Tips & Tricks for a successful HORIZON-CL6-2026-01-ZEROPOLLUTION-03 proposal

Opening

17 April 2026

Deadline

17 September 2026

Keywords

aquifer recharge

RIA

Clean environment

zero pollution

climate change forecasts

MRV Sysstem

Climate Adaptation Strategy

MAR-based water supply

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-ZEROPOLLUTION-03: Developing managed aquifer recharge techniques (MAR) in a rural context

Drought in Europe is increasing in severity, frequency and is invading places where it was previously not a problem. The Commission seeks research beyond merely documenting the problem. They want to explore what they can tangibly find, field-proven techniques for managed aquifer recharge adapted to European agricultural use, and a realistic business model that European farmers can adopt. In a nutshell: demonstrate that it works, demonstrate how to finance it, and demonstrate how to make it farm and catchment level workable.

Download the MIC Horizon Europe 2026/2027 Calls Calendar:

Discover more!

Administrative facts: what do we know about the HORIZON-CL6-2026-01-ZEROPOLLUTION-03 call?

Which call is it, and when is the opening and the deadline?

Call name: Call 01, single stage (2026)
Call identifier: HORIZON-CL6-2026-01
Destination: Clean environment and zero pollution
Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2026-01-ZEROPOLLUTION-03 Developing managed aquifer recharge techniques (MAR) in a rural context
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 budget for the topic: EUR 12.00 million
Number of projects expected to be funded: 2
Budget per project: around EUR 6.00 million

What are the key eligibility and evaluation conditions?

Standard Horizon Europe thresholds apply (General Annex D)
Multi-actor approach is mandatory. This is an additional eligibility criterion, not a recommendation.
Target TRL: activities are expected to reach TRL 4-5 by project end
Eligible costs take the form of a lump sum
No JRC participation clause for this topic
Proposals should follow the CIS Working Group on Groundwater guidance document on MAR techniques
Data must follow FAIR principles
Collaboration with Mission Soil and Mission Ocean & Waters projects is expected
Building on results from relevant H2020 and Horizon Europe projects is encouraged

Scientific range: what does the Commission expect from the HORIZON-CL6-2026-01-ZEROPOLLUTION-03 grant?

What outcomes are expected?

The Commission is not pursuing a literature review of the concepts of aquifer recharge. They desire the MAR methods that have been scaled, refined, and adapted to actual European farm conditions, taking into consideration the climate change forecasts. The work programme is rather precise concerning what the project is to deliver.

Technically, the proposals must come up with a methodology of determining where and when MAR techniques are most appropriate, followed by testing it on a representative sample of case-study areas. It is also anticipated to have a user-friendly monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) system to monitor the groundwater quality and quantity, as well as effects on related water and terrestrial ecosystems.

What is within scope?

But the Commission transcends the technical layer. They expect you to:

Assess the sustainability of MAR not only to the aquifer itself but also to groundwater ecosystems, water bodies around, reliant terrestrial systems, and drinking water. The multi-objective framing is direct.
Determine cost-benefits and suggest business models to the farmers who will host MAR initiatives. There are payment schemes, nature credits, carbon credits, water credits and so on.
At least 2 case studies should be in different pedoclimatic zones to demonstrate the feasibility of those business models. not merely modelling, but real-life demonstration at the local level.
Provide a system of governance that can vary to the local socio-economic, regulatory and climatic conditions.

What are the specifically proposed research directions?

The expected results are associated with three axes, i.e., actual access of farmers to MAR-based water supply and viable business models, healthier and more resilient water ecosystems, and evidence-based informational insights given to the policy makers about tools to enhance agribusiness water resilience. The policy is in line with the EU Vision of Agriculture and Food, the European Water Resilience Strategy and the EU Climate Adaptation Strategy.

Scientific strategy: how can you enhance your chances of being funded through HORIZON-CL6-2026-01-ZEROPOLLUTION-03?

Which scientific decisions are the most important?

Cover a variety of pedoclimatic areas. The minimum are two case studies. In case your consortium can seriously address three or four climate areas, you will be outstanding.
The design should involve farmers, land managers, water governance authorities, and local authorities, not merely consulted at the end. This will be carefully verified by evaluators as it is one of the eligibility criteria.
Connect your MRV system with EU environmental data structures. FAIR compatibility with European Open Science Cloud is indicated. Do not consider this a box to be ticked.
It is explicitly asked to be integrated with Nature-based Solutions. A proposal detailing engineered MAR without NbS connection to reduce runoff and landscape resilience is likely to receive less points.
As we have witnessed in other cases of such calls, proposals that consider business models an afterthought are punished. The Commission desires something that farmers would, in a real sense, adopt: payment schemes, credit mechanisms… Make this a full work package.
Do not disregard the governance aspect. The call seeks to explore localized models of governance. This is where social sciences come in (the work programme references SSH integration nearby in the same destination).
Construct conspicuous bridges with Mission Soil and Mission Ocean and Waters projects. Budget a coordination task.

Consortium & proposal-writing plan: what works best with this type of environment RIA?

Target between eight and twelve partners perhaps two more in case the pedoclimatic coverage needs the same. In lump sum mode, EUR 6 million, you do not wish to have such a large consortium that the management consumes the budget.
As part of your core, they should be hydrogeologists, agricultural scientists and at least one partner with good MRV and remote sensing potential, and a socio-economic team to do the business model and governance work packages. The multi-actor dimension will be enhanced by involving water governance bodies as partners or other closely related entities.
If you can include one partner who has worked on CIS Working Group on Groundwater guidance on MAR, then that is a good sign of credibility.
A new SME in sensor technologies, groundwater monitoring systems, or environmental data platforms would come both with technical worth and the sort of close-to-market mindset evaluators like in this type of RIA.
All consortium members should not only be advisory board members, but at least two farmer organisations or agricultural cooperatives. The multi-actor eligibility criterion implies that they have to be apparent in the work plan.
Lump sum format implies that you must be clean in cost structure at the start of the day. Lump sum call reviewers are more severe with budget coherence.
Use the 2 case studies to form the basis of your story in the proposal. These field demonstrations should be designed to be the basis of methodology, MRV, business models, and governance. This has worked well with many actor issues.

How would microfluidics contribute to this topic?

The key aspect of this call is monitoring the quality of groundwater and the well-being of ecosystems related to it. Traditional laboratory analysis of water is time-consuming, expensive, and difficult to install at the rate at which you would require a full-fledged MRV system to monitor water across multiple MARs in various locations.

Microfluidic sensors can be directly applied to MAR locations and recharge points as a method to monitor water quality parameters in near real-time. You get nitrate, phosphate, pesticide levels, pH readings without having to take samples to a laboratory on a regular basis. Same site, same parameters, same results with all your case-study regions.
Ask your consortium to ensure that recharged water does not transport agricultural water runoff contaminants to the aquifer. A microfluidic chip at the infiltration site operates that verifies itself continually, creates time-series data and delivers it directly to your MRV platform. That is the type of installation that evaluators will deem as valid field monitoring.
To conduct the ecosystem impact assessment, the portable microfluidic instruments enable quick on-site screening of water samples of the dependent terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems around the MAR zones. Your field crews will be able to service more locations in less time.
And on the business model front, reduced costs of monitoring make the entire MAR system more affordable to farmers. When the cost of compliance with water quality decreases, the barrier to adoption decreases as well.

The integration of microfluidic water quality monitoring into your proposal provides the MRV work package with a realistic technological foundation and makes the argument for scalability across pedoclimatic zones more concrete. In a call that requires you to prove feasibility, having field-ready, low-cost analytical tools is not a detail.

The MIC already brings its expertise in microfluidics to Horizon Europe:

H2020-NMBP-TR-IND-2020

Tumor-LN-oC

Microfluidic platform to study the interaction of cancer cells with lymphatic tissue

H2020-LC-GD-2020-3

LIFESAVER

Toxicology assessment of pharmaceutical products on a placenta-on-chip model

H2020-LC-GD-2020-3

ALTERNATIVE

Environmenal analysis using a heart-on-chip tissue model

FAQ - HORIZON-CL6-2026-01-ZEROPOLLUTION-03

What is this call actually about, in plain terms?

Droughts are becoming more intense and more common in Europe, even in areas traditionally considered water-stable. This request does not require researchers to record such an issue. It challenges them to test, modify, and demonstrate realistic methods for artificially replenishing groundwater in agricultural contexts, and to demonstrate that these methods are affordable and feasible for farmers to finance and maintain.

The Commission desires field-proven outcomes, rather than models or literature reviews

What are the key administrative facts?

The following is what is verified:

Call identifier: HORIZON-CL6-2026-01-ZEROPOLLUTION-03
Action type: Research and Innovation Action (RIA).
Opening date: 17 April 2026
Submission deadline: 17 September 2026
Total budget to be used: EUR 12 million.
Number of projects to be funded: 2.
Budget per project: about EUR 6 million.
Type of funding: lump sum.
Results of evaluation anticipated: February 2027.

Who is this call meant for, and what kind of consortium is expected?

European consortia are welcome to participate in the call. The applicants can be universities, research institutions, SMEs, government, NGOs, and associations. Just a couple of points to remember:

The multi-actor approach is not a recommendation but a compulsory eligibility requirement.
There must be at least three organizations, representing three EU Member States or other countries involved.
Farmer organizations or agricultural cooperatives should not be observers on the advisory board, but real partners in the work plan.
Water governance agencies, land managers, and local governments ought to be included at the very beginning.

This will be checked by evaluators. A consortium composed of researchers alone will not be sufficient to reach the multi-actor threshold. Check the Funding and Tenders Portal for more information.

What does "multi-actor approach" actually mean for this topic?

The term ‘multi-actor’ in Horizon Europe refers to research co-designed by actors from other sectors, rather than simply validated. In the case of this particular subject, it implies:

The farmers and agricultural cooperatives play a role in determining what a workable MAR system would look like on the ground.
Participation of water governance bodies in the governance work package.
Local authorities play a role in the regulatory aspect.
Chapter 5.5: Socioeconomic partners influencing the business model work package.

It is not a tender criterion. It is enumerated as another eligibility requirement.

What technical outputs does the Commission actually expect?

The work program is accurate. Projects must produce:

A mean to establish the place and time of MAR techniques is best used and then experiment with it on representative case study regions.
An easy-to-use monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) system that monitors groundwater quality and quantity.
An evaluation of effects on dependent aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
Farmers can do a cost-benefit analysis and business model options.
A governance framework that is responsive to both local regulatory and socioeconomic conditions.

The MRV system should be taken seriously. The work program mentions it a number of times.

How many case studies are needed, and where should they be located?

There must be at least 2 case study sites, located in different pedoclimatic areas. It is not simply a matter of geographic diversity for its own sake. The Commission is interested in trying out whether the business models and governance structures can be transferred not only to one well-selected location in Europe but also across Europe.

Consortia that can plausibly address three or four different climate and soil settings will reinforce their proposal. It is not modeling exercises but field demonstrations that matter.

What TRL level is targeted, and what does that mean in practice?

The projects should be at TRL 4-5 upon project completion. That means:

TRL 4: technology tested in a laboratory or controlled setting.
TRL 5: technology confirmed in a real-world (industrially or field-relevant) setting.

The environment in this call is the field. You are to pass to exercises on principles tried, to those that shall be worked on real agricultural ground, with real water supply, real soil and real weather variation.

What are the three expected outcome areas?

The Commission designs the outcomes of the Commission along three axes:

To start with, farmers must access water supplies in real time with the assistance of MAR systems, accompanied by viable business models that help them survive more severe cycles of water shortage.

Second, water ecosystems must be in better health, and climate-resilient water-related ecosystem services should not be eroded by recharge activities.

Third, policymakers should be provided with better evidence and tools to implement water resilience in agriculture at the national and EU-wide levels.

Any proposal that does not consider any of these three axes will not score well.

How important are business models, and what types are expected?

Business models are not an add-on chapter in this call. They form a fundamental deliverable. The Commission is clear: it desires economic practices that could be adopted by European farmers. Models in scope are of the types:

Ecosystem services schemes.
Nature credits
Carbon credits associated with recharge activities.
Water credits
Co-operative catchment cost-sharing.

Any proposal that treats this as a theoretical economic analysis rather than a field-tested, farmer-facing proposition will lose points.

What are the data and connectivity requirements?

Proposals must be in accordance with FAIR data principles: data must be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. More specifically:

MRV systems are expected to be compatible with the European Open Science Cloud.
The projects are expected to relate to and build on pertinent H2O2 and Horizon Europe predecessors.
It is explicitly suggested to coordinate with the Mission Soil and Mission Ocean and Waters projects, and it is recommended to budget a dedicated coordination activity.
Compliance with the CIS Working Group advice on MAR methods is needed.

What role can advanced sensor technologies play in proposals?

The MRV system is used to monitor the project. Traditional lab water analysis is slow, expensive, and difficult to replicate in multifield locations in various pedoclimatic areas. This is dealt with through advanced sensor technologies. For instance:

Sensors that can be deployed in the field can detect nitrates, phosphates, and pesticide concentrations in near real time, as well as pH, without routine shipments to the laboratory.
Handheld analytical tools can be used to screen an ecosystem water sample on site in and around MAR zones.
Infiltration points have automated sensor arrays that provide continuous time-series data that goes directly to an MRV platform.
Reduced monitoring costs enhance the affordability of the overall MAR system for farmers, thereby strengthening the business model.

The scalability argument and the feasibility claim are made more tangible by including credible, field-ready analytical technology in the MRV work package making the argument more compelling to evaluators.

What are the most common weaknesses to avoid in a proposal for this call?

Due to the organization of the working program and similar RIA reviews:

Trying to treat the multi-actor approach as a consortium formality, as opposed to an actual co-design mechanism.
Construction of case studies within one pedoclimatic area, although there are two technically included sites.
Business model created as an annex to the business, not as a work package with field testing.
Development of a concept of MRV that is not clearly compatible with the EU data infrastructure.
Overlooking the aspect of governance that involves social sciences and the involvement of the local authority.
Not relating the project to the Nature-based Solutions, which the work program specifically mentions.
Lump sum budget structures with no previous understanding of how costs would be allocated to work packages.

Budget reviewers are more stringent in lump-sum calls than in normal grant reviews. The clean, traceable cost structures are significant since the initial submission.