HORIZON-CL5-2026-08 (Two-Stage): EUR 45 Million for Climate-Resilient Science and Fair Transition Research

Captured cycle: This page is retained for historical guidance. Confirm whether the program has reopened before planning an application.

HORIZON-CL5-2026-08 (Two-Stage): EUR 45 Million for Climate-Resilient Science and Fair Transition Research

The call page confirms a major Horizon Europe research opportunity with a total indicative budget of EUR 45,000,000. It is open as of the check date, with a two-stage submission process and topic-specific deadlines: first stage on 15 April 2026 and second stage on 8 October 2026, both at 17:00 CEST.

At-a-glance details

Why this call is important for climate research teams

This is one of the few active, explicitly two-stage climate-science calls where the published budget and timeline are visible and the topic map is specific enough for applicants to target scope quickly. The subject references the IPCC Working Group I domain (earth system science), indicating alignment with major climate science questions around climate dynamics and system-level evidence generation.

For teams, this means the call values depth over breadth. Applications are stronger when they:

• identify a clearly bounded scientific question,
• connect to policy-relevant climate resilience pathways,
• demonstrate methodological innovation,
• show how outcomes can improve decision-making.

The page distinguishes this call from broad technology calls by focusing on research actions where knowledge transfer into resilient policy and climate action is central. In practical terms, reviewers will typically seek more than technical novelty; they look for relevance to a public-interest transition goal.

How the two-stage format changes your strategy

Many teams submit one long proposal and are surprised when they are evaluated in a two-stage process. Here, this structure matters:

• First stage is often a short-form quality gate that tests fit, relevance, novelty, and readiness.
• Second stage is where full proposals should deliver detail and budget maturity.

For this topic, that usually means splitting your effort:

1. Stage 1 proof: concise scientific hypothesis, clear consortium logic, core novelty, and feasibility indicators.
2. Stage 2 expansion: methods, data strategy, timeline, governance, budget logic, risks, and dissemination.

Use stage 1 as a credibility checkpoint. A common mistake is to submit an over-detailed stage 1 package that looks like a final proposal but lacks crisp answers to fit and feasibility questions.

Eligibility and fit: what is clearly confirmed and what needs portal verification

The call page explicitly gives the official reference and portal pathway but does not itself list all participant rules. In Horizon Europe RIA calls, eligibility is generally program-specific and managed through EU systems. Confirm these points in the portal documentation before submission:

• legal eligibility of participants,
• consortium composition requirements,
• whether your organization is eligible in your country,
• whether any ethics, ethics review, or data-sharing conditions apply.

The page confirms this call is in RIA and in Cluster 5, which implies institutional capacity, clear research management capability, and technical depth are expected. For individual labs, this usually means selecting the right lead organization and partner roles early.

If you are building a two-to-four partner consortium, spend time defining each partner’s role before stage 1:

• who produces data,
• who performs modeling,
• who handles policy interface,
• who manages project administration.

Clarity at this level strongly affects review quality.

Proposal design for a two-stage Horizon Europe topic

For this specific call, a strong proposal structure usually has this shape:

Stage 1

• Problem statement in one page with direct relevance to fair transition and resilience.
• Scientific question with explicit uncertainty reduction pathway.
• Why the consortium is capable of delivering results under time constraints.
• One-to-two concrete impact pathways.

Stage 2

• Matured methodology and validated data strategy.
• Work package logic with outcomes tied to deliverables.
• Budget architecture with cost realism and risk-based pacing.
• Management and coordination plan consistent with RIA expectations.

Because the topic is in earth system science, your methodology should connect to accepted scientific standards and traceability. If possible, include:

• how data sources are generated or accessed,
• reproducibility practices,
• peer review or expert validation plans,
• dissemination strategy for decision-makers and scientific stakeholders.

Budget and funding interpretation

The call page specifies an indicative total of EUR 45,000,000 and a per-project indicative envelope of EUR 5,000,000 to EUR 9,000,000. This is significant, and teams should avoid two extremes:

• underestimating cost needs and producing unrealistic scope,
• overbuilding spending assumptions that do not map to deliverables.

In this topic, “indicative” means expected grant levels are directional and must align with proposal quality and portal scoring outcomes. A budget should show what is necessary for scientific execution, not an arbitrary distribution.

What reviewers likely prioritize

Given the listed themes and the public rationale, expect review focus on:

• novelty and scientific rigor,
• alignment with climate transition and fairness framing,
• feasibility of results and delivery in the selected timeframe,
• relevance to broader climate policy and decision utility,
• consortium quality and leadership capacity.

The call statement that the topic is about narrowing knowledge gaps within the scope of earth system science is important. Framing your work as “incremental tool development only” can underperform unless the tool is directly tied to unresolved climate knowledge needs.

Application timeline and sequencing

A practical timeline from open date (18 December 2025) to stage 1 and stage 2 deadlines:

• Nov/Dec 2025: monitor any call modifications and review the full topic text.
• Jan–Mar 2026: finalize science design and partner commitments.
• Mid-March 2026: internal technical dry run.
• 15 Apr 2026: submit first stage.
• Jul/Aug 2026: revise stage 2 concept after feedback and portal communication.
• 8 Oct 2026: submit stage 2.

Any misalignment with portal validation rules can cause rejection at submission stage, so document checks should run early.

Common mistakes (especially in two-stage calls)

1. Assuming one budget works for both stages. Stage 1 should be focused and stage 2 should be complete and structured.
2. Treating stage 1 as optional. In practice, weak stage 1 severely reduces chances.
3. Underdelivering on consortium clarity. Vague partner roles are often interpreted as weak governance.
4. Misstating contribution from related calls. Keep references to other topics clean and precise.
5. Ignoring portal field requirements. Even strong science proposals fail with compliance errors.

FAQ for practical applicants

Is this strictly for EU-only institutions?

The call is Horizon Europe; official eligibility details are confirmed in the funding portal. Start from EU eligibility criteria and program-specific participant rules.

Does this call require industry co-funding?

The page does not provide explicit co-funding percentages. Check the portal text for the official grant conditions.

Can non-academic teams apply?

The page alone does not provide full participant composition details. In this topic family, research institutions, universities, and research organizations are commonly expected, but verify exact partner and eligibility rules in the topic documentation.

Is the budget per project guaranteed?

The values shown are indicative with the topic; final project funding depends on proposal quality and budget review.

Official links

• Call page: https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/funding-opportunities/calls-proposals/horizon-europe-eu45-million-projects-advancing-science-fair-transition-climate-neutral-and-resilient-society_en
• Funding reference: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/HORIZON-CL5-2026-08

You should treat the listed amounts and deadlines as confirmed planning anchors and then pull the final participant-specific conditions from the Funding and Tenders Portal before final submission.

Additional review preparation and compliance checklist for this specific call

To reduce submission risk, teams should perform an explicit checkpoint pass in the two final weeks before each stage. A practical checklist is:

• verify call reference and topic code in every required field,
• confirm all applicants are registered in the portal with correct legal entity IDs,
• verify that the abstract wording matches the exact call scope (fair transition + resilience + earth system science),
• verify that no section references unsupported preliminary claims,
• run a full word and page check against portal instructions,
• collect declarations on data ownership and ethics if your project collects or models sensitive datasets,
• confirm who signs each document and whether institutional letters are required,
• prepare a contingency narrative if one partner leaves and document continuity.

This last step is often ignored. In EU calls, partner changes after stage 1 can create coordination delays and hurt scoring if not addressed early. Even when no partner is strictly required, a fallback governance plan reduces administrative risk and helps explain credibility to evaluators.

Practical output strategy after a successful stage-1 pass

The period between stage 1 and stage 2 is not a waiting period; it is a controlled editing phase. Build a short working protocol:

• split section ownership among science lead, data lead, and financial lead,
• convert all assumptions into explicit, reviewable actions,
• map each objective to a measurable output,
• reduce claims that are not reproducible from your current evidence,
• remove jargon unless it is field-standard and supported by references.

Teams that use this protocol usually submit cleaner stage-2 proposals and avoid emergency edits under time pressure. In two-stage Horizon calls, this is one of the highest-value prep practices.