Sustainable Blue Economy Partnership: Rolling Transnational Access Call to Research Infrastructures 2026-2028

Sustainable Blue Economy Partnership: Rolling Transnational Access Call to Research Infrastructures 2026-2028

This is a Horizon Europe and participating funding organisations (Horizon Europe Mission Ocean and Waters) transnational access opportunity that is genuinely useful for teams planning marine and maritime projects across the 2026–2027 cycle. It is active for a long window and is explicitly structured as a rolling call, allowing teams to submit multiple opportunities to improve, re-align, or reframe access requests over multiple evaluation cycles.

The call opens in the 2026 cycle and runs from 20 February 2026 to 29 February 2028. It is designed as a recurring access mechanism with regular four-month cutoffs, including windows in 2026 and 2027. As the official pages and call text state, selected teams can receive free or covered access to Research Infrastructure resources (RIs), while all project execution and operational costs remain the applicant’s responsibility.

Compared with a conventional grant, this is a hybrid opportunity: access resource in-kind (infrastructure, shared facilities, data and platform access) rather than direct cash awards. It is still a funding opportunity because it grants material support tied to competitive selection and structured review.

Key details at a glance

What this opportunity is and what it is not

This call is an access-to-infrastructure mechanism under the Sustainable Blue Economy Partnership (SBEP), implemented as a rolling transnational call across 2026–2028. In practical terms, it is designed for teams that already have a defined R&I concept and need specialised maritime RIs to generate evidence, develop methods, prototypes, field tools, or data products.

It is not a one-off grant of money for salaries or travel allowances. It is not a fellowship with an individual stipend and it is not a broad “any idea works” innovation competition. It is specifically for projects that can map their work to at least one SBEP strategic objective and then translate that into a concrete, feasible request for at least one and up to two RIs from SBEP providers.

The official call text emphasizes this difference: transnational access is offered as part of Horizon Europe ecosystem instruments, and implementation of the selected projects is self-funded. In other words, you should enter this opportunity with a strong scientific and operational plan and a working budget from your own or other project resources.

The call is therefore best viewed as a resource-enabled collaboration route rather than a full project grant. Teams that understand this structure are much more likely to craft compliant proposals. Teams that misread it often overfocus on “where to source project funds” before proving RI fit and feasibility, and get rejected early.

Who this is for

This opportunity is best for:

1. Research universities and consortia needing marine facilities to test models, collect field samples, or run advanced lab/engineering operations.
2. Public and private research organisations with established technical capacity to run multi-partner projects.
3. SMEs or larger firms partnering with academic/RI providers on blue economy technology, data systems, ocean monitoring, coastal infrastructure, shipping, fisheries innovation, or related maritime innovation.
4. Public authorities and NGO-led partnerships that can coordinate real projects across geography and stakeholders.
5. International teams with at least one strong partnership structure, since international cooperation is required.

The SBEP page and the accompanying call text also describe how stakeholders from the wider blue economy are expected to be part of project design and impact. This means teams should think beyond a lab-only design and include implementation context, beneficiaries and follow-on pathways.

Minimum structural requirements

Based on the official call text:

• The proposal must have one Project Leader and at least one Project Partner (minimum two partners from two different countries).
• The Project Leader must come from a Partnership country.
• The request should target at least one specific RI and no more than two.
• Proposals must be in English and submitted through EPSS.
• The PI of a proposal cannot act as Project Leader in more than one proposal per cutoff (though they can be a PI/team member in others).

The firewall-style restrictions are unusual but critical:

• Majority of team members should not all be from the same country as the RI provider; a cross-country composition is expected.
• Teams cannot ask for access to infrastructure in the PI’s own country in that PI’s majority composition pattern; this is intended to force cross-border learning and genuine transnational collaboration.

These are not formalities. If you violate these rules, your proposal can fail the eligibility check before review.

What you can actually get if selected

The core value is access to infrastructure at scale and diversity. The call text lists major RI categories such as:

• Research vessels
• Fixed and experimental platforms
• Mobile systems (AUVs, gliders, aircraft)
• Analytical laboratory facilities and test benches
• Digital facilities (high-performance computing/data centres)
• Satellite-linked and virtual access options

The SBEP and EC pages describe these as spanning Atlantic, North Sea, Baltic, Black Sea and Mediterranean systems.

The important financial reality:

• RI access costs can be covered under the call’s mechanisms.
• Project operating costs (team staffing, travel outside coverage where relevant, analysis costs not directly tied to the RI access model, consumables, etc.) are not automatically funded.

In effect, this is a strong lever for teams that have strong content and execution strength but need high-value infrastructure they cannot otherwise access.

A practical consequence: this opportunity works best for teams that can separate a resource-dependent technical work package from the broader project budget and show exactly how the RI access converts into measurable outcomes.

Deadlines, cycle logic, and timing strategy for 2026–2027

The official call is listed as open from 20 February 2026 to 29 February 2028. It uses regular four-month cutoff cycles and post-cutoff communications. The first known cutoff is 20 June 2026; later cutoffs are every four months.

For teams targeting 2026 and 2027 cycle outcomes:

• Treat June 2026 as the first serious submission milestone for this opportunity cycle.
• Use the first outcome window to gather feasibility and PI coordination lessons.
• Use October 2026 and February 2027 windows to submit improved versions, especially after provider feedback.

Because the structure is rolling and the process is iterative, teams should avoid waiting for a “final date.” A robust strategy is to publish internal milestones before each cutoff, then submit a technically complete version each round.

The call process includes evaluation and execution timelines. The SBEP documents describe post-cutoff steps where results are communicated and selected projects then enter a logistic validation/finalization phase before implementation starts (generally intended within roughly six months of outcome communication).

Typical flow at each cutoff

1. Submit proposals via EPSS by cutoff.
2. Automatic registration and preliminary capture.
3. Eligibility check against formal criteria.
4. IEP evaluation on Excellence, Impact and Implementation.
5. Provider-validated feasibility and scheduling.
6. Outcome communication and agreement phase.
7. Start of execution after approval and access logistics.

That sequence matters more than your single “proposal draft date.” A technically strong submission can still be delayed if feasibility is not credible or provider matching is weak.

Eligibility and constraints you should treat as hard constraints

The call text is explicit about general criteria and many of these are frequently missed during first submissions:

• Team composition: at least two partners in two countries.
• Project Leader country: the leader must be based in a SBEP Partnership country.
• Geography + RI selection: at least one of the target areas must map to SBEP sea basins (Mediterranean, Black Sea, Baltic Sea, North Sea, Atlantic).
• RI request scope: one or two RI resources in a coherent package.
• Self-funding confirmation: applicants must demonstrate the feasibility of non-access project costs.
• Language: English submissions only.
• Single-step EPSS submission per cutoff: only the latest version before the cutoff is considered.
• Access feasibility contact requirement: teams need provider confirmation and should ensure this is credible and documented.
• Project duration and implementation: access starts after selection and evaluation and is time-boxed.

It is helpful to build a checklist around these criteria early and route reviewers internally. If your team can only be single-country and not cross-country, this call will likely not be eligible.

Application preparation: practical sequence and common document logic

A realistic preparation plan for a SBEP TA submission is:

1) Scope map before proposal form

Build a one-page scope map:

• What is the scientific or engineering challenge?
• Which RI exactly is needed (primary + optional secondary)?
• Which SRIA objective does this project support?
• Which maritime or coastal region is addressed?
• Who are project user-team members and what role does each person play?

You should include a feasibility statement from the provider contact path before full write-up, because “capacity to deliver” is central.

2) Access plan + team map

Map two layers:

• Scientific layer: methods, outputs, data outputs.
• Logistic layer: who travels, who operates remotely, who does analysis.

Remember the firewall constraints and the requirement that the majority composition can not be from the RI-owning country. For multinational teams, this is not just ethics text; it affects scoring and eligibility.

3) Proposal structure for review panels

The evaluation criteria are reported as three criteria with thresholds and overall minimum score. You should structure your sections exactly around:

• Excellence of concept and technical merit.
• Impact in policy, market, society or infrastructure outcomes.
• Quality and efficiency of implementation.

A good SBEP proposal usually makes the implementation section stronger than expected: clear schedule, provider coordination, milestones, risk register, substitution plans, and explicit data/security/compliance thinking.

4) Submission mechanics

Use EPSS only, with clear adherence to platform instructions. Include all required documents and confirm the latest version is submitted right before the cutoff.

Practical submission tips:

• Keep a named “cutoff version” archive.
• Keep a feasibility appendix from RI communication.
• Keep a concise cost note that proves self-funding readiness.
• Keep partner letters and roles aligned to cutoffs (PI limits can change).
• Prepare a short non-technical abstract for public summary fields (some project fields may later be published).

Reviewer expectations and quality bar

Reviewers in transnational access calls typically penalize weak RI integration and weak implementation realism.

Strong applications usually show:

1. Tight RI fit: the requested infrastructure must be indispensable.
2. Clear added value: why existing internal infrastructure is insufficient.
3. Cross-team feasibility: partner roles are coherent, distributed, and realistic.
4. Policy and impact link: outputs are not only technical but transferable.
5. Management realism: timeline matches RI availability windows and team mobility constraints.
6. Open science maturity: data and dissemination planning that does not block publication, but also respects privacy and operational constraints.

Weak applications usually fail on one of these:

• Requesting RI access without showing operational self-funding.
• Not proving cross-border collaboration.
• Underspecified impact plan.
• Relying on RI access alone without a complete project model.
• Late submission discipline problems (not providing the final version before cutoff).

The evaluation process includes a consensus scoring process and then validation with RI providers, so a proposal can still fail on technical feasibility after reviewer praise if logistics are weak.

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

Mistake 1: Treating this as a grant award with guaranteed budget support

The opportunity provides RI access support, not full project financing. Build a separate internal execution budget and state it transparently.

Mistake 2: Ignoring the final version rule

At each cutoff only the most recent version submitted by the Project Leader is assessed. Earlier drafts are ignored if a later version is submitted.

Mistake 3: Weak partner geography design

Many teams create technically strong proposals and miss cross-country and firewall requirements. Draw a legal/compliance map on partner countries before submission.

Mistake 4: Missing provider feasibility dialogue

The process expects provider confirmation and feasibility discussion. Treat RI contact as mandatory due diligence, not optional relationship-building.

Mistake 5: Proposal text not aligned to evaluation criteria

If your proposal reads like a research concept note, but does not map clearly to excellence, impact, and implementation thresholds, scores will be diluted.

Mistake 6: Underestimating data and publication exposure

The call includes public/professional disclosure elements. Your abstract and public-facing project summary should be written with care in advance.

FAQ for this call

Is this suitable for a small early-stage team?

Yes, if the team has at least two international partners and a clear RI access need. Teams with no external operational budget should not apply unless they have a credible partner or institutional funding stream already in place.

Do applicants need Horizon Europe beneficiary status?

Applicants can be employed by organisations in many geographies, but the Project Leader must be based in a Partnership country and practical rules on cross-border feasibility apply.

How is this different from a standard EU call?

This is transnational access infrastructure support. It is not primarily a project-research grant with large fixed award funds, though it is still structured through official EU-backed selection with cutoff cycles and evaluation.

What are the likely 2026/2027 entry points?

The rolling format means entries are practical at multiple windows: the first known 2026 cutoffs plus recurring windows in 2027 before final closure in 2028. Teams should aim for June 2026, then October 2026, then February 2027.

Can a proposal be resubmitted?

Yes, at subsequent cutoff rounds. You should treat the first submission as a strong draft, not as “single-chance submission.”

Is there an application fee?

No application fee is described in the official notice for this call, but applicants should budget project resources for implementation.

Is there a maximum number of submissions per PI?

For one proposal at a given cutoff, the PI can only lead one as project leader. There are additional limits around repeated involvement.

Official links and submission checklist

Use these pages as your official source of truth:

• EC mission page: https://projects.research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/eu-missions-horizon-europe/restore-our-ocean-and-waters/sustainable-blue-economy-partnership-rolling-transnational-access-call-research-infrastructures-open
• SBEP call page: https://bluepartnership.eu/funding-opportunity/sustainable-blue-economy-partnership-rolling-transnational-access-call-research-infrastructures-2026-2028
• SBEP rolling call PDF: https://bluepartnership.eu/sites/bluepartnership.eu/files/documents/2026-02/call_text_for_the_rolling_ta_call_to_ris.pdf
• Provider catalogue: https://www.bluepartnership.eu/transnational-access-call-research-infrastructures
• EPSS portal: https://proposals.etag.ee/sustainable-blue/
• Contact email (technical): [email protected]
• General enquiry contact: [email protected]

If you are using this as a shortlist strategy for 2026/2027, keep this call in a “recycle-and-improve” mode. Strong teams can apply in multiple windows and treat each cutoff as a quality improvement milestone rather than a one-off high-risk submission.