RAMP Joint Transnational Call 2026: Nearly €40 Million for Raw Materials Research; Pre-Proposals Closed 22 September 2026

RAMP Joint Transnational Call 2026: Nearly €40 Million for Raw Materials Research; Pre-Proposals Closed 22 September 2026

Historical reference: stage 1 is closed to new applicants

The first Joint Transnational Call of the Raw Materials Partnership for the Green and Digital Transition (RAMP) no longer accepts new applications. Its stage 1 pre-proposal deadline was 22 September 2026 at 15:00 CEST. RAMP states that proposals cannot be revised or resubmitted after the deadline, except when the Joint Call Secretariat asks for minor technical or administrative corrections. The call page does not announce a successor round. New applicants therefore cannot use this page to enter JTC 2026.

The call itself continues through stage 2 for consortia that submitted on time and receive an invitation after central evaluation. The official timetable sets the full-proposal deadline at 15 February 2027 at 15:00 CET, but that date is available only to invited consortia; it does not reopen stage 1 or create an application route for new teams. Their coordinator must follow the instructions issued for stage 2. This archive records the call’s scope and published process so organisations can understand the opportunity, check what happened to the cycle, and prepare for any future call only after RAMP publishes one.

The official call page describes JTC 2026 as RAMP’s first joint transnational call. It brought together 39 funding organisations in 27 countries, with combined national and regional commitments of nearly €40 million. RAMP is a European Partnership co-funded under Horizon Europe. Its call sought research and innovation projects that improve access to raw materials while supporting circularity, sustainability, industrial development, and reduced social and environmental costs across the value chain.

Call facts

The call page identifies the latest call-text version as updated 7 September 2026. Its call text includes national and regional requirements in Annex 1 and a frequently asked questions section in Annex 2. Those materials matter because RAMP did not distribute the whole budget through one central grant. Each partner was to receive its funding, including EU co-funding where applicable, directly from its own national or regional funder and under that funder’s rules.

What the call covered

Applicants had to choose one main topic that best represented the project’s central objective and expected impact. Interdisciplinary and cross-topic collaboration was encouraged. The six thematic areas covered the raw-materials value chain:

1. Resilient primary supply. Work could address sustainable exploration, extraction, refining, and processing. The call page highlights innovative exploration, sustainable mining practices, advanced metallurgical processing, and assessment of environmental and social impacts. Strong projects needed to connect a technical advance to a real supply challenge and explain the conditions under which it could be adopted.
2. Secondary sources. This topic addressed recovery from end-of-life products, industrial and urban waste, and landfills, with recovered material returned to supply chains. Relevant work included recycling and recovery technologies, urban mining, integration of secondary feedstocks into production, and material-flow analysis. Feedstock access and variability are central practical questions for this type of research.
3. Efficient use in design and production. Projects could reduce raw-material use and related impacts through efficient processes, product design, substitution, reuse, and recycling. The call also identified digital monitoring and traceability as relevant approaches. A proposal in this area should explain how design or production choices change material demand over a product’s life.
4. Technological barriers to circularity. The aim was to extend the useful life of products or components through reuse, repair, refurbishment, remanufacturing, or repurposing. Decision-support tools, service-life extension, reverse logistics, and disassembly were among the areas named in the call.
5. Putting circular-economy ambitions into action. This topic focused on non-technological obstacles, including regulatory, social, behavioural, and economic barriers. Potential work included business models, policy and regulatory frameworks, consumer engagement, and standardisation. It gave social science, economics, management, and policy research a clear place in a materials partnership.
6. Analysing raw-materials value chains. The call sought improved understanding of value chains through data management and standardisation, dynamic modelling, life-cycle analysis, and financial modelling. Supply-chain stress testing, end-of-life analysis, mass-flow analysis, transparency, and traceability tools fit this scope.

All proposals were expected to address relevant crosscutting considerations: gender balance and diversity, social acceptance, Safe and Sustainable by Design, and open science. These should have been integrated into the research design and delivery plan, rather than added as generic statements. For example, a project involving extraction or recycling could explain who experiences its environmental and social effects, how those groups inform the work, and how the project will make its research outputs accessible.

Who could participate

JTC 2026 was a consortium call, not an individual-researcher award. The minimum consortium had to include at least three partners requesting funding from three participating countries. At least two of those partners had to come from EU Member States or countries associated with Horizon Europe. An organisation that could not receive money from a participating funder could still participate as a self-funded partner, but it was additional to the minimum funded composition.

Eligible organisation types included universities and other higher education institutions, public and private research organisations, companies of all sizes, consultancies, and other organisations such as municipalities, public bodies, NGOs, stakeholder associations, and foundations. This broad list did not override national rules. Every funding-seeking partner had to check the eligibility conditions, eligible costs, funding rates, submission requirements, and any national budget limits set by the funder it approached. A consortium could meet the international minimum and still have an ineligible partner or cost under a national annex.

The participating countries listed by the call were Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada (Québec), Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Türkiye. The call also listed multiple funders in some countries or regions. Applicants needed to use the call text’s funder-specific annex rather than assume that one country’s conditions applied uniformly to all of its participants.

How the application process worked

The call used two stages with central evaluation. At stage 1, a consortium coordinator submitted the pre-proposal through RAMP ESES before the stated deadline. RAMP checked eligibility and arranged assessment by an international panel. The selection of proposals invited forward depended on the central evaluation results and on the budgets available from the funders involved in each consortium. The coordinator was responsible for submitting on behalf of the consortium; partners were encouraged to become familiar with the system well in advance.

After the stage 1 deadline, a proposal could not be revised or resubmitted unless the Joint Call Secretariat requested a minor correction to technical or administrative details. RAMP described deadline extensions as available only where RAMP was directly responsible for technical problems. The call also warned that some national or regional funders required a separate application. Those parallel steps and their deadlines were funder-specific and had to be confirmed in Annex 1.

Only selected consortia were to receive an invitation for stage 2. Invited coordinators would submit a detailed full proposal through the process specified by RAMP, again using the requested format and observing the full-proposal deadline. The second stage included eligibility checks, central evaluation, and review by RAMP’s ethics advisory board. Final funding decisions depended on evaluation results and the funds available. A full-proposal date in the calendar therefore did not mean that a new team could join the call or that every stage 1 applicant could continue.

The call page supplied mandatory pre-proposal templates for the technical description and partner CVs, alongside the call text. The coordinator also entered administrative and budget information in ESES. Before the stage 1 deadline, an applicant team needed to establish its consortium, choose one main topic, agree on roles and costs, complete the required templates, and verify national rules with each relevant funder or national contact point. Teams looking for partners could use RAMP’s partnering platform, but a profile there did not replace the formal ESES submission.

Lessons for organisations tracking a future round

Because this round is closed, the steps below are preparation guidance for a possible future RAMP call, not instructions for applying to JTC 2026. Do not reuse old dates, templates, or national annexes as if they applied to a later round. Start with a fresh announcement from RAMP and check that the call text, participating funders, budget, and eligibility requirements are current.

For a future transnational proposal, first map the intended research to the call topic and identify the concrete material, feedstock, process, or value-chain decision involved. Then confirm that the proposed partners provide the minimum funded country composition and each has a clear role. Contact each national or regional funder early: national rules determine whether an organisation can be funded, which costs can be claimed, what rate applies, and whether another application is required. A single international submission system does not make these funding rules uniform.

Build the budget and work plan together. If one partner is expected to supply a pilot facility, industrial data, or a waste stream, check that its national funder can pay for the associated costs. Include a credible plan for stakeholder engagement, social acceptance, gender balance and diversity, safe and sustainable design, and open science. For a materials project, explain how the research connects scientific results to a practical user, industrial process, policy decision, or supply-chain need. These choices help reviewers see why the collaboration needs its particular partners and how the work could contribute beyond a laboratory result.

Finally, use only the current call’s submission guidance. The coordinator should allow time for partner approvals and platform submission before any future deadline, while each partner separately tracks requirements from its funder. RAMP’s call page and the official call listing are the places to check for a successor announcement; until one is published, no new-cycle deadline or funding amount should be inferred from JTC 2026.

Official links

• RAMP Joint Call 2026 page — call text, timetable, participating funders, templates, and submission details.
• RAMP calls listing — official index for calls announced by the partnership.
• RAMP ESES submission system — the system used by the 2026 call.
• RAMP partnering platform — partner search platform associated with the call.
• Call Secretariat: [email protected].