Tips & Tricks for a successful HORIZON-MISS-2027-01-CLIMA-01 proposal
Opening
09 February 2027
Deadline
Keywords
climate resilience
climate risk assessment
sustainability
cross-border adaptation
clean energy
nature-based solutions
EU Missions
water monitoring
Your microfluidic SME partner for Horizon Europe
We take care of microfluidic engineering, work on valorization and optimize the proposal with you
HORIZON-MISS-2027-01-CLIMA-01: Demonstrating transformative solutions to increase cross-border climate resilience
Climate risks ignore national borders. Floods travel down shared river basins, wildfires cross ridgelines. What the Commission wants here is demonstration, on the ground, of neighbouring regions adapting together instead of side by side. Not another study of the problem. HORIZON-MISS-2027-01-CLIMA-01 is an Innovation Action under the EU Mission on Adaptation to Climate Change, and it sits among the Horizon Europe Missions 2026-2027 topics we have ranked by microfluidic relevance.
Download the MIC Horizon Europe 2026/2027 Calls Calendar:
Discover more!
Administrative facts: what do we know about the HORIZON-MISS-2027-01-CLIMA-01 call?
Which call is it, and when is the opening and the deadline?
- Call name: Supporting the implementation of the Adaptation to Climate Change Mission
- Call identifier: HORIZON-MISS-2027-01
- Destination: Adaptation to Climate Change
- Topic: HORIZON-MISS-2027-01-CLIMA-01
- Opening: 09 February 2027
- Deadline: 21 September 2027, 17:00 Brussels time
- Type of action: Innovation Action
What about the budget and estimated size of the project?
- Indicative topic budget: EUR 72.32 million
- Number of projects expected: 5
- EU contribution per project: EUR 10 to 15 million (72.32 divided by 5 gives roughly 14.5 million)
- Overall call budget: EUR 84.32 million over two topics
What are the key eligibility and evaluation conditions?
- Demonstration in at least two distinct cross-border sites, in Member States or Associated Countries
- Demonstration areas must span adjacent regions either side of a national border
- At least one replicating cross-border site should be identified
- Award criteria and thresholds: General Annex D, no derogation stated
- All funded projects must work together as a cluster under the Mission umbrella
- SSH expertise is a stated requirement, not an option
Dates for the other 2026 and 2027 Mission topics sit in our Horizon Europe calls calendar.
Scientific range: what does the Commission expect from the HORIZON-MISS-2027-01-CLIMA-01 grant?
What outcomes are expected?
By the end of the grant, authorities on both sides of at least two borders should be visibly better prepared to face shared risks together. The Commission is after demonstrated solutions plus authorities carrying shared responsibility, not a signed letter of intent. Publication series are not what they want.
What is within scope?
- Social, governance and nature-based solutions for cross-border risks
- At least one cross-border risk: water scarcity, flooding, storms, wildfires, sea level rise
- Systemic, cascading and compound risks, including risks from degraded ecosystem services
- Services to predict, monitor and report on cross-border climate events
- A common risk classification agreed across the border, including what level of risk is acceptable
- Embedding of the solutions into regional or national adaptation planning
Nature-based and ecosystem-based adaptation come first, in line with the Mission Implementation Plan. A purely technological demonstration with no governance dimension will struggle.
What are the specifically proposed research directions?
- Joint risk classification across two administrative systems, often two languages as well
- Coordination between national and regional governance layers on either side
- Monitoring linked to the framework developed by the UNDERPIN project
- Climate risk assessment relying on the updated CLIMAAX framework
- Replication pathways, including how a third region funds the same solution later
- Synergies with Interreg and LIFE, which the work programme names explicitly
Scientific strategy: how can you enhance your chances of being funded through HORIZON-MISS-2027-01-CLIMA-01?
What scientific choices matter most?
- Pick your borders before you pick your partners. The pair of regions is the backbone of everything else.
- Get the authorities inside the consortium as beneficiaries or associated partners. A supporting letter in an annex will not carry the Impact score. We see this go wrong a lot.
- Use CLIMAAX and UNDERPIN. The topic names them.
- Make the common risk classification a deliverable, not an activity buried on page 40.
- Show what happens after the final month. Funding path, owner, plan.
- Don’t spread yourself over five risks. One risk, treated systemically with its cascading effects mapped, beats a shopping list.
- SSH needs a real partner with a real budget line. Evaluators check.
Consortium & proposal-writing plan: what works best with this type of call?
- Size: somewhere between twelve and eighteen partners, maybe a couple more if your border pairs sit far apart.
- Two demonstration borders means four sets of authorities minimum. Then the replicating site.
- Mix: regional and local authorities, water or forest managers, a research institute, SSH specialists, and at least one innovative SME to carry the technical work.
- Legal and language asymmetry between the two sides is a real cost. Budget for it.
- If you have already run an Interreg project with the same regions, say so early.
- Write the demonstration sites section first. The rest follows from it.
- Keep Mission Implementation Platform engagement visible, with a budget line attached.
If you are still looking for the technology partner, here is how we normally join a Horizon Europe consortium.
How would microfluidics contribute to this topic?
Cross-border monitoring today usually means two countries sending samples to two labs, with two protocols and a wait of several weeks. Microfluidic sensors compress that lab bench into a cartridge you carry to the riverbank. Same device on both banks, same numbers, same afternoon. Which matters when the whole point is agreeing on what the risk actually is.
- Water quality along a shared river basin. Say the downstream authority disputes the upstream nutrient and turbidity readings. A portable microfluidic analyser gives both sides the same figure, same protocol, within the hour. The argument stops being about whose lab was right.
- Saltwater intrusion in cross-border aquifers. Chip-based ion sensing, deployed as a small network, tracks the wedge moving inland.
- After a wildfire, ash and metals wash into shared catchments. You can screen for that on site.
- Pathogen screening in floodwater. Health services either side rarely use the same trigger value. A common cartridge makes your common classification concrete.
- Nature-based solutions need cheap repeated measurements over years, not one perfect campaign. Low-volume chip assays make that affordable, and thermoplastic microfabrication keeps the unit cost of each cartridge down.
The topic asks for services to better predict, monitor and report on cross-border climate events. That is where microfluidics earns its place in your consortium. It gives you a shared measurement layer both administrations trust, and turns a governance agreement into something with numbers attached. Not the centrepiece here. A useful piece of it. We have built flow control systems and environmental assay platforms inside EU projects such as ALTERNATIVE, so the engineering side is not a research risk for you.
The MIC already brings its expertise in microfluidics to Horizon Europe:
H2020-NMBP-TR-IND-2020
Microfluidic platform to study the interaction of cancer cells with lymphatic tissue
H2020-LC-GD-2020-3
Toxicology assessment of pharmaceutical products on a placenta-on-chip model
FAQ - HORIZON-MISS-2027-01-CLIMA-01
What exactly does cross-border mean in this topic?
It means a shared land border between two countries. The work programme is explicit: demonstration areas must span adjacent regions on both sides of a national border, in Member States or Associated Countries. Two distinct sites at minimum. A project spread over two countries that do not touch each other will not satisfy this.
How many demonstration sites do we actually need?
Two cross-border sites is the floor, and it is a hard eligibility condition. On top of that you should identify at least one replicating cross-border site. The replicating region is not expected to run activities on the ground during the project. It should prepare the theoretical framework and look at how the solution would be funded later.
Which climate risks can we choose?
The work programme names water scarcity, flooding, storms, wildfires and sea level rise. At least one is required. Systemic treatment is strongly encouraged, so cascading and compound risks count, along with risks coming from degraded ecosystem services. Our reading: one risk handled properly, with its knock-on effects mapped, reads better than five risks handled thinly.
Is this a technology call or a governance call?
Mostly governance, with technology in a supporting role. Nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based adaptation are named as the priority. A demonstration built only around hardware, with no cross-border governance arrangement behind it, is unlikely to score well on Impact.
Check the Funding and Tenders Portal for more information.
What is the budget and how many projects will be funded?
The indicative topic budget is EUR 72.32 million, with 5 projects expected. The Commission estimates EUR 10 to 15 million per project. Dividing the topic budget by the number of projects gives roughly 14.5 million, so the upper part of the range looks realistic.
Do the regional authorities have to be beneficiaries?
The work programme says they should actively participate, ideally as beneficiaries or associated partners. Ideally is doing some work in that sentence, but in practice a consortium where the authorities sit outside the grant agreement is at a disadvantage. Put them in.
What are UNDERPIN and CLIMAAX, and are they mandatory?
Both are named in the topic. Proposals are encouraged to link their monitoring to the framework developed by UNDERPIN and to rely on the updated CLIMAAX framework for climate risk assessment. Encouraged, not mandatory. Ignoring them without explaining why is still a bad idea.
How does the clustering obligation affect our budget?
All projects funded under this topic must work together as a cluster under the Mission umbrella, coordinate activities and align outputs. You also need a mechanism and resources for operational links with the Mission Implementation Platform, and participation in the Mission Community of Practice. Budget staff time for it explicitly.
Where does microfluidics fit in a climate adaptation project?
In the monitoring layer. The topic asks for services that predict, monitor and report on cross-border climate events. Portable microfluidic analysers give both administrations the same measurement, from the same protocol, on the same day. That is what turns a joint risk classification from a document into something you can check.
Can an SME join a consortium that is mostly public authorities?
Yes, and it is usually a good idea. Regional authorities bring the territory and the mandate. They rarely bring device engineering, calibration chains or exploitation planning. An innovative SME covers that gap and keeps the delivery pace up. If you want to discuss a role for us, get in touch.