged in the separate deployment-trials strand. A project that was primarily a desk-based technical and economic study belonged in the feasibility-studies strand. Applicants were responsible for choosing the correct strand; an out-of-scope application would not be transferred to another strand for assessment.

The scope was broad but had a clear purpose: support technologies that could help reduce well-to-wake greenhouse-gas emissions from maritime activity. The detailed guidance included vessel propulsion and auxiliary engines, batteries, fuel cells, low-carbon fuels, wind propulsion, energy storage and management, shore power, charging, alternative-fuel bunkering, enabling electronics, emissions control, onboard carbon capture, energy efficiency, and smart-shipping systems. It also covered infrastructure at ports, harbours and offshore sites.

That breadth did not make every maritime project eligible. A project needed an innovative clean-maritime technology and a credible pre-deployment test. A proposal focused only on improving conventional fossil-fuel efficiency, marine conservation, or a feasibility study without substantial testing did not match this strand.

Eligibility and collaboration structure

The opportunity was collaboration-only. The lead had to be a UK registered business of any size and had to collaborate with other UK registered organisations. Academic institutions could not lead or work alone. The listed project-team categories included UK registered businesses, academic institutions, charities, not-for-profit organisations, public-sector organisations and research and technology organisations.

The collaboration needed to be substantive. The lead and at least one other organisation had to apply for funding by entering project costs, explain why the collaboration was needed, and describe its structure. The detailed rules also limited any one partner to no more than 70% of the total eligible project costs. Each partner invited through the Innovation Funding Service was responsible for entering its own project costs and completing its project-impact questions.

Non-funded partners could be included under the detailed rules, including organisations based outside the UK, but their role did not remove the core UK collaboration requirement for the funded application. Subcontractors were also allowed, subject to procurement, justification and value-for-money requirements. A subcontractor arrangement was not a substitute for a genuine collaborative project team.

The strongest consortium design would have connected the technology developer to a credible end user and the people able to test, measure and assess the result. The guidance specifically required at least one representative end user, such as a vessel operator, port or harbour authority, with clear commitment to the project. Depending on the proposal, other useful roles could have included a maritime engineering firm, a shipyard, a classification or certification adviser, a data and measurement partner, or a public-sector body with relevant infrastructure.

What a credible project needed to show

The detailed competition requirements went beyond naming a promising technology. A project needed a meaningful pre-deployment trial, a route toward a later operational demonstration, and a convincing account of how the work could reduce well-to-wake greenhouse-gas emissions. It also needed a team with the expertise and experience to deliver the objectives.

The application needed to connect technical work to future use. That meant setting out a clear, detailed and costed plan for eventual demonstration in an operational setting, including the technical approach, objectives and business case. It also meant identifying the resources required for a future deployment: funding needs, delivery timescales, planning permissions, regulatory implications, additional partners and the evidence needed for a commercial case.

Applicants needed to quantify expected emissions reductions and other economic or environmental effects, explain likely commercial applications and market segments, and identify barriers to adoption. A good proposal would have treated safety, vessel certification, installation, maintenance, crew interaction, port operations and data quality as delivery questions rather than afterthoughts.

The guidance also required successful projects to share findings with DfT, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Innovate UK and appointed third parties, and to produce a plan for disseminating results to government, industry and academia. The evaluation requirement was material: funded projects were expected to provide monitoring and end-of-project information and to participate in evidence-gathering activities when requested.

Funding scale and cost discipline

The competition was a grant competition with up to £121 million available across its three strands. The linked Innovation Funding Service guidance stated that a project’s total eligible costs had to fall between £750,000 and £6 million. That range meant applicants needed a work-package structure reviewers could audit: development and test activities, equipment, personnel, partner costs, safety and regulatory work, data collection, reporting, and preparation for future deployment.

The grant was not a promise to fund every proposal. The competition was competitive and subject to a funding limit and the receipt of a sufficient number of high-quality applications. Applicants also had to fund the balance between eligible project costs and the grant awarded. Commercial or economic activity was subject to the applicable funding-intensity limits, while research organisations undertaking non-economic activity had separate rules and caps.

A proportionate budget would have followed the test plan. Costs should have answered practical questions: what is being built or modified, where will it be tested, who will operate the test, what instruments will collect evidence, what approvals are needed, what happens if the test is delayed, and how will the result support the next deployment decision? A large budget without a clear link to those questions would have weakened the proposal.

Application steps for the closed cycle

There is no current application step for this round because the official UKRI page marks it closed. The historical process was nevertheless clear enough to record:

1. Confirm the strand. The applicant needed to decide whether the project was a pre-deployment test, an operational deployment trial or a primarily desk-based feasibility study. The pre-deployment route was not a workaround for a project that planned to test on the water.
2. Form the collaboration. A UK registered business needed to lead with at least one other eligible organisation. The team needed agreed responsibilities, a reason for each partner’s involvement and an end user able to demonstrate commitment.
3. Check project fit. The proposal needed clean-maritime technology, a meaningful test, a path toward later deployment, emissions and market reasoning, and the required UK delivery and exploitation focus.
4. Build the evidence package. The team needed a technical plan, test method, milestones, costed work packages, risk controls, partner information, end-user commitment, commercial route and an explanation of regulatory or planning issues.
5. Use the Innovation Funding Service. The UKRI page linked to the full competition details and application service. Partners were invited by the lead and completed their own cost and impact sections in that service.
6. Submit before the recorded deadline. The deadline was 15 July 2026 at 11:00 UK time. That deadline has passed, and this page must not be read as an invitation to submit a late application.

For future planning, the useful lesson is to secure the collaboration and test setting early. A vessel operator or port authority should be able to describe the asset, operating constraints, access conditions and decision criteria. The technology developer should be able to explain what is novel, what will be tested in the pre-deployment phase, and what evidence would justify moving to an operational demonstration. The measurement partner should be able to define baselines, data-quality checks and reporting responsibilities.

Practical archive guidance for applicants and partners

Teams reviewing the closed competition can still use its scope to classify an existing project. A technology that is ready for land-based testing but not for operational deployment may resemble the pre-deployment brief. A project that needs sea trials or live port operation would require a different funding route if a future competition opens. A project that still lacks a substantial test plan may be closer to feasibility work.

The classification should be based on the work actually proposed, not on the most attractive label. For example, a digital tool for route planning would need a clean-maritime emissions case and a meaningful test plan. A battery or fuel-cell project would need to address test conditions, safety, integration and evidence of performance. A port charging or shore-power project would need to explain the infrastructure, users, energy source, utilisation and route beyond the demonstration. A novel fuel system would need to address emissions accounting and relevant safety and regulatory barriers.

The archive is also a reminder that collaboration is part of the delivery model. A lead business, technology partner, end user, test facility and independent measurement role can form a coherent team when responsibilities are explicit. Conversely, adding organisations only for name recognition does not answer who will test the system, who will own decisions, who will manage risk, or who will carry the result toward adoption.

Status and next-round caution

The verified status is Closed. The official UKRI page continues to provide the opportunity record and links to the detailed Innovation Funding Service information, but it does not announce a successor cycle or a replacement deadline. No future date should be inferred from the closed competition’s schedule.

Organisations interested in clean maritime funding should monitor Innovate UK and UKRI for a separately announced opportunity and should read that opportunity’s own scope, dates and eligibility rules. A future round could change the strand boundaries, funding amount, cost limits, eligible partners or application route. Until that happens, this entry should be used as a record of the 2026 competition only.

Official record: Clean maritime demonstration competition seven: pre-deployment trials