COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EU Missions two years on: An assessment of progress in shaping the future we want and reporting on the review of Mission Areas and areas for institutionalised partnerships based on Articles 185 and 187 TFEU Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward
Date: 2023-07-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission
Subjects: EU action, adaptation to climate change, cancer, carbon neutrality, diffusion of innovations, environmental protection, ocean, research and development, smart city, soil protection

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 19.7.2023  SWD(2023) 260 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EU Missions two years on: An assessment of progress in shaping the future we want and reporting on the review of Mission Areas and areas for institutionalised partnerships based on Articles 185 and 187 TFEU Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS   EU Missions two years on: assessment of progress and way forward {COM(2023) 457 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Structure of the Staff Working Document ................................................................................... 4 

I. 

1 

Assessment of EU Missions ................................................................................................ 5 

Overall aim of the assessment ............................................................................................ 6 

2 

Adaptation  to  Climate  Change:  support  at  least  150  European  regions  and 
communities to become climate resilient by 2030 ............................................................ 8 
2.1  Mission goal and objectives .................................................................................................. 9 
2.2 
The Mission’s selection process ........................................................................................... 9 
2.3  Management arrangements and governance structure ........................................................ 11 
Progress to date ................................................................................................................... 15 
2.4 
Budget and funding leveraged ............................................................................................ 18 
2.5 
Key conclusions from the external assessment ................................................................... 21 
2.6 
Self-assessment of the Mission Adaptation to Climate Change .......................................... 22 
2.7 
An ambitious yet realistic Mission goal ............................................................. 23 
2.7.1 
The Mission’s added value................................................................................. 23 
2.7.2 
The Mission’s R&I content ................................................................................ 24 
2.7.3 
Ensuring implementation is feasible, measurable, and time-bound ................... 25 
2.7.4 
Securing buy-in .................................................................................................. 26 
2.7.5 
Citizens and stakeholder engagement ................................................................ 27 
2.7.6 
Progress, achievements, and milestones ............................................................ 28 
2.7.7 
Current estimation of the budget ........................................................................ 29 
2.7.8 

3 

Cancer:  improve  the  lives  of  more  than  3  million  people  by  2030  through  better 
prevention, cure and quality of life .................................................................................. 31 
3.1  Mission goal and objectives ................................................................................................ 32 
3.2 
The Mission’s selection process ......................................................................................... 33 
3.3  Management arrangements and governance structure ........................................................ 35 
Progress to date ................................................................................................................... 39 
3.4 
Budget and funding leveraged ............................................................................................ 41 
3.5 
Key conclusions from the external assessment ................................................................... 46 
3.6 
Self-assessment of the Mission Cancer ............................................................................... 48 
3.7 
An ambitious yet realistic Mission goal ............................................................. 48 
3.7.1 
The Mission’s added value................................................................................. 49 
3.7.2 
The Mission’s R&I content ................................................................................ 49 
3.7.3 
Ensuring implementation is feasible, measurable, and time-bound ................... 50 
3.7.4 
Securing buy-in .................................................................................................. 51 
3.7.5 
Citizens and stakeholder engagement ................................................................ 53 
3.7.6 
Progress, achievements, and milestones ............................................................ 54 
3.7.7 
Current estimation of the budget ........................................................................ 55 
3.7.8 

4 
Restore our Ocean and Waters by 2030 .......................................................................... 56 
4.1  Mission goal and objectives ................................................................................................ 57 
4.2 
The Mission’s selection process ......................................................................................... 57 
4.3  Management arrangements and governance structure ........................................................ 59 

 
 
 
 
4.4 
4.5 
4.6 
4.7 

Progress to date ................................................................................................................... 64 
Budget and funding leveraged ............................................................................................ 66 
Key conclusions from the external assessment ................................................................... 71 
Self-assessment of the Mission ‘Restore our Ocean and Waters by 2030’ ......................... 73 
An ambitious yet realistic Mission goal ............................................................. 73 
4.7.1 
The Mission’s added value................................................................................. 74 
4.7.2 
The Mission’s R&I content ................................................................................ 76 
4.7.3 
Ensuring implementation is feasible, measurable, and time-bound ................... 77 
4.7.4 
Securing buy-in .................................................................................................. 78 
4.7.5 
Citizens and stakeholder engagement ................................................................ 79 
4.7.6 
Progress, achievements, and milestones ............................................................ 79 
4.7.7 
Current estimation of the budget ........................................................................ 81 
4.7.8 

5 
100 Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities by 2030 .............................................................. 83 
5.1  Mission goal and objectives ................................................................................................ 84 
The Mission’s selection process ......................................................................................... 85 
5.2 
5.3  Management arrangements and governance structure ........................................................ 88 
Progress to date ................................................................................................................... 91 
5.4 
Budget and funding leveraged ............................................................................................ 92 
5.5 
Key conclusions from the external assessment ................................................................... 94 
5.6 
Self-assessment of the Mission ‘100 Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities by 2030’ ............. 95 
5.7 
An ambitious yet realistic Mission goal ............................................................. 96 
5.7.1 
The Mission’s added value................................................................................. 97 
5.7.2 
The Mission’s R&I content ................................................................................ 98 
5.7.3 
Ensuring implementation is feasible, measurable, and time-bound ................. 100 
5.7.4 
Securing buy-in ................................................................................................ 100 
5.7.5 
Citizens and stakeholder engagement .............................................................. 101 
5.7.6 
Progress, achievements, and milestones .......................................................... 101 
5.7.7 
Current estimation of the budget ...................................................................... 103 
5.7.8 

6 

A Soil deal for Europe: 100 living labs and lighthouses to lead the transition towards 
healthy soils by 2030 ....................................................................................................... 105 
6.1  Mission goal and objectives .............................................................................................. 106 
The Mission’s selection process ....................................................................................... 106 
6.2 
6.3  Management arrangements and governance structure ...................................................... 109 
Progress to date ................................................................................................................. 112 
6.4 
Budget and funding leveraged .......................................................................................... 115 
6.5 
Key conclusions from the external assessment ................................................................. 117 
6.6 
Self-assessment of the Mission ‘A Soil Deal for Europe’................................................. 118 
6.7 
An ambitious yet realistic Mission goal ........................................................... 119 
6.7.1 
The Mission’s added value............................................................................... 120 
6.7.2 
The Mission’s R&I content .............................................................................. 121 
6.7.3 
Ensuring implementation is feasible, measurable, and time-bound ................. 122 
6.7.4 
Securing buy-in ................................................................................................ 123 
6.7.5 
Citizens and stakeholder engagement .............................................................. 125 
6.7.6 
Progress, achievements, and milestones .......................................................... 126 
6.7.7 
Current estimation of the budget ...................................................................... 128 
6.7.8 

II. 

Review of Mission Areas ................................................................................................ 131 

Page 2 / 185 

 
 
1 

Overall aim of the review ............................................................................................... 131 

2 
2.1 
2.2 
2.3 

3 
3.1 
3.2 
3.3 
3.4 

4 
4.1 
4.2 
4.3 
4.4 

5 
5.1 
5.2 
5.3 
5.4 

6 
6.1 
6.2 
6.3 
6.4 

Mission Area: Adaptation to Climate Change, including Societal Transformation . 132 
Scope and definition of the Mission Area ......................................................................... 132 
Developments influencing the Mission Area .................................................................... 137 
Key conclusions from the external review of the Mission Area ....................................... 138 

Mission Area: Cancer ..................................................................................................... 138 
Scope and definition of the Mission Area ......................................................................... 139 
The role of R&I in addressing the challenges ................................................................... 140 
Developments influencing the Mission Area .................................................................... 142 
Key conclusions from the external review of the Mission Area ....................................... 144 

Mission Area: Healthy Oceans, Seas, Coastal and Inland Waters ............................. 145 
Scope and definition of the Mission Area ......................................................................... 145 
The role of R&I in addressing the challenges ................................................................... 146 
Developments influencing the Mission Area .................................................................... 148 
Key conclusions from the external review of the Mission Area ....................................... 151 

Mission Area: Climate-Neutral and smart cities .......................................................... 152 
Scope and definition of the Mission Area ......................................................................... 152 
The role of R&I in addressing the challenges ................................................................... 153 
Developments influencing the Mission Area .................................................................... 154 
Key conclusions from the external review of the Mission Area ....................................... 156 

Mission Area: Soil Health and Food ............................................................................. 157 
Scope and definition of the Mission Area ......................................................................... 157 
The role of R&I in addressing the challenges ................................................................... 160 
Developments influencing the Mission Area .................................................................... 161 
Key conclusions from the external review of the Mission Area ....................................... 163 

III.  Review of areas for institutionalised partnerships based on Articles 185 and 187 TFEU

165 

1 

Article 185 and Article 187 partnership areas.............................................................. 165 

2 
2.1 
2.2 
2.3 
2.4 

Results .............................................................................................................................. 169 
Relevance of the 8 areas for institutionalised partnerships ............................................... 169 
Comprehensiveness of the 8 areas for institutionalised partnerships ................................ 171 
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 172 
Forward-looking considerations ....................................................................................... 172 

Annex A: Methodology for the assessment of EU Missions .................................................... 175 

Annex B: Methodology for the review of Mission Areas ......................................................... 178 

Annex C: Methodology for the review of areas for institutionalised partnerhsips ............... 179 

Page 3 / 185 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Structure of the Staff Working Document 

This Staff Working Document is organised as follows:  

-  Part I: Assessment of the five EU Missions 

This  part  presents  key  insights  to  the  assessment  of  the  five  EU  Missions  (from 
paragraph  1  to  paragraph  6  of  each  Mission-specific  chapter).  In  addition,  each 
Mission  secretariat  has  developed  additional  evidence  which  is  presented  under 
paragraph 7 ‘self-assessment’.  

-  Part II: Review of the five Mission Areas  

The  five  Mission  Areas  are  those  identified  in  Annex  VI  of  the  Horizon  Europe 
Regulation.  The  analysis  presented  in  this  part  is  underpinned  by  an  externally 
produced study 

-  Part III: Review of the areas for institutionalised partnerships based on Articles 

185 and 187 TFEU 
The  eight  areas  for  possible  institutionalised  European  partnerships  established 
pursuant to Article 185 or 187 TFEU. The analysis presented has been elaborated by 
the European Commission on the basis of the methodology developed by the expert 
group  on  support  of  the  coordinating  strategic  process  for  European  partnerships 
(2023).  

-  Annex A: Methodology for the assessment of EU Missions 

-  Annex B: Methodology for the review of Mission Areas 

-  Annex C: Methodology for the review of areas for institutionalised partnerships 

Page 4 / 185 

 
 
 
 
I.  Assessment of EU Missions  

The EU introduced Missions as a new initiative in Horizon Europe. Subsequently, Mission 
boards, consisting of top independent experts, were appointed to elaborate visions for the 
future and concrete goals in five areas:  

-  Mission Area 1: adaptation to climate change including societal transformation; 

-  Mission Area 2: cancer; 

-  Mission Area 3: healthy oceans, seas, coastal and inland waters; 

-  Mission Area 4: climate-neutral and smart cities; 

-  Mission Area 5: soil health and food; 

Starting  in  autumn  2019,  five  foresight  on  demand  projects  supported  the  work  of  the 
Mission boards with foresight expertise and methodology (1). Based on proposals that the 
Mission boards handed over to the Commission in September 2020 (2), five Missions were 
identified in the Horizon Europe Strategic Plan:  

-  Adaptation to Climate Change; 

-  Cancer; 

-  Ocean, Seas and Waters; 

-  Climate Neutral and Smart Cities; 

-  Soil Health and Food (3). 

On  29  September  2021,  the  European  Commission  adopted  a  Communication  on  EU 
Missions (4), which are a new and innovative way to tackle big challenges in health, climate 
and the natural environment, and achieve ambitious and inspiring goals in these areas. 

Since  then,  Missions  went  through  a  preparatory  phase  during  which  detailed 
implementation plans, including objectives, budgets and indicators, were developed. EU 
Missions  succeeded  in  preparing  three  Horizon  Europe  Missions’  work  programmes  to 
ensure  fast  roll-out  of  their  actions.  They  engaged  with  policy  actors,  citizens  and 
stakeholders, ensuring that  their efforts can tap into  existing initiatives and networks at 
EU, national and regional level. At the same time, new governance structures were put in 
place to steer the implementation of the Missions.  

(1)  The foresight reports for Missions in Horizon Europe are available here. 

(2)  The reports delivered on 22 September 2020 can be found here. 

(3)  Some  official  titles  have,  since,  changed.  The  consolidated  titles  of  each  Mission  are  as  follows 
Adaptation to climate change: support at least 150 European regions and communities to become climate 
resilient by 2030; Cancer; Restore our oceans and waters; 100 climate-neutral and smart cities by 2030; 
A soil deal for Europe: 100 living labs and lighthouses to lead the transition towards healthy soils by 
2030. 

(4)  COM(2021) 609 final. 

Page 5 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
1  OVERALL AIM OF THE ASSESSMENT 

As formulated in the Horizon Europe Regulation (Article 8.5): “An assessment of the first 
Missions established under the Programme shall take place no later than 2023 (…). The 
results of that assessment shall be made public and shall include, but not be limited to, an 
analysis of their selection process and of their governance, budget, focus and progress to 
date”. 

The evidence underpinning the assessment of EU Missions presented in this chapter has 
been gathered in the context of an externally procured study. The overall approach and 
methodology used in the study are presented in Annex A of this Staff Working Document. 

The  structure  of  each  Mission-specific  chapter  is  organised  around  the  following 
dimensions:  

1.  The Mission’s goal and objectives; 

2.  The selection process of each EU Mission; 

3.  The Mission’s governance structures and functioning arrangements;  

4.  The progress towards the fulfilment of the Mission’s objectives;  

5.  The Mission’ s budget and funding arrangements.  

In addition to the analysis and evidence carried out in the context of the external study, 
each Mission secretariat has developed additional evidence which is presented under 
the  paragraph 
therefore 
complements  the  assessment  analysis  developed  through  the  external  study  and  is 
organised around the initial ‘Mission selection criteria’ (5) used for selecting the initial 5 
EU Missions.  

‘self-assessment’.  Each  Mission-specific  paragraph 

The self-assessment section is organised as follows:  

1.  An ambitious yet realistic Mission goal; 

2.  The Mission’s added value; 

3.  The Mission’s R&I content; 

4.  Ensuring implementation is feasible, measurable and time-bound; 

5.  Securing buy-in; 

6.  Citizens and stakeholder engagement (this criterion was added at a later stage);  

7.  Progress, achievements and milestones ((this criterion was added at a later stage); 

8.  Budget. 

(5)  https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-

open-calls/horizon-europe/eu-missions-horizon-europe/assessment-criteria_en  

Page 6 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
The data related to the Missions’ calls presented in this Staff Working Document can 
also be accessed via the Horizon R&I projects Dashboard (6). By the end of 2023, this 
framework will be completed with some additional monitoring indicators and will integrate 
the  data  stemming  from  the  R&I  projects  that  have  been  identified  as  relevant  for  the 
Missions. 

The external study underpinning the assessment of EU Missions 

An external contractor carried out a study (EFIS; RTD/2022/SC/022)(7) to provide evidence 
to  help  the  Commission  assess  the  selection  process,  the  governance  structure,  the 
functioning arrangements, the policy focus, progress and funding arrangements of the  5 
EU Missions. In particular, the study collected and analysed views and feedback from 
different stakeholder groups, governance levels, individual Missions, and actors who 
contributed  to  the  design  and  implementation  of  Missions.  Consultations  included 
targeted  interviews,  an  online  survey  and  Mission-specific  policy  workshops.  The 
publication of this study is foreseen for the summer 2023. 

A detailed description of the methodology used for assessing the EU Missions is provided 
in Annex A.  

(6)  Qlik Sense (europa.eu) 

(7)  Study supporting the assessment of EU Missions, the review of Mission Areas and the analysis of EU 
Missions’  portfolio  of  instruments  and  actions  –  RTD/2022/SC/022.  Specific  Contract  under  the 
Multiple Framework Contract N° 2018/RTD/A2/OP/PP-07001-2018. 

Page 7 / 185 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
2  ADAPTATION  TO  CLIMATE  CHANGE:  SUPPORT  AT  LEAST  150  EUROPEAN 

REGIONS AND COMMUNITIES TO BECOME CLIMATE RESILIENT BY 2030 

Page 8 / 185 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1  Mission goal and objectives 

The Mission’s overall goal is to support at least 150 European regions and communities 
to become climate resilient by 2030. The Mission is organised around three objectives 
and six steps. 

Figure 1: Mission Climate Change Adaptation objectives  

Source: (EC, 2021a) 

Figure 2: Mission Climate Change Adaptation intervention steps  

Source: (EC, 2021a) 

2.2  The Mission’s selection process 

The  Mission  implementation  plan  was  prepared  in  2020-2021  by  the  EC  based  on  the 
Mission board report. Two main changes are visible in the move from Mission board report 
to Mission implementation plan: 

Page 9 / 185 

 
 
 
 
1.  The  Mission  title  did  not  feature  any  longer  the  term  ‘including  societal 
transformation’.  While  still  retaining  the  ambition  of  deep  transformation  of  key 
areas, the scope was somewhat narrowed down with references to cultural heritage or 
poverty  alleviation  skipped  in  the  Mission  definition.  According  to  interviews,  the 
drop of ‘societal transformation’ from the title was justified by its vagueness, the risk 
of  dilution  beyond  an  already  broad  concept  of  resilience  and  a  perceived  lack  of 
suitability  for  communication  purposes.  Nevertheless,  the  ultimate  ambition  of  the 
Mission still fits with a ‘systemic transformation’ frame, and the key features of the 
implementation plan reflect this ambition, in particular the focus on transformative 
pathways and the acknowledged contribution of social science and humanities. 

2.  The target number of 200 resilient communities and regions was changed to 150 and 
the number of expected deep demonstrators from 100 to 75. This was justified by an 
uncertainty regarding the number of regions and communities which would want to 
subscribe to the Mission goal, to ensure the setting of a realistic target and account for 
the evolution of the budget allocated to the respective Missions as the figures were 
revised downwards from the initial figure (EUR 1 billon per Mission). 

The Mission’s scope is defined around five key areas of innovation and transformation 
or  key  community  systems  and  four  enabling  conditions  (the  elements  outside  of  the 
blocks). 

Figure 3: Scope of the Mission 

Source: (EC, 2021a) 

There are various ways to categorise the key community systems relevant for Adaptation 
to Climate Change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) organises its 
analysis around six key systems (IPCC, 2022): 

  Terrestrial ecosystems; 
  Oceans and coasts; 
  Water; 
 
Food; 

Page 10 / 185 

 
 
 
  Cities and settlements; 
  Health; 
 

Poverty and livelihoods. 

The  categorisation  used  by  IPPC  and  other  bodies  overlap  significantly:  the  experts 
interviewed in the context of the external study that are experts in Adaptation to Climate 
Change converge in assessing the Mission scope definition as relevant (8). 

The  Mission  definition  pays  important  attention  to  the  diversity  in  situations  and 
capacities  and  to  unequal  preparedness  levels  with  respect  to  Adaptation  to  Climate 
Change across EU territories: it has an explicit focus on territorial cohesion, in an effort to 
provide equal opportunities for regions and local communities across the European Union.  

The various activities deployed by the Mission Board for the preparation of the Mission 
have  ensured  a  transparent and open process,  with  wide consultations  beyond expert 
circles. Governance structure and management arrangements 

2.3  Management arrangements and governance structure 

Horizontal governance across EU-level bodies 

At EU level the Mission governance structure, under the responsibility of the European 
Commission (EC), follows the standard set-up foreseen for all Missions. It includes the 
following bodies: 

  A Mission manager (DG CLIMA) and a deputy Mission manager (DG RTD); 

  A  Mission  secretariat  in  DG  CLIMA,  as  a  joint  team  bringing  together  staff 

members from DG CLIMA and DG RTD; 

  A second Mission board appointed in September 2022, continuing the work of 
the  first  Mission  board  appointed  in  2019  with  a  renewed  focus  on 
implementation; 

  A  Mission  implementation  platform  (MIP)  contracted  in  January  2023  after 

public procurement procedures and reporting to the Mission manager; 

  A  Mission  owners  group  composed  of  representatives  from  different  DGs 
ensuring  co-ordination  within  the  Commission  for  the  implementation  of  the 
Mission and its links with various other EU policies (see below); 

  The  European  Climate,  Infrastructure  and  Environment  Executive  Agency 
(CINEA) in charge of implementing programmes under the EU Green Deal; 

  The Strategic Programming Committee (SPC) of Horizon Europe working group 

in charge of climate change adaptation; 

(8) See report on the review of Mission Area, which includes more details and a discussion on the ways the 

scope of climate change adaptation has been defined in various other organisations. 

Page 11 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
  The Council working group on climate change adaptation. 

Concerning  networks  with  Member  States,  the  Mission  Adaptation  to  Climate  Change 
does  not  have  a  specific  network  of  national  authorities  similar  to  e.g.  the  Cancer 
Mission  hubs.  However,  at  a  meeting  of  the  European  Environment  Information  and 
Observation Network (EIONET) (9) in September 2022, the possibility was explored as to 
whether  EIONET,  as  an  already  existing  network  of  national  authorities,  could  act  a 
national relay for the Mission and inform the Mission governance about relevant national 
initiatives. This collaboration has not been formalised yet.  

As  for  linkages  with  regional  and  local  levels  and  broader  communication,  there  is  no 
formal  new  body  established  under  the  Mission.  Rather,  in  addition  to  the  MIP,  the 
Mission  organises  annual  fora,  which  are  considered  by  the  Mission  secretariat  as  a 
governance instrument of the Mission. 

Figure 4: Governance structures for the EU Mission Climate Change Adaptation 

Source: EFIS study 

Cooperation between DG RTD and DG CLIMA has been fostered since the start of the 
Mission with responsibility for the Mission allocated to those two DGs, with DG CLIMA 

(9) https://www.eionet.europa.eu/  

Page 12 / 185 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
in  lead.  As  foreseen  in  the  EU  Mission  model,  recognising  the  need  for  cross-domain 
cooperation for the success of Mission s, efforts are being made to further stimulate inter-
service coordination through a newly established Mission owners group. An extensive 
work plan has been agreed recently (December 2022) with the different services in this 
group. It may though be hard to assess whether this is working in practice as the Mission 
has only been recently launched and that the implementation plan is rather wide. This being 
said, an opportunity exists to strengthen the co-ownership within the Commission and for 
the identification and creation of synergies across programmes. There is a need to maintain 
high level endorsement of this type of work in the DGs.  

For example, the external study underpinning the assessment of the EU Missions pointed 
to the need to further strengthen the relationship and the collaboration with DG REGIO. 
The  study  did  however  recognise  that  the  somewhat  weaker  link  with  the  Directorate 
General for regional and urban policy is possibly due to its different mode of operation 
(cohesion  policy  being  under  shared  management  with  Member  States,  unlike  Horizon 
Europe and other relevant Commission programmes).   

In  addition  to  cooperation  across  Commission’s  DGs,  cooperation  with  two  other  EU 
bodies is developed by the Mission: 

  The  Mission  is  tightly  linked  to  the  European  Environmental  Agency  (EEA) 
running the Climate-ADAPT platform, the authoritative source of knowledge on 
climate change adaptation for the EU. Under a service level agreement between the 
Commission  and  the  EEA,  the  MIP  is  hosted  on  this  existing  platform  and  the 
maintenance of the knowledge base remains the responsibility of the EEA. This 
linkage is a strong asset for the Mission as the platform is already well known by 
the climate change adaptation community and populated with a wide range of data, 
methodological tools, examples, country profiles, etc. Its extension to regional and 
local authorities is funded with new resources allocated to EEA. The MIP intends 
to  work  in  close  relationship  with  EEA  experts,  which  is  a  commendable 
orientation. 

  The European Investment Bank (EIB), currently working on developing its offer of 
adaptation  finance:  adaptation  financing  workshops  are  organised  to  facilitate 
financial support to demonstration in the field of adaptation to climate change. This 
cooperation is welcome as it addresses one of the identified enablers for the Mission  
the availability of adequate finance, which is suited for investments with long term 
perspective and a large degree of uncertainty. 

Finally,  there  is  an  acknowledged  need  for  cross-Mission  collaboration,  in  particular 
between the Climate Neutral Cities and the Mission Adaptation to Climate Change. There 
is a good rationale for this: cities often develop  strategies covering both mitigation and 
adaptation and there are synergies to be reaped by considering the two jointly, enhancing 
co-benefits. Facilitating these interactions is one of the tasks assigned to TRAMI, which 
has begun to operate recently. To foster such interactions, a joint call has been launched 
between two Missions (Climate Change Adaptation and Cities) in the second wave of calls 
in 2022, however no proposals were submitted for this call.  

Page 13 / 185 

 
 
Vertical coordination 

Vertical  coordination  mechanisms,  between  the  EU-level  Mission  endeavour  and 
national, regional and local levels of authorities, should be reinforced to ensure an in-
depth multiplication of the Mission’s efforts at these levels. 

The external study analysis suggests deepening the work of the following two bodies, to 
ensure the needed vertical coordination with national authorities (10): 

  The  Horizon  Europe  programme  committee  Mission  Adaptation  to  Climate 
Change. This Committee consists of representatives of national research ministries; 

  The  Council  working  group  on  climate  change  adaptation.  This  working  group 
consists of those national ministries responsible for adaptation to climate change. 

However,  Managing  Authorities  do  not  have  direct  connecting  points  with  the 
Mission, although they have a potentially important role given the significant amounts of 
funding potentially available to support the Mission within cohesion policy funds. 

The  Mission  generates  three  new  roles  for  regional  and  local  authorities,  as  the 
Mission’s primary target group: 

  Actors in R&I activities through "participatory action research"; 

  Users of research and innovation outcomes; 

  Programmers and funders of R&I actions. 

The  process  of  charter  signatories  officialises  this  role  and  brings  it  well  beyond 
Horizon Europe as support for adaptation to climate change is also expected to come from 
other  sources.  The  orientation  of  Mission  calls  also  highlights  this  role,  making  their 
participation  mandatory.  In  line  with  the  focus  on  territorial  cohesion,  participation  is 
fostered both for advanced and lagging territories. 

Stakeholders’ involvement and participation  

The Mission has a strong focus on communication and awareness raising. Notably, the 
first Mission board’s work had a remarkably strong emphasis on communication activities 
through numerous events in Member States. This is notably due to the relative novelty of 
climate mitigation, a situation justifying intensified efforts. Many debates and interactions 
with stakeholders (networks) took place during the Mission preparation.  

The analysis conducted in the context of the external study identified three possible degrees 
of participation of stakeholders that depends on their understanding of the Mission: 

  A funding programme under Horizon Europe: it is likely that many stakeholders 
outside the inner circle of ‘Mission insiders’ understand the Mission only through 
the dedicated calls (and later the MIP when its activities start to roll out); 

(10)  The  ERA  Forum  may  also  be  mentioned,  however  it  is  not  specifically  oriented  towards  individual 

Missions’ work. 

Page 14 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
  A  funding  programme  under  Horizon  Europe,  which  uses  a  different, 

participatory research approach; 

  The creation of a climate adaptation knowledge base driven by the specific needs 

of EU territories rather than by scientific questions; 

  A  participatory  experimentation  and  learning  platform  fostering  exchanges 
between regional and local authorities on the creation and use of knowledge as 
well  as  on  experience  and  practice  around  climate  change  adaptation  (a 
‘community of practice’). 

No evidence has been found on significant private sector participation in the Mission. 
This is understandable, as contrary to the mitigation area where large incentives and new 
markets  exist  for  carbon-reducing technologies,  products  and services,  the  ‘adaptation 
economy’ is much less visible. A tradition of public sector-driven initiatives in the context 
of disaster risk management is not conducive to strong commitment by businesses, despite 
the fact that climate change adaptation aspects are increasingly taken into account in the 
building and infrastructure sectors (with climate-proofing requirements). Companies are 
likely to become interested in the Mission through the testing of pilot solutions and the 
deployment of demonstrators. 

Citizens’  involvement  took  place  through  events  during  the  preparation  of  the 
Mission. Involving citizens further at strategic level for the Mission as a whole does not 
seem justified at this stage and the majority of the external study survey respondents are 
of  the  opinion  that  it  is  unclear  how  to  involve  them.  Opportunities  for  new  strategic 
involvement  will  emerge  when  more  visibility  will  be  given  to  projects  reaching  first 
results in various territories. In the meantime, some Mission projects focus specifically on 
methods  to  involve  citizens  in  climate  change  adaptation  planning  and  action  (e.g.,  the 
CLIMAS project (11)). 

2.4 

Progress to date  

Hard  evidence  on  Mission  implementation  relates  to  the  core  Mission  actions  (Mission 
calls, MIP and charter signatories) which already cover the various objectives and steps 
foreseen in the Mission implementation plan. Notably, the Mission calls under Horizon 
Europe already address the six steps.  The diversity in terms of level of advancement of 
regions and local communities across Europe is recognised. Hence, not all territories need 
to  follow  the  six-step  journey,  and  some  can  work  right  away  on  deep  demonstrators 
foreseen in step 5. 

The target of 150 regions and communities supported in their transformative journey 
towards resilience is within reach thanks not only to the large number of regions and 
communities  already  beneficiaries  of  projects,  but  also  to  the  multiplying  effects 
incorporated in the funded Mission projects through e.g., cascading grants (12) and the work 

(11) https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101094021. 

(12) Some projects, such as PEERS, committed to support 100 regions. 

Page 15 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
of the Mission Platform (MIP), which has resources to provide technical assistance to at 
least 200 regions (up to 14 days per region).  

Table 1: Progress towards objectives and steps of the Mission Adaptation to Climate Change 

Mission 
Objectives 

Mission Step 

Mission calls under Horizon 
Europe 

Mission Charter and 
Implementation Platform 

OBJECTIVE 1: 
Preparing and 
Planning for 
climate resilience  

STEP 1: Better 
understanding of 
climate change 
related risks 

OBJECTIVE 2: 
Accelerating 
transformations 
to climate 
resilience 

STEP 2: 
Mobilising 
support and 
engagement 

this 

step, 

climate 

Good progress: projects are currently 
addressing 
including 
substantial  financial,  analytical  and 
to  regions  and 
practical  support 
communities to develop and improve 
their 
assessments; 
risk 
promotion  of  the  use  of  asset  level 
to  achieve  a  better 
modelling 
understanding  on  climate 
related 
tangible  direct  and  indirect  impacts 
produced by complex, cascading and 
compound disasters. 

of 

blueprints 
decision  making 

Good  progress:  projects  address  the 
for 
development 
and 
effective 
collaborative  processes  building  on 
the dialogue among stakeholders and 
on the integration of different types of 
knowledge,  providing  toolboxes  and 
good 
citizens' 
engagement in climate change action 
and  build  up  citizens`  supporting 
infrastructure 
for  climate  change 
adaptation measures. 

practices 

for 

The  extent  to  which  the  projects  can 
contribute  to  the  development  of 
adequate  governance  structures  at 
local and regional levels is not clear. 

Further  research  could  be  useful  on 
what  constitutes  an  optimal  climate 
governance 
change 
structure, and how to articulate it with 
other 
levels  of  climate  change 
adaptation governance (ex. National). 

adaptation 

Good  progress:  a  number  of  projects 
are  currently  addressing  this  step, 
to  develop  a 
supporting  actors 
Regional 
Journey 
Resilience 
framework,  providing 
supporting 
regions  and 
services 
communities  in  developing  climate 
resilience  pathways  and  connected 
innovation agendas. 

to  equip 

Quality  of  resilience  plans  should be 
fostered trough this support. 

One project is developing an indicator 
set for measuring regional resilience. 

STEP 3: 
Formulating a 
vision and 
transformative 
pathways to 
climate resilience 

Regions  and  local  authorities 
are mobilised and resources will 
be made available and technical 
assistance provided. 

on 

Material  on 
the  Climate-
ADAPT  platform  will  include 
usable 
regional/local 
risk 
information 
assessments, 
adaptation 
planning,  citizen  engagement 
transformation. 
and  systemic 
Relevant  material  will  be 
translated in EU languages. 

The  Charter  Signatories  reach 
301 
covering 
approximately  40%  of  the  EU 
population. 

entities, 

and 
about 

The  MIP  has  a  role  to  play  in 
documenting 
sharing 
existing 
information 
governance structures, how they 
to 
are  being 
address 
change 
climate 
adaptation  and  how  they  are 
articulated 
other 
governance structures. 

strengthened 

with 

The  general  communication 
the 
work  of 
Mission board will contribute to 
mobilisation. 

the  MIP  and 

be  made 
Resources  will 
available in the MIP to support 
capacity building in regions and 
local  communities  for  building 
resilience  plans,  both  generic 
and  specific  for  these  actors 
(limited  number  of  days  for 
tailor-made advice). 

STEP 4: 
Orchestrating 

Good  progress:  a  number  of  projects 
are currently addressing this, e.g. pilot 

Resources  will 
be  made 
available in the MIP to support 

Page 16 / 185 

 
 
Mission 
Objectives 

Mission Step 

Mission calls under Horizon 
Europe 

Mission Charter and 
Implementation Platform 

innovations and 
testing 
transformative 
solutions 

the  co-
regions  will  constitute 
production  arena  to  co-design,  co-
develop  and  complement  climate 
change adaptation solutions: they are 
experimenting  pilot  solutions  in  the 
various 
the 
Mission. 

intervention  areas  of 

STEP 5: Creating 
impact at scale 

OBJECTIVE 3: 
Demonstrating 
systemic 
transformations 
to climate 
resilience  

A  number  of  projects  are  currently 
establishing  deep 
starting  with 
and 
regions 
in 
demonstrators 
communities, 
the 
at 
aiming 
transformation  of  key  community 
lessons  and 
systems, 
and 
practices 
‘following’ regions. 

transferring 

‘twinning’ 

to 

However,  co-funding  for  large  scale 
deployment needs to be secured. 

STEP 6: Creating 
cross-border 
value 

Not yet explicitly addressed by calls, 
but  possibly  incorporated  in  funded 
projects. 

change 

to,  and  diffusion  of 
access 
climate 
adaptation 
solutions, as well as promoting 
exchanges  between 
regions 
in  climate  change 
involved 
adaptation  projects,  funded  by 
the  Mission  and  beyond.  The 
MIP and the Mission board will 
also play a role in supporting the 
identification 
funding 
sources for pilots. 

of 

change 

Resources  will 
be  made 
available in the MIP to support 
to,  and  diffusion  of 
access 
climate 
adaptation 
solutions, as well as promoting 
exchanges  between 
regions 
in  climate  change 
involved 
adaptation  projects,  funded  by 
the  Mission  and  beyond.  The 
MIP  will  support  accessing 
for 
large 
deployment of demonstrators. 

funding 

sources 

Work  with  EIB  will  help 
upgrade the offer of adaptation 
finance. 

change 

Resources  will 
be  made 
available in the MIP to support 
access 
to,  and  diffusion  of 
adaptation 
climate 
solutions, as well as promoting 
exchanges  between 
regions 
involved 
in  climate  change 
adaptation  projects,  funded  by 
the Mission and beyond. 

Source: EFIS study based on desk research 

The external study analysis suggests strengthening the message that adaptation to climate 
change is a process. In this perspective, actions implemented in the ‘core’ of the Mission 
(the specific calls, the MIP and the charter process) address the need for raising awareness 
of climate change adaptation; building a better understanding of climate risks and impacts 
at  the  local  level;  developing  adequate  governance  and  mobilising  for  climate  change 
adaptation and, on this basis, developing strategic frameworks leading to implement pilot 
and bold transformative actions. However, the Mission’s ‘core’ actions only cover the ‘tip 
of  the  iceberg’:  mainstreaming  climate  change  adaptation  in  a  large  number  of 
programmes, funding lines and other actions remains a major task going forward for 
the Mission to reach its goal of at least 150 regions and communities becoming resilient to 
climate change. 

“Given high levels of uncertainty and the nature and scale of current challenges, there will be no 

silver bullet. R&I policy generally, and enabling structures for  Missions specifically, need to see 

innovation less as an activity of generating static solutions with discrete deliverables and more 

Page 17 / 185 

 
 
as  a  continuous  learning  and  intelligence  generating  exercise  to  support  decision-making  and 

civic engagement through innovation options” (ESIR, 2023). 

“Policy coherence must systematically consider adaptation to avoid inadvertently undermining 

it.  Whenever  relevant,  EU  and  Member  State  policymaking  should  apply  the  following  policy 

coherence principles: ensure that regulation and funding take into account disaster risk to avoid 

creating  new  exposure;  reduce  existing  risk  by  building  up  resilience,  prevention,  and 

preparedness; manage residual risk. These principles should be integrated, for example, in calls 

for tender and selection criteria for EU-funded projects as well as taken into due account when 

designing policies more generally” (EC, 2021c). 

2.5  Budget and funding leveraged  

The text of the Mission implementation plan provides an estimation of a sum of €10 B 
needed  for  the  Mission  to  deliver  according  to  its  ambitions.  The  external  study 
underpinning the assessment of EU Missions reported funding gaps at local, regional and 
national levels more than at EU level and the need to align resources between EU, national, 
regional and local levels. The challenge of leveraging funding beyond Horizon Europe’s 
specific Mission calls is key to the Mission’s success. 

There is no detailed information on budgets available to the Mission beyond the EU funds 
allocated to the Mission calls (and the MIP). The situation in terms of leverage effect of 
the Mission on other EU funding programmes, national, regional, and private funding, both 
for R&I and for complementary action (such as investments for demonstration projects) is 
yet unknown. As indicated by the EEA, because of climate change adaptation being often 
included  in  programmes  with  broader  goals,  methodological  issues  prevent  a  good 
measurement  of  funding  allocated  to  climate  change  adaptation  (or  indeed  climate 
action more widely) and national reporting on climate change adaptation budgets is not yet 
well established: 

“With mainstreaming climate change adaptation into a broad range of sectors, the EU funds (27) 

are  also  used  for  adaptation.  However,  the  precise  amounts  allocated  remain  unclear.  The 

European Commission announced that the EU had met the 20% target for 2014-2020, reporting 

that it had spent EUR 216 billion on climate action (ECA, 2022). However, the auditors found that 

the spending reported was not always relevant to climate action, and that the amount reported 

as having been spent for that purpose had been overstated by at least EUR 72 billion (ECA, 2022). 

This  can  also  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  there  is  no  common  methodology  for  monitoring, 

reporting and evaluating the implementation of adaptation strategies and plans” (EEA, 2022). 

One way to appraise the budgetary amounts devoted to climate change adaptation with EU 
funds  is  through  the  use  of  ‘tagging’  mechanisms  to  create  project  portfolios.  Such  a 
process is already put in place with the assimilation of four Green Deal projects to Mission 
projects and is further developed by the Mission secretariat’s work in screening Horizon, 
LIFE and Interreg projects to constitute a project portfolio that will be at the disposal of 
the MIP.  

Page 18 / 185 

 
 
A search in the Climate-ADAPT platform with the tag ‘adaptation’ generates a long list of 
projects from earlier FPs, other parts of Horizon Europe, LIFE, Interreg programmes and 
transnational programmes. This database however does not identify projects funded under 
mainstream Cohesion policy (see below) and does not provide budgetary amounts. 

Table 2: EU-funded research and knowledge projects on climate change adaptation in Climate-
ADAPT database. 

Funding sources 

Number of projects 

FP7 

Horizon 2020 

Horizon Europe  

LIFE 

Interreg 

Others: JPI, ERANETs, Baltic Sea region… 

Total 

30 

134 

11 

142 

90 

92 

499 

Source: EFIS study based on search in Climate-ADAPT database with tag ‘adaptation’, accessed 2 March 2023. 

The two main EU programmes to be leveraged to support the Mission goal are LIFE 
and the cohesion policy (13). The LIFE Programme can benefit from and link to Mission 
projects  to  reinforce  synergies  and  maximise  impacts  by  extending  the  financing  to 
innovative  solutions,  mobilizing  resources  at  EU,  national  and  local  levels,  and 
disseminating  and  promoting  good  practice.  Large  scale  demonstrations  can  be 
implemented with cohesion policy support. 

The EU decision of mainstreaming climate objectives into all its instruments, in line with 
the Green Deal, is influencing all programmes, however without distinguishing between 
mitigation and adaptation: in particular 61% of the LIFE financial envelope is expected to 
be climate related.  

  Cohesion policy is naturally a large potential funding source for regions and local 
authorities  engaged  in  implementing  climate  change  adaptation  strategies  and 
actions. Data for the specific objective: “Promoting climate change adaptation and 
disaster  risk  prevention  and  resilience,  taking  into  account  ecosystem-based 
approaches” (RS 02.4) indicate that an amount of €12.6B is planned for the period 
2021-2027 (14).  

Several synergy mechanisms can be used to leverage budgets from other EU programmes 
to amplify the Mission support to climate change adaptation.  

(13) EIB climate funding is another important funding source for deployment, in the form of loans or 

blended finance. 

(14)  To be noted however that this objective also includes investments related to non-climate risks. 

Page 19 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Table 3: Synergy and amplification mechanisms at programme and project levels 

Types of synergies 

Synergies between 
centralised EU 
programmes  

Synergies between 
Mission projects and 
programmes EU 
shared management  

Mainstreaming 
climate change 
adaptation in 
national 
programmes  

Source: EFIS study  

Mechanisms 

LIFE  Programme  has  a  sub-programme  on  climate.  It  provides  action  grants  for  best 
practice, pilot and demonstration projects that contribute to mitigate the effects and increase 
resilience to climate change. The climate sub-programme also supports integrated projects 
that implement EU policy and strategy on climate change adaptation. The LIFE programme 
promotes and incentivises synergies with research and innovation, by granting additional 
“bonus” points during evaluation to those projects which make demonstrable use of research 
outcomes stemming from other EU-funded projects, including Horizon. 

At project level, the  Mission secretariat is compiling a list of climate change adaptation-
relevant  projects under  Horizon, LIFE  and  Interreg,  which  will be  made  available  to  the 
Mission implementation platform under its task of creating synergies between projects 
through the ex-post creation of a Mission ‘project portfolio’. This can be extended to 
other programmes, e.g. EIT KICs and to sharing of data generated through projects under 
various programmes. 

The Mission owners group foresees the possibility of co-creation of calls between various 
programmes,  or  cross-referencing  programmes  in  calls  or  joint  promotion  of  the 
Mission/LIFE in relevant constituencies (as it is done in Mission calls). 

Horizon Mission calls: some calls include provisions for complementary funds in project 
definition,  as  e.g.  in  this  call  text:  “a  written  commitment  to  apply  for  complementary 
funding  is  required  from  the  participating  regions  in  which  the  action  proposed  will  be 
implemented in case the project will be selected for funding. This should be expressed by a 
letter of intent annexed to the proposal signed by the corresponding authority/ies from the 
participating  regions. The  letter should  state  the  willingness  of  the  regional authority  to 
seek  (when  possible)  complementary  funding  from  other  national  and  European 
programmes  for  investments  aiming  at  increasing  resilience  and  adaptation  to  climate 
change. This will include European Regional Development and Cohesion Fund and the Next 
generation EU.” (15) 

Cumulative funding synergies are notoriously difficult to achieve (see box below), hence 
the  more  realistic  option  points  towards  consecutive  funding  synergies.  “Successive 
funding synergies, where projects/initiatives build on each other’s results/resources, are the 
most  frequent  synergy  mechanisms  that  are  successfully  implemented  by  beneficiaries. 
These are relatively more easily generated by single applicants, whereas partnership-based 
synergies seem more problematic because consortium beneficiaries may be supported by 
different funds from different countries/regions” (EC, 2022a). 

Horizon Mission calls: an attempt has been set to allocate a ‘seal of excellence’ in the last 
Mission call to those projects that have passed the evaluation threshold but could not be 
funded. There is no clear perspective yet on whether this represents a realistic way forward: 
past practice shows that the seal of excellence are de facto limited to mono-beneficiaries and 
are too difficult to implement for multi-beneficiary projects from different countries (EC, 
2018). 

“Legal  requirements  to  enforce  horizontal  policy  integration  and  binding  vertical 
governance  frameworks  that  require  regional  and/or  local  authorities  to  engage  in 
adaptation planning are in place in only a minority of Member States” (EEA, 2022). 

Introducing sustainability and resilience criteria in public procurement is one option (the 
Net Zero Industry Act, March 2023). Climate proofing guidance can be used to this aim.   

(15) e.g. HORIZON - MISS 2021 CLIMA 02 04 (IA-49.5M€): Large scale demonstrators of climate 

resilience creating cross border value. 

Page 20 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
The Mission is also expected to rely on private funding for its implementation. However, 
companies  have  so  far  not  engaged  in  the  Mission  since  the  Mission  is  structured 
according  to  community  systems  and  adaptation  strategies  are  mainly  seen  from  the 
perspective of public authorities. Private sector participation is expected to be attracted at 
stage of development of pilots and foremost large-scale demonstrators, and much less in 
the early phases of awareness-raising and knowledge base creation steps.  

2.6  Key conclusions from the external assessment  

The EU Mission on adaptation to climate change shows a strong ambition to act as a game 
changer for EU territories in their journey towards climate resilience: the orientation of the 
Mission  aims  to  support  a  paradigm  shift  away  from  fragmented  and  incremental 
climate  change  adaptation  efforts  towards  transformational  adaptation  strategies, 
aiming at reaching higher impacts. This is well in line with the overall Mission concept 
and with frontier thinking around transformative innovation, featuring: clear directionality 
and  identification  of  intended  impacts,  wide  and  deep  stakeholder  participation,  high 
ambition to create synergies between several levels of authorities as well as between policy 
domains,  opening  space  for  experimentation  and  pilots,  combining  the  latter  with 
determined  efforts  towards  upscaling  and  last  but  not  least  bringing  in  more  strategic 
intelligence and building up capacity.  

The  Mission  has  ignited  enthusiasm  from  regional  and  local  authorities  and  lifted 
climate change adaptation up on their policy agendas. The Mission comes at a right 
time  and  has  an  important  awareness-raising  effect  on  a  societal  challenge  that  is  still 
relatively new, yet urgent to address. A higher-than-expected number of responses to the 
invitation to sign the Mission charter (301 instead of 150), now covering 40% of the EU 
population and 25 Member States, reflects the political will of regional and local authorities 
to  engage  in  transformative  journeys  to  adapt  their  territories  to  the  impacts  of  climate 
change. Welcoming the recognition of their heightened role in Horizon Europe, more than 
250  regions  and  local  communities  participate  in  Mission  projects;  many  express  their 
willingness to be part of an EU community of practice launched in April 2023 and to get 
support from the new-born Mission implementation platform. The wide reach of this initial 
batch of activities under the EU Mission is a positive factor for diffusion across the EU 
territory. 

The  Mission  is  now  reaching  a  turning  point:  a  momentum  has  been  created  with  the 
charter  signatory  process,  the  launch  of  first  Mission  projects  and  of  the  Mission 
implementation  platform. This  momentum needs  to be sustained through quick and 
visible actions on the ground. What the Mission really is and what it can bring in practice 
is still not easily understood by the main target group, confronted with the difficulty to find 
time  and  resources  and  to  build  its  own  capacity  to  contribute  to  and  benefit  from  the 
Mission’s opportunity, amidst many competing offers from other initiatives and networks. 

The large spread of signatories and Mission projects’ activities across Europe, involving 
both frontrunners and lagging territories, reflects the cohesion approach of the  Mission. 
This  approach,  combined  with  a  somewhat  elusive  concept  of  ‘resilience’  as  a  process 
rather  than  as  a  state  to  be  reached,  creates  a  challenge  to  combine  territorial 
inclusiveness with a demonstration and mobilising effect of the Mission concept around 
‘flagships’, crystallising around a few bold and convincing projects.  

Page 21 / 185 

 
 
Overall, at this initial stage of implementation, the Mission appears as a timely, positive 
and promising initiative. The next steps will have to be deployed quickly and visibly, 
addressing  several  challenges  so  that  the  Mission  delivers  well  beyond  its  value  as  an 
“inspirational  tool”.  A  central  challenge  is  that  of  leveraging  a  broader  portfolio  of 
instruments much beyond its core under Horizon Europe, mobilising Member States 
and sub-national authorities’ portfolio of instruments at large scale, with the Mission calls 
as ‘seeds and glue’ rather than main instruments.  

2.7 

Self-assessment of the Mission Adaptation to Climate Change 

The last decade (2011-2020) was the hottest decade on record during which the title for 
the hottest  year was beaten eight times. People,  planet and prosperity are vulnerable to 
climate change, so we need to prevent the un-adaptable and adapt to the un-preventable (16). 
Halting all greenhouse gas emissions would still not prevent the climate impacts that are 
already occurring.  

The frequency  and severity  of  climate and  weather  extremes  is increasing (17). This has 
caused a surge in the number of, and damages from, disasters over the last two decades (18). 
Water  shortages  in  the  EU  have  affected  economic  activities  as  diverse  as  agriculture, 
aquaculture, tourism, power plant cooling, and cargo shipping on rivers. It affects not only 
the economy, but  also the  health  and  well-being  of Europeans,  who increasingly suffer 
from heat waves (globally, the deadliest disaster of 2019 was the European heatwave with 
2500 deaths). It also poses risks to food security, worsens existing social inequalities and 
threatens cultural heritage.  

Economic losses from more frequent climate-related extreme events are increasing. In the 
EU, these losses already average over EUR 12 billion per year. Conservative, lower bound 
estimates show that exposing today’s EU economy to global warming of 3°C above pre-
industrial levels would result in an annual loss of at least EUR 170 billion (1.36% of EU 
GDP (19)).  

A climate emergency has been recognised by the European Parliament, by several Member 
States, and by over 300 cities. The European Council has concluded that climate change is 
“an existential threat”. At individual level, over 93% of Europeans consider that climate 
change is a serious problem, and 70% agree that adapting to climate change is positive. 

(16) Adaptation is the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects (IPCC AR5). It is not 
a one-time emergency response, but a series of proactive measures to deal with the nexus of hazard (e.g. 
drought,  sea level rise), exposure  (e.g. less  water in the South), and vulnerability (e.g. poverty or lack of 
education).  Complications  (and  danger)  arise  from  tipping  points  (i.e.  thresholds  in  the  rate  of  climate 
change) like permafrost melting, sea-ice loss, or massive forest dieback. 

(17) https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/soer2020-europes-environment-state-and-outlook-report  

(18) https://www.undrr.org/news/drrday-un-report-charts-huge-rise-climate-disasters   

(19) https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/peseta-iv/economic-impacts  

Page 22 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
The  European  Climate  Law (20)  writes  into  law  the  goal  set  out  in  the  European  Green 
Deal (21) and provides for stronger provisions on adaptation to climate change. The relevant 
Union institutions and the Member States shall ensure continuous progress in enhancing 
adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience, and reducing vulnerability to climate change. 
The second horizontal initiative under the European strategy for data, the proposal for the 
‘Data Act’,  establishes  a robust framework for  public sector bodies to  access  privately 
held data in order to efficiently and quickly respond to public emergencies such as major 
natural or human-induced disasters.  

The Mission is a key contributor to the objectives of a climate resilient Europe and 
the  EU  Strategy  on  Adaptation  to  Climate  Change.  Adopted  by  the  College  of 
Commissioners two years ago, it anchors the Mission from the outset in EU policy.  

2.7.1 

An ambitious yet realistic Mission goal  

The overall objective of the Mission is to support at least 150 European regional and local 
authorities to become climate resilient by 2030.  

The Adaptation Mission is designed to help accelerating adaptation to climate change in 
Europe and to contribute to more systemic policy design based on the latest knowledge. 
Its  aim  is  to  help  regions  and  local  authorities  by  providing  direct  support,  and/or  by 
facilitating access to the best knowledge in three areas: 1) to better understand climate risks 
they are and will be subject to, 2) to define pathways to climate resilience for at least 150 
regions by experimenting with different futures, and 3) to build resilience with at least 75 
large scale demonstration projects.  

By 2025 the Mission will already have been supporting more than 150 regions.  

Indeed, in 2022, twenty-nine regions were supported through the 4 first Mission projects. 
In the beginning of 2023, two cascading grants, CLIMAAX and PEERS have been signed. 
These will provide support to regions until 2025. The first will support 50 regions, with up 
to EUR 300 000 per region, to carry out risk and vulnerability assessments. The second 
will assist 100 regions with up to EUR 300 000 to develop detailed adaptation pathways.  

In addition, the Mission Implementation Platform will from 2023 to 2025 provide technical 
assistance to at least 200 regions (up to 14 days per region).  

2.7.2 

The Mission’s added value 

Compared to the other measures under the EU Adaptation strategy, the Mission adds the 
direct contact with the regions and municipalities that need to take decisions on the ground 
leading  to  preparedness  and  resilience.  This  exposure  to  local  and  regional  decisions 
and  the  constraints  under  which  these  are  taken,  helps  shaping  the  portfolio  of 

(20) Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing 
the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 
2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’). 

(21) https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en 

Page 23 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
adaptation  actions  foreseen  in  the  strategy.  It  also  allows  to  develop  new  policy 
initiatives based on the practical experiences gained through the Mission.  

In  addition,  the  Mission  is  contributing  to  raising  awareness  among  policy  makers  and 
citizens about the need to build climate (and economic) resilience. 

Linking up research & innovation with policy implementation ensures that the most recent 
knowledge is used, and that implementation is sound and accelerated.  

Compared  to  “classical”  research  programmes,  the  Mission  work  programme  clearly 
identifies non-scientific users, the regional and local authorities, and their requirements vis 
à vis IT tools or processes to carry out risk assessments, which is necessary to build climate 
resilience.  Researchers  are  in  direct  contact  with  those  non  researchers  using  the 
knowledge, know-how and tools produced, which gives researchers a purpose to their work 
going far beyond the scientific circles. Especially by younger researchers, this is perceived 
as deeply satisfying and gives a more prominent role to RDI policy.  

The Mission’s community of practice with systematic and frequent gathering of regions 
and municipalities from throughout Europe leads to many fruitful exchanges, inspirations, 
and a voluntary experience of self-benchmarking. This in turn ensures a much more rapid 
and resource efficient spread of solutions throughout Europe. 

2.7.3 

The Mission’s R&I content 

R&I projects funded under the Horizon Europe  Missions Work Programme deal with  a 
variety of topics.  

Several  projects  aim  at  demonstrating  or  testing  adaptation  solutions.  For  example, 
improving resilience of the infrastructures in the Piraeus Port, reducing the vulnerability 
of  the  Canary  Islands  aquifer  system  or  using  nature-based  solutions  in  systemic 
transformations  to  improve  urban  resilience,  the  latter  in  co-funding  with  the  Cities 
Mission.  

Two consortia will assist regions with risk and vulnerability assessments as well as with 
the development of adaptation roadmaps. The two consortia will in 2023 issue calls for 
proposals following which 50 regions shall be supported on risk assessments and a further 
100  regions  in  the  development  of  their  adaptation  roadmaps.  The  regional  risk 
assessments will be carried out using a common methodology, defined through the project.   

Citizen  engagement  is  another  topic  addressed  by  several  projects.  Stakeholder 
communities will be built, toolboxes be developed and used to facilitate involvement of 
locals  through  participatory  approaches.  Data  analysis  and  assessment  methods  will  be 
developed to support decision and policy making.   

Asset modelling is needed for the development of IT support tools on adaptation. The 
information from climate models needs to be combined with information on assets. User 
driven  tools  to  use  climate  and  climate  impact  models  by  lay  people  and  public 
administration is another angle looked at in modelling.  

Further  topics  were  inviting  to  develop  approaches  unlocking  financial  resources  for 
insurance  solutions, 
climate  resilience,  best  practices  and  piloting 
transformation  of  regional  economic  systems  for  climate  resilience  and  boosting  the 
sponge function of landscapes to improve water management.  

innovative 

Page 24 / 185 

 
 
Around  130  running  projects  with  research  &  innovation  content  relevant  for  the 
Mission  from  Horizon  2020,  Horizon  Europe  (other  than  the  Mission  work 
programme),  LIFE  and  Interreg  have  been  identified.  The  Mission  Implementation 
Platform  will  make  available  to  the  European  regions  the  knowledge  and  solutions 
developed by these projects.  

2.7.4 

Ensuring implementation is feasible, measurable, and time-bound 

The build-up phase of the Mission, which according to the Implementation Plan was 
scheduled until the end of 2023, has been realised in the first  quarter of 2023: The 
community of practice is established, the Mission Implementation Platform has started, the 
cascading grants for risk assessments and adaptation pathways have started and the LIFE 
projects in the field of adaptation have been identified and added to the Mission portfolio.    

The Mission has opened its IT portal on the well-proven Climate ADAPT platform and 
will  use  the  portal  also  as  central  knowledge  hub  and  as  entry  door  to  the  Mission’s 
community of practice.  

The  Climate  Adapt  platform  is  the  best-known  Europe  wide  reference  platform  on 
adaptation, with which all Member States and European regions work. It is a huge asset 
for  the  Adaptation  Mission  that  the  European  Environment  Agency  agreed  to  host  the 
Mission Portal on that website.  

Objective 1: Better understanding of climate change related risks 

Through a large single grant, acting in two steps, the Mission will first develop a climate 
risk and vulnerability assessment framework/template available to be used widely. In 
the  second  step  that  same  grant  will  support  regions  in  conducting  multi-hazard/risk 
assessments or upgrading/refining existing ones.  

Other  projects  will  provide  IT  tools  to  visualise  and  understand  asset  risks  and  how  to 
protect them. 

Objective 2: Accelerating transformations to achieve climate resilience 

The Mission supports participating regions in formulating their vision of a climate resilient 
future and the pathways to reach it. A cascading grant was set up and signed in Jan 2023, 
which  will  support  100  regions  for  their  pathway  development.  The  Mission 
Implementation Platform will also provide up to 14 days technical support services to 
regions for developing pathways. In 2023, twenty regions will benefit from this service.  

In  addition,  the  regions  will  be  supported  in  their  efforts  to  engage  citizens  and  to  test 
solutions  addressing  challenges  and  policy  objectives  identified.  In  Work  Programme 
2022, Demonstration Projects were launched for more than 100 million EUR. This 
will  provide  for  solutions  testing,  for  example  smart  water  management  systems  and 
raingardens  or  living  walls  to  better  manage  water  resources;  use  of  2D  and  3D 
computational modelling to better predict flooding, drought, urban heat; solutions to 
better  manage  water  scarcity  and  mitigate  the  impacts  of  droughts;  greening  of 
infrastructures  by  tree  planting,  increasing  of  permeable  green  surfaces,  or  river 

Page 25 / 185 

 
 
deculverting (22) in cities; peatland, wetland and floodplain restoration; culture rotation and 
silvo-pasture as solutions for a more climate resilient agriculture. 

Objective 3: Demonstrating systemic transformations 

The  Mission  stimulates  the  larger  scale  deployment  of  tested  solutions  for  climate 
resilience and the transformation of key community systems.  

Several  demonstration  projects  are  carried  out  by  regions  having  signed  the  Mission 
Charter and have indeed already defined pathways. These projects are all having partners 
from several countries, therefore transnational aspects are well covered. The call texts were 
defined to create a portfolio of projects covering a multitude of climate risks, approaches, 
and biogeographical regions. 

2.7.5 

Securing buy-in 

The Mission is one of the key actions of the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate 
Change. The Mission is a key contributor to the implementation of the European Green 
Deal and the objective of a climate resilient Europe enshrined in the EU Climate law. 

The Council Conclusions of 10 June 2022 (23) welcomed the proposed role of the Mission 
on  Adaptation  to  Climate  Change  in  the  roll-out  of  solutions  which  aim  to  improve 
Europe’s  climate  preparedness,  accelerate  adaptation  actions,  and  deepen  societal 
transformation  towards  climate-resilience.  In  the  Council  Working  Group  on 
Adaptation Member State representatives have discussed their role of  ‘brokers’ of 
the  Mission  towards  their  regional  and  national  actors.  Their  engagement  certainly 
helped the strong buy-in by regions in Europe. 308 regional and local authorities from 
25 Member States have signed the  Mission Charter and represent roughly 40% of 
the EU population.   

The  Mission  on  Adaptation  to  Climate  Change  develops  joint  activities  with  the 
European Cohesion policy. While addressing policy objectives of the European Cohesion 
policy (smart specialisation, fight against climate change, a more social Europe, Europe 
closer to citizens) Member States and regions, by developing the appropriate projects, can 
at the same time improve their resilience to the impacts of climate change.  The Mission 
has already had a joint initiative with DG REGIO and the EIB on financing adaptation in 
regions. This will be repeated 3 to 4 times in the coming months.  

The  Committee  of  Regions (24) emphasised  that  the  Mission  Adaptation  to  Climate 
Change should have an essential overall role, especially on foresight and motivating all 

(22)  ‘Deculverting’ refers to uncovering rivers mainly in cities that are not visible anymore and have been 

made underground rivers.  

(23) Council of the European Union (10124/22): Conclusions on “European Missions”, adopted by the Council 

at its 3877th meeting held on 10 June 2022 

(24) https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Pages/OpinionTimeline.aspx?opId=CDR-5656-2021  

Page 26 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
the actors of Europe to actively contribute to the EU Missions. The Adaptation Mission 
should achieve a general commitment to create large-scale systematic solutions.  

Also,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  gave  strong  support (25)  in  their 
Opinion  on  the  Commission  Communication  on  EU  Missions:  “The  EESC  strongly 
supports the idea of empowering 150 climate benchmark regions throughout Europe". 

The new EIB Climate Adaptation Plan (October 2021) (26) is based on the EU Strategy 
on Adaptation to Climate Change. It refers to the Mission to enable the first objective 
of the Strategy, namely Smarter Adaptation. The EIB Plan links to the Mission and the 
EIB has committed itself to boost its climate change adaptation work. The EIB has set up 
an Adapt  Platform,  increasing  its advisory  and technical  assistance  and has set  forward 
explicit  and  ambitious  new  financing  targets  of  EUR  6  billion  for  climate  change 
adaptation. 

The  European  Environment  Agency  is  one  of  the  major  and  most  robust  actors 
supporting  the  Mission  implementation  as  its  strategy  for  2022-2024  refers  to  the 
Mission and clearly describes how the EEA will use Climate-ADAPT to showcase the 
results  of  the  Mission  Adaptation  to  Climate  Change  and  to  host  the  Mission web 
pages. Through that collaboration Climate- ADAPT will be enriched with regional level 
information. The collaboration is a clear win-win situation and an excellent example of 
synergy between policy tools.  

The LIFE Programme combines efforts with Horizon Europe, in particular its Mission in 
support of the European Green Deal (Climate Change Adaptation, Climate Neutral cities, 
Oceans  and  Soils).  Projects  supported  from  LIFE  calls  in  the  sub-programme 
“Climate  Change  Mitigation  and  Adaptation”  will  become  part  of  the  Mission 
portfolio, as agreed between DG ENV, CLIMA and RTD.  

2.7.6 

Citizens and stakeholder engagement 

In its beginnings, the Mission organised a Sounding Board with regions, co-organised 
with the European Regions and Innovation Network, ERRIN, to understand the needs 
and challenges regions are facing when planning adaptation actions. This has subsequently 
led to a call for regions to sign the Mission Charter.  As a result, 308 regional and local 
authorities have signed the charter and 63 organisations adhered to the charter as Friends 
of the Mission. 

The annual Mission Forum is a governance element of the Mission, explicitly aiming 
at engaging the regions participating in the Mission and giving them a say in the steer 
of the Mission. The first Forum was co-organised with the Committee of Regions and the 
second with the Swedish Presidency and the region Blekinge. The Mission engaged with 
regions  also  through  an  outreach  and  information  event  on  Adaptation  Financing  in 
Coimbra  and  through  a  launch  event  of  the  Mission’s  Community  of  Practice.  The 

(25)  Opinion  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  on  European  Missions  (INT/967)  on 

Commission Communication COM(2021) 609 final. 

(26) https://www.eib.org/en/publications/the-eib-climate-adaptation-plan  

Page 27 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Community of Practice itself, which has started in the beginning of 2023 is a further means 
of engaging regional and local authorities.  

The  Climate  Resilience  Dialogue  is  a  means  of  engaging  European  Insurers  and 
bringing them in contact with regional and local administrations. The Dialogue will have 
events on a yearly basis. At the first of these events, in October 2022, insurers met with 
several signatory regions of the Mission to discuss their insurance and financing needs.  

Regions  and  municipalities  will  be  assisted  in  their  efforts  to  engage  with  citizens 
through Mission projects: Project TransformAr, for example, is developing toolboxes for 
citizens engagement and providing those tools to regions and local authorities (27). 

Project AGORA supports communities and regions participating in the Mission to exploit 
a broad range of approaches, mechanisms and initiatives to meaningfully and effectively 
engage  citizens,  civil  society  organisations,  academics,  experts,  policymakers, 
entrepreneurs and other relevant actors in all phases of climate change adaptation and in 
all steps of transformation towards a climate resilient Europe. 

Project CLIMAS will identify and describe underlying mechanisms to empower citizens.  
And will organize climate assemblies.   

2.7.7 

Progress, achievements, and milestones 

Without exception, all building blocks foreseen in the build-up phase of the Mission 
have been realised in the first quarter of 2023, although according to the Implementation 
Plan several of those were only due by the end of 2023:  

The Mission secretariat staffed by DG CLIMA and RTD and the second Mission Board 
are established.  

The Mission Implementation Platform ‘MIP4ADAPT’ and the cascading grants for 
risk assessments and adaptation pathways have started. The LIFE projects in the field 
of adaptation have been identified and added to the Mission portfolio. An administrative 
arrangement with the JRC has been signed as well as a service level agreement with the 
European Environment Agency.  

Several milestones have been reached in terms of ensuring buy-in and participation in the 
Mission.  

By the end of 2022 the Mission Owner’s Group has agreed a joint work plan and its 
activities have been integrated into the Inter-Service Steering Group on the EU Strategy 
on Adaptation to Climate Change.  

A particular focus has been given to synergies with Cohesion policy and the EIB adaptation 
strategy.  For  this  purpose,  a  first  adaptation  finance  event,  in  Coimbra,  was  organised 

(27) https://transformar.eu/news-and-events/ 

Page 28 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
jointly by DG REGIO, the EIB and the Mission. Four more of such events are planned 
for the last quarter of 2023.  

Several  bodies  composed  by  Member  States  representatives  have  been  addressed  to 
integrate national efforts. In addition to the Horizon Europe Programme Committee, also 
the Council Working Group on Adaptation is regularly informed about the Mission, 
as well as the EIONET group (28) on climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation.  

A major milestone was the strong support to the Mission shown by European regions. 308 
regional  and  local  authorities  from  25  Member  States  have  signed  the  Mission 
Charter and represent roughly 40% of the EU population.   

All  these  groups  also  are  part  of  the  Mission’s  Community  of  Practice  that  has  been 
established in the beginning of 2023. The Community of Practice, animated and organised 
by the Mission Implementation Platform, serves as the major exchange platform for the 
signatories of the Mission, and in addition integrates other members such as the above-
mentioned Member States representatives.  

The  signatories  of  the  Mission,  the  Member  States  representatives,  as  well  as  the 
Committee of Regions are given a major role in the governance of the Mission. For this 
purpose, an annual Mission Forum is organised. It took place for the first time in June 
2022 in Brussels and will take place again in June 2023 in Blekinge under the Swedish 
Presidency.  

2.7.8 

Current estimation of the budget 

The total budget for the first three years in the Horizon Europe Adaptation Mission work 
programme is  about EUR 360 million.  In addition, there are also calls in other parts of 
Horizon Europe addressing explicitly the Mission, such as the Cluster 5 or Cluster 6 work 
programmes  as  well  as  the  Research  Infrastructures  Programme.  This  adds  another  92 
Million EUR in the period from 2021 to 2023.  

As  regards  access  to  other  sources  of  EU  funding,  work  is  progressing  in  relation  to  a 
number of funding programmes:  

  The LIFE Programme has a dedicated section for projects addressing adaptation. 
Applicants  use  this  for  example  to  propose  Strategic  Integrated  Projects 
implementing national or regional adaptation strategies. It is clearly mentioned that 
these LIFE projects will be considered part of the Mission on Adaptation to Climate 
Change  and  will  be  invited  to  join  the  Mission’s  Community  of  practice.  At 
information events on LIFE calls, applicants are informed about the Mission and 
the collaboration between the  Mission and  LIFE.  As a  result of the 2021 work 
programme, projects funded with 29 million EUR were added to the Mission. For 
the years 2022 to 2024, additional projects worth 138 million EUR are expected.  

  DG REGIO’s European Urban Initiative – Greening cities call (May 2023): The 
call text specifies that project proposals should not be elaborated in isolation. They 

(28)  https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/about/who-we-are/our-knowledge-network-eionet 

Page 29 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
should, for example, include sustainable urban development strategies of Cohesion 
Policy or Climate City Contracts prepared by the cities involved in or adhered to 
the EU Mission on Climate-Neutral  and Smart  Cities,  or activities  of the cities 
which  have  signed  or  endorsed  the  Mission  Charter  of  the  EU  Mission  on 
Adaptation to Climate Change (overall budget EUR 120 million). 

  Digital  Europe  Programme:  References  to  the  objectives  of  the  Adaptation 
Mission are included in relevant calls of the Work Programme (and in the same 
way, the Digital Europe Programme is referenced in the Adaptation Mission’s calls 
in Horizon Europe). For example: The Commission is currently evaluating a call 
for  an  action  supporting,  through  cascading  grants,  pilots  combining  data  in  the 
area of sustainable mobility, extreme weather events, energy and zero pollution. 
The  action  should  establish  links  to  the  Adaptation  and  the  Cities  Missions 
(EUR 18 million). In addition, the European Centre for Medium Range Weather 
Forecasting (ECMWF), the contractor in charge of establishing the digital twin on 
adaptation of Destination Earth, is in contact with the Adaptation Mission, to use 
signatory regions in the use cases developed under the Digital Twin.  

The  biggest  potential  for  funding  adaptation  can  be  found  in  Recovery  and  Resilience 
Funds and in Structural Funds. Both funds are or will be used by Member States to fund 
projects that are entirely or partly aiming at adapting to and preparing for future impacts 
of  climate  change.  The  underlying  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plans  or  operational 
programmes were drafted when the Mission did not yet exist or only started its activities.  

However, there is good reason to believe that at least some of these funds will be used in 
connection to initiatives developed under the Mission. For example, the recently adopted 
new  Spanish  Adaptation  Strategy  refers  to  the  Mission  and  thereby  invites  Spanish 
authorities to consider the Mission when using Structural Funds.  

Also,  the  Technical  Support  Instrument  of  DG  REFORM  is  inviting  for  Flagship 
Initiatives on adaptation. In these projects, the Member States authorities are made aware 
of the Mission on Adaptation and on the collaboration possibilities.  

Page 30 / 185 

 
 
 
3  CANCER:  IMPROVE  THE  LIVES  OF  MORE  THAN  3  MILLION  PEOPLE  BY  2030 

THROUGH BETTER PREVENTION, CURE AND QUALITY OF LIFE 

Page 31 / 185 

 
 
 
 
 
3.1  Mission goal and objectives 

The overall goal of the EU Cancer Mission is “to improve the lives of more than 3 million 
people by 2030, through prevention, cure and for those affected by cancer including their 
families,  to  live  longer  and  better,  by  accelerating  cancer  prevention  and  control 
programmes  and  creating  more  equitable  access  to  these  programmes”  (EC,  DG  RTD 
2021c). The goal is to be jointly achieved with the Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP) 
(EC,  DG  SANTE  2021a)  through  understanding  better  the  causes  of  cancer,  detecting 
earlier  and  preventing,  treating  more  effectively  and  ensuring  quality  of  life  (QoL)  for 
cancer patients, cancer survivors and their families (29).  The target of 3 million people was 
set on the advice of the Mission board based on the analysis of avoidable deaths by the 
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)(30)..  

The Mission addresses all types of cancers (including rare and poorly understood types) in 
men and women, cancers in children, teenagers/young adults and the elderly, cancers in 
socio-economically vulnerable people, living in either cities, rural or remote areas, across 
all Member States and associated countries. On the horizontal level, the Mission strongly 
advocates  for  equitable  access  along  the  cancer  control  pathways:  from  prevention  and 
early  diagnostics  to  treatment  and  survivor  support,  palliative  and  end-of-life  care.  It 
applies this principle systemically, across four specific objectives.  

Figure 8: The ‘House’ of the Cancer Mission 

Source : Mission Implementation Plan (EC, DG RTD 2021c) 

(29) The EBCP is a renewed EU commitment to cancer prevention, treatment and care. It “calls for ‘a whole-
of-government approach’ that focuses on the patient, maximises the potential of new technologies, aims 
to eradicate inequalities in access to cancer, and delivers improved health outcomes to patients” (EC, 
DG  RTD  2021c,  p.9).  It  includes  10  flagship  initiatives  and  32  actions  covering  such  areas  as 
employment,  education,  social  policy  and  equality,  marketing,  agriculture,  energy,  environment  and 
climate, transport, cohesion policy, and taxation.   

(30) The figure is based on Mission Board’s advice, see detailed explanation under Mission objective and in 

section 8 “Monitoring Framework” and Report of the Mission Board: 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b389aad3-fd56-11ea-b44f-01aa75ed71a1  and 
https://www.iarc.who.int  

Page 32 / 185 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Four specific objectives (SO) are defined, namely to:  

1.  Improve the understanding of cancer (understanding); 
2.  Prevent what is preventable through screening and early detection (prevention); 
3.  Optimise diagnostics and treatment (treatment); and  
4.  Support quality of life (QoL).  

‘Understanding’  covers  understanding  the  development  of  cancers,  everything  around 
prevention  and  screening,  development  of  diagnostic  devices,  tests,  treatment  and  care. 
‘Prevention’ focuses on exploring how to prevent 40% of cancers, which are known to be 
preventable (31). ‘Diagnostics’ and ‘treatment’ are grounded in the principle of equitable 
access,  creating  conditions  for  more  patients  accessing  needed  treatments  and  with 
minimal secondary effects. The ‘quality of life’ aims to make the lives of all affected by 
cancer  longer  and  better.  The  four  operational  objectives  are  transversal  to  the  SO  and 
outline  the  Mission’s  achievement  through  individual  activities  (building  blocks) 
supporting the delivery of the specific objectives. These are: 

1.  Foster 

innovation 

through  generation  of  knowledge  and  evidence  (R&I 

programme) 

2.  Promote innovation, test, validate, demonstrate and upscale solutions (Living labs) 
3.  Track progress and monitor inequities in access to knowledge, research and care 

(Monitoring, support & indicators) 

4.  Engage with the cancer community, citizens/patients and society at large (Health 

literacy, communication, citizen engagement)  

3.2  The Mission’s selection process 

One  of  the  key  pre-requisites  in  ensuring  a  Mission  reaches  its  objectives  (and  ensures 
societal ownership) is that a wide range of stakeholders and citizens are involved in the co-
design  of  Missions.  A  year-long  Mission  development  process  (from  the  time  the 
Mission board was set up  until  its  report was  published) offered opportunities for 
various leading experts and stakeholders to participate in the selection process. 

On the expert side, the Mission Board brought together expertise from different domains 
relevant to cancer as well as representation from organisations in different countries. In 
addition,  the  national  expertise  was  further  strengthened  through  the  Cancer  Mission 
assembly,  Members  States  representatives  and  Members  of  the  European  Parliament. 
Moreover, the commissioning of a foresight study running in parallel to the development 
process  made  sure  the  Mission  board  could  rely  on  independent  expert  support  and 
feedback throughout the whole process. Overall, most stakeholders (57%) participating in 
the external study survey stated that the Mission was selected in a transparent manner. 

With respect to the involvement of citizens, consultations with EU citizens have been 
and continue to be critical for the Mission development. Citizens play a prominent role 

(31)EC, DG RTD (2021c). 

Page 33 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
in prevention and early detection and to some extent in treatment and care. The Mission 
board together with the Mission secretariat held a series of citizens engagement activities, 
with a specific focus on cancer patients and survivors. Despite the logistical difficulties 
imposed on these activities by the COVID-19 pandemic, it was possible not only to bring 
the participants to focused discussions but also to engage them in a 2-week long dialogue 
via a secure online platform. The Mission secretariat and board members organised various 
focus group discussions between May 2020 and February 2021 bringing together citizens 
from 26 European countries. Discussions also took place in a number of national events in 
local languages, thus making it an even more inclusive process.  In addition, as  Mission 
‘ambassadors’ in their own country (plus 1-2 additional countries for some members) (EC, 
DG RTD 2023), board members met with the ministries of health and/or research/science, 
members  of  the  national  parliament,  clinical  and  research  stakeholders,  patient 
organisations.  

Nevertheless, it seems that these citizen engagement activities did not have a visible effect 
on the Mission formulation. In fact, the overall goal of the Missions and the four identified 
areas – understand, prevent, treat and support quality of life – were already defined prior 
to  these  citizens  engagement  activities.  The  feedback  obtained  from  citizens,  however, 
offered the Mission board the confirmation that the proposed Mission will be societally 
accepted  and  that  the  identified  areas  for  action  are  logical  and  important.  In  the 
current implementation  phase, involvement of stakeholders and citizens continues to be 
important. Most of the respondents (64%) in the external study’s online survey agreed that 
the  Mission  encourages  broad  engagement  and  active  participation  of  stakeholders  and 
citizens. 

In summary, the formulation of the Mission was based largely on the opinion of experts 
involved  in  the  process  as  well  as  political  considerations  linked  to  the  Mission  Area 
defined  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the  European  Council.  Although  citizens  and 
stakeholders beyond the high-level experts and stakeholders involved were only partially 
instrumental to the process, the Mission is inspirational to citizens and shows strong 
societal value.  

What  continues  to  be  a  challenge  in  the  current  implementation  stage  is  the  link 
between the Mission Cancer and the EBCP. In some places, the EBCP is called an EU 
strategy for beating cancer whereas the Mission is the R&I element of it. A call for a clearer 
synergy between the EBCP and the Mission was echoed by several stakeholders consulted 
in  the  context  of  the  external  study.  On  the  one  hand,  it  is  clear  that  the  EBCP  is  an 
overarching policy whilst the Mission could be viewed as its R&I ‘arm’. On the other hand, 
the fact that the Cancer Mission is ‘a Mission’ should by definition place it much higher 
in the hierarchy of the policies, thus making the EBCP a part of the Mission. This requires 
a detailed discussion as confusions currently exist among the stakeholders as which of the 
two should take priority in implementation nationally. In this respect, DG RTD and DG 
SANTE have a role to play in deciding how to strategically (and politically) position the 
two initiatives and how to communicate this to different stakeholders. To achieve this, the 
EC Knowledge Centre on Cancer in fulfilling its mandate to foster S&T alignment of EU-
related activities on cancer may help.  

Page 34 / 185 

 
 
3.3  Management arrangements and governance structure 

Horizontal governance across EU-level bodies 

At the European level several governance elements are present. A joint leadership of the 
Mission is assured via a co-management model within the EC, with a Mission manager 
coming  from  DG RTD  and  a deputy  Mission  manager  from DG SANTE.  A  Mission 
secretariat at DG RTD manages the daily Mission operations and ensures the interactions 
with  other  services,  Member  States  and  stakeholders.  The  work  is  done  in  close 
cooperation with the DG SANTE cancer team. 

The Mission board was set up as an advisory body to the Mission Cancer. As the Mission 
is an integral part of the EBCP, the Mission board’s advice is also being used to support 
the EBCP. The 1st Mission board worked from September 2019 until December 2021. The 
2nd Mission board started in September 2022 on a 3-year rotation. Both boards consist of 
15  people  with  the  chair,  vice-chair  and  one  board  member  in  charge  of  internal 
cooperation, continuing from the 1st to the 2nd board. They bring together cancer and public 
health  scientists,  and  innovators,  national  and  regional  healthcare  representatives  with 
experience in implementing specific measures. The 1st Mission board was tasked to define 
the  Mission  and  provide  ideas  for  the  implementation.  The  2nd  Mission  board  has 
implementation  as  their  main  objective,  building  coalitions  and  more  trust  nationally, 
regionally  and  locally.  This  is  done  through  the  Mission  board  members  being 
‘ambassadors’  of  the  Mission  to  their  country,  as  well  as  one  or  more  (not  always 
neighbouring) countries. By joining the board, these experts as well as the institutions they 
work for cannot participate in the Mission linked HE calls due to strict rules on conflict of 
interest. The board has created five working groups related to the Mission’s objectives. 

In addition, there are five more EU-level governance elements:  

  The temporary Special Committee on Beating Cancer (BECA) from June 2020 
until  December 2021 (when its mandate ended) was the main cancer thematic 
link to the European Parliament (EP). It was set up by the EP decision on 18 
June 2020 (EP, 2020) with 16 responsibilities ranging from looking at actions to 
strengthen the approach at every key stage of cancer, evaluating the best possible 
way  of  supporting  research  to  strengthen  prevention  diagnosis,  treatment  and 
innovation, to assessing the various framework conditions (e.g. pharmaceutical 
legislation,  development  of  common  standards,  implementation  of  the  Cross-
Border  Healthcare  Directive)  and  making  recommendations  necessary  with 
regard to  the Union policy  on  combatting cancer. (32) The EC  services and  the 
Mission  board  members  participated  in  hearings  and  committee  meetings.  In 
February  2022,  the  EP  adopted  its  final  report  for  a  comprehensive  and 
coordinated EU strategy to fight cancer focusing on prevention, equal access to 
cancer  care  across  borders,  and  a  European  approach  addressing  medicine 
shortages  (EP,  2022a).  These  were  prepared  over  15  months  through  several 
interactions  between  MEPs,  national  parliaments, 
public  hearings  and 

(32) For more detail on the description of responsibilities, see p.p. 56-57 of EP (2020).  

Page 35 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
international  organisations  and  experts.  The  MIP  mentions  that  interactions 
through  the  Committee  on  Industry,  Research  and  Energy  (ITRE)  and  the 
Committee  on  the  Environment,  Public  Health  and  Food  Safety  (ENVI)  took 
place. 

 

In February 2023 Members of the European Parliament agreed to set up a new 
Public Health subcommittee (SANT) under the umbrella of the Committee on the 
Environment,  Public  Health  and  Food  Safety  (ENVI).  This  subcommittee 
(comprising of 30 members) will deal with programmes and specific actions in 
the field of public health, pharmaceutical and cosmetic products, health aspects 
of bioterrorism, the European Medicines Agency, and the European Centre for 
Disease Prevention and Control. It is also expected to follow the work on cancer.   

Figure 5: Governance structure for the Cancer Mission 

Source: EFIS study based on Mission Implementation Plan (EC, DG RTD 2021c, p.35) 

Note: SGPP Cancer Joint Subgroup is now called a joint sub-group on cancer under the Public Health Expert Group 

Page 36 / 185 

 
 
 
  The Mission owners’ group is composed of key Commission services (33). The 
same group is called the EU Cancer Plan Implementation Group in the  EBCP. 
The group works closely with the EP, the Member States, stakeholders, and the 
Mission Cancer board to 1) help shape the orientation and content of the EBCP; 
2) create a governance structure for the implementation of both cancer initiatives 
within the Commission (joint inter-service group) and in the MS (joint sub-group 
on cancer) and stakeholders (Health Policy Platform (34)). 

  The Knowledge Centre on Cancer (KCC) assists the coordination of the EU’s 
scientific  and  technical  actions  on  cancer.  It  provides  scientific  and  technical 
information  for  prevention,  detection  and  treatment  policies,  manages  the  EU 
Cancer Information System (ECIS) which tracks and anticipates cancer trends, 
develops and provides guidelines and quality assurance schemes for screening, 
diagnosis and care, operates the European Cancer Inequalities Registry and acts 
as a ‘data broker” connecting with the European Health Data Space. Launched 
by the JRC in 2021, it is jointly governed by DG JRC, SANTE and  RTD. 

  The EC Group of Chief Scientific Advisors is brought on a needs basis to give 
scientific  advice  on  specific  topics.  For  example,  on  2  March  2022  the  group 
offered their advice on cancer screening (EC, DG RTD 2022), which was taken 
by the EC to update the 2003 Council Recommendation on cancer screening.  

  The EU agencies, both decentralised agencies ECHA, EFSA and EMA and the 
executive  agencies  HADEA,  CINEA,  REA  are  part  of  the  implementation 
process. 

On the horizontal coordination at the EU level, bringing together two DGs to steer the 
joint implementation of the Mission is a novel approach, a new way of working.  

With  regards  to  the  Mission  board,  the  composition  of  the  2nd  board  has  a  higher 
representation  from  EU13,  thus  possibly  also  indicating  the  Commission’s  attempt  to 
embed  the  Mission  more  in  the  Eastern  and  Central  Europe,  although  no  clear  public 
communication was given around the composition of the boards.  

Vertical coordination 

On the vertical coordination at the EU-national-regional levels, MS are deemed key to 
the delivery of the Mission’s activities and to the achievement of the planned results 
by 2030. There are strong synergies with the national cancer plans which many (but not 
all) MS have adapted or will adapt in alignment with the EBCP and/or the Cancer Mission. 
There is significant variation between MS when it comes to the organisation of national 
and regional research programmes, health systems, setting of national cancer priorities and 
availability of necessary resources. Hence, the Mission aims to support MS with strategic 

(33) SG, LS, BUDG, ENV, CNECT, JRC, MOVE, JUST, EAC, MARE, AGRI, REGIO, REFORM, AGRI, 
CLIMA, COMP, DEFIS, ECHO, ECFIN, ENER, DIGIT, ECFIN, EMPL, FISMA, HOME, GROW, 
INTPA, NEAR, TAXUD, TRADE. 

(34) https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/hpf/  

Page 37 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
tools  and  governance  to  work  closer  together,  generating  new  evidence,  allowing 
efficiency gains as well as leveraging considerable EU funding to support implementation. 
Aligning national and EU strategies is essential to build synergies, enhance collaboration 
and increase impact yet ensuring implementation at the national level.  

However, the issue of capacity has also been raised on the national level. According to the 
stakeholders interviewed in the context of the external study,  the Mission activities can 
sometimes be perceived as additional to what is currently being implemented. More so, the 
still visible negative impact (fatigue, etc.) of the COVID-19 pandemic on health-related 
personnel and the health care system in general, brings additional implementation issues. 
The situation could change favourably in the future through the Mission implementation 
mirror groups. Although not (yet) officially in the governance structure as presented in the 
implementation  plan,  these  groups  play  an  important  role  for  the  future  set  up  of  the 
Mission  implementation  nationally  and  regionally.  Austria,  Belgium,  Portugal  and 
Spain (35) have already set up such mirror groups (although with different structures).  

With regards to the national and regional levels, coordination of national R&I priorities 
and agendas is essential for the sustainability of the Mission goal and objectives and to see 
tangible impact and achievements on the ground in the medium- and long-term. Regions 
have established health innovation ecosystems that in many cases act as living labs (36), 
which  are  important  requirements  for  testing  and  deploying  new  solutions  through 
different  funding  schemes  and  partnerships.  Here,  the  existing  smart  specialisation 
platforms are to be noted as key for implementation i.e. to support regional prioritisation 
in  cancer  innovation  and  support  the  cross-sectoral  mobilisation  of  funds.  The  Horizon 
2020  projects  SAPHIRe (37)  and  Regions4PerMed (38)  have  investigated  at  the  regional 
level  how  to  translate  personalised  medicine  in  complex  health  system  settings  that 
involves  variables  such  as  policy,  regulation,  industry,  technologies,  and  patient 
associations. 

When it comes to citizen and stakeholder engagement level in the  Mission governance, 
citizens are clearly mentioned as the centre of attention for the Mission design and delivery 
(Arabadjiev, 2023). This will be further refined when the NCMH are in place in different 
countries and complement all the past and ongoing efforts.  

Overall,  in  assessing  the  Mission’s  governance,  the  survey  respondents  were  generally 
positive  (to  neutral)  about  the  suitability  of  the  governance  setup  for  steering  and 
implementing the Mission. Yet, there are certain barriers. Among the top-3 most reported 

(35) These countries were mentioned in several interviews, but not all together. 

(36) Living Labs are defined as user-centred, open innovation ecosystems based on a systematic user co-

creation approach integrating research and innovation processes in real life communities and settings. 
In practice, Living Labs place the citizen at the centre of innovation, and have thus shown the ability to 
better mould the opportunities offered by new ICT concepts and solutions to the specific needs and 
aspirations of local contexts, cultures, and creativity potentials.  

(37)  Securing the Adoption of Personalised Health in Regions (SAPHIRe) aims to structure the application 
of personalised health at regional level which will drive the transition towards sustainable healthcare 
and personalised health, https://www.saphire-eu.eu  

(38) https://www.regions4permed.eu  

Page 38 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
barriers  to  effective  Mission  governance,  the  survey  respondents  picked  ‘Challenges  in 
aligning resources across different governance levels (EU, national, regional, etc.)’, ‘Lack 
of clarity of the cooperation structures between the Mission governance bodies’, and ‘Lack 
of clarity of responsibilities among the Mission governance bodies. This was echoed by 
the interviewees who considered that the overall governance structure is too large, difficult 
to follow with so many players and often not understood in its fullness.  

Clear cooperation structures between the Mission governance bodies, involvement of non-
governmental  stakeholders  and  clear  and  well-functioning  communication  channels  are 
viewed as some of the factors enabling successful Mission management. 

3.4 

Progress to date 

The  progress  made  since  the  adoption  of  the  Mission  Areas  in  2019  includes  the 
formulation  of  the  specific  Mission  by  the  Mission  board,  the  development  of  an 
implementation plan (with the specific activities assigned to the individual objectives of 
the Mission, and targets), and the first steps for putting the implementation plan to action. 

When discussing implementation of the Mission Cancer it is important to keep in mind 
that  the  development  of  the  Mission  took  place  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The 
Mission  board  published  the  Mission  report  in  September  2020  in  the  middle  of  the 
lockdowns and heavy restrictions when the attention of all healthcare sectors and citizens 
was on one disease (and that was not cancer). The MIP was published in September 2021 
at the time when the healthcare systems (including the policymakers dealing with health 
questions) were struggling with the overwork, backlog of activities while at the same time 
continuing the race of vaccination.  

The  overall  conclusion  of  the  external  study,  based  on  the  reviewed  documentation, 
targeted interviews and the survey is that it may be too early to evaluate the results of the 
Mission  implementation.  In  particular,  it  is  difficult  to  say  what  the  Horizon  Europe 
projects  will  lead  to  in  terms  of  exploitable  outcomes.  There  are  also  questions  about 
pulling the results of the funded projects into a coherent story and who can perform this 
function.  

Nevertheless, most respondents to the survey (59%) agree or strongly agree that the 
Mission  is  progressing in  line with its  implementation  plan.  Yet,  some  interviewees 
commented that the first call for projects came a bit late (39), that the second call was too 
close  to  the  first  call  with  organisations  rushing  to  submit  the  proposals  without  fully 
appreciating the ambition of the  Mission. Moreover, they felt that some of the national 
players are not yet fully following the development of the Mission.  

Despite some of the implementation bottlenecks summarised above, there is a strong belief 
(47%) that the main objective of the Mission is achievable by 2030 and that the Mission 
is likely to create added value compared to existing initiatives or instruments (81%). 

(39) it is important to note that there was an overall delay launching the Horizon Europe Work Programme resulting in 
the Mission WP delays as well as the decision by the Project Group to have a one-year preparatory phase for the 
creation of the implementation plans for all five EU Missions. 

Page 39 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Survey respondents gave examples of the actions on the national level: the Czech National 
Cancer Control Plan 2030 (NOPL CR 2030) specifically mentions a number of Mission 
Cancer actions; in Austria a ‘Mission action group’ was set up, the Spanish Mission mirror 
group  links  the  Mission  with  national  research  funding  and  capacities  and  includes 
important  national  stakeholders,  in  another  country  (not  specified  by  the  online  survey 
respondent) the National Plan for Recovery and Resilience has a special measure dedicated 
to Missions under which a form of mirror group was created, called centres of competence. 

The external study pointed to the following key enabling factors to reach Mission’s goals:  
effective coordination between EU, national, regional and local levels, strong commitment 
and involvement of different stakeholders, the coherence between available funding and 
Mission objectives and commitment by different stakeholders with citizen involvement  

The table below summarises the key steps taken towards achievement of specific Mission 
objectives, the corresponding implementation steps undertaken as part of the Mission or in 
other interconnected EU initiatives and the challenges identified during the desk research, 
interviews as well as the survey. 

Table 4: Summary of progress towards Mission objectives 

Specific 
objectives / 
Operational 
objectives / 
Cross-cutting  

SO1. Improve the 
understanding of 
cancer 

SO2. Prevent 
what is 
preventable 
through screening 
and early 
detection 

Implementation steps taken 

Challenges ahead (identified in 
interviews, survey and desk 
research) 

  Ongoing work to build project 

  Make the blueprint from 

portfolio 

  Started project to establish the 
‘UNCAN.eu’ platform with a 
blueprint being currently 
developed 

UNCAN.eu into a full-fledged and 
functioning platform managed by 
MS, AC and stakeholders 

  Further budget needed to build on 

future actions 

  Acquired guided terms of reference 
for consultation of EC proposal for 
update of Council 
recommendations on cancer 
screening 

  Understanding and eliminating 
barriers for previous prevention 
steps (e.g. why screening 
programmes did not happen in all 
countries) 

  Bringing synergies with other 

Missions into a reality, e.g. better 
soil, cleaner cities and better 
climate can reduce some causes of 
cancer 

 

Involvement of primary care 
considered by some interviewees 
as a potential challenge in some 
countries 

  Not allow ‘oncopolitics’ to deliver 
an innovative and comprehensive 
approach to diagnostics and 
treatment 

  Ensure sustainability of CCC by 

bringing synergies of EU-national 
funding (i.e. some opinions exist 

Page 40 / 185 

SO3. Optimise 
diagnostics and 
treatment 

  Ongoing projects around the CCI 

(e.g. CRaNE) 

  The CCC network to be created by 
2025 to integrate care, research, 
training and awareness  

  Developed a clinical trials 

programme on treatment 

 
 
Specific 
objectives / 
Operational 
objectives / 
Cross-cutting  

SO4. Support 
quality of life 

Implementation steps taken 

Challenges ahead (identified in 
interviews, survey and desk 
research) 

  Launched development of the 

  Further budget needed to build on 

that once CCCs are established 
there will be an ongoing funding 
stream from the EC). 

blueprint for the European Cancer 
Patient Digital Centre (ECPDC) 

future actions 

 

Incorporate the needs of some 
patients’ groups which are 
currently not visible (i.e. 
terminally ill patients) 

  ECPDC (was supposed to have 

been done during 2021-2023) – no 
proposals submitted – how does it 
affect the other activities 

OO1. Foster 
Innovation (R&I 
programme) 

  Ongoing work to build project 

portfolios 

OO2. Living labs 

  Current examples are found in 

  No indication found on the 

Finland (40), France (41), Spain (42) 
and at a European level (43) 

development of additional ones or 
their funding sources 

OO3. Monitoring, 
support and 
indicators 

 

Initial Mission-specific targets and 
indicators developed per objective 
as described in the Mission 
implementation plan. 

  Ensuring consistency of Mission-
specific monitoring efforts and 
design with the overall Horizon 
Europe monitoring system.   

OO4. Health 
literacy, 
communication, 
citizen 
engagement  

Source: EFIS study 

  Focus groups 

  Ensuring systematic data collection 

  Main event and follow-up with 

young survivors (“Young Cancer 
Survivors workshops and 
Conference”, 6-7 February 2023) 

& feedback from citizen 
engagement campaigns 

(40) Living lab services Kuopio University Hospital (FI): https://www.psshp.fi/web/en/organisation/living-

lab 

(41) Living Labs at INCa (FR): https://gnius.esante.gouv.fr/en/players/player-profiles/living-lab-institut-

national-du-cancer 

(42) Living Lab at IrsiCaixa AIDS Research Institute (ES): https://www.scishops.eu/case-study-living-lab-

for-health-spain/ 

(43) European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL): https://enoll.org/ 

Page 41 / 185 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
3.5  Budget and funding leveraged 

To turn Mission objective into the reality and reach all the targets of the Mission Cancer, 
at the Mission design phase the Mission board called for “funding be made available as 
was planned before the COVID-19 pandemic” (EC, DG RTD 2020).  

The  Mission  implementation  plan  outlines  that  resources  need  to  come  from  multiple 
sources for the different stages of the Mission. These are to be used for the “development 
and deployment of solutions for end-users, from basic, translation and clinical research 
through the uptake by health systems, to broad deployment at national and local level” 
(EC,  DG  RTD  2021c).  The  Horizon  Europe  Mission-dedicated  budget  should,  thus,  be 
viewed as “seed” investment “aimed at catalysing, unlocking and coordinating additional 
financing from other sources”. 

The table below lists the EU and national level funding sources for the Mission along with 
the corresponding earmarked budgets as outlined in a) the Mission implementation plan, 
b) the EC’s funding and grants webpage and c) from materials provided by the Mission 
secretariat.  

Table 5: Portfolio of instruments mapped by the assessment 

Policy Instrument 

Status 

Budget 
(in 
millions 
EUR) 

1. Horizon Europe – c.€365 million* (2021-2024) from Mission-related WP + €178 million from other 
WPs 

  Work programme 2021  

  Work programme 2021 – Research infrastructures (had two 
topics supporting EU Cancer Mission resulting in two funded 
projects: 

€126 m 

Projects launched 

€23 m 

Projects launched  

 
canSERV 
  EOSC4Cancer 

  Work  programme  2021  Cluster  1  Health  (HORIZON-
HLTH-2021-DISEASE-04-1 on care of cancer patients and 
HORIZON-HLTH-2021-CARE-05-02 
data-driven 
decision-tools) 

on 

  Work programme 2022  

  Work Programme 2023 

€90 m 

Projects launched 

€130 m 

Projects launched 

€110.68 
m 

Calls open 

  Work Programme 2023 – EIC Accelerator WP 2023 includes 

€65 m 

Calls open 

a call on novel biomarker-based assays 

2. EU4Health - €1.25 billion (2021-2027) 

EU4Health (WP 2021 + 2022): 12 action grants, 3 tenders 
on e.g., safety of radiation technology, prevention diagnosis 
and treatment, cancer survivors. 

  EHDS2  Pilot  –  Pilot  for  a  European  Health  Data 

Space on secondary use of health data 

€149 m 

€54 m  

Confirmed 

  CraNE  Joint  Action 

linking 
recognised  National  Comprehensive  Cancer 

(EU  Network 

Page 42 / 185 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Instrument 

Centres (CCCs)) (started on 1 November 2022)  
  Project  grant  BEACON,  ‘EU  Cancer  Treatment 
Capacity  and  Capability  Mapping’  project  – 
Network of Comprehensive Cancer Centres (started 
in late 2022)  

Status 

Budget 
(in 
millions 
EUR) 

€3 m 

€1 m 

EU4Health (WP 2023): new Joint Action to support MS 
to create CCIs/CCCs 

€94 m 

Calls launched 

  New  networks  of  expertise  on  cancer  and  cancer 

40.5 m 

conditions 

  Action grant on Mental health challenges for cancer 

patients and survivors 

  Service  level  agreement:  development  of  EU 
guidelines and quality assurance scheme  for lung, 
prostrate and gastric cancer screening 

  Service:  Evaluation  study:  Use  of  sunbeds  and 

cancer risk 

  Service:  Study  on  the  quality  of  life  of  cancer 

survivors 

EU4Health  (WP  2024):  co-developing  a  study  on  the 
provision  of  care  for  Adolescent  and  Young  Adult  (AYA) 
cancer patients in the EU with DG SANTE 

3. Digital Europe – up to €250 million (2021-2027) 

Digital  Europe  (WP  2021-2022):  e.g.,  deployment  of  a 
federated infrastructure for cancer images data 

Digital Europe (WP 2023): Topics with potential relevance 
for cancer 

8 m 

7.5 m 

1 m 

1.5 m 

10 m 

18 m 

N/A 

Planned 

Project launched 

Planned 

1.  Erasmus+ programme, Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions & European  

Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) – up to €500 million 

5. National / regional sources 

Horizon Europe Partnership for personalised medicine 

Horizon Europe Transforming Health Systems Partnership 

Several  Joint  Actions  under  EU4Health  program:  e.g., 
Comprehensive  Cancer  Infrastructure,  60%  co-funded  by 
Member States 

Recovery and Resilience Facility 

50 m 

50 m 

240 m 

450 m 

Planned 

Planned 

Confirmed 

6. Funding sources involved private sector contributions 

Innovative  Health 
(IHI),  a  public-private 
partnership with co-financing from industry (2 out of 4 calls 
in the area of cancer) 

Initiative 

135 m  

Published 

20 m 

Page 43 / 185 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy Instrument 

Status 

Budget 
(in 
millions 
EUR) 

IHI 2023 call 3 – biomarkers for prediction & prevention of 
disease – potential relevance for cancer 

Source : EFIS study based on available documentation  

Note: * MIP mentioned EUR 378 million. 

Horizon Europe supports the Mission directly with a budget of EUR 365 million (EC, DG 
RTD 2023c) (44) in 2021-2023 (i.e. 10% of the budget for the health cluster under pillar 2 
of  Horizon  Europe).  For  the  initial  period  2021-2023  €300  million  were  secured  in 
additional  funding  to  support  Cancer  Mission  objectives. (45) A  number  of  projects  was 
launched by  end 2022. The most notable beneficiaries of the calls are from  Israel, then 
followed by Germany, Greece, Spain, France and Belgium. 

Figure 6: Horizon Europe Mission Cancer project funding per country 

Source: Horizon Europe Dashboard. Data extracted 21 March 2023. Analysis and visualisation: authors 

In total over the 2021-2027 period, the Mission funding pool incorporates a further €1.25 
billion coming from the EU4Health programme to fund many of the initiatives detailed in 
the EBCP, including major actions proposed by the Cancer Mission such as the European 

(44) The amount €365 million is slightly below €378 million mentioned in the Implementation Plan.  

(45) Information provided by the Cancer Mission Secretariat. 

Page 44 / 185 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Cancer  Patient  Digital  Centre  and  the  development  and  roll-out  of  the  network  of 
Comprehensive Cancer Infrastructures.  

Regarding the support of different  Mission implementation stages two main differences 
are to be made depending on the type of investment: 

  For  the  research  component  (including  the  facilitation  and  coordination  of 
research activities) in addition to Horizon Europe funding, the Horizon Europe 
partnerships will be the main source. Contributions are also expected from other 
Horizon  Europe  parts  (i.e.,  ERC  and  EIC),  philanthropic  and  charitable 
organisations as well as industry.  

  For physical and/or digital infrastructure investments, funding is due to come 
from  the  EU4Health  programme  2021-2027,  the  Digital  Europe  programme 
2021-2027,  Cohesion  Policy  Funds,  and  (to  some  extent)  from  the  JRC’s 
Knowledge Centre on Cancer and the InvestEU programme. The Digital Europe 
Programme pledged up to €250 million for 2021-2027 for cancer related actions.  

  For Mission Area-related activities in education, training, as well as research 
in the field of cancer and the promotion of healthy lifestyles EUR 500 million 
are  expected  from  the  Erasmus+  programme  (e.g.,  the  sport  chapter),  Marie 
Sklodowska-Curie actions and EIT.  

  For 

institutional,  administrative,  and  growth-enhancing  reforms, 
the 
Technical  Support  Instrument  (TSI)  provides  tailor-made  needed  technical 
expertise to EU Member States to design  and implement reforms. At least one 
TSI project supported EU Cancer Mission and EBCP: ‘Improving Cancer Care 
Coordination  and  Screening  in  Latvia  and  Slovakia  (ICCCS)’  project  was 
launched in March 2022. (46)  

  Loans from EIB can strengthen the MS investments from the Cohesion Funds as 
well  as  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  and  cover  infrastructure 
investments, medical R&D, cancer control programmes, education. 

Stakeholder  discussions  held  in  the  context  of  the  external  study  highlight  the  need  to 
maximise funding and ensure synergies. The survey responses showed that  67% of the 
respondents are of the opinion that European level funding sources are sufficient or 
even more than sufficient to realise the Mission. On the contrary, 51% consider that 
national resources are insufficient (for the implementation of the Mission ambition). The 
study analysis suggested that MS need to be incentivised to commit with their own funding 
for  the  Mission  implementation.  Regional  and  local  resources  also  appear  mostly 
insufficient but remain key for the Mission’s success on the ground.  

The following table presents the external study analysis on the brokered agreements of the 
Mission. 

Table 6: Agreements brokered as part of established synergies established 

(46) https://www.amcham.lv/en/communications/news/4518 

Page 45 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Synergistic agreements brokered 

Agreement 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Stakeholder  Group  on  Health  Policy 
Platform (HPP) – regular webinars on 
cancer 
to  engage  with 
stakeholders 

initiatives 

Synergy with Cities Mission  

Synergy with Soils Mission 

Common topic with Cluster 6 

Photonics21 Partnership 

6.  Working  groups  on  Comprehensive 
and 
Cancer 
Inequalities Registry under the Public 
Health Expert subgroup on cancer 

Infrastructures 

7.  Austrian, 

Belgian, 
German, 

Spanish, 
Portuguese, 
Swedish, 
Romanian  and  Lithuanian  Mirror 
groups 

Budget/commitment 
(in millions of €) 

Status  

N/A 

Set up 

30  

30  

30  

36.98  

Under discussion 

Topic on prevention published 

Under discussion 

Work programme (2023-2024) 
published with Photonics 
partnership cited 

N/A 

Under discussion 

N/A 

Set up 

8.   Bilateral  cooperation  with  US  on 

N/A 

Launched 

cancer research 

Overall, the external study suggests that the amount of funding for the Cancer Mission 
is deemed to be appropriate, at least in its first phase 2021-2023. It allowed a broad 
range  of  actions  across  different  strategic  objectives  of  the  Missions,  a  set  of  the 
governance, and bringing the importance of the Mission into the national level. However, 
the Mission will only succeed if sufficient funding is secured over the next years (2024-
2027),  if  it  continues  to  bring  different  funding  sources  together  on  the  EU  level  and 
mobilise needed funding on the national level. 

3.6  Key conclusions from the external assessment 

The EU Cancer Mission was designed ‘to improve the lives of more than 3 million people 
by 2030, through prevention, cure and for those affected by cancer including their families, 
to live longer and better, by accelerating cancer prevention and control programmes and 
creating  more  equitable  access  to  these  programmes’.  The  Mission  is  perceived  to  be 
ambitious, inspirational, yet realistic. It addresses a critical societal challenge and has 
all the preconditions to make a difference to patients, their carers, families, and citizens at 
large. Strong linkages and the joint management model of the Mission together with EBCP 
are  welcomed  and  having  the  same  key  activities  in  both  the  EBCP  and  the  Mission 
delivers a message of synergies and coherence. There are questions, however, if the two 
should become one taking the unified messages and actions even further.  

Page 46 / 185 

 
 
 
 
 
 
It is promising that the design of the Mission covers more than just R&I. Research is 
undoubtedly needed to better understand the disease itself or the behaviour of individuals 
when it comes to prevention, and innovation can bring solutions for treatment, diagnostics 
as well as quality of life. In parallel, work with the stakeholders spans beyond R&I bringing 
education,  sports,  community  involvement  into  the  picture.  Various  stakeholders 
understand  and  support  the  Mission.  What  perhaps  is  new  for  them  is  that  the  Mission 
concept implies a new way of working, i.e., putting stakeholders which have never worked 
before together, bringing even more multidisciplinarity into R&I, developing actions and 
activities from the ultimate impact in mind.  

The Mission’s goal is viewed as realistic, measurable and time bound. Although the goal 
is  measurable  overall,  it  is  not  yet  clear  how  the  current  (or  future)  portfolio  of 
activities contributes directly to the fulfilment of the overall goal (47).  

The Mission encourages broad engagement and active participation of stakeholders and 
citizens.  Their involvement is  still critical  for the  Mission development  as  the Mission 
needs  to  be  embraced  by  all  stakeholders  to  generate  an  even  greater  bottom-up 
movement.  Communication  here  is  key  and  needs  to  be  adjusted  to  different 
stakeholders, as further explained in the recommendations part of this report. 

The setup of the Mission’s governance brings together a relevant and balanced mix of 
stakeholders at the EU level and national level, in advisory functions and stakeholder 
groups to steer and implement the Mission, breaking organisational silos and bringing 
organisations together which have never worked before. A Mission approach requires 
this multi-governance model; but it also puts this same model to the test. Bringing multiple 
stakeholders in new constellations, be effective in decision-making processes to deliver on 
the  ambitious  goal  adds  complexity  to  the  process,  requires  time,  flexibility,  and 
experimentation in how the governance is set up. The cooperation between DG RTD and 
DG SANTE via the joint Mission secretariat is viewed as a success. Yet, the structure looks 
stretched in terms of the capacity of resources and time and calls for clearer links.  

As  far  as  the  governance  structure  is  concerned,  it  does  at  times  come  across  as 
difficult  to  understand,  and  stakeholder  feedback  mechanisms  should  be  clarified. 
This complexity partially explains why national structures to support the Mission are not 
in place in many countries. Nevertheless, several MS have been inspired to create “mirror 
groups”, replicating the same integrated approach to health and research established at the 
EU  level.  The  HE-funded  project  ECHoS  drives  forward  the  ambition  of  setting  up 
National  Cancer  Mission  Hubs  which  will  further  support  this  integration  process  to 
support  cross-policy  dialogues  with  national  stakeholders  on  cancer  prevention  and 
control.  Political  leadership  and  buy-in  within  EU  MS  are  equally  important  for  these 
national structures to embed themselves and deliver.  

With regards to the financial resources underpinning the Mission, one should emphasise 
that  Horizon  Europe  funding  is  only  the  ‘seed’  funding  to  support  the  Mission’s 

(47)  Hence, questions remain as to how one will be able to measure e.g., how many of the 3 million people 
will be improved through prevention or through treatment? How many of these lives will be impacted 
by an individual project funded through the Mission? 

Page 47 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
implementation in 2021-2024 and that financing from other sources should be unlocked. 
For the research component in addition to Horizon Europe funding, the Horizon Europe 
partnerships will be the main source and contributions are also expected from the ERC and 
EIC, philanthropic and charitable organisations as well as industry (although private sector 
investment is not yet too visible). For physical and/or digital infrastructure investments, 
funding is due to come from the EU4Health programme, the Digital Europe programme, 
Cohesion Policy Funds. The Erasmus+ programme), Marie Sklodowska-Curie actions and 
EIT will support activities education, training, as well as research in the field of cancer and 
the promotion of healthy lifestyles; and the Technical Support Instrument could be used 
for  institutional,  administrative,  and  growth-enhancing  reforms.  For  national  funding 
programmes  it  is  not  at  all  clear,  whether  the  Cancer  Mission  helped  catalyse  public 
funding  at  national  and/or  regional  levels.  Some  activities  have  been  observed  in 
connection  to  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility,  but  further  efforts  are  needed  to 
maximise funding and bring synergies. 

3.7 

Self-assessment of the Mission Cancer  

Cancer is a major and growing societal challenge: each year, 2.7 million people in the 
EU-27 are diagnosed with cancer, while 1.3 million die from the disease. This number 
will increase rapidly due to ageing populations, unhealthy lifestyles,  unfavorable health 
determinants,  and  environmental  and  working  conditions.  The  Commission  President 
Ursula  von  der  Leyen  announced  a  “European  Plan  to  fight  cancer  to  support  Member 
States in improving cancer control and care”, as a key component of her political guidelines 
2019-2024.  

3.7.1 

An ambitious yet realistic Mission goal  

The  Cancer  Mission  has  set  the  ambitious  overall  goal,  to  be  jointly  achieved  with  the 
Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, of improving the lives of more than 3 million people by 
2030, through prevention, cure and for those affected by cancer including their families, to 
live longer and better (48). The goal can realistically be achieved by accelerating cancer 
prevention and control programmes and by creating more equitable access to these 
programmes.  

Four  specific  objectives  are  the  basis  for  the  successful  accomplishment  of  the  Cancer 
Mission: 1) understanding, 2) prevention, including screening and early detection, 3) 
diagnosis and treatment, and 4) quality of life. Together, these objectives also address 
the  Mission’s  transversal  priorities  of  equity,  innovation,  childhood  cancer  and 
personalised medicine. The actions foreseen address the whole cancer control ‘continuum’, 
i.e. from prevention, early diagnosis and treatment, to survivor support, palliative and end-
of-life care, for all ages and all cancers, including rare and poorly-understood cancers. 

(48) This goal  was based on an  analysis of avoidable deaths  by the International  Agency  for Research on 

Cancer (IARC). 

Page 48 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
The COVID-19 pandemic created a backlog on cancer diagnostics and treatment, requiring 
all  countries  to  commit  extra  efforts  to  resume  diagnostics  and  treatment  as  well  as  to 
manage the backlog. Furthermore, for some countries, achieving this level of reduction in 
mortality  requires  considerable  investments  into  new  infrastructures,  with  the  Mission 
helping to mobilise EU funds in this regard. Other countries can improve cancer control 
through  the  rapid  implementation  of  new  knowledge  and  evidence  into  their  health 
systems. 

A series of actions are being channelled towards citizens’ mobilisation, engagement and 
literacy  in  favour  of  the  Mission.  Examples  include  the  Plastic  Pirates  campaign,  the 
EU4Ocean  Coalition,  student  and  school  initiatives  through  the  Blue  School  Network, 
campaigns to support sustainable consumption such as “Choose your fish”, community-
driven business models and citizen science initiatives. 

3.7.2 

The Mission’s added value 

The Cancer Mission is breaking silos and is fostering cross-sectoral solutions to cancer 
control  both  at  EU  and  national  level.  Through  the  Mission,  a  new  dialogue  with  and 
between  Member  States  on  cancer  has  been  established,  bringing  health  and  research 
ministries to work together for the first time in the joint sub-group on cancer under the 
Public  Health  Expert  Group (49),  thus  ensuring  that  research  evidence  informs  policy 
development and knowledge gaps are identified. This new approach is bearing fruits. For 
example,  the  early  involvement  of  this  subgroup  was  instrumental  in  shaping  the  new 
Council recommendation on cancer screening (50), which was revised 20 years after its 
adoption  to  reflect  the  latest  scientific  developments,  with  substantial  input  from  the 
Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism. In December 2022, the Council approved a 
text that will extend screening to prostate, lung, and gastric cancer, in addition to breast, 
colorectal and cervical cancer, ultimately aiming to save millions of lives across the EU.  

Inspired by the Cancer Mission, several Member States have created “mirror groups” at 
the  national  level,  replicating  the  same  integrated  approach  to  health  and  research 
established at EU level. Thanks to this new approach, R&I priorities and investments start 
to  be  more  prominent  in  national  plans  for  cancer  control.(51)  For  example,  under  the 
Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility,  the  Czech  Republic  plans  to  strengthen  oncological 
prevention and care through acquisition of technologies for comprehensive cancer centres 
(estimated €350M). The future “National Cancer Mission Hubs” will further support this 
integration process at national and regional levels. 

The Cancer Mission is maximizing citizens’ engagement to shape future policy actions and 
priorities,  for  example  through  a  new  dialogue  with  young  cancer  survivors,  to  help 
address their specific needs. 

(49) Joint expert group consisting of delegates from health and research ministries; see also: Expert Group on 

Public Health (europa.eu) 

(50) Council updates its recommendation to screen for cancer - Consilium (europa.eu) 

(51)  For  example,  same  Member  States  use  investments  under  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  to 
strengthen oncological prevention and care. 

Page 49 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
The Mission is mobilising resources in EU programmes, by creating a portfolio of R&I 
actions and exploiting existing R&I project results. Between 2021 and 2023, a total of 
more  than  €1  billion  has  been  made  available  through  Horizon  Europe  and  other  EU 
programmes.  

3.7.3 

The Mission’s R&I content 

Between 2021 and 2023, the Cancer Mission has made available EUR 365 million through 
its Work Programmes, to support R&I projects and the development of digital flagships, 
in line with its Implementation Plan  (52). Each Work Programme aims to underpin the 
four Mission objectives.  The HE calls continue to work on developing new R&I activities 
and  solutions  while  fostering  synergies  a  with  Horizon  Europe  Partnerships,  other  EU 
Missions,  and  the  EU4Health  Programme,  with  a  view  to  foster  the  integration  of  new 
evidence into concrete solutions. 

The full roll-out of the flagship initiatives will require support of other EU programmes. 
Therefore, considerable effort is going into building synergies, between Horizon Europe 
programmes  (e.g.,  other  Missions,  Health  Cluster,  research  infrastructures,  partnerships 
tackling health, technology, and digital priorities, the EIC and EIT-Health) and other EU 
programmes such as EU4Health, Digital Europe, Euratom.  

Similarly, the Cancer Mission is contributing to enabling other EU initiatives to enhance 
research  capabilities.  For  example,  the  UNCAN.eu  platform  and  the  European  Cancer 
Patients  Digital  Centre  aim  to  translate  the  future  European  Health  Data  Space (53)  into 
tangible changes and benefits for researchers and citizens. 

To increase synergies among Mission portfolios, three Mission project clusters have been 
created under each Mission objective. 

3.7.4 

Ensuring implementation is feasible, measurable, and time-bound  

The Cancer Mission Implementation Plan (54) provides a clear operational and feasible 
course of action across the four objectives. It specifies the main actions to be undertaken 
over the lifetime of the Mission, with an emphasis on the first three years (2021-2023), 
which are being complemented with new actions following an iterative consultation and 
review process. The following actions have started to implement the four objectives: 

(52) 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/research_and_innovation/funding/documents/cancer_implement
ation_plan_for_publication_final_v2.pdf  

(53) European Health Data Space (europa.eu) 

(54) Implementation Plans for the EU Missions (europa.eu) 

Page 50 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
1)  For  the  “understanding  of  cancer”,  a  project (55)  has  started  in  September  2022  to 
establish  the  ‘UNCAN.eu’  platform,  with  a  duration  of  15  months.  This  unique  digital 
platform will enable researchers to access to high quality and diverse research data (from 
environment  to  genomics  to  imagining  to  clinical  data)  whereby  the  understanding  of 
cancer will be enhanced. Five projects have recently started to enhance the understanding 
of cancer and will be contributing data to this platform once set up (56). 

2) With “Prevention” being the most cost-efficient long-term cancer control strategy, the 
Mission aims to enhance the understanding of effective prevention measures and improve 
existing prevention programmes. Six projects have started in January 2023 to improve and 
upscale primary prevention of cancer (57). Six other projects will soon start to develop new 
methods and technologies for screening and early detection(58). 

3)  Under  the  objective  “diagnosis  and  treatment”,  actions  aim  to  shorten  the  time  to 
diagnosis, develop  new  diagnostic tests, and to  improve the implementation  of existing 
treatment  guidelines  and  standards  of  care  across  Europe.  Twelve  projects  involving 
pragmatic clinical trials on a range of difficult-to-treat cancers will start soon. 

4) Under the objective “quality of life”- the project EUonQoL (59) has started to conduct 
systematic surveys issues as well as to collect new and update existing quality of life data 
and registries information. Results from these surveys will help to better understand the 
unmet needs of cancer patients. 

A study has been launched to develop a concept for the (virtual) European Cancer Patient 
Digital Centre (60). This platform will enable cancer patients and survivors to access their 
own  clinical  data,  to  deposit  clinical  and  patient  reported  health  data  in  a  standardised 
manner and share their data with healthcare professionals and researchers in a secure way. 
It  will  also  allow  them  to  access  information  on  e.g.,  treatments,  care  options,  and 
psychological support. 

3.7.5 

Securing buy-in 

Tackling  cancer  is  one  of  President  von  der  Leyen’s  main  priorities,  included  in  her 
Political Guidelines with the promise to “put forward a European plan to tackle cancer, to 
support Member States in improving cancer control and care”. As a result, in February 

(55) A Coordination and Support Action to prepare UNCAN.eu platform | 4.UNCAN.eu Project | Fact Sheet | HORIZON 

| CORDIS | European Commission (europa.eu) 

(56) The five projects are GENIAL, MELCAYA, DISCERN, ELMUMY and LUCIA, from call MISS-2021-

CANCER-02-03. 

(57) Mission Work Programme topic HORIZON-MISS-2022-CANCER-01-01.  

(58) Mission Work Programme topic HORIZON-MISS-2021-CANCER-02-01. 

(59) Quality of Life in Oncology 

(60) https://etendering.ted.europa.eu/cft/cft-display.html?cftId=11984  

Page 51 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
2021, the Commission adopted the Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan (61). The research and 
innovation  dimension  has  become  central  to  the  Cancer  Plan,  with  a  focus  on  new 
technologies  and  on  how  the  better  understanding  of  cancer  initiation,  prevention  and 
diagnosis, and follow-up care can improve health outcomes for individual patients. 

The Cancer Mission and the Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan were co-developed from start, 
their objectives  aligned,  and a joint  governance put  in  place,  ensuring full  integration 
and complementarity. The Cancer Plan outlines actions across the same objectives as the 
Mission,  including  the  UNCAN.eu),  European  Cancer  Patient  Digital  Centre,  and 
Comprehensive Cancer Infrastructures. 

The European Parliament adopted its resolution of 16 February 2022 on “Strengthening 
Europe  in  the  fight  against  cancer  –  towards  a  comprehensive  and  coordinated 
strategy” (62). This covers actions in the area cancer prevention, screening, and treatment, 
calls  for  funding  on  cancer  research  and  for  lessening  the  inequalities  in  cancer  care 
between Member States. 

In  parallel,  the  Council  endorsed  this  priority  by  including  cancer  in  its  18-month 
programme prepared by the French, Czech and Swedish Presidencies for the period from 
1 January 2022 to 30 June 2023. As a result, the Mission is now systematically part of 
high-level discussions on health, organised by the Council Presidencies 2022-2023 (FR, 
CZ and SE). Member States are also being engaged via regular country visits; ten have 
taken place to date (63) as well as through a series of national cancer events.  

Several other EU initiatives support the implementation of the Mission. For example, the 
EC  proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  ‘European  Health  Data  Space’  will  provide  a  legal 
framework  for  the  use  of  health  data  for  research,  public  health,  and  policymaking.  As 
another  example,  the  first  building  block  of  the  Commission’s  data  strategy,  the  ‘Data 
Governance Act’, creates a coherent legal framework for making more protected data held 
by public sector bodies available for access, use and reuse.  This will support the creation 
of the UNCAN.eu platform and the European Cancer Patient Digital Centre.  

The European Medicines Agency, in collaboration with the European Organisation for 
Research  and  Treatment  of  Cancer,  established  the  ‘Cancer  Medicines  Forum’  with 
academia to support the Cancer  Mission. By advancing research into optimising cancer 
treatments, the Forum contributes to foster high standards in cancer care in the EU. 

(61) Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan 

(62) Report on strengthening Europe in the fight against cancer – towards a comprehensive and coordinated 

strategy,  A9-0001/2022,  European Parliament  

(63) Country visits: Spain (5 April 2022); Austria (26 April 2022); Croatia (31 May 2022); Lithuania (14 June 
2022); Greece (11 July 2022); Moldova (14 September 2022); Germany (27 September 2022); Portugal 
(16 November 2022); Estonia (24 November 2022), Cyprus (May 2023). 

Page 52 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
As  part  of  its  activities,  the  European  Partnership  on  Metrology (64)  will  deliver 
metrology  solutions  for  industry  and  supports  the  development  of  regulations  and 
standards, which will contribute to optimising cancer treatment in clinical practice. The 
Photonics21  Partnership (65)  will  address  instant  diagnosis  of  major  diseases  (highly 
targeted,  minimally  invasive,  and  increasingly  effective  treatment)  and  new  sensors  for 
faster analysis of cancer cells in the blood. 

The  new  Knowledge  Centre  on  Cancer (66)  helps  implement  the  Mission  through 
fostering scientific alignment, coordination and support to EU cancer-related policies and 
activities, acting as evidence-clearing house for policymaking on cancer prevention, early 
detection,  treatment,  and  survivorship.  In  addition,  it  manages  the  European  Cancer 
Information System (67), and the European Cancer Inequalities Registry (68), supporting the 
Mission’s  specific  monitoring,  and  will  run  the  future  European  Cancer  Prevention 
Centre. 

3.7.6 

Citizens and stakeholder engagement 

The Cancer Mission is maximizing citizens’ engagement to shape future policy actions and 
priorities.  For  example,  under  the  Quality-of-Life  objective,  it  has  launched  a  new 
dialogue with young cancer survivors, to better understand their specific need and co-
create initiatives that will help address them. Beginning of 2023, about 70 young cancer 
patients and survivors from all over Europe as well as a few caregivers attended workshops 
organised by the Commission. Participants  shared  their personal  experiences, struggles, 
and  needs.  Among  the  issues  reported,  focus  was  on  mental  health  and  ensuring 
psychosocial support, both during and after treatment, when late effects such as fatigue, 
chronic pain, infertility, impact survivors’ lives. Transition from childhood to adult care, 
and  more  generally  follow-up  care,  together  with  continuity  in  education  and  access  to 
quality information were listed as areas where inequities and inequalities hit the most, both 
from the perspective of young cancer survivors and caregivers. 

Building  on  the  results  of  these  workshops,  a  conference  on  “Addressing  the  needs  of 
young  cancer  survivors”  took  place  on  7  February  2023  (69),  gathering  more  than  200 
participants, which brought the buy-in of the DGs CNECT, EAC, EMPL, JRC, SANTE 
and the WHO. A follow-up event with the same group of young survivors took place on 
26  May  2023  to  further  discuss  specific  needs  and  options  for  co-creation  of  future 
initiatives to be supported by the Mission, including the objectives of a new R&I topic.  

(64) Measurement research - European Partnership on metrology (Horizon Europe programme)  

(65) Photonics: Industrial innovation and cooperation | Shaping Europe’s digital future 

(66) Cancer 

(67) The European Cancer Information System (ECIS) - | Knowledge for policy  

(68) https://cancer-inequalities.jrc.ec.europa.eu/  

(69) Events | The research and innovation community platform (europa.eu) 

Page 53 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
In 2022, focus groups have been organised in six EU Member States (70) to understand the 
views,  perceptions,  and  experiences  of  common  citizens  on  aspects  related  to  cancer 
awareness,  prevention,  cancer  risk  factors,  early  detection,  and  screening.  The  main 
conclusions related to 1) improve availability and accessibility of information on cancer; 
2) address barriers on screening participation; 3) support access to prevention. 

As part of the joint governance with the Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, a dedicated Cancer 
Group was created on the EU Health Policy Platform (71), which provides a framework 
for  the  dialogue  among  health  stakeholders  and  with  the  Commission  on  EU  cancer 
initiatives. Several thematic webinars took place in 2021-2023. 

A series of conferences and events have been organised by European and national cancer 
organisations to raise awareness of the Cancer Mission and discuss its implementation. For 
example, Commissioner Gabriel intervened at the yearly Cancer Summit (72) organised by 
the European Cancer Organisation (ECO) in 2022.  

3.7.7 

Progress, achievements, and milestones 

Since September 2021, great progress has been made to implement the Cancer Mission, 
which is creating a portfolio of R&I actions and systematically exploiting existing R&I 
project results.  

Between 2021 and 2023, a total of EUR 365 million has been made available through the 
Horizon Europe Mission work programmes, to support a series of R&I projects. This 
includes  preparatory  work  for  the  development  of  the  digital  flagship  initiatives 
underpinning the four Mission objectives. As a result, about 50 projects have been and will 
be awarded funding (73). 

To build Mission portfolios, two project clusters, “Understanding” and “Prevention and 
early detection”, have been set up in 2022 to engage coordinators in building synergies 
among projects, and conducting joint activities. A third cluster “diagnosis and treatment” 
has been set up in January 2023. These activities will contribute to mobilising the cancer 
research  community  as  well  as  other  cancer  stakeholders  and  engaging  them  to  start 
implementing the  Mission’s objectives.  The intention is  to  organise annual  meetings  of 
clusters.  

The new Knowledge Centre on Cancer, which was co-developed with the help of the 
Cancer Mission Board, launched in June 2021, has now started to develop its ‘European 
Cancer Prevention Centre’ dimension. With the support of the Commission’s Scientific 

(70) Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Lithuania, and Malta. 

(71) EU Health Policy Platform - EU Health Policy Platform (europa.eu) 

(72) Summit (europeancancer.org) 

(73) 33 Projects from the Work Programme 2021-2022, and we expect to support 16-18 more projects from 

the Work Programme 2023. 

Page 54 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Advice  Mechanism,  it  will  become  a  clearing  house  for  evidence  on  cancer  prevention 
measures to  support Member States in  implementing effective prevention strategies, by 
collecting and reviewing data, including from research projects and best practices.  

At national level, several Member States have created “mirror groups”, which replicate the 
same  integrated  approach  to  health  and  research  established  at  EU  level.  To  further 
integrate of the Cancer Mission at national and regional levels, the ECHoS project (74) has 
started its work to help Member State create “National Cancer Mission Hubs”; the kick-
off event took in Lisbon on 3-4 May 2023. These hubs will foster cross-policy dialogues 
with national stakeholders on cancer prevention and control.  

The  Mission  is  building  strong  links  and  synergies  with  other  EU  programmes  and 
initiatives. Between 2021 and 2023, at least EUR 300 million has been invested by other 
programmes  to  support specific objectives of the Cancer  Mission. The  Horizon Europe 
Partnership Innovative Health Initiative included calls for cancer funding in 2021 and a 
further call in 2023. The Digital Europe Programme (75) supports the Federated European 
Infrastructure for Cancer Images Data (76), launched on 23 January 2023, and will be the 
cornerstone  of  the  Cancer  Imaging  Initiative;  a  new  topic  with  potential  relevance  for 
cancer  will  be  launched  under  the  Work  Programme  2023-2024.  A  Cancer  call  is  also 
included  in  the  EIC  Accelerator  Work  Programme  2023  on  novel  biomarker-based 
assays.  Collaboration  with  the  European  Investment  Bank  focusses  on  an  investment 
agenda to support the development of Comprehensive Cancer Infrastructures and cancer 
control services (e.g. screening, vaccination, training) in Member States. 

3.7.8 

Current estimation of the budget 

In  addition  to  the  Cancer  Mission  Work Programmes  2021-2023,  the  Horizon  Europe 
Work Programme 2021 ‘Infrastructures’ included two topics, resulting in two funded 
projects supporting the Cancer Mission by providing technical solutions for the roll-out of 
its  digital  flagship  initiatives:  EOSC4Cancer  and  canSERV  (budget:  EUR  23  million). 
Overall, Horizon Europe has supported R&I on cancer for a total of EUR 1 billion. 

The EU4Health Work Programmes 2021-2022 contain twelve action grants and three 
tenders (budget: EUR 226,93 million). This includes inter alia the following major actions: 
EHDS2 Pilot - Pilot for a European Health Data Space on secondary use of health data 
(budget: EUR 54 million); CraNE Joint Action - EU Network linking recognised National 
Comprehensive Cancer  Centres (budget:  EUR  3 million); project  grant  BEACON:  ‘EU 
Cancer Treatment Capacity and Capability Mapping’ project - Network of Comprehensive 
Cancer Centres (budget: EUR 1 million). 

The  EU4Health  Work  Programme  2023  provides  further  investments  (budget:  EUR 
187,3  million),  e.g.:  Joint  Action  to  create  CCIs/CCCs  (budget:  EUR  94  million);  new 

(74) CSA led by the Portuguese Agency for Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation (AICIB) includes 

58 partners from 28 EU countries.  

(75) The Digital Europe Programme | Shaping Europe’s digital future (europa.eu) 

(76) Digital Europe Programme call for proposals: Health data space — federated European infrastructure for 

cancer images data | Shaping Europe’s digital future (europa.eu) 

Page 55 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Networks of expertise on cancer and cancer conditions (budget: EUR 40.5 million); action 
grant  on  mental  health  challenges  for  cancer  patients  and  survivors  (budget:  EUR  8 
million); development of EU guidelines for lung, prostrate and gastric cancer screening 
(budget:  EUR  7.5  million);  study  on  use  of  sunbeds  and  cancer  risk  (budget:  EUR  1 
million); study on quality of life of cancer survivors (budget: EUR  1 million). 

The  Digital  Europe  Work  Programmes  2021-2023  includes  the  deployment  of  a 
federated infrastructure for cancer images data (budget: EUR 18 million) and several other 
topics with relevance for cancer data.  

Under  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility,  the  Czech  Republic  plans  to  strengthen 
oncological  prevention  and  care  through  acquisition  of  technologies  for  comprehensive 
cancer  centres  (EUR   350  million).  Croatia  intends  to  purchase  equipment  for  the 
prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer (EUR 85 million). Greece wants to establish 
a new radiotherapy centre (EUR 30 million). 

Page 56 / 185 

 
 
 
 
4  RESTORE OUR OCEAN AND WATERS BY 2030 

Page 57 / 185 

 
 
 
 
4.1  Mission goal and objectives 

The  aim  of  the  EU  Mission  ‘Restore  our  Ocean  and  Waters  by  2030’  is  to  provide  a 
systemic  approach  for  the  restoration  of  the  ocean,  seas  and  waters  by  2030.  The 
Mission implementation plan outlines three specific objectives: 

Protect and restore marine and freshwater ecosystems and biodiversity; 
Prevent and eliminate pollution of our ocean, seas and waters; and 

 
 
  Make the sustainable blue economy carbon-neutral and circular. 

Overall, nine quantitative targets across the three specific objectives were set (European 
Commission, 2021b). Two enabling aspects, digital ocean and water knowledge system 
and  public  mobilisation  and  engagement,  are  underlined  as  closely  interrelated  and 
mutually supportive lines of action. The Mission is building on the existing structures and 
capacities  of  a  fit-for-purpose  marine  observation,  monitoring  and  forecasting  system 
(including climate predictions). The goal is to develop an interactive replica of the ocean 
– the Digital Twin Ocean (DTO) – as a digital space with vast amounts of data, models, 
artificial intelligence, and other tools that will enable digital modelling of the properties 
and  behaviours  of  marine  systems  for  more  informed  decision  making  (European 
Commission,  2022d).  New  deliberative  decision-making  and  engagement  mechanisms 
support  citizen  co-design  of  sustainable  management  of  aquatic  resources  and  co-
implement  transformative  solutions  supporting  the  restoration  of  EU  waters  (European 
Commission, 2021b). 

Figure 7: Mission’s objectives and targets 

Source: EFIS study on the basis of the Mission implementation plan (MIP) 

4.2  The Mission’s selection process 

The selection of the Mission in the area healthy ocean, seas, coastal and inland waters was 
motivated by the recognition that restoring the health of our hydrosphere requires a large-
scale systemic change, which, given the environmental tipping points, is urgent and there 

 
 
 
 
  
is  a  risk  of  irreversible  consequences  if  no  action  is  taken  (2020a).  The  scale  of  the 
challenge requires an effective mobilisation of society, economy and knowledge for impact 
in new and innovative ways. This entails a new modus operandi that allows to mobilise 
actions in a bottom-up manner while ensuring alignment and direction through top-down 
guidance.  

Through the online survey launched in the context of the external study underpinning the 
assessment of EU Missions, a large majority (84%) confirmed that the Mission is bold, 
inspirational and has the necessary scope.  It  was widely recognised by the  consulted 
stakeholders  that  addressing  the  hydrosphere  as  a  connected  system  of  ocean,  seas, 
coastal  and  inland  waters  is  necessary  given  the  existential  challenges  that  the 
degradation of water ecosystems are posing.  

Recognition that the health of the hydrosphere face existential tipping points provides the 
right context for setting up bold initiatives with ambitious targets. Moreover, the Mission 
not  only  aims to  halt the degradation of the water and marine ecosystems,  but  seeks  to 
regenerate  their  health,  which  underlines  its  ambitious  character  (Deidun,  2020).  The 
recent  international  attention  focused  on  this  challenge  suggests  that  the  Mission  is  a 
daring  attempt  to  address  a  global  problem.  For  example,  in  March  2023  the  High 
Ambition  Coalition (77)  under  the  auspices  of  the  United  Nations  Intergovernmental 
Conference  (European  Commission,  2022a),  was  adopted.  This  ground-breaking  new 
treaty is a promising step to protecting nature across remote waters and demonstrates the 
type of international cooperation necessary to avert the biodiversity crisis. The Ocean and 
Waters Mission is an opportunity to demonstrate European leadership in designing 
systemic approaches for tackling some of the greatest societal challenge such as marine 
degradation, litter pollution, and support the sustainable use of ocean and water resources. 

While there is a wide recognition among the stakeholders consulted via the external study 
(through an online survey, targeted interviews and a dedicated workshop) that conceptually 
a  systemic  focus  on  the  entire  water  system  is  necessary  for  tackling  the  challenges 
associated with  biodiversity loss, pollution and carbon-neutral  blue economy,  from the 
operational  perspective  the  scope  of  the  Mission  remains  somewhat  a  challenging 
topic.  A  third  of  the  interviewees  highlighted  that  the  focus  on  the  three  broad  sub-
objectives  and  coverage  of  all  water  systems  present  an  intricate  framework  that  is 
complex, and it requires to balance different growing challenges simultaneously. Remarks 
that both ocean and freshwater coverage is ‘watering down’ the focus for the Mission has 
been expressed also by survey respondents.   

With  regards  to  the  transparency  and  inclusiveness  of  the  Mission  selection,  the  first 
Mission  board  process  has  been  open  to  external  expertise  and  included  the  uptake  of 
viewpoints from large network NGOs such as Seas-at-Risk, WWF, Greenpeace, Friends 
of Earth, OceanUnite, Pew, etc. Stakeholders have been consulted also through interactive 
sessions and workshops at conferences, such as R&I Days, European Maritime Day, etc. 

(77) https://oneplanetsummit.fr/en/events-16/one-ocean-summit-221  

Page 59 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Regular  liaison  activities  were  ensured  also  with  youth  organisations,  lobbies,  Mission 
Assembly (78), individual Member State representatives and industry stakeholders (Deidun, 
2020).  The  external  study  analysis  confirms  that  these  external  consultations  were 
productive and influential leading to many external inputs being successfully integrated 
into the Mission board’s thinking and the deliberation of the final Mission proposal. It also 
highlights that the predominant view among stakeholders is that the Mission has been 
selected in a transparent manner (with 41% agreeing and 14% strongly agreeing to this 
statement). Also targeted citizen deliberation sessions have been successfully carried out 
in countries like Ireland, France, Italy, Portugal. Overall, the external study concludes that 
the Mission board thinking was strongly endorsed by a broader public. 

4.3  Management arrangements and governance structure 

The established EU level governance mechanism for the Mission Ocean comprises new 
cross-sectoral steering and coordination bodies. The high-level political steer is ensured 
by the Commissioners of the respective Commission’s Directorates-General (DGs). In the 
case of the EU Mission ‘Restore our Ocean and Waters by 2030’ the political steering is 
shared among the Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) and 
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (DG RTD). The day-to-day steering and 
coordination of the Mission is undertaken by the Mission manager (DG MARE) and the 
deputy  Mission  manager  (DG  RTD).  The  interservice  coordination  of  the  Mission 
programming  is  ensured  by  the  Mission  owners’  group  (MOG)  that  includes 
representatives from 13 DGs (79).  

The  policy  coordination  work  for  implementation  is  undertaken  by  the  Mission 
secretariat that includes staff members from DG RTD and DG MARE. The Mission 
board  consisting  of  15  independent  experts  provides  an  advisory  role.  The  strategic 
configuration  of  the  Horizon  Europe  Programme  Committee  (SPC)  serves  as  a 
representative  forum  for  the  exchange  of  information  and  views  among  Member  State 
(MS)  representatives  and  the  Commission  related  to  Missions  in  Horizon  Europe.  The 
governance structure at the implementation level comprises the establishment of the four 
basin-level lighthouses, the Mission implementation platform launched in early 2023 and 
the  European  Climate  Infrastructure  and  Environment  Executive  Agency  (CINEA)  that 

(78) Mission Assembly consists of up to 30 high-level experts, selected among the applicants for the 
Mission boards and aimed at providing an additional pool of ideas, knowledge and expertise. 

(79) Beyond DG MARE and DG RTD these are DG for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI), 
DG for Climate Action (DG CLIMA), DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG 
CNECT), DG for Defence Industry and Space (DG DEFIS), DG for Education and Culture (DG EAC), DG 
for Environment (DG ENV), DG for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW), 
EC Joint Research Centre (JRC), DG for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE), DG for Neighbourhood and 
Enlargement Negotiations (DG NEAR), DG for Regional and Urban Policy (DG REGIO).  

Page 60 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
oversees the execution of the Mission-specific Horizon Europe projects and the contract 
of the Mission implementation platform.  

The main governance structure for national, regional and local level are the dedicated 
basin-level  lighthouses  covering  the  Atlantic-Arctic  basin,  Mediterranean  Sea  basin, 
Danube  River  and  Black  Sea  basin  and  Baltic  and  North  Sea  basin.  The  lighthouse 
mechanisms  also  include  the  Horizon  Europe  Associated  Countries  and  the  outermost 
regions as an integral part of the Mission initiatives. Four Mission-specific Horizon Europe 
coordination  and  support  actions  (CSA) (80)  started  in  January  2023  to  support  the 
development and roll-out of the four Mission lighthouses, including governance at basin 
level.  

Figure 8: Governance structures for the EU Mission Ocean and Waters 

Source: EFIS study 

(80) Danube River and Black Sea lighthouse – EcoDaLLI; Atlantic and Arctic basin – BlueMissionAA; 
Mediterranean Sea basin – BlueMissionMed; Baltic and North Sea basin – BlueMissionBAN. 

Page 61 / 185 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
A  fundamental  principle  of  the  lighthouse  design  is  to  take  into  account  the  existing 
governance  platforms  and  structures  at  macroregional  and  regional  level.  While  not 
designing any new rigid structures the four CSAs are expected to serve as entry points and 
support  mechanisms  for  a  well-functioning  basin  scale  innovation  ecosystem.  To  gain 
momentum,  different  lighthouses  are  piloting  and  leading  on  one  of  the  Mission’s 
objectives  capitalising  on  already  established  activities  and  programmes  and  delivery 
models (European Commission, 2021b). 

The established Mission governance model has been an important step forward in carrying 
out the cross-cutting Mission steering work. The EU Missions’ assessment by the external 
consultants suggests that the systemic nature of the Ocean and Waters Mission, its close 
links to a plethora of policy and legislative actions and interlinks with other Missions (most 
notably, Mission Soil, Adaptation to Climate Change and 100 Climate-Neutral and Smart 
Cities  by  2030)  presents  a  significant  coordination  challenge.  Recognising  this 
complexity, a dedicated agency for the implementation of the Mission was suggested by 
the  Mission  board  in  its  Mission  proposal  (European  Commission,  2020a).  This 
governance model was not taken up in the Mission implementation plan as considered not 
appropriate at this point in time.  

Regarding the suitability of the existing governance model for steering and implementing 
the  Mission,  survey  responses  collected  via  the  external  study  indicate  that  38%  of 
respondents agree or strongly agree that the existing governance arrangements are fit for 
purpose and 15% disagree or strongly disagree to this statement, whilst most respondents 
either do not have a strong opinion (27%) or cannot answer (19%). The analysis of the 
online survey suggests that external stakeholders were not yet aware enough about the 
existing governance mechanisms was echoed in the open answers of the survey. The lack 
of clarity of cooperation structures and the lack of clarity of responsibilities among Mission 
governance bodies was singled out as main barriers to effective  Mission governance by 
respectively 44% and 43% of survey respondents. 

While high level commitments such as the speech of the EC President Von der Leyen at 
the One Ocean Summit in Brest, France in 2022 (81), commitments made at the Mission’s 
annual forum (82) in Brussels in 2023 as well as other ongoing events (83) demonstrate the 
highest level of connectedness to the Mission at the EC level, the study analysis points out 
that up to now the political attention to the Mission objectives has been uneven among 
the involved Commission’s DGs and other EU institutions. The external study analysis 
suggests that the thematic area of ocean and waters will gather more political support 

(81) European Commission (2022) Speech by President von der Leyen at the One Ocean Summit 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_22_962 

(82) EU Missions “Restore our Ocean and Waters by 2023” Annual Forum 

https://icfnext.swoogo.com/missionforum2023/2943360 

(83) European Commission (2022) How to engage with the Mission “Restore our Ocean and Waters by 
2030” https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/events/upcoming-events/how-engage-Mission-
restore-our-ocean-and-waters-2030-2022-06-14_en 

Page 62 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
considering the ongoing pivotal international agreements and initiatives, such as All-
Atlantic Ocean Research and Innovation Alliance Declaration (84), G7 Ocean Deal Science 
Ministers Communiqué (85), Global biodiversity framework of COP 15 UN Biodiversity 
conference (United Nations, 2021), The existing and ongoing declarative and legislative 
frameworks  provide  favourable  conditions  for  the  necessary  political  mobilisation 
and show progressive buy-in at political level.  

With  regards  to  the  horizontal  coordination,  the  analysis  carried  out  by  the  external 
consultants indicates that there is scope for further development of cross-departmental 
governance  structures  in  the  Commission.  Given  the  number  of  DGs  involved  it  is 
expected that horizontal coordination will remain very challenging. There are, however, 
examples of good coordination, e.g. with DG CNECT piloting the interoperability between 
Destination  Earth  and  the  Digital  Twin  Ocean  (DTO)  in  the  Digital  Europe  2023-2024 
work  programme  as  well  as  DG  DEFIS  and  JRC,  or  with  DG  EAC  bringing  together 
excellent projects and researchers funded under Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) 
and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) (86). The study reports the 
views of consulted stakeholders that suggest that the coordination with e.g. DG ENV, DG 
CLIMA, DG GROW, DG MOVE has not been optimal due to diverging policy attention 
on the health of the water systems or conflicting policy priorities. The greatest challenge 
in coordination might be potential conflicts between various EU policies (e.g. protection 
of  biodiversity  and  offshore  wind  energy  targets).  In  conclusion,  the  external  study 
suggests  that  higher  level  political  steering,  e.g.  from  the  European  Council, would 
help to underline the political priorities of the Mission and support the alignment of 
action plans at cross-departmental level. 

Effective  coordination  between  EU,  national,  regional,  and  local  levels  is,  according  to 
consulted stakeholders, the most important element for the Mission to create added value 
(74%  of  survey  respondents  mark  it  as  a  key  feature).  This  reflection  is  supported  by 
workshop discussions, as participants highlighted that the Mission objectives are shared 
by local and regional stakeholders, but it is not always clear to what extent the  Mission 
contributes to their work. The main mechanism for the vertical coordination with national, 
regional and local level are the four basin-level lighthouses. The governance of lighthouses 
was  initially  foreseen  through  establishments  of  political  implementation  charters 
concluded among the Members States, regions, the EC and other stakeholders (European 
Commission,  2021b).  The  Mission  charter,  open  and  publicly  accessible,  covering  all 

(84)  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation  (2022),  The  EU  signs 
landmark  All-Atlantic  Ocean  Research  and  Innovation  Declaration  with  7  partner  countries 
https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/eu-signs-
landmark-all-atlantic-ocean-research-and-innovation-declaration-7-partner-countries-2022-07-14_en 

(85) Future of the seas and oceans initiative (2022) G7 Science Ministers’ Communiqué 

https://www.g7fsoi.org/g7-science-ministers-communique/ 

(86) https://rea.ec.europa.eu/events/msca-cluster-event-Mission-ocean-and-waters-2022-06-07_en 

Page 63 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
lighthouses was launched in 2022. In the first half of 2023 important efforts are being made 
to mobilise the national and regional level actors through lighthouse launch events  

With respect to the coordination with the MS and AC, the analysis and consultations 
carried out in the context of the external study point  to a sub-optimal integration of the 
national  level  during  the  first  two  years  of  Mission  implementation.  Stakeholder 
impressions  are  that  at  this  early  stage  the  Mission  is  mostly  being  only  discussed  by 
national public authorities (42%), some countries have started to identify funding sources 
(18%), but implementation through specific public policy instruments is not yet prevailing 
(only 7% survey respondents mark this being the case). The range of recent Mission events 
and  individual  meetings  between  the  EC  and  MS  have  been  diverse  and  numerous. 
Concrete  activities  with  regards  to  Mission  uptake  are  reported  by  13  MS (87),  which 
indicates  that  more  initiatives  may  be  ongoing  than  is  known  to  the  wider  stakeholder 
groups. While the formation of mirror interdepartmental groups for the EU Ocean 
and Waters Mission is not yet widespread across the EU, good examples at national 
level,  e.g.  Austria,  Denmark,  Germany,  Ireland  Norway,  Portugal,  are  gradually 
emerging. An active stance towards the Mission is also taken by public administrations in 
Spain,  Italy,  the  Netherlands,  as  well  as  more  recently  in  Bulgaria  and  Romania. 
Continuous  political  engagement  work  by  the  Commissioners,  Mission  manager  and 
deputy  Mission  manager  is  ongoing  to  ensure  the  MS  connectedness  to  the  Mission, 
especially those countries that have not shown sufficient interest and commitment. Some 
interviewees expressed the conviction that the ongoing political mobilisation events can 
improve this lag in connectedness very quickly citing, for instance, the changes in Irish 
political  attention  to  the  Mission  after  the  Atlantic-Arctic  Lighthouse  event  in  Cork, 
Ireland (88) convened in November 2022. 

Citizen  engagement  is  a  fundamental  feature  of  the  Mission  approach.  To  ensure  the 
emotional  connection  with  citizens,  the  Mission  board  proposed  a  starfish  metaphor  to 
communicate the central objective of restoring our ocean and waters and the five related 
sub-objectives to achieve that. While the starfish image has not been taken up in further 
Commission documents, three interviewees underline that it has been a very beneficial way 
to explain the Mission objectives to citizens. Overall, the Mission activities appear to 
have a strong emphasis on promoting citizen engagement, encourage ocean literacy 
and education, especially for children. For example, PREP4BLUE project is running a 
webinar series to enable stakeholders to design projects with citizen participation (89). The 
European  Ocean  Coalition  (EU4Ocean),  a  bottom-up  initiative  supported  by  the 
Commission, connects diverse organisations, projects and people that contribute to ocean 

(87) Non-public presentation delivered at the Horizon Europe SPC meeting on 30 March 2023. 

(88) https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/events/upcoming-events/Mission-restore-our-ocean-and-

waters-2030-atlantic-arctic-lighthouse-2022-11-24_en     

(89) https://prep4blue.eu/events/prep4blue-webinar-series-planning-for-citizen-participation-in-Mission-

ocean-waters/    

Page 64 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
literacy  and  the  sustainable  management  of  the  ocean (90).  Citizen  science  activities  to 
prevent  plastic  pollution  through  the  initiative  Plastic  Pirates  have  been  supported (91). 
Involvement  of  citizens  and  communities  is  an  integral  part  of  the  Mission-specific 
Horizon  Europe  funded  coordination  and  support  actions  (CSAs)  and  Mission-specific 
research  and  innovation  projects (92).  Moreover,  survey  results  confirm  the  stakeholder 
opinion  that  the  Mission  encourages  broad  engagement  and  active  citizen  participation 
with  62%  agreeing  or  strongly  agreeing.  Several  stakeholders  confirm  that  the 
implemented citizen engagement initiatives have had high support and good rates of 
participation indicating that there is a great source of energy and goodwill at the level 
of society and that bottom-up initiatives are implemented even without much support. This 
presents a real opportunity for the Mission. 

4.4 

Progress to date 

The Mission is in its early stages of implementation, and it is too early to fully assess 
results. Major efforts have been dedicated to launch Horizon Europe  Mission calls that 
introduce a new paradigm for implementing R&I, development, and piloting projects. The 
portfolio of other EU supported actions is gradually identified and linkages to Missions’ 
objectives are established. The Mission implementation platform was launched at the end 
of 2022, and it will provide a single information portal for Mission partners, host Mission-
specific  monitoring  and  progress  tracking  system  and  implement  various  community 
support and communication tasks. Four Horizon Europe Coordination and Support Actions 
for the preparation of the lighthouse set-up have also been launched at the start of 2023. 
The  pledges  to  the  Mission  charter  have  grown  rapidly  with  currently  more  than  480 
signatories joining the initiative and putting forward initiatives with a budget of around 
EUR 3.72 billion. 

The  charter  was  launched  by  the  European  Commission  as  a  non-binding  and  open 
mechanism to engage stakeholders, create mutual awareness and visibility of the involved 
actors and promote the stakeholder ‘ownership’ of the Mission. The charter distinguishes 
among pledges related to 1) research and innovation actions, 2) evidence-based knowledge 
and  data,  3)  upscaling,  deployment  and  replication  of  solutions,  4)  citizen  engagement, 
outreach, awareness raising and 5) education and training.   

The interviews carried out in the context of the external study suggest, however, that the 
logic  and  added  value  of  the  charter  initiative  is  not well  understood  by  all  target 
audiences. Regional representatives specify that local actors do not see a clear process for 
and clear benefit of joining the charter, hence not all regional actors have made a pledge. 
The  charter  interactive  dashboard  indicates  that  regional  authorities  have  made  less 
pledges,  yet  cities  and  local  authorities  have  been  slightly  more  active.  This  view  is 

(90) https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/frontpage/1482  

(91) https://www.plastic-pirates.eu/en  

(92) List of projects – EU Mission “restore our Ocean and Waters by 2030” – Call for proposals 2021 

https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-02/list-of-projects_en_0.pdf     

Page 65 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
supported also by survey results that outline that 69% of respondents are unclear on how 
to  become  involved  in  the  Mission  and  57%  consider  there  are  insufficient 
instruments/actions  to  support  the  involvement.  Opportunities  to  involve  key  regional 
innovation  ecosystems,  which  already  have  engaged  companies  and  universities  in  a 
transnational  manner  and  can  scale  up  research  and  innovation  significantly  (e.g., 
WaterCampus  Leeuwarden)  have  been  highlighted  as  important.  More  targeted 
communication on the charter process through the foreseen EC support initiatives could 
possibly improve the rates of engagement.  

At this early stage, among the most significant achievement of the Mission, the external 
study  analysis  outlines  the  dedicated  and  targeted  efforts  to  surpass  the  institutional 
fragmentation  by  developing  connections  between  initiatives.  The  Mission  provides  a 
more  holistic  approach  to  very  fragmented  R&I  activities  bringing  them  under  one 
umbrella with more coherent governance structures. The objective to bring a systemic view 
to  the  ocean  and  waters  topic  is  acknowledged  as  a  very  important  contribution  of  the 
Mission.  Most  survey  respondents  (54%)  agree  or  strongly  agree  that  the  Mission  is 
progressing in line with its implementation plan. Despite the concerns for the suboptimal 
visibility of the initiative in all relevant stakeholder networks (e.g., research infrastructures, 
regional and local levels), survey responses suggest that stakeholders are supportive of the 
achieved progress to date. In a similar vein, a very large portion of the respondents to the 
survey  (78%,)  agree  that  the  Mission  is  likely  to  create  added  value  compared  to 
existing initiatives or instruments at EU level. This shows quite important stakeholder 
trust in the Mission as an instrument and the efforts put in place for its implementation. 
This  reflection  is  in  line  with  the  interview  results,  where  a  large  part  of  participants 
underlined  the  significant  added  value  of  the  Mission  in  term  of  coherence, 
complementarity, and synergies with other initiatives on the topic of ocean and waters at 
EU level and beyond. 

The table below provides a summary overview of the assessment findings concerning the 
progress made against each of the Mission objectives. 

Table 7: Summary of progress toward Mission objectives 

Specific 
objectives 

Mission 

Implementation steps taken 

1.Protect  and  restore 
marine 
and 
freshwater ecosystems 
and biodiversity 

  Mission  Charter  and 
platform launched  

implementation 

  Atlantic-Arctic lighthouse, Danube River 
basin  lighthouse  initiated  (CSAs  +  high 
level lighthouse events) 

ahead 
Challenges 
(identified 
interviews, 
in 
survey  and  desk  research 
conducted up to date) 

Maintaining/broadening 
political  commitment  and 
stakeholder buy-in 

  Two 

Innovation  Actions  providing 
the 
to 

scientific  evidence 
establishment of EU-wide Blue Parks  

support 

  Horizon  Europe  Mission 

projects 

launched 

  Portfolio of funded and ongoing projects 
instruments 

level 

from  other  EU 
identified 

Page 66 / 185 

 
 
  
 
Specific 
objectives 

Mission 

Implementation steps taken 

  Synergies and complementarities with EU 
level  funding  schemes  identified  and 
ongoing 

2.Prevent 
eliminate pollution 

and 

  Mission  Charter  and 
platform launched  

implementation 

  Mediterranean  lighthouse  initiated  (CSA 
+  two  Innovation  Actions  +  high  level 
lighthouse events) 

  Horizon  Europe  Mission 

projects 

launched 

  Portfolio of funded and ongoing projects 
instruments 

level 

from  other  EU 
identified 

3.Make 
sustainable 
economy 
neutral and circular 

the 
blue 
carbon-

  Synergies and complementarities with EU 
level  funding  schemes  identified  and 
ongoing 

  Mission  Charter  and 
platform launched  

implementation 

  Baltic  North  Sea  lighthouse  initiated 
(CSAs  +  2  Innovation  Actions  +  high 
level lighthouse events) 

  Horizon  Europe  Mission 

projects 

launched 

  Portfolio of funded and ongoing projects 
instruments 

level 

from  other  EU 
identified 

ahead 
Challenges 
(identified 
interviews, 
in 
survey  and  desk  research 
conducted up to date) 

Maintaining/broadening 
political  commitment  and 
stakeholder buy-in 

Addressing  the  scope  and 
measurability of the goal (e.g. 
which  pollutants  and  value 
chains will be targeted) 

Maintaining/broadening 
political  commitment  and 
stakeholder buy-in 

Synergies  and  complementarities  with  EU 
level funding schemes identified and ongoing 
(incl. the launched Sustainable Blue Economy 
partnership) 

Enabler  1.  Develop 
ocean 
and  waters 
knowledge system 

  Mission  Charter  and 
platform launched 

implementation 

  Horizon  Europe  Mission 

projects 

launched 

  Synergies and complementarities with EU 
level  funding  schemes  identified  and 
ongoing 

  Steps  for  Copernicus,  EMODnet  and 

ERIC infrastructure resource integration 

Enabler  2.  Support 
public  mobilisation 
and engagement 

  Mission  Charter  and 
platform launched  

implementation 

  Horizon  Europe  Mission 

projects 

Developing 
deliberative 
mechanisms 

tested 
democracy 

launched 

  Citizen 

engagement  methodologies 
reviewed  and  mainstreamed  in  Mission 
projects  

Page 67 / 185 

 
 
 
 
 
Specific 
objectives 

Mission 

Implementation steps taken 

ahead 
Challenges 
(identified 
interviews, 
in 
survey  and  desk  research 
conducted up to date) 

  EU4Ocean activities implemented 

  Other 

targeted 

citizen 

engagement 

activities rolled out 

Source: EFIS study 

4.5  Budget and funding leveraged 

To  support  the  development,  scaling  up  and  deployment  of  solutions,  the  Ocean  and 
Waters Mission is expected to mobilise a dynamic investment ecosystem. The underlying 
concept is that the Mission investment agenda should bring together a wide range of 
financial and non-financial tools and mechanisms from public and private sources, 
from  grants  to  financial  instruments,  including  options  of  blended  finance.  The 
Mission implementation plan outlines that different funding sources will be mobilised for 
the different phases of the Mission (European Commission, 2021b). The table below lists 
the  EU  level  funding  sources  and  earmarked  budgets  as  outlined  in  the  Mission 
implementation plan and from updated materials provided by the Mission secretariat.  

Table 8: Portfolio of EU level instruments  

Instrument 

Type of instrument  Funding allocated and period 

Horizon  Europe  Mission 
calls 

Horizon  Europe  Cluster 
calls 

Horizon 
Partnerships 

Europe 

Horizon Europe Research 
Infrastructure 
programme 

Support action  

€344.1 million for 2021-2023 

€447 million for 2021-2024 

Waterborne  transport  2021-2024:  Together  with 
industry, around €150 million for 2021- 2024 

Blue economy 2021-2027: €450 million of  which 
€150 million EU funding +  €300 million MS and 
AC contributions has been launched  

Water4All 2021-2027: €420 million of which, €126 
million EU funding + €294 million MS/AC  

Around €46 million in 2021- 2024  

EMFAF 

Support action 

€217 million for 2021-2027 

EMFAF 
direct 
management:  calls  2022 
on  blue 
and 
regional  flagships  in  EU 
sea basins  

career 

€15.1 million 

COPERNICUS (in kind) 

Support action  

€24.3 billion 

LIFE 

CEF 

Support action 

Support action 

Page 68 / 185 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Instrument 

Digital 
Programme 
Spaces 

Type of instrument  Funding allocated and period 

Europe 
on  Data 

Support action 

Recovery  and  Resilience 
Plans 

ERDF/ESIF 

INTERREG 

Marie  Skłodowska-Curie 
Actions (MSCA)  

Support action 

€10.7 billion (commitments by end 2023)  

Support action 

Support action 

Support action 

Erasmus+ 

Support action 

Network  of  European 
Blue Schools 

Support action 

BlueInvest  

The  EIB 
Innovation 
Finance Advisory service  

Financial 
advisory services 

and 

€1.5 billion 

Advisory services  

€2 million 

Clean 

EIB 
Sustainable 
Programme 

and 
Ocean 

Financial 
advisory services  

and 

€4.5 billion 

European 
Bioeconomy 
(ECBF) 

Circular 
Fund 

Financial services  

€65 million, exact focus on blue bioeconomy TBD 

Source: EFIS study based on reviewed documentation 

Other potential funding sources that have been identified (but their mobilisation is not yet 
confirmed),  include  the  Just  Transition  Fund,  the  Innovation  Fund,  JPI  Ocean  calls, 
Interregional  Innovation  Investment  instrument  (I3),  Natural  Capital  Financing  Facility 
(NCFF),  as  well  as  wider  venture  capital  and  risk  capital  funding  platforms  (European 
Commission,  2021).  At  the  macro-regional  level,  possible  funding  channels  include 
sources like Nordic Investment Bank (NIB), NEFCO, Grant schemes of Nordic Council of 
Ministers,  EEA  and  Norway  Grants,  Baltic  Sea  Action  Plan  Fund,  Swedish  Institute 
programme, etc. (European Commission, 2022b).  

The types of funding instruments deployed for Mission implementation can be grouped in 
the following five categories: 

Sources supporting research and innovation and deployment of solutions 

The R&I core centred on the lighthouses and enablers is funded through dedicated Horizon 
Europe Mission calls. For the period 2021-23, Horizon Europe earmarked EUR 344.16 for 

Page 69 / 185 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mission implementation projects (93). By January 2023, 20 of these projects were already 
launched for a total budget over EUR 117 million (94). Seven of them with an overall EC 
contribution amounting to EUR 52.9 million tackles the specific objective of protecting 
and restoring our oceans and waters. Two projects target the fighting of pollution with €16 
million and another two support the sustainable blue economy with EUR 17.8 million. To 
develop the European Digital Twin Ocean two projects are supported with EUR 10 million. 
Three  projects  to  involve  citizens,  the  key  allies  of  the  Mission,  received  a  combined 
funding  of  EUR  3.8  million.  The  four  coordination  and  support  actions  for  the  four 
lighthouses received a total funding of EUR 11.7 million. Another EUR 5 million has been 
awarded to the preparatory action of the Mission PREP4BLUE. These 20 projects have 
been  complemented  with18  additional  funded  projects  from  the  2022  calls.  20  more 
projects are expected to be funded from the 2023 calls (deadline 20/09/2023). Also, three 
joint calls with the Mission Soil and Mission Adaptation to Climate Change, for a total 
budget of EUR 51 million, were also adopted in the work programmes 2022 and 2023. 

The 20 projects presented above and already launched, gather 297 partners from 39 
countries. The most notable beneficiaries of these Mission calls are organisations from 
Germany,  Italy,  Norway,  France  and  Spain.  Also,  smaller  countries  like  Belgium, 
Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal and Ireland are strongly represented in the projects.  

Besides the targeted Mission calls, R&I actions in the areas of relevance to ocean and 
waters  Mission  are  also  supported  by Horizon  Europe  Cluster  calls.  The  European 
Partnerships  (Waterborne  transport,  Blue  economy  and  Water4All)  are  contributing  to 
innovation development, demonstration, deployment and diffusion of innovative solutions. 

(93)  https://www.call-for-europe.org/blog/the-oceans-and-seas-Mission-under-horizon-europe-new-funding-
calls-for-research-and-innovation  

(94)https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-Mission-restore-our-ocean-and-waters-20-new-
projects-restore-our-blue-planet-2030-2023-02-17_en,n  

Page 70 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Figure 9: Horizon Europe Ocean and Waters Mission project funding per country-related to the 
20 projects already launched  

Source: Horizon Europe Dashboard. Data extracted by the external study team on 21 March 2023. Analysis and visualisation: external 

study team 

Support to physical and digital infrastructure investments 

The European Commission has been investing about €10 million annually since 2021 to 
develop a core European Digital Twin Ocean (DTO), conceived as a public service and a 
public good (95). DTO benefits from in-kind contributions from Copernicus programme and 
Marine  Observation  and  Data  Network  (EMODnet).  The  Digital  Europe  Programme 
supports  the  interoperability  between  DTO  and  the  EC  flagship  initiative  Destination 
Earth. The research infrastructure programme under Horizon Europe has allocated budget 
through  topics  for  FAIR  and  open  data  sharing  as  well  as  for  access  to  research 
infrastructures services in support of the Mission. 

Support to education, training, and skills development 

Multiple  programmes  from  the  DG  Education  and  Culture  are  supporting  Mission 
objectives, including Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA), Erasmus+, the European 
Solidarity Corps and the Creative Europe Programme. Concrete budget appropriations in 

(95)  https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-
open-calls/horizon-europe/eu-missions-horizon-europe/restore-our-ocean-and-waters/european-digital-
twin-ocean-european-dto_en  

Page 71 / 185 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
support to Ocean and Waters Mission are being clarified. Ocean literacy is supported by 
DG MARE funded Network of European Blue Schools, which is part of the EU4Ocean 
Coalition of Ocean Literacy. EMFAF direct management programme have calls on blue 
careers. The topic of water, marine and maritime affairs is also considered as a topic of a 
future knowledge and innovation community (KIC) of the European Institute of Innovation 
Technology (EIT, 2021).  

Regional investments and capacity building  

Mechanisms to interlink with the EU shared management programmes are currently put in 
place. For example, complementarities and synergies with the Mission were systematically 
encouraged and checked during the adoption process of ESIF partnership agreements and 
EMFAF national  plans. 26 MS explicitly refer to  the  Mission  in their ESIF operational 
programme. 26 out of 27 EMFAF national plans adopted by the beginning of 2023 include 
clear coordination and complementarities with the Mission. The analysis of the Recovery 
and Resilience Facility (RRF) plans submitted by MS also shows substantial investments 
into  the  sustainable  blue  economy  and  marine  domains,  which  include  greening  and 
innovating  the  fisheries  and  aquaculture  sectors,  monitoring  marine  and  coastal 
biodiversity,  restoration  of  river  systems,  waste  water  treatment,  water  reuse,  flood 
protection,  offshore  energy  parks,  upgrading  of  port  infrastructure,  coastal  tourism, 
greening  and  digitalisation  of  ports  and  shipyards  and  investments  in  green  shipping. 
Alignment of regional initiatives through INTERREG programmes is also regarded as an 
important  channel  for  funding  mobilisation  that  was  also  underlined  by  workshop 
participants. 

Financial and advisory services 

The scaled-up equity initiative InvestEU Blue Economy that builds on the BlueInvest Fund 
pilot under EFSI, and brings together the EMFAF, the EIB Group and InvestEU finance is 
expected to result in €1.5 billion of risk-financing available to innovative and sustainable 
blue  economy  SMEs  and  start-ups,  via  financial  intermediaries (96).  Agreement  for 
cooperation with  the European  Investment  Bank  (EIB) to  reduce pollution in  European 
seas  and  invest  in  blue  innovations  and  blue  economy  is  underlined  as  one  of  such 
milestone achievements in forging a synergetic funding framework for the Mission (97). A 
six-month  long  EIB  market  assessment  study  is  currently  being  implemented  with  an 
ultimate objective to select 25 priority projects from the EIF Blue Invest II project portfolio 
for further investment (98). 

Overall, the scale of funding available at the EU level appears to be appropriate for 
undertaking  the  broad  range  of  the  envisioned  actions.  The  partial  mapping  of  current 

(96)  https://www.eif.org/what_we_do/equity/news/2022/commission-and-eif-agree-to-mobilize-500-million-
with-new-equity-initiative-for-blue-economy.htm  

(97) https://sciencebusiness.net/network-updates/eib-group-and-european-commission-join-forces-protect-
oceans-and-boost-investment     

(98) Information collected by the external study team though a targeted interview with EIB representatives. 

Page 72 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
appropriations  across  multitude  of  instruments  indicates  that  EU  contributions  to  the 
Mission may reach tens of billions of euros per year. While there is no dedicated modelling 
undertaken to  estimate the overall funding needs for  reaching  Mission’s  objectives, the 
initial estimates of the Mission board for the overall investment needed to reach the goals 
outlined in the Mission proposal was €500 billion over the period 2021-2027. This amounts 
to €70 billion annually or 0.5% of the EU GDP in 2019 (European Commission, 2020). 
This  highlights  the need to  mobilise considerably  more funding from  national, regional 
and private sources to achieve the Missions’ objectives.  

Nevertheless, there is quite a large share of survey respondents that do not hold enough 
knowledge  to  make  an  informed  assessment  about  the  allocated  funding  sources  (from 
20% on European funding sources to 41% on local funding sources). The same sentiment 
is echoed by the interviewees who acknowledge that, at the moment, there are  no clear 
overviews of the plethora of funding mechanisms at play. The Mission implementation 
platform and the lighthouse CSA projects will provide guidance to stakeholders regarding 
this aspect. 

The success of the Mission relies on its ability to serve as an overarching structuring and 
coordination vehicle connecting and aligning various ongoing and planned instruments and 
initiatives in the area of ocean and waters. Forging synergies and coherence are at heart of 
this  approach.  Synergy  occurs  when 
results  of 
programmes/initiatives as a whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Coherence concerns 
the  quality  of  being  logically  integrated  and  consistent.  It  implies  clear  goals,  and 
consistency in applying multiple policy or programme efforts towards achieving that goal 
in  a  non-contradictory  way  (European  Commission,  2022a).  The  Mission  activities  are 
clearly showcasing the opportunities for synergistic arrangements.  

(expected) 

sum  of 

the 

4.6  Key conclusions from the external assessment 

The ocean and waters are the life-support system sustaining our existence, our planet’s 
ecosystems and our economy. Due to unprecedented human-made pressures the health of 
our water systems faces existential tipping points. To reverse and improve the situation a 
large-scale  systemic  change  is  necessary.  Addressing  hydrosphere  as  a  connected 
system of ocean, seas, coastal and  inland waters is  perceived  as bold, inspirational 
and  necessary  provided  the  existential  challenges  that  the  degradation  of  the  water 
ecosystems are posing. By providing a systemic framework that is based on the existing 
legislative  and  regulatory  measures  and  brings  together  different  related  initiatives 
connected to the entire water lifecycle beyond the institutional fragmentation the Mission 
is likely to create added value compared to existing initiatives or instruments at EU 
level.  

Mission's goals are  measurable and time bound, yet the criteria of the  Mission goals 
being realistic to achieve by 2030 is somewhat challenged. The external study analysis 
suggests that the defined targets to which the Mission contributes to, are rather ambitious, 
but  they  reflect  the  urgency  and  scale  of  the  challenge.  Yet  the  achievability  of  some 
individual targets, such as the restoration of 25,000 km of free-flowing rivers by 2030 and 
the reduction of nutrient losses by at least 50% by 2030 could be questioned. Despite the 
awareness that not all goals may be reached by 2030, the Mission provides an important 

Page 73 / 185 

 
 
impetus  through the achievements of joined up policies, instruments  and solutions 
that put Europe on an accelerated track to achieving all outlined goals.  

While the systemic approach to the water system challenges is strongly endorsed, from the 
operational perspective the scope of the Mission presents a very complex framework that 
remains difficult to put in practice. The multiple sub-objectives involve distinct parts of 
the water lifecycle each with their own specificities and expertise requirements. There is a 
risk that the broad scope of the Mission may dilute the necessary mobilising effect. 
The Missions’ focus on key areas for addressing water system challenges (as opposed to a 
comprehensive coverage of all existing challenges related to the water cycle) should be 
more clearly communicated to gain wider stakeholder buy-in. 

The  Mission  selection  process  has  been  transparent  with  many  opportunities  for  co-
creation and stakeholder engagement. The high number of citizen engagement initiatives 
implemented successfully indicates that there is a great source of energy and goodwill at 
the level of society which presents an important opportunity for the Mission. Overall, there 
is confidence that Mission scope and objectives are strongly endorsed by the broader 
public. 

The established Mission governance model has been an important step forward in carrying 
out  the  cross-cutting  Mission  steering  work.  The  progress  with  the  established  DG 
MARE and DG RTD cooperation matrix is regarded as a promising start. There is a 
recognition that within the EC services there is a significant commitment and efforts being 
made  to  ensure  the  Mission  activities  are  being  implemented  in  the  best  possible  way 
within the available organisational and human resource limitations. 

Up to now the political attention to the Mission has been uneven among the involved 
Commission’s DGs and other EU institutions. While some horizontal coordination efforts 
work well, other aspects are hindered due to diverging policy approaches or conflicting 
policy  priorities  among  the  involved  DGs.  There  is  scope  for  further  conscious 
development of cross-departmental governance structures in the Commission. Higher 
level  political  steering  emanating  from  the  European  Council  needs  to  underline  the 
political  priorities  of  the  Mission  to  support  the  alignment  of  action  plans  at  cross-
departmental level. 

The  scale  of  funding  available  at  the  EU  level  appears  to  be  appropriate  for 
undertaking the broad range of the envisioned actions. Yet the  Mission board estimates 
highlight that multiple times more funding is necessary to mobilise from national, regional 
and private sources for Mission’s implementation. This signals that achieving mobilisation 
effect has reached a critical turning point. The momentum has been created with the charter 
signatory process, the launch of first Mission projects, lighthouse preparatory actions and 
the Mission implementation platform. This momentum needs to be sustained through 
visible results on the ground showing success and flagging political opportunity.  

4.7 

Self-assessment of the Mission ‘Restore our Ocean and Waters by 
2030’ 

Making  peace  with  our  blue  nature  by  reconciling  the  protection  and  restoration  of 
marine  and  freshwater  ecosystems  with  the  ever-growing  pressures  on  aquatic 

Page 74 / 185 

 
 
resources remains a defining task for Europe to become a truly sustainable Blue Union in 
the coming decade and beyond.   

The  Mission  is  providing  a  step  change  by  accelerating  the  development  and 
deployment at scale of innovative solutions to restore our ocean and waters. For the first 
time, this Mission treats the interconnected ocean, seas, rivers and inland waters as one 
interconnected system. The implementation of the Mission is following its implementation 
plan, with major milestones including the launch of the four Mission lighthouses with 
strong  support  of  Member  States  and  regions,  broad  mobilisation  of  citizens  and 
stakeholders with over 480 bottom-up actions submitted under the Mission Charter, 
a portfolio of projects including key support mechanisms for the Mission delivery.  

4.7.1 

An ambitious yet realistic Mission goal  

The Mission is key contributor to the implementation of the European Green Deal, 
specifically supporting the fulfilment of 2030 targets for the protection and restoration of 
biodiversity  in  line  with  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  and  Nature  Restoration  Law 
proposal), the prevention and elimination of pollution (in line with the EU Zero Pollution 
Action  for  Air,  Water  and  Soil)  and  for  making  the  blue  economy  carbon-neutral  and 
circular (in line with the EU Climate Law and Strategy for the sustainable Blue Economy). 

The transboundary nature of the ocean and water challenges calls for a strategy spanning 
across  EU  programmes,  ensuring  alignment  and  complementarity  of  policies 
and instruments, and providing attractive incentives to achieve the critical mass needed to 
reach the ambitious Mission targets in 2030 and beyond.   

In  this  regard,  the  Mission  Ocean  and  Waters  is  setting-  up  an  inclusive,  systemic, 
transformative framework, leaving no one behind, bundling all existing efforts at EU, 
national and regional levels. The Mission will thereby help to overcome the fragmented, 
partial,  often  sectoral  governance  frameworks,  and  putting  in  place  new  initiatives  to 
delivering on the European Green Deal and SDG 14, by “putting the blue into the green”.   

The Mission lighthouses established in four major EU sea and river basins are the 
main toolbox to achieve the Mission objectives. They are mobilising and bundling efforts 
from the EU, Member States, regions and other key partners for concerted action at basin 
level. The good progress in bringing together and creating synergies between different 
EU  and  MS  programmes  and  financial  instruments  is  evidence  for  the  success  of  the 
lighthouse approach, which will help to achieve the necessary critical mass of resources 
that is needed to create a real Blue Union.  

The Mission Charter launched in July 2022, at  the UN Ocean Conference has already 
engaged hundreds of stakeholders, spanning from citizens, public authorities to NGOs and 
businesses in Europe and beyond, mobilising more than EUR 3.72 billion in the form 
of over 480 concrete actions submitted in support of the Mission objectives. 

The Mission has also gained strong political commitment from Member States, through 
a  participatory  process  of  co-creation  and  engagement  for  the  launch  of  the  Mission 
lighthouses and through the Mission Charter.  

Also, the Mission is in the process of mobilising  communities of actors such as ports, 
islands, waterfront cities, coastal regions, shipping, fishing and conservation communities, 
which are distinct to this Mission and can take up and deploy solutions. 

Page 75 / 185 

 
 
Moreover, the “associated regions” scheme implemented in all actions funded under the 
Mission, together with financial instruments such as BlueInvest and the Blue Champion 
mechanism co-designed with the EIB, provide a high potential for upscale and replication 
of innovative solutions. 

The European Digital Twin Ocean, the key digital component of the Mission Ocean 
and Waters, aims at making ocean knowledge readily available to citizens, entrepreneurs, 
scientists and policymakers and actively engaging them through an innovative set of user-
driven and interactive tools. Activities are on track to ensure the delivery of a prototype 
already by 2024. 

The actions undertaken up to now give confidence that progress to achieve the ambitious 
goal of the Mission is well on track. 

4.7.2 

The Mission’s added value 

The Mission’s added value lies in: 

Addressing pan-European challenges 

The Mission addresses in a systemic way the three main and interdependent drivers 
that  severely  threaten  the  health  of  our  ocean,  seas,  coastal  and  inland  waters  – 
unsustainable exploitation of marine and water ecosystems, pollution and climate change.  

Allowing effective coordination and cooperation at EU and regional level 

The Mission is steering and ensuring efficient cooperation between different MSs and 
ACs, different stakeholders, including civil society, and involving international, European, 
national,  regional  and  local  levels,  to  restore  our  ocean  and  waters  through  its  four 
sea/river basins ‘lighthouses’.   

Pooling and leveraging resources 

The  Mission  is  acting  as  a  catalyst  for  synergies  and  complementarities  across 
different EU, national and regional programmes, already pooling funds beyond R&I.  

The  Mission  is  mobilising  and  aligning  in  particular  with  EMFAF  national  plans, 
BlueInvest with EUR 1.5 billion in risk finance, the “Blue champions” pilot scheme (99) 
agreed with the EIB, Recovery and Resilience Funds, LIFE, Interreg, Copernicus, and 
Digital Europe. 

Beyond these, through the  Mission Charter, Member States, regions,  local  authorities, 
international partners (100) and many different stakeholders, are expressing strong political 
support and taking concrete measures: more than 480 actions have been pledged so far 
representing a budget of 3.72 billion EUR.  

(99) Expected to be launched in Q1/Q2 2023. 

(100)  Union  for  the  Mediterranean  Ministerial  Declaration,  June  2022;  All-Atlantic  Ocean  Research  and 
Innovation Alliance declaration (July 2022). 

Page 76 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Figure 10: The Charter of the EU Mission Restore our Ocean and Waters 2030 (101) calls for 
joining efforts to achieve the three objectives of the Mission Restore our Ocean and Waters by 
2030  

Delivering a wave of innovative solutions 

The  Mission  is  accelerating  the  scaling-up  of  research  and  innovation  solutions 
covering  the  whole  cycle  from  research  and  innovation  to  deployment,  investment  and 
regulation as well as replication in “associated regions”.  

Engaging citizens, stakeholders and communities 

The Mission Charter provides a clear added value, being conceived as a simple, inclusive, 
efficient and inspirational framework to enhance cooperation and achieve critical mass to 
deliver on Mission objectives. Through citizen science, literacy programmes, participatory 
and  community-led  management  approaches,  the  Mission  is  empowering  European 
citizens to take action to preserve one of their most precious common goods.  

4.7.3 

The Mission’s R&I content 

The Horizon Europe Mission work programme is the main instrument to support the R&I 
component of the Mission.  

The WP is mostly implemented via Innovation Actions (IAs) involving associated regions 
other than those involved in the projects, to demonstrate the viability and replication of 
innovative solutions (validation, testing, demonstration, prototyping, piloting), addressing 
restoration and pollution as well as blue sectors. Innovation actions are implemented at 
basin level or cross-basins, ensuring a broad European coverage. A recurrent topic supports 
the establishment of European Blue Parks. The WP also supports coordination activities in 
each basin.  

(101)  https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/MissionOceanWatersCharter  

Page 77 / 185 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Finally,  the  WP  includes  calls  supporting  enabling  activities:  The  Ocean  digital 
knowledge system and public engagement as well as foresight and other studies in marine 
and maritime domains. 

A  portfolio  analysis  carried  out  of  16  different  EU  funding  programmes  including 
Horizon  Europe  has  shown  that  841  projects  with  a  funding  of  about  EUR  4  billion 
contribute to the Mission. This analysis is presented in a Dashboard and a report with a 
structured overview of the EU funded actions contributing to the objectives and enablers 
of the Mission. 

Overview  of  the  R&I  priorities  addressed  up  to  now,  along  the  lines  of  the 
Implementation Plan  

  To  protect  and  restore  marine  and  freshwater  ecosystems  (Objective  1 
addressing two basins: Danube River basin and Atlantic-Arctic) calls have been 
launched to develop solutions for sediment management, wetlands and marshes 
ecosystems and the restoration of fresh and transitional water ecosystems as well 
as resilience to climate change and issues relating to landscape water retention 
at regional scale. Natural lakes’ protection and restoration was also covered. The 
Blue Park initiative supports the establishment of Marine Protected Areas and 
actions to restore marine and coastal areas 

  To  prevent  and  eliminate  pollution  (Objective  2  covering  the  Mediterranean 
basin)  calls  to  develop  solutions  for  addressing  litter,  plastic,  microplastics, 
chemicals and nutrients; calls for low environmental impact fishing gears have 
been  launched;  a  specific  topic  addresses  waste-free  European  rivers  and  for 
nature-inclusive  concept  for  off-shore  windmills;  a  study  to  assess  option  for 
repurposing off-shore aged/unused platforms is ongoing. 

  Under  the  Blue  Economy  (Objective  3  addressing  the  Baltic  and  North  Sea 
basin) topics addressing low-impact aquaculture and multipurpose use of marine 
space,  greening  and  energy  efficiency  of  small-scale  fishing  fleets,  the 
development  of  algae-based  products  and  applications  are  launched  together 
with  pilots  for  community  driven  business  models  for  regenerative  ocean 
farming. 

  Projects  for  the  development  of  the  European  Digital  Twin  Ocean  are 
addressing  its  underlying  public  infrastructure  as  well  as  the  integration  of 
underlying models into the DTO. Specific topics addressed the integration of 
biodiversity  monitoring  data  and  of  socio-ecological  models  as  well  as  the 
development of a roadmap for the integration of inland waters. A e-DNA library 
of marine and freshwater species was also supported. 

  Many activities have been launched to support citizen engagement and citizen 
science,  addressing  different  segment  of  our  society:  the  young  generations 
through the Blue Schools and a foresight study on their relation with the sea; 
consumers through “Choose your fish” campaigns addressing sustainability of 
our choices; the artistic sector through a topic supporting artistic projects; citizen 
science through the Europeanisation of the Plastic Pirates.  

Page 78 / 185 

 
 
  Governance and support services at basin level as well as monitoring of the 
implementation of the Mission is being addressed through 4 basin-specific CSAs 
and through the Mission Implementation Platform.  

4.7.4 

Ensuring implementation is feasible, measurable, and time-bound 

Since the launch of the Mission, significant progress has been made towards reaching the 
Mission objectives and targets. The Mission lighthouses have been launched generating 
strong  political  support  from  Member  States,  regions,  communities  of  actors  and  other 
partners.  A  broad  array  of  policies, programmes  and initiatives  are  supporting  the 
implementation of the Mission at EU level and mobilising significant resources, including 
through bottom-up initiatives under the Mission Charter.  

To maintain political momentum, mobilise further resources, and strengthen the Mission 
communities supporting the restoration of the ocean and waters, an annual Mission Forum 
will be held on the basis of the successful event organised in 2023, in addition to regular 
high-level conferences for each of the lighthouses. The steady growth of submissions to 
the  Charter  by  stakeholders  will  be  complemented  by  actions  to  mobilise  additional 
resources to further demonstrate, deploy, upscale and replicate innovative solutions 
across the Union to ensure that the Mission targets will be achieved by 2030. Building on 
key  milestones  to  be  achieved  in  the  second-half  of  2023,  2024  and  2025  covering  all 
objectives, the Mission will: 

  Deliver  first  replication  plans  by  associated  regions  and  other  stakeholders 
(2025);  2nd  annual  Mission  Forum  (2024);  New  business  models  developed 
(2024); First calls for scale up actions (2024); 

  Enhance  the  Digital  Ocean  and  Waters  Knowledge  system:  2nd  Digital 
Ocean Forum (mid 2023); deliver the core infrastructure for the EU DTO (by 
end  2024)  and  underlying  models  (by  2025):  deliver  local  Digital  twins 
demonstrators (ILIAD) (by 2025); 
ensure  public  mobilisation  and  engagement:  by  setting-up  operational 
citizen assemblies for the four lighthouses areas (by 2024). 

 

The Mission is setting up a dynamic monitoring system to track progress and report on 
the  Mission  implementation.  It  also  allows  informed  and  flexible  adjustments  of  the 
activities, when and if necessary. The Mission Ocean and Waters Implementation Support 
Platform  (MIP),  launched  in  December  2022,  is  tasked  to  develop  this  indicator-based 
monitoring and progress tracking system by June 2023, to be visualised through a Mission 
progress dashboard.  

4.7.5 

Securing buy-in 

Major EU legislative acts and initiatives under the European Green Deal and beyond are 
explicitly referring to the Mission as a key enablers for their implementation, including:    

 
 
 
 

EC Proposal for a Nature Restoration Law (COM(2022)304); 
Outermost Regions (COM(2022)198); 
New EU Arctic Policy (JOIN(2021)); 
Sustainable Blue Economy Approach (COM(2021)240); 

Page 79 / 185 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

Zero Pollution Action Plan (COM(2021)400) ; 
Towards a Strong and Sustainable EU Algae Sector (COM(2022)592); 
EC  Communication  on  the  Energy  Transition  of  the  EU  Fisheries  and 
Aquaculture sector, adopted on 21 Feb 2023; 
EC  Communication  on  EU  action  plan:  Protecting  and  Restoring  Marine 
Ecosystems  for  Sustainable  and  Resilient  Fisheries,  adopted  on  21  Feb  2023 
(COM(2023)102 final); 
EC  Communication  on  the  common  fisheries  policy  today  and  tomorrow:  a 
Fisheries  Pact  towards  sustainable,  science-based,  innovative  and  inclusive 
fisheries management, with accompanying Staff Working Document, adopted 
on 21 Feb 2023 (COM/2023/103 & SWD/2023/103); 
Council Conclusions on International Ocean Governance (in preparation). 

At  international  level,  several  declarations  adopted  in  the  last  few  months  show 
convergence  and  mutual  support  around  the  Mission’s  objectives:  Union  for  the 
Mediterranean Ministerial Declaration (102). All Atlantic Research and Innovation Alliance 
Declaration (103),  G7  Science  Ministers  Communiqué,  Kunming-Montreal  agreement 
global biodiversity framework 104), BBNJ Treaty (105). 

The EU has put the Mission forward as a key commitment to international processes, 
such as the Our Ocean Summit presented by President von der Leyen (106), the Our Ocean 

(102) First Union for the Mediterranean Ministerial Conference on Research and Innovation Declaration, 27 

June 2022. 

(103)  https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-07/ec_rtd_all-atlantic-ocean-research-

alliance-declaration.pdf  

(104) https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/e6d3/cd1d/daf663719a03902a9b116c34/cop-15-l-25-en.pdf  

(105) 

https://www.un.org/bbnj/sites/www.un.org.bbnj/files/draft_agreement_advanced_unedited_for_posting_v1
.pdf  

(106)  Speech  by  President  von  der  Leyen  at 

the  One  Ocean  Summit,  11  February  2022: 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_22_962  

Page 80 / 185 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Conferences 2022 (107) and 2023 (108), the UN Ocean Conference 2022 (109), the UN Water 
Conference 2023 (110). 

4.7.6 

Citizens and stakeholder engagement 

Member States and regions are including Mission-related activities in their national and 
regional  plans,  ensuring  complementarities  and  synergies,  notably  through  the  macro-
regional strategies (the Danube Strategy and the Mediterranean  strategies, EUSAIR (111) 
and West Med  in particular) and through the EMFAF shared management. 

The Mission has also gained strong political commitment from Member States, through 
a  participatory  process  of  co-creation  and  engagement  for  the  launch  of  the  Mission 
lighthouses and through the Mission Charter.  

To mobilise those communities of actors that contribute to restoring our ocean and waters 
on  the  ground,  a  series  of  workshops  with  communities  such  as  ports,  islands,  fleets, 
waterfront cities, coastal regions, fishing and conservation communities is being held in 
2023. 

A series of actions are being channelled towards citizens’ mobilisation, engagement and 
literacy  in  favour  of  the  Mission.  Examples  include  the  Plastic  Pirates  campaign,  the 
EU4Ocean  Coalition,  student  and  school  initiatives  through  the  Blue  School  Network, 
campaigns to support sustainable consumption such as “Choose your fish”, community-
driven business models and citizen science initiatives. 

4.7.7 

Progress, achievements, and milestones 

Since September 2021, great progress has been made to implement the Mission Ocean and 
Waters, namely:  

Objective 1: Protect and restore marine and freshwater ecosystems and biodiversity 

 

Launch of two basin scale restoration lighthouses: one in the Danube River 
basin and one on the Atlantic and Arctic coast as sites to pilot, demonstrate and 
deploy the Mission solutions across EU sea and river basins. At the high-level 

(107) Council of the European Union. 6062/1/22. List of EU commitments for the ‘Our Ocean Conference’ 
(Palau,  13-14  April  2022):  https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6062-2022-REV-
1/en/pdf  

(108) Council of the European Union. 6119/23. List of commitments to be presented by the European Union 
2023) 

at 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6119-2023-INIT/en/pdf  

2-3  March 

Conference 

(Panama, 

(OOC) 

Ocean 

Our 

the 

(109) The 2022 United Nations Ocean Conference: an opportunity not to be missed for the blue planet:  The 
2022 United Nations Ocean Conference: an opportunity not to be missed for the blue planet (europa.eu) 

(110) Council of the European Union 7443/23: List of voluntary commitments for the Water Action Agenda 
to be presented by the European Union for the UN 2023 Water Conference (New York, 22-24 March 
2023). 

(111) EU Strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian Region. 

Page 81 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
launch conferences for the Atlantic-Arctic in November 2022 in Cork, Ireland 
and in April for the Danube in Bucharest, Romania several Member States and 
associated  countries  as  well  as  regions  and  stakeholders  expressed  their 
strong political support.  

Launch of 10 innovation actions to protect and restore marine and freshwater 
ecosystems, in support of the Danube and Atlantic-Arctic lighthouses as well as 
the Blue Parks initiative. 

Synergies with HE Partnerships developed in Biodiversa+ SRIA. 

Baseline  study  report  for  the  implementation  of  the  Arctic/Atlantic,  Danube 
lighthouses, published. 

 

 

 

Objective 2: Prevent and eliminate pollution of our ocean, seas and waters 

 

 

Launch  of  a  lighthouse  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea  to  connect  and  structure 
existing  activities,  disseminate  and  upscale  solutions  and  mobilise  relevant 
actors, as sites to pilot, demonstrate and deploy the Mission solutions across EU 
sea  and  river  basins.  During  the  Mediterranean  lighthouse  conference  in 
Marseille  in  June  2022,  France  and  Italy  announced  their  support  for  the 
Mission and its implementation in the Mediterranean, supported by a number 
of cities and regions in the basin (112).   
Launch of 8  innovation  actions to  prevent,  minimise and remediate litter and 
plastic pollution, including -from fishing gear, microplastics as well as chemical 
pollution in support of the Mediterranean lighthouse. 

In addition, synergies with HE Partnerships were established: PRIMA call 2023 open for 
thematic area” Water management” seeking complementarities with Mission objectives.  

Objective 3: Make the blue economy carbon-neutral and circular 

 

 

 

 

 

Launch of a lighthouse in the Baltic and North Sea to efficiently use marine 
and coastal resources to reduce net greenhouse gas and other emissions, as sites 
to pilot, demonstrate and deploy the Mission solutions across EU sea and river 
basins. The  high-level  launch  took place  on 25-26 April 2023  in  Hamburg, 
Germany. 

Launch  of  4  innovation  actions  on  low  impact  aquaculture,  sustainable  algae 
products and multi-purpose use of marine space in support of the Baltic-North 
Sea lighthouse.  

Zero emission waterborne transport Partnership: complementary topics included 
in the 2021-2024 calls addressing Mission objectives. 

Sustainable  Blue  Economy  Partnership  (SBEP)  call  2023  include  topics 
complementary to the Mission. 

Baseline study report for the implementation of the lighthouse in the Baltic and 
North Sea basin (published). 

(112) Mediterranean lighthouse gains momentum at Mission Ocean and Waters event in Palermo (europa.eu)  

Page 82 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Enabler 1: Digital Ocean and Waters Knowledge system 

 

 

 

Development of the core infrastructure for the EU DTO. 

Digital Ocean Forum organised in Paris in 2022, with the second edition in June 
2023 in Brussels. 

Launch of 4 projects supporting the development of the EU DTO and the ocean 
and waters knowledge system. 

Enabler 2: Public mobilisation and engagement 

  Mobilisation  of  communities  of  actors,  through  organisation  of  dedicated 

workshops in 2023. 

 

 

Launch  of  7  projects  on  citizen  science,  engagement  and  empowerment  of 
students, youth and communities.   

Citizen/stakeholder  engagement  and  citizen  science  initiatives  targeted  in  9 
dedicated topics resulting in min. 11 selected projects, as well as participatory 
approaches embedded in all funded projects. Activities ongoing until 2024. 

  More than 160 conferences organised. 

In addition, several milestones covering all objectives were achieved: 

 

Governance structure established for the 4 basins. 

  Mobilisation  of  approx.  100  associated  regions  and  other  stakeholders  with 

plans for replication of innovative solutions is in place or has started. 

 

 

 

Launch of the Mission Charter (more than 350 submitted) mobilising funding of 
more than EUR 2.25 billion in support of the Mission. 

Organisation of the 1st annual Mission Forum event in Brussels. 

Organisation  with  EAC and REA of Cluster event  to  connect  MSCA fellows 
and EIT projects with the Mission.  

  Mission  Implementation  Platform  established  as  one  common  portal  for  all 
and 

Mission 
dissemination, technical assistance, Mission-specific monitoring platform). 

communication 

stakeholders 

information, 

(providing 

  Major EU legislative acts, international declarations mention the importance of 

Mission Ocean Synergies with other EU programmes established. 

4.7.8 

Current estimation of the budget 

The  Mission  is  acting  as  a  catalyst  for  synergies  and  complementarities  across 
different EU, national and regional programmes, already pooling funds beyond R&I. 
In line with the legal basis, Horizon Europe supports the implementation of the EU Mission 
Ocean and Waters with approx. EUR 344 million for the period 2021-2023.  

Complementary  activities  under  Horizon  Europe  are  supported  in  the  context  of  the 
following  key  European  partnerships  and  Joint  Undertakings,  which  are  particularly 
relevant  for  the  Mission  Ocean  and  waters  and  cross-references  are  included  in  the 
respective Strategic Research and Innovation Agendas (SRIA) and/or calls for proposals.:  

Page 83 / 185 

 
 
  Sustainable Blue Economy partnership, contributing to Mission objective 1,2 and 

3: EUR 450 million. 

  Zero-Emission waterborne partnership, contributing to Mission objective 3: EUR 

150 million for the period 2021-2024. 

  Biodiversa+, contributing to Mission objective 1: EUR 40 million. 

  PRIMA, contributing to Mission objective 1: EUR 8.2 million. 

  Water4All, contributing to Mission objective 1 and 2: EUR 420 million. 

  The public-private partnership Joint Undertaking on Circular Bio-based Economy 
(CBE-JU)  cross-refers  to  the  Mission  in  its  call:  EUR  39  million  (Work  Plans 
2022-23). 

EMFAF direct management calls launched in 2022 on blue career and regional flagships 
in  EU  sea  basins  (indicative  budget  EUR  15.1  million  in  2022)  have  been  designed  to 
complement activities implemented by the Mission in its WP 2021 and 2022.  

EMFAF  national  plans  under  shared  management  are  all  very  relevant  to  the  Mission 
objectives.  26  MSs  (LU  opted  out  of  EMFAF)  explicitly  refer  to  the  Mission  in  their 
operational programme and 17 in their Partnership agreements. It is however, not possible 
to provide any figures at this point in time. 

Under the LIFE programme an expert portfolio analysis is mapping ongoing and past Life 
projects suitable for replication and deployment in line with the Mission objectives. LIFE 
projects focussing on marine and coastal themes amount to EUR 320 million. 

Under  the  RRF,  several  reforms  and  investments  planned  in  MSs  plans  under  blue 
economy and marine domains, including marine data and monitoring, mobilising a budget 
of the order of EUR 10.7 billion. 

BlueInvest:  EUR  500  million  available  to  bridge  the  finance  gap  for  blue  technology 
SMEs  and  start-ups  developing  and  marketing  solutions  for  the  blue  economy,  notably 
addressing the objectives of Mission Ocean and Waters. The EIB ‘Blue Champions’ pilot 
scheme will be launched in  Q1/Q2 2023, for 15 companies  contributing to the  Mission 
objectives that will receive advisory support to qualify for EIB scale-up funding  

Digital Europe: The 2023-2024 Work Programme will pilot the interoperability between 
Destination Earth and the Digital Twin Ocean (DTO). 

In Germany, 41 programmes and initiatives  implemented by the Federal authorities make 
up the preliminary German roadmap of relevant actions amounting to  EUR 335 million 
overall. 

Page 84 / 185 

 
 
 
 
 
5  100 CLIMATE-NEUTRAL AND SMART CITIES BY 2030 

Page 85 / 185 

 
 
 
 
 
5.1  Mission goal and objectives 

The  Mission  has  two  general  objectives,  1)  ‘to  deliver  at  least  100  European  climate-
neutral  and  smart  cities  by  2030’,  and  2)  ‘to  ensure  that  these  cities  also  act  as 
experimentation and innovation hubs for others to follow, to enable all European cities to 
become climate-neutral by 2050’. The Mission goals were suggested by the Mission board 
and fully taken on board by the EC.  

The implementation plan breaks the two general objectives of the Mission down into seven 
‘specific objectives’: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Specific  objective  1:  To  develop  and  support  a  “demand  driven”  and  city-
focused  process,  based  on  research  and  innovation,  and  focused  on  the 
preparation  of  Climate  City  Contracts  (CCC)  including  investment  plans  for 
deployment of innovative and smart solutions for climate neutrality. 
Specific objective 2: To support tailored R&I pilots and demonstrators within 
the  Mission  platform  to  be  funded  by  Horizon  Europe  and  to  scale-up  and 
replicate solutions developed in past R&I programmes.  
Specific objective 3: To develop synergies and complementarities and facilitate 
mutual  support  with  existing  Commission  initiatives,  including  those  policies 
focused  on  delivering  co-benefits  of  climate  neutrality,  while  reducing 
administrative costs for cities related to the need to work with many different EU 
initiatives on similar issues.  
Specific  objective  4:  To  give  access  to  city  administrations  and  their  local 
businesses to EU-wide skills and expertise and help cities connect in international 
networks  (e.g.  Global  Covenant  of  Mayors,  URBACT)  in  order  to  accelerate 
learning,  replicability  and  scaling-up  of  solutions  through  sharing  of  good 
practices and joint actions and ultimately serve as an inspiration for cities across 
the world.  
Specific objective 5: To help cities develop, where necessary, the administrative, 
financial and policy capacity through innovative governance to overcome a silo 
approach and to ensure buy-in and commitment from citizens, local public and 
private stakeholders (i.e. industry, businesses) as well as regional and national 
authorities. 
Specific  objective  6:  To  put  in  place  a  strong  and  transparent  system  of 
measuring  and  monitoring  the  progress  towards  climate  neutrality  for  cities 
building on existing practice and methodologies. 
Specific objective 7: To increase the level of assistance from national, regional 
and  local  authorities  as  well  as  from  National  Promotional  Banks  (NPBs), 
municipal banks and private sector investment, through regulatory, funding and 
financing levers to help cities implement the Mission. Where cities selected by 
the Mission are also part of the entities that engage in the Mission Adaptation to 
Climate Change (Objective 2), synergies will be sought between cities and these 
entities to ensure that climate neutrality activities also take into account climate 
adaptation requirements and vice versa. 

Page 86 / 185 

 
 
5.2  The Mission’s selection process 

The  literature  on  Mission-oriented  innovation  policy  stresses  the  importance  of 
considering  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders  and  involving  citizens  in  the  co-design  of 
Missions to give societal ownership and ensure the longevity of the Mission. (113) The one-
year  development  process  leading  up  to  the  final  report  of  the  Mission  board  provided 
opportunities for both leading experts and local stakeholders to participate in the selection 
process. 

The analysis conducted in the context of the external study underpinning the assessment 
of the EU Missions suggests that the Mission board represented a powerful instrument for 
bringing together expertise from varied domains and developing a cross-national expert 
community dedicated to the success of the Mission well beyond the development process. 
The commissioning of a foresight  study running  in  parallel  to  the development process 
made sure that the Mission board could rely on independent expert support and feedback 
throughout the whole process. The Mission board specifically gathered experiences from 
frontrunner  initiatives  such  as  the  Swedish  ‘Viable  Cities’  programme  and  the 
transnational ‘healthy, clean cities’ Mission, key elements of which have been taken up in 
both  the  Mission  board’s  recommendations  and  in  the  final  implementation  plan. 
According to the external study, the EC was able to learn from previous initiatives and 
gain strong support from key stakeholders across Europe. The consultation of experts 
and stakeholders in the context of the study confirmed that the Mission is being carried by 
a highly motivated and dedicated group of individuals who have taken ownership of 
the Mission, many of whom have been involved since the early stages of the Mission’s 
development.  Overall,  most  stakeholders  participating  in  the  external  study’s  survey 
judged the Mission selection process as both transparent and sufficiently inclusive. 

With respect to the involvement of citizens, the board held a series of citizen engagement 
events, whereby care was taken to include participants from various socio-demographic 
backgrounds. Despite logistical challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was possible 
to  interact  with  urban  residents  from  13  cities  and  at  least  eight  Member  states.  The 
feedback  obtained  from  citizens  provided  confirmation  to  the  Mission  board  that  the 
proposed Mission would be met with societal acceptance and that a Mission on climate-
neutrality would address many key priorities for citizens.  

Despite the involvement of citizens, the formulation of the Mission was predominantly 
based  on  expert  judgments  and  political  considerations  related  to  the  Mission’s 
correspondence  to  the  Mission  Area  as  defined  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
European Council. The experience of consulted stakeholders in the context of the external 
study  reveals  that  ‘climate-neutrality’  and  ‘smart’  are  difficult  to  communicate  to  the 
public, suggesting that a more participatory and open-ended co-design process would have 
likely led to different formulations of the Mission. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the 
Mission board’s proposed emphasis on citizens rather than smart solutions has not been 
taken up in the final formulation of the Mission.  

(113) Hill (2022), Mazzucato (2019), Wiarda et al. (2023). 

Page 87 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
The analysis and stakeholder consultation conducted by the external consultants confirms 
that the formulation of the Cities Mission represents an exemplary case of Mission-
oriented innovation policy, combining a holistic and highly ambitious vision with a 
clear target.  

Climate neutrality: scope of emissions 

The EC followed the Mission board’s proposal to focus efforts on territorial (scope 1 
and 2) GHG emissions (114) and tackle remaining, indirect GHG emissions (scope 3) 
beyond 2030, reasoning that it is much more difficult for city authorities to influence that 
addressing territorial and indirect emissions at the same time would overburden city 
administrations  and  render  the  2030  objective  unrealistic.  Some  stakeholders 
interviewed within the context of the external study suggested that it may not be necessary 
to include indirect emissions within the scope of the Mission since many cities are planning 
to  take  them  into  account  regardless.  However,  other  interviewees  cautioned  that  this 
approach  may  incentivise  the  externalisation  and  outsourcing  of  production  processes, 
potentially increasing the divide between cities and rural areas.  

The  external  study  suggests  that  this  may  pose  (long-term)  risks  for  the  alignment  of 
climate neutrality in cities on the one hand and value chains on the other. An important 
measure to mitigate such risks is to communicate the focus on territorial GHG emissions 
in  a  transparent  way.  While  the  handling  of  indirect  emissions  does  not  fundamentally 
affect the relevance and boldness of the Mission, using a more encompassing accounting 
framework in the communication of the Mission nonetheless risks that a part of scope 3 
emissions (115)  will  not  be  covered  in  the  first  phase  of  the  implementation  of  the 
Mission. (116 Nevertheless, it should be highlighted that the ‘Info Kit for Cities’ (117) does 
not explicitly neglect Scope 3 emissions. While it recommends that transport-related scope 
3  emissions  are  considered  by  2030,  it  clarifies  that  “The  Mission  will  re-evaluate  the 
possibility of including other Scope 3 emission sources in the post-2030 era, when leading 
cities have achieved climate neutrality as currently defined”. 

While the neglect of indirect emissions does not fundamentally affect the relevance and 
boldness of the Mission (see assessments of survey participants in annex), using a more 
encompassing  accounting  framework  in  the  communication  of  the  Mission  nonetheless 

(114) Scope 1 and 2 include, amongst others, GHG emissions released into the atmosphere within city 

borders (e.g. from industrial processes, fuel consumption of transport vehicles) and those generated 
from purchased energy (e.g. consumption of electricity, heat). Climate-neutrality includes also 
’negative‘ emissions (i.e. GHG removed from the atmosphere).  

(115) In global cities, indirect emissions account for approximately 30% of consumption-based GHG 

emissions (Wiedmann et al., 2021). 

(116) Shabb et al. (2022) also take note of ambiguities in the implementation plan regarding scope of the 
Mission due to inconsistent use of the notions of “climate neutrality” and “carbon neutrality”. 

(117) https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/Mission-climate-

neutral-and-smart-cities-info-kit-cities-now-available-2021-10-29_en  

Page 88 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
risks  that  a  significant  share (118)  of  city-related  GHG  emissions  will  be  overlooked  in 
European and urban climate policy. (119) 

2030: temporal scope 

Although  a  clear  time  frame  represents  a  core  element  of  Mission-oriented  innovation 
policy, (120) the external study analysis suggests that the 2030 goal should not be overrated 
vis-à-vis the long-term objective of European cities to become climate-neutral by 2050. 
With 2030 approaching fast and the goal looking increasingly unrealistic for all 100 cities, 
failing to meet the goal could undermine the legitimacy of an initiative that has already 
taken significant steps towards meeting the important long-term objective. Furthermore, it 
was suggested that the strict time frame and monitoring procedures of the Mission can 
have a flavour of top-down control if it is not accompanied by sufficient support for cities 
to make the Mission’s goal attainment realistic.  

Selection of cities: geographical scope 

In terms of geographical scope, the EC followed the Mission board’s recommendation to 
adopt a flexible definition of cities to take into account varied geographical delimitations 
(e.g. districts, cities, city agglomerations) and city sizes across member states. (121)  

Cities  are  at  different  stages  in  the  transition  to  climate  neutrality  and  face  varied 
challenges depending on factors such as local political support, the roles of civil society 
and research organisations, and the conditions  of the built  environment. (122) To address 
this  diversity  and  create  the  conditions  for  large-scale  implementation  across  European 
cities  the  Cities  Mission  is  based  on  a  “demand-led”  and  broad-based  approach  to 
transformation that takes the individual needs of cities with different local conditions as a 
starting point. (123) In creating a pathway that links the activities of ‘frontrunner’ cities with 
the wider ambition of realising climate neutrality across all European cities by 2050, the 
Cities  Mission  adds  an  important  element  to  previous  cross-city  initiatives  that 
addresses  recent  calls  in  the  scientific  community  to  turn  attention  in  climate 
governance towards the scaling of local solutions. (124) 

(118) In global cities, indirect emissions account for approximately 30% of consumption-based GHG 

emissions (Wiedmann et al., 2021). 

(119) Shabb et al. (2022) also take note of ambiguities in the implementation plan regarding scope of the 
Mission due to inconsistent use of the notions of “climate neutrality” and “carbon neutrality”. 

(120) Mazzucato (2018). 

(121) European Commission (2021a). 

(122) Haupt et al. (2022), Huovila et al. (2022), Pietrapertosi et al. (2019), Reckien et al. (2018). 

(123) European Commission (2021a). 

(124) Grönholm (2022), Kern (2019), van der Heijden (2018, 2022), Wurzel et al. (2019). 

Page 89 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Ahead of a call for expression of interest (EOI) in November 2021, the EC released an info 
kit for cities outlining the main building blocks of the Cities Mission, the key sectors and 
activities with regard to urban climate neutrality, and the criteria of selection. (125) To secure 
a  high  level  of  inclusiveness,  the  Mission  set  out  to  select  at  least  one  city  from  each 
Member State. Additional criteria considered in the selection process were the ambitions 
to achieve climate neutrality as well as diversity in terms of levels of preparedness and 
decarbonisation pathways. The launch of the Mission generated significant interest among 
European city administrations, leading to 377 (362 eligible) EOI from cities. (126) 

The  high  number  of  applications  made  it  possible  to  select  at  least  one  city  from  each 
Member  State  and  consider  cities  of  various  backgrounds,  including  cities  from  eight 
associated countries. (127) Indeed, the number of applications would have been sufficiently 
high  to  support  more  than  112  cities  to  allow  for  failures  and  mitigate  the  risk  of 
jeopardising  the  achievement  of  the  first  general  Mission  objective.  The  analysis 
developed by the external consultants suggests that it may be optimistic to hope that around 
90% of cities would achieve the goal of climate-neutrality by 2030. 

According to the external study analysis, the EOI was able to attract interest from both 
cities  with  well-established  links  to  other  cities  and  climate  initiatives,  as  well  as  from 
cities that were less integrated in transnational activities. Overall, the same study finds that 
the sample of selected cities is well balanced, including global frontrunners in terms 
of  climate  ambition,  a  significant  number  of  capital  cities,  and  cities  of  varying 
size. (128) The  main  difference  between  selected  and  non-selected  cities  identified  in  the 
study  concerns  previous  participations  in  EU-funded  projects. (129)  Whereas  72%  of 
selected cities were previously involved in international projects, only 2% of non-selected 
cities  had  this  experience.  At  the  same  time,  this  is  evidence  that  the  Mission  was 
successful at integrating a significant share of cities (28%) into European R&I networks 
that were previously unable to benefit from EU-level funding programmes. The experience 
and efforts of the same cities will likely be instrumental in scaling climate initiatives to 
other, non-selected cities with a comparable lack of previous involvement. 

5.3  Management arrangements and governance structure 

The  governance  structures  put  in  place  to  realise  the  Mission’s  objective  are  geared 
towards decentralised actions at the city level to foster local experimentation, citizen 

(125) See European Commission (2021b). 

(126) European Union (2022a). 

(127) European Union (2022b). 

(128) The interviews conducted within the scope of the external study corroborate this finding. One 

interviewee, however, suggested that it is regrettable that none of the nine selected cities from Italy is 
located south of Rome.  

(129) The study examined the involvement of cities in the following European funding programmes: H2020, 
Urban Innovative Actions, Interreg Europe, Interreg MED, LIFE, and URBACT (Salvia et al., 2022).  

Page 90 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
engagement, and cross-city learning. Taking inspiration from previous initiatives such 
as  the  Covenant  of  Mayors  and  C40,  the  Mission  is  based  on  a  polycentric  and 
experimental  governance  model  that  puts  cities  in  the  driving  seat  by  building  local 
governmental capacities for effective climate action and creating favourable conditions for 
the scaling of solutions. (130) The empowerment of cities is confirmed by the consultation 
of stakeholders and the scientific literature (131). Conducted in the context of the external 
study underpinning the assessment of EU Missions, the two methods highlight that many 
cities have taken a leadership role in taking ambitious climate action.  Stakeholders also 
stress that cities are closer to citizens and therefore in a good position to develop solutions 
that  meet  local  needs  and  find  broad  stakeholder  support.  Moreover,  the  bottom-up 
experimentation  approach  is  in  line  with  the  tenets  of  Mission-oriented  innovation 
policy. (132) 

While  the  empowerment  of  cities  is  widely  embraced,  feedback  on  the  suitability  of 
governance setup for steering and implementing the Mission is mixed. The main issue 
relates to the challenges in aligning resources across different governance levels, but the 
experts and stakeholders consulted via the external study have also identified redundancies 
and gaps in the existing governance arrangements. 

(130) Grönholm (2022), Shabb & McCormick (2023). 

(131) See Huovila et al. (2022) and Kern (2019). 

(132) Mazzucato (2019), Wanzenböck & Frenken (2020). 

Page 91 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Figure 11: Governance structures for the EU Mission Smart Cities 

Source: EFIS study   

Governance structures in the EC 

The analysis conducted by the external study consultants confirms that cross-Commission 
buy-in  will be pivotal  for the  Mission’s success  and that as implementation progresses, 
departments  other than  DG RTD will need to  assume a more important role to  support 
urban  transitions  towards  climate-neutral  and  smart  cities.  Study  analysis  indicates  that 
some DGs have not yet given high priority to the Mission. Whilst representatives from 
multiple DGs are included in the formulation and implementation of the Mission, cross-
departmental co-creation arrangements do not extend to the conception of other EU-policy 
instruments  relevant  to  achieving  climate  neutrality  in  cities.  To  realise  a  ‘whole-of-
government’ approach in the EC towards the achievement of the Mission, all relevant 
DGs need to move from participation to action. 

In addition to Mission-specific governance arrangements, the Mission manager needs to 
liaise with the Horizon Europe steering board, which oversees all Missions. The external 
study argues that this arrangement may not be relevant anymore as the development of the 
Mission  moved  from  design  to  implementation  and  tailored  approaches  become  more 
important vis-à-vis one-size-fits-all solutions for all Missions. The implementation could 
thus be accelerated if the Mission manager was given more autonomy in matters of 
operational management. 

Multi-level governance arrangements 

Page 92 / 185 

 
 
 
 
A matter of concern expressed by several stakeholders in the context of the external study 
consultation activities is the relatively low involvement of national governments. The 
general  impression  is  that  some  national  governments  have  not  shown  the  necessary 
support  for  the  Mission  to  date  and  that  the  EC  could  be  more  proactive  in  mobilising 
support at the national level. Regarding the EC’s mobilisation activities, this task has so 
far mainly been fulfilled by the Mission manager, who held bilateral meetings and visited 
20 Member States to date. However, the study concludes that for the Mission to be taken 
more seriously by national governments, commissioners and the EC’s President need to 
clearly endorse the Mission. To date, there are still uncertainties at the local, regional, 
and national level regarding the level of commitment of the EC. 

The engagement of citizens and civil society organisations should be a core pillar of the 
Mission’s governance. With citizen engagements being decentrally organised in cities, it 
is  unclear  at  this  stage  whether  the  Mission  can  make  a  significant  contribution  to 
participative  and  inclusive  urban  governance.  In  the  scientific  community,  the 
commitments and guidance of the EC with respect to citizen and stakeholder participation 
in the Mission are described as somewhat ambiguous, lacking clarity about how citizens 
will  be  included  in  decision-making  processes. (133)  In  line  with  this,  more  than  half  of 
stakeholders consulted through the external study survey indicated that it is unclear how 
stakeholders can become involved in the Mission. This lack of support creates pressures 
on local governments to navigate possible tensions between the requirements at the 
Mission  level,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  management  of  local  participation  and 
communication processes, on the other.  

5.4 

Progress to date 

The progress made since the EC proposed the Mission Area in 2018 until the end of 2021 
entails the formulation of an actual Mission, the development of an implementation plan, 
devising  and  implementing  the  governance  structure  of  the  Mission  implementation, 
including  a  cross-DG  coordination  mechanism,  and  the  Mission  platform  as  a  crucial 
delivery mechanism. 

  The call for expression of interest for becoming Mission cities closed in January 
2022  and  resulted  in  applications  from  377  cities.  The  selected  112  cities  were 
announced by the EC in April 2022. The following kick-off conference took place 
in June 2022.  

  The Mission platform has been operational early, as it could build on a precursor 
project from Horizon 2020; the contract was signed in September 2021. Its main 
task is currently to guide the cities during the process of delivering the CCC with 
the  support  of  13  advisors.  The  platform  further  delivers  content  for  the 
NetZeroCities  online  platform  to  guide  the  Mission  cities,  facilitates  their 
networking,  it  also  coordinates  occasional  calls  for  proposals,  and  produces 
knowledge diffusion for non-selected cities via a repository. The portal has nearly 
1 400 active users in March 2023. 

(133) Boeri et al. (2021), Shabb et al. (2022). 

Page 93 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
 

In September 2022, the Mission platform launched a call for pilot cities to advance 
the  process.  This  resulted  in  103  applications  (involving  159  cities  from  33 
countries),  of  which  53  pilots  were  selected  by  1st  March  2023.  Selected  cities 
receive grants of between EUR 0.5 and 1.5 million for a two-year programme. The 
calls  were  open  to  all  cities  from  H2020,  and  associated  countries  and  selected 
pilots do not only include cities that are preparing a CCC. 

  Following the successful mandate of the first Mission board from 2019-2020 and 
the activities around that time, a new Mission board has been in place since October 
2022 to help guide the Mission, which provides feedback and reach out to countries 
and cities.  

  The first cities signed their CCC in April 2023. These include cities from Sweden 
and  Spain  where  support  from  the  national  level  is  strong,  and  government 
representatives  are  likely  to  be  involved  in  a  supporting  role.  A  larger  group  of 
cities  is  expected  to  sign  their  CCC  in  the  autumn  of  2023.  In  March  2023,  46 
mayors of Mission cities re-confirmed their engagement in an open letter addressed 
to the EC. 

  The  review  of  these  CCC  is  carried  out  by  the  Mission  platform  (completeness 
check),  the  Mission  secretariat  (commitment  part),  the  Joint  Research  Centre 
(climate  neutrality  action  plan)  and  independent  financial  experts  (climate 
neutrality investment plan). After consultation with the Mission board, the Mission 
owners group representing 12 DGs recommends the CCC for endorsement, which 
is  then  finalised  by  the  Mission  manager.  Cities  whose  CCC  are  endorsed  will 
receive a Mission label as a seal of quality, which should lead to easier access to 
funding and financing.  

The external study confirmed that according to most surveyed stakeholders, the Mission 
is progressing according to the implementation plan. The study analysis suggests that, 
looking  at  the  timeline  included  in  the  Mission’s  implementation  plan,  the  Mission 
implementation was on track until early 2022  

Political support at various levels is seen to be the most important leverage for the Mission 
implementation. Though, the Mission has so far received somewhat stronger support 
at national level in selected countries. Sweden has played a model for some parts of the 
Mission implementation via its Viable Cities programme, but also Spain and France could 
build  on  already  existing  national  or  local  structures  for  the  aim  of  climate  neutrality. 
National governments have launched national support platforms for their cities, including 
Sweden,  Spain,  Greece,  Portugal,  France,  the  Netherlands,  Austria  and  Belgium.  Some 
additional countries integrated the EU Mission into national and regional strategies (e.g. in 
Poland).  There  has  been  some  success  in  redirecting  financial  flows,  with  the  external 
study  analysis  pointing  out  that  funds  from  the  RRF  and  Cohesion  Policy  have  been 
directed  to  some  cities  in  selected  countries.  Other  Member  States  are  drawing  up  and 
updating the national energy and climate plans in 2023, and they are doing the same for 
the RRF. Therefore, to influence these decisions, the EC and/or the cities would need to 
react quickly if this is not already part of the discussion in the preparation of the CCC. 
There  are  some  early  signs  that  national  governments  are  also  providing  additional 
funding to complement EU-level support for Mission cities.  

Page 94 / 185 

 
 
5.5  Budget and funding leveraged 

Due to its co-financing character, the EU has an important gravitational effect on domestic 
public and private funding in  cities. Beyond the  EU financing context,  Member State’s 
public sector instruments are also crucial.  

 “Cities generally cannot acquire money in  the same ways as national governments: they lack 

creditworthiness  in  international  financial  markets,  they  do  not  have  the  authority  to  borrow 

funds  independently,  and  they  face  restrictive  requirements  for  bidding  and  procurement 

(Brugmann, 2012; Lall & World Bank, 2013; Mori, 2012).”  

However, this is not seen as universally true and depends on the national set-up. In Sweden, 
for  example,  city  administrations  have  formed  a  cooperative  (KOMUNINVEST)  that 
issues  bonds  directly  to  the  financial  markets  (where  the  cities'  pooled  rights  to  collect 
taxes serves as collateral), whilst in Germany cities are shareholders of 'Sparkassen' which 
can jointly access financial markets. Yet although certain Member states, such as Austria, 
Spain, Sweden and Greece, have established support structures for the Mission and some 
have  set  up  dedicated  funds,  the  latter  are  understood  to  be  small.  As  part  of  the 
consultation  activities  carried  out  within  the  external  study  supporting  the  Missions’ 
assessment, insufficient domestic financial support for the Mission, averaged across 
national, regional and local levels, was said to be a major concern by some 65% of 
survey  respondents.  Certain  more  advanced  cities  have  begun  to  search  for  creative 
solutions to fund their climate agendas, including revolving loan funds, property assessed 
financing,  and  green  bonds  (van  der  Heijden,  2016).  In  cases  where  it  is  not  the  cities 
themselves which seek financing, but rather companies providing public services, a variety 
of  public-private  financing  arrangements  are  potentially  available.  To  assess  with  any 
degree of accuracy the overall potential contributions to the Mission of domestic funding 
instruments, much will depend on commitments entered in the CCC still to be finalised 
and approved.  

As regards potential private sector investment, the situation is less easy to depict and is 
likely difficult to include in the CCC in a sufficiently detailed manner. The study reports 
the views of some stakeholders suggesting that EU instruments were sufficient to de-risk 
key investment areas and trigger substantial private financial input. Nonetheless, concern 
was  voiced  via  the  external  study  stakeholder  consultations  about  overall  market 
conditions, such as the price of electricity  generated from renewables, which if too low 
could prevent certain private investors from covering their costs. There was also concern 
about the schedule for preparation of the Mission’s lending and blending facility, which 
was said to be coming too late.  

Yet at this early stage, the external study analysis suggested that the EU funding for the 
Mission  appears  ‘front-loaded’  in  general,  in the  sense  that  domestic  national  and 
private  sector  funds  are  expected  to  play  an  ever-greater  role  as  the  Mission 
progresses.  Commitment  periods  currently  in  place  for  EU  funds  support  this  view. 
Horizon Europe funding dedicated to the Mission is only committed up to 2023 at present, 
whilst RRF financing must be spent by the end of 2026. Cohesion Policy funding will be 
subject to a mid-term review process, only after which the precise allocations for 2025-
2027  will  be  known.  It  is  clear  the  European  Commission’s  intention  is  to  encourage 
domestic  public  financing  and  private  sector  investment  to  take  over  responsibility  for 

Page 95 / 185 

 
 
implementing  the  Mission  as  it  progresses.  However,  cities  still  face  a  high  level  of 
uncertainty on how to finance their way to climate neutrality, according to the study. 

The  Cities  Mission  needs  to  provide  the  direction  and  operational  framework  for 
interaction between a particularly wide range of instruments. The Mission is the ‘glue’ 
that should bring all the relevant initiatives together. While it is very early to determine 
with certainty how well the Mission is succeeding in this role, the study suggests that the 
Mission adds value to existing instruments and initiatives. 

Regarding synergies with  Cohesion  Policy, EC  officials  consulted in  the context  of the 
study  emphasised positive commitments to  the  Mission which they had  obtained in  the 
wording of relevant Cohesion Policy programmes for 2021-2027, as well as in NRRPs, 
from  around  half  of  the  EU  Member  States.  The  study  also  suggested  that  there  is  an 
opportunity to further strengthen  ties with EU Cohesion policy and its related funds.  

Whilst the above recent developments in building synergies between the Mission and 
other (non-R&I) EU instruments represent an encouraging start, this kind of activity 
will need to be strengthened as the Mission implementation progresses, in order to lever 
in EU and domestic public and private financing of sufficient scale. The CCCs themselves 
will be key tools for directing attention onto the mix of instruments which Mission cities 
feel they will be able to access, as will the lending and blending facility foreseen. Further 
cross-DG reflection appears necessary on the deployment of the Mission label to make 
this a more convincing tool for the Mission cities. 

5.6  Key conclusions from the external assessment 

In less than two years, the Cities Mission has been able to bring together 112 European 
cities  from  Member  States  and  associated  countries,  with  more  cities  soon  to  be  added 
through a 'twinning' programme. In addition, several Member States have set up their own 
platforms  and  programmes  in  support  of  the  Mission  to  extend  support  to  non-selected 
cities. On top of a growing network, the Cities Mission has also delivered tangible results 
in  the  form  of  a  transnational  NetZeroCities  platform  and  the  publication  of  the  first 
Climate Cities Contracts, which outline city-level transformation pathways and investment 
plans to achieve climate neutrality by 2030. 

The external study underpinning the assessment of EU Missions highlighted the 
following success factors for the Cities Mission:  

  A Mission that is perceived as bold and inspiring by key stakeholders; 

  A Mission design process that built on the experiences made in previous initiatives; 

  A transparent and inclusive Mission selection process;  

  A  large  group  of  highly  motivated  and  committed  individuals  who  have  taken 
ownership  of  the  Mission  and  are  promoting  it  across  different  levels  of 
government and Member States; 

  A high level of trust at local level in the EC's commitment to the Mission, given 

that the details could not be worked out at the outset; 

Page 96 / 185 

 
 
  Finally,  a  clear  added  value  through  the  focus  on  holistic  solutions  and  the 
introduction of novel policy instruments (in particular, the climate city contracts 
and the Mission label). 

The  same  factors  were  instrumental  in  overcoming  key  challenges  associated  with  the 
launch and implementation of the Cities Mission, which introduced cities to a new form of 
interaction  with  R&I  funding  at  European  level.  From  the  perspective  of  local 
governments, the launch of the Mission was very much appreciated, but also accompanied 
by uncertainty about the level of longer-term EC commitment and the specific benefits for 
selected  cities.  The  early  phase  of  implementation  was  characterised  by  efforts  to 
manage mutual expectations and establish a culture of learning, against a background 
where stakeholders have become accustomed to managing R&I projects rather than cross-
sectoral  societal  transitions.  Resisting  the  'projectification'  of  transition  processes  and 
refocusing  efforts  on  the  broader  challenges  of  developing  appropriate  governance 
structures,  securing  multi-level  and  cross-departmental  buy-in,  and  establishing 
appropriate  financing  arrangements  are  likely  to  remain  critical  well  beyond  the  initial 
implementation phase.  

The review of the CCCs will provide a clearer picture of where cities stand and what they 
need to realise the Mission’s ambitions. However, the expertise and feedback from key 
stakeholders involved in the development and implementation of the Mission collected for 
the external study assessment of the Mission point to a range of issues that can be addressed 
immediately.  Furthermore,  their  perspectives  add  an  important  layer  to  the  information 
contained in Climate City Contracts by providing indications of the key challenges in the 
governance of the Mission and in the ‘scaling’ of solutions beyond individual cities. On 
this basis, the assessment revealed three areas in which further action is needed to achieve 
the Mission objectives: demonstrating commitment, local  capacity building, and  citizen 
engagement. 

There  is  consensus  among  stakeholders  that  Member  States  and  regions  will  need  to 
become more active on a broader basis for the Mission to succeed, because this has been 
variable  so  far.  As  political  leadership  is  of  paramount  importance,  it  is  probably  best 
addressed at this level, hence political leadership in the EC could be strengthened so 
that the EC can engage more effectively with the Member States on this issue. 

The  work  of  national  networks  as  neutral  intermediaries  between  different  levels  of 
government  and  at  the  local  level  can  be  an  important  mechanism  for  learning  and 
mediating but should not be overestimated. Implementation capacity is needed in cities 
and other relevant local actors to develop workable projects. This means building capacity 
in the cities, while avoiding too much advisory work. The scope of this goes considerably 
beyond what is now being offered. 

While much emphasis has been placed on citizen engagement in the Lamy report (134), in 
the  expert  reports  prepared  prior  to  the  launch  of  the  Mission (135),  and  in  the 
implementation plan, evidence of how citizens are being involved in the Mission will 

(134) EC (2017). 

(135) Mazzucato (2019). 

Page 97 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
only become  clear once the first wave of the Climate City Contract will have been 
assessed. The evidence gathered by the external assessment study suggests that the level 
of citizen involvement in the preparation of  Climate City Contracts has  the potential to 
increase further but it should be stressed that any consultation process of citizens will rely 
on the methodologies put in place by the local authorities themselves. Given the impact of 
climate neutral and smart cities on everyday urban life, high levels of investment will also 
be required from local stakeholders, businesses, and households: Given the behavioural 
changes  expected  from  local  stakeholders  and  private  households,  awareness  of  the 
Mission  should  be  further  increased  among  European  citizens  including  how  they  can 
become more involved. 

5.7 

Self-assessment of the Mission ‘100 Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities 
by 2030’ 

The two goals of the Cities Mission 1) to achieve 100 climate neutral and smart cities by 
2030 and 2) to ensure that these cities also act as experimentation and innovation hubs to 
put all European cities in a position to become climate-neutral by 2050 have been identified 
in the report from the Climate Neutral and Smart Cities Mission Board and confirmed in 
the subsequent Implementation Plan adopted by the Commission. It is the first time that 
climate neutrality of cities has been put forward as the central point of attention of an EU 
initiative and that a clear timeline is attached to it.  

The  implementation  of  the  Cities  Mission  is  generally  following  the  Cities  Mission 
Implementation Plan. The Call for Expression of Interest to cities to join the Cities Mission 
that closed in January 2022 resulted in applications from 377 cities which indicates the 
readiness of the cities to embrace this goal. 112 cities were selected in April 2022 and are 
now working on the development of their Climate City Contracts (CCC), with the hands-
on support of a Mission Platform (managed by the NetZeroCities project), which has been 
operational since September 2021. The first CCCs have been submitted to the Commission 
in April 2023. Moreover, a first  group of 53 pilots were selected in March 2023 by the 
Mission  Platform (136).  A  twinning  programme  launched  in  May  2023  will  allow  more 
cities to benefit from the approaches that are being tested by pilot cities. Further calls for 
pilot cities are planned. In addition, the Mission Platform has established a repository of 
best practices and solutions for cities that is accessible also to non-selected cities.  

(136) These Pilot Cities will experiment with new ways to rapidly decarbonise over the course of a two-year 
programme to advance local solutions to the challenges of the climate transition; Getting to Climate 
Neutrality: 53 Pilot Cities Offer a Path Toward Transformation - NetZeroCities. 

Page 98 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
5.7.1 

An ambitious yet realistic Mission goal  

The goals of the Cities Mission are very ambitious as only a limited number of cities have 
adopted the goals of climate neutrality, and only a handful by 2030(137). 

Cities take up only 4% of the EU's land area (138) but are home to 75% of EU citizens (139). 
Worldwide, cities account for more than 65% of energy consumption and for more than 
70%  of  CO2  emissions (140) (141).  The  cities  have  therefore  the  potential  to  be  in  the 
vanguard of efforts to deliver on the European Green Deal, helping to enable the EU to 
reduce  climate  emissions  by  55%  by  2030  and  to  become  climate-neutral  by  2050. 
Through  the  selection  of  the  112  Mission  Cities,  cities  of  different  sizes  and  from  all 
corners of Europe have been brought within the scope of the Mission, but most of all, these 
cities have very different starting points in terms of climate neutrality.  

Through the Mission Platform that provides tailor made support to cities for preparing their 
CCCs,  Mission  cities  have  become  a  powerful  community  where  they  exchange  best 
practice, work together and link up with other ambitious cities in their country to address 
and discuss common issues related to accelerating climate-neutral solutions.  

By design, the CCC process involves citizens from the outset. Citizens are involved in the 
CCC  co-creation,  and  the  Mission  Platform  supports  cities  in  finding  the  most  suitable 
forms  of  engagement.  As  the  CCC  provides  a  holistic  picture  of  the  current  state  of 
emissions, the actions necessary to achieve climate neutrality and the investment needs, 
they provide an ideal basis for engagement.  

The challenge is now how to ensure that supporting funds and finance for cities can be 
mobilised in an integrated cross sectoral manner from the large variety of sector specific 
resources, for individual cities to deliver climate neutrality on a tight timescale. The review 
of the first waves of CCC’s will provide more insight in the financing needs of the cities 
for implementing their climate neutral action plans to achieve climate neutrality by 2030. 
The Cities Mission Label will have to prove its value for cities to access these public and 
private  funds  and  only  then  a  view  can  be  given  how  realistic  the  goals  of  the  Cities 
Mission are. However, until now all essential building blocks of the Cities Mission have 
been  successfully  put  in  place  in  line  with  the  Implementing  Plan  indicating  that  the 
Mission goals are realistic.  

(137)  JRC Covenant of Mayors database.  

(138)  European  Environment  Agency,  Analysing  and  managing  urban  growth,  European  Environment 
Agency, Copenhagen, 2019, https://www.eea.europa.eu/articles/analysing-and-managing-urban-growth  

(139)  https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?locations=EU 

(140)  https://www.c40.org/why_cities 

(141)  This global figure includes emissions beyond cities (e.g., emissions physically taking place well outside 
a city but “triggered” by the cities). The estimate for EU-27 using the Eurostat definition of cities (i.e., 
more than 50,000 inhabitants) would be 36% of GHG coming directly from cities. 

Page 99 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
5.7.2 

The Mission’s added value 

A number of positive developments have taken place since the launch of the Cities Mission 
that  would  not  have  happened  without  it.  The  Cities  Mission  has  created  a  powerful 
community of ambitious cities. Participating cities work together and link up with other 
ambitious cities in their country and beyond. Both ‘Mission Cities’ and other interested 
cities are actively using the Mission Platform’s online portal (with more than 1400 active 
users) to work in groups across borders.  The Cities Mission is very inclusive and engaging 
all  EU  Member  States,  covering  most  of  the  EU  capital  cities  and  12%  of  the  EU 
population.  Member  States  are  being  engaged  systematically  via  country  visits  and  the 
CapaCITIES project, whose task it is to support national networks and to connect them 
with each other.  

The  Cities  Mission  is  breaking  silos.  Next  to  developing  cross-sectoral  innovative 
solutions,  the  Cities  Mission  has  also  resulted  in  innovative  governance  in  city 
administrations  and  at  regional  and  national  level.  A  number  of  Mission  cities  have 
reorganised  their  administration  to  reflect  better  the  crosscutting  nature  of  the  climate 
transition work (e.g. Lisbon has nominated a Director for Climate who reports directly to 
the mayor).  

The  Cities  Mission  is  showcasing  the  European  Green  Deal  at  local  level  through 
citizens’ engagement and social innovations. All cities have committed themselves to 
co-create  their  CCC  with  the  local  community  and  citizens.  For  example,  in  Barcelona 
1000  organisations  and  schools  have  been  actively  engaged. The  Mission  Platform 
provides guidance on best practices for engaging citizens in the CCC process and runs an 
‘observatory’ on social innovation.    

The Cities Mission uses “smartness” as an enabler for the climate transition. Next to 
dedicated digital topics in the Mission Work Programme (e.g. on digital twins for Positive 
Energy Districts), the Cities Mission is referenced in the Digital Europe Programme and 
cooperates closely with initiatives like living-in.eu and the Smart Cities Marketplace.  

The Cities Mission establishes synergies with existing Green Deal initiatives: 11 out of 
15 cities awarded as European Green Capital and 5 out of 15 cities awarded as European 
Green Leaf (142) were selected for the Mission, and 35 of the selected cities were signatories 
of the Covenant of Mayors and the Green City Accord (143) at the same time. A significant 
number of cities have a long-standing commitment with climate change and environment.  

The Cities Mission is leveraging financial contributions from other EU programmes 
and in Member States. Synergies have been achieved for example with the Connecting 
Europe Facility (CEF) (calls with a total of more than EUR 5 billion), the LIFE Strategic 

(142) Since 2010, the European Commission awards one city as European Green Capital and one or two cities 
as European Green Leaf, recognising local efforts to improve the environment and to fight against climate 
change. 

(143) The Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy is an initiative supported by the European Commission 
by which local governments voluntarily commit to implement EU climate change and energy objectives. In 
a similar way, the cities that join the Green City Accord commit to addressing five areas of environmental 
management: air, water, nature and biodiversity, circular economy and waste. 

Page 100 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Integrated Projects (EUR 30 million) the Digital Europe Programme (current call EUR 18 
million) and Urban Innovative Actions (part of the European Urban Initiative, EUR 120 
million in total). Many Member States or regions are referring to the Cities Mission in their 
regional operational programmes. Additional funding streams at national level include a 
Green Fund (EUR 10 million) in Greece and a co-funded national platform (seed fund of 
EUR 800 000) in Spain.  

The  Cities  Mission  is  mobilising  private  sector  investments.  Horizon  Europe 
Partnerships  with  industry  are  being  used  successfully  as  multipliers.  A  first  concrete 
synergy is a joint call between the Cities Mission and the Partnerships for zero emission 
mobility (2Zero) and for connected and automated mobility (CCAM) (EUR 50 million).  

The Cities Mission is a complementary tool to implement the New European Bauhaus 
(NEB) in urban areas. The Mission cities are invited to take on board the NEB principles 
when developing their CCCs. An explicit reference to NEB is already included in the CCC 
of the Swedish cities and the Spanish cities are preparing to do the same.  

The  Cities  Mission  is  well  connected  internationally.  An  Urban  Transitions  Centre, 
launched in December 2022, supports the Cities Mission’s international outreach activities 
and links to the global Urban Transitions Mission of Mission Innovation.   

5.7.3 

The Mission’s R&I content 

The HE Work Programmes of the Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities Mission, in line with 
the Implementation Plan of the Cities Mission, fosters the implementation of the Mission 
through actions that will continue to provide a strong and direct support to cities that will 
commit  to  climate  neutrality  and  enable  them  to  roll  out  their  climate  action  plans  and 
achieve  climate  neutrality  by  2030,  in  synergy  with  significant  progress  towards  zero 
pollution. The HE calls continue to work on developing and scaling up R&I activities and 
solutions while fostering synergies and joint actions with Horizon Europe Partnerships as 
well as other EU Missions. For example, the 2023 Cities Mission Work Programme agreed 
in December 2022 aims at: 

  Accelerating the transition of European cities to climate neutrality by exploiting 
the  potential  of  electric,  automated  and  connected  as  well  as  shared  people 
mobility  and  freight  transport  through  a  joint  action  with  the  Horizon  Europe 
Partnerships dedicated to Zero-emission Road Transport (2Zero) and Connected, 
Cooperative and Automated Mobility (CCAM); 

  Engaging  cities  in  decisive  climate  mitigation  and  adaptation  efforts  to  reduce 
emissions, based on innovative use of urban greening and nature-based solutions 
through a joint action with the Adaptation to Climate Change Mission; 

  Developing and testing a digital twin of a Positive clean Energy District (PED) 
covering modelling, management, citizen interaction, self-optimization, decision 
support/scenario analysis.  

Page 101 / 185 

 
 
A  portfolio(144)  of  relevant  projects  and  actions  has  been  established  based  on  agreed 
keywords.  Among  projects  from  FP7,  H2020  and  Horizon  Europe,  1800  projects  were 
validated as relevant and were mapped geographically against cities participating in the 
Mission: 

In September 2022, the  Mission Platform  launched  a call for pilot cities  that closed in 
November  2022  and  resulted  in  103  applications.  53  selected  cities  will  receive  grants 
between EUR 0.5 and 1.5 million to help them advance local solutions to the challenges 
of the climate transition.  

A direct innovative effect of the Cities Mission can already be found in the area of cross 
sectoral and multilayer governance with respect to the transition to climate neutrality at 
cities level and at national level. Examples are the mirror groups established in Spain, the 
creation  of  national  platforms  in  several  Member  States  that  support  selected  and  non-
selected Mission cities and cross-sectoral local transition teams.  

5.7.4 

Ensuring implementation is feasible, measurable, and time-bound  

The Cities Mission’s first goal of achieving 100 climate neutral cities by 2030 is highly 
ambitious and was proposed by the first Mission Board. This ambition was subsequently 
incorporated  in  the  Implementation  Plan  agreed  by  the  Commission.  Also,  a  foresight 
study  was  undertaken  at  that  time  which  concluded  that  the  target  was  ambitious  but 
realistic (see the Foresight reports for EU Missions in Horizon Europe)(145). The fact that 
377 cities from MS and associated countries submitted an expression of interest in joining 
the Cities Mission provides an indication of the feasibility as perceived by the cities.  

(144) Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities Mission portfolio v2 | App overview - Qlik Sense (cec.eu.int) 

(145)  https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/foresight-reports-missions-horizon-europe_en 

Page 102 / 185 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
The implementation of the Cities Mission is progressing in line with the goals and timing 
as  set  out  in  the  Implementation  Plan.  The  overall  ‘measurement  methodology’  is 
straightforward: 112 cities have been selected to participate in the Mission to fulfil the first 
objective  and  their  progress  towards  climate  neutrality  will  be  monitored  through  their 
CCCs. An important  milestone will arrive in  2025 when all  Mission cities should have 
completed their CCCs in view of realistically having a chance to achieve the 2030 target. 

5.7.5 

Securing buy-in 

The  political  importance  of  the  Cities  Mission  has  been  highlighted  inter  alia  in  the 
RePowerEU Communication, in the package “Saving Energy for a Safe Winter”, in the 
Zero Pollution Action Plan and in the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy.   

Even when the Cities Mission only formally started its implementation in September 2021, 
synergies  have  already  been  achieved  in  relation  to  several  EU  programmes  as  well  as 
national and regional programmes. All relevant calls of the Connecting Europe Facility 
(CEF) that opened in September 2022 for projects on the TEN-T network (in total more 
than EUR 5 billion) include participation in the Cities Mission as an award criterion under 
“priority and urgency”. This is to be carried on also in future CEF calls. In calls for LIFE 
Strategic Integrated Projects - Climate Action (EUR 30 million), climate neutrality plans 
for cities as part of the Cities Mission are one of five possible objectives. 

Many Member States or regions committed that interventions in their regional operational 
programmes will contribute to the Cities Mission objectives, in particular in the selected 
cities, notably in PL, EL, CZ, SK, HU, RO, BG, HR, SE, SI, IT, ES, PT. 

National and regional support structures for the Cities Mission have been established in 
many countries including additional funding streams (notably in AT, ES, SE, EL). Many 
other  Member  States  are  in  the  process  of  building  support  structures.  In  Greece,  for 
example, a Green Fund was set up with a national commitment of EUR 10 million for their 
six Mission cities, and an additional EUR 500 000 for the preparation of the Climate City 
Contracts. In Spain, the national government co-funds a national Mission platform (starting 
with a seed fund of EUR 800 000) to offer support to cities, including capacity building 
and financial support. It also committed to reinforced funding for comprehensive actions 
towards climate neutrality and to co-governance in European funds.  

In  Sweden,  a  national  Climate  City  Contract  programme  already  exists,  with  similar 
support to that provided in Spain. 

5.7.6 

Citizens and stakeholder engagement 

Cooperation with Member States is pursued systematically via country visits and regular 
meetings of the Cities Mission Working Group of the HE Strategic Programme Committee. 
In addition, the CapaCITIES project (a Coordination and Support Action) was launched to 
support Member States in the set-up and further development of national networks and to 
connect  the national  networks with  each other.  Some governments  are  already taking  a 
very active role, whereas others may need some further encouragement in cooperation with 
CapaCITIES.  

Citizen engagement is not centrally organised at EU level, but locally where it is directly 
relevant to cities’ transformations. For example, Spanish Mission cities are building on a 

Page 103 / 185 

 
 
model of annual citizen and stakeholder consultation developed in Barcelona, stemming 
from  their  climate  emergency  plan.  Other  Mission  cities  use  collaborative  platforms 
(SynAthina in Athens or Better Reykjavik), training programmes (Smart House in Tartu), 
city labs  (on the energy  transition  in  Mannheim), participatory budgeting  (in Bologna), 
urban co-design (superblocks in Barcelona and Vitoria-Gasteiz) and citizens’ assemblies 
(Leuven).  In  the  process,  they  are  shifting  to  a  more  relational  approach  with  their 
inhabitants and pave the way for involving citizens in the European Green Deal in their 
multiple roles as users, producers, consumers and asset owners. 

Additional citizens engagement activities are being prepared with the Mission cities in the 
coming few months including hackathons events in all Member States. 

As regards engagement with the private sector, Horizon Europe Partnerships with industry 
are  being  used  successfully  as  multipliers.  A  letter  to  all  relevant  partnerships  by  the 
Mission Manager and Deputy Mission Manager received very positive reactions. A first 
concrete synergy is a joint call in the Work Programme 2023 between the Cities Mission 
and the Partnerships for zero emission mobility (2Zero) and for connected and automated 
mobility (CCAM) with  a combined budget  of EUR  50 million.  The call that opened  in 
January 2023 asks industry representatives and cities to work together to develop shared 
zero-emission  mobility  solutions  that  respond  to  cities’  needs,  in  particular  by 
complementing  public  transport  and/or  freight  delivery  solutions.  The  co-creation 
approach is chosen to avoid a too strong technology focus of projects and to facilitate take-
up of project results. 

5.7.7 

Progress, achievements, and milestones 

Interest in the Cities Mission has been strong from the start. The Call for Expression of 
Interest  that  closed  in  January  2022  resulted  in  applications  from  377  cities.  The 
announcement of the selected cities in April 2022 received a lot of attention in the media, 
with  thousands  of  press  clippings.  A  kick-off  conference  took  place  in  June  2022,  and 
Mission cities have started their work on Climate City Contracts (CCC) with the help of a 
Mission Platform, which has been operational since September 2021.  

CCCs must contain a commitment part, a Climate Neutrality Action Plan and a Climate 
Neutrality Investment Plan. The Mission Platform has provided cities with templates and 
guidance materials for all three parts. It has also assigned city advisors who provide cities 
hands-on support. In addition, cities have access to a Mission Platform online portal that 
allows them to work in groups, exchange experience and access a knowledge repository. 
Currently, the portal already has nearly 1400 active users. 

In  September  2022,  the  Mission  Platform  launched  a  call  for  pilot  cities  that  closed  in 
November  2022  and  resulted  in  103  applications.  Selected  cities  will  receive  grants 
between EUR 0.5 and 1.5 million to help them advance local solutions to the challenges 
of the climate transition.  53 pilots were selected in March 2023 These Pilot Cities will 
experiment with new ways to rapidly decarbonise. Over their two-year journey, cities will 
reflect  and  learn  as  they  go,  providing  opportunities  for  other  cities  to  follow  in  their 
footsteps, replicating and/or scaling approaches and solutions relevant to their context. For 
this purpose, a twinning programme was launched in May 2023 that will match additional 
cities to Pilot Cities and allow them to benefit from their experiences.   

Page 104 / 185 

 
 
The  first  cities  submitted  their  CCCs  by  April  2023.  Cities  whose  CCCs  are  reviewed 
positively  by  the  Commission  will  receive  a  Mission  Label  that  will  acknowledge  the 
quality of the process that the cities have developed and should facilitate access to EU and 
national funding, to financing and to private investment. The label itself will not generate 
any direct financial benefits. It will act more like a mark of confidence in the soundness of 
the cities’ plans.   

An informal agreement with the EIB on concrete support actions for the Cities  Mission 
including  targeted  awareness  raising  for  cities  and  a  contribution  to  the  CCC  review 
process was confirmed in March 2023. Already now representatives of ELENA are taking 
part systematically in country meetings with Mission cities (meetings with DE, LT, LV, 
ET and PT have already taken place).  

The Cities  Mission Work Programme  for 2023  was agreed and published in  December 
2022. It contains notably a joint call with the Adaptation Mission on urban regeneration, a 
joint call with the Horizon Europe Partnerships for zero-emission road transport (2Zero) 
and  for  connected  and  automated  mobility  (CCAM),  as  well  as  an  action  to  associate 
Ukrainian cities to the Cities Mission.  

A new Mission Board has been in place since October 2022. Members have been selected 
from more than 500 applicants. 

In 2022, a number of “satellite” projects for the Cities Mission were launched:  

  The CapaCITIES project, launched in October 2022, helps with the establishment 

and development of national support networks for the Cities Mission; 

  The CrAFt project, launched in May 2022, connects the Cities Mission with the 

New European Bauhaus; 

  The Urban Transitions Centre, launched in December 2022, supports the Cities 
Mission’s  international  outreach  activities  and  links  to  the  global  Urban 
Transitions Mission of Mission Innovation. 

5.7.8 

Current estimation of the budget 

The total Cities Mission Budget for the first three years of Horizon Europe is about EUR 
360  million.  As  regards  access  to  other  sources  of  EU  funding,  work  is  progressing  in 
relation to a number of funding programmes:  

  Connecting Europe Facility: All relevant calls that opened in September 2022 for 
projects  on  the  TEN-T  network  (in  total  more  than  EUR  5  billion)  include 
participation  in  the  Cities  Mission  as  an  award  criterion  under  “priority  and 
urgency”; this is to be carried on in future calls.  

  LIFE  Strategic  Integrated  Projects  -  Climate  Action:  Funding  for  urban  or 
community-based action plans pioneering the transition to climate neutral and/or 
climate  resilient  society,  including  climate-neutral  cities  plans  and  actions,  for 
instance in the context of the EU Mission ‘Climate-neutral and smart cities’ (EUR 
30 million).  

  European Urban Initiative - Urban Innovative Actions: References to the Cities 
Mission and the Adaptation Mission are included in the call topic "greener cities" 
published in May 2023 (overall budget EUR 120 million)  

Page 105 / 185 

 
 
  Digital Europe Programme: References to the objectives of the Cities Mission are 
included  in  relevant  calls  of  the  Work  Programme  (and  in  the  same  way,  the 
Digital Europe Programme is referenced in the Cities Mission’s calls in Horizon 
Europe). For example: The Commission is currently evaluating a call for an action 
supporting,  through  cascading  grants,  pilots  combining  data  in  the  area  of 
sustainable  mobility,  extreme  weather  events,  energy  and  zero  pollution.  The 
action  should  establish  links  to  the  Cities  and  Adaptation  to  Climate  Change 
Missions which would provide opportunities to experiment and upscale the use of 
the smart cities data space with local partners (EUR 18 million).  

  European  Innovation  Council  (EIC):  Call  to  increase  the  procurement  of 
innovative solutions by public and private buyers with specific reference to Cities 
Mission to be opened in June (CSA with a budget of up to EUR 3 million). 

In  addition,  some  funding  for  Mission  cities  has  been  mobilised  at  national  level  for 
example: 

 

  Many  Member  States  or  regions  committed  that  interventions  in  their  regional 
operational  programmes  will  contribute  to  the  Cities  Mission  objectives,  in 
particular in the selected cities, notably in PL, EL, CZ, SK, HU, RO, BG, HR, SE, 
SI, IT, ES, PT. 
In  Greece,  a  Green  Fund  was  set  up  with  a  national  commitment  of  EUR  10 
million  for  their  six  Mission  cities,  and  an  additional  EUR  500  000  for  the 
preparation of the Climate City Contracts.  
In Spain, the national government co-funds a national Mission platform (starting 
with a seed fund of EUR 800 000) to offer support to cities, including capacity 
building  and  financial  support.  It  also  committed  to  reinforced  funding  for 
comprehensive  actions  towards  climate  neutrality  and  to  co-governance  in 
European funds. 

 

However, it is clear that public funds can only cover a fraction of the costs of the climate 
transition  and  that  a  large  part  of  the  necessary  investment  will  have  to  be  covered  by 
private  sources.  There  are  already  good  examples  of  cities  working  successfully  for 
example  with  pension  funds  and  commercial  banks.  Contacts  are  ongoing  with  major 
financial  institutions,  notably  the  European  Investment  Bank,  the  European  Bank  for 
Reconstruction  and  Development  and  national  development  banks,  with  philanthropic 
organisations and with other private actors, in particular in relation to making the Mission 
Label a meaningful tool to facilitate access to funding and finance. 

Page 106 / 185 

 
 
6  A SOIL DEAL FOR EUROPE: 100 LIVING LABS AND LIGHTHOUSES TO LEAD THE 

TRANSITION TOWARDS HEALTHY SOILS BY 2030 

Page 107 / 185 

 
 
 
 
 
6.1  Mission goal and objectives 

The  Mission’s  goal  is  to  set  up  100  living  labs  and  lighthouses  by  2023  as  a  means  to 
promote sustainable land and soil management in urban and rural areas and achieving the 
EU’s policy objectives of having all soils healthy by 2050.  

The  Mission’s  goal  is  substantiated  by  eight  specific  objectives  that  contribute  to  the 
achievement  of  existing  EU  policy  targets  related  to:  soil  degradation,  soil  sealing, 
pollution  and  erosion,  the  protection  and  restoration  of  soil  ecosystems  and  soil 
biodiversity,  and  soil  carbon  sequestration  and  protection.  The  Mission  also  aims  at 
reducing the EU’s global soil footprint and at increasing “soil literacy”.  

Each of the eight specific objectives is backed by a baseline, one or more policy targets 
and measurable indicators. Measuring progress on specific objectives and their targets 
is  enabled  by  eight  ‘soil  health  indicator’  categories (146)  based  on  physical,  chemical, 
biological and management/landscape parameters. One target can relate to one or multiple 
of those indicator categories. To meet these objectives, the Mission implementation plan 
proposes  to  carry  out  R&I  activities  in  a  joined-up  manner  together  with  local  testing 
grounds, monitoring, training and engagement activities.   

The potential for achieving significant improvements in soil health (more specifically 
on  the  proposed  soil  health  indicators  and  specific  objectives)  was  tested  through  an 
exercise gathering more than 300 replies from the scientific community. Responses to 
the online survey conducted in the context of the external assessment study confirmed that 
that the Mission’s goal, objectives and policy-based targets are grounded on realistic 
assumptions,  recognising  that  rapid  change  and  combined  efforts  at  a  large  scale  are 
needed for the 2030 timeline to be met. The evidence – mostly coming from the area of 
agriculture  -  illustrates  that  a  range  of  practices  exist  that  can  significantly  protect  and 
improve soil health, particularly if their uptake was more widespread and applied over a 
larger scale. 

6.2  The Mission’s selection process 

Possibilities for stakeholder consultation during the Mission formulation were hampered 
by  the  COVID19  situation  which  limited  the  possibility  for  actors  to  come  together. 
Nevertheless, over 300 events were organised or attended in the period 2019-2023, 
many of which took place on-site. This included the ‘R&I Days’ in September 2019, at 
which  150  stakeholders  engaged  in  identifying  important  challenges  in  relation  to  the 
Mission Area and discussing the expected impact of the Mission. Other relevant events for 

(146) The notion of category reflects that the indicators are not always already captured by specific variables. 
The development and validation of those variables is still ongoing and is in fact one of the Mission’s 
building blocks. 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
discussing soil health problems and solutions, that took place in November and December 
2019, were, for example, the ‘Outlook Conference’ in Brussels and the International Green 
Week in Berlin, the Salon D’ Agriculture in Paris, Moet Hennessy event on soil health or 
a  Mission  event  as  the  EU’s  contribution  to  the  global  Aim  for  Climate  summit  in 
Washington  DC.  Moreover,  there  were  also  external  communication  and  engagement 
initiatives of a digital nature, including the release of three videos (147), several articles and 
peer reviewed publications (148), the EIP-AGRI newsletter, a survey of 7000 contacts (with 
over 2000 stakeholders expressing their views on the Mission Area and needs to be tackled 
under the Mission) and social media activities (e.g. via Twitter) around the World Soil Day 
and other major events. (149) 

According to the stakeholders who answered the online survey distributed in the context 
of  the  external  study,  there  has  been  sufficient  transparency  and  that  relevant 
stakeholders were consulted (30% respondents and 25% respondents respectively agree 
and strongly agree with the statement). Moreover, most respondents (55%° think that in 
terms  of  how  it  is  programmed,  the  Mission  is  encouraging  broad  engagement  and 
active participation of stakeholders and citizens.  

Regarding  the  scope  of  the  Mission,  the  external  assessment  study  identifies  the  Soil 
Mission  as  ambitious,  original,  and  well-grounded  in  terms  of  underlying  analyses  and 
foreseen  actions  for  completing  it.  Part  of  this  analysis  is  included  in  section  8  of  the 
implementation plan, which reviews the evidence base on soil health conditions, proposes 
soil health indicators, and discusses evidence on ‘management practices and outcomes in 
relation to Mission objectives’. This last point suggests that technically the overall Mission 
goals are realistic, based on the availability of well-tested management practices related to 
e.g., efficient (re)use of natural resources; reduced use of control chemicals’ soil structure 
protection;  and  improved  soil  cover. (150)  The  challenge  remains  to  enhance  the  actual 
application of such practices, which therefore receives prominent attention in the building 
blocks of the implementation plans. There is  however only limited ex-ante evidence on 
how the living labs approach will work out at such as large scale and in a novel context.  

One recurring observation is that the scientific discipline of studying soil health (or closely 
related  concepts)  has  been  around  for  decades,  but  that  it  has  mainly  focused  on 
agricultural soils and food production. Broadening it up to other soil types and usages is a 
novelty, in itself. Moreover, by making it such a prominent element of one of the five EU 
Missions,  it  is  likely  that  it  will  rapidly  gain  more  attention  and  deliver  impact  on  the 
ground. This could already have a positive effect, as more awareness of soil health issues 
is a precondition for taking action. According to the analysis carried out in the context of 
the external study, there has been little policy progress at EU level in this field in the 

(147) Life on earth depends on soil. https www youtube com/watch?v=oJF_GTmrJGI&feature=youtube   

(148) See e.g.: Soil priorities in the European Union - ScienceDirect; Activity update of the Mission Board 
of European Union on soil health and food - ScienceDirect; SOIL - Transforming living labs into 
lighthouses: a promising policy to achieve land-related sustainable development (copernicus.org) 

(149) Presentation Mission Board Soil Health and Food (February 2020). 

(150) See section 8C in the implementation plan: “Summary of evidence submitted by the scientific 

community on management practices and outcomes in relation to Mission objectives” 

Page 109 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
past decades, thus suggesting that the Mission can be of substantial added value. This 
would  particularly  concern  the  potential  for  the  Mission  to  tie  together  fragmented 
frameworks, policies, networks, etc. that all cover a specific part of soil health without 
making connections between topics like experimenting, monitoring, changing incentives, 
and  adapting  regulations  for  soil  management  practices  that  affect  different  ecosystem 
services and soil health indicators. As the term soil health is gaining momentum also at 
global level and in the private sector, the Mission is also considered to be pioneering 
efforts  to  put  this  concept  into  practice.  This  is  evidenced  for  example  by  the  large 
interest  shown  and  the  number  of  initiatives  emerging  on  soil  and  land  management, 
carbon  sequestration  or  regenerative  agriculture  and  carbon  farming  driven  by 
international  public  and  private  partners  (e.g.  Aim  for  Climate,  Coalition  4SoilHealth, 
Coalition for a Soil Health Law also representing a large number of food and beverage 
industries, philanthropic institutions). 

The  vision  and  implementation  plan  for  the  Mission  are  in  line  with  the  imperatives 
proposed  by  Mariana  Mazzucato’s  work  on  Mission-oriented  innovation  policy,  in 
general (151),  and  EU  Mission-oriented  R&I  policy,  more  specifically (152).  This  notably 
concerns the philosophy of calling for multi- or even transdisciplinary research targeted at 
overcoming  implementation  and  diffusion  challenges.  Co-producing  and  spreading 
knowledge are at the core of Mission Soil. This is evidenced by for instance the focus on 
living labs and 'lighthouses’ as environments in which diverse stakeholders can experiment 
and exchange lessons regarding the physical/chemical as well as business and legitimacy 
aspects of innovative soil management practices. (153) The Mission assessment conducted 
by the external contractor identifies the focus on living labs as a means to achieve impact 
beyond more traditional R&I funding. Study evidence suggest that it is critical to address 
soil health in forests and urban lands, the more so as it has been neglected in research and 
practice in the past. The study analysis shows that agricultural actors are perceived as better 
organised and better positioned to respond to the living labs calls. The Mission is therefore 
facing  (and  already  addressing)  a  major  need  to  test  the  living  lab  approach  beyond 
agriculture and seek for improvements in soil health across all land uses. 

A perceived strength of the focus on living labs and lighthouses is that it still allows 
for  plenty  of  variation  in  how  actors  like  farmers,  foresters,  landowners,  public 
authorities and citizens will experiment, interact and learn. This makes it robust for 
the high level of variation in soils, soil usage and institutional landscapes in regions across 
Europe. At the same time there is a notable demand for more clarity on what models and 
funding constructions might be used to establish/manage living labs and keep them running 
after the kick-start support of HE calls ends.  

(151) Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities. Industrial 

and corporate change, 27(5), 803-815. 

(152) European Commission, DG RTD, Mazzucato, M., (2018). Mission-oriented research & innovation in 
the European Union: a problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth, EC Publications 
Office. 

(153) “Living labs are collaborative initiatives to co-create knowledge and innovations while lighthouses are 
places for demonstration of solutions and exemplary achievements.” Implementation plan soil health 
Mission (2020, p. 28). 

Page 110 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Moreover, the focus on soil literacy and citizen science (e.g. citizens contributing to LL 
activities around experiment design and data gathering) testify of a scope that aims to do 
more  than  conducting  ground-breaking  research.  It  also  considers  socio-economic 
factors  that  determine  the  uptake  of  innovations.  Crucial  in  this  respect  is  the  work  on 
influencing  and  adapting  related  EU  and  national/regional  policies,  which  will  be 
discussed in more depth in the subsequent sections. 

Finally, in addition to the eight specific objectives, the Mission also aims to contribute 
to  reducing  the  global  soil  footprint.  This  is  an  example  of  a  broad  societal  concern 
(inspired  by  the  EU’s  commitment  to  the  SDG’s)  for  which  allegedly  only  few  policy 
instruments exist. Reducing the negative impacts of soil use requires robust indicators, as 
these are a basis for policy development as well as for engaging stakeholders. By investing 
in activities for aligning measurements as well as interests and instruments, the Mission 
Soil seems to make good use of the potential of Missions (as a policy tool for coordination) 
to bridge possible divides between countries and policy domains.  

6.3  Management arrangements and governance structure 

The governance framework for the soil deal Mission is common to those of other Missions. 
DG AGRI provides the Mission manager, and the deputy Mission manager comes from 
DG R&I. The Mission secretariat, tasked with Mission coordination, is provided by a DG 
AGRI team as well. The Mission owners group for inter-service coordination of Mission 
programming includes representatives of the DGs CLIMA, ENV, JRC, MARE, SANTE, 
ENER  and  MOVE  among  others,  with  different  levels  of  involvement.  Through  an 
administrative  agreement,  the  JRC  is  in  charge  of  the  Mission’s  building  block  on  soil 
monitoring. 

A new Mission board was established in September 2022. The ‘Strategic configuration of 
the Horizon Europe Programme Committee’ (SPC) is a structure which allows Member 
States  and  associated  countries  to  contribute  to  and  approve  the  Horizon  Europe  work 
programmes. Member States, of course, also play a role via their involvement in accepting 
and  adopting  other  EU  policies,  like  the  common  agricultural  policy  (CAP),  and 
participating  in  relevant  international  networks,  e.g.  via  the  European  Innovation 
Partnership  on  Agricultural  Productivity  and  Sustainability  (EIP  AGRI).  Finally,  they 
provide the data that is used for soil monitoring activities as conducted as part of the DG 
JRC’s EU Soil Observatory (EUSO). As a novelty, a number of Member States have set 
up cross-sectoral mirror groups for Mission Soil, these generally representing various 
ministries and stakeholders. Efforts are underway to strengthen the links between mirror 
groups and national hubs created by the European Joint Programme EJP Soil.  

Page 111 / 185 

 
 
Figure 12: Governance structures for strategy/programming and implementation  

Source: EFIS study 

On the implementation  side of the  governance structure,  an additional range of  groups, 
institutes and networks helps to develop actions. An update with respect to the governance 
structure  initially  foreseen  in  the  implementation  plan  is  that  there  is  no  stakeholder 
innovation group, but other support structures have been created (e.g. an implementation 
platform and national mirror groups). One governance element to highlight is that the EC 
is mobilising and initiating various networks that prepare countries for establishing the LLs 
(and later lighthouses) that feature so prominently in the Mission Soil’s implementation 
plan. 

The  consultations  carried  out  through  the  external  assessment  study  suggest  that 
stakeholders appreciate the constellation in which the responsible Commission DGs 
work  together  and  are  responsible  for  implementing  the  main  EU  research  and  policy 
actions  under  the  Mission.  It  is  also  suggested  through  that,  as  the  Mission  and  the 
supporting vision already have been formulated, the advice role of the Mission board has 
de facto become less prominent. It now is seen as a collection of ‘ambassadors’ rather than 

Page 112 / 185 

 
 
 
as a governance structure that has a strong mandate for safeguarding the implementation 
of the vision.  

Moreover, consulted stakeholders  are generally positive about the suitability of the 
governance setup for steering and implementing the Mission. In as far as more critical 
comments have been expressed, these concern the demand for better clarification of roles 
and responsibilities of the various elements in the governance structure; intensified support 
for Member State (MS) representatives in organising initiatives (beyond HE calls); more 
communication on e.g. how the opinions and comments of MS representatives are handled; 
and a more visible and accessible Mission board (chair). Collaboration with the Mission 
secretariat is qualified as effective and clear. Some survey respondents and interviewees 
have advocated for a stronger involvement of financial stakeholders (investors) as well 
as  public  or  private  advisory  organisations  and  extension  services  that  support 
farmers in discovering the benefits of adopting soil management practices. 

Horizontal coordination at the EU level 

Due  to  its  strategic  importance  for  major  policy  objectives  and  promoted  through  the 
governance structures described above, the Mission is part of several  Green Deal-related 
strategies and policies (including Farm to Fork, the European Biodiversity Strategy, the 
Climate  Adaptation  Strategy  and  the  new  EU  Forest  Strategy,  Communication  on 
Sustainable Carbon Cycles, EU Soil Strategy); the CAP; and EU policies concerning the 
Digital Age (for instance via collaboration with Digital Innovation Hubs) as well as other 
topics (e.g. the Water Framework Directive, the Habitats Directive, the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive, the Bioeconomy Strategy, and the Circular Economy Action Plan). 
InvestEU is also mobilised to contribute to the Mission. 

It  is  still  early  to  judge  how  effective  the  governance  arrangements  and  policy 
linkages are. The Mission is relevant for many EU policies and the role of Mission is well 
established in the various strategies and policy documents. Still, some interviewees found 
it  difficult  to  understand  what  how  these  linkages  will  materialise,.  Several  interviews 
conducted  through  the  external  assessment  study  note  that,  probably  because  of  how  it 
historically emerged, DG AGRI, DG RTD and the JRC showed a particularly strong 
involvement  in  the  Mission.  There  is  also  significant  buy-in  from  DG  ENV,  in 
particular as the Mission Soil is crucial for the success of the soil strategy and upcoming 
SL.  Apart  from  providing  essential  indicators,  the  Mission  leverages  resources  and 
networks for goals DG ENV has been pursuing through the LIFE Programme. Similarly, 
DG  CLIMA  has  welcomed  the  Mission  as  a  tool  for  strengthening  its  activities  on 
counteracting  climate  change  (as  done  via  e.g.  the  LIFE  programme (154)).  The  Mission 
contributes for instance to the creation of a framework for the monitoring, verification and 
reporting on carbon removal, which complements the LIFE Carbon Farming Scheme (155). 
Moreover, one of many  highlighted synergies is  that directorates-general  like DG ENV 
and  DG  CLIMA  can  propose  support  schemes  and  laws,  and  they  would  benefit  from 

(154) https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life_en  

(155) https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/sustainable-carbon-cycles/carbon-farming_en  

Page 113 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
increased  means  to  support  implementation  and  engage  in  stakeholder  interactions  that 
contribute to societal acceptance and participation. Hence, a particularly interesting feature 
of  the  Mission  is  that  it  offers  possibilities  for  organising  outreach,  demonstration,  co-
creation and adoption. 

Vertical coordination at the global, EU, national and regional levels  

The EC, and in particular the Mission secretariat, has invested in a broad range of 
partnerships that contribute to getting soil health high on political and policy agendas 
around  the  world.  An  example  is  the  Mission  ‘s  support  to  the  UN’s  Global  Soil 
Partnership , e.g. by contributing to the World Soil Days in 2021 and 2022.  Other examples 
include  the  EC’s  efforts  to  promote  the  Mission  at  the  UNFCCC  COP27,  the  Japan 
Moonshot Programme event on agri/food science and technology, and during the Global 
Forum for Food and Agriculture at the Green Week 2023 in Berlin. In turn, the Mission 
benefits  from  the  fact  that  soil  health  is  receiving  more  attention  and  has  achieved  a 
prominent place in  policy  debates and events  that  traditionally  would  not  highlight  soil 
health  as  such.  The  Mission  Soil  has  become  a  major  flagship  for  the  EU’s 
international cooperation such as under the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate 
and the global Coalition of Action for Soil Health.  

In  terms  of  the  added  value  of  the  Mission,  the  assessment  study  analysis  points  to 
“effective coordination between EU, national, regional, and local levels”. Apparently, this 
is more of a concern than cross-policy coordination at the EU level itself. Interestingly, 
this holds for all Missions, and thus is not a specific issue for Mission Soil.  

The survey conducted in the context of the study reveals that the Mission’s objectives are 
perceived to be influencing the R&I policy agenda in particular at the supranational level, 
and to a lesser extent at the national level. Influence at the regional or local policy level is 
less clear, despite the Mission’s focus on living labs and lighthouses being targeted mainly 
at that level. This is probably due to the fact that major R&I programmes are mostly run 
by national and not regional institutions. An exception are the operational groups funded 
under the CAP which provide for R&I and demonstration of solutions at local level and 
are  instrumental  to  replicate  solutions  developed  under  the  Mission.  This  is  a  unique 
resource  –  both  of  complementary  funding  and  synergies  between  the  Mission  and  its 
implementation at local levels.  

A second survey question on this topic suggests that Missions are still less known at local 
level. Interestingly, survey respondents ascribe this primarily to insufficient coordination 
between  policy-makers  within  a  country.  Accordingly,  the  most  reported  key  enabling 
factor  for  Mission  implementation  is  ensuring  that  also  national  policy  plans/strategies 
include a focus on one or more Missions.  

6.4 

Progress to date 

The external study analysis concludes that the progress made since the EC proposed the 
Mission Area, back in 2018, is overall positive. This particularly holds for the formulation 
of the Mission (goal, objectives, and indicators), the development of an implementation 
plan, and the first steps for putting the implementation plan in to action.  

Page 114 / 185 

 
 
The Mission and its implementation plan, which were published only 18 months ago, are 
rolled  out  in  three  interconnected  phases,  with  the  pilot  phase  running  until  2025.  A 
consistent  feedback  point  from  consulted  stakeholders  is  that  the  Mission  projects 
implementation  level  at  the  time  of  this  study  is  still  in  a  very  early  stage.  This  is  not 
surprising given the timing of calls, evaluations, and grant preparations. The first Mission 
projects funded under the WP 2021 started at the end of 2022 or early 2023, and the second 
projects are still in the selection phase (grant agreements foreseen for June 2023). Hence, 
only  little  can  be  said  about  what  the  possible  outcomes  of  these  projects.  A  positive 
observation is that the calls have yielded a large number of eligible proposals, allowing for 
the selection of the most promising ones. 

Additionally, the EC and in particular the Mission secretariat started a broad range 
of  initiatives  to  promote  the  Mission  and  to  implement  actions  complementing  the 
Horizon Europe WPs. For instance, in summer 2022, a consultation process was started 
for identifying regional soil needs, create an interactive map of already existing living labs 
and  enhance  access  to  soil  information  in  MS.  Over  the  course  of  2023  and  2024 
engagement sessions are being organised in MS to raise awareness and support the creation 
of living labs. The establishment of the first wave of living labs supported by the Mission 
is  foreseen  for  2024,  as  part  of  the  current  ‘introduction  and  pilot  phase’  running  until 
2025. This will be followed by the ‘expansion and innovation phase’ (2025-2030) and the 
‘scaling up and mainstreaming phase’ (2027-2030). 

The  study  analysis  indicates  that  the  Mission  is  progressing  in  line  with  its 
implementation plan. Particularly notable is the high percentage of respondents strongly 
agreeing with the statement that the Mission is creating or is likely to create added value 
compared  to  existing  initiatives  or  instruments.  Stakeholders  consulted  through  the 
external study  consistently praised the strong coherence between the implementation 
plan with its associated actions and the Mission board’s views on what the Mission 
needs. The four building blocks (‘operational objectives’) have the potential to reinforce 
each other, since  living labs (partially drawing on citizen engagement) can for instance 
benefit from harmonised monitoring while they can also bring forward new practices that 
can  be  used  for  improving  soil  health  elsewhere.  The  four  operational  objectives  entail 
actions  that  cover  all  eight  specific  objectives  that  are  important  for  completing  the 
Mission. In addition to actions belonging to those operational objectives, a large number 
of extra actions is being undertaken to mobilize and align complementary policies. The 
policy  impact  that  the  Mission  is  beginning  to  create  can  notably  be  found  in  the 
contributions to the at least 12 Green Deal strategies and to the CAP as a major financial 
EU instrument under shared management.  

The below table shows per operational objective which main steps (out of a much longer 
range of initiated actions) have been taken, and what challenges – according to the analysis 
carried out by the external consultants - still lie ahead. While the foundation of the Mission 
appears to be solid, careful attention should be devoted to the next steps (towards aligning 
non-R&I policies). 

Page 115 / 185 

 
 
Table 9: Overview of implementation steps taken and challenges ahead 

Mission  Building 
Blocks 

Implementation steps taken 

Challenges ahead 

build 
To 
capacities  and  the 
knowledge  base 
for 
soil 
stewardship 

HE  work  programmes  have  been 
developed, and associated calls have been 
launched (2021-2023), to fund research on 
soil  health  management  topics,  business 
models, soil advisors, soil education, etc. 

Ensuring  that  not  just  the  calls  cover  different 
disciplines, but that also individual projects are 
truly  multi-  or  trans-disciplinary.  The  projects 
should  be  holistic  and  focus  on  putting 
techniques to practice. 

To  co-create  and 
upscale 
place-
based innovations 

To  develop  an 
integrated 
EU 
monitoring 
system 

A  Mission  Implementation  Platform  has 
been established. 

HE  WP  calls  on  LLs  and  support 
structures. 

project 
the  NATIOONS 
Through 
organisation  of  engagement  sessions  for 
LLs  in  all  Member  States  and  associated 
countries 

Set up of a support structure for LLs Labs 
(through  a  framework  partnership  and 
specific grant agreement) 

HE  WP  calls  on  soil  health  indicators 
development and validation.  

Administrative  agreement  with  the  Joint 
to  oversee  Mission 
Research  Centre 
activities on the monitoring of soil.  

Launch of EUSO Dashboard. 

that  potential 

Ensuring 
applicants  have 
sufficient  time  to  develop  new  proposals.  And 
ensuring coherency in the portfolio of awarded 
projects, e.g. by connecting them.  

Getting the SL accepted and implemented could 
massively drive the upscaling (uptake) of place-
based solutions.  

This  mainly  requires  more  familiarity  of 
Member  States  with  progress  in  harmonised 
indicator infrastructure. 

Development of method that uses the indicators 
for agreeing on reference values for policies (SL, 
CAP).  A  robust  set  of  definitions,  indicators, 
reference values and monitoring practices would 
then  need  to  be  matched  with  policy  designs  / 
adaptations that demand and reward soil health 
improvements. 

To  engage  with 
user 
the 
soil 
community 
and 
society at large 

Identification of ‘soil needs’ in regions. 

Engagement  with  regions,  potential  LL 
applicants students and citizens 

Clarifying  how  citizens  and  other  societal 
stakeholders  can  play  a  role  in  LLs  and 
lighthouses, especially the ones not focused on 
agriculture and food. 

Training of specialised soil advisors 

Diverse set of co-creation and engagement 
events, 
campaigns, 
partnership exchanges. 

social  media 

Preparation  of  EIB  study  on  investment 
needs  and  of  Territorial  Management 
Agreements. 

Comprehensive  communication,  outreach 
and  engagement  activities  have  been 
carried out  

In sum, progress in terms of Mission implementation is broadly to plan. However, a point 
that is emphasised throughout all interactions undertaken as part of this study is that actual 
Mission success will now depend on other EU policies (notably the CAP and the SL) and 
on how national policymakers will implement those. The added value of the Mission is 

Page 116 / 185 

 
 
 
 
often linked to the various ways the Mission can leverage or support those other policies, 
which by design look promising. There seems to be a need, however, to further engage 
with national and regional policymakers to better explain the accessibility and relevance 
of Mission outputs.  

6.5  Budget and funding leveraged 

The main funding source for the Mission’s implementation is the Horizon Europe Mission 
budget. The first three Mission calls under Horizon Europe were launched as planned. The 
Horizon Europe actions provide opportunities for research and innovation, in line with the 
priorities  highlighted  in  the  Mission  implementation  plan.  The  Mission  Soil  calls  are 
mobilising and connecting communities working on soil protection (researchers, land 
managers, industries, etc.). The calls have targeted all four operational objectives of the 
Mission. The number of eligible proposals for the WP 2022 calls generally exceeds the 
capacity of what could be funded rather well. This holds for the calls on food processing 
residues (02); soil biodiversity (03); decontamination and reuse of land (04); monitoring, 
verification, reporting of soil carbon (05); soil education (07); and – with 8 relatively small 
proposals - innovation from biowaste (10). There were less applications for the calls on 
building the knowledge repository (01) and the network of carbon farming (06), perhaps 
because  only  a  few  networks  in  the  soil  science  community  were  well-positioned  to 
compete here. Topic 08 concerns the support structure for living labs, which is a special 
grant agreement instead of an open call. 

Figure 13: Overview of eligible and funded proposals for WP 2022 calls. 

Source: Horizon europe Mission Dashboard  

The below figure shows the EU MS where applicants received funding from the calls for 
the  Mission  Soil  by  end  2022.  Overall,  most  of  the  funding  so  far  has  been  landing  in 

Page 117 / 185 

 
 
 
central and south-west Europe. What stands out is the large amount of funding allocated 
to activities in Spain, a country with advanced soil health expertise to face the challenge 
of  half  of  the  land  area  being  deemed  highly  susceptible  to  degradation  and 
desertification. (156) Beneficiaries in Eastern Europe and northern Europe have been less 
involved  in  the  first  HE  calls,  which  might  be  explained  by  factors  like  less  expertise 
required for winning the calls or by less familiarity with the calls. It should be noted that 
this first image is probably not reflective of how the total HE budget will be spent, since 
later calls seek different types of expertise and actions (notably the establishment of the 
living labs and lighthouses throughout Europe). 

Figure 14: Geographic distribution of funding from the HE calls for the Mission Soil 

Source: Data extracted by the external study team on 21 March 2023 from the Horizon Europe dashboard. 

Apart  from  the  EU  level,  funding  is  also  being  mobilised  at  the  national  level.  This 
involves, for instance, Member States’ contributions  to EU programmes like EJP SOIL 
and  PRIMA  or  private  sector  contributions  such  as  by  the  Joint  Undertaking  Circular 
Bioeconomy Europe. Additionally, MS also have their own policies and programmes. One 
prominent example is the German R&I soil programme BONARES (“Soil as a sustainable 
resource for the bioeconomy”), with a budget of €108m for the period 2015-2025. (157) This 
example shows that relevant funding schemes would not only include new programmes, 

(156) JRC (2016). Soil threats in Europe: status, methods, drivers and effects on ecosystem services. A 
review report. (Editors) Jannes Stolte, Mehreteab Tesfai, Lillian Øygarden, Sigrun Kværnø, Jacob 
Keizer, Frank Verheijen, Panos Panagos. 

(157) https://www.bonares.de/home-de  

Page 118 / 185 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
possibly influenced by the EU Mission, but also existing programmes that can be used for 
contributing to the activities and goals of the Mission Soil.  

A  major  asset  of  the  Mission  is  its  unique  formal  and  operational  link  to  the  Common 
Agricultural  Policy  (CAP)  and  to  its  EU  CAP  Network.  The  initial  estimation  of  CAP 
2023-2027 commitments favourable to soil management to improve soil quality and biota 
(CAP  Result  Indicator  RI19)  is  EUR  50.6  billion.  A  more  targeted  analysis  will  be 
conducted in the future, focusing only on some specific practices which affect directly soil 
protection  and  management.  In  addition,  it  has  been  estimated  that  around  1,000  CAP 
Network  Operational  Groups  (EUR  350  million  funding)  will  directly  contribute  to  the 
Soil Mission objectives. The figures already point to a major mobilisation of CAP funds 
for  the  implementation  of  the  Mission  objectives  and  for  dissemination  and  take  up  of 
Mission outputs and results for the 2024-2027 period. 

Overall,  the  external  study  analysis  concludes  (on  the  basis  of  the  insights  from  desk 
research and the consultation of stakeholders) that the amount of funding available for the 
Mission  Soil  has  been  appropriate  in  this  first  phase  during  2021-2023:  it  allowed  for 
undertaking a broad range of actions that all have their natural place in driving change. 
However, the Mission will only succeed if sufficient funding is secured over the next 
years (2024 – 2027), in particular to set up the expected number of  living labs and 
scale up exemplary solutions through lighthouses. One could wonder whether other EU 
funds  could  be  mobilised  in  more  systematic  ways  for  funding  living  labs  and 
dissemination  activities,  once  they  have  shown  their  potential.  This  underlines  the 
recurring observation that at the EU level the basis for Mission implementation is solid, 
but  more  attention  is  needed  for  bringing  on  board  the  sub-EU  levels  where 
experimentation and policy adaptations still needs to start.  

6.6  Key conclusions from the external assessment 

The  overall  assessment  of  the  design  and  early  implementation  of  the  Mission  Soil  is 
positive. The analysis conducted through the external study identifies the formulation of 
the  vision  and  goals,  as  well  as  the  directions  this  gives  to  policy  intervention,  as 
particularly successful. While for many years there has been insufficient progress in this 
field, soil health is now increasingly being recognised as an urgent and transversal topic, 
interlinking vital soil functions like food production, water storage/purification/regulation, 
preserving biodiversity, nutrient cycling, contamination reduction, climate regulation (e.g. 
via carbon capturing), and cultural services. The ambitious Mission is both a needed and 
suitable start for initiating, mobilising and aligning EU and national/regional policy 
efforts for counteracting soil degradation.  

Particularly  promising  is  that  the  design  of  the  Mission  goes  beyond  merely 
programming R&I in a more impact-oriented way: improving soil health across Europe 
is genuinely leading, and all policy actions have a logical place in the strategy for achieving 
that goal. This also implies that while some actions are knowledge-oriented and support 
R&I on soil management practices, most attention goes to improving the conditions that 
make  stakeholders  receptive  to  adopting  such  practices  (both  old  and  new).  The  study 
concludes that the sensitivity to place-specific variation in soils, economic structures 
and  especially  institutional  landscapes  is  a  clear  strength  of  how  the  Mission  is 

Page 119 / 185 

 
 
designed.  Another  added  value  is  emerging  from  the  Mission’s  traction  vis-à-vis  the 
private sector and international partners. 

As for the governance structure, while challenging, solid mechanisms have been put in 
place to connect various actors across the Commission, Member States and sectors as 
well as to link R&I with many other policy and funding initiatives. The arrangements that 
have been put in place are functional for achieving coordination amongst a broad range of 
policy actors, both horizontal (across different EC DGs and networks) as well as vertical 
(across EU and national/regional policy actors). This coordination is necessary to create 
synergies between relevant policies and funding and the Mission Soil. Promotion of the 
Mission is ongoing as well, and an increasing amount of EU and national policies make 
reference to it. At the same time, awareness about the Mission in Member States is still 
low. This holds especially for policy officials outside the domain of R&I policy. With the 
recent launch of the Mission Soil manifesto and engagement sessions being carried out in 
all  Member  States  and  associated  countries,  some  important  additional  steps  are  being 
taken. Overall, improving commitment from the national/regional level is regarded as 
an important mechanism for leveraging the well-targeted outputs of the Mission’s “core” 
policy actions (as supported via HE Work Programmes). 

Finally,  progress  towards  Mission goals is  proceeding as planned or has  been even 
accelerated. At this stage this implies that the implementation of actions is on schedule. 
The interest for the calls is high, and the amount of available funding allows for broadening 
the  community  of  researchers  involved  in  soil  science.  Safeguarding  multi-  and  trans-
disciplinarity is essential, at least for action lines like the creation and management of the 
living  labs  and  lighthouses  in  which  researchers,  landowners,  land  managers  and  other 
stakeholders will participate in practice-oriented research activities.  

6.7 

Self-assessment of the Mission ‘A Soil Deal for Europe’ 

Soils are a vital, albeit fragile and non-renewable resource. One centimetre of topsoil 
can take hundreds of years to form but can be lost in just a single rainstorm or an industrial 
incident. Moreover, soils are threatened all over Europe and globally because of a range 
of human activities (e.g. through the competition for land, intensive land use, production, 
consumption patterns, and urbanisation) that are acerbated by climate change. Most land 
degradation processes occur largely unnoticed, but  their effects  are profound:  By 2050, 
500 - 700 million people worldwide are likely to be forced to migrate due to a combination 
of climate change and land degradation (158).  

Recent floods and droughts in Europe have reminded us about the importance of healthy 
soils that can absorb and release water. As put by Vice-President Timmermans: “How will 
[farmers] remain heroes when the soil is dead, and crops fail due to drought? Isn’t it time 

(158)  IPBES (2018): The assessment report on land degradation and restoration. 

Page 120 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
to  help  farmers  regenerate  their  soil  and  protect  crops  from  drought  and  high 
temperatures?” (159) 

In Europe, over 60% of soils are considered unhealthy (160) thereby losing their capacity 
to produce food, to regulate water and nutrient cycles and to mitigate climate change (soils 
hold three times more carbon than the atmosphere (161)).  

Fortunately, soils are increasingly getting the attention of policy makers and society. 
The IPCC’s report on “Climate Change and Land” shows how the sustainable management 
of  land  can  help  address  climate  change  and  improve  agricultural  productivity  while 
conserving and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity(162). At the Global Forum for Food 
and Agriculture 2022 in Berlin, Agricultural Ministers from all over the world endorsed 
the final communiqué “Sustainable Land Use: Food Security Starts with the Soil”(163). 

Less  than  two  years  into  its  start,  the  Mission  Soil  has  already  positioned  itself  as  an 
effective  mechanism  for  mobilising  actors  across  society  and  accelerating  Europe’s 
green transition towards sustainable land and soil management.  

6.7.1 

An ambitious yet realistic Mission goal  

The Mission goal is to establish 100 living labs (LLs) and lighthouses (LHs) to lead the 
transition  towards  healthy  soils  by  2030.  This  is  an  important  milestone  in  Europe’s 
trajectory towards having all soils in a healthy condition by 2050, as stipulated in the Soil 
Strategy  and  the  future  Soil  Law.  Against  this  background,  the  Mission’s  goal  remains 
highly relevant, as also demonstrated by the increasing number of global initiatives (public 
and private) in favour of healthier soils (164). The future Soil Law, the EU Climate Law 
as well as the further development and implementation of the ambitious EU’s Land 
Use,  Land-Use  Change  and  Forestry  target  for  2030  and  the  proposed  carbon 
removal  certification  scheme  call  for  greater,  cross-sectoral  efforts  which  are  
supported by the Mission Soil.  

As one Living Lab consists of several local testing sites, the target of 100 LLs will result 
in  a  comprehensive  network  of  more  than  1000  testing  sites  all  over  Europe  that  will 
experiment and scale up solutions for soil health. This is quite an ambitious goal, the more 

(159)   Speech of Frans Timmermans at the Sustainability Conference of the German Ministry for Nutrition 
and Agriculture, 4 May 2023: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_23_2615  

(160) EU Soil Observatory (EUSO) Dashboard (http://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esdacviewer/euso-dashboard/) 

(161) Bossio, D.A., Cook-Patton, S.C., Ellis, P.W. et al. The role of soil carbon in natural climate solutions. 

Nat Sustain 3, 391–398 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0491-z 

(162)   IPCC (2019). 

(163)   Final  Communique  Global  Forum  for  Food  and  Agriculture  2022:  gffa-2022-kommunique-en.pdf 

(bmel.de)  

(164) For example, PepsiCo announced on 21 March 2023 a $216 Million investment in long-term partnerships 

to support soil health through regenerative agriculture. 

Page 121 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
as the network of LLs and LHs will need to be balanced in terms of coverage of regions 
and land uses. As a result of the first call for Living Labs in Work Programme 2023, 25-
30 living labs (these resulting in about 200 local testing sites) will be set up in 2024. A 
similar number of Living Labs will be funded by four subsequent calls 2024 – 2027 so that 
the goal of 100 Living Labs is realistic and even likely to be exceeded.  

As the concept and approach of LLs gets more widespread and applied, it is expected that 
additional funding will be mobilized to sustain existing and finance additional LLs. 
This  includes  options  to  finance  LLs  through  the  future  Common  Agricultural  Policy 
(CAP).  It  is  also  expected  that  LLs  and  LHs  will  surge  from  activities  funded  outside 
Mission Work Programmes, such as the Horizon Europe Partnership on Agroecology (165). 
In this regard, the Mission is having a catalytic effect.  

The  Mission’s  goal  is  further  substantiated  with  eight  specific  objectives  and 
corresponding  baselines,  targets  and  indicators  to  address  1)  soil  degradation,  2)  soil 
sealing, 3) pollution and erosion,(4) the protection and restoration of soil ecosystems, 5) 
soil biodiversity, 6) soil carbon sequestration and protection as well as 7) the global soil 
footprint.and  8)  soil  literacy.  An  analysis  of  evidence  submitted  by  the  scientific 
community confirmed that the Mission’s goal, objectives and targets are grounded on 
realistic assumptions, recognising that rapid change and combined efforts at a large 
scale are needed for the 2030 timeline to be met (166).  

6.7.2 

The Mission’s added value 

The Mission gives visibility to soils as a crucial, yet widely  ‘unrecognised’ resource 
and proposes an integrated, systems approach to soil health:  While traditionally, R&I, 
soil  monitoring  and  policies  have  largely  focused  on  agricultural  soils,  the  Mission 
promotes  cooperation  across  disciplines  and  sectors  to  address  all  land  uses  (e.g. 
agriculture, forestry, urban areas, protected areas).  

By reaching out to other instruments and establishing a structured dialogue with Member 
States, the Mission has a main role in coordinating activities, leveraging funds from 
other  programmes  (see  sections  6.7.5  and  6.7.8)  and  exploiting  synergies  between 
activities carried out at EU, national and regional levels.   

The Mission comes at the right time: Healthy soils are necessary to meet the ambitions 
of Green Deal policies notably in the areas of on sustainable food systems, biodiversity, 
climate and zero pollution. The Mission supports their implementation with data, scientific 
knowledge, harmonised soil health monitoring and innovations on the ground. The Mission 
together with the Soil Strategy, the future Soil Law and the European Soil Observatory 
(EUSO)  forms  a  single  and  more  robust  framework  to  address  soil  and  land 

(165)  Partnership on agroecology (europa.eu) 

(166)   See section 8.C of Mission Soil Implementation Plan. 

Page 122 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
stewardship at the necessary scale and pace. This  represents  a unique opportunity to 
address soil health at in Europe at all levels. 

Developing an integrated EU soil monitoring system is highly relevant, not only for policy 
but also for industries, as shown by the open letter (167) signed by the Soil Health Coalition 
and  more  than  250  signatories  calling  for  a  comprehensive,  harmonized  and  legally 
anchored soil health monitoring and reporting system (March 2023).The  Mission is 
highly  relevant    to  the  twin  green  and  digital  transition  by  enhancing  capacities  in 
digital  skills  and  unleashing  the  potential  of  digital  technologies,  such  us  artificial 
intelligence, and earth observation, making them work and accessible for land managers, 
citizens and businesses 

The  Mission  adds  value  to  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy:    An  evaluation  of  the 
impact of the CAP 2014 – 2020 (168) concluded that “the lack of technical knowledge and 
support appeared to be a key factor hindering the implementation of management practices 
addressing soil quality”. The Mission has a clear role in closing this knowledge-practice 
divide,  also  by  testing  and  upscaling  solutions  that  can  be  widely  upscaled  with  CAP 
funding.   

By  implementing  a  novel  approach  to  R&I,  the  Mission  goes  beyond  what  could  be 
achieved  within  single  parts  of  the  Horizon  Europe  Programme.  Local  testing  and 
demonstration grounds (LL&LH), together with open science and interactive, participatory 
innovation, will lead to a quicker and easier deployment of solutions to maintain and 
restore soil health. 

 The Mission contributes to the implementation of the EU international commitments 
towards  Biodiversity,  Climate  Change,  Nutrition,  Hunger  and  Poverty  Eradication 
including the Sustainable Development Goals. It The Mission has become a major flagship 
for  international  cooperation  with  the  FAO  Global  Soil  Partnership (169)  or  the  Aim  for 
Climate initiative (170).  

The Mission Soil is key for the successful implementation of the other four Missions: 
Healthy soils underpin: the resilience to extreme weather (Mission Adaptation to Climate 
Change);  food  quality  and  safety,  thereby  helping  to  prevent  cancer  and  other  diseases 
(Cancer  Mission);  water  quality  (Ocean  Mission)  and  green  infrastructures  in  built  up 
communities (Cities Mission). 

(167)  https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Open-Letter-to-the-European-Commission-on-the-Soil-

Health-Law-1.pdf  

(168)  https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/commission-publishes-study-caps-impact-soil2021-feb-04_en 

(169)   http://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/en/  

(170)  http://www.aimforclimate.org/  

Page 123 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
6.7.3 

 The Mission’s R&I content 

“We know more about the movement of celestial bodies than about soil underfoot”. This 
famous  quote  of  Leonardo  da  Vinci  reminds  us  of  the  importance  of  R&I  to  better   
understand and manage highly complex “soil systems”.   

The  Mission’s  R&I  programme  addresses  knowledge  gaps  as  identified  in  the 
implementation  plan  with  a  transdisciplinary,  multisectoral  and  portfolio-based 
approach. It is regularly updated in broad consultation with Commission services (through 
the  Mission  Owners  Group),  Member  States  and  stakeholders.  This  includes  structured 
dialogues and coordination with major initiatives such as the European Joint Programme 
EJP Soil.   

Through the first three work programmes (2021 to 2023) EUR 291 million have been 
allocated to R&I projects addressing topics of relevance for the Mission’s specific and 
operational objectives. Twenty-seven projects were selected following 2021 and 2022 calls 
and  19  are  expected  to  be  selected  under  the  2023  call  including  two  topics  in 
collaboration  with  Missions  Adaptation  to  Climate  Change  and  Mission  Ocean  & 
Waters.  

Table 10: Work Programme budgets, topics and projects for the Mission 

Work Programme year 

Indicative budget (€) 

Number 
of topics 

Number of projects 

2021 

2022 

2023 

57,000,000 

95,000,000 

139,000,000 

8 

10 

9 

11 

16 

19 

Funded projects from the first two Work Programmes (2021- 2022) are giving rise to  a 
dynamic  Mission  community  involving  400  participants/entities  from  almost  all 
Member  States  and  Associated  Countries,  out  of  which  25%  are  private  for-profit 
companies.  

By building thematic clusters (e.g. on soil indicators and monitoring, outreach and citizen 
engagement), projects are encouraged to exchange data and methods and exploit synergies.  

As  a  novelty,  funded  projects  interact  from  the  start  with  the  Joint  Research  Centre  to 
establish the mechanisms and requirements for the transfer of data and information to the 
European  Soil  Observatory  (EUSO).  The  EUSO  will  become  the  Mission’s  long-term 
repository for data and results. 

The Horizon Europe calls have set the ground for  

  Creating support structures for Mission implementation including the deployment 

of the living labs and lighthouses  

  Addressing major knowledge and innovation gaps, in particular in the “hotspots” 
identified  in  the  implementation  plan:  1)  carbon  farming,  2)  soil  pollution  and 
restoration, 3) soil biodiversity, and 4) circular economy solutions. 

  Enhancing capacities for soil monitoring. 

Page 124 / 185 

 
 
  Engaging with a range of stakeholder including regions, businesses and potential 

applicants for living labs. 

 

Improving education and skills.   

Projects  are  applying  transdisciplinary  and  multisectoral  approaches  including  social 
sciences, to improve the uptake of new soil management practices by farmers and other 
land managers. 

6.7.4 

Ensuring implementation is feasible, measurable, and time-bound  

The Implementation Plan establishes the intervention logic of the Mission Soil including 
its goal and eight specific objectives that contribute to the achievement of existing EU soil 
related  targets (171).  Each  specific  objective  is  backed  by  a  baseline  and  one  or  more 
measurable indicators. The intervention logic was developed based on a scientific analysis 
of soil threats and the review of existing data on soil regeneration by the Mission Board 
Soil Health and Food and the EU’s Joint Research Centre. Evidence obtained through a 
call to the scientific community confirmed that the Mission’s goal and objectives are 
feasible.  

The implementation plan also provides a blueprint for action over the Mission’s lifetime 
2023 – 2030, structured around the four operational Mission objectives (also referred to as 
so-called  “Building  Blocks”).  Proposed  activities  are  continuously  refined  through  a 
consultative  process  and  through  regular  interactions  with  Member  States  to  establish 
complementarities between Mission activities carried out at EU and national levels.     

Mission projects are closely monitored based on a set of output, outcome and impact 
indicators which will be complemented as necessary through KPIs developed by Mission 
projects, such as SOLO (172) and BENCHMARKS (173).     

As Living Labs (LLs) and Lighthouses (LHs) are at the heart of the  Mission Soil, their 
gradual roll-out has been carefully planned and is promoted through engagement sessions. 
The coordination of this network will be ensured through a dedicated support structure for 
the Living Labs that will be operational early 2024. The first wave of 25-30 LLs will be 
selected in 2023. As similar numbers will follow through subsequent calls, the target of 
100 Living Labs is realistic and likely to be exceeded.  

The emerging portfolio of Living Labs will be closely monitored and steered to ensure a 
balanced coverage of countries and regions (administrative and biogeographical), Mission 
specific  objectives  and  land-use  types  (urban,  farm,  forest,  industrial  etc.)  across  the 
projects. This will require to apply a mix of bottom-up and targeted LLs calls.  

(171)  Implementation Plans for the EU Missions (europa.eu) 

(172)  https://soils4europe.eu/ 

(173)  https://soilhealthbenchmarks.eu/ 

Page 125 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
The Joint Research Centre (JRC) is in charge of coordinating the work on soil monitoring 
to  ensure  complementarity  with  the  European  Soil  Data  Centre  (ESDAC)  and  with  the 
Land Use/Land Cover Area Frame Survey (LUCAS).  

The Mission Soil Platform will become the main source of information on Mission related 
activities and events to an external audience. Through its Dashboard, the platform will 
display the progress achieved towards the Mission’s main goal and objectives.  

6.7.5 

Securing buy-in 

The  Green  Deal  and  other  policies  recognise  soil  health  as  an  essential  element  for 
addressing major societal challenges. It comes therefore as no surprise that the Mission has 
succeeded in generating extensive political buy-in and leveraged resources at the level of 
the EU and Member States.  

In  its  Resolution  on  soil  protection  (April  2021) (174),  the  Parliament  highlights  the 
urgency to act on soils and specifically supports a Mission on soils under Horizon Europe. 

The  Mission  is  embedded  in  more  than  a  dozen  Green  Deal  strategies.  Under  each 
strategy or communication, the Mission is identified as an operational tool to pursue the 
EU’s main policy objectives and targets. The Farm to Fork Strategy relies on R&I as one 
of  the  main  pillars  to  enabling  the  transition  to  sustainable,  healthy  and  inclusive  food 
systems.  

Strong synergies have been created between the Soil 
Mission  and  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy 
(CAP).  As  a  result,  18  out  of  28  national  CAP 
Strategic Plans link up with the Soil Mission and 
propose  concrete  measures  and  mechanisms  for 
support,  thereby  leveraging  substantial  funds  from 
one of the major EU policies to benefit soil and land 
management.  Regular  exchanges  with  Managing 
Authorities  serve  to  discuss  at  operational  level 
synergies 
the 
CAP. Particularly close cooperation exists with the 
European Innovation Partnership EIP AGRI (175), the 

the  Mission 

between 

and 

CAP’s major instrument for innovation and in-built links to EU R&I programmes.   

The EU Soil Strategy and the Mission were developed in tandem. Having 2030 as a 
timeline, the Mission is a clear milestone in Europe’s longer-term trajectory to achieving 
a healthy status of all soils by 2050, as implied by the Green Deal objectives.  With the 
upcoming Soil Law (SL), the role of the Mission Soil becomes even more pronounced. 
It is clear that the success of the SL will rely to a large extent on the data and knowledge 
acquired as well as the actions undertaken under the Mission (e.g. soil monitoring and the 
testing and upscaling of sustainable practices for soil management)  

(174) European Parliament resolution of 28 April 2021 on soil protection (2021/2548(RSP)) (europa.eu) 

(175)  Home | EIP-AGRI (europa.eu) 

Page 126 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
The EU Biodiversity Strategy refers to the Mission to “develop solutions for restoring 
soil health and functions”. The Mission is referred under the EU Strategy on Adaptation 
to Climate Change to, e.g., propose nature-based solutions (NBS) for carbon removals or 
MRV in carbon farming. The EU Forest Strategy for 2030 refers to the  Mission as to 
support  “sound  and  site-adapted  forest  and  soils  restoration”  and  “the  evidence-based 
design  and  implementation  of  forest  restoration  strategies”. The  EU  Action  Plan: 
'Towards Zero Pollution for Air, Water and Soil' refers to the Mission as to promote 
the  wide-spread  uptake  of  sustainable  practices  to  ensuring  75%  of  healthy  soils  by 
2030. The Action plan for the development of organic production in the EU includes 
the  Soil  Mission contributing  to  a  pilot  network  of  climate  positive  organic  holdings 
through the deployment of LL&LH.  

The Communication on ‘A long-term Vision for the EU's Rural Areas’ identifies the 
Mission as a flagship initiative to “tackle soil challenges in rural areas, but also in urban 
settings, building connections between rural and urban practices.”.  The Communication 
on sustainable carbon cycles refers to the Mission as to “create living labs that test and 
demonstrate  practices  for  carbon  farming  across  various  locations  in  Europe”. 
Communication on Safeguarding food security and reinforcing the resilience of food 
systems mentions the Mission as an instrument to safeguard soil fertility, as well as the 
Communication  on  Ensuring  the  availability  and  affordability  of  fertilisers.  The 
Mission  is,  finally,  recognized  in  the  European  Year  of  Skills  2023  as  an  important 
element in the development of skills of land managers in relation to improving soil healthIn 
addition  to  mobilising  CAP  funds,  MS  have  reported  in  the  Horizon  Europe  Strategic 
Programme Committee more than 200 national/regional actions contributing to the soil 
Mission with mirror groups, activities and additional funding.  

EU programmes LIFE, the partnerships Circular Bioeconomy Europe, PRIMA as well 
as the EIC have allocated resources to support the Mission.  

As  regards  buy-in  from  within  the  private  sector,  discussions  with  philanthropic 
institutions are at an advanced stage as regards the co-design and coordination of activities 
and funding. In addition, the EIB is developing a pipeline for large scale soil investments 
in connection with InvestEU.   

6.7.6 

Citizens and stakeholder engagement 

Citizens and stakeholder engagement is a major element of the Mission as it is key to 
achieving the Mission’s goal and anchoring care for soils in society.  

In the initial phase of the Mission, a survey on citizens’ perceptions about soil related 
challenges received more than 2,500 replies with 80% respondents considering that soil 
health matters for the quality of their lives. Further views of citizens on the  Mission 
were gathered through dedicated engagement events across Europe. A business round table 
served  to  bring-in  the  view  of  the  private  sector  as  regards  Mission  priorities  and  R&I 
needs. Private sector dialogue is further pursued through the presentation of Mission Soil 
at events of businesses and networks such as the Soil Health Law Coalition and the Global 
Coalition for Soil Health.  

As Mission implementation progresses, national info days are becoming a main vehicle to 
inform  about  opportunities  to  engage  in  Mission  activities  and  obtain  feedback  from 

Page 127 / 185 

 
 
stakeholders.  Engagement  with  Member  States  is  organised  systematically  including 
through the TRAMI project, the Soil Mission’s national Mirror Groups and meetings with 
the Soil Mission Working Group of the HE Strategic Programme Committee.    

Through the NATI00Ns project, the Mission is holding engagement sessions at national 
and  regional  levels  in  all  Member  States  and  Associated  Countries  to  inform  about  the 
concept of LLs and enhance stakeholders’ skills on how to set up a LL and ensure high 
quality  proposals.  Together  with  regional  stakeholders,  the  project  PREPSOIL (176)  has 
identified “soil needs” in about 30 European regions as a basis for prioritising action under 
LLs. 

The Mission is further engaging with municipalities, regions, and related networks, to 
mobilise a critical mass of land managers and other relevant actors. This includes regular 
exchanges with the Committee of the Regions, the European Regions Research Network 
and the Network of European Regions for Innovation in Agriculture, Food and Forestry. 
Furthermore, Mission project HUMUS (177) is co-creating with citizens and stakeholders 
Territorial Management Agreements in 33 regions to tackle soil challenges.   

The recently launched Mission Soil Manifesto (178) has proven to be a highly effective tool 
for outreach and for mobilising individuals and institutions to support the Mission and its 
objectives. 

6.7.7 

 Progress, achievements, and milestones 

The implementation of the various building blocks of the Mission Soil is well on track, 
in line with the key milestones set out in the Mission Implementation Plan for the period 
2021-2023.  

The creation of a comprehensive portfolio of R&I actions amounting to a total funding of 
EUR 291 million is described in section 6.7.3 (The Mission’s R&I content).  

Activities have resulted in creating capacities for the Mission’s implementation, notably 
through the set-up of the  Mission Soil  Platform. The Platform  will host  the  Mission’s 
website including the project hub and Mission dashboard. It is designed to become a one-
stop shop for information on Mission activities, events and progress and will support the 
networking of Mission communities. 

 The JRC has been tasked to coordinate the Mission’s activities on soil monitoring.  The 
first  version  of  the  EUSO  dashboard  went  live  in  March  2023  and  the  validated 
indicators framework available through EUSO is expected by Q4/2024, together with the 
operational data flows from Mission projects and Members States towards EUSO. 

A cluster of Mission projects is contributing to the development of robust harmonised, 
reliable,  cost-efficient  soil  health  monitoring,  making  use  of  artificial  intelligence, 
remote sensing and Internet of Things and laying the ground for a digital twin of soils as 

(176)  https://prepsoil.eu/ 

(177)  https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101091050 

(178)  The EU Mission Soil launches its Manifesto (europa.eu) 

Page 128 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
part of Destination Earth. Funded projects are also developing business models for soil 
health  and  methods  for  the  monitoring,  reporting  and  verification  of  soil  carbon 
removals.  These  activities  help  generating  novel  opportunities  for  diversification  of 
farmers’ income (e.g. through carbon farming) and support industries in the creation of 
soil friendly and climate neutral value chains.  

The delivery of strategies and solutions for soil decontamination in urban and rural 
areas is another important outcome of funded projects with significant potential for follow-
up investments. This complements work undertaken by the European Investment Bank 
to  promote  large-scale  soil  investments  (see  section  6.7.8  ‘Current  estimation  of  the 
budget’). 

As regards soil literacy and education, Mission projects are strengthening the skills of soil 
advisors and promoting citizen science as well as soil education on soils in schools and 
universities as a contribution to the Education for Climate Coalition. 

The first call for Living Labs has been launched and will kick-start 25-30 living labs 
in 2024.  A Specific Grant Agreement published in WP 2023 will give rise to a ‘Living 
Lab Support Structure’ that will be operational by 2024 to assist the growing network of 
LLs&LHs. The Mission’s Manifesto was launched on 18 April 2023 in Brussels at the 
premises  of  European  Regions  Research  and  Innovation  Network  (ERRIN).  This  was 
followed up by an event with the Committee of the Regions in Finland on 20 April 2023, 
and  a  campaign  to  mobilise  signatories  and  supporters  (such  as  private  organisations, 
NGOs, schools, universities, as well as individuals). Only one week after its launch, the 
Manifesto had attracted about 600 signatories out of which 100 are organisations (legal 
entities  including  regional  authorities)  and  500  individuals  including  Members  of  the 
European Parliament. 

There has been a remarkable growth in soil health related communication and outreach. 
Since September 2019, the Mission has been presented and discussed in interactive formats 
at more than 300 events across Europe and beyond at the initiative of the Commission, 
Mission Board members, Member States or stakeholders. For example, the Mission has 
been  celebrating  the  World  Soil  Day  with  events  and  communication  activities  (e.g., 
videos,  launch  of  publications,  social  media)  and  was  presented  e.g.  at  the  Salon 
International de l’Agriculture (Paris) (179), the International Green Week Berlin (180), COP 
27 (181) or BIOEAST (182). The Mission has featured prominently in the EU Soil Observatory 
(EUSO) Stakeholder Forums of 2021 and 2022.  

From 2023 onwards, an annual European Soil Mission Fair will be held to bring together 
the wider Soil Mission community. The first one will take place in November 2023 and 
will be hosted by the Spanish presidency. 

(179) http://www.salon-agriculture.com/   

(180) http://gruenewoche.de/en/  

(181) http://unfccc.int/cop27  

(182) http://bioeast.eu  

Page 129 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
The wide take up of the Mission in Member States is a major success. More than 200 
initiatives  implementing  the  Mission  goals  have  been  reported  by  22  Member  States. 
Nine Member States have created governance structures, i.e., structures which proactively 
address the coordination and implementation of the Mission objectives at national level. 
These ‘mirror groups’ put special emphasis on cross-cutting work, for example, involving 
different ministries.  

At global level, the Mission is promoting international R&I cooperation (e.g. with Japan, 
US,  Canada)  and  has  become  a  flagship  contribution  of  the  EU  to  major  initiatives 
including the Global Soil Partnership, the Global Coalition for Soil Health and the Aim for 
Climate initiative. At this year’s Aim for Climate summit (8-10 May in Washington), the 
Mission Soil was highly visible thanks to a dedicated breakout session. Ministers and Vice-
Ministers from Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands actively participated in the session 
and highlighted the important role of the Mission for soil protection in the EU. 

6.7.8 

Current estimation of the budget 

The Mission has a budget of EUR 301 million for the period 2021-2023 coming from the 
overall Horizon Europe budget. 

In addition, other parts of Horizon Europe contribute to the Mission goals and have been 
explicitly  mentioned  or  crossed  referenced  in  the  respective  annual  work  programmes. 
This  includes  the  Partnership  for  Research  and  Innovation  in  the  Mediterranean  Area 
(PRIMA), the Circular Bio-based Europe Joint Undertaking (CBE JU) and the European 
Innovation Council (EIC), with a specific Accelerator Challenge than links up with the 
Mission  in  2023.  EJP  SOIL  is  a  European  Joint  Programme  on  agricultural  soil 
management addressing key societal challenges including climate change and future food 
supply. 

Other  EU  programmes  and  initiatives  contribute  to  the  Mission  as  well.  The  LIFE 
Programme,  as  the  EU’s  funding  instrument  for  the  environment  and  climate  action, 
finances projects that support soil ecosystem services, carbon farming and prepare soils for 
extreme weather events and combat desertification, thus contributing to the eight Mission 
objectives.  Applicants  are  encouraged  to  develop  synergies  with  the  projects  financed 
under the Horizon Europe programme, including the Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe”.  

There are strong synergies between the Soil Mission and the CAP. Under the current 
CAP  (2023  –  2027 period), actions to  improve soil health are expected to cover nearly 
47,4% of EU’s  utilised  agricultural  area (UAA). A specific result indicator (R19 'UAA 
under supported commitments favourable to soil management to improve soil quality and 
biota’) is used to measure CAP contribution to the improvement and protection of soils. 

Through  the  integration  of  the  Mission  Soil  in  national  CAP  Strategic  Plans,  clear 
synergies are being established between the CAP funding and the  Mission goals. In the 
CAP Strategic Plans (183), it is planned to set up around 6,500 Operational Groups under 

(183)   https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/cap-strategic-plans_en  

Page 130 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
the  EU  CAP  Network,  out  of  which  at  least  1,000  are  expected  to  address  soil 
management, directly contributing to the Soil Mission and its objectives. 

Table 11: Mapping of the instruments contributing to the Mission Soil objectives  

Instrument  

CAP 2023-2027 (184)  

CAP 2023-2027 - Operational Groups (185)  

Mission ‘A Soil Deal for Europe’ budget 

Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA) Work 
Programmes 2021-2023 (186)  

Circular Bio-based Europe Joint Undertaking (CBE JU) Work Programmes 2022-
2023 (187)  

European Innovation Council (EIC) Work Programme 2023 (188) 

European Joint Programme EJP SOIL Work Programmes 2020–2025 (189)  

LIFE Programme 2021 (190)   

Horizon Europe Partnership on Agroecology and Research Infrastructures  

Digital Europe Programme: complementary funding to Soil Mission activities in 
relation to Destination Earth (planned for 2024 and/or 2025 depending on outputs of 
Mission projects) 

EU contribution 
(EUR million)  

50,574.9 

350.0 

301.0 

153.4 

89.0 

65.0 

40.0 

70.0 

30.0 

(184)   Initial estimation of CAP 2023-2027 contribution to Result Indicator RI19. A more targeted analysis 
will  be  conducted,  focusing  only  on  some  practices  which  affect  directly  soil  protection  and 
management. 

(185)   https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/eip-agri-projects/projects/operational-groups.html 

(186)  PRIMA  annual  work  plan  for  2022  (https://prima-med.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/AWP22.pdf) 

and for 2023 

(187)   https://www.cbe.europa.eu/system/files/2023-03/CBE-JU-Annual-Work-Programme-Budget-

2023.pdf  

(188) https://eic.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-12/EIC%20Work%20Programme%202023_F%26T.pdf 

(189)   https://ejpsoil.eu/about-ejp-soil/news-events/item/artikel/horizon-europe-funding 

(190)   Estimated EU contribution to projects reporting on quantitative improvements in soil quality selected 
under LIFE 2021 calls. This amount does not include other projects that could address soil issues without 
having chosen to report on them. These amounts will be confirmed in 2024. Future estimates cannot be 
done due to the bottom-up approach of the programme.  

Page 131 / 185 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Instrument  

EU contribution 
(EUR million)  

EAC/EACEA international actions (Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters (191), Capacity 
Building in Higher Education (192) and Jean Monnet   actions) (193) (2020 – present)  

63.0 

Source: EFIS study 

When it comes to private sources, the European Investment Bank (EIB) is carrying out a 
study to assess the demand and supply sides for private-sector investment in relation to soil 
health. The study (EUR 400,000) shall identify key market players addressing the problems 
of soil health and quantifying their investment needs. It shall also develop an actionable 
pipeline of 30 projects for potential investments in connection with InvestEU, of which 5-
10 projects shall be immediately investable. The estimated amount of EIB financing that 
could be mobilised for the 5-10 actionable investment opportunities is EUR 35-75 million 
(total investment mobilised of EUR 70-150 million) spread over several years, assuming 
the EIB finances half the total project costs and based on a minimum EIB contribution per 
project of EUR 7.5 million. 

The study will also assess what types of instruments (new or existing) can be deployed to 
bridge the funding gap in each of the relevant land-use types. 

The Mission is establishing mechanisms of cooperation with philanthropic organisations 
to  support  healthy soils,  some of which have announced complementary  funding to  the 
Mission.  

(191)   https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/opportunities/individuals/students/erasmus-mundus-joint-masters-

scholarships 

(192)   https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/opportunities/organisations/cooperation-among-organisations-and-

institutions/capacity-building-higher-education  

(193)   https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/opportunities/organisations/jean-monnet-actions-stimulating-

teaching-and-research-on-the-european-union 

Page 132 / 185 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
II.  Review of Mission Areas 

1  OVERALL AIM OF THE REVIEW  

As  formulated  in  the  Horizon  Europe  legal  base  (Article  11  of  the  Horizon  Europe 
Regulation): “By 31 December 2023, the Commission shall carry out a review of Annex 
VI  to  this  Regulation  as  part  of  the  overall  monitoring  of  the  Programme,  including 
Missions and institutionalised European partnerships established pursuant to Article 185 
or 187 TFEU and present a report on the main findings to the European Parliament and to 
the Council”.  

The areas of possible Missions included in Annex VI of the Horizon Europe Regulation 
are as follows: 

-  Area 1: Adaptation to Climate Change, including Societal Transformation. 
-  Area 2: Cancer. 
-  Area 3: Health Oceans, Seas, Coastal and Inland Waters. 
-  Area 4: Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities. 
-  Area 5: Soil Health and Food. 

The overall aim of the review of Mission Areas is to verify whether the Mission Areas 
still  address  some  of  the  major  challenges  faced  by  the  EU  and,  therefore,  to  what 
extent  each  Mission  Area  is  still  relevant  given  the  developments  in  the  research, 
innovation, environmental, economic and social landscapes.  

The external study underpinning the review of Mission Areas   

The five Mission Areas were analysed taking into account the current and future broad 
research and innovation (R&I), economic, social and environmental trends and factors. An 
external  contractor  carried  out  a  study  (EFIS;  RTD/2022/SC/022)(194)  to  provide 
evidence to help the Commission review the 5 five Mission Areas.  

The analysis of Mission Areas was based in particular on a literature review of academic 
journals,  desk  research  covering  technical  (e.g.,  foresight,  research  and  innovation 
analysis) studies, policy reports and grey literature as well as data analysis. In addition, 
views and opinions on the continuing relevance of the Mission Areas and trends impacting 
the Mission Areas were gathered through targeted interviews, an online survey and policy 
workshops. The publication of this study is foreseen for the summer 2023. 
A  detailed  description  of  the  methodology  used  for  reviewing  the  Mission  Areas  is 
provided in Annex B.  

(194)  Study supporting the assessment of EU Missions, the review of Mission Areas and the analysis of EU 
Missions’  portfolio  of  instruments  and  actions  –  RTD/2022/SC/022.  Specific  Contract  under  the 
Multiple Framework Contract N° 2018/RTD/A2/OP/PP-07001-2018. 

Page 133 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
2  MISSION AREA: ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE, INCLUDING SOCIETAL 

TRANSFORMATION 

2.1 

Scope and definition of the Mission Area 

“Despite progress, adaptation gaps exist between current levels of adaptation and levels 
needed  to  respond  to  impacts  and  reduce  climate  risks.  Most  observed  adaptation  is 
fragmented, small  in  scale, incremental, sector-specific, designed to  respond to  current 
impacts or near-term risks, and focused more on planning rather than implementation” 
(IPCC, 2022). 

One of the five Mission Areas defined by the European co-legislators (see introduction) 
was defined as follows: ‘Adaptation to climate change, including societal transformation’. 
In the Mission board proposal in 2020, the term ‘societal transformation’ was not retained. 
When the Mission was launched in September 2021, ‘Adaptation to climate change’ was 
chosen as official title of the Mission and recognised as more easily understandable and fit 
for communication purposes for its brevity and focus. 

The Mission Area is anchored in a set of overarching EU policies: 

  The need for adaptation is enshrined in the Paris Agreement, to which the EU is 
committed. Article 2.1 of the agreement sets the goal of increasing the ability to 
adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and 
article  7  of  sets  a  global  goal  of  “enhancing  adaptive  capacity,  strengthening 
resilience and reducing vulnerabilities to climate change” (UNFCCC, 2015). 

  The Mission Area is in line with and legitimised by the second EU Adaptation 
Strategy (EC, 2021c) (195), updating the previous 2013 strategy, which is the EU 
strategy to which the Mission is most directly linked, with the European Green 
Deal as an overarching strategic umbrella (EC, 2019). 

  Article  5  of  the  2021  European  Climate  Law (196)  foresees  that  “the  relevant 
Union  institutions  and  the  Member  States  shall  ensure  continuous  progress  in 
enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability 
to  climate  change  in  accordance  with  Article  7  of  the  Paris  Agreement”  and 
“Member  States  shall  adopt  and  implement  national  adaptation  strategies  and 
plans,  taking  into  consideration  the  Union  strategy  on  adaptation  to  climate 
change and based on robust climate change and vulnerability analyses, progress 
assessments  and  indicators,  and  guided  by  the  best  available  and  most  recent 
scientific evidence.” 

By  focusing  on  a  challenge  that  is  highly  timely  and  urgent  for  achieving  the  green 
transition  of  Europe,  the  Mission  Area  fits  with  the  overall  expectations  set  for  EU 
Missions to “support Europe’s transformation  into  a greener,  healthier, more inclusive 

(195) Except for its component of international action. 

(196) REGULATION (EU) 2021/1119 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 
30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations 
(EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999. 

Page 134 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
and resilient continent” by providing “a new way to bring concrete solutions to some of 
our  greatest  challenges”  and  “bring  tangible  benefits  to  people  in  Europe  and  engage 
Europeans in their design, implementation and monitoring” (EC, 2021c). 

Adapting to the unavoidable impacts of climate change adaptation is needed at the same 
time  as  mitigating  climate  change.  Both  efforts  are  complementary  and  mutually 
reinforcing,  as  stated  by  all  interviewees  without  exception,  and  as  also  clearly 
acknowledged by the IPCC (2022) and the above-mentioned EU strategies. Adaptation 
and  mitigation  both  contribute  to  addressing  climate  change  challenges,  and  even 
more so when synergies are built between the two, avoiding maladaptation (OECD, 2021)  

Figure 15: Synergies between mitigation and adaptation to climate change 

Source: OECD, 2021 

Climate change adaptation and mitigation policies have been to a large extent separately 
addressed in the past: mitigation is chiefly about developing solutions to decarbonise all 
our  activities,  from  transport  to  energy,  while  adaptation  aims  at  finding  solutions  to 
maintain  essential  services  and  activities  despite  severe  impacts  of  climate  change  on 
ecosystems, infrastructure and people. The type of R&I needs also differ. Under mitigation, 
the target is the development of technologies or new organisational models for the circular 
economy, the production of energy from green sources, etc. In contrast, under adaptation 
research efforts target  e.g. the development of nature-based solutions to address coastal 
erosion  or  the  development  of  new  financial  models  for  adaptation  finance.  Limiting 
climate  change  through  mitigation  action  has  global  public  good  benefits  with  overall 
reductions of GHG at planetary level translating into a stabilising climate, while benefits 
from adaptation actions are mostly accrued locally, reducing loss and damages from floods 
or wildfires (Swart and Raes, 2007). This creates different needs and levels of coordinating 
action. The type of knowledge needed to inform adaptation and mitigation policies is also 
different.  While  mitigation  policy  is  grounded  in  information  on  the  source,  type  and 
amount  of  GHG  generated  by  different  economic  activities,  adaptation  measures  are 
determined by the estimated scale of local climate change impacts.  

Yet, there are synergies between adaptation and mitigation efforts that can help to 
achieve  climate  resilience  more  effectively.  Forest  or  mangrove  restorations,  for 
example, create an opportunity to increase carbon storage capacity, while also contributing 

Page 135 / 185 

 
 
to reduce weather-related risks, such as landslides or coastal storm surges. Identifying these 
opportunities can lead to better understanding and avoiding trade-offs and to developing 
policy measures that are mutually reinforcing (OECD, 2021). 

Building closer linkages between mitigation and adaptation efforts is advocated both by 
IPCC and OECD:  

Defining the Mission scope 

Working on the mandate given by EU authorities, the Mission board proposed a Mission 
with  the  following  title:  “a  Climate  Resilient  Europe:  Prepare  Europe  for  climate 
disruptions  and  accelerate  the  transformation  to  a  climate  resilient  and  just  Europe  by 
2030” (EC, 2020).  

The Mission board based its work on a multiplicity of sources of evidence, notably from 
IPCC  and  EEA.  A  foresight  report  was  prepared  for  this  Mission  Area  and  involved 
interactions with the Mission board and other experts, scenario building exercises and an 
analysis of relevant projects relevant for the topic of adaptation to climate change (EC, 
2021b).  The  foresight  exercise  addressed  the  areas  of  risk  management,  financial  risk 
protection,  social  infrastructure,  health,  water,  food/agriculture,  and  ecosystems.  In 
addition, the Mission board members met with a variety of stakeholders in 2019 and 2020, 
which nurtured the Mission board proposal. 

Three  key  orientations,  which  are  in  line  with  findings  of  recent  research,  were 
considered in the proposal of the Mission board: 

1.  Adapting  to  climate  change  is  a  complex  and  pervasive  challenge  requiring  a 

systemic approach; 

2.  A territorial cohesion dimension needs to be at the forefront of adapting to climate 

change; 

3.  Attention  and  efforts  towards  climate  change  adaptation  need  to  be  stepped  up 

drastically emphasising the costs of non-action. 

The  Mission  board  proposal  proposed  that  the  “Mission  employs  an  integrated  and 
systemic  approach  to  risk  management  and  resilience  building,  moving  away  from 
piecemeal sectorial and linear cause-effect-solution focus” (EC, 2020).   

In  consequence  the  Mission  scope  definition  rightly  emphasises  the  interlinkages 
between systems for which ‘transformative pathways’ will need to be developed.  

This scope is put in perspective with the systems identified for climate change adaptation 
by other global studies.  

Page 136 / 185 

 
 
Table  12:  Comparison  of  the  systems  identified  by  the  EU  Mission  board  (2020)  and  other 
international frameworks 

EU Mission Board 
for Adaptation to 
Climate Change, 
including Societal 
Transformation (EC, 
2020) 

Regenerating 
community and 
social infrastructure 

Regions Adapt 
initiative (197) 

Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC, 2022) 

Global 
Commission on 
Adaptation 
(GCA, 2019) 

OECD work on 
climate change 
adaptation 
(OECD, 2022) 

Cities, settlements and 
key infrastructure 

Infrastructure 

Cities and urban 
areas; 
infrastructure; 
finance 

Infrastructure 
(including transport 
and energy) and 
territorial planning; 
economic impacts and 
opportunities; social 
adaptation and 
impacts 

Protecting human 
health and wellbeing 

Resilience and 
disaster risk reduction 

Restoring nature, 
biodiversity and 
ecosystems services 

Forestry, protected 
areas and biodiversity 

Disaster risk 
management 

Natural 
environment 

Health, wellbeing and 
the changing structure of 
communities; poverty, 
livelihoods and 
sustainable development 

Terrestrial and 
freshwater ecosystems 
and their services; 
oceans and coastal 
ecosystems and their 
services 

Rethinking water 
management 

Water resources and 
management 

Water 

Water 

Development 
co-operation; 
losses and 
damages from 
climate change 

Biodiversity; 
nature-based 
solutions for 
climate 
resilience 

Water - sea level 
rise and coastal 
climate risks 

Reviving landscapes 
and sustainable food 
systems 

Agriculture and 
zootechnics 

Food, fibre and other 
ecosystem products 

Food security 

Agriculture 

Source: external study team based on cited references  

A comparison between the enabling conditions of the EU Mission and those identified by 
the IPCC (IPCC, 2022) underlines that the EU Mission places an emphasis on the same 
enabling  conditions  as  the  IPCC,  but  also  identifies  the  need  to:  strengthen  education, 
communication  and  have  a  better  understanding  of  behavioural  change;  strengthen 
sustainable and circular local economies. 

The  Mission  board’s  proposal  places  an  emphasis  on  the  diversity  in  level  of 
vulnerability,  type  of  climate  risks,  response  capacity  and  level  of  preparedness 
across  territories  in  Europe.  The  overall  Mission  board  approach  is  to  support  a 
balanced improvement in resilience ‘leaving no territory behind’, thus incorporating 
the ‘just’ dimension in the overall vision for the Mission. The proposal includes the idea 
of  “a  twinning  mechanism  bringing  together  innovation  leaders  and  more  modest 
performers”  (EC,  2020).  The  understanding  that  climate  change  impacts  are  crossing 

(197) https://regions4.org  

Page 137 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
borders also justifies an inclusive approach, i.e. one that is not limited to the creation of a 
few ‘islands of excellence on adaptation’ in Europe. 

In addition, social justice is also included in the Mission’s scope. This is consistent with 
findings  about  the  state-of-the-art  in  adaptation  policies  in  Europe:  “the  social  justice 
aspects  of  adaptation  are not  yet  integrated in  the reporting  of  all countries. However, 
these  increasingly  important  aspects  aim  to  address  the  uneven  distribution  of  climate 
risks, which affect vulnerable groups the most. More positively vulnerable groups have a 
role in developing national and regional adaptation policies in several countries and are 
involved in the prioritising of adaptation measures” (EEA, 2022). 

The Mission proposal starts from the premise that long-term benefits will outweigh the 
immediate  costs  of  investments  in  climate  change  adaptation,  and  that  adaptation 
strategies and solutions  have not  received the attention they deserve until  recently.  The 
role of R&I in addressing the challenges faced by regions and local communities 

Regions and local communities face multiple challenges to address adaptation to climate 
change: understanding the current status and projections of the impacts of climate change 
for  their  territories;  identifying  what  is  required  to  become  resilient;  identifying 
transformative solutions; overcoming the barriers for long-term adaptation pathways and 
assessing  achievements.  Research  and  innovation  can  contribute  to  address  all  these 
challenges. 

Scientific and research efforts are needed to produce new robust evidence as well as 
solutions and approaches tailored to the needs of regional and local authorities.   “data 
that are specific to local context, scenario modelling, decision making tools (for instance 
evaluating which option is the best approach) and robust datasets spanning longer time 
periods. The importance of local data for local authorities is a key theme with many noting 
that data is often not specific to the region and downscaling national data is not easy or 
even possible” (Gancheva et al., 2020). 

To date, scientific research efforts have mainly adopted sector-specific or region-specific 
approaches. The literature analysis shows great emphasis on the adoption of a technology-
based  approach  not  just  to  addressing  climate  change  mitigation  but  also  to  help 
communities  in  adapting  to  climate  change  and  adjust  to  rapidly  changing  climatic 
conditions (IPCC, 2018). However, the limit of existing studies on adaptation to climate 
change is that they predominantly focus on specific regions or sectors or climate risks (e.g. 
draughts)  (Ferreira  et  al.,  2020),  paying  insufficient  attention  to  heterogeneity  across 
Europe. There is insufficient understanding of the indirect and spill-over effects of climate 
change across different sectors (Gancheva et al., 2020).  

As important as new knowledge on current and future climate change, risks and impacts, 
is the knowledge about costs and benefits from investing in climate change adaptation 
measures.  On  both  fronts  -  measuring  costs  and  measuring  benefits  -  a  lot  of 
methodological  issues  remain  unsolved,  e.g.  the  identification  of  ‘adaptation-relevant’ 
investments and the distinction between nature- and man-driven climate hazards, and these 
are  compounded  by  the  high  level  of  uncertainty  on  evolutions  in  climate  change  and 
intensity and effectiveness of mitigation efforts. 

Current methods for monitoring and evaluating climate change adaptation use a variety of 
indicators ranging from climate parameters, the impacts of climate change, vulnerability 

Page 138 / 185 

 
 
to climate change, progress made in implementing actions and, more rarely, estimations of 
the capacity to respond to a given impact. To date, no standardised approach to describe 
climate resilience has emerged. This leads to difficulties in communicating simply about 
the impact of climate change adaptation policies and the progress they have been able to 
bring. 

The  external  study  underpinning  the  review  of  the  Mission  Areas  concludes  that  the 
identification of climate change adaptation as a Mission Area is timely and responds to a 
huge  gap  in  knowledge  necessary  to  respond  to  the  societal  challenge  it  addresses  at 
regional and local levels.  

2.2  Developments influencing the Mission Area 

Analysis  shows  that  the  Mission  Area  is  broad  enough  to  cover  needs  and  adjust  to 
new/emerging or previously unforeseen/identified factors or trends that are or are likely to 
impact this Mission Area.  

Table 13: Identified main factors or trends influencing the Mission Area 

Type of factor/trend 

Short summary of the expected impact of the factor/trend 

Frequency and 

“Widespread, pervasive impacts to ecosystems, people, settlements, and  infrastructure 

severity of occurrence 

have  resulted  from  observed  increases  in  the  frequency  and  intensity  of  climate  and 

of extreme climatic 

weather extremes, including hot extremes on land and in the ocean, heavy precipitation 

events 

events, drought and fire weather (high confidence). Increasingly since AR5, these observed 

Occurrence of new 

hazards due to 

combination and 

cascading effects of 

multiple risks   

impacts  have  been  attributed  to  human-induced  climate  change  particularly  through 

increased frequency and severity of extreme events.” (IPCC, 2022) 

“Climate change impacts and risks are becoming increasingly complex and more difficult 

to manage. Multiple climate hazards will occur simultaneously, and multiple climatic and 

non-climatic risks will interact, resulting in compounding overall risk and risks cascading 

across sectors and regions. Some responses to climate change result in new impacts and 

risks.” (IPCC, 2022) 

Extent and 

If mitigation efforts are insufficient, systems and territories will have reached hard limits, 

effectiveness of 

i.e. points where adaptation efforts are not effective anymore.  

climate mitigation 

efforts and impacts  

“Soft  limits  to  some  human  adaptation  have  been  reached,  but  can  be  overcome  by 

addressing a range of constraints, primarily financial, governance, institutional and policy 

constraints  (high  confidence).  Hard  limits  to  adaptation  have  been  reached  in  some 

ecosystems (high confidence). With increasing global warming, losses and damages will 

increase  and  additional  human  and  natural  systems  will  reach  adaptation  limits  (high 

confidence).” (IPCC, 2022) 

Regulations covering 

Strengthening regulations to incorporate adaptation in infrastructure planning, disaster 

mainstreaming 

emergency management procedures, health system configurations, etc. can reveal new 

adaptation in sectoral 

needs  in  terms  of  research  and  innovation  and  support  faster  and  deeper  Mission 

policies 

delivery. 

Source: external study team  

Page 139 / 185 

 
 
 
2.3  Key conclusions from the external review of the Mission Area  

There is a large convergence of views, both from the stakeholders consulted as part of the 
external  study  and  from  literature  review,  to  indicate  that  the  Mission  Area  is  fit  for 
purpose and likely to stand the test of time. This is due, in particular, to the Mission 
Area’s broad and flexible coverage of key community systems and enabling conditions for 
resilience.  Climate  change  adaptation  is  a  relatively  newer  subject  than  climate  change 
mitigation. This makes the Mission Area, as such, timely and welcome: it should help push 
adaptation to the top of policy agendas, in particular of sub-national authorities.  

The definition of the Mission Area is fit for purpose and likely to stand the test of time due 
to its broad and flexible coverage of key community systems and enabling conditions for 
resilience. The subject of climate change adaptation being a relatively newer subject than 
climate change mitigation makes the Mission Area relevant and timely. 

The  Mission  Area  requires  the  creation  and  diffusion  of  a  lot  of  new  knowledge, 
highlighting a clear role for R&I to support transformational adaptation, key for the 
Mission’s success. Strong R&I efforts are needed to produce, for instance: better evidence 
on territorial climate risk profiles and vulnerabilities, impacts of climate-induced hazards, 
including  complex  and  cascaded  impacts;  new  knowledge  and  methods  on  measuring 
resilience  as  a  positive  feature  (beyond  measuring  vulnerability  only);  research  and 
innovation  activities on new adaptation  solutions  and models within and across various 
ecosystems; research and development of suitable models and mechanisms for adaptation 
finance;  inputs  from  social  and  political  science  on  effective  and  inclusive  governance 
models for adaptation opening room for wide participation including citizens, etc. These 
research and innovation efforts require transdisciplinary approaches.   

Processes  such  as  regenerative  sustainability  and  regenerative  design  could  be  further 
explored  to  bring  new  insights  on  how  adaptation  and  mitigation  strategies  and 
interventions  can  give  back  to  nature  more  than  they  take  from  it,  enhance  rather  than 
deplete biodiversity, incentivise the restoration and expansion of nature. This also requires 
considering  how  contexts  and  environments  influence  worldviews,  paradigms,  and 
behaviours,  hence  looking  at  the  scale  of  an  ecosystem.  The  success  and  the  speed  of 
climate  adaptation  efforts  depends  on  a  combination  of  aspects  which  go  beyond  the 
environmental  sustainability  and  functionality  of  the  R&I  solutions  proposed.  Social 
acceptance (including aesthetics) and affordability are also key for innovations to be taken 
up by society at all levels. 

3  MISSION AREA: CANCER  

Cancer is a growing challenge for Europe for several reasons  (198). Cancer is the second 
leading cause of death in Europe after cardiovascular diseases and the first cause of death 

(198) https://cancer-code-europe.iarc.fr/index.php/en/about-cancer/what-causes-cancer and https://gco.iarc.fr     

Page 140 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
by disease in children older than one year. With less than 10% of the world’s population, 
Europe nevertheless has roughly a quarter of all cancer cases (Bray et al, 2018). 

In 2020, there were almost 4 million new cases in Europe and 2 million deaths (A Lancet 
Oncology  Commission,  2022).  For  2022,  the  World  Health  Organisation  estimated  the 
number of new cases in Europe to be about 4.4 million (or 22.8% of the global number of 
cancer cases) and the number of deaths at about 2 million (or roughly 20% of the global 
deaths from cancer) (199). On an annual level in the EU-27 1.2 million people die of cancer, 
almost 2.6 million people are diagnosed with cancer and the number of cancer cases will 
increase  by  25%  by  2035  if  things  stay  unchanged  in  this  area  (EC,  DG  RTD  2020). 
Although there is a slight reduction in mortality due to screening campaigns and improved 
diagnostics and treatment, the number of diagnosed cases is still increasing.  

3.1 

Scope and definition of the Mission Area 

The last century has seen Europeans living longer and healthier lives, thanks also to big 
advances  in  medical  treatment.  However,  Europeans  are  disproportionately  affected  by 
cancer, (200)  which  apart  from  wrecking  lives  and  families,  places  a  major  pressure  on 
national health systems. As a term ‘cancer’ covers more than 200 diseases linked to the 
uncontrolled growth and spread of abnormal body cells that divide uncontrollably and have 
the ability to infiltrate and destroy normal body tissue. 

The discussions around cancer as a potential focus area in the EU started already during 
Carlos Moedas’ term as Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science (2014-2019). 
In 2019, as part of the election campaign the Chairman of the EPP group  (201), Manfred 
Weber, proposed a “European Masterplan to join our forces to fight against cancer”. As a 
response to this call, the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced 
a “European Plan to fight cancer to support Member States in improving cancer control 
and care” as a key component of her political guidelines 2019-2024. At the World Health 
Summit 2020 Ursula von der Leyen called for a stronger European Health Union. (202) This 
was different to what the previous presidents of the European Commission talked about 
referring to health as a national topic. The COVID-19 pandemic showed that collaboration 
in addressing a major health problem is essential. In parallel Ursula von der Leyen tasked 
Stella Kyriakides, the Health and Food Safety Commissioner, to develop an ambitious plan 
for  cancer.  Recognising  the  increasing  number  of  cancer  cases  in  Europe  and  the 
importance  of  care,  the  EU  developed  the  Europe’s  Beating  Cancer  Plan  and  the  EU 

(199)  WHO, International Agency for Research on Cancer. The global cancer observatory. 

(200) See: https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news/cancer-europe-5-things-data-tells-us-2022-01-

13_en  

(201) The EPP Group is the largest group in the European Parliament. 

(202) https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_20_1983  

Page 141 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Cancer Mission . The Mission Area itself as defined in the regulation of Horizon Europe 
(2021) (203) was called ‘cancer’. 

Although no information is  publicly  available  about  how the  Mission Area was scoped 
prior to its inclusion in the Horizon Europe Regulation and what evidence and methods 
were  used  to  define  the  Mission  Area,  the  choice  of  cancer  as  a  Mission  Area  seems 
relatively logical. Cancer is a growing challenge for Europe (EC, DG RTD 2020) due 
to  various  causes. (204)  Cancer  is  the  second  leading  cause  of  death  in  Europe  after 
cardiovascular diseases and the first cause of death by disease in children older than one 
year. Moreover, cancer is the leading cause of male deaths in an increasing number of 
Member States.  

3.2 

 The role of R&I in addressing the challenges 

As stated in the recent Science, research and innovation performance (SRIP) report: “R&I 
have the potential to produce novel solutions in areas like health, …” (EC, DG RTD 2022). 
Research and innovation (R&I) play a fundamental role in addressing the challenges linked 
to cancer and along the whole cancer control pathway, from prevention to end-of-life care 
or survivorship, and for improving cancer outcomes.  

Within the topic of  understanding cancer, Europe (i.e. larger than just the EU27) is  a 
global leader in  cancer  discovery science with  strength lying in  molecular, cellular and 
structural  cancer  biology;  modelling;  diagnostic  and  early  detection;  new  medical 
technologies and personalised treatments; precision oncology; vaccines, immunotherapies, 
and drug- antibody conjugates; and paradigmatic shifts in neoadjuvant therapy, especially 
for immunotherapy (The Lancet Oncology Commission, 2022). This strength can be used 
further to investigate certain types of cancer (e.g. lung cancer) which are researched less 
compared to other types and relative to its disease burden. In the topic of prevention, it is 
well known that many cases of cancer and of particular type of cancer can be prevented, 
yet cancer prevention research did not have sufficient research funding given its potential 
role in cancer control (Toumazis et al. 2021). When it comes to treatment, survivorship 
is still far higher in northern and western countries. Even within countries access to care is 
not  equal  and  a  ‘postcode  lottery’  to  accessing  the  best  care  is  present  (The  Lancet 
Oncology  Commission,  2022).  Moreover,  the  ability  to  convert  research  discovery  into 
therapeutic innovation is struggling within the constraints of regulatory, implementation 
and scale-up challenges (Aggarwal et al., 2022). Finally, on the access to cancer control 
and  care,  research  can  /  does  play  and  important  role  too.  There  are  geographical 
disparities across and within the European countries in access to and delivery of optimal 
cancer control. 

(203) Regulation (EU) 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021. 

Establishing Horizon Europe – the framework programme for research and innovation, laying down its 
rules for participation and dissemination, and repealing regulations (EU) No 1290/2013 and (EU) No 
1291/2013 

(204)See: https://cancer-code-europe.iarc.fr/index.php/en/about-cancer/what-causes-cancer and 

https://gco.iarc.fr  

Page 142 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
The EU has long prioritised investments in cancer research in order to improve quality of 
life. Yet, observations from the literature analysed in the context of the external study 
(underpinning the review of Mission Areas and the assessment of EU Missions) suggest 
that  a  Mission  in  the  area  of  cancer  is  very  much  needed.  European  programmes 
supporting R&I, such as Horizon Europe, are rooted in the approach of building a critical 
mass of research ‘champions’ in given fields (e.g. medicine or pharmaceuticals) to increase 
the potential outcomes of research efforts and the returns of public efforts. Yet, for some 
time, and more recently in the specific case of cancer research (Rekers & Hansen, 2015, 
Smye and Gatenby, 2022, Rezaei, 2023), the research community has emphasised the need 
for  more  interdisciplinarity  in  research  intensive  fields,  such  as  cancer,  and  for  greater 
emphasis on the geographical dimension of collaborations.  

In  this  respect,  it  is  a  shared  opinion  in  recent  literature  that  inequity  of  R&D  activity 
differs across R&D stages and between rare and non-rare cancers, with a disproportionate 
focus on low-need non-rare cancers (Barrenho et al., 2022). Disparities in cancer research 
areas and care are found also across different ethnic groups and income levels (Brown et 
al., 2014; Lor, 2018; Rubino et al., 2022; Kalarivayil and Desai, 2020). 

Another  relevant  issue  in  the  literature  concerns  the  need  to  increase  health  policy 
research.  Cancer  and  in  general  all  non-communicable  diseases  (NCDs)  represent  the 
major cause of death in Europe. It, thus, increasingly becomes connected to and affects 
many other aspects of human life and, therefore, calls for changes in health policy (Wepner 
& Giesecke, 2018). R&I funding priorities can have a drastic impact on extending human 
life. However, contrasting cancer and other NCDs will require intervention in other societal 
fields, with different timelines and what could work today (e.g. nutrition and cancer) might 
require further intervention in the future. In this respect, some researchers underline the 
fundamental  necessity  to  match  technoscientific  aspects  to  socio-economic  and  cultural 
changes  to  achieve  these  goals.  In  addition,  the  ‘Data  Governance  Act’,  creates  a 
trustworthy framework, in which data can be safely shared (“donated”), accessed, used and 
reused for altruistic purposes such as scientific research. 

Screening  and  prevention  remain  important  challenges  in  controlling  cancer  in  Europe 
(Reihani  et  al.,  2021).  The  need  for  better  communication  extends  far  beyond  R&I  on 
cancer,  demanding  better  information  on  –  as  well  as  research  –  into  the  effects  of 
environmental  regulations  (e.g.  on  the  impact  of  chemicals  on  health)  and  a  better 
involvement of research institutions in scientific communication (Kourany & Fernández 
Pinto, 2018). 

Finally, striving to reduce the burden of cancer and increase opportunities in its successful 
prevention, treatment and care, requires well-functioning and resilient health care systems 
in different countries. Recent events (COVID-19, the Russian invasion of Ukraine) provide 
example of the fragility of health care systems that can come under pressure from external 
or  unexpected  events.  R&I  can  be  of  assistance  here  too  investigating  effects  of  the 
catastrophic  events  on  the  health  care  systems,  changes  needed  to  be  introduced  in  the 
system  not  only  in  terms  of  care  but  also  prevention  and  looking  into  innovative 
approaches.  

Table 14 below sums up some expected contributions of R&I to addressing the Mission 
Area challenges. 

Page 143 / 185 

 
 
Table 14: Expected contribution of R&I to addressing the Mission Area challenges 

Specific challenges 

Expected contribution of R&I 

Prevention, e.g. implementation of the 
screening regulations 

e.g. understanding human behaviour when it comes to prevention 

Need or emergence of new treatment 
protocols and methods 

e.g.  academic-led  clinical  trials,  translation  of  research  into  clinical 
practice, new therapeutics 

Guaranteeing good quality of life for 
cancer survivors 

e.g.  understanding  and  addressing  physical,  psychosocial,  financial 
needs of cancer survivors 

Geographical  disparities  across  and 
within  the  European  countries  in 
access  to  and  delivery  of  optimal 
cancer control 

e.g. cancer research strength at the moment are not evenly distributed 
across the countries and do not always align with the cancer priorities of 
individual countries. 

Catastrophic  events  affecting 
resilience of the health system 

the 

e.g. understand the effects of the catastrophic events, finding solution to 
be able to prepare for them 

Source: external study team  

3.3  Developments influencing the Mission Area 

While it has only been a few years since the Mission Area was defined, the importance 
of cancer as a Mission Area is unlikely to change. The way to assess this is by looking 
at the changes and forecasts for statistics around cancer as well as at developments in the 
societal  challenges  the  Mission  Area  relates  to.  For  the  former  the  WHO  data  is  solid 
foundation; for the latter the EUROSTAT dashboard that monitors progress towards the 
SDG targets the EU has set can be used as a proxy. 

While  it  has  only  been  a  few  years  since  the  Mission  Area  was  defined  in  2018,  the 
importance of cancer as a Mission Area is unlikely to change. One way to assess this is by 
looking at the changes and forecasts for statistics around cancer as well as at developments 
in the societal challenges the Mission Area relates to. For the former the WHO data is a 
solid foundation; for the latter the EUROSTAT dashboard that monitors progress towards 
the SDG targets the EU has set can be used as a proxy. 

Cases of cancer are predicted to still increase in Europe. WHO predicts that the number of 
new cancer cases will be 5.32 million by 2040 (or 21% increase compared to the 2020 
position) and the number of deaths will increase by 0.6 million to 2.53 million deaths. 

Figure 16: Estimated number of new cases from 2020 to 2040, Males and Females, age [0-85+] 

Page 144 / 185 

 
 
Source: Cancer Tomorrow |IARC, data version: 2020 

Figure 17: Estimated number of deaths in Europe from 2020 to 2040, both sexes, age [0-85+] 

Source: Cancer Tomorrow |IARC, data version: 2020 

The major causes of cancer are not  yet fully overcome. Although smoking in Europe is 
being dealt with quite successfully, another major cause of cancer, such as obesity, is still 
likely  to  be  as  critical  as  today.  According  to  the  EU  progress  towards  the  Sustainable 
Development Goals (SDGs) and Goal 3” To ensure healthy lives and promote well-being 
for all at all ages” the EU is moving away from the target on obesity rate. Obesity is both 
an NCD and a fundamental driver of many other diseases (e.g., type 2 diabetes and cancer).  

Progress  towards  other  SDGs  is  also  important  for  Cancer  Mission,  SDG  6  “Ensure 
availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”, SDG 13 “Take 
urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts”.  

There  are  also  several  other  concerning  developments  –  unforeseen  but  rather 
catastrophic – contribute to the sustained relevance of the cancer Mission Area. For 
example,  the  COVID-19  (SARS-COV-2)  pandemic  put  significant  pressure  on  the 
national  health  systems  and  further  crystalised  the  cancer  situation.  According  to  the 

Page 145 / 185 

 
 
 
 
collected evidence, during the pandemic, about 1 million cancer diagnoses might have been 
missed (Lawler & Crul, 2022).  

Table 15: Identified factors or possible trends influencing the Mission Area  

Type of factor/trend 

Economic:  workforce  crises,  need  for  competence 

development 

Geopolitical: refugees crises due to wars and climate 

change 

Policy:  the  need  to  share  data  and  opportunities 

offered by the European Health Data Space (EHDS) 

Short  summary  of 
factor/trend 

the  expected 

impact  of 

the 

If  insufficient  workforce  available  in  prevention,  health 
care,  and  nursing,  this  will  create  bottlenecks  in  cancer 
treatment  and  care  and  could  potentially  increase  cancer 
cases 

Increasing  pressure  on  the  healthcare  systems  of  the 
countries accepting refugees. Equality of access to care and 

treatment will become higher on the health agenda. 

Potential positive effect on cancer research and treatment. 
Individual  having  control  over  their  health  data  could 
support them in seeking faster cancer treatment across the 
border. 

Policy:  the  possibility  to  share  data  for  altruistic 

purposes in the Data Governance Act 

Positive effect on cancer research and treatments  thank to 
altruistic data sharing for purposes of general interest  

Policy:  new  directive  from  EMA  regulating  clinical 

trials, new directive on medical devices 

Scientific: cancer becoming more and more a chronic 

disease 

Potential to influence the speed of introduction of medical 
innovation to market / healthcare system. This in its turn will 
improve cancer diagnostics and treatment 

Reforms in the health and care system might be needed to 
cope  with  the  long-term  nature  of  the  disease.  Quality  of 
Life will become higher on the agenda.  

Social:  major  needs 

for  quality  of 

life  and 

Reforms in the care system might be needed.  

survivorship (e.g. tertiary prevention) 

Technological:  use  of  AI/machine  learning  cancer 

diagnostics, 

radiology,  new 

technologies 

for 

screening 

Source: external study team 

Cancer cases identified faster, thus increasing the likelihood 
of 
improve 
survivorship.  AI-driven 
consistency and reduce workload. 

imaging  help 

Screening  in  itself  could  contribute  to  changing  people’s 
attitudes  towards  cancer  and  becoming  more  active  in 

prevention. 

3.4  Key conclusions from the external review of the Mission Area 

Pressures to deal with cancer are not going away, as almost all the identifies factors point 
in this direction. Some factors, of course, will affect positively the cancer area, such as, for 
example,  technological  development  around  application  of  AI  for  cancer  diagnostics. 
Generally,  it  is  regarded  as  unlikely  that  scientific  and  technological  breakthroughs 
will, in the near future, make the Mission Area less relevant. This has to do with two 
fundamental aspects.  

When discussing ‘cancer’ as a focus area for a Mission it is first important to keep in mind 
that the key discoveries in the 1980s brought the breakthrough in understanding cancerous 
process as occurring at the molecular level. This transition means that cancer is not viewed 

Page 146 / 185 

 
 
any longer as one organ-based disease, one diagnostic procedure and one treatment all in 
the same hospital but a combination of diagnostic approaches, medical interventions and 
with  several  therapeutic  modalities. This  also  means that participations  of experts from 
more than one hospital or healthcare services is needed. As more types of cancer are being 
identified this calls for new research into the understanding of cancer and finding suitable 
diagnostics and treatment methods.  

Second,  what  is  critical  is  the  cancer  care  pathway  –  from  prevention  to  care  –  which 
regardless  of  the  disease  has  the  same  elements.  It  is  crucial  to  tackle  cancer 
systematically  from  prevention  to  survivorship  and  quality  of  life,  which  implies 
activities should span much wider and beyond just R&I. Emerging technologies might 
bring solutions to different elements of the cancer care pathway, but they will not solve 
them all. This will then need further decisions and solutions on what to do with these cases 
and how the treatment and/or care parts of the pathway need to be adjusted. Translation 
research might lead to new and more powerful treatment options. This could influence the 
recovery  and  survivorship,  which  in  their  turn  might  need  to  be  adjusted.  To  take  new 
scientific and technological solutions as well as new care protocols into practice require 
specialists,  not  only  cancer  diagnostics  and  treatment  specialists  but  also,  for  example, 
psychologists, care workers etc. This requires education, training and career development 
and can be achieved by addressing the topic through a Mission-oriented approach.  

This multiplicity of meaning behind one word ‘cancer’ does show that there is sufficient 
flexibility  built  into  the  Mission  Area  definition.  The  Mission  Area  is  defined  in  a 
focused manner but yet wide enough (i.e. cancer is not one disease but a multiple disease, 
the pathway of the disease has multiple elements). Scoping as well as development in the 
disease make it unlikely that the Mission Area will become irrelevant.  

4  MISSION AREA: HEALTHY OCEANS, SEAS, COASTAL AND INLAND WATERS 

Oceans cover 71% of the surface of the globe. They produce over 50% of the oxygen in 
the air we breathe and absorb approximately 30% of the CO2 and 93% of the excess heat 
generated by human activity. Oceans are a major global climate regulator, dominating the 
planetary carbon, water and heat budgets: oceans and waters influence climate and weather 
patterns, provide us with food and lay the foundations for an important part of the world’s 
economy – being of vital importance for the whole living world. 

The hydrosphere is, however, seriously endangered. The state of the marine ecosystem and 
the  quality  of  its  services  are  heavily  dependent  on  the  environmental,  physical  and 
biogeochemical condition of seawater. These are in turn highly affected by the multiple 
stressors,  both  water-based  and  land-based,  of  anthropogenic  origin.  As  a  result  of 
unsustainable  GHGs  emissions,  emission  of  pollutants  of  various  sources  in  the  water 
sphere  and  the  overexploitation  of  biological  resources  and  natural  ecosystems,  the 
hydrosphere  has  warmed,  become  more  acidic,  less  oxygenated,  poorer  in  biological 
resources  and  less  able  to  provide  services  to  the  human  populations,  in  terms  of  food 
availability, of resilience to extreme weather conditions and even of tourism, ultimately 
affecting human well-being.  

After a process of policy debates at European and national level, inspired by the work of 
Mariana Mazzucato (European Commission, 2018), the European Commission proposed 

Page 147 / 185 

 
 
five broad Mission Areas in autumn 2018, aligned with the principles of a Mission-oriented 
policy that calls for a novel systemic intervention. including ‘healthy oceans, seas, coastal 
and inland waters’.  

4.1 

Scope and definition of the Mission Area 

After a process of policy debates at European and national level, inspired by the work of 
Mariana Mazzucato (European Commission, 2018), in 2019, the European Council and 
European Parliament proposed five broad Mission Areas, including ‘healthy oceans, seas, 
coastal and inland waters’, aligned with the principles of a Mission-oriented policy that 
calls for a novel systemic intervention.  

The EU Mission Area of "healthy oceans, seas, coastal and inland waters" provides a frame 
for a Mission that focuses on defining the challenges and scoping actions to achieve 
cleaner, healthier, and more resilient aquatic environments, related to the marine and 
freshwater  ecosystems  within  the  European  Union,  ensuring  their  sustainable  use  and 
protection. The Mission Area is also aligned with the broader goals of the European 
Green Deal and the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. The aim is to contribute to the 
conservation  and  sustainable  use  of  aquatic  resources,  promote  ecosystem  health  and 
resilience, and ensure the long-term well-being of European aquatic environments and the 
communities that depend on them. 

4.2  The role of R&I in addressing the challenges  

The Mission Area of healthy oceans, seas, coastal and inland waters is a multidimensional 
space  influenced  by  very  varied  external  factors,  such  as  environmental  conditions, 
ecological stressors, societal approaches, political governance, and management. The area 
of  ocean,  seas,  and  coastal  and  inland  waters  requires  urgent  and  continuous  policy 
attention, including in the context of R&I actions.  

Table 16: Specific challenges addressed by the Mission Area 

Specific 
challenges 
addressed  

Evidence for the specific challenge 

in 

Changes 
physical 
conditions 
ocean and seas 

the 

●  The ocean has warmed unabated since 1970 and has taken up more than 90% of the 

excess heat in the climate system 

of 

●  Since 1993, the rate of ocean warming has more than doubled 

●  Sea surface temperature yearly warming trends for the European regional seas range 

from 0.03 to 0.07°C (uncertainty range is less than 10%) 

●  The warming trends, between 1993 and 2017, are evident both in the upper oceanic 
layer (0-700 m) and middle layer (700-2000 m), and projected to continue to warm 
in the long-term (by 2100), increasing at a rate of 0.9 ±0.1 Wm-2 in the upper (0-
700m) and of 1.2 ±0.1 Wm-2 integrating depth to 2000 m 

●  Sea level continues to rise at a rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm year−1. As the ocean warms, 
its volume expands (thermosteric effect), which is a major cause of global mean sea 
level rise. The upper ocean (0–700 m) thermosteric sea level has been rising since 
1993 at a rate of 1.4 ± 0.1 mm per year 

Page 148 / 185 

 
 
Specific 
challenges 
addressed  

Evidence for the specific challenge 

in 

Changes 
biogeochemical 
conditions 
ocean and seas 

the 

of 

●  Since 1993, the ocean is losing a sea ice extent of nearly 770,000 km2 per decade, 
in the northern hemisphere, while the sea ice extent in the southern hemisphere is 
increasing by 80,000 km2 per decade 

●  Marine heat-waves have doubled in frequency, since 1982, and are increasing in 

intensity 

●  The ocean has taken up between 20-30% of total anthropogenic carbon since the 
1980s,  a  major  cause  of  ocean  de-alkalinisation  (i.e.:  acidification).  Open  ocean 
surface pH has declined by a range of 0.017 to 0.027 pH units per decade since the 
late 1980s   

●  Over the past 30 years, 26% increase in ocean acidity from pre-industrial times is 
registered, threatening  marine life  and hampering the ocean’s role in  moderating 
climate change 

●  The Ocean is losing oxygen, overall, with a loss between 0.5-3.3%, between 1970 
and 2010, from the surface to 1000m with an expansion of the oxygen minimum 
zones by 3-8%. Primarily this is due to changing ocean stratification, ventilation 
and  biogeochemistry,  which  reinforce  the  smaller  contribution  due  to  warming-
induced reduced solubility of oxygen in seawater 

●  Chlorophyll-a, the main photosynthetic pigment contained in all phytoplankton, has 
shown  increasing  and  decreasing  trends  over  the  past  19  years  (1998-2017).  At 
global  scale,  chlorophyll-a  has  been  increasing  by  0.6±  0.01%  per  year.  The 
increase of phytoplankton biomass is related both to direct physiological alterations 
and indirect changing water column stratification and resource availability, mainly 
nutrients and light. Variability of this phenomenon exists, with regions where this 
trend has an opposite sign, i.e. Chl-a concentration is decreasing 

●  The extent of marine protected areas has doubled since 2010 

●  The proportion of marine fish stocks that are within biologically sustainable levels 

declined from 90% in 1974 to 67% in 2015 

Changes 
freshwater 
systems 

in 

●  Changes in landscapes, growth in food and energy production and the movement of 
people into urban areas alter the quantity and quality of our freshwater resources.  

●  Hydro-morphological  pressures,  diffuse  pollution  and  water  abstraction  have 
impaired freshwater ecosystems and are reducing the amount of runoff water that 
reaches the world’s oceans.  

●  New infrastructure disrupts the natural  flow of rivers and the  condition of lakes, 
while in many places, the level of groundwater is falling and lakes are drying up.  

●  Today, 65% of global rivers are considered as being under moderate-to- high threat 
in  terms  of  human  water  security  and  biodiversity.  Since  the  beginning  of  the 
twentieth century, more than 800.000 dams have been built to facilitate increased 
withdrawals, and currently 75% of the main rivers are fragmented. Some large river 
basins have seen their flow reduced by almost 75% over 30 years due to increasing 
water extraction.  

●  The flows of many rivers are not sufficient to sustain the deltas, the consequences 
are losses in fish biomass and biodiversity, as well as coastal erosion due to a great 
decrease of sediment load. 

●  In 2017, atmospheric CO2 concentrations reached 405.5 PPM, representing 146% 
of pre‑industrial levels. To limit global warming to 1.5°C means that global carbon 

Page 149 / 185 

the 

in 

Changes 
socio-economic 
conditions 

 
 
Specific 
challenges 
addressed  

Evidence for the specific challenge 

emissions need to fall by a 45% by 2030 from 2010 levels and achieve net zero 
emissions by 2050.  

●  From 1998 to 2017, climate-related disasters around the world accounted for 77% 
of  the  nearly  $3  trillion  in  direct  economic  losses  from  disasters,  claiming  an 
estimated 1.3 million lives. The biggest challenges are investment in disaster-risk 
reduction  for  resilience  and  promoting  policy  coherence  between  the  SDGs  and 
climate change. 

●  From  2013–2014  to  2015–2016  a  17%  increase  in  global  climate  finance  is 
observed, still relatively small in relation to the  scale of the  problem. Moreover, 
investments in climate activities are still surpassed by those related to fossil fuels 
($781 billion in 2016). 

●  More countries are making plans to boost their resilience and capacity to adapt to 
climate change, raising the number of parties that ratified or acceded to the  Paris 
Agreement, from the initial 114 in 2016 to 186 in 2019, and to 194 states and the 
EU  (as  of  February  2023),  representing  over  98%  of  global  greenhouse  gas 
emissions, including China and the United States, the countries with the 1st and 2nd 
largest CO2 emissions among UNFCCC members.  

Ethics 

Unethical  behaviour  has  led  an  unsustainable  human  footprint  in  the  use  of our 
water resources and water-related ecosystem services.  

Economy 

●  Losses in the order of €3-20 trillion per year in ecosystem services and of €5.5-10.5 

trillion per year due to land degradation. 

●  Almost half a billion people depend at least partially on small-scale fisheries, which 

account for 90 per cent of employment in fisheries worldwide. 

●  Poor water quality and sanitation, food scarcity, poverty, hunger, unemployment, 

warfare. 

Biodiversity loss 

●  Nature  across  most  of  the  globe  has  now  been  significantly  altered  by  multiple 
human drivers, with the great majority of indicators of ecosystems and biodiversity 
showing rapid decline 

●  Human actions threaten more species with global extinction now than ever before 

Sources:  IPCC,  2019,  United  Nations,  2022,  Copernicus  Marine  Service,  2021,  NASA  Earth  Observatory  data,  Data  from  the 

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), OECD, 2016  

Understanding the complexity of the interconnections between the water system’s health, 
the  climate,  biodiversity  and  food  provision,  is  fundamental  to  develop  the  required 
flexible capacity to manage challenges simultaneously, in a systemic perspective.   

4.3  Developments influencing the Mission Area 

A number of specific factors and trends need to be considered as they can influence the 
Mission Area ‘healthy  oceans, coastal and inland waters’.  The below table provides  an 
overview of some of the factors and trends which are likely to impact the ocean and water 
system.  

Page 150 / 185 

 
 
Table 17: Identified main factors or trends influencing the Mission Area 

Type of 
factor/trend 

Environmental 

Technological 

Short  summary  of  the  expected 
impact of the factor/trend 

●  Reduction  of  both  water-  and 
land-based ecosystem services 

Description 

●  In  2021,  more  than  17  million  metric  tons  of 
plastic  entered  the  world’s  ocean,  making  up 
85%  of  marine  litter.  The  volume  of  plastic 
pollution  entering  the  ocean  each  year  is 
expected to double or triple by 2040. 

●  The  global  nitrogen  cycle  results  altered  by 
land-based,  human-activity-related  emissions, 
mainly  due  to  agriculture  practices  of  crop 
fertilization  (Battye,  2017),  leading  to  the 
question  whether  Nitrogen  is  the  new  Carbon 
and  describing  it  as  a  major  challenge  for  the 
new century (Mellilo, 2021). 

●  More than a third (35.4%) of global fish stocks 
were overfished in 2019, up from 34.2 per cent 
in 2017 and 10% in 1974. However, the rate of 
decline has recently slowed. 

●  Continuing ocean acidification and rising ocean 
temperatures  are  threatening  marine  species 
natural  habitats,  and  negatively  affecting 
marine ecosystem services. Between 2009 and 
2018, the world lost about 14% of coral reefs. 
●  The global coverage of marine protected areas 
stood at 8% of global coastal waters and oceans 
in 2021. 

●  In the coming decade, a crucial challenge will 
be water security. In addition to the effects of 
global  warming,  water  availability  is  directly 
affected by increasing demand for water from 
industry, agriculture, urbanization and tourism. 
This  escalates  global  demand  for  renewable 
energy,  which  is  strongly  water-  dependent, 
saline  intrusions  and  the  pollution  of  surface- 
and groundwater.  

●  Digitalisation,  Artificial 

(AI), 
European  Open  Science  Cloud  and  EU  data 
spaces including, digital twins  

Intelligence 

●  Research and technology infrastructures 
●  Sea  defence  solutions  against  marine  litter  at 

source (on rivers) or at sea.  

●  Blue carbon  
●  Carbon Farming 
●  Biotechnology 
●  Improved  modelling 

processes 

of 

environmental 

●  Improved  environmental  monitoring  sensors 

and systems 

●  Contributing 

to 

digital 
marketing and EU data spaces  
and 
ecosystem 

remediation 

●  Pollution 

prevention, 
restoration 

●  Technological  and  nature-
based  solutions  supporting 
planet’s  health  management 
and restoration 
●  Modelling  and 

considering 
continuum 

forecasting 
the 
capacity, 
stressors’ 
and 
predicting  their  impact  over 
the 
hydrosphere 
nexuses  (with  climate,  food 
and water security, human and 
animal health), integrated over 
space and time. 

relevant 

Geopolitical/ 

governance 

●  UNCLOS High Seas Treaty (2023): Kunming-
Montreal  Global  Biodiversity  Framework, 
Montreal December 2022: countries pledged to 
protect  at  least  30%  of  terrestrial  and  marine 

●  Improved governance 
●  Targeted policy 

Page 151 / 185 

 
 
Type of 
factor/trend 

Description 

Short  summary  of  the  expected 
impact of the factor/trend 

areas,  while  also  recognizing  Indigenous  and 
traditional territories. 

●  Paris  Agreement  (2016):  More  countries  are 
making  plans  to  boost  their  resilience  and 
capacity to adapt to climate change, raising the 
number of parties that ratified or acceded to the 
Paris Agreement, from the initial 114 in 2016 to 
186 in 2019, and to 194 states and the EU (as of 
February  2023),  representing  over  98%  of 
global  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  including 
China and the United States, the countries with 
the 1st and 2nd largest  CO2 emissions among 
UNFCCC members. 
●  EC  new  agenda  on 
governance (2022) 
2022a) 

international  ocean 
(European  Commission, 

Ethical 

Economic 

●  UNESCO  UN  decade  of  ocean  science  for 
Sustainable 
45 
development 
programmes, 200 projects self-contributing; 45 
of 
national 
interdisciplinary ocean management structures; 
includes ethics. 

committees, 

(2022): 

decade 

seeds 

●  The High-Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean 

Economy 

●  Losses in the order of €3-20 trillion per year in 
ecosystem services and of €5.5-10.5 trillion per 
year due to land degradation. 

●  Almost  half  a  billion  people  depend  at  least 
partially  on  small-scale 
fisheries,  which 
account  for  90  per  cent  of  employment  in 
fisheries worldwide. 

the 

seabed 

●  Achieving  SDGs  objectives, 
e.g.:  for  the  Climate  action, 
Life below water, Clean water 
and sanitation, Zero hunger.  
●  Halt  and  reverse  the  loss  of 
marine 
fight 
biodiversity, 
climate  change  and  marine 
pollution  for  a  healthy  ocean, 
from 
protect 
harmful  practices,  ensure  a 
sustainable blue economy and 
build  up  ocean  knowledge, 
ensure  security  and  safety  at 
sea  and  a  compliance  with 
international 
and 
standards 
●  Protecting 
waters 
jurisdiction 
integrated 
maritime space 

in 
national 

biodiversity 

planning 

beyond 

rules 

of 

● 

●  Ocean  empathy;  empowered 
women; ocean professionals  

●  Sustainable 

hydrosphere 

governance conscience  

●  Sustained 

hydrosphere 
management  and  planning 
capacity 

quality 

●  Poor  water 
sanitation, 
poverty, 
unemployment, warfare. 

food 

and 
scarcity, 
hunger, 

Source: external study consultants   

The evidence suggests that there will be no alleviation of global warming, demographic 
pressure, use of resources and man-made pollution. In addition, measures to reduce the 
impact of human activity on planetary natural ecosystems will continue to be a priority to 
avoid mass extinction(s) (ESPAS, 2019). The latest SDG Report (United Nations, 2022) 
indicates that:  

  Continuing  ocean  acidification  and  rising  ocean  temperatures  are  threatening 
marine species and negatively affecting marine ecosystem services. Between 2009 
and 2018, the world lost about 14% of coral reefs; 

 

In  2021,  more  than  17  million  metric  tons  of  plastic  entered  the  world’s  ocean, 
making up 85% of marine litter. The volume of plastic pollution entering the ocean 
each year is expected to double or triple by 2040; 

  The global coverage of marine protected areas stood at only 8% of global coastal 

waters and oceans in 2021; 

Page 152 / 185 

 
 
 
  More than a third (35.4%) of global fish stocks were overfished in 2019, up from 
34.2 per cent in 2017 and 10% in 1974. However, the rate of decline has recently 
slowed; 

  Almost half a billion people depend at least partially on small-scale fisheries, which 

account for 90% of employment in fisheries worldwide. 

According to the Eurostat barometer (2022) (205), the EU has made good progress towards 
the SDG ‘Life below water’ (SDG14): while the trends for the various indicators of the 
status  of  this  goal  show  a  varied  pace  of  progress,  the  overall  progress  is  generally 
significantly positive. On the other hand, this goal needs to be considered also through its 
relationship with other SDGs and related indicators, considering that the biggest sources 
of pollution to the oceans are land-based (hence a clear linkage with the Mission Area on 
soil health).  The status in clean water and sanitation (SDG6) and zero hunger (SDG2) is 
less  reassuring,  showing  that  the  concentration  of  nitrates  and  phosphates  in  rivers  and 
ground water systems is moving away from the target value. While only moderate progress 
is achieved for the climate action (SDG 13).  

In 2021, the EC second annual Strategic Foresight Report ‘The EU’s capacity and freedom 
to act’ (European Commission, 2021c) presents climate change and other environmental 
challenges  as  a  main  stressor  on  the  EU’s  capacity  and  freedom  to  act  in  the  coming 
decades. The report highlights a particularly alarming situation regarding biodiversity loss 
and  change  in  the  nitrogen  cycle,  mainly  induced  by  mass  agricultural  and  breeding 
practices,  with  a  scale  of  change  far  superior  to  the  modification  of  the  carbon  cycle, 
affecting  freshwater,  coastal  areas  and  human  health.  Economic  consequences  estimate 
losses  for  €3.5-18.5  trillion  per  year  in  ecosystem  services  from  1997  to  2011  and  an 
estimated loss of EUR 5.5-10.5 trillion per year due to land degradation. Ultimately, public 
health, food crops and animal health will be endangered.  

Finally, the EU Green Deal Barometer (IEEP, 2022) indicates that the commitment of the 
MS to the EU Green deal implementation is at risk, given the unforeseen challenges faced 
by the EU, including the recent pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the related energy crisis. 
The  experts  consistently  identified the  lack  of  commitment  by  Member  States  as  the 
biggest  obstacle  to  the  implementation  of  the  Green  Deal  agenda.  Similar  concerns  of 
derailing  policy  implementation  in  the  context  of  the  emerging  crisis  have  also  been 
expressed in the report on science, research and innovation performance of the EU (‘SRIP 
report’,  European  Commission,  2022g).  Also  interviews  flagged  that  indeed  due  to  the 
pandemic and war in Ukraine the political attention to biodiversity in general is waning, 
while commitment to ocean matters do hold strong.   

Given the evidence presented above, it is evident that the recent developments reinforce 
the relevance of the Mission Area for the challenges that Europe is facing and, in fact, 
for saving the planet from the negative impacts caused by human activity. 

(205) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/website/sdg/sdg_key/sdg_key_2022/index.html?lang=en     

Page 153 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
4.4  Key conclusions from the external review of the Mission Area 

Considering that this Mission Area addresses challenges that threaten life as we know 
it on this planet, it is evident that the Mission Area remains fully relevant for Europe 
and that a system-approach is required to address the complexity and multitude of 
the  factors  influencing  this  area,  such  as  interdependent  environmental  conditions, 
ecological stressors, societal approaches, political governance and management. However, 
a  risk  is  that  the  current  ‘transversal  crisis‘  will  derail  the  political  commitment  to  the 
highly ambitious EU policy objectives and jeopardise the necessary support to R&I actions 
and the establishment of the required collaborative frameworks. 

(2021-2030). 

In  particular: 

R&I  is  at  the  core  of  the  provision  of  knowledge  and  solutions  (both  technology-  and 
nature-based) to accompany the achievement of goals set in the EU strategies, such as the 
European  Green  Deal  and    the  European  Digital  Strategy  -  Digital  Agenda  for  Europe 
(DAE); as well as contribute to global initiatives such as the implementation of the UN 
Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development and the UN Ocean Decade of Ocean Science 
the 
for  Sustainable  Development 
interdependencies  among  the  elements  of  the  water-climate  nexus,  and  how  this 
impacts life on Earth is at the core of a fuller understanding of the dynamics of this area. 
It also enables the provision of opportunities for intervention, mitigation and adaptation 
strategies. An observation and recommendation is that the novel dimension of ocean ethics 
must be better highlighted so as to produce a cultural shift and behavioural change at the 
individual scale, regarding the impact of human activity on the hydrosphere.  A holistic 
approach  that  combines  sustainability  concerns  with  aspects  influencing  social 
acceptance –e.g., participation, ownership, inclusion, affordability, quality of experience 
and beauty-  can facilitate a faster adoption of solutions and behaviours. The use of 
digital technologies for representing and managing the water continuum are also a rather 
novel element for possible R&I action, which would support a modern ocean governance 
and management system. 

investigating 

The  external  review  study  suggests  that  while  several  countries  around  the  world  have 
implemented initiatives and policies to address the health and conservation of their marine 
and freshwater ecosystems, a policy Mission-area definition as encompassing as the EU 
approach appears to be unique. This provides an opportunity for EU global leadership 
on this critical ‘grand challenge’ for all on Earth. 

5  MISSION AREA: CLIMATE-NEUTRAL AND SMART CITIES  

5.1 

Scope and definition of the Mission Area 

In focusing on cities, the selection of the Mission Area ‘climate-neutral and smart cities’ 
responds to the recommendation of the Lamy Report to define Missions that “are open to 
all actors in the research and innovation cycle, in particular new actors of innovation and 
change such as cities and regions, which could act as ‘innovation laboratories of change’ 

Page 154 / 185 

 
 
in  piloting  new  ideas  and  concepts”. (206)  Even  closer  to  the  Mission  Area,  Professor 
Mazzucato proposed that ‘100 climate-neutral cities by 2030’ would meet all criteria of a 
promising Mission. (207) 

The  idea  was  also  taken  up  by  the  High-Level  Panel  of  the  European  Decarbonisation 
Pathways Initiative, which proposed a Mission to be formulated in the area of “climate-
neutral, ‘circular’ and liveable cities” alongside a Mission on soil as carbon sinks and a 
Mission for the full integration and decarbonisation of the energy system. (208) In its interim 
recommendations,  the  panel  considered  further  Mission  Areas  for  decarbonisation:  a 
Mission  on  smart  storage  and  transmission,  a  Mission  on  renewable  and  sustainable 
plastics, and a Mission on zero-carbon and sustainable construction materials. (209)  

The  Mission  Area ‘climate-neutral  and smart cities’ is  tightly linked to the aim of 
achieving a climate-neutral economy in Europe by 2050 (210) and EC’s growth model 
of a green and digital ‘twin transition’. (211) It also connects to previous cross-national 
city initiatives for climate action (e.g. Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, C40 Cities, Climate 
Alliance, Energy Cities, Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy) and smart 
cities  (e.g.  100  intelligent  cities  challenge,  smart  cities  marketplace,  United  for  Smart 
Sustainable Cities). 

The  broad  thematic  scope  of  the  Mission  Area  calls  for  holistic  and  cross-sectoral 
solutions  to urban challenges. According to  the latest  climate mitigation report of the 
Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change  (IPCC),  cities  “can  only  achieve  net-zero 
GHG  emissions  through  deep  decarbonisation  and  systemic  transformation  (very  high 
confidence)”. (212)  Furthermore,  the  scope  of  the  Mission  Area  makes  it  well  placed  to 
deliver significant contributions to SDGs 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and 13 
(climate action). (213) When the Mission Area was defined, SDG 13 was among the goals 
where the EU had been making the least progress. Regarding SDG 11, the EU had made 
moderate  progress  overall  but  was  experiencing  reversed  trends  in  the  climate-relevant 
domains of per capita settlement areas and share of public transport. (214) The Mission Area 

(206) EC (2017, p. 15 emphasis on ‘are open to all actors’ omitted). 

(207) Mazzucato (2018). 

(208) EC (2018b, p. 165). 

(209) EC (2018c, p. 251) . 

(210) EC (2018a). 

(211) EC (2022); Furthermore, the Mission Area corresponds to a wide range of EU policy objectives (Di 

Girolamo et al., 2022, p. 329). 

(212) IPCC (2022, p. 864). 

(213) The Mission board proposed that the Mission may also deliver major contributions to SDGs 3, 7, 8, 9, 
12, 14, 15, 17 and moderate contributions to SDGs 5 and 10 (Gronkiewicz-Waltz et al., 2020, pp. 8–9). 

(214) EU (2019). 

Page 155 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
is thus linked to some of the key sustainable development issues Europe was facing at the 
time of its selection. 

Due to its broad scope, the Mission Area addresses many significant societal challenges 
in domains such as mobility and transport, urban greening, energy provisioning, and 
buildings. (215) Tackling GHG emissions of cities has a high potential to deliver rapid and 
large-scale contributions to decarbonisation while creating co-benefits with respect to air 
quality,  heat  stress,  as  well  as  mental  and  physical  health. (216)  With  respect  to  climate 
mitigation, the Mission Area does not provide an indication of the relative priority to be 
given  to  different  strategies  of  GHG  emissions  reduction  and  removal,    a  matter  that 
remained  unresolved  in  the  implementation  of  the  Mission. (217)  At  the  same  time,  by 
including  the  notion  of  ‘smart’,  the  Mission  Area  is  the  only  one  that  gives  some 
direction in terms of the means to be implemented to address a societal challenge. 

5.2  The role of R&I in addressing the challenges  

Mission-oriented  innovation  policy  addresses  societal  challenges  that  require  the 
development  of  novel  and  potentially  radically  different  solutions. (218)  The  continued 
relevance of the  Mission  Area is  thus  conditional upon its ability to  speak to  persistent 
challenges in both, Europe and R&I.  

Table 18 compiles some key contributions that R&I is expected to deliver in response to 
urban challenges, drawing on three reports that were prepared by expert groups in support 
of the Mission (Area) selection process. 

Table 18: Expected contribution of R&I to addressing the Mission Area challenges. 

Domains of urban challenges 

Expected contributions of R&I (illustrative) 

Mobility and transport 

Energy systems 

Built environment 

Governance and planning 

Shared, autonomous, multi-modal mobility and  mobility-as-a-service for fewer 
cars;  electrified  vehicles  reducing  demand  for  fossil  fuels;  mobility  system 
optimisation for reductions of passenger-kilometres; 3D printing reduces need for 
freight  transport;  remote  maintenance  and  smart  products  reduce;  faster  public 
transport (e.g. hyperloop) connect cities and curb urban sprawl; data analytics and 
technologies improve traffic management and avoid congestions 

Internet  of  Things  solutions  for  remote  control  of  street  lighting;  better 
understanding of the role of cities in producing electricity and heat locally 

Durable, mixed-use buildings for less material demand; modular designs for reuse 
of  building  components;  sustainable  building  materials  and  advanced 
construction techniques; new financing schemes to overcome high upfront costs 
of building retrofitting 

Estimating costs of making a city climate-neutral in a smart way; methodologies 
to calculate monetary co-benefits of low-carbon solutions; systematic screening 
of  windows  of  opportunity  for  applying  smart,  climate-neutral  solutions; 
understanding  stability  and  vulnerability  of  climate-neutral  and  smart 

(215) Dinges et al. (2021). 

(216) Floater et al. (2016), IPCC (2022), Material Economics (2020). 

(217) Shabb et al. (2022). 

(218) Mazzucato (2018). 

Page 156 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Domains of urban challenges 

Expected contributions of R&I (illustrative) 

Everyday life 

Urban system 

infrastructures to mitigate risks; guidelines to help local administrations of how 
to induce behavioural change; understanding motivations for companies to make 
more  sustainable  choices;  knowledge  of  how  to  balance  public  and  private 
interests of technical and ICT operators; knowledge how governance can enable 
decarbonisation in cities 

Knowledge of evolving needs; understanding conditions for better quality of life; 
nudges for sustainable behaviour change; understanding requirements to protect 
security of individual data amidst development of advanced digital technologies; 
understanding the social acceptance of climate-neutral cities; social innovations 
for stronger citizen engagement 

Design  of  integrated  and  zero-carbon  systems  to  reduce  energy  demand  and 
improve  energy  efficiency;  better  understanding  of  the  co-benefits  of  climate 
action in cities; knowledge on pathways to climate-neutrality depending on local 
conditions of cities  

Source: external study based on Dinges et al. (2021), European Commission (2018b), Peiffer-Smadja et al. (2022), Ricci et al. (2017) 

5.3  Developments influencing the Mission Area 

Five years after its formulation, the Mission Area remains highly relevant. The foresight 
study prepared in support of the Mission selection process identified a series of key trends 
affecting  pathways  to  climate-neutral  and  smart  cities,  such  as  urbanisation,  an 
ageing population, digitalisation, climate change, and migration inflows. (219) Most of 
these trends have continued since then and even intensified. Table 19 provides an overview 
of important trends affecting the Mission Area.  

While the situation for cities has become more difficult lately, cities are facing enormous 
challenges with respect to climate mitigation. To achieve climate-neutrality by 2050, the 
EU stepped up its goal of reducing GHG emissions to at least 55% (instead of 40%) below 
1990 levels by 2030. (220) Projections of future GHG emission trends suggest that existing 
and additional measures the EU and its Member States plan to launch in the coming years 
will not be sufficient to reach this target. To meet short- and long-term targets, the pace at 
which  improvements  in  energy  efficiency  and  the  share  of  renewable  energy  have 
been  achieved  to  date  need  to  be  accelerated  significantly  throughout  the  coming 
decades.  Whereas  significant  progress  has  been  made  in  reducing  GHG  emissions  in 
energy  supply  and  industrial  processes,  much  more  effort  is  required  in  transport, 
agriculture, and the buildings sectors. (221) In the past five years, Europe moved even away 
from the trajectories needed to comply with its climate targets in critical domains linked to 
urban development,  in  particular with  regards to  opposing trends  in  the share of public 
passenger  transport,  average  CO2  emissions  from  new  passenger  cars,  and  spread  of 
settlement areas. (222) 

(219) Dinges et al. (2021). 

(220) European Parliament & Council of the European Union (2021). 

(221) European Environment Agency (2022). 

(222) Eurostat (2022). 

Page 157 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Climate mitigation is far from the only challenge cities are facing today. Many of the trends 
listed  below  put  high  environmental  and  social  pressures  on  cities,  which  tend  to  have 
spatially and socially unequal effects and are not explicitly addressed by the Mission Area. 

Table 19: Identified factors or possible trends influencing the Mission Area 

Type of factor/trend  

Short summary of the expected impact of the 
factor/trend 

Environmental 

  Climate change exacerbates the impacts of natural 
disasters,  energy  poverty,  water  scarcity,  and 
extreme weather conditions 

  Growing urban greenspaces 

  Declining share of public passenger transport 

 

Increasing  CO2  emissions  from  new  passenger 
cars 

  Reduction of CO2 emissions in energy supply and 

industrial processes 

Social 

  Urbanisation 

  Ageing population 

 

Increasing urban sprawl 

  Growing migration inflows 

Geopolitical 

  Declining  dependency  from  Russian  energy 

imports 

  Disruptions of global supply chains, especially in 

automobile and electronics sectors 

 

 

EU financial and trade sanctions against Russia 

Industrial policy initiatives like the U.S. Inflation 
Reduction Act may reduce the competitiveness of 
European industries  

Policy 

  Cities are moving towards integrated planning and 

new forms of governance 

  Growing  environmental  awareness  and  rising 

citizen participation 

  Climate-neutrality  and  digitalisation  have  been 
gaining priority in EU and its Member States, but 
the  COVID-19  pandemic,  war  in  Ukraine,  and 
increasing  geopolitical  tensions  have  recently 
directed attention away from these goals.  

Technological 

  Accelerating digitalisation 

  Growth of digital-enabled services 

Economic 

 

Stagnating tax revenues of city governments 

  Decreasing affordable housing 

  High inflation rates, especially for energy 

 

Shortage of skilled workers 

  Rising economic inequality and urban segregation 

In light of the slow progress  made in climate  mitigation, 
implementing  a  Mission  in  the  area  of  climate-neutrality 
raises  the  political  ambition  to  meet  a  major  and  still 
unresolved  societal  challenge.  As  global  warming 
continues, climate change adaptation may become a more 
important concern for citizens and policymakers. 

Urbanisation  and  the  growing  population  make  cities 
increasingly critical sites of climate action. 

Shortages  of  energy  and  electronics  could  have  strong 
negative  effects  on  decarbonisation  and  digitalisation 
efforts. Cities increasingly rely on national governments to 
secure  supply  chains,  build  energy  infrastructures,  and 
support industries for green products and services. 

Repeated  global  and  supranational  crises  could  threaten 
EU’s  and  national  governments  political  support  for 
climate action and digitalisation at the city level. If deep 
crises can be averted, the political environment is favorable 
for Missions on climate-neutral and smart cities. 

While  transitions  to  ‘smart’  cities  are  under  way,  the 
effects of digitalisation on carbon-neutrality are mixed. 

Intensifying  financial  pressures  at 
level, 
especially in city governments and among most vulnerable 
social  groups,  call  for  increased  support  at  the  regional, 
national,  and  EU  level.  The  shortage  of  skilled  workers 
may significantly slow down decarbonisation. 

local 

the 

Source: EFIS report based on Dinges et al. (2021), European Committee of the Regions (2022), Vandecasteele et al. (2019) 

Page 158 / 185 

 
 
5.4  Key conclusions from the external review of the Mission Area 

Compared to previous, mostly sectoral initiatives, a Mission-oriented innovation policy 
approach has the potential to ignite more impact- and goal-oriented actions in cities 
that cross R&I and other action fields. The Mission Area also represents an exemplary 
effort of connecting Mission-oriented innovation policy with place-based approaches to 
innovation and the principle of subsidiarity. (223)  

The  Mission  Area  allows  to  address  some  of  Europe’s  main  challenges  in  achieving 
climate-neutrality that would lie beyond the scope of most Missions launched in non-EU 
countries, notably with respect to critical domains where less progress has been achieved 
to date such as urban transport, buildings, and land-take as well as cross-cutting challenges 
relating  to  non-technological  issues  and  lock-ins  resulting  from  the  interplay  of  urban 
subsystems. This opens possibilities for truly transformative changes at the city level that 
can generate cascading effects across all sectors. Being high on the global agenda, (224) 
the unique focus among Mission-oriented innovation policies on climate-neutral cities 
could  put  the  EU  in  a  leadership  position  in  the  provision  of  systemic  and  cross-
sectoral solutions. 

Building on previous initiatives at  the city level  and in  transnational  city networks,  the 
Mission  Area  was  very  much  instrumental  in  mobilising  stakeholders  across 
governmental  bodies  and  civil  society  organisations.  The  Mission  Area  attracted 
considerable interest among cities and inspired several Member States to introduce new 
policies and city administrations to reorganise their departments. Insofar, the Mission Area 
was likely an  effective  ‘boundary object’ (225) for mobilising many important,  if not  all, 
actors needed to realise a climate-neutrality in cities. 

The changes that cities need to undergo in their climate-neutrality path are close to citizens 
as  they  have  a  great  impact  on  their  daily  life.  While  the  R&I  agenda  is  progressively 
becoming  more  human-centric,  cultural  aspects  of  human  experience  also  need  to  be 
embedded in R&I policies and efforts. New technologies and market-based solutions alone 
are not sufficient: sustainable solutions are often not affordable, affordable solutions are 
often not the most attractive to citizens nor sustainable. Addressing the current imbalance 
between the values of sustainability, inclusiveness  and beauty  at  the city scale helps  to 
engage citizens in the green transformation, generate social acceptance for green policies 
(specifically the Green Deal), promote social ownership of green solutions, and promote 
changes in behaviour needed to meet sustainability targets. Furthermore, rural areas should 
not be left behind in this exercise, even when cities lead the way. 

(223) Wanzenböck & Frenzen (2020), Schwaag Serger et al. (2023). 

(224) See Seto et al. (2021). 

(225) Janssen et al. (2023). 

Page 159 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
6  MISSION AREA: SOIL HEALTH AND FOOD 

6.1 

Scope and definition of the Mission Area 

After a process of intense interaction between the European Commission and the Member 
States over the selection of Mission Areas, in 2018 ‘soil health and food’ was identified as 
one of the five selected Mission Areas. Other options on the shortlist of about 20-30 options 
also covered options of a more technological nature, like quantum and hydrogen. (226) The 
choice of soil health and food as a Mission Area fits the imperatives that Missions form an 
opportunity  to  go  beyond  R&I  and  technology  development  to  help  tackling  current 
societal challenges (see below). (227) 

More specifically, the soil health and food Mission Area was supposed to provide building 
blocks (like a monitoring infrastructure) for Green Deal strategies and concrete policies 
like the Soil Strategy and Soil Law that were already in early stages of development. (228) 
As also stated in the recent Science, research and innovation performance report: “R&I is 
essential for adapting our territories, food, water systems, infrastructure, and our ways of 
producing and consuming” (SRIP, 2022, p149), for instance when it comes to providing 
accurate  information  that  allows  for  monitoring  the  evolution  of  soil  (health). (229)  A 
particular motivation for taking soil health and food as a topic requiring a Mission approach 
is that while there were current and forthcoming policies (at the EU and national level) 
dealing with soil health, much of these efforts were fragmented and only considered 
a  subset  of  soil  health  indicators  (e.g.  only  land  degradation  or  erosion,  but  not 
biodiversity). The Mission approach allows to align what would otherwise remain separate 
policies to accelerate their visibility and uptake. (230) 

A Mission board consisting of 15 experts was set up in August 2019. The Mission board 
for soil health and food was asked to analyse the Mission Area and, subsequently, propose 
a concrete Mission (for more on the Mission itself see the Mission assessment report for 

(226) Source: interviews with various EC officials conducted in the context of the external study on the 

review of Mission Areas and the assessment of EU Missions. 

(227) European Commission, DG RTD, Mazzucato, M., (2018). Mission-oriented research & innovation in 
the European Union: a problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth, EC Publications 
Office. 

(228) Mission board for soil health and food (2020). Caring for soil is caring for life: Ensure 75% of soils are 
healthy by 2030 for healthy food, people, nature and climate: interim report of the Mission board for 
soil health and food. 

(229) European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Science, research and 

innovation performance of the EU 2022 : building a sustainable future in uncertain times, Publications 
Office of the European Union, 2022, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/78826. 

(230) Bouma, J. (2022). Transforming living labs into lighthouses: a promising policy to achieve land-related 

sustainable development. Soil, 8(2), 751-759. 

Page 160 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
soil health). This led to the publication of the ‘Caring for soil is caring for life’ report in 
September 2020. (231) 

Together with the Joint Research Centre (JRC) the Mission board conducted a review of 
the  latest  literature  on  soil  health  and  food.  The  main  conclusion  was  that  “current 
management practices result in, approximately, 60-70% of EU soils being unhealthy, with 
a further, as yet uncertain percentage of soils unhealthy due to poorly quantified pollution 
issues.  A  75%  goal  of  healthy  or  improving  soil  by  2030  through  a  radical  change  in 
current land management practices is both feasible and necessary. Soils will also benefit 
from improvement to indirect drivers of change such as reductions in air pollution and 
carbon  emissions”  (Mission  board,  2020,  p.34).  More  specifically,  the  review  points  at 
several specific challenges. These are listed in the table below.  

Table 20: Evidence base for the Mission Area – soil health and food 

Specific challenges   Evidence for the specific challenge (illustrative excerpts) 

Nitrate 

“The Gross Nutrient Balance Indicator (EUROSTAT 2020) shows that there is currently an 
excess of fertiliser applications in the EU” 

“SOER  2020  (EEA)  reports  that  for  65-75%  of  agricultural  soils,  nitrogen  values  exceed 
critical values beyond which eutrophication can be expected” 

Organic carbon  

“LUCAS Soil data, covering surface soil, show that cultivated and permanent crops have the 
lowest SOC concentrations of all major land cover classes” 

Peat 

Water erosion 

“Peats  cover  8% of  EU  land  area,  of  which  50% of  peatlands  are  estimated  to be  drained 
which will result in the oxidising of the peat and loss carbon to the atmosphere (JRC 2016).” 

“Pangos et al. (2015) reports that 24% of land has unsustainable soil water erosion rates (>2. 
t /ha).” “a new report by JRC (Panagos et al. 2020) shows erosion by water on arable land is 
10% greater than the mean for the EU” 

Compaction 

“The best available estimates suggests that 23% of land assessed had critically high densities 
(JRC 2016).” 

Pollution  including 
risks to food 

“In terms of local soil pollution, JRC (Paya Perezet al. 2018) reported 2.8 million potentially 
contaminated sites in EEA-39” 

Soil sealing and net 
land take 

“Artificial areas cover 4.2% of the EU (EUROSTAT 2017) of which about 50% is sealed” 
“The rate of net land take was estimated to be around 539 km² per year during the period 
2012-2018 (EEA 2019)” 

Salinisation 

Desertification 

“In 2016, 10.2 million hectares was actually irrigated (5.9 % of EU). 25% of this area is at 
risk of secondary salinization i.e. 1.5% of EU” 

“The most recent estimate of sensitivity to desertification in Southern, Central and Eastern 
Europe in 2017 suggested 25% (411.000 out of 1.7 million km2) was at High or Very High 
Risk” 

Soil biodiversity 

“It is likely that all of the above drivers are probably singly or in combination resulting in a 
decline in biodiversity but there are no actual EU data demonstrating soil biodiversity change” 

Source: EFIS study based on the  Mission board work (2020) ‘Caring for soil is caring for life’. The sources of  the abovementioned 

quotes can be found in Annex to this Staff Working Document.  

(231) Mission board for soil health and food (2020). Caring for soil is caring for life: Ensure 75% of soils are 
healthy by 2030 for healthy food, people, nature and climate: interim report of the Mission board for 
soil health and food. 

Page 161 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
By defining soil health as “continued capacity of soils to support ecosystem services”, the 
Mission board for soil health and food report (2020) stresses that improving soil health is 
crucial for safeguarding at least the following ecosystem services: 

  Producing  adequate  quantities  of  nutritious  and  safe  food,  feed,  fibre  and  other 

biomass for industries;  

  Storing and purifying  water, regulating  flows, recharging aquifers,  and reducing 

the impact of droughts and floods thereby helping adaptation to climate change;  

  Capturing carbon from the atmosphere and reducing emission of greenhouse gases 

from soils, thereby contributing to climate mitigation;  

  Nutrient cycling supporting crop productivity and reducing contamination;  

  Preserving and protecting biodiversity by preserving habitats both above and within 

the soil;  

  Supporting the quality of our landscapes and greening of our towns and cities.  
Finally, the Mission board also stressed the potential of a Mission in this Mission Area 
to contribute to several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 
SDGs most directly affected by soil degradation, and thus requiring soil action, are SDG 2 
(zero hunger), SDG 6 (clean water and sanitisation), SDG 13 (climate action) and SDG 15 
(life  on  land). (232)  These  are  aligned,  to  a  large  extent,  with  the  SDGs  targeted  by  the 
European Green Deal that was introduced around the same time as the Mission board was 
preparing its report. 

6.2  The role of R&I in addressing the challenges  

One basis for reviewing the Mission Area is determining whether it really allows for R&I 
to make a meaningful contribution to solving the societal challenge(s) the area comprises. 
Of particular interests are solutions that are not stand-alone products, services, etc. for 
which  there  are  markets,  but  solutions  that  for  their  diffusion  require  the 
transformation  of  entire  production-consumption  systems. (233) Such  transformations 
often  rely  on  a  range  of  complementary  investments  and  efforts  by  different  actors 
(including  users),  targeted  at  e.g.  knowledge  development  as  well  as  infrastructure, 
legislation, awareness raising, and any other factor that determines the possibility for new 
solutions to be adopted. If more of such factors need to change simultaneously to create the 
synergies  that  allow  for  system  transformation,  it  becomes  essential  to  bundle  and 

(232) The Mission board noted that the topic of soils was hardly mentioned in targets for the SDGs. To 
highlight that soil health is a transversal concept, the board proposed a set of soil indicators for 11 
SDGs. 

(233) Hekkert, M. P., Janssen, M. J., Wesseling, J. H., & Negro, S. O. (2020). Mission-oriented innovation 

systems. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 34, 76-79. 

Page 162 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
coordinate  packages  of  R&I  (and  non-R&I)  policies.  This  is  where  Missions,  as 
coordination devices, hold an important promise. (234) 

Food innovations are a priority in continuously  evolving food systems and the research 
community  agrees  that  innovations  improving  soil  health  rank  high  among  specific 
food innovations likely to be available to consumers within 5 years (Zickafoose et al., 
2022). R&I activity on soil is thriving, with several new trends emerging, such as precision 
agriculture  and  the  implementation  of  Agriculture  4.0  and  Industry  4.0  technologies  in 
farming  (Aubert  et  al.,  2012).  However,  R&I  in  agriculture  has  many  peculiarities  and 
policymakers  need  to  account  for  farmers’  entrepreneurship  and  the  need  to  create  an 
entrepreneurial environment as an indirect way to support the adoption of new technologies 
and practices. 

Innovation  adoption  is  a  concern  in  the  literature  dealing  with  soil  health.  However, 
innovation is primarily developed ‘outside’ the agriculture sector and farmers tend to be 
innovation adopters of technologies developed by the chemical, mechanical, ICT industry. 
Therefore, innovation adoption is a key aspect of R&I policy in soil health. The role of 
intermediary stakeholders, especially from the private sector (e.g., crop advisers), will be 
fundamental  in  spreading  information  among  farmers  about  conservation  practices, 
promoting innovation adoption (Eanes et al., 2019).  

The below table has been developed in the context of the external study supporting the 
review of Mission Areas and the assessment of EU Missions. It sums up some expected 
contributions of R&I to addressing the Mission Area challenges. 

Table 21: Expected contribution of R&I to addressing the Mission Area challenges 

Specific challenges 

Expected contribution of R&I 

Practices for enhancing soil health cannot readily be 
applied,  as  they  have  to  be  tuned  to  place-specific 
circumstances 

Practices  for  enhancing  soil  health  are  not  adopted 
when policy makers try to impose them 

Different countries use different (or no) indicators for 
monitoring soil health aspects 

Experiments  with  (innovative)  soil  management 
practices  lack  robust  methodologies  for  assessing 
effectiveness,  and/or  indicators  cover  only  some 
dimensions of soil health  

For  some  soil  health  problems  (like  biodiversity 
decline) or solutions (like biowaste innovation), there 
is a shortage of applicable insights and techniques  

for 

enhancing 

remain 
Practices 
underutilized  as  they  are  or  seem  not  economically 
feasible  

soil  health 

Co-creation  and  demonstration  of  knowledge  and 
innovation  in  living  labs  and  lighthouses,  in  which 
different  types  of  stakeholders  work  together  and  learn 
from each other 

Development, validation, harmonization and integration 
of  indicators,  as  well  as  methodologies  for  measuring 
them 

Development  of  ‘technical’  knowledge  on  soil  health 
issues  

Development  of  knowledge  on  socio-economic  factors 
like business models 

(234) Janssen, M. J., Torrens, J., Wesseling, J. H., & Wanzenböck, I. (2021). The promises and premises of 
Mission-oriented innovation policy—A reflection and ways forward. Science and public policy, 48(3), 
438-444. 

Page 163 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
for 

enhancing 

Practices 
remain 
underutilized as potential users are not familiar with 
them 

soil  health 

Development  of  capacities  (advisors,  education)  that 
support  the  absorption  and  application  of  relevant 
knowledge 

Source: EFIS study on the basis of the Mission board for soil health and food report (2020) ‘Caring for soil is caring for life’ 

In conclusion, given the diagnosis that the lacking diffusion of innovative soil management 
practices is more salient than the development of those practices, there is an interest for 
promoting soil health by applying living labs as a policy instrument. This makes the 
area of ‘soil health’ particularly fit to be addressed through the Mission approach as 
defined in the Horizon Europe regulation. This means the identification of soil health 
as a Mission Area is timely and responds to gaps in our knowledge vis-a-vis soil related 
societal challenges.  

6.3  Developments influencing the Mission Area 

Analysis shows that the Mission Area is broad enough to cover needs and adjust to 
new/emerging factors or trends that are likely to impact the Mission Area. One way 
to assess this is by looking at developments in the societal challenges the  Mission Area 
relates to. A useful proxy here is the Eurostat dashboard that monitors progress towards 
the SDG targets the EU has set.  

Figure 18: EU progress towards the SDGs over the past 5 years, 2022  

Source: EUROSTAT – Sustainable Development (235) 

The overview gives a mixed picture. In the context of agricultural soils, notable positive 
developments concern the rise in areas under organic farming as well as the reduction of 
agriculture-based ammonia emissions and severe soil erosion by water. Other highlights 

(235) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/sdi/overview       

Page 164 / 185 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
are  the  increases  in  the  share  of  forest  areas  and,  even  more  significantly,  in  terrestrial 
protected  areas.  The  progress  on  those  indicators  suggests  that  at  least  in  a  number  of 
respects,  soil  health  seems  to  be  gradually  improving  already.  Worrying  trends  are 
observed  for,  for  instance,  the  use  of  hazardous  pesticides;  nitrate  in  groundwater; 
phosphate in rivers; common farmland birds and birds and butterfly biodiversity in general; 
and  greenhouse  emissions  from  land  use,  land  use  change  and  forestry.  These  trends 
suggest that there are many reasons to keep investing in a soil health and food Mission 
Area. 

An additional way of assessing the relevance of the Mission Area is by considering the 
range  of  factors  that  could  influence  the  need  of  policies  for  soil  health  and  food.  One 
example of such a factor, supported by evidence discussed in the 2022 Science, research 
and innovation performance (SRIP) report, is the geopolitically driven demand for food 
security  and  food  system  resilience,  increasing  the  pressure  on  food  production  on 
European soils. (236) 

Table  22:  Identified  factors  or  possible  trends  influencing  the  Mission  Area,  in  order  of 
descending likelihood. 

Type of factor/trend  

Environmental:  Worsening  of  biodiversity  decline, 
soil organic carbon decline, global warming (leading 
to drought and other extreme weather conditions), 
etc. 

Short summary of the expected impact of the 
factor/trend 

Urgency to improve the health of soils increases 

Social: Increasing preferences for locally produced 
healthy food 

More local food production puts more pressures on soils, 
underlining the demand for policy intervention 

Geopolitical: The EU seeks to be less dependent on 
other  countries,  including  when  it  comes  to  food 
production 

Policy:  CAP  might  be  further?  adapted  after  the 
current  period  (2021-2027)  ends,  in  a  way  that  it 
better rewards ecosystem services 

More  rewards  for  ecosystem  services  would  probably 
result  in  healthier  agricultural  soils,  thus  reducing  the 
urgency for the Mission Area 

Technological:  Rise  of  synthetic  food  production, 
replacing traditional food production 

Societies  would  rely  less  on  agricultural  use  of  soils, 
potentially decreasing pressure on arable soils 

Economic:  Globalising  food  chains,  supported  by 
highly industrialised forms of agriculture 

Negative impacts for environmental and food quality (and 
thus human and animal health) and more risk of infectious 
diseases  spreading  easily,  both  aggravating  the  need  for 
policy intervention 

(236)  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Science,  research  and 
innovation performance of the EU 2022 : building a sustainable future in uncertain times, Publications 
Office  of  the  European  Union,  2022,  https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/78826;  European  Food 
Banks Federation (September 2021), COVID-19: a unique opportunity for a real change. FEBA Report 
01, FEBA_Report_ Survey_COVID_Sept2021.pdf (eurofoodbank.org). 

Page 165 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
Source: EFIS study based on interviews with selected stakeholders and on the ‘Caring for soil is caring for life’ Mission board report 

(2020). 

The conclusion is that the urgency to address soil health and food is becoming more 
pressing, as almost all the identified factors point in this direction. Generally, it is regarded 
as unlikely that scientific and technological breakthroughs will, in the near future, make 
the Mission Area less relevant. This has to do with two fundamental aspects of the Mission 
Area:  

  Many suitable innovative and non-innovative practices for improving soil health 
are  already  available  but  simply  under-used  (due  to  potential  users  not  being 
familiar  with  the  potential  benefits  of  those  practices  and  with  ways  to  apply 
them); and  
Soils differ in many ways across territories and are used in various different ways, 
therefore requiring rather place- and use-specific practices.  

 

Both  aspects  reduce the  likelihood of a new technology  emerging  (outside the  Horizon 
Europe  actions  supported  by  the  Mission)  that  radically  simplifies  the  possibilities  for 
transitioning to healthy soils.  

6.4  Key conclusions from the external review of the Mission Area 

The  Mission  Area  is  defined  and  scoped  in  a  way  that  is  flexible  when  it  comes  to 
responding  to  technological,  societal,  economic  and  policy  developments.  The  ‘soil 
health’ part of the  Mission Area’s scope is  on the one hand specific  and recognizable, 
while on the other hand it is a transversal concept cutting across many societal challenges. 
‘Food’, which is the second part of the Mission Area’s scope, is just one particular domain 
and already relates to different societal needs, e.g. those pertaining to food safety and food 
security.  Beyond that, soil health also  covers challenges related to,  amongst  others, the 
health of people living on and eating food grown in soils, the capacity of soil to purify and 
retain  water,  the  possibility  of  soils  to  be  used  for  carbon  sequestration  (important  for 
mitigating climate change) and cycling nutrients, and the role of soils in preventing and 
mitigating extreme climatic events (in particular droughts and floods). Another example is 
related to the green transition of industrial ecosystems (e.g. construction), which reduce 
the  impact  on  the  soil  quality  and  can  benefit  from  a  holistic  approach  to  increase  the 
viability of solutions from a societal point of view. 

In sum, there are no finding in the external study that suggest to further adjust the Mission 
Area.  Nevertheless,  the  external  study  analysis  identifies  a  potential  risk  focusing  on  a 
broad notion like soil health: while it does allow for addressing many challenges, it may 
be difficult to tackle each of them equally at the same time. A potential consequence is that 
the soil health label as such is not regarded as an important topic by those who are not 
familiar with what it entails.  

Overall, the broad scope of the Mission Area implies that the Mission Area will likely 
remain relevant in the future, as perhaps emerging technologies and policies might 
(partially)  tackle  some  challenges  but  not  all.  Thanks  to  its  broad  scope  the  Mission 
Area  is  likely  to  remain  relevant  and  shows  sufficient  flexibility  to  cater  for  changing 
needs.  The  strength  of  the  Mission  Area  scope  lies  in  recognising  that  the  various 
challenges are interrelated, and that there is no use of only targeting e.g. problems related 

Page 166 / 185 

 
 
to water or contamination issues if that intensifies other problems. Instead, the integrative 
scoping of the Mission Area encourages experimentation with policies and solutions 
that address multiple challenges at once.  

Page 167 / 185 

 
 
 
 
 
III.  Review of areas for institutionalised 
partnerships based on Articles 185 and 187 
TFEU 

The full effects of the research and innovation efforts undertaken today will unfold only 
well into the 2030s and the ensuing economic and societal impact will take some time to 
materialise. These long  gestation  periods require careful consideration when setting the 
priorities for the Research and Innovation Framework Programme to respond to long-term 
challenges.  

To provide the flexibility to cater for unexpected needs, Article 11 of the Horizon Europe 
Regulation requires the Commission to carry out by 31 December 2023 a review of 
the  areas  for  Missions  and  institutionalised  partnerships  established  pursuant  to 
Article 185 or 187 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 
listed in its Annex VI of the Regulation.  

Horizon  Europe  introduces  a  more  strategic,  coherent  and  impact-driven  approach  to 
European  Partnerships,  and  orients  them  towards  the  delivery  of  the  EU  priorities.  In 
addition  to  strengthening  the  evidence-base,  the  strategic  coordinating  process  aims  to 
improve the intelligence on starting new R&I programmes, including which topics can be 
better  addressed  by  a  partnership  approach.  This  year  2023  is  a  particularly  relevant 
milestone  in  that  regard,  considering  the  review  of  the  areas  for  the  institutionalised 
European Partnerships based on Articles 185 and 187 TFEU, as well as the second strategic 
planning phase of Horizon Europe for 2025-2027.  

1  ARTICLE 185 AND ARTICLE 187 PARTNERSHIP AREAS 

Institutionalised  European  Partnerships  are  partnerships  in  the  field  of  research  and 
innovation between the Union, EU member states and/or industry. They require legislative 
proposals  from  the  Commission  and  are  based  on  a  Council  Regulation  (Joint 
Undertakings, Article 187 TFEU) or a Decision by the European Parliament and Council 
(Public-Public  Partnerships,  Article  185  TFEU).  They  are  implemented  by  dedicated 
structures created for that purpose. Institutionalised partnerships must be set up within the 
areas listed in Annex VI of the Horizon Europe regulation and will only be implemented 
where other parts of the Horizon Europe programme, including other types of partnership, 
would not achieve the desired objectives or expected impacts. Indeed, the Horizon Europe 
Regulation  foresees  that  the  least  complex  form  of  implementation  should  always  be 
preferred, which introduces some bias against institutionalised European Partnerships that 
take  the  longest  to  set  up.  To  ensure  the  latter,  they  are  subject  to  an  ex-ante  impact 
assessment. EIT Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) are also institutionalised 
partnerships  relying  on  the  EIT’s  separate  legal  base  and  are  therefore  not  part  of  this 
review exercise. 

Based  on  the  legal  framework,  the  list  below  includes  the  criteria  for  setting  up 
Institutionalised Partnerships: 

1.  Necessity for action at EU level 

Page 168 / 185 

 
 
2.  Aims/goals or impacts needed to address the challenges are not expected to be fully 

met by other types of Partnerships 

3.  Need for a long-term perspective in addressing the defined challenges 

4.  Building on a higher degree of integration in  the organisation  of research in  the 

area 

5.  Prospect  for  aligning  R&I  agendas,  improving  skills  and  increasing  absorption 

capacity of European businesses. 

6.  Need  for  systematic  engagement  of  stakeholders  and  end-users,  including 
standardization bodies and international partners to achieve uptake of solutions. 

7.  Addressing a set of systemic, market and transformational failures, which is a pre-

condition for accelerating the development and diffusion of innovations. 

8.  Addressing  the  Union’s  economic  capacities  and  its  scientific  and  technological 

sovereignty. 

The first two criteria can be regarded as ‘exclusion’ criteria, the first one for setting up a 
partnership of any kind and the second one for setting up an institutionalised partnership. 
The  following  ones  that  can  be  considered  as  ‘enabling’  criteria  or  factors  for  an 
institutionalised partnerships to exploit its full potential. 

According  to  Annex  VI  of  the  Horizon  Europe  Regulation,  the  areas  for  possible 
Institutionalised European Partnerships on the basis of Article 185 or 187 TFEU are: 

-  Partnership  Area  1:  Faster  development  and  safer  use  of  health  innovations  for 

European patients, and global health. 

-  Partnership Area 2: Advancing key digital and enabling technologies and their use, 
including  but  not  limited  to  novel  technologies  such  as  artificial  intelligence, 
photonics and quantum technologies. 

-  Partnership  Area  3:  European  leadership  in  Metrology  including  an  integrated 

Metrology system. 

-  Partnership  Area  4:  Accelerate  competitiveness,  safety  and  environmental 

performance of Union air traffic, aviation and rail. 

-  Partnership Area 5: Sustainable, inclusive and circular bio-based solutions. 

-  Partnership  Area  6:  Hydrogen  and  sustainable  energy  storage  technologies  with 

lower environmental footprint and less energy-intensive production. 

-  Partnership  Area  7:  Clean,  connected,  cooperative,  autonomous  and  automated 

solutions for future mobility demands of people and goods. 

-  Partnership Area 8: Innovative and R&D intensive SMEs. 

Withing these areas, 11 Art 185/7 institutionalised partnerships were set up:  Innovative 
Health Initiative, Global Health Partnership, Key Digital Technologies, Smart Networks 
and Services, High Performance Computing, European Metrology, Clean hydrogen, Clean 
Aviation, Single European Sky ATM Research 3, Europe’s Rail and Circular Bio-based 
Europe. Institutionalised European Partnerships take up the biggest share of the Horizon 
Europe  partnership  budget  (59%)  with  €14.704  billion.  Of  the  institutionalised 

Page 169 / 185 

 
 
partnerships, the largest share of the budget is dedicated to the 10 Joint Undertakings (JUs) 
(based on Article 187 of the TFEU). 

Figure 19: Overview of 49 European Partnerships 

Approach taken for the review of art. 185 and art. 187 partnership areas  

Since the agreements on the areas listed in Annex VI of the Horizon Europe Regulation, 
two  important  studies  were  completed,  contributing  to  underpinning  the  reform  and 
rationalisation of the partnership landscape. 

An  Impact  Assessment  Study (237)  conducted  between  July  2019  and  January  2020  by 
Technopolis  supported  and  provided  input  to  the  impact  assessments  of  the  first  set  of 
European Institutionalised Partnerships based on Articles 185 and 187 of the TFEU to be 
funded  under  Horizon  Europe.  The  Commission  conducted  a  coordinated  impact 
assessment analysing alternative implementation modes to Article 185/187 (the so-called 
‘necessity test’) and includes a horizontal analysis on the coherence and efficiency in the 
current European Partnership landscape under Horizon Europe. This was a well thought-
out  approach  and  assessment  methodology  leading  to  a  score-card  analysis  of  the 
evaluation dimensions of effectiveness, coherence and efficiency across the three different 
types as well as regular Horizon Europe calls.   

(237)  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Impact  assessment  for 
institutionalised  European  partnerships  under  Horizon  Europe,  Publications  Office,  2021, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/295096  

Page 170 / 185 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
The  Biennial  Monitoring  Report  (BMR)  2022  on  Partnerships  in  Horizon  Europe (238) 
provides a systematic overview of the overall European Partnership landscape by shedding 
light on:  

-  The effectiveness of the new policy approach for European Partnerships and the 
extent to which it leads to a better achievement of objectives and impacts compared 
to traditional calls under the Framework Programme. 

-  The  progress  of  European  Partnerships  towards  their  objectives  and  targeted 

impacts – both individually and collectively, at the EU and national level. 

-  Early  implementation  barriers  and  drivers  towards  impacts  –  e.g.  in  terms  of 
contributions, coherence, collaboration, openness or accessibility of partnerships. 

-  First  results  achieved,  in  view  of  their  further  demonstration,  exploitation  and 
valorisation,  including  for  policymaking  by  Commission  Services  and  national 
administrations. 

Given the extensive insights provided by the Impact Assessment and the BMR, the review 
of  the  areas  for  institutionalised  partnership  consists  in  a  complementary  stock  taking 
exercise, to assess whether the list of areas enshrined in Annex VI of the Horizon Europe 
Regulation remains coherent in the current landscape of priorities. The review is therefore 
two-fold: assessing the relevance and comprehensiveness of these areas. 

Reviewing  the  areas  for  the  institutionalised  European  Partnerships,  the  European 
Commission  was  assisted  by  the  expert  group  on  support  of  the  coordinating  strategic 
process  for  European  Partnerships (239).  The  expert  group  devised  a  methodology  to 
develop  and  assess  the  portfolio  of  European  Partnerships  (240),  taking  into  account 
emerging European R&I priorities, emerging national R&I priorities and programmes, but 
also common challenges and EU political priorities that require orchestrated large-scale 
investments (241).  This  methodology  (explained  in  Annex  C)  was  used  to  assess  the 
adequacy of the list of areas for institutionalised partnerships.   

(238) 
data/interactive-reports/performance-european-partnerships-2022  

https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/knowledge-publications-tools-and-

(239)https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-

groups/consult?lang=en&do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3738&news=1 

(240) DOI: 10.2777/62770  
https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-07/ec_rtd_assessing-ep-against-european-
policy-priorities.pdf  

(241)  The  approach  used  for  the  identification  of  relevant  European  and  national  policy  priorities,  global  scientific, 
technology and socio-economic trends and other dimensions was a multi-step process, from a literature review to the 
identification,  analysis  and  processing  of  forward-looking  issue  and  technology  areas,  to  a  survey  of  all  European 
Partnerships. 39 out of 49 partnerships answered to the survey, including 9 of the 11 institutionalised partnerships. 

Page 171 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
2  RESULTS  

2.1  Relevance of the 8 areas for institutionalised partnerships 

Assessing the relevance of the 8 areas for Institutionalised Partnerships listed in Annex VI 
requires considering them in the light of the current landscape of relevant European and 
national policy priorities, global scientific, technology and socio-economic trends. To this 
end, the independent expert group identified the factors shaping the landscape of current 
and future policy priorities. These factors were divided into three categories: 

1.  Megatrends:  longer  term  drivers  causing  changes  in  the  global  socio-economic, 

environmental, and political context  

2.  Forward-looking issues (FLIs):  emerging issues to be increasingly  aware  of and 

address 

3.  Technology areas 

The analysis performed by the expert group resulted in the identification of 14 megatrends, 
15 forward looking issues and 14 technology areas as potential current and future policy 
priorities. These dimensions were used to create a mapping of the landscape of priorities 
(the forward-looking issues), its drivers (the megatrends) and the means to address them 
(the technology areas) against which to assess the areas for institutionalised partnerships. 

Page 172 / 185 

 
 
Figure 20: Overview of the megatrends, forward-looking issues and technology areas  

Source: Expert Group on support of the coordinating strategic process for European Partnerships (2023) 

Results  from  the  study  highlighted  the  influence  of  the  megatrends  on  the  partnership 
portfolio, thereby showing its dynamic nature and the need to assess its appropriateness 
regularly, in a changing global socio-economic, environmental, and political context. The 
mapping of the influence of megatrends on institutionalised partnerships notably showed 
that ‘acceleration technological change and hyperconnectivity’ and ‘climate change and 
environmental degradation’ are currently the most  prominent drivers of the portfolio of 
institutionalised partnerships.  

A  good  example  of  the  dynamic  nature  of  the  partnership  portfolio  and  the  regular 
assessment of its appropriateness is the transformation of the Key Digital Technologies 
Joint Undertaking into the Chips Joint Undertaking to reinforce the Union’s semiconductor 

Page 173 / 185 

 
 
 
capacity  by  stimulating  investment,  strengthening  the  capabilities,  adaptability  and 
resilience of the Union’s semiconductor supply chain. 

The analysis of the list of areas for institutionalised partnerships against the 15 forward 
looking issues showed that each area for institutionalised partnerships relates to at least 5 
of them, thereby demonstrating that they address current priorities and remain pertinent. 
The  fulfilment  of  the  set  of  criteria  by  these  areas  was  already  assessed  by  the  above-
mentioned impact assessment. 

2.2  Comprehensiveness of the 8 areas for institutionalised partnerships 

Assessing the comprehensiveness of the 8 areas for Institutionalised Partnerships listed in 
Annex VI requires considering whether new areas arisen requiring a response in the form 
of an institutionalised partnership. 

The analysis of the list of areas for institutionalised partnerships against the 15 forward 
looking issues also brought to light that some identified challenges are not substantially 
addressed by the instrument, such as “Food and food systems transformation for climate”. 
However, the gap analysis in the landscape of trends and priorities cannot be performed 
looking  at  institutionalised  partnerships  independently.  Indeed,  areas  appearing  as  gaps 
may already be addressed via or more suitable for other instruments. 

While acknowledging that the areas for institutionalised partnerships are broader in scope, 
the  expert  group  analysed  the  coverage  of  priorities  by  the  current  institutionalised 
partnership themselves in order to reach a comparable level of granularity with other types 
of partnerships and EU Missions and extract additional trends.  

Institutionalised  partnerships  address  substantially  about  half  of  the  identified  Forward 
Looking Issues, including amongst the dominant ones ‘Decarbonisation of the economy’, 
‘Increased importance of advanced manufacturing’ and ‘Sustainable mobility for climate’. 
On the mapping of institutionalised partnerships only, a number of forward-looking issues 
appeared  poorly  addressed,  such  as  ‘Resource  scarcity  issues’,  ‘Space  and  military 
technologies and defence issues’ or ‘Food and food system transformation for climate’. 
However, the mapping of the portfolio of all types of European partnerships against the 
same issues indicated that all were addressed to some extent by one of the three types of 
partnership.  For  instance,  the  ‘Resource  and  scarcity  issues’  was  identified  as  highly 
relevant by many non-institutionalised partnerships, such as the Agroecology partnership, 
Water4All  or  Processes4Planet.  Similarly,  the  Photonics  co-programmed  partnerships 
indicated high relevance to ‘Space and military technologies and defence issues’, although 
this  issue  remains  the  least  addressed  of  the  15.  The  comparison  of  the  mapping  of 
institutionalised partnerships with the portfolio of all partnership types therefore showed 
that  the  gap  areas  did  not  fulfil  the  second  criterion  for  setting  up  Institutionalised 
Partnerships “Aims/goals or impacts needed to address the challenges are not expected to 
be fully met by other types of Partnerships”.  

Comparing the mapping of institutionalised and non-institutionalised partnerships allows 
to  note  that  “Sustainable  mobility  for  climate”  and  “increased  importance  of  advanced 
manufacturing” seem to be significantly more addressed by institutionalised partnerships. 
Conversely,  “Resource  scarcity  issues”,  “Food  and  food  systems  transformation  for 
climate”,  “AI  and  Robotics  in  health  services”  and  “Changing  life  and  consumption 

Page 174 / 185 

 
 
patterns” are significantly less addressed by institutionalised partnerships. This trend can 
in  some  cases  be  explained  by  the  respective  share  (low  or  high)  of  institutionalised 
partnerships  in  a  specific  thematic  (e.g.  health,  food,  transport)  compared  to  non-
institutionalised. “Decarbonisation of the economy” is the most addressed issue in both 
cases, which is coherent with the EU Green Deal objectives. 

The study showed that in terms of technology areas coverage, provides additional insight 
to analyse the above trends. Institutionalised partnerships appear to be most focused on 
enabling  technologies,  such  as  data  and  IT,  computing  and  autonomous  technologies, 
material  and  transport.  These  results  echo  findings  from  the  BMR  2022,  showing  that 
horizontal  partnerships  -  expected  to  develop  methodologies  and  technologies  for 
application in other priority areas - are typically proposed as institutionalised. It is most 
likely linked to  the very nature of the instrument,  whose criteria include the need for  a 
long-term perspective in addressing the defined challenges (criterion 3), a higher degree 
of  integration  in  the  organisation  of  research  in  the  area  (criteria  4),  and  a  systemic 
dimension (criteria 9 and 10). 

2.3  Conclusions 

The analysis of the areas for institutionalised partnerships demonstrated that the current 
list remains relevant in the current landscape of technological and social challenges, and 
that challenges not covered by these areas are addressed by other types of partnerships. 
The  list  of  areas  for  institutionalised  partnerships  in  Annex  VI  of  the  Horizon  Europe 
regulation is considered suitable at this stage and will therefore be kept unchanged for the 
second half of the framework programme. Its suitability will be reassessed in the context 
of the next Framework Programme. 

2.4 

Forward-looking considerations 

Taking  a  more  strategic,  coherent  and  impact-driven  approach  to  R&I  police  requires 
taking a broader view than through the lens of a single type of instrument. It requires to 
analyse for a given issue and a broad toolbox of instruments, which one of them provides 
the best approach to address it.  

Missions provide a structure to convene efforts and federate actions across programmes 
and  actors  towards  a  common  objective.  They  notably  aim  to  create  a  large-scale 
mobilisation of stakeholders and citizens, leading to a quicker and wider deployment of 
new solutions and technologies.   

The partnership concept was developed with the objective of addressing the fragmentation 
and  unnecessary  duplication  of  research  efforts  and  to  increase  public  and  private 
investment in research activities and enhance their impact. In Horizon Europe, partnerships 
are also expected to play a key role in achieving the EU’s strategic objectives. By teaming 
up with both the public and private sectors, European Partnerships are expected to help 
speed up novel solutions and help achieve the green and digital transitions.  

The  review  of  Mission  Areas  and  areas  for  institutionalised  partnerships  offers  the 
opportunity to bring both the Mission and partnership instruments in the same picture, with 

Page 175 / 185 

 
 
a  view  to  analysing  when  should  one  approach  be  preferred  to  the  other,  how  they 
complement and reinforce each other, and the potential synergies between them. 

Missions and partnerships both share the same 3 most occupied forward-looking issues: 
decarbonisation of the economy, Changing life and consumption patterns and Bioeconomy 
issues, as well as their 2 least occupied forward-looking issues “Digitalisation and security 
and  privacy  issues”  and  “Space  and  military  technologies  and  defence  issues”.  These 
findings  indicate  that  the  topology  of  the  sets  of  Missions  and  partnerships  against  the 
current landscape of priorities present significant similarities, showing that they operate 
under common objectives.   

However,  comparing  their  respective  main  technology  areas  revealed  that  partnerships 
develop primarily autonomous technologies, computing, and data, while Missions leverage 
biomaterials, social sciences and space. The dense IT dimension of partnerships seems to 
indicate that partnerships, more technology rich and horizontal in nature, are more prone 
to developing/exploiting a technology independently from the topic. The analysis of FLI 
and technology area coverage also reveals that Missions gravitate around matters ‘closer 
to  citizens’,  while  partnerships  rather  focus  on  enabling  technologies.  These  findings 
reflect  the  commonalities  and  complementarities  of  the  Mission  and  partnership 
approaches.   

The  overlap  of  the  forward-looking  issues  and  complementarity  of  technology  areas 
suggests  that  both  instruments  could  be  better  coordinated  to  leverage  their  respective 
strengths  (technology  development  versus  framework  conditions)  to  achieve  what  are 
ultimately  common  objectives.  Missions  should  focus  their  efforts  and  resources  on 
building  and  orchestrating  the  overarching  framework  in  which  these  technological 
solutions  come  together  with  governance  structures,  individual/collective  actions,  and 
financial/economic measures to pave the way towards their objectives.  

Table 23: Comparison of the mapping of EU Partnerships and EU Missions  

EU Partnerships  

Missions  

Top 3 most 
occupied 
Megatrend
s  

Climate 
change  

Top 3 most 
occupied 
FLIs  

FLI 3: 
Decarbonisa
tion of the 
economy  

Acceleratin
g 
technology 
change  

FLI 14: 
Changing 
life and 
consumptio
n patterns  

Shifting 
health 
change  

Climate 
change  

Aggravating 
resource 
scarcity  

Continuing 
urbanisation  

FLI 10: 
Bioecono
my issues  

FLI 10: 
Bioeconomy 
issues  

FLI 3: 
Decarbonis
ation of the 
economy  

FLI 14: 
Changing life 
and 
consumption 
patterns  

Top 3 most 
occupied 
technology 
areas  

Bottom 3 
least 
occupied 
Megatrend
s  

Autonomous   Computing  

Data  

Biomaterials  

Social 
Science  

Space  

Increasing 
demographi
c imbalance  

Aggravatin
g resource 
scarcity  

significan
ce of 
migration  

Changing 
security 
paradigm  

influence of 
east and 
south  

significance 
of migration  

Page 176 / 185 

 
 
  
   
FLI 6: 
Alternative 
energy 
sources and 
systems 
transformati
on  

FLI 1: 
Digitalisatio
n and 
security 
and privacy 
issues  

FLI 9: 
Space 
and 
military 
technolog
ies and 
defence 
issues  

FLI 8: 
(Hyper)connec
tivity in life and 
the economy  

FLI 1: 
Digitalisatio
n and 
security and 
privacy 
issues  

FLI 9: Space 
and military 
technologies 
and defence 
issues  

Transport  

Space  

Farming  

Medicine  

Cyber-
security  

Communicati
on 

Bottom 3 
least 
occupied 
FLIs  

Bottom 3 
least 
occupied 
technology 
areas  

Source: Expert Group on support of the coordinating strategic process for European Partnerships (2023) 

The  comparison  of  the  set  of  partnerships  with  the  set  of  Missions  in  the  landscape  of 
policy priorities, global scientific, technology and socio-economic trends highlighted the 
complementarities and synergistic potential between the two instruments.  

Missions and partnerships contribute to addressing common societal challenges and EU 
strategic objectives in a complementary way. On one hand, partnerships federate research 
efforts and resources to speed up the development of novel technical solutions, including 
solutions Missions need for the achievement of their targets. On the other hand, Missions 
provide a structure to convene efforts across programmes and actors, creating the enabling 
framework  for  the  solutions  developed  by  the  partnerships  to  thrive  and  realise  their 
impact.  

Missions  and  partnerships  sharing  common  objectives  should  therefore  reinforce  their 
cooperation to leverage the links between them and maximise impact. Coordinating their 
respective strategies to foster synergies in their efforts, bringing together public and private 
actors in R&I and beyond, building capacity of businesses and increasing their ability to 
absorb the knowledge and research results produced, Mission and Partnerships will join 
forces to drive societal transitions. 

Page 177 / 185 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex A: Methodology for the assessment of EU 
Missions   

The external study supporting the assessment of the EU Missions assessed the following 
key dimensions for each Mission: 

  The Mission’s goal and objectives; 

  The selection process of each EU Mission; 

  The Mission’s governance structures and functioning arrangements;  

  The progress towards the fulfilment of the Mission’s objectives;  

  The Mission’ s budget and funding arrangements.  

The assessment process was based on applying of set of primary and secondary research 
methods to address the five dimensions mentioned above. 

Figure 21: Simplified overview of the methodological framework for the Mission assessment 

Desk research 
& literature 
review

Review of 
relevant 
funding and 
programme 
data 

Interviews 
and survey 
responses

Draft 
Mission 
assessment 
report

Policy 
workshop 
per Mission

Revised 
Mission 
assessment 
reports

Analytical phase

Consolidation of 
evidence and feedback

Final assessment report

Source: EFIS external study 

In terms of secondary research, the study team has drawn on: 

 

Insights derived from a literature review of academic articles carried out for the 
five  Missions.  The  full  literature  review  is  annexed  to  the  final  study  report, 
which will be published during the summer of 2023; 

  Evidence  from  desk  research  covering  technical  (e.g.,  economic,  research  and 

innovation, environmental) studies, policy reports and grey literature; 

  Relevant data on funding (Horizon Europe, other EU level programmes, national 

or regional programmes, where available). 

Page 178 / 185 

 
 
 
In terms of primary research, the following methods were applied to collect the views and 
opinions of a broad group of stakeholders: interviews, an online survey, Mission-specific 
policy workshops. The consultation of stakeholders targeted in particular: 

  EC  Commission  services  and  Mission  representatives  (Mission  secretariat, 

Mission managers, Mission owners’ group); 

  National and regional representatives of EU Missions’ initiatives and networks 

in EU Member States; 

  Mission Board representatives; 

  Committee of the Regions; 

  European Investment Bank; 

  EU Member state representatives; 

 

Selected MEPs; 

  National innovation agencies; 

  National and pan-European research organisations and research networks; 

  National and pan-European NGOs; 

 

Private sector representatives. 

Interviews  were  conducted  across  all  five  Missions,  including  people  involved  in  the 
design  and  management  as  well  as  stakeholders  from  European  national  and  regional 
levels. 

For the Climate Change Adaptation Mission: 

 

 

13 Mission-specific interviews; 

97 responses for the Adaptation to climate change Mission to the online survey; 

  A policy workshop held on 12 April 2023 with 21 participants.  

For the Cancer Mission: 

 

 

 

13 Mission-specific interviews; 

interviews with stakeholders from European, national and regional levels; 

107 responses for the Cancer Mission to the online survey; 

  An online policy workshop held on 13 April 2023 with the participation of 28 

stakeholders. 

For the ‘Oceans and Seas’ Mission: 

 

 

14 Mission-specific interviews;  

73 responses for the Ocean and Waters Mission to the online survey; 

  An online policy workshop held on 13 April 2023, attended by 21 participants. 

For the Mission Climate neutral and smart cities:  

 

 

14 Mission-specific interviews;  

80 responses for the Cities Mission as part of the online survey; 

Page 179 / 185 

 
 
 
  An  online  workshop  held  on  11  April  2023  which  was  attended  by  24 

participants. 

For the Soil Mission: 

 

 

13 Mission-specific interviews; 

60 responses for the Mission Soil to the online survey; 

  An online policy workshop held on 12 April 2023 with the participation of 24 

stakeholders. 

Page 180 / 185 

 
 
 
 
Annex B: Methodology for the review of Mission 
Areas 

The Mission Areas were analysed taking account the current and future broad research and 
innovation  (R&I),  economic,  social  and  environmental  trends  and  factors.  Five  main 
research questions are addressed: 

  How  well  does  the  definition  of  the  five  Mission  Areas  address  the  major 

challenges the EU faces? 

 

Is  the  key  role  of  R&I  in  addressing  the  Mission  Area  challenges  adequately 
explained? 

  Has the relevance of the Mission Areas, as initially defined, changed over time 
given developments in the R&I, environmental, economic and social landscapes? 

 

Is there enough flexibility built into the Mission Area definition to adapt to such 
changes? 

The research questions have been firstly informed by secondary research:  

 

Insights derived from a literature review of academic journal articles which was 
carried out across the five Mission Areas; 

  Evidence  from  desk  research  covering  technical  (e.g.  foresight,  research  and 

innovation analysis) studies, policy reports and grey literature; 

  Review  of  relevant  data  on  recent  trends  in  socio-economic,  environmental, 

health, etc. statistics. 

In addition, the views and opinions on the continuing relevance of the Mission Areas and 
trends impacting the Mission Areas have been gathered from a broad group of stakeholders 
through: 

 

Selected  interviews,  including  those  carried  out  with  selected  experts  with  in-
depth knowledge of specific topics or trends of the Mission Area (such as senior 
researchers  from  academic  or  research  and  technology  organisations,  experts 
from think tanks and specialist NGOs); 

  The online survey, which included questions addressing the relevance and scope 

and opportunities for respondents to provide written comments; 

  The  views  of  the  participants  to  five  online  policy  workshops  held  during  the 

week of 11 April 2023. 

Page 181 / 185 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex C: Methodology for the review of areas for 
institutionalised partnerships 

For  the  purpose  of  present  study  on  identifying  relevant  European  and  national  policy 
priorities,  global  scientific,  technology  and  socio-economic  trends  for  assessing  the 
landscape of European Partnerships, the expert group adopted a mixed approach inspired 
by “technology landscape” and “horizon scanning” was developed and implemented. 

The  “technology  landscape”  approach  is  one  of  the  most  popular,  besides  “technology 
mapping”, methodology to identify emerging future trends or emerging technologies as an 
element  of  foresight  studies.  The  “technology  landscape”  approach  is  used  to  identify 
wider technology areas (242), which makes it more relevant for the present study. 

Present  approach  has  got  inspiration  from  typical  technology  landscape  maps,  which 
connect  technology  drivers  via  specific  dimension  (e.g.,  Technology  Readiness  Level) 
with possible applications e.g. on the market. For the purpose of the study, this is translated 
into  maps  connecting  global  socio-economic  trends,  via  technology  areas  in  time-to-
market  space  with  technology  /  R&I  areas  occupied  by  existing  or  future  European 
Partnerships. It creates a framework to capture the results of the collection and review of 
a number of foresight  studies and other forecasts reports of future trends  with  data and 
information which could be collected on technology priorities of European Partnerships. 

To complement the above approach and provide input for identification of emerging socio-
economic trends and technologies,  a “horizon scanning” methodology was deployed.  It 
builds  on  the  methodology  and  the  material  produced  in  the  framework  of  an  expert 
contract to support the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in mapping forward-looking elements 
that can affect the EU long-term objectives in 2020. The task assigned by the JRC to the 
experts was to scan available sources of information and mark the way(s) they affect/relate 
to the JRC megatrends and the EU policy areas (EU green deal, Economy that works for 
all, EU way of life, EU digital age, Strong EU in the world, EU democracy). During the 
scanning activity, a wide variety of documents were examined including e.g., academic 
papers, policy reports, posts in blogs or other sites, dedicated websites, etc.  

Decoding  how  the  issues  addressed  in  the  reports  analysed,  affected,  or  related  to  the 
megatrends  and  the  current  EU  policies  required  an  intelligent  reading/scanning  of  the 
documents and other sources of information. Given the limitations of the scanning methods 
and the role of the human factor in creating, detecting, analysing, and interpreting emerging 
issues, the scanning results need to be treated with caution and cross-checked with other 
validating sources (243). The outcome of the expert work under the JRC project, in a form 

(242)  Irene  Spitsberg,  Sudhir  Brahmandam,  Michael  J.  Verti  &  George  W.  Coulston  (2013)  Technology 
Landscape  Mapping:  At  the  Heart  of  Open  Innovation,  Research-Technology  Management,  56:4,  27-35, 
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5437/08956308X5604107 

(243) Amanatidou, et a. 2012. 

Page 182 / 185 

 
 
                                                 
 
of the database collecting results of review of 60 forward looking reports, was a starting 
point  and  framework  for  the  present  study.  In  addition,  the  approach  implemented  for 
identification  of  relevant  European  and  national  policy  priorities,  global  scientific, 
technology and socio-economic trends and other dimensions was organised as a multi-step 
process with several well-defined steps (see figure 22 below). 

The detailed description of each step in the process is presented in Annex 1 of the expert 
group’s report (244). The summary of results in each step is presented below.  

Figure 22: multi-step process for analysing European and national priorities, global scientific, 
technological,  and  socio-economic  trends,  and  identifying  relevant  forward-looking  issues 
(FLIs) and technology areas. 

Source: Expert Group on support of the coordinating strategic process for European Partnerships (2023) 

STEP 1 + 2 

There were 76 relevant, trusted, and comprehensive documents reviewed - 60 originally 
reviewed under JRC projects and 16 identified under present studies - and characterised 
by several parameters (e.g., title, web link, source type, time horizon, publisher, relation to 
the EU policies etc.) 

STEP 3 

About  350  preliminary  Forward  Looking  Issue  (FLI)  –  policy,  societal,  economic,  or 
technological  topics  –  were  identified  and  connected  with  the  most  relevant  14  Global 

(244) DOI: 10.2777/62770  
https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-07/ec_rtd_assessing-ep-against-european-
policy-priorities.pdf  

Page 183 / 185 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Megatrends identified by the Megatrend Hub of the EC (245),and the most relate EU policy 
areas. Among them, there were 157 FLIs with technological relevance allowing to identify 
specific technology or technology area affected by the FLI. It implies a methodological 
bias, which results in underrepresentation of social and humanity issues among selected 
FLIs. In further steps it also implies underrepresentation of technologies and R&I topics 
related to mentioned areas.  

STEP 4 

There  were  130  individual  technology  and  R&I  topics  extracted  from  names  and  short 
descriptions of FLIs.  

STEP 5 

For the purpose of further analysis and graphical visualisation all FLIs and technology / 
R&I topics were reviewed to avoid duplication and connect similar issues. Final list of the 
35 Forward-Looking Issues (grouped in 15 Thematic Groups) and 118 technology and R&I 
topics (grouped in 14 Technology areas) were defined. 

STEP 6 

The 14 Global  Megatrends, 35 Forward-Looking  Issues  and 119 technologies  and R&I 
topics (grouped in Technology areas) were matched through the Survey with the areas of 
interest of existing European Partnerships.   

There  were  34  European  Partnerships  (13  Co-funded,  8  Co-programmed,  9 
Institutionalized, 3 EIT KICs) participating in the Survey, which provided a solid statistical 
base for further analysis. 

To extend and validate the proposed methodology to other EU instruments the Missions 
were invited to participate in the Survey. All 5 Missions participated. 

Participation of Missions in the Survey allows to check and analyse possible differences, 
which could be related to different nature of the instruments. 

STEP 7 

The Forward-Looking Issues, Thematic Groups of FLIs and Technology areas could be 
prioritised against different dimensions, e.g., relevance and/or impact on the EU policies, 
urgency of the EU needs, level of development/integration on the EU market, maturity of 
technology or distance to the market. The purpose of the prioritisation is to identify the top 
technological  /  challenge  areas  based  on  the  dimensions  described  above,  which  is  an 
important  input  for  the  decision-making  process  on  the  structure  of  the  Partnership 
portfolio.  It  is  particularly  relevant  in  the context of identification of certain  Groups of 
Areas as overpopulated or less addressed by the present European Partnership portfolio.  

(245) The 14 Global Megatrends are listed and monitored under the Megatrend Hub run by the 
Knowledge4Policy (K4P), which is the EU Commission's platform for evidence-based policymaking. 
https://visitors-centre.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/media/publications/megatrends-hub  

Page 184 / 185