Tips & Tricks for a successful HORIZON-CL6-2026-01-BIODIV-02 proposal
Opening
17 April 2026
Deadline
Keywords
Developing methods
sensitivity of groundwater
ecosystems
RIA
antimicrobial resistance
EU water law
KCBD
LifeWatch ERIC
Your microfluidic SME partner for Horizon Europe
We take care of microfluidic engineering, work on valorization and optimize the proposal with you
HORIZON-CL6-2026-01-BIODIV-02: Developing methods to assess the presence, functions and sensitivity of groundwater ecosystems
In Europe, two-thirds of its drinking water comes from groundwater, and we know very little about what dwells down there. The Commission desires projects that bridge this gap: ways to identify groundwater organisms, devices to quantify the impacts of pollution on them, and scientific bases of what may become a new framework of an ecological status under the EU water law. This is not the quantity of water to manage. It concerns the biology under our feet and the question of whether the present pollution standards adequately safeguard it or not.
Discover more!
Administrative facts: what do we know about the HORIZON-CL6-2026-01-BIODIV-02 call?
Which call is it, and when is the opening and the deadline?
● Call name: Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment
● Call identifier: HORIZON-CL6-2026-01
● Destination: Biodiversity and ecosystem services
● Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2026-01-BIODIV-02
● Opening date: 17 April 2026
● Deadline: 17 September 2026
● Type of action: Research and Innovation Action (RIA)
What about the budget and estimated size of the project?
● Overall indicative budget: EUR 10.00 million
● Number of projects expected to be funded: 2
● Budget per project: around EUR 5.00 million
What are the key eligibility and evaluation conditions?
● Standard Horizon Europe RIA thresholds apply (General Annex D)
● The JRC may participate as a consortium member with zero funding, or as an associated partner; the JRC will not participate in proposal preparation or submission
● No specific restriction on country participation beyond General Annex B
● FAIR data requirementsapply; proposals should consider EOSC and relevant research infrastructures (LifeWatch ERIC, eLTER, DiSSCo, MIRRI-ERIC, Catalogue of Life)
● Cooperation with the EC Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity (KCBD) and its Science Service is expected
● International cooperation with Mediterranean countries is encouraged (General Annex D)
Scientific range: what does the Commission expect from the HORIZON-CL6-2026-01-BIODIV-02 grant?
The 2024 state of water report by the EEA put under warning that although 77% of groundwater bodies have good chemical status, the situation is not accurate. The known problems include nitrates, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, but PFAS, microplastics, and antimicrobial resistance are still unknown. Current freshwater standards may not protect groundwater organisms at all, and that is known to the Commission.
The proposals should address all three of the following:
● Identify new ways of measuring groundwater ecosystems, such as biosensors and remote sensors, to determine the sensitivity of the ecosystems and the taxonomic groups inhabiting them.
● Develop unified and proven procedures to test the ecotoxicity of pollutants to groundwater organisms, and the idea here is to prioritize the substances and come up with protecting groundwater standards (the Commission is considering both acute and chronic effects in this case)
● Determine biological and physicochemical quality factors that might underpin a future system for the ecological status of groundwater under EU water law.
Besides that, proposals ought to come up with criteria for evaluating the temporary and long-term effects on the groundwater ecosystems. Follow-up on the findings of the Water4All co-funded venture is likely to be built where necessary. The JRC will be able to bring continental-scale hydrological modelling to estimate groundwater recharge and possibly test project procedures on European scale. The generated data must be used in the future evaluation of IPBES.
Scientific strategy: how can you enhance your chances of being funded through HORIZON-CL6-2026-01-BIODIV-02?
Which scientific decisions are the most important?
● Discuss the entire range of groundwater environments directly. The premise of the definition of groundwater ecosystems is wide, covering water-filled areas in sediments and rocks, the hyporheic layer of rivers, springs and lake interfaces, cave waters. Do not confine yourself to a single type.
● Innovation of biosensor should be a highlight. The Commission has, on numerous occasions, cited sensors, and we have observed that evaluators have rewarded a proposal that provides useful monitoring instruments in addition to research-based work.
● Think policy-ready outputs. The third exercise requests quality aspects that are befitting EU water laws. The proposal must be able to relate scientific results with regulatory frameworks, and not just writing papers.
● The ecotoxicity testing of groundwater species is not well-developed. With partners in your consortium capable of chronic exposure studies of stygofauna or microbial communities of groundwater, that makes a difference.
● Connection to PFAS and novel contaminants. They are named in the text of the work programme.
● Mediterranean cooperation is not only recommended, it is an indication. A partner in North Africa or the eastern Mediterranean would add to your international aspect with very little effort.
● The language used in the context of standardised methods informs you that the Commission would like to see outputs that can be replicated between laboratories, and not a single experiment in a single aquifer. Conduct legitimization campaigns between locations.
Consortium and proposal-writing plan: what works best with this type of Biodiversity RIA?
● A target of between eight and twelve partners, perhaps a couple more, in case you require both the hydrogeological and ecotoxicological versatility. The competition will not be very huge, but the bar will be high as two projects will be financed.
● You require hydrogeologists, groundwater ecologists, ecotoxicologists, biosensor engineers and at least one partner with EU water policy experience. When you have not been able to cover the five, you are likely to have no viable consortium.
● This is well suited to an innovative SME that may be a sensor or biotech powerhouse. It will not say so, but panels of reviewers will be attracted to proposals that involve small companies that can introduce physical innovation into the consortium.
● The research infrastructure aspect should not be overlooked. The name of the calls is Lifewatch ERIC, eLTER, DiSSCo. Mark it in case one of your partners is already contributing to these networks.
● The expectation is not a bonus but is interdisciplinary. Proposals that remain within one field (such as just microbiology, or just hydrogeology) will get low marks on Impact.
● Write the policy uptake pathway in a clear manner. It is a call in which the outputs may directly influence the future water directives of EU. Evaluators must observe that your consortium recognizes this and has got this figured out.
How would microfluidics contribute to this topic?
The traditional ways to examine groundwater organisms are based on pumping the samples to the surface thereby interfering with the conditions that you are analyzing. That equation is altered by lab-on-chip platforms. They allow you to use small sample volumes, study microbial communities or stygofauna behavior in situ, and obtain results without taking liters of water to the laboratory.
● You want to test the hypothesis that a certain concentration of PFAs is detrimental to ground water bacteria. Microfluidic chip will be able to subject communities to unambiguous gradients of said compound and measure cell viability in real time. One experiment with different concentrations of the same compound.
● Microfluidics would be of real use to this call in biosensor integration. Biological recognition can be incorporated directly into a chip and detector fields can monitor nitrates, pharmaceuticals, or new pollutants at concentrations unnoticed by the conventional sensors.
● In ecotoxicity applications, organ-on-chip or organism-on-chip systems allow you to run chronic exposures on small invertebrates under controlled flow conditions, which is difficult to do with bench-scale aquaria with cave-dwelling or interstitial species.
● Standardisation campaigns across many field sites using the same chip design could be performed using microfluidic platforms by your consortium, which directly responds to the request of the Commission, to harmonised and validated methods.
Having a microfluidics partner would provide your proposal with a specific innovation track of sensor creation and ecotoxicity testing, two out of the three activities explicitly called in the call.