Study supporting the assessment of EU missions and the review of mission areas : mission areas review report.
Date: 2023-09-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: cancer, climate change, economic consequence, environmental impact, innovation, ocean, report, research and development, smart city, social situation, soil protection, sustainable development

Study supporting  
the assessment of EU Missions 
and the review of mission areas 

Mission areas review report  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study  supporting  the  assessment  of  EU  Missions  and  the  review  of  mission  areas  - 
Mission areas review report 

European Commission 
European Commission 
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
Directorate G - Common Policy Centre 
Unit G.4 — Common Missions & Partnerships Service 
Contact   Diletta ZONTA 
Email      RTD-HORIZON-EUROPE-MISSIONS@ec.europa.eu, and   

Diletta.Zonta@ec.europa.eu    
RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Manuscript completed in July 2023 
1st edition 

This  document  has  been  prepared  for  the  European  Commission,  however  it  reflects  the  views  only  of  the 
authors, and the European Commission shall not be liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse. 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-68-06450-4 

doi: 10.2777/61143 

KI-04-23-786-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023 

© European Union, 2023  

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU 
of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Unless otherwise 
noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC 
BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed  provided 
appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. 
For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to 
be sought directly from the respective right holders.  

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Study supporting  
the assessment of EU Missions 
and the review of mission areas 

Mission areas review report  

Alasdair Reid (editor), Jelena Angelis, Elina Griniece, Ebba Hallersjö Hult, Matthijs Janssen, 
Peter Kaufmann, Ilaria Nardello, Claire Nauwelaers, Céline Phillips, Harald Wieser 

The information and views set out in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily 
reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of 
the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s 
behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

2023 

               Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

KEY DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY ......................... 6 

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................... 9 

RÉSUMÉ ............................................................................................. 9 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................... 10 

1.  Introduction ............................................................................................ 14 
14 
14 

Summary of the methodology for the mission area review 

Scope and aim of the report. 

2.  Mission area: adaptation to climate change, including societal 

transformation. ....................................................................................... 17 
17 
24 

The scope and definition of the mission area 

Review of the mission area 

2.2.1. 

2.2.2. 

The role of R&I in addressing the challenges faced by regions and 
local communities 

Developments influencing the mission area 

Tackling climate change adaptation: insights from Japan and 
Iceland 

Key lessons from the review of the mission area 

24 
26 

27 
32 

Review of the mission area 

The scope and definition of the mission area 

3.  Mission Area: Cancer ............................................................................. 33 
33 
34 
34 
37 
40 
42 

Key lessons from the review of the mission area 

The role of R&I in addressing the challenges 

Developments influencing the mission area 

Tackling cancer: insights from the USA 

3.2.1. 
3.2.2. 

4.  Mission area: healthy oceans, seas, coastal and inland waters., 

Review of the mission area 

The scope and definition of the mission area 

seas, coastal and inland waters. ........................................................... 44 
44 
44 
47 
49 
53 

Protecting the hydrosphere: insights from international examples 

The role of R&I in addressing the challenges 

Developments influencing the mission area 

4.2.1. 
4.2.2. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key lessons from the review of the mission area 

58 

The scope and definition of the mission area 

5.  Mission area: climate-neutral and smart cities .................................... 59 
59 
59 
60 
62 

The role of R&I in addressing the challenges 

Developments influencing the mission area 

Review of the mission area 

5.2.1. 
5.2.2. 

Boosting climate neutrality of cities: insights from international 
examples 

Key lessons from the review of the mission area 

65 
70 

Review of the mission area 

The scope and definition of the mission area 

6.  Mission area: soil health and food ........................................................ 71 
71 
74 
74 
77 
79 
81 

Restoring soil health: insights from international examples 

Key lessons from the review of the mission area 

The role of R&I in addressing the challenges 

Developments influencing the mission area 

6.2.1. 
6.2.2. 

7.  Conclusions and policy options ............................................................ 82 
82 
88 

Options for the future definition of mission areas 

Cross-cutting findings 

Cancer 

Adaptation to climate change, including societal transformation 

8.  References .............................................................................................. 89 
89 
91 
94 
96 
99 
102 

Healthy Oceans, Seas, Coastal and Inland Waters 

Climate neutral and smart cities 

References for the conclusions 

Soil health and food 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of figures 
Figure 1. Simplified methodological process for the mission areas review. 

Figure 2 Climate change adaptation, maladaptation and mitigation definitions 

Figure 3. Synergies between mitigation and adaptation to climate change 

15 

18 

18 

Figure 4. Comparison of the systems identified by the EU mission board (2020) and 

other international frameworks 

Figure 5. Proposed vision by the mission board 

22 

23 

Figure 6. Examples of expected contributions of R&I to addressing the mission area  25 

Figure 7. Identified main factors or trends influencing the mission area 

Figure 8. Japanese Adaptation Act and Plan 

Figure 9. Expected contribution of R&I to addressing the mission area challenges 

27 

29 

37 

Figure 10. Estimated number of new cases from 2020 to 2040, Males and Females, 

age [0-85+] 

38 

Figure 11. Estimated number of deaths in Europe from 2020 to 2040, both sexes, age 

[0-85+] 

38 

Figure  12.  Identified  factors  or  possible  trends  influencing  the  mission  area  (in 

alphabetical by type of factor) 

Figure 13. The cancer journey 

Figure 14. Specific challenges addressed by the mission area 

40 

43 

47 

Figure 15. Expected contribution of R&I to addressing the mission area challenges  48 

Figure 16. Identified main factors or trends influencing the mission area 

Figure 17. Overview of relevant benchmark mission-type policies 

51 

57 

Figure 18. Expected contribution of R&I to addressing the mission area challenges.  62 

Figure 19. Identified factors or possible trends influencing the mission area 

64 

Figure  20.  Overview  of  mission  policies  and  their  respective  mission  areas  in  EU 

countries 

67 

Figure 21. Overview of related mission policies and their respective mission areas in 

non-EU countries 

Figure 22. Evidence base for the mission area – soil health and food 

69 

73 

4 

 
 
Figure 23. Ecosystem services and SDGs supported by healthy soils 

74 

Figure 24. Expected contribution of R&I to addressing the mission area challenges  76 

Figure 25. Identified factors or possible trends influencing the mission area, in order 

of descending likelihood. 

Figure 26. A mission-oriented innovation cycle 

78 

81 

Figure 27. How well do the five mission areas address the major challenges the EU 

faces? 

Figure 28. The role of R&I in addressing the mission area challenges 

Figure 29. Trends influencing the relevance of the mission areas 

84 

86 

87 

5 

 
 
 
 
KEY DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY 

Abbreviation/Acronym 

Definition 

CAP 

CCA 

CCS 

COP 

CO2 

CSIRO 

C40 

CWA 

DG AGRI 

DG ENER 

DG ENV 

Common Agriculture Policy  

Climate Change Adaptation  

Carbon capture and storage technologies  

United Nations Climate Change Conference 

Carbon dioxide 

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 
Organisation 

Global network of nearly 100 mayors of the world's leading 
cities 

Clean Water Act 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 

Directorate-General for Energy  

Directorate-General for Environment 

DG MARE 

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

DG RTD 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation  

DG SANTE 

Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety 

EAFRD 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

EPA 

EC 

EEA 

Environmental Protection Agency 

European Commission 

European Environmental Agency 

6 

 
 
Abbreviation/Acronym 

Definition 

EHDS 

European Health Data Space  

EIB 

EIT 

EMA 

EP 

EPP 

ESPAS 

EU  

Eurostat 

FAO 

GHG 

ICT 

IEEP 

IPCC 

IPBES 

ITACC 

JRC 

KIC 

KPI 

LIFE  

European Investment Bank 

European Institute of Technology 

European Medicines Agency 

European Parliament 

European People's Party Group 

European Strategy and Policy Analysis System 

European Union 

The statistical office of the European Union 

Food and Agriculture Organisation 

Greenhouse gases 

Information and communication technologies 

Institute for European Environmental Policy 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity 
and Ecosystem Services 

Innovative Technology for Adaptation to Climate Change 

Joint Research Centre  

Knowledge and Innovation Community 

Key performance indicator 

Financial instrument for the environment 

7 

 
 
Abbreviation/Acronym 

Definition 

MOIP 

MS 

NCI 

NGO 

Mission-oriented innovation policies 

Member States 

National Cancer Institute  

Non-governmental organisation 

NWQMS 

National Water Quality Management Strategy 

NCD 

OECD 

R&D 

R&I 

SRIP 

SOC 

SIP 

SDGs 

UN 

Noncommunicable diseases 

Organisation for Economic Development Cooperation  

Research and development 

Research and innovation  

Science, research and innovation performance  

Soil organic carbon sequestration  

Strategic Innovation Promotion Program 

Sustainable Development Goals 

United Nations  

UNESCO 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
Organisation 

UNFCCC 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change  

USPTO 

WHO 

United States Patents Office 

World Health Organisation 

8 

 
 
 
 
ABSTRACT 

This  study  reviews  the  current  and  future  policy  relevance  of  the  five  mission  areas  by 
assessing  the  research  and  innovation  (R&I),  economic,  social  and  environmental  trends 
influencing  each  area.  The  ‘societal  relevance’  of  each  of  the  five  mission  areas  is  not 
contested as they all address complex challenges facing the EU that require action on the 
part of governments, businesses, education and research institutions and civil society. The 
mission  areas  are,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  interlinked  and  the  review  underlines  the 
systemic nature of the challenges and the need for concerted action to optimise synergies in 
implementing missions. The need for sustained R&I investment is evident for all five areas 
with differences in the extent to which weight is given to more ‘research’ (new discoveries) to 
more ‘innovation’ (implementation of existing or novel solutions).  The scope of each area is 
sufficiently broad to stand the test of time to the 2030 horizon addressed by each respective 
mission. The review proposes three policy suggestions on the way in which mission areas 
should be defined and selected and their continuing relevance monitored. 

RÉSUMÉ 

Cette étude examine la pertinence politique actuelle et future des cinq domaines de mission 
en  évaluant  les  tendances  en  matière de  recherche  et  d'innovation  (R&I),  d'économie,  de 
société  et  environnementales  qui  influencent chaque  domaine.  La  pertinence  sociétale  de 
chacun des cinq domaines de mission n'est pas contestée, car ils abordent tous des défis 
complexes  auxquels  l'UE  est  confrontée  et  qui  nécessitent  une  action  de  la  part  des 
gouvernements, des entreprises, des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche et de 
la société civile. Les domaines de mission sont, dans une plus ou moins large mesure, liés 
entre eux et l'analyse souligne la nature systémique des défis et la nécessité d'une action 
concertée pour optimiser les synergies dans la mise en œuvre des missions. La nécessité 
d'un  investissement  soutenu  dans  la  R&I  est  évidente  pour  les  cinq  domaines,  avec  des 
différences  dans  la  mesure  où  l'on  accorde  plus  d'importance  à  la  recherche  (nouvelles 
découvertes)  qu'à  l'innovation  (mise  en  œuvre  de  solutions  existantes  ou  nouvelles).    Le 
champ d'application de chaque domaine est suffisamment large pour résister à l'épreuve du 
temps  jusqu'à  l'horizon  2030  visé  par  chaque  mission  respective.  L'étude  propose  trois 
suggestions sur la manière de définir et de sélectionner les domaines de mission de surveiller 
leur pertinence continue au fil du temps. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This  study  reviews  the  current  and  future  policy  relevance  of  the  five  mission  areas  by 
assessing  the  research  and  innovation  (R&I),  economic,  social  and  environmental  trends 
influencing  each  area.    The  five  mission  areas,  approved  by  the  European  Council  and 
European  Parliament  in  the  2021  Horizon  Europe  Regulation,  are:  adaptation  to  climate 
change, including societal transformation; cancer; healthy oceans, seas, coastal and inland 
waters; climate-neutral and smart cities; soil health and food. The review is based on data 
and  information  collected  through  a  literature  review  and  desk  research  as  well  the 
consultation of targeted stakeholders and resources available to the study team. 

MISSION  AREA:  ADAPTATION  TO  CLIMATE  CHANGE, 
TRANSFORMATION. 

INCLUDING  SOCIETAL 

The  mission  area  is  anchored  in  a  set  of  overarching  EU  policies  and  commitments 
responding to anthropogenic induced climate change. 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.  Climate  change  adaptation  (CCA)  is  a 
relatively newer subject than climate change mitigation. The mission area is timely as it helps 
place  adaptation  at  the  top  of  (notably,  local  and  regional)  policy  agendas.  The  trend  in 
climate-related economic losses is worsening, while the commitment to climate actions by 
local authorities is growing. This reinforces the relevance of the mission without a need for a 
re-definition of the mission area.  

R&I is required to produce new evidence tailored to the needs of regional and local actors as 
a basis for more effective CCA policies including addressing knowledge gaps that can pave 
the way for more systemic adaptation. Equally important is improved knowledge on the costs 
and  benefits  from  investing  in  CCA  measures.  Moreover,  no  standardised  approach  to 
measuring climate resilience has emerged. Finally, inputs from social and political sciences 
on effective and inclusive governance models for adaptation are required to open room for 
wider participation of citizens. Such R&I efforts require a transdisciplinary approach. 

Compared to international comparators (Japan and Iceland), the CCA scope has a similarly 
broad coverage of key systems, however economic sectors are focused on more explicitly 
as  is  the  incorporation  of  businesses  as  a  target  group.  Enhanced  synergies  between 
mitigation  and  adaptation  are an  explicit  orientation  in  the  Icelandic  plan,  a  feature  that  is 
more implicit in the both the EU’s mission and mission area. Exploiting synergies between 
adaptation and mitigation efforts may help to achieve climate resilience more effectively. 

MISSION AREA: CANCER 

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in Europe and a growing challenge. While there 
is a slight reduction in mortality due to screening campaigns and improved diagnostics and 
treatment, the number of diagnosed cases will increase by 25% by 2035 if no action is taken.  
R&I  plays  a  fundamental  role  in  addressing  challenges  along  the  whole  cancer  control 
pathway,  from  prevention  to  end-of-life  care  or  survivorship,  and  for  improving  cancer 
outcomes. Europe is a global leader in cancer discovery science but more effort to investigate 
certain  types  of  cancer  is  required.    Many  types  of  cancer  can  be  prevented,  yet  cancer 
prevention  research  is  not  sufficiently  funded.  Moreover,  the  ability  to  convert  research 
discoveries  into  therapeutic  innovations  is  hindered  by  regulatory  and  implementation 
constraints, and scale-up challenges. There is a need for more interdisciplinarity and for a 
greater emphasis on demographic (e.g. the impact of an ageing population), geographical 

10 

 
 
and social dimensions (e.g. non communicable diseases such as obesity which are a major 
cause of cancer) of cancer and on access to prevention and care. 

The mission area should cover the entire cancer care pathway, which implies a mission area 
scope much wider than medical R&D. Patient education, communication and trust in health 
systems  continue  to  represent  major  barriers  to  cancer  screening  and  to  controlling  the 
disease and data collection. Hence, prevention, treatment and care require well-functioning 
and resilient health care systems in all EU countries and regions. This finding is in line with 
international comparators, such as the US Cancer Moonshot 2.0, which have moved away 
from a technoscientific to a socio-cultural approach involving citizens and patients. 

The mission area’s definition is focused (i.e. targeting cancer is concrete and targeted) but 
still wide enough (i.e. cancer is not one disease but a disease with multiple forms and types). 
Pressures  to  deal  with  cancer  are  not  going  away  and,  in  the  short  to  medium  term,  it  is 
unlikely that scientific breakthroughs will make the mission area less relevant. 

MISSION AREA: HEALTHY OCEANS, SEAS, COASTAL AND INLAND WATERS. 

Oceans,  seas,  coastal  and  inland  waters  form  the  water-cycle  continuum,  on  which  all 
planetary forms of life depend upon. The hydrosphere is a climate regulator, dominating the 
planetary carbon, water and heat budgets: oceans and waters influence climate and weather 
patterns, provide us with drinking water and protein food. In addition, the planetary waters 
are  also  a  place  of  recreation,  trade  and  connectivity  for  humans.  The  hydrosphere  is, 
however,  seriously  endangered.  As  a  result  of  unsustainable  greenhouse  gas  emissions 
(GHGs), emission of land and water based pollutants, and of 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 
population, in terms of food availability, of drinking-water resources, of resilience to extreme 
weather conditions and even of tourism, ultimately affecting human well-being. 

The mission area is a multidimensional space influenced by varied external factors, such as 
environmental  conditions,  ecological  stressors,  societal  approaches,  political  governance, 
and  management.  A  series  of  studies  have  demonstrated  the  state  of  degradation  of  the 
water continuum, and provided evidence to define the ocean, seas, and coastal and inland 
waters  as  an  area  for  urgent  and  unabated  policy  attention  and  for  R&I  actions. 
Understanding the complexity of the interconnections between the water system’s health, the 
climate,  biodiversity  and  food  provision,  is  fundamental  to  developing  the  required  flexible 
capacity  to  manage  challenges  simultaneously,  in  a  systemic  perspective.  R&I  on  the 
interdependencies between 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 in this mission area. The 
novel dimension of ocean ethics should be better highlighted to produce a cultural shift and 
behavioural  change  at  the  individual  level,  regarding  the  impact  of  human  activity  on  the 
hydrosphere.  The  use  of  digital  technologies  for  representing  and  managing  the  water 
continuum  are also  a  rather  novel  element  for R&I  action,  which  would  support  a  modern 
ocean governance and management system.  

The  review  of  approaches  to  addressing  ocean  and  waters  challenges  in  other  countries 
suggests  a  more  targeted  approach  to  improve  water  management  practices,  reduce 
pollutants  (e.g.  plastics)  or  protect  marine  environments.  A  fully-fledged  mission-oriented 
innovation policy does not appear to have been adopted, even if there is a shift towards such 
an approach.  The pioneering nature of the mission in this area is evident. 

11 

 
 
 
 
MISSION AREA: CLIMATE-NEUTRAL AND SMART CITIES. 

The mission area climate-neutral and smart cities is tightly linked to the aim of achieving a 
climate-neutral economy in Europe by 2050 and the green and digital ‘twin transition’. The 
mission area is builds on previous cross-national city initiatives for climate action.  Cities can 
only achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) through deep decarbonisation and 
systemic transformation.  The mission area scope addresses sustainable development goals 
(SDGs)  11  (sustainable  cities  and  communities)  and  13  (climate  action)  and  significant 
societal  challenges  in  domains  such  as  mobility  and  transport,  urban  greening,  energy 
provisioning, and buildings. 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.  However, the mission area 
conveys  a  rather  technocratic,  ‘smart’  vision,  which  may  weaken  efforts  towards  citizen 
engagement  and  stakeholders,  when  communicating  emphasise  instead  the  mission’s 
contribution to ‘green’ and ‘healthy’ cities. 

There are a substantial R&I needs for climate-neutral cities. However, R&I alone is insufficient 
and  the  main  challenge  for cities in  transitioning  to  climate  neutrality  is  in  implementation. 
While R&I on digital technological and systems are important, the urban transition to climate 
neutrality requires innovations in social, creative, organisational, and financial dimensions. 
This highlights the need to consider non-technological innovations and the important role of 
citizen  science  and  participatory  R&I,  before  and  during  implementation.  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 have intensified. Europe has 
moved even away from the trajectories needed to comply with its climate targets in critical 
domains linked to urban development.  In short, European cities which have become more 
vulnerable  to  transnational  and  global  trends,  while  increasingly  lacking  the  financial 
capacities to push forward a climate neutral transformation process. 

Most  mission-oriented  innovation  policies  in  other  countries  target  industries  rather  than 
cities,  adopting  a  sectoral  approach  rather  than  a  holistic,  placed-based  innovation  focus. 
Moreover, other missions place greater emphasis on the development of new technologies 
and demonstration of tangible, industrially scalable outcomes. The mission area requires a 
demanding  mission-oriented  innovation  policy  of  a  transformative  type,  implying  major 
changes in everyday life, governance, and business practices.  

MISSION AREA: SOIL HEALTH AND FOOD. 

The environmental and societal consequences of deteriorating soil health conditions  put at 
risk the continued capacity of soils to support ecosystem services such as nutritious and safe 
food,  storing  and  purifying  water,  capturing  carbon  from  the  atmosphere,  nutrient  cycling 
supporting  crop  productivity,  preserving  and  protecting  biodiversity  by  preserving  habitats 
both above and within the soil and supporting the quality of landscapes and greening of towns 
and  cities.  The  choice  of  soil  health  and  food  fits  the  imperatives  of  mission-oriented 
innovation policy to tackle societal challenges, contributing notably to SDG 2 (zero hunger), 
SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 13 (climate action) and SDG 15 (life on land). A 
second  rationale  is  the  natural  capital  dimension  for  which  there  has  been  relatively  little 
policy progress in the EU. Current soil management practices mean that 60-70% of EU soils 
are unhealthy, with a further percentage of unhealthy soils due to poorly quantified pollution 
issues. A healthy soil goal 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. 

12 

 
 
R&I is a core mechanism to mitigate soil pollution and promote soil conservation measures 
is essential to support CCA. R&I activity in agriculture and food is significant, with trends such 
as precision agriculture and the implementation of digital technologies in farming. However, 
R&I in agriculture, urban soils and forestry should take account of the practices supporting 
the  adoption  of  new  technologies  and  practices.  Research  on  the  factors  influencing  the 
adoption of innovations such as climate-smart agriculture practices is required.  

Missions  in  non-EU  countries  address  either  food  related  topics  or  environmental 
sustainability with the combination of issues rare. A common approach of agriculture and soil 
related  missions  in  Australia  and  New  Zealand  is  an  emphasis  on  more  stakeholder 
engagement  and  dialogue  during  both  the  scoping  of  mission  areas  as  well  when 
implementing the corresponding mission. 

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS 

Five overall conclusions are developed based on the review of the five mission areas: 

•  The  ‘societal  relevance’  of  the  five  mission  areas  is  not  contested  as  they  address 
complex  challenges  facing  the  EU  that  require  action  on  the  part  of  governments, 
businesses, education and research institutions and civil society.  

•  The mission areas are, to a greater or less extent, interlinked and the review underlines 
the systemic nature of the challenges they address and the need for concerted action to 
optimise synergies in implementing missions. 

•  The need for sustained R&I investment is evident for all five areas with differences in the 
extent to which weight is given to more ‘research’ (new discoveries) to more ‘innovation’ 
(implementation of existing or novel solutions).   

•  There is a need in all the mission areas for an increased focus on interdisciplinary R&I 
including a greater integration of social science and humanities. This includes R&I on 
inclusive governance and encouraging adoption of solutions by specific user groups. 

•  The scope of each area is sufficiently broad to stand the test of time to the 2030 horizon 

addressed by each respective mission.   

POLICY SUGGESTIONS 

Three suggestions are made: 

•  Define  mission  areas  based  on  an  objective  evidence-base  (including  assessment  of 
mega  trends,  foresight,  etc.)  and  agree  on  criteria  and  the  procedure  for  ranking 
alternative mission areas, giving sufficient time and means for citizens to propose ideas 
that feed into a high-level policy debate and final decision. 

•  The  definition  and  selection  of  mission  areas  requires  a  deeper  understanding  of  the 

social factors driving or hindering change and the social innovations required. 

•  There should be a structured and on-going process of updating and anticipating the key 
trends  and  factors  influencing  the  five  mission  areas  (and  pre-identification  of  future 
mission areas), for instance by making use of R&I foresight, citizen engagement, etc. 

13 

 
 
1.  Introduction 

1.1.  Scope and aim of the report. 

In  November  2022,  the  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation  (DG  RTD) 
commissioned a study supporting an assessment of the EU Missions, the review of mission 
areas and the analysis of the missions’ portfolio of instruments and actions. The five mission 
areas, approved by the European Council and European Parliament by the adoption of the 
Horizon Europe Regulation1, are: 

1.  Adaptation to Climate Change, including Societal Transformation. 

2.  Cancer. 

3.  Healthy Oceans, Seas, Coastal and Inland Waters. 

4.  Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities. 

5.  Soil Health and Food. 

Based on these areas, five EU missions have been designed and launched, namely: 

•  Adaptation to Climate Change: Support at least 150 European regions and communities 

to become climate resilient by 2030 

•  Cancer: 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 

•  Restore our Ocean and Waters by 2030 

• 

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. 

This report compiles the findings of the review of the five mission areas. Following this 
introductory section, which provides a short summary of the methodology used, the report is 
structured in five main sections, one for each of the mission areas followed by a final section 
setting out the cross-cutting conclusions. 

1.2.  Summary of the methodology for the mission area review 

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: 

1 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 

14 

 
 
•  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? 

•  To what extent does the definition of the mission areas align with or differ from those of 
mission-oriented innovation policies (MOIP) in countries beyond the EU (e.g. Japan, the 
USA, etc.)? What insights does this provide for the missions? 

The  review  process,  as  illustrated  in  Figure  1,  was  structured  around  a  set  of  analytical 
methods. 

Desk 
research & 
literature 
review

Review of 
relevant 
statistical 
data

Interviews 
and survey 
responses

Draft 
mission 
area 
review

Policy 
workshop 
per mission 
(area)

Revised 
chapters per 
mission  area 
and cross-
cutting 
conclusions

Analytical phase

Consolidation of evidence 
and feedback

Final report

Figure 1. Simplified methodological process for the mission areas review. 

Source: own elaboration 

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. The full literature review is available as an annex to 
the final report. 

•  Evidence from desk research covering technical (e.g. foresight, R&I 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 and trends impacting the 
mission areas have been gathered from a broad range of stakeholders through: 

15 

 
 
•  63 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); 

• 

342 responses to the survey that included questions addressing the relevance and scope 
and opportunities for respondents to provide written comments; 

• 

132 participants to five online policy workshops held during the week of 11 April 2023. 

The  quantitative  and  qualitative  data  and  evidence  collected  has  been  triangulated2  (for 
instance opinions of interviewees, survey participants’ replies to open questions, or workshop 
participants are linked, wherever possible, to the studied academic literature, grey literature 
and/or relevant statistical data or other quantitative evidence) to provide as strong and robust 
an evidence base as possible for the review. A fuller explanation of the methodology for the 
entire  study  and  relevant  annexes  (such  as  the  literature  review,  survey  results,  etc.)  is 
available in the overall final study report. 

The chapters of the report have been produced, under the guidance of Alasdair Reid, by: 

•  Claire Nauwelaers and Céline Phillips - Adaptation to Climate Change, including Societal 

Transformation. 

•  Jelena Angelis & Ebba Hallersjö - Cancer. 

• 

Ilaria Nardello & Elina Griniece - Healthy Oceans, Seas, Coastal and Inland Waters. 

•  Harald Wieser & Peter Kaufmann - Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities. 

•  Matthijs Janssen - Soil Health and Food. 

2    Methodological  triangulation  involves  using  more  than  one  kind  of  method  to  study  a  research  question  or 
hypothesis.  It  has  been  found  to  be  beneficial  in  providing  confirmation  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  findings, 
increased validity and enhanced understanding of studied questions. 

16 

 
 
2.  Mission area: adaptation to climate change, including societal 

transformation. 

2.1. 

The scope and definition of the mission area 

Initially,  the  European  Council  selected  two  topics,  climate  change  adaptation  (CCA)  and 
societal  transformation  that  were  merged  into  a  single  topic  on  which  the  mission  board 
worked. In the 2020 mission board proposal, ‘societal transformation’ was dropped and when 
the mission was launched in 2021 ‘Adaptation to Climate Change’ was retained as a title fit 
for communication purposes (‘societal transformation’ being judged as too vague). 

The mission area is anchored in a set of EU policies. Firstly, adaptation is enshrined in 
the Paris Agreement3 to which the EU is committed (UNFCCC, 2015). Secondly, the mission 
area is in line with the second EU Adaptation Strategy (EC, 2021c)4 with the European Green 
Deal as an overarching strategic umbrella (EC, 2019). Thirdly, Article 5 of the 2021 European 
Climate  Law5  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.”   

Most recently, the 2022 IPCC report, prepared by 700 scientists from 91 countries underlines 
the  relevance  and  urgency  of  a  mission  area  devoted  to  climate  change  adaptation 
(CCA):  “Despite  progress,  adaptation  gaps  exist  between  current  levels  of  adaptation  and 
levels  needed  to  respond  to  impacts  and  reduce  climate  risks  (high  confidence).  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 (high confidence)” (IPCC, 2022).  

By  focusing  on  a  challenge  that  is  highly  timely  and  urgent,  the  mission  area fits  with  the 
overall expectations set for the mission to “support Europe’s transformation into a greener, 
healthier, more inclusive 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). 

Adaptation means anticipating the adverse effects of climate change and taking appropriate 
action to prevent or minimise the damage they can cause or taking advantage of opportunities 
that may arise. Examples of adaptation measures include nature-based solutions to protect 
flooding, large-scale changes, such as making critical infrastructure climate resilient against 
sea-level  rise,  as  well  behavioural  shifts,  such  as  individuals  reducing  their  water 

3 Article 2.1 sets the goal of increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate 
resilience  and  article  7  sets  a  goal  of  enhancing  adaptive  capacity,  strengthening  resilience  and  reducing 
vulnerabilities to climate change. 
4 Except for its component of international action. 
5  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. 

17 

 
 
consumption. In essence, adaptation can be understood as the process of adjusting to the 
current and future effects of climate change. 

Mitigation means making the impacts of climate change less severe by preventing or reducing 
the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere. Mitigation is achieved either 
by reducing the sources of these gases — e.g. by increasing the share of renewable energies 
or establishing a cleaner mobility system — or by enhancing the storage of these gases — 
e.g. by increasing the size of forests. In short, mitigation is a human intervention that reduces 
the sources of GHG emissions and/or enhances the sinks. 

Maladaptation  means  actions  that  may  lead  to  increased  risk  of  adverse  climate-related 
outcomes, including via increased  greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, increased or shifted 
vulnerability to climate change, more inequitable outcomes, or diminished welfare, now or in 
the future. Most often, maladaptation is an unintended consequence. 

Figure 2 Climate change adaptation, maladaptation and mitigation definitions 

Sources: adaptation and mitigation: European Environmental Agency6; maladaptation: (IPCC, 2022) 

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 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 – see figure below (OECD, 2021a). 

Figure 3. Synergies between mitigation and adaptation to climate change 

Source: (OECD, 2021a) 

The CCA topic is a very relevant one for a mission: the urgency to be prepared for climate 
change  is  there,  the  IPCC is  certain,  and some  projections  are apocalyptic!  Awareness  is 
growing but it is not sufficient. The need to act and look ‘beyond averages’ must be forcefully 
pushed.  Hence  the  choice  of  this  topic  for  the  mission  is  absolutely  timely  and  relevant. 

6 https://www.eea.europa.eu/help/faq/what-is-the-difference-between 

18 

 
 
 
Mitigation  and  adaptation  go  hand  in  hand:  hence  there  is  the  crucial  need  for  heavily 
supporting efforts to CCA” (an interviewee). 

Climate  change  adaptation  and  mitigation  policies  have  been  to  a  large  extent  separately 
addressed in the past, and there are good reasons for distinct policies: 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 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.  

As a result, distinct stakeholders have been involved in the implementation of adaptation and 
mitigation policies (Denton et al., 2014) (UNFCCC, 2020). 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  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, 2021a). 

Analysis of United States Patents Office (USPTO) patents shows that, “from a technological 
perspective, climate change mitigation and adaptation are complements: on average, 26% 
of adaptation technologies also help in mitigation. […] Well-designed policy may exploit and 
strengthen  these  complementarities  to  ensure that  climate  change  technologies  serve  the 
twin  goals  of  adaptation  and  mitigation”  (Hötte  and  Jee,  2022).  However,  the  patenting  of 
technologies  supporting  adaptation  did  not  grow  much  over  the  past  decades  and  their 
development rate has started picking up only very recently. Public support might be vital 
in further promoting this trend especially for science-intensive technologies, as private 
sector  incentives  to  engage  in  basic  research  are  currently  low,  especially  in  contexts 
characterised by high levels of uncertainty in policy approach (Kyaw, 2022) and despite their 
pivotal  role  in  producing  eco-innovations  (Fagerberg,  2018;  Popp,  2017).  However,  even 
public  agents  such  as  universities  deserve  attention  in  light  of  the  current  reframing  of 
innovation  policy  agendas  addressing  complex  challenges  such  as  adaptation  to  climate 
change (Ghosh et al., 2022; Parker and Lundgren, 2022; Fagerberg, 2018). Building closer 
linkages between mitigation and adaptation efforts is advocated both by IPCC and OECD:  

• 

• 

“Strengthening linkages between climate change adaptation and mitigation policies can 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of actions in support of a low-carbon, climate-
resilient economic development.” (OECD, 2021a). 

“Pathways for advancing climate resilient development are development trajectories that 
successfully  integrate  mitigation  and  adaptation  actions  to  advance  sustainable 
development” (IPCC, 2022). 

19 

 
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  CCA-
relevant projects (EC, 2021b). The foresight exercise was meant to complement the mission 
boards’ deep and wide-ranging expertise by exploring longer-term time horizons, up to and 
beyond  the  year  2050.  Building  on  existing  future-oriented  work,  the  project  employed 
dedicated  foresight  methods,  in  particular  workshops  and  a  Delphi  survey,  to  explore  this 
time horizon in a systematic manner, and involving experts and stakeholders. 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, in line recent research findings, 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. 

Adapting to climate change is a complex and pervasive challenge requiring a systemic 
approach 

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).  The  scientific 
community agrees that the process of mitigation and adaptation will not succeed or will be 
hampered  if  policy  responses  are  not  mainstreamed  across  policy  areas  such  as  critical 
infrastructures or ocean resources management. For example, adapting to climate change 
requires  massive  societal  transformations  that  cannot  happen  without  an  integrated 
intervention in infrastructures. Despite the tendency to consider one infrastructure at a time 
and  intervene  on  it  in isolation  from  others,  practices  and  social  arrangements  depend  on 
constellations of intersecting infrastructures (Cass et al., 2018), which need to be rethought 
at  the  system  level  in  order  to  support  change.  Actions  that  are  taken  in  one  sector  or 
intervention area without taking into consideration indirect impacts on other areas can lead 
to  maladaptation:  “maladaptation  can  be  avoided  by  flexible,  multi-sectoral,  inclusive  and 
long-term planning and implementation of adaptation actions with benefits to many sectors 
and systems (high confidence)” (IPCC, 2022). 

“Transformative adaptation is going to come to the fore in the future: small measures work in 
the  short  term  but  they  are  insufficient  in  the  long  term.  More  fundamental  changes  are 
needed, structural changes and shifts affecting citizens’ life. What is needed is to prepare for 
changes,  not  reacting  ex  post.  Attention  to  transformational  adaptation  is  nascent:  this  is 
where the mission can help.” (an interviewee) 

20 

 
The  mission’s  board  scope  definition  rightly  emphasises  the  interlinkages  between  five 
interdependent key community systems for which ‘transformative pathways’ are needed: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

regenerating community and social infrastructure; 

protecting human health and wellbeing; 

restoring nature, biodiversity and ecosystems services; 

rethinking water management; 

reviving landscapes and sustainable food systems, 

and four ‘enabling conditions’ 

• 

• 

• 

facilitating inclusive and deliberative governance processes for just transitions; 

providing access to data, knowledge, and digital services; 

strengthening  education,  communication  and  a  better  understanding  of  behavioural 
change; 

• 

strengthening sustainable and circular local economies; mobilising funds and resources. 

Figure  4  indicates  that  the mission’s  community systems  approach  matches  closely  those 
identified by other initiatives, namely:  the Regions Adapt initiative7 (launched in 2002), the 
IPCC’s scientific communities (2022), the Global Commission on Adaptation (2019) and the 
OECD (2021).  The experts interviewed agreed that the scope of the mission is well suited 
to address the challenges of climate change adaptation.  

EU Mission 
Board 

Regions Adapt initiative 

IPCC 

OECD 

Global 
Commission 
on 
Adaptation 

Regenerating 
community 
and social 
infrastructure 

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 

Cities, 
settlements 
and key 
infrastructure 

Cities and 
urban areas; 
infrastructure; 
finance 

Infrastructure 

Health, 
wellbeing and 
the changing 
structure of 
communities; 
poverty, 
livelihoods 
and 

disaster risk 
management 

Development 
co-operation; 
losses and 
damages 
from climate 
change 

7 https://regions4.org  

21 

 
 
EU Mission 
Board 

Regions Adapt initiative 

IPCC 

OECD 

Global 
Commission 
on 
Adaptation 

Forestry, protected areas 
and biodiversity 

sustainable 
development 

Terrestrial and 
freshwater 
ecosystems 
and their 
services; 
oceans and 
coastal 
ecosystems 
and their 
services 

Natural 
environment 

Water resources and 
management 

Water 

Water 

Biodiversity; 
nature-based 
solutions for 
climate 
resilience 

Water - sea 
level rise and 
coastal 
climate risks 

Agriculture and zootechnics 

Food, fibre 
and other 
ecosystem 
products 

Food security 

Agriculture 

Restoring 
nature, 
biodiversity 
and 
ecosystems 
services 

Rethinking 
water 
management 

Reviving 
landscapes 
and 
sustainable 
food systems 

Figure 4. Comparison of the systems identified by the EU mission board (2020) and other international frameworks  

Source: author based on cited references on top of the columns 

The mission board placed an emphasis on the same enabling conditions as the IPCC (2022), 
but  also  identified  the  need  to:  strengthen  education,  communication  and  have  a  better 
understanding of behavioural change; strengthen sustainable and circular local economies. 

“The mission scope definition is fine, it is broad: you can’t go wrong with this definition.” 

 “The scope of the mission is wide enough to encompass the various types of climate risks; 
the definition of intervention areas and enabling factors is also wide enough and flexible to 
accommodate needs for various types of territories.”  

“The definition and scope of CCA adopted by the mission is good. There are 100 ways to 
elaborate on the scope, which differ only slightly from each other: the one of the mission is 
as  good  as  many  others.  It  is  understandable  and  carries  a  time  perspective.  It  is  also 
sufficiently  broad  to  accommodate  for  upcoming  possible  changes  in  CCA  challenges.” 
(quotes from interviewees) 

Territorial cohesion should be at the forefront of adapting to climate change 

The mission board’s proposal placed an emphasis on the diversity in vulnerability, climate 
risks,  response  capacity  and  level  of  preparedness  across  EU  territories.  As  Feyen  et  al. 
(2020) note “the burden of climate change shows a clear north-south divide, with southern 
regions in Europe much more impacted, through the effects of extreme heat, water scarcity, 
drought,  forest  fires  and  agriculture  losses”.  The  mission  board  advocated  a  balanced 

22 

 
improvement in resilience ‘leaving no territory behind’, thus incorporating the ‘just’ dimension 
in the overall mission vision. The board proposed “a twinning mechanism bringing together 
innovation leaders and more modest performers” (EC, 2020). The understanding that climate 
change impacts cross 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. 

“There is a solidarity dimension in CCA: territories are not competing against each other (in 
contrast with mitigation for which there are important markets and competing players); to the 
contrary everybody is in the same CCA boat and if some territories are not adapting, it creates 
problems for the others, e.g. in terms of trade disruption.” (interviewee) 

“The state of preparation with respect to CCA differs a lot across EU regions/localities. This 
is well taken into account in a mission goal definition that is expressed in relative terms, i.e. 
being better prepared than it would have been the case without the mission.” (interviewee) 

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). 

In  a  world  of  increasing  and  mutually  reinforcing  climate  disruptions  and  socio-economic  and 
environmental  challenges,  the  vision  of  this  mission  is  to  turn  the  urgent  challenge  of  adapting  to 
climate change into an opportunity to make Europe resilient, climate-prepared and just. 

Figure 5. Proposed vision by the mission board  

Source: (EC, 2020), emphasis added  

CCA efforts need to be stepped up by drastically emphasising the costs of non-action 

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. Although 
the  demonstration  of  cost-benefits  ratio  and  the  costs  of  non-action  is  far  from  easy  to 
articulate,  such  a  point  of  departure  concurs  with  recent  EIB  statements:  “adaptation 
investment needs in the EU are estimated to range between EUR 35 billion and 500 billion 
annually, the large variation reflecting different underlying assumptions and methodological 
approaches.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  estimated  that  exposing  the  EU  economy  to  global 
warming of 3°C above pre-industrial levels could result in an annual loss of at least EUR 170 
billion (1.36% of EU GDP). Losses are distributed unevenly, raising particular concerns on 
vulnerable  groups,  coastal  areas  and  regions  that  may  already  face  challenges  due  to 
unemployment and low economic growth” (EIB, 2021). 

23 

 
 
 
2.2.  Review of the mission area  

2.2.1.  The role of R&I in addressing the challenges faced by regions and local 

communities 

Regions and local communities face multiple challenges to address CCA: understanding the 
current status and projections of the impacts of climate change for their territories; quantifying 
what is required to be resilient at a given moment in time; identifying transformative solutions; 
overcoming  the  barriers  to  political  engagement  for  long-term  adaptation  pathways  and 
assessing achievements. R&I can contribute to address all these challenges. 

Scientific and research efforts are needed to produce new robust evidence tailored to 
the needs of regional and local authorities as a basis for more effective CCA policies 
in the form of: “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). 

Scientific research efforts have mainly adopted sector-specific or region-specific approaches. 
The  literature  emphasises  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, 2022). According to Hötte 
and Jee (2022), examples of this can be found in climate-smart agriculture, which could help 
communities  in  adapting  to  environmental  threats,  or  new  drugs  and  vaccines  to  protect 
citizens  against  new  viruses  or  diseases  brought  by  fast  changing  climate  conditions. 
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. droughts) (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). Hence new research is needed to fuel the mission with more 
elaborated evidence related to knowledge gaps on complex issues: “Knowledge gaps 
related  to  non-climatic  factors,  cross-border  and  international  climate  risks,  cross-sectoral 
interactions and complex, compound and cascading risks tend to persist. Addressing these 
knowledge gaps is needed to pave the way for more systemic adaptation” (EEA, 2022). 

Equally important as new knowledge on current and future climate change, risks and impacts, 
is  improved  knowledge  on  costs  and  benefits  from  investing  in  climate  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. 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 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 mission, with an important role given to R&I, is timely and responds to a gap in knowledge 
necessary to respond to the societal challenge it addresses at regional and local levels. 

24 

 
Specific Challenge 

Expected contribution of R&I 

Limited awareness and low sense of urgency of the 
need to adapt to the impacts of climate change in 
addition to mitigation 

Insufficient political commitment towards CCA 

Underdeveloped  evidence  in  the  form  of  space-
based  information  on  current  and  future  climate-
related hazards, vulnerabilities and risks 

Developing new knowledge to understand and 
measure  socio-economic  and  environmental 
impacts  of  adaptation  (territorial  resilience) 
and  relate  them  with  costs  in  investing  in 
adaptation  to  demonstrate  the  cost  of  non-
action. 

Developing action research to identify barriers 
and  solutions  for  political  engagement  in 
adaptation strategies and action 

that 

“more  and  better  data  and 
Developing 
statistics 
accurate, 
timely, 
disaggregated,  people-centred,  accessible 
and  user-friendly  also  for  audiences  with 
limited technical capacities” (EC, 2020). 

are 

Weak  capacity of  local and  regional  authorities  to 
access and use policy-relevant evidence 

Need for adequate governance to develop visions 
and transformative pathways to resilience 

Developing action research to identify barriers 
and solutions for regional and local authorities 
to  design  and 
implement  effective  and 
prospective CCA strategies. 

Fragmentation  and  unnecessary  duplication  of 
adaptation solutions 

R&I activities on new adaptation solutions and 
models8. 

Lack  of  systemic  and  transformative  adaptation 
solutions crossing sectors and adopting longer time 
perspective 

New technologies and societal innovations for 
regional  and  local  uptake  and  deployment  of 
effective  early  warning  and  monitoring 
systems. 

Climate  adaptation  gap:  weak  incorporation  of 
climate-induced risks in investment and insurance 
products 

Development  of 
suitable  models  and 
mechanisms  for  adaptation  finance  and  risk-
transfer mechanisms. 

Figure 6. Examples of expected contributions of R&I to addressing the mission area  

Source: author based on mission board report (EC, 2020), foresight report for the mission board (EC, 2021b) and studies by 
EEA and IPCC 

8  Such  as:  nature-based  solutions  for  adaptation  and  restoration  of  ecosystems  towards  resilience;  solutions 
addressing vulnerabilities and risks in coastal areas; new models of resilient agricultural systems; new models and 
solutions for sustainable and climate-resilient fishery; innovation for sustainability and adaptation of tourism; R&I for 
climate proofing health systems; expanding the evidence base for climate related health risks and impacts on health 
system (including mental health). 

25 

 
 
 
 
The expected contributions of R&I to the specific challenges covered by the mission are listed 
in Figure 6.  This list should not be considered as exhaustive and includes issues that are 
better tackled at national or EU levels. Four points can be made about the contribution of R&I 
to the mission: 

•  R&I is needed to support the mission’s goal at all TRL levels, from fundamental research 
on the impact of anthropogenic climate change on planet earth towards innovative large-
scale demonstrators for transformative adaptation.  

•  A  broad  mix  of  scientific  disciplines  is  needed  from  earth  and  natural  sciences  to 
engineering, behavioural and political sciences, as well as trans-disciplinarity as a mode 
of conducting research. A variety of sources of knowledge is needed including knowledge 
held by non-research actors such as water agencies or nature conservation bodies, staff 
in the regional and local authorities, citizens, etc. 

•  Action research and programming by the regions and large cities are relevant modalities 

for research to serve the mission’s goal. 

•  The Horizon Europe mission calls projects cannot cover all these needs: the mission has 
to  tap  into  and  link  with  R&I  projects  carried  out  under  other  programmes  of  Horizon 
Europe  (such  as  Cluster  5  under  Pillar  2  which  is  funding  lower  TRL  research  and 
projects on the role of citizens in science) or other sources, and from other programmes 
supporting the development of innovative digital tools (e.g. for early warning systems) or 
business models (for adaptation finance), etc. 

2.2.2.  Developments influencing the mission area 

This section addresses the question of the potential need for change in the definition of the 
mission area, given identified trends. The evidence indicates that the Mission CCA 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.  Interviewees  and  the 
literature  converge  to  confirm  that  the  key  challenges  have  been  well  captured  in  the 
definition of the mission area and its scope. 

“The definition of the mission area is broad enough to stand the test of time, even if there is 
a lot of uncertainty associated to CC and CC impacts.” (an interviewee) 

The  sustainable  development  goals  (SDGs)  are  one  means  to  assess  developments. 
Monitoring of the SDG 13: Climate action9 indicates that the climate-related economic losses 
trend is worsening, while the commitment to climate actions by local authorities is growing. 
The latter point is confirmed in a recent overview by the EEA (EEA, 2022). This is likely to 
reinforce the relevance of the mission without requiring a re-definition of the mission area. 

The mission board carried out work (in 2019 and 2020) to capture recent trends. The only 
new element is the recent IPCC report (IPCC, 2022) which confirms the urgency of climate 
adaptation efforts at global and EU levels (Figure 7): this points to the need to implement the 
mission fast and effectively, rather than engaging in a re-discussion of its scope. 

9 In particular target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters 
in all countries. 

26 

 
 
Type of 
factor/trend 

Short summary of the expected impact of the 
factor/trend 

Frequency  and  severity  of 
occurrence 
extreme 
climatic events 

of 

Occurrence  of  new  hazards 
due 
to  combination  and 
cascading effects of multiple 
risks  

“Widespread, pervasive impacts to ecosystems, people, settlements, 
and  infrastructure  have  resulted  from  observed  increases  in  the 
frequency and intensity of climate and weather extremes, including 
hot extremes on land and in the ocean, heavy precipitation  events, 
drought and fire weather (high confidence). Increasingly since AR5, 
these  observed  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  effectiveness  of 
climate mitigation efforts and 
impacts  

If mitigation efforts are insufficient, systems and territories will have 
reached  hard  limits,  i.e.  points  where  adaptation  efforts  are  not 
effective anymore.  

“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 
mainstreaming adaptation in 
sectoral policies 

Strengthening regulations to incorporate adaptation in infrastructure 
planning,  disaster  emergency  management  procedures,  health 
system configurations, etc. can reveal new needs in terms of R&I and 
support faster and deeper mission delivery. 

Figure 7. Identified main factors or trends influencing the mission area  

Source: author based on cited references  

2.3. 

Tackling  climate  change  adaptation:  insights  from  Japan  and 
Iceland 

The approach to developing bold CCA initiatives in non-EU countries has been surveyed for 
two  countries  with  contrasting  experience:  Japan  and  Iceland.  Japan  has  a  rather  deep 
experience in CCA strategies and is not likely to be heavily influenced by EU approaches, 
due  to  distance  and  differences  in  context.  Iceland  has  been  chosen  as  an  associated 
neighbouring country, a close observer of EU developments and a newcomer to CCA. The 
two countries are likely to have developed their own definition of a CCA ‘mission area’, their 
own vision of key community systems most affected by climate change and view main trends 
from another perspective than EU Member States. 

27 

 
 
The Japanese Climate Change Adaptation Act (2018) and Plan (2021)10, as summarised in 
Figure 8, cover categories similar to the ones included in the EU’s mission scope, with the 
exception of a category “industrial economic activities, people’s lives and urban life”, where 
“conflict  risk  and  other  security  impacts  due  to  climate  change”  is  highlighted  as  climate 
change  impact.  As  with  the  EU  mission,  attention  is  paid  to  the  wide  participation  of 
stakeholders and to the role of local authorities and citizens in CCA, as well as to the provision 
of reliable scientific information combined with support to local governments. In addition, the 
Japanese strategy has an axis on “international action and businesses” with corresponding 
actions  respectively  on  “enhancing  capacity  in  developing  countries”  as  well  as  another 
covering “promotion of climate change adaptation by business operators, etc. and business 
activities contribution to climate change adaptation”.  

Attention to horizontal governance is seen as crucial, as is the case in the EU, with ministries 
and agencies cooperating closely across the ‘seven basic strategies’: the Climate Change 
Promotion  Council,  chaired  and  managed  (secretariat)  by  the  Minister  of  Environment, 
includes  top  officials  from  nine  other  ministries  as  well  as  the  Cabinet  Office,  Cabinet 
Secretariat and Financial Services Agency. 

A climate assessment report describing the status and evolution of climate impacts in key 
sectors is prepared on a 5-yearly basis to provide a policy-relevant evidence base, used for 
the preparation of the successive plans. Monitoring and evaluating progress on adaptation is 
included  in  the  Plan,  with  the  use  of  key  performance  indicators  (KPIs):  a  set  of  37  KPIs 
follows  progress  in  each  sector  covered  by  the  strategy  and  29  other  indicators  follow 
progress  in  the  ‘seven  basic  strategies’  crossing  sectors.  The  Climate  Change  Promotion 
Council oversees the evolution of KPIs collected through the strategy monitoring system. 

While the plan is national, fine-tuned adaptation measures, as well as additional KPIs, have 
been adopted at local level to reflect territorial specificities. Local authorities have adopted 
their ‘local climate change adaptation plans’ and established ‘local climate change adaptation 
centres’  aimed  at  collecting,  organising,  analysing  and  providing  information  on  climate 
change impacts and adaptation at local level. Each region has established a ‘regional climate 
change  adaptation  council’,  a  forum  for  cooperation  between  national  branches  of 
government, local authorities, knowledge centres, businesses and citizens. 

The Japanese Innovative Technology for Adaptation to Climate Change (ITACC) programme 
is  a  mission-oriented  policy  initiative  launched  by  the  Japanese  government  in  2013  to 
promote the development and diffusion of innovative technologies for climate adaptation. The 
programme supports research and development in areas such as disaster prevention and 
mitigation,  water  management,  and  sustainable  agriculture.  It  includes  several  KPIs  to 
measure the programme's effectiveness in achieving its goals, including patents and other 
intellectual property rights obtained, collaborations and partnerships established with industry 
and academia, and technology transfers and commercialisations achieved. 

10 https://www.env.go.jp/content/000081210.pdf  

28 

 
 
Figure 8. Japanese Adaptation Act and Plan  

Source: presentation at OECD fourth meeting of Task force on Climate Change Adaptation11  

11 See: https://www.slideshare.net/OECD_ENV/presentation-fourth-meeting-of-the-task-force-on-climate-change-
adaptation-yuko-yoshida     

29 

 
 
 
To sum up, the Japanese approach to respond to the climate change adaptation challenge 
has the following characteristics: 

• 

• 

• 

as with the EU mission, it is based on broad consultations with scientists, national and 
regional authorities, businesses and the wider public; 

cross-governmental  cooperation 
level 
representatives of various ministries and the Cabinet office joining forces to design and 
follow-up the strategy; 

is  particularly  emphasised,  with 

top 

the regional dimension is seen as important for deploying the strategy, with structures 
established at that level; 

• 

the production of relevant scientific evidence acts a main building block; 

•  monitoring is emphasised with the help of a large range of dedicated indicators. 

Concerning  the  CCA  scope,  the  Japanese  strategy  covers  the  same  elements  as  the  EU 
mission area, with two additions: 

• 

an explicit focus on international action and notably on enhancing capacity in developing 
countries; 

• 

a stronger incorporation of business activities. 

Considering  the  extremely  high  share  of  renewable  energy  in  final  domestic  energy 
consumption12, and an energy production coming almost entirely from renewable geothermal 
and  hydrological sources,  Iceland  may  be  regarded  as an  archetype  of  a ‘green  country’. 
However, while the country has phased out the use of fossil fuels in both electricity production 
and home-heating, there are still challenges on the road to become carbon-neutral by 2040, 
as targeted by the Government’s 2020 Climate Action Plan13.   

Iceland  is  a  latecomer  to  CCA:  climate  mitigation,  notably  through  bold  frontrunner  pilot 
experiments  on  carbon  capture  and  storage,  has  received  more  attention  than  climate 
adaptation until recently. The country adopted a first CCA strategy in 2021 (Iceland Ministry 
of Environment and Natural  Resources, 2021). The strategy was prepared by the Climate 
Council, a forum operational since 2018, which gathers a wide variety of stakeholders. The 
council  prioritised  placing  CCA  on  the  government’s  agenda  and  produced  a  white  paper 
“Preparing for a Better World” to raise attention about CCA. The white paper was open for 
consultation on the government portal. One of the first findings of the council was that there 
is a need to foster the use of knowledge for decisions linked to CCA: discussions between 
scientists and governmental authorities were encouraged through the council’s action. 

Attention to CCA is growing significantly in Iceland after major landslides events due to heavy 
rainfalls  and  ocean  acidification  resulting  in  changes  in  species  in  the  fishing  grounds, 
causing concern for this major national industry. There is a mounting perception that Iceland 
is more vulnerable to climate change than previously thought, and a report is in preparation 

12  Iceland  has  phased  out  the  use  of  fossil  fuels  in  both  electricity  production  and  house-heating,  so  the  share  of 
renewable energy in final domestic energy consumption is close to 100%. 
13 See: www.government.is/library/01-Ministries/Ministry-for-The-
Environment/201004%20Umhverfisraduneytid%20Adgerdaaaetlun%20EN%20V2.pdf  

30 

 
 
to assess the country’s climate vulnerability. The need for a policy-oriented robust evidence 
base  on  CCA  and  its  impacts  is  seen  as  crucial.  Icelandic  stakeholders  acknowledge  the 
need to ensure more impact from research, notably through better rewarding impactful policy-
relevant scientific contributions by academics, such as contributions to IPCC, and reorienting 
research towards ecosystems research. A new national knowledge centre on climate change 
adaptation  has  been  established  recently.  The  new  Icelandic  strategy  on  adaptation  to 
climate change features 10 ‘core values’ and 10 ‘core goals’. In the preface, the Icelandic 
Minister for Environment and Natural Resources highlights a few major orientations: 

• 

• 

• 

“Adaptation measures will never be better than the knowledge they are based on”; 

“We also need to consider mitigation and adaptation co-benefits, since, when they are 
successful, they can be mutually successful”; 

“A key element is that the adaptation of the society to climate change will be just. We 
must make every effort so that vulnerable groups will not be hit harder by the changes 
that are made, and also to always make social justice a guiding principle”; 

• 

“Local governments and businesses play a vital role in shaping adaptation measures”. 

The Icelandic strategy is structured in a series of goals covering 15 categories combining key 
community systems and enabling conditions but does not distinguish between them as the 
EU  mission  does.    These  include:  natural  hazards,  planning,  water  and  sewage,  energy, 
transport, the private sector, fisheries and marine fish farming, agriculture, tourism, insurance 
and 
labour  market  and  social 
infrastructure, coordination of research and information, coordination of efforts to elaborate 
and  implement  measures  and  general  goals  across  societal  structures,  planning,  status 
assessment and general oversight and evaluation of adaptation efforts. 

financial  activities,  public  health,  national 

interest, 

Summing  up,  the  Icelandic  approach  to  responding  to  climate  change  adaptation  has  the 
following main characteristics, broadly matching those of the EU Mission CCA: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

an  emphasis  on  the  critical  importance  of  building  robust  evidence  and  an  adequate 
knowledge  base  to  underpin  ambitious  CCA  strategies  aiming  at  achieving  resilience 
across all sectors of societies; 

the building up of a basis for wide and deep cooperation with stakeholders, including new 
dialogues between scientists and policy-makers; 

an attention to awareness-raising on CCA (as Iceland is only at incipient stage in rolling 
out is new CCA strategy), as in the EU mission which takes into consideration the fact 
that some territories are not yet sufficiently aware nor well prepared on CCA; 

the recognition of a key role for local authorities; 

the need to support the strategy roll-out with indicators, still under development. 

Concerning the scope of CCA, Iceland is aiming at broad coverage of key systems as in the 
EU mission, however key economic sectors of activity (fisheries and tourism) are focused on 
explicitly as is the incorporation of businesses as a target group. Finally, synergies between 
mitigation  and  adaptation  are  indicated  as  one  explicit  orientation  in  the  Icelandic  plan,  a 
feature that is more implicit in the EU mission. 

31 

 
2.4.  Key lessons from the review of the mission area  

There is a large convergence of views, both from interviewees and from literature review, to 
indicate that 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.  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.  

Four features of the mission area are particularly appropriate: 1) a systemic approach, fitting 
the complexity and pervasiveness of climate change impacts, is translated in the choice to 
focus on five interdependent key community systems; 2) its accent on  social justice and 
territorial inclusiveness; 3) the emphasis on the  costs of non-action that goes hand in 
hand with its medium- and long-term perspective enshrined in ‘transformative pathways’; and 
4) an important role given to sub-national authorities. 

The mission area requires the creation and diffusion of a lot of new knowledge, covering the 
the  mission,  highlighting  a  clear  role  for  R&I  to  support 
three  objectives  of 
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); R&I 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 R&I efforts require transdisciplinary approaches.   

Compared  to  other  initiatives  in  climate  change  adaptation  in  Iceland  and  Japan,  the  EU 
mission  appears  to  place  less  emphasis  on  1)  the  business  dimension  and  2) 
international cooperation.  Moreover, the linkages  between mitigation and adaptation 
might possibly be further integrated in the mission, taking notably into account the fact 
that many authorities have common governance bodies and/or common strategies and plans 
covering  the  two  complementary  directions,  and  that  the  search  for  synergies  might  help 
identify  actions  and  initiatives  with  high  co-benefits.  This  is  notably  a  feature  of  the  new 
Icelandic CCA strategy. 

The  quest  for  effective  governance  mechanisms  to  enhance  horizontal  coordination 
across EC DGs, which is part of the EU mission model, matches the willingness of Japanese 
authorities to establish cross-ministerial mechanisms, involving senior people from various 
ministries as well as the cabinet office of the Prime Minister. Another match with an important 
EU  mission  feature  comes  from  Iceland,  a  newcomer  in  CCA,  which  integrates  an 
awareness-raising dimension in its CCA strategy, also prominent in the EU mission. 

32 

 
 
 
3.  Mission Area: Cancer 

3.1. 

The scope and definition of the mission area 

Europeans are living longer and healthier lives, thanks, notably, to big advances in medical 
treatment. However, Europeans are disproportionately affected by cancer,14 which apart from 
wrecking lives and families, places a major pressure on national health systems.  The term 
‘cancer’  covers  more  than  200  diseases  linked  to  the  uncontrolled  growth  and  spread  of 
abnormal body cells that divide uncontrollably and infiltrate and destroy normal body tissue. 

The  discussion  on  cancer  as  a  potential  mission  focus  started  under  Carlos  Moedas, 
Commissioner for Research,  Innovation  and  Science  (2014-2019).  In  2019,  as  part of  the 
European  Parliament  election  campaign  the  European  People's  Party  chairman,  Manfred 
Weber,  proposed  a  “European  Masterplan  to  join  our  forces  to  fight  against  cancer”.  In 
response,  the  new  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  for  2019-2024.  At  the  World  Health 
Summit 2020 President von der Leyen called for a stronger European Health Union.15 This 
was a marked change to the previous position of the Commission which regarded health as 
a national competence. The COVID-19 pandemic underlined that collaboration in addressing 
a  major  health  crisis  is  essential.  Stella  Kyriakides,  the  Health  and  Food  Safety 
Commissioner,  was  tasked  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 (EBCP) and the EU Cancer Mission. 

Although no information is publicly available about what evidence and methods were used to 
define and select the mission area for inclusion in the Horizon Europe Regulation, the choice 
of cancer as a mission area is logical. Cancer is a growing challenge for Europe (EC, DG 
RTD 2020)16. It is the second 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.    In  2020,  there 
were  almost  4  million  new  cases  in  Europe  and  2  million  deaths  (A  Lancet  Oncology 
Commission, 2022). With less than 10% of the world’s population, Europe has close a quarter 
of all cancer cases (Bray et al, 2018). In 2022, the WHO17 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). 
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 and. the number 
of cancer cases is predicted to increase by 25% by 2035 if things stay unchanged.18 

14 See: https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news/cancer-europe-5-things-data-tells-us-2022-01-13_en  
15 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_20_1983  
16 See: https://cancer-code-europe.iarc.fr/index.php/en/about-cancer/what-causes-cancer and https://gco.iarc.fr  
17 WHO, International Agency for Research on Cancer. The global cancer observatory. 
18 The latest information on cancer statistics in the EU can be viewed on the ECIS – European Cancer Information 
System. 

33 

 
 
 
 
3.2.  Review of the mission area 

3.2.1.  The role of R&I in addressing the challenges 

As stated in the 2022 science, research and innovation performance (SRIP) report: “R&I have 
the potential to produce novel solutions in areas like health, …” (EC, 2022, p.5). R&I plays a 
fundamental role in addressing the challenges 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. Many cases of particular types of cancer can be prevented, 
yet  cancer  prevention  research  is  not  sufficiently  funded  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, although the expectations were that when many 
central  and  eastern  European  countries  joined  the  EU  in  2004,  they  would  improve  their 
performance in cancer statistics (incidence, mortality, overall survival). 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). More efforts on the research side needs to be made 
to level the playing field. Moreover, the ability to convert research discovery into therapeutic 
innovation is hindered by regulatory and implementation constraints, 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. 

The EU has long prioritised investments in cancer research in order to improve quality of life. 
Yet,  observations  from  the  literature  presented  in  this  chapter  demonstrate  that  several 
issues  may  still  hamper  the  successful  achievement  of  the  Cancer  Mission.  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.  Interdisciplinarity, 
intended as the collaboration between agents from different scientific disciplines, is believed 
to  stimulate  the  exchange  of  and  creating  knowledge  between  fields  and  create  new 
knowledge at the boundaries (Lyall et al., 2013).  As stressed in Smye and Gatenby (2022), 
“Promotion  of  interdisciplinarity  is  an  increasingly  prominent  element  of  the  strategies 
promoted  by  major  cancer  research  funders—no  aspect  of  cancer  is  entirely  within  the 
domain  of  a  single  specialism”.  Therefore,  big  steps  have  already  been  made  in  terms  of 
interdisciplinarity  and  many  lessons  have  been  learned  from  collaborations  (e.g.  the 
contribution of maths and physics to the study of the growth of mass tumours). Yet, the recent 
improvements delivered by better (and interdisciplinary) cancer research points to the need 
for  even  more  interdisciplinarity.  For  example,  this  is  evident  in  the  ongoing  demographic 

34 

 
changes in cancer research and care.19 While the decline in the mortality rate is a promising 
trend,  it  is  increasing  the  average  age  of  the  population,  and  changing  the  prevalence  of 
specific cancers in different contexts. Older adulthood is associated disproportionally with the 
incidence  of  common  cancers  and  cancer  care  and  screening  systems  need  to  evolve  to 
adapt to take into account these changes. 

from  Sweden  shows 

Geographical proximity among research performers specialising in different fields has many 
frequent 
advantages.  Evidence 
opportunities to interact in planned and unplanned settings, and it supports the development 
of trustful relationships. Partners learn from sharing apparatus, samples and data analyses; 
they learn from observing each other; and they learn by asking questions in the corridor two 
weeks following a seminar, and from being asked such questions” (Rekers & Hansen, 2015). 
This  seems  to  highlight  that  sponsoring  excellence  is  probably  only  partially  effective  an 
approach in dealing with cancer. 

that  proximity:  “…allows 

for 

In  this  respect,  it  is  a  shared  opinion  in  the  recent  literature  that  inequity  of  research  and 
development  (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 especially, but not just, in the USA (Brown et al., 2014; Lor, 2018; Rubino 
et al., 2022; Kalarivayil and Desai, 2020). 

Another relevant issue concerns a 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. Social studies have often focused on how policy can shape the medical domain, fixing 
priorities  and  relevant  fields  of  research,  especially  in  resource  intensive  fields  such  as 
medicine (Cambrosio et al., 2022). Therefore, policy will determine and shape these scientific 
fields.  In  this  respect,  some  researchers  share  concerns  regarding  the  mission-oriented 
approach  gaining  consensus  in  Europe  and  the  US  (The  White  House,  2022),  aiming  at 
reducing cancer mortality (Steward et al., 2023). Even in this case, the authors underline the 
fundamental  necessity  to  match  technoscientific  aspects  to  socio-economic  and  cultural 
changes to achieve these goals. Cancer policy design should be based on the consultation 
of  a  wide  audience  of  physicians,  sociologists,  behavioural  experts  and  also  the  general 
public. In the framework of the transformative innovation literature, the authors propose “that 
a network model of systemic innovation should be initiated for ongoing iterations of cancer 
policies, with strong interactions within a broader group of experts who will not only define 
policy goals but also address their modes of implementation” (Steward et al., 2023). This is 
envisaged in the governance of the Cancer Mission (as discussed in the Mission Assessment 
Report).  

Moreover, healthcare research in fields such as cancer is shifting towards a much greater 
reliance  on  biotechnology,  nanomedicine  and  bioinformatics.  These  changes  are  bringing 
great scientific advancements but have the downside of polarising research focus towards 
specific  types  of  cancer  and  limiting  the  international  contribution  of  researchers  in  lower 
income countries (Kalarivayil & Desai, 2020). In other words, research in rich countries will 
concentrate on these types of cancer most affecting their citizens, limiting the collaboration 

19 https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/research-emphasis/supplement/cancer-and-aging 

35 

 
 
opportunities with those researchers from developing countries investigating other types of 
cancer and still using more established methodologies and approaches. This is particularly 
worrying if the current negative relationship between cancer mortality rates and educational 
and economic levels, even in countries with a long-established tradition of equitable welfare 
and social justice, is considered (Frederiksen et al., 2022). 

Screening and prevention remain big challenges in controlling cancer in Europe as in other 
contexts  such  as  the  USA  (Reihani  et  al.,  2021).  Patient  education,  communication  and 
distrust in health systems continue to represent major barriers to cancer screening and to 
controlling the disease and data collection. 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, Specific events of the last few years (COVID-19, Brexit and the Russian invasion of 
Ukraine) provide example of the fragility of health care systems that can come under pressure 
from  external  or  unexpected  events.  The  short-term  effects  may  be  most  visible,  but  the 
impact of such events can last much longer, a phenomenon which is being termed the COVID 
decade (The Lancet Oncology Commission). 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. For example, during the COVID-19 outbreak in Sweden when non-
emergency  health  care  stopped  leading  to  the  postponement  of  cervical  screening,  a 
temporary  government  regulation  allowed  primary  self-sampling  with  HPV  screening  in  all 
ages. The crisis made the health care system adapt (WHO, 2022).   

In another example, at the end of 2021, Britain had 4,285 fewer European doctors than if the 
numbers of those who were immigrating before the Brexit vote in 2016 had been maintained 
(McCarey and Dayan, 2022). This drop affected the amount of surgery that can take place 
(due to shortages of both anaesthetists and certain types of surgeons). Although no specific 
analysis was conducted in relation to specific types of diseases, it is safe to assume that a 
shortage  of  anaesthetists  will  impact  surgical  procedures  linked  to  cancer. In  this  respect, 
links between education and health systems can be important as well as wrong choices might 
have long-term consequences on the healthcare workforce Uncovering shortages of skilled 
labour related to cancer prevention, treatment and care may lead to a re-think of education 
and training policies. In addition to the results from the literature review,  

Specific challenges 

Expected contribution of R&I (examples) 

Prevention 
screening regulations) 

(implementation 

of 

the 

Need  or  emergence  of  new  treatment 
protocols and methods 

Guaranteeing good quality of life for cancer 
survivors 

Geographical disparities across and within 
the  European  countries  in  access  to  and 
delivery of optimal cancer control 

Understanding  human  behaviour  when  it  comes  to 
prevention 

Academic-led clinical trials, translation of research into 
clinical practice, new therapeutics 

Understanding 
psychosocial, financial needs of cancer survivors 

addressing 

and 

physical, 

Cancer  research  strengths  at  the  moment  are  not 
evenly  distributed  across  the  countries  and  do  not 
always  align  with  the  cancer  priorities  of  individual 
countries. 

36 

 
Specific challenges 

Expected contribution of R&I (examples) 

Catastrophic events affecting the resilience 
of the health system 

Understand  the  effects  of  the  catastrophic  events, 
finding solution to be able to prepare for them 

Figure 9 table below sums up a number of expected contributions of R&I to addressing the 
mission area challenges. 

Specific challenges 

Expected contribution of R&I (examples) 

Prevention 
screening regulations) 

(implementation 

of 

the 

Need  or  emergence  of  new  treatment 
protocols and methods 

Guaranteeing good quality of life for cancer 
survivors 

Geographical disparities across and within 
the  European  countries  in  access  to  and 
delivery of optimal cancer control 

Understanding  human  behaviour  when  it  comes  to 
prevention 

Academic-led clinical trials, translation of research into 
clinical practice, new therapeutics 

Understanding 
psychosocial, financial needs of cancer survivors 

addressing 

and 

physical, 

Cancer  research  strengths  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 the resilience 
of the health system 

Understand  the  effects  of  the  catastrophic  events, 
finding solution to be able to prepare for them 

Figure 9. Expected contribution of R&I to addressing the mission area challenges 

Source: authors based on multiple references cited in the text. 

3.2.2.  Developments influencing the mission area 

As it has only been a few years since the mission area was defined, the importance of cancer 
as  a  mission  area  is  unlikely  to  have  changed  significantly.  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 can be used. WHO predicts that cancer cases are predicted to increase in Europe; 
the number of new cancer cases will be 5.32 million by 2040 (or a 21% increase compared 
to 2020) and the  number of  deaths will increase by 0.6 million to 2.53 million deaths (see 
Figure 10 and Figure 11). 

37 

 
Figure 10. Estimated number of new cases from 2020 to 2040, Males and Females, age [0-85+] 

Source: Cancer Tomorrow |IARC, data version: 2020, accessed 23 March 2023, https://gco.iarc.fr  

Figure 11. Estimated number of deaths in Europe from 2020 to 2040, both sexes, age [0-85+] 

Source: Cancer Tomorrow |IARC, data version: 2020, accessed 23 March 2023, https://gco.iarc.fr  

The major causes of cancer, although well-identified in the literature, are not yet adequately 
addressed. For the SDG 3 on good health and well-being, while performance on reducing 
smoking in Europe is positive, for obesity, another major cause of cancer, the EU is moving 
away from the target on obesity rates20. Obesity is both a NCD and a fundamental driver of 
many other diseases (e.g. type 2 diabetes and cancer). Obesity is at the heart of achieving 
the  SDG  target  on  NCDs  “By  2030,  reduce  by  one-third  premature  mortality  from  NCDs 

20 See: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/sdi/key-findings  

38 

 
 
 
 
 
through  prevention  and  treatment  and  promote  mental  health  and  well-being”.  Progress 
towards other SDGs is also important for Cancer Mission.  

One of the targets in SDG 6 “Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and 
sanitation for all” is on nitrate in groundwater. The nitrate concentration in groundwater has 
increased in recent years. Currently, the average concentration remains within EU drinking-
water standards (50 mg/L) 21,, but hotspots (e.g. Malta, Cyprus, Belgium and Germany) exist 
where the nitrate concentration is above the norm (Eurostat, 2022).  If drinking water quality 
control is not performed effectively, excess nitrate is absorbed in the body through drinking 
groundwater. Nitrate when converted into nitrite in the human body induces certain diseases, 
such as infant methemoglobinemia and cancer (Feng et al., 2020) and increases the risk of 
colorectal cancer when transformed into carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds (Schullehner et 
al., 2018). Considering the progress towards SDG 13 “Take urgent action to combat climate 
change  and  its  impacts”,  insufficient  progress  towards  the  EU  target  for  average  CO2 
emissions from new passenger cars contributes to air pollution. The latter is one of the causes 
of cancer22. The progress on these indicators indicates that at least in several respects, that 
there is still reason to keep investing in cancer mission area.   

There are also several other concerning developments – unforeseen but rather catastrophic 
– which keep the relevance of cancer area even more on the agenda. To deal with the effects 
of both events, a systemic and transformative solution is needed that mission ensures. The 
COVID-19  pandemic  put  significant  pressure  on  national  health  systems  and  further 
crystalised the cancer situation. For example, there was a 25% drop in cancer diagnoses in 
the Netherlands and a 50% delay in treatments in the UK, suspended prevention and early 
detection programmes (EC, DG RTD 2020). According to the collected evidence, during the 
pandemic, about 1 million cancer diagnoses might have been missed (Lawler & Crul, 2022). 
The pandemic stressed all sectors in the global economy, incl. healthcare and research. It 
negatively affected cancer research leading to the substantial reductions in cancer clinical 
trials,  disruption  to  discovery  cancer  research,  and  reductions  in  cancer  research  funding 
(Freeman et al., 2022). Most of the non-COVID related research (including cancer research) 
was scaled down and there is a risk that funding for research at the national level as well as 
private donations / investments will decrease in the near future (EC, DG RTD 2020).  

At the time the mission was defined, there was not yet a war in Ukraine. Since the invasion 
of Ukraine by Russia (on 24 February 2022) it has become one of the major challenges in 
Europe  and  had  a  major  effect  on  the  cancer  control  adding  further  to  the  pressures  the 
health  systems  accumulated  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Treatment  and  care  were 
disrupted, some oncology units were closed, those that continued working abandoned less 
urgent procedures, and preventive measures, such as screening programmes, were paused 
(The Lancet Oncology Commission, 2022). Many of the patients moved to other countries for 
treatment and care. Poland was the country that has probably received the largest number 
of patients. The government quickly announced that all the Ukrainian refugees have the right 
to  receive  the  same  health  care  as  Polish  citizens  and  Ukrainian  patients  were  given  an 
opportunity  to  connect  to  more than  20  oncology centres  (McIntyre,  2022).  The  European 
response  to  war  by  welcoming  refugees  (incl.  patients)  have  increased  the  costs  of  the 
national  health systems.  Yet,  there is  also  another negative  effect  of  war  on  cancer. Both 
Ukraine  and  Russia  were  two  of  the  largest  contributors  to  clinical  cancer research  in  the 
world, especially industry-focused clinical research. At the start of the war Ukraine had 245 
active pharmaceutical cancer clinical trials, with 127 trials that were actively recruiting (The 

21 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/sdg_06_40_esmsip2.htm 
22 https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/pollution-and-cancer 

39 

 
 
Lancet Oncology Commission, 2022). With the trials stopped or put on hold will bring delays 
into the development of new treatment.  

In addition to the literature review results, Figure 12 sums up some factors or possible trends 
influencing the mission area also bringing insights collected during the interviews. 

Type of factor/trend 

Short summary of the expected impact of 
the factor/trend 

Economic:  workforce  crises,  need  for 
competence development 

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 

Geopolitical: refugees crises due to wars 
and climate change 

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. 

Policy:  the  need  to  share  data  and 
opportunities  offered  by  the  European 
Health Data Space (EHDS) 

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:  new  directive 
from  EMA 
regulating clinical trials, new directive on 
medical devices 

Potential to influence the speed of introduction of medical 
innovation to market / healthcare system. This in its turn 
will improve cancer diagnostics and treatment 

Scientific:  more cancers becoming  rare 
cancers 

More basic research might be needed to understand new 
types of rare cancer and how to treat them. 

Scientific:  cancer  becoming  more  and 
more a chronic disease 

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 
survivorship (e.g. tertiary prevention) 

Reforms in the care system might be needed.  

Technological:  use  of  AI/machine 
learning  cancer  diagnostics,  radiology, 
new technologies for screening 

Cancer  cases  identified  faster,  thus  increasing  the 
likelihood of survivorship. AI-driven imaging help improve 
consistency and reduce workload. 

Screening in itself could contribute to changing people’s 
attitudes  towards  cancer  and  becoming  more  active  in 
prevention. 

Figure 12. Identified factors or possible trends influencing the mission area (in alphabetical by type of factor) 

Source: authors based on interviews and literature review 

3.3. 

Tackling cancer: insights from the USA 

The USA is an example of how cancer has been tackled strategically on the national policy 
agenda  over  a  long  period  of  time  (since  the  1970s),  with  varying  levels  of  success  and 
resulting  in  numerous  modifications.  As  early  as  the  1970s,  President  Nixon  declared  the 
‘War on Cancer’ with the National Cancer Act of 1971, and it was led by the National Cancer 

40 

 
Institute (NCI). The law was put in place to strengthen the NCI and it was described as an 
“effort  to  find  a  cure  for  cancer”.  In  2003,  the  then  NCI  director  proposed  a  challenge  to 
eliminate the suffering and death due to cancer by 2015 (Eschenbach, 2005). Not all actors 
were convinced that this mission was possible. In March 2009 the US Senate issued a new 
bill to replace the 1971 National Cancer Act so as to modernise cancer research, increase 
prevention, provide cancer treatment and survivorship initiatives (GovTrack.us, 2009). During 
the 2008 presidential campaign Barack Obama and Joe Biden published a plan to combat 
cancer. The focus was on doubling the federal funding for research (basically supporting the 
National  Institute  of  Health  and  NCI)  and  to  strengthen  efforts  to  increase  funding  for  the 
Food  and  Drug  Administration.  President  Obama’s  2009  economic  stimulus  package 
included USD10 billion for the NIH. Despite all the efforts (mostly funding and strengthening 
research organisations) put together, the ‘War on Cancer’ ended up as “a textbook exemplar 
of  hubris  and  disappointment  with  little  impact  on  the  overall  trajectory  of  cancer  deaths” 
(Steward et al., 2023). 

In 2016, the Cancer Moonshot was introduced to deal with that disappointment and take a 
broader approach  on  the  cancer topic.  Then  Vice  President  Biden  stated  that  “the  cancer 
system of the 20th Century must be reimagined for the 21st Century” and that “too often our 
cancer culture and system plays by the rules of ‘71” (Ambrose, 2016). The overarching goal 
for the Cancer Moonshot was different from the ‘War on Cancer’ ambition and focused on 
significantly  reducing  mortality  from  cancer  looking  at  the  whole  disease  pathway  from 
prevention  to  care.  Priorities  of  the  Moonshot  were  elaborated  by  a  ‘Blue  Ribbon  Panel’ 
through 10 recommendations. Nine of them reference ‘therapy’, ‘inhibitors’ or ‘treatments’. 
Recommendations with therapeutic approaches relied heavily on genome sequencing. It was 
perhaps not surprising to see so many linkages to therapeutic solutions given that the panel 
was  constituted  by  academic  leaders  in  oncology  and  basic  cancer  research  as  well  as 
representatives  from  the  pharmaceutical  and  biotechnology  industry.  Technology  experts 
(from Google, Amazon, Sage and Microsoft) contributed (Steward et al., 2023). In February 
2022, the Moonshot was  relaunched23 by President Biden as Moonshot 2.0  as part of the 
new focus of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on innovation policy. 
The goal is now to “cut the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years 
and improve the experience of people and their families living with and surviving cancer” (The 
White House, 2022).  

Moonshot  2.0  builds  on  the  2017  Lancet  Oncology  Commission  and  is  still  very  much 
technoscientific but it goes beyond the bioscience/oncology community. This new plan calls 
for a “cancer Cabinet” bringing political leadership from the White House Office of Science 
and  Technology  Policy.  It  has  representatives  from  different  federal  departments  and 
agencies  bringing  ‘all-of-government  approach’  (Carnival,  2022),  for  example,  by  also 
including  the  Departments  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  the  National  Aeronautics  and  Space 
Administration, and the White House Gender Policy Council. Community Health Workers got 
engaged through the Cancer Panel’s “Closing gaps in cancer screening’ (President’s Cancer 
Panel,  2022).  The  Cancer  Cabinet  has  five  priorities:  (1)  close  the  screening  gap;  (2) 
understand  and  address  environmental  exposure;  (3)  decrease  the  impact  of  preventable 
cancers; (4) bring cutting edge research through the pipeline to patients and communities; 
and  (5)  support  patients  and  caregivers  (The  White  House,  2022b).  The  main  change 
between the 2016 Moonshot and Moonshot 2.0 is not solely on what should be achieved but 
how to do in the community. There has been a move away from a purely technoscientific to 
a more socio-economic and even cultural approach. 

23 The 2016 Cancer Moonshot was terminated by President Trump. 

41 

 
 
The EU Cancer Mission was announced at a similar time as Moonshot 2.0. In its selection 
and  design  (see  the  mission  assessment  report)  it  does  seem  to  be  avoiding  the  major 
technoscientific traps for a mission bringing a larger community into the activities and putting 
citizens and patients in the centre. A European response to the USA policies was published 
as  the  Lancet  Oncology  Commission  “The  European  Groundshot”  in  November  2022.  Its 
authors state that “although the high-tech science that is supported by the Cancer Moonshot 
initiative  might  set  new  standards  and  programmes  to  benefit  some  patients…a  parallel 
cancer groundshot is needed to improve the lives of patients with cancer today and in the 
next two decades” (The Lancet Oncology Commission, 2022). Some researchers (Steward 
et al., 2023) believe that the mission can go even further, as, although the authorship of the 
2022 Lancet Oncology Commission is much wider compared to the 2017 USA Commission, 
it does not necessarily capture all needed actors. Among additional actors, experts in health 
policy,  health  economics,  behavioural  scientists  are  mentioned  to  contribute  to  the 
implementation of prevention and early detection. This can go even further by including other 
experts who could contribute along the cancer disease pathway from prevention to care and 
in ensuring the quality of life and equality in access to care. Such additional steps and a move 
towards a socio-technical (rather than just technoscientific) policy is visible in the UK Cancer 
Research programme “Early Detection and Diagnosis of Cancer – A Roadmap to the Future, 
2020” (Cancer Research UK, 2020). 

3.4.  Key lessons from the review of the mission area 

Pressures  to  deal  with  cancer  are  not  going  away  and  almost  all  the  factors  point  in  this 
direction. Some factors, of course, will affect positively the cancer area, such as, for example, 
technological developments enabling the application of AI for cancer diagnostics. It is unlikely 
that scientific and technological breakthroughs will, in the near future, make the mission area 
less relevant. This is due to two fundamental aspects. First, cancer is not one disease with 
one cause but several diseases with their separate trajectories. When discussing ‘cancer’ as 
a mission area it is important to keep in mind that the key discoveries in the 1980s brought 
breakthroughs in understanding the cancerous process as occurring at the molecular level. 
This transition means that cancer is not viewed 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  of  several  therapeutic  modalities.  This 
means that the participation of experts from more than one hospital or healthcare service is 
needed.  As  more  types  of  cancer  are  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 (see Figure 13). 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. For example, 
the  numbers  of  cases  of  cancer  might  rise  because  the  technologies  will  allow  better 
identification of cancer. 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.  To  organise  the  overall  structure  to  manage  various  activities  needs  policy 
decisions  around  funding  mechanisms,  addressing  ethical  issues,  and  organising  the 
science. This can be achieved by addressing the topic through a mission-oriented approach. 

42 

 
Figure 13. The cancer journey 

Source: Rubin, G., et al (2015)  

This  multiplicity  of  meaning  behind  one  word  ‘cancer’  does  show  that  there  is  sufficient 
flexibility built into the mission area definition. This is the overall impression coming from the 
desk  research  and  the  interviews.  The  mission  area  is  defined  in  a  focused  manner  (i.e. 
cancer  sounds  very  concrete  and  targeted)  but  yet  wide  enough  (i.e.  cancer  is  not  one 
disease  but  a  multiple  disease24,  the  pathway  of  the  disease  has  multiple  elements).  The 
scoping as well as developments of the disease make it unlikely that the mission area will 
become irrelevant. In sum, there are no findings to suggest the adjustments to the mission 
area. However, two elements need to be kept in mind and acted on: 

1.  Taking  into  account  the  time  needed  for  impacts  of  certain  interventions  to 
materialise when designing monitoring framework: Most of the preventive activities 
linked  to  changes  in  the lifestyle  will  give  results  far beyond  2030.  Applying very  rigid 
monitoring approach linked to specific hard indicators could indicate that little is coming 
out of the activities around prevention. The temptation will be to pay less attention to this 
element  of  the  pathway,  to  invest  less,  to  even  stop.  This  would  be  an  erroneous 
decision.  The  comprehensive  approach  to  achieving  the  mission  goal  is  to  keep  the 
whole  pathway  intact  but  acknowledge  that  the  outcomes  and  impacts  from  different 
activities could take time. This observation is important to take onboard when designing 
a monitoring framework for the EU missions. 

2.  Building  a  new  mission-oriented  ecosystem  requires  changes  in  how  different 
organisations operate. To bring transformative changes to any system, such a system 
needs to be disrupted. Here a system innovations approach is needed to build a new 
ecosystem.  Focusing  just  on  research  and  technology-based  innovations  will  not  be 
enough. Social innovation is needed too, whether it is around the creation of a new health 
economic model or in changing how the organisations in the cancer ecosystems are run. 
For that new actors as well as roles might be needed. This could be, for example, experts 
with social sciences and / or humanities background. They are included in some mission-
related  activities,  but  this  tends  to  be  linked  to  the  prevention  part  of  the  cancer care 
pathway, i.e. to understand why humans do things they do or do not. However, the social 
sciences  expertise  is  also  needed  to  help  organisations  involved  in  delivering  on  the 
mission change and adopt a transformative mindset needed for the mission to succeed. 

24 See: https://www.who.int/health-topics/cancer#tab=tab_1  

43 

 
 
 
 
 
4.  Mission area: healthy oceans, seas, coastal and inland waters., 

seas, coastal and inland waters. 

4.1. 

The scope and definition of the mission area 

The ocean, seas, and coastal and inland waters are elements of the water-cycle continuum, 
on which all planetary forms of life depend upon, including humans. The hydrosphere is a 
climate  regulator,  dominating  the  planetary  carbon,  water  and  heat  budgets:  oceans  and 
waters  influence  climate  and  weather  patterns,  provide  us  with  drinking  water and  protein 
food. In addition, the planetary waters are also a place of recreation, trade and connectivity 
for humans. The hydrosphere is, however, seriously endangered. As a result of unsustainable 
greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), emission of land and water based pollutants, and of 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 population, in terms of food availability, of drinking-water 
resources,  of  resilience  to  extreme  weather  conditions  and  even  of  tourism,  ultimately 
affecting human well-being.  

After  a  policy  debate  at  European  and  national  level,  inspired  by  the  work  of  Mariana 
Mazzucato (EC, 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 mission area provides a frame for a mission that focuses on defining the 
challenges and scoping the actions to achieve cleaner, healthier, and more resilient aquatic 
environments,  related  to  the  EU’s  marine  and  freshwater  ecosystems,  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.  Review of the mission area 

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. A series 
of authoritative studies have demonstrated the state of degradation of the water continuum, 
and provided evidence to define the ocean, seas, and coastal and inland waters as an area 
for urgent and unabated policy attention and for R&I actions, as summarised in Figure 14. 

44 

 
 
 
Specific 
challenges  

Changes  in  the  physical 
conditions  of  ocean  and 
seas 

Evidence for the specific challenge 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The  ocean  has  warmed  unabated  since  1970  and  has  taken  up 
more than 90% of the excess heat in the climate system 

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 

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 heatwaves have doubled in frequency, since 1982, and are 

increasing in intensity 

the 

Changes 
in 
biogeochemical 
conditions  of  ocean  and 
seas 

• 

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 
ventilation  and 
due 
biogeochemistry,  which  reinforce  the  smaller  contribution  due  to 
warming-induced reduced solubility of oxygen in seawater 

stratification, 

changing 

ocean 

to 

•  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 

45 

 
 
Specific 
challenges  

Evidence for the specific challenge 

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 
systems 

in 

freshwater 

•  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.  

Changes  in  the  socio-
economic conditions 

•  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 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 

46 

 
Specific 
challenges  

Evidence for the specific challenge 

Ethics 

Economy 

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.  

•  Unethical  behaviour  has  led  an  unsustainable  human  footprint  in 
the  use  of  our  water  resources  and  water-related  ecosystem 
services.  

• 

• 

• 

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 

Figure 14. Specific challenges addressed by the mission area 

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. In the following 
sub-sections  the  potential  contribution  of  R&I  to  meeting  the  mission  area  challenges  is 
assessed along with the main trends that may influence the mission area. 

4.2.1.  The role of R&I in addressing the challenges 

The development and widespread use of new technologies through R&I activities is crucial 
to  fulfilling  the  EU  ambition  to  reach  net-zero  emission  by  2050  (European  Commission, 
2019), as well as to confront many of the challenges identified in this mission area. R&I are 
acknowledged as indispensable components of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). 
Plans developed by Member States include investments supporting the public science base, 
academia-business  cooperation,  business  innovation  and  mobilising  R&I  capacities  to 
accelerate  the  green  and  digital  transitions  and  enhance  resilience.    Given  the  foci  of  the 
mission area, the expected contributions of R&I to address the main specific challenges for 
healthy oceans, seas, coastal and inland waters are listed in Figure 15.  

47 

 
 
 
Specific 
challenges 

Restoring 
nature 

Climate 
Neutrality 

Expected contribution of R&I 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Knowledge and technology for nitrogen cycle restoration 

Technologies for removing plastic pollution from water, especially at source 

Technologies and nature-based solutions for climate-resilient coastlines 

Technologies for water sanitation 

Knowledge of the aquatic ecosystem connectivity 

Knowledge  and  technology  for  understanding  and  modelling  the  nexus 
hydrosphere-climate 

•  Carbon emission curbing, including new fuels; and: carbon capture/storage, 

also from nature-based solutions 

Clean water  

• 

Technologies  and  solutions  for  water  sanitation,  conservation,  filtration, 
recovery and desalination  

Knowledge 
system  

•  Digital  Twin  of  the  Ocean:  A  replication  of  the  water  system  which  could 
support  decision  taking  at  times  of  crises,  through  environmental  forecast 
systems as well as marine spatial planning tools and knowledge sharing 

•  Open Science practices for data findability, accessibility, interoperability and 

reuse 

Humans at sea 

• 

Ethics (ocean literates, ocean professionals, civil society engagement, citizen 
science) 

Governance  

•  Coordination  and  management  support  actions  to  ensure  multi-party 

approach 

Figure 15. Expected contribution of R&I to addressing the mission area challenges 

Source: Authors based on cited reference 

Specific topics of R&I that can contribute to addressing the mission area challenges include: 

• 

• 

the  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 
and of providing opportunities for intervention, mitigation and adaptation strategies;  

the  novel  dimension  of  ocean  ethics,  as  it  is  expected  to  produce  a  cultural  shift  and 
behavioural changes at the individual scale, regarding the impact of human activity on 
the hydrosphere. More R&I is required into ocean ethics which implies the mobilisation 
of civil society, in order to bring about a shift of behaviours in production of goods and 
services, as well as an awareness of the inference of daily human-life activities, on the 
status of our water ecosystems and on the well-being of all forms of life on the planet. 

48 

 
 
• 

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.   

Moreover,  the  Intergovernmental  Science-Policy  Platform  on  Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem 
Services (IPBES) has issued a work programme (2019-2030) and a scoping report (IPBES, 
2021), which provide a framework for an on-going thematic assessment of the interlinkages 
among biodiversity, water, food and health (nexus assessment). 

However, R&I actions have been indicated to only be part of the solution (IEEP, 2022), with 
a pool of more than 300 experts on the status of the EU Green Deal declaring that their belief 
in this type of investment will only marginally impact the current relevant trends. The experts 
indicated that the real game changer is citizens behaviour and recognised the relevance of 
the  mobilisation  and  engagement  of  civil  society,  and  the  relevance  of  ethics  to  support 
behavioural  changes.  EU  R&I  policies  thus  have  a  role  to  play  in  coordinating  the  main 
transition actors: industry, universities, national and regional authorities and civil society. 

4.2.2.  Developments influencing the mission area 

The mission-area-specific factors and trends need to also be considered in the context of the 
broader challenges faced at the EU as well as the global scale, to review the mission area 
more fully. Global megatrends can be defined as ‘those developments already underway and 
nearly impossible to change over the coming decade, which will inevitably frame any possible 
future scenarios’. An up-to-date of the main factors and trends influencing the mission area 
is provided, to determine what the likely impacts will be for the ocean and water system, and 
whether a mission in this area remains relevant, from a policy and R&I perspective. 

Type of 
factor/trend 

Description 

Environmental 

• 

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. 

Short summary of the 
expected impact of the 
factor/trend 

•  Reduction  of  both  water-  and 
ecosystem 

land-based 
services 

• 

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. 

49 

 
Type of 
factor/trend 

Description 

Short summary of the 
expected impact of the 
factor/trend 

ocean 

temperatures 

•  Continuing  ocean  acidification  and 
rising 
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. 

to 

In 
the  coming  decade,  a  crucial 
challenge  will  be  water  security.  In 
addition 
the  effects  of  global 
warming,  water  availability  is  directly 
affected  by  increasing  demand  for 
industry,  agriculture, 
water 
from 
This 
tourism. 
and 
urbanisation 
escalates global demand for renewable 
energy,  which 
is  strongly  water- 
dependent,  saline  intrusions  and  the 
pollution  of  surface-  and  groundwater. 
There are multiple risks associated with 
water scarcity: loss of livelihood due to 
increasing 
variability, 
water 
modification  of 
river  streams  and 
morphology,  transmission  of  pollution 
to the entire water system. 

Technological 

•  Digitalisation, Artificial Intelligence (AI), 
European Open Science Cloud and EU 
data spaces including, digital twins  

•  Research 

and 

technology 

infrastructures 

• 

Sea  defence  solutions  against  marine 
litter at source (on rivers) or at sea.  

• 

Blue carbon  

•  Carbon Farming 

• 

• 

• 

Biotechnology 

Improved  modelling  of  environmental 
processes 

Improved  environmental  monitoring 
sensors and systems 

50 

•  Contributing 

digital 
marketing and EU data spaces  

to 

• 

• 

Pollution 
prevention, 
restoration 

remediation  and 
ecosystem 

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 
relevant hydrosphere nexuses 
(with  climate,  food  and  water 
security,  human  and  animal 
health), integrated over space 
and time. 

 
Type of 
factor/trend 

Description 

Short summary of the 
expected impact of the 
factor/trend 

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  areas, 
while also recognizing Indigenous and 
traditional territories. 

• 

• 

Improved governance 

Targeted  policy  -  achieving 
SDGs  objectives,  e.g.:  for  the 
Climate  action,  Life  below 
water, 
and 
clean  water 
sanitation, zero hunger.  

• 

(2016):  More 
Paris  Agreement 
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 international ocean 
governance (2022) 
(European 
Commission, 2022a) 

•  UNESCO UN decade of ocean science 
for  Sustainable  development  (2022): 
45  programmes,  200  projects  self-
contributing;  45  national  decade 
committees,  seeds  of  interdisciplinary 
structures; 
ocean 
includes ethics. 

management 

• 

• 

• 

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. 

Ethical 

Economic 

biodiversity, 

the  seabed 

•  Halt  and  reverse  the  loss  of 
marine 
fight 
climate  change  and  marine 
pollution  for  a  healthy  ocean, 
protect 
from 
harmful  practices,  ensure  a 
sustainable blue economy and 
build  up  ocean  knowledge, 
ensure  security  and  safety  at 
sea  and  a  compliance  with 
and 
international 
standards 

rules 

• 

• 

Protecting 
waters 
jurisdiction 

biodiversity 

in 
national 

beyond 

integrated 
maritime space 

planning 

of 

•  Ocean  empathy;  empowered 
women; ocean professionals  

• 

• 

• 

Sustainable 
governance conscience  

hydrosphere 

Sustained 
hydrosphere 
management  and  planning 
capacity 

quality 

Poor  water 
sanitation, 
poverty, 
unemployment, warfare. 

food 

and 
scarcity, 
hunger, 

Figure 16. Identified main factors or trends influencing the mission area 

Source: Authors based on cited references 

51 

 
The  evidence  suggests  that  there  will  be  no  alleviation  of  global  warming,  demographic 
pressure, use of resources and man-made pollution; and that 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). Progress towards this goal can be measured, notably, based 
on the trends in SDGs. 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. 

•  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)25, 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, highlighting 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 than 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 € 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 

25 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/website/sdg/sdg_key/sdg_key_2022/index.html?lang=en  

52 

 
 
implementation in the context of the emerging crisis have also been expressed in the 2022 
SRIP report (EC Commission, 2022g). Also interviewees flagged that due to the pandemic 
and  war  in  Ukraine  the  political  attention  to  biodiversity  in  general  is  waning,  while 
commitment to ocean matters 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. 

4.3.  Protecting the hydrosphere: insights from international examples 

The  EU  has  been  a  pioneer  in  adopting  mission-oriented  policies  through  initiatives  like 
Horizon Europe and the European Green Deal. While similar approaches are being adopted 
by  countries  worldwide  to  stimulate  innovation,  address  societal  needs,  and  promote 
sustainable development, we could not locate a specific mission targeting the area of healthy 
oceans, seas, coastal and inland waters. However, several countries around the world have 
implemented initiatives and policies to address the health and conservation of their marine and 
freshwater ecosystems, as demonstrated in the table below.  

Country (or 
multi-
country 
region) 

Canada 

Mission policy 
title (& year 
initiated)  

Ocean  Policy 
Plan 
(OPP), 
2016 

Australia 

National  Water 
Quality 
Management 
Strategy 
(NWQMS), 
1992 

Definition of mission area 

to  ensure 

for  protecting 

Canada  policies  and  regulations 
its  water 
resources,  include  a  Water  Act  and  a  Fisheries  Act.  These 
the  conservation  and  sustainable 
policies  aim 
management  of  freshwater  ecosystems  and  protect  aquatic 
species. In 2016, the Government of Canada launched the $1.5 
billion  Oceans  Protection  Plan  (OPP),  which  represents  the 
largest investment ever made to protect coasts and waterways, 
from the potential impacts of marine shipping, and to ensure the 
health of oceans.  

The  OPP  involves  five  federal  departments,  with  Transport 
Canada (TC) as the designated lead department. Partnership and 
collaboration are the foundation of the Government of Canada’s 
actions  to  protect  their  oceans.  The  OPP  places  a  strong 
emphasis  on  collaboration  with  the  provinces, 
indigenous 
organisations,  marine  industries,  environmental  organisations, 
coastal communities, and the public. 

The NWQMS was introduced in 1992 and incorporated into the 
Council  of  Australian  Governments  (COAG)  Water  Reform 
Framework  in  1994.  It  contributed  to  the  development  of  a 
national policy to sustainably manage Australia’s water resources 
by  protecting  and  enhancing  their  quality  while  maintaining 
economic  and  social  development.  The  NWQMS  follows  the 
guiding principles set out in the National Strategy for Ecologically 
Sustainable Development, which was also endorsed by COAG in 
1992.  

An  independent  review  of  the  NWQMS  conducted  in  2011 
highlighted that the policy outline had not been updated in over 
20  years.  While  knowledge  and  expertise  on  managing  water 
quality  has  grown,  the  key  NWQMS  documents  still  lack 
reference  to  global  stressors  such  as  global  warming,  ocean 

53 

 
Country (or 
multi-
country 
region) 

Mission policy 
title (& year 
initiated)  

Definition of mission area 

acidification  and  climate  change,  disruption  of  the  carbon  and 
nitrogen cycles. 

In  2018,  the  Australian  government  issued  the  design  and 
requirements  for  a  new  guideline  to  the  National  Water  Quality 
Management  Strategy,  which  could  be  included  under  the 
NWQMS, covering a range of subjects, including:  

• 

• 

• 

protecting fresh and marine water ecosystems  

defining and managing safe drinking water  

defining water quality that is safe for recreational uses  

•  managing  health  and  environment  risks  of  recycled  water 

use  

• 

defining water that is safe for irrigation use, for livestock and 
for aquatic organisms that are used for human consumption)  

• 

protecting groundwater.  

Purpose: The purpose of the NWQMS is to protect the nation’s 
water resources by maintaining and improving water quality, while 
supporting  dependent  aquatic  and 
terrestrial  ecosystems, 
agricultural  and  urban  communities,  and  industry.  Channels  for 
delivery of the NWQMS are: 

• 

• 

Policy that enables effective water quality management for 
the delivery of fit for purpose water that supports community 
values,  such  as  aquatic  ecosystems,  cultural  and  spiritual 
values,  drinking  water,  industrial  water,  primary  industries, 
recreation and aesthetics. 

Process (framework) 
and 
implementation of management plans. These plans focus on 
the  reduction  of  pollution  released  into  coastal  pollution 
hotspots and other aquatic ecosystems. 

development 

the 

for 

•  Guidelines that are developed using best available scientific 
evidence,  providing  benchmarks  and  targets  for  managing 
water quality across a range of risk profiles and uses. 

The  NWQMS  is  non-mandatory  but  utilised  by  all  state  and 
territory  governments  in  establishing  their  own  guidelines, 
regulations,  policies,  processes  and/or  standards  for  managing 
the  quality  and  supply  of  water  that  is  fit  for  purpose.  The 
Australian  Government  also  utilises  the  NWQMS  for  various 
purposes such as meeting international obligations. Oversight of 
the  NWQMS  is  managed  through  a  series  of  committees  and 

54 

 
Country (or 
multi-
country 
region) 

Mission policy 
title (& year 
initiated)  

Definition of mission area 

India 

working groups, responsible for different levels of governance of 
the strategy, its projects and goals. 

National  Action 
Plan on Climate 
Change, 2008  

National  Water 
Mission, 2011 

The Government of India has established National Water Mission 
in 2011 as one of the eight National Missions under the National 
Action  Plan  on  Climate  Change  of 2008.  The  main objective  of 
NWM is “conservation of water, minimizing wastage and ensuring 
its  more  equitable  distribution  both  across  and  within  States 
resources  development  and 
through 
management”. NWM has identified five goals as under: 

integrated  water 

Brazil  (Porto, 
2000) 

National  Water 
Act (1997) 

•  Comprehensive  water  data  base  in  public  domain  and 
assessment  of  the  impact  of  climate  change  on  water 
resource, 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Promotion of citizen and state actions for water conservation, 
augmentation and preservation, 

Focused  attention  to  vulnerable  areas  including  over-
exploited areas, 

Increasing water use efficiency by 20%, and 

Promotion  of  basin 
management. 

level 

integrated  water  resources 

Various  strategies  for  achieving  the  goals  have  been  identified 
which led to integrated planning for sustainable development with 
active participation of the stakeholders. 

The  National  Water  Act  of  1997  (Law  9.433)  defines  the 
objectives,  principles,  and  instruments  of  the  National  Water 
Resources  Policy  and 
the  National  Water  Resources 
Management  System.  The  law  establishes  the  institutional 
arrangement under which the country’s water policies are to be 
implemented.  

The Brazilian Water Resources Policy was proposed to achieve 
(1)  sustainability--  to  ensure  that  the  present  and  future 
generations have an adequate availability of water with suitable 
quality;  (2)  integrated  management--  to  ensure  the  integration 
among uses in order to guarantee continuing development; and 
(3)  safety--  to  prevent  and  protect  against  critical  events,  due 
either to natural causes or inappropriate uses. To achieve such 
objectives,  water  management must be  implemented according 
to the following principles:  

1.  water is a public good;  

2.  water is a finite resource that has economic value;  

55 

 
Country (or 
multi-
country 
region) 

Mission policy 
title (& year 
initiated)  

Definition of mission area 

3. 

the use of water required to meet people’s basic needs shall 
have priority, especially in critical periods;  

4.  water management shall comprise and induce multiple uses;  

5. 

the river basin is the appropriate unit for water management;  

6.  water  management  shall  be  decentralised,  with 
participation of government, stakeholders and society.  

the 

These  same principles  are viewed  today as the embodiment of 
modern  water  management.  Together  they  encompass  such 
themes as protection of the environment, economic development, 
and improvement of social conditions, all of which are intended to 
achieve sustainability.  

The  general  guidelines  for  implementing  the  water  resources 
policy emphasize the need for integrated management, flexibility 
to  accommodate  regional  differences,  coordination  among  the 
different  sectors, 
to  water 
management), and integration between inland and coastal water 
management.  

land  use  planning 

(relevant 

The  specific  tools  outlined  in  the  Act  to  implement  the  policy 
include  (1)  water  resources  plans;  (2)  classification  of  water 
bodies for different use, resulting water quality standards tailored 
to  the  target  use  of  each  water  body,  (3)  a  permit  system  for 
withdrawal  or  use  of  water;  (4)  water  pricing;  and  (5)  a  water 
resources information system.  

Indonesia26 

National Plan of 
on 
Action 
Marine  Plastic 
Debris  2017–
2025 

The  plan  aims  to  prevent  both  land-based  and  ocean-based 
leakage of plastics, with a 70% reduction of marine plastic relative 
to  business  as  usual  by  2025.  Land-based  efforts  include  the 
production of biodegradable plastics, the reuse of plastic waste 
(e.g. in plastic asphalt roads) and charges for plastic bags; while 
ocean-based  efforts  include  reception  facilities  at  ports,  the 
collection  of  waste  from  marine  and  coastal  areas,  and  plastic 
waste management in tourism.  

The  plan  involves  16  ministries  and  institutions  across  59 
activities  and  a  framework  for  the  involvement  of  the  private 
sector in  addressing  waste  was  approved.  The  National  Plastic 
Action  Partnership  was  launched  in  2019  by  the  Ministry  for 
Maritime Affairs and Investments as a platform for public-private 
collaboration and  includes over  150  member organisations  and 
businesses.  Measures to address marine plastic waste  include 
taxes and bans on single-use plastic, clean-up efforts, awareness 
rising.  It  is  foreseen  to  deploy  R&I  for  biodegradable  plastics, 

26 https://www.oecd.org/ocean/topics/ocean-pollution/marine-plastics-pollution-Indonesia.pdf  

56 

 
 
Country (or 
multi-
country 
region) 

Mission policy 
title (& year 
initiated)  

Definition of mission area 

circular  economy solutions,  waste  to  energy,  modelling  plastics 
leakage and flow. 

USA 

Clean  Water 
Act, 1972 

Ocean 
Dumping  Act, 
1972 

The Clean Water Act (CWA)27 establishes the basic structure for 
regulating discharges of pollutants into US waters and regulating 
quality standards  for  surface  waters.  The  CWA  was  enacted  in 
1948  as  the  Federal  Water  Pollution  Control  Act  and  was 
significantly  reorganised  and  expanded  in  1972  as  the  CWA 
which  made  it  unlawful  to  discharge  any  pollutant  from  a  point 
source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained.  

The  Environmental  Protection  Agency 
implements 
pollution  control  programmes  such  as  setting  wastewater 
standards  for  industry  and  has  also  developed  national  water 
quality criteria recommendations for pollutants in surface waters. 
implements  and  enforces  these  regulations  to  ensure  the 
protection of the country's water resources.  

(EPA) 

The  Marine  Protection,  Research, and  Sanctuaries  Act  of 1972 
regulate intentional ocean disposal of materials, and authorises 
related research. In 1992, Congress amended the act to permit 
states  to  adopt  ocean  dumping  standards  more  stringent  than 
federal standards and to require that permits conform with long-
term management plans for designated dumpsites, to ensure that 
permitted activities are consistent with expected uses of the site. 
The  National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric  Administration  (NOAA) 
has  various  programmes  and 
the 
conservation  and  sustainable  management  of  oceans  and 
coastal areas, including efforts to protect marine species, mitigate 
pollution, and promote ecosystem resilience. 

focused  on 

initiatives 

Nordic 
countries 

Nordic 
Innovation  Sea 
Meets 
Land 
mission 
(2020)28 

The Nordic Innovation Mobility Mission: “Sea Meets Land” (2020) 
is  the  effort  to  support  Nordic  initiatives  seeking  to  develop 
solutions  to  decarbonize  Nordic  ports,  transport  of  people  and 
goods – on and between sea and land. NOK 8 million. 12-month 
funding period dedicated to building the project, strengthening the 
consortium, sharpening or refining the Nordic strongholds that the 
project aims to combine/develop to achieve the ambitions of the 
Mobility Mission. The Ministers for Nordic Co-operation have an 
overall responsibility for following up on the implementation of the 
vision and the strategic priorities. 

Figure 17. Overview of relevant benchmark mission-type policies 

Source: authors based on referenced material 

27 https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act  
28 https://www.nordicinnovation.org/seameetsland  

57 

 
 
 
Overall, the review of approaches to creating a strategic framework for addressing ocean and 
waters  challenges  in  other  countries  suggests  a  more  targeted  approach  which  seeks  to 
improve  water  management  practices,  reduce  pollutants  (e.g.  plastics)  or  protect  marine 
environments. A fully-fledged MOIP approach does not appear to have been adopted in the 
cases reviewed, even if there is a shift towards such an approach in several of the cases over 
time.  The pioneering nature of the EU mission in this area is evident. 

4.4.  Key lessons from the review of the mission area 

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.  With 
respect to the challenges faced at the EU as well as the global scale, the trends of relevant 
indicators  in  the  mission  area  healthy  oceans,  seas,  coastal  and inland  waters  are still  as 
alarming and, while some negative trends may have attenuated in intensity, some have even 
worsened. 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 derails 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. 

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 (Green Deal and the 
Digital Strategy - Digital Agenda); as well as contribute to global initiatives such as the UN 
Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development and the UN Ocean Decade of Ocean Science for 
Sustainable  Development  (2021-2030).  In  particular:  investigating  the  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 and identification of opportunities 
for intervention, mitigation, and adaptation strategies. The novel dimension of ocean ethics 
should  be  better  highlighted  to  produce  a  cultural  shift  and  behavioural  change  at  the 
individual scale, regarding the impact of human activity on the hydrosphere. The use of digital 
technologies  for  representing  and  managing  the  water  continuum  are  also  a  rather  novel 
element for R&I action, which  can support a modern ocean governance and management 
system. 

It is evident that EU and national policies need to uptake the state of the art in this area.  The 
review 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  all-encompassing  as  in  the  EU 
approach is unique. This provides an opportunity for EU global leadership on this critical 
‘grand challenge’ for all on Earth. 

58 

 
 
 
 
5.  Mission area: climate-neutral and smart cities 

5.1. 

The scope and definition of the mission area 

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’ in piloting new ideas 
and  concepts”.29  Even  closer  to  the  mission  area,  Mazzucato  (2018)  proposed  that  ‘100 
climate-neutral cities by 2030’ would meet all criteria of a promising mission. 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  (EC  2018b,  p.  165).  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 (EC, 2018c, p. 251). While 
carbon storage has been included in the mission area ‘soil health and food’ (see Section 6), 
‘climate-neutral and smart cities’ is the only mission area to address climate mitigation. 

5.2.  Review of the mission area 

The  terms  ‘climate-neutral’  and  ‘smart’  are  neither  coherently  defined  in  European  policy-
making, nor in the scientific literature (Correia et al. (2022), Echebarria et al. (2021), Huovila 
et al. (2022)). While this creates challenges for both the implementation and monitoring of 
missions30,  climate  neutrality  and  smartness  are  well  established  categories  in  urban  and 
European governance, which facilitates interactions across governmental units. In particular, 
the mission area is tightly linked to the aim of achieving a climate-neutral economy in Europe 
by  2050  (EC,  2018a)  and  EC’s  growth  model  of  a  green  and  digital  ‘twin  transition’  (EC, 
2022)31.  The  mission  area  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 IPCC climate mitigation report, cities “can only 
achieve net-zero GHG emissions through deep decarbonisation and systemic transformation 
(very  high  confidence)”  (IPCC,  2022,  p.  864). 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).32 When the mission area was defined, SDG 13 was 
among the goals where the EU had been making the least progress; while for SDG 11, the 
EU  had  made  moderate  progress  overall  but  there  were  negative  trends  in  the  climate-
relevant domains of per capita settlement areas and share of public transport (EU, 2019). 

29 EC (2017, p. 15 emphasis on ‘are open to all actors’ omitted). 
30  The  challenges  in  the  communication  of  the  mission,  in  particular  the  transparent  communication  of  scope  of 
emissions and in engagements with citizens, are discussed in the Mission Assessment Report. 
31 Furthermore, the mission area corresponds to a range of EU policy objectives (Di Girolamo et al., 2022, p. 329). 
32 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). 

59 

 
 
The mission area 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 
(Dinges et al., 2021). 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 health33. However, the mission area does 
not address the “urgent need to integrate urban mitigation and adaptation for cities” identified 
in  the  scientific  community  (IPCC,  2022,  p.  864).  Furthermore,  with  respect  to  climate 
mitigation,  the  mission  area  provides  no  indication  of  the  relative  priority  to  be  given  to 
different strategies of GHG emissions reduction, compensation, and neutralisation, a matter 
that remained unresolved in the implementation of the mission (Shabb et al., 2022). 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. In contrast 
to this technological directionality, the mission board converged on the idea that the mission 
should  be  “technology-neutral”  and  start  with  a  “human-centric  framing”  (EC,  2019).  The 
perspective reflects a debate in the scientific community, on whether smart city frameworks 
tend to neglect the proactive roles of citizens and are based on a model of programmable 
cities  that  can  be  monitored  and  controlled  in  real-time34.    Such  a  model  is  diametrically 
opposed  to  an  emphasis  on  citizen  engagement  and  participation  in  MOIP.  Instead  of 
narrowing the scope, the mission board proposed to adopt a focused approach on climate 
neutrality and put stronger emphasis on the involvement of and co-benefits for citizens.35 

In  the  interviews  and  stakeholder  workshop,  some  participants  reiterated  that  the  mission 
area definition is not ideal for engaging citizens. While in some languages climate-neutrality 
has a different connotation, the main issue appears to be the rather technical framing of 
the  mission  area,  which  may  limit  its  inspirational  value.  Neither  ‘climate-neutral’  nor 
‘smart’ convey the benefits for citizens, let alone provide a sense of how the cities of tomorrow 
are  envisaged.  The  stakeholders  reported  using  different  notions  in  communicating  to 
citizens, emphasising instead that the mission is about developing ‘green’ and ‘healthy’ cities. 

5.2.1.  The role of R&I in addressing the challenges 

MOIP addresses societal challenges that require the development of novel and potentially 
radically different solutions (EC/Mazzucato, 2018). The continued relevance of the mission 
area is conditional upon its ability to address persistent challenges in Europe through R&I. 
This said, the anchoring in Horizon Europe and the concomitant focus on R&I is a disputed 
issue among interviewees and survey respondents. There is a strong consensus among 
interviewees that R&I will not be sufficient and that the main challenges for cities in 
transitioning  to  climate  neutrality  lie  elsewhere.  In  line  with  this  assessment,  several 
survey respondents emphasised that greater attention needs to be paid to implementation, 
transformation, and financing. The apparent gap between the capacities of policy instruments 
at DG RTD’s disposal, on the one hand, and the needs of cities on the other side is a common 
source of frustration among stakeholders consulted. The key issue, however, is not to move 
from innovation to implementation but, about finding: “a balance between calls addressing 
research needs and implementation needs, leaving enough space for innovation, in particular 
social innovation, governance innovation and process innovation. Finding synergies between 

33 Floater et al. (2016), IPCC (2022), Material Economics (2020) 
34 For example, see Cardullo & Kitchin (2019), Corsini et al. (2019), and Engelbert et al. (2019) 
35 The Mission Assessment Report discusses the scope of the cities mission. 

60 

 
 
the challenges on the ground and the potential of academia is crucial to allow all stakeholders 
to find their role in the mission implementation.” (survey respondent) 

The  statement  highlights  the  need to  consider  non-technological  innovations  and  the 
important  role  of  R&I  in  providing  stakeholder  orientation,  not  before  but  during 
implementation.  Similarly,  the  mission  board  acknowledged  the  significance  of  digital 
technological  and  systems  but  stressed  that  urban  transitions  to  climate  neutrality  also 
necessitate  innovations  along  “social,  creative,  organisational,  and  financial”  dimensions 
(Gronkiewicz-Waltz et al., 2020, p. 19). Following an understanding that the “main obstacle 
to climate transition is not a lack of climate-friendly and smart technologies, but the capacity 
to implement them”, the mission board proposed that a mission in the area of climate-neutral 
and  smart  cities  should  address  “system  innovation  in  the  whole  value  chain  of  city 
investment” (Gronkiewicz-Waltz et al., 2020, p. 5), locating key innovation challenges in the 
domains  of  city  administration  and  governance,  finance  and  capital,  as  well  as  business 
models and market structures. This perspective has wide support from the study participants 
in interviews, survey, and  the workshop, who endorsed a shift towards system innovation, 
confirmed the persistent innovation needs in these domains, and suggested that learning and 
experimentation remain crucial. 

Furthermore, in going beyond implementation and addressing the scaling of local solutions, 
the decision to launch a mission on climate-neutral and smart cities tackles a key challenge 
at the forefront of scientific debates.36 Figure 18 compiles some key contributions that R&I is 
expected  to  deliver in  response  to  urban  challenges,  drawing  on  four reports  prepared  by 
expert groups commissioned by the EC. In sum, the review suggests that R&I will likely 
remain of high relevance for climate-neutral and smart cities. 

Urban 
challenges 

Mobility and transport 

Expected contributions of R&I (illustrative) 

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 

Energy systems 

Internet  of  Things  solutions  for  remote  control  of  street  lighting;  better 
understanding of the role of cities in producing electricity and heat locally 

Built environment 

Durable, mixed-use buildings for less material demand; modular designs for 
reuse  of  building  components;  new  financing  schemes  to  overcome  high 
upfront costs of building retrofitting 

Governance and 

planning 

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  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 

36 See Bundgaard & Borrás (2021) and van der Heijden (2022) 

61 

 
 
Urban 
challenges 

Everyday life 

Urban system 

Expected contributions of R&I (illustrative) 

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  

Figure 18. Expected contribution of R&I to addressing the mission area challenges. 

Source: Authors based on Dinges et al. (2021), European Commission (2018b), Peiffer-Smadja et al. (2022), Ricci et al. 
(2017) 

5.2.2.  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 (Dinges et al., 2021). Most 
of these trends have continued and even intensified as summarised in Figure 19. The COVID-
19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have had severe repercussions for European cities, the 
longer-term implications of which are difficult to foresee. In general, cities have become more 
vulnerable  to  transnational  and  global  trends,  while  increasingly  lacking  the  financial 
capacities to push forward a transformation process. 

The  situation  for  cities  has  become  more  difficult  and  they  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 2030.37 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  needs  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 building 
sectors (EEA, 2022). In the past five years, Europe moved away from the trajectories needed 
to comply with its climate targets in critical domains linked to urban development, in particular 
with  regard  to  opposing  trends  in  the  share  of  public  passenger  transport,  average  CO2 
emissions from new passenger cars, and spread of settlement areas (Eurostat, 2022). 

37 European Parliament & Council of the European Union (2021). 

62 

 
 
Climate mitigation is far from the only challenge cities are facing today. Many of the trends 
listed in Figure 19 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. 

Type of 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 

• 

• 

financial  and 

EU 
against Russia 

trade  sanctions 

Industrial policy initiatives like the U.S. 
Inflation Reduction Act may reduce the 
competitiveness of European industries  

Policy 

Short summary of the expected 
impact of the factor/trend 

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  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 

63 

 
Type of factor/trend  

Short summary of the expected 
impact of the factor/trend 

•  Cities  are  moving  towards  integrated 
planning and new forms of governance 

level.  If  deep  crises  can  be  averted,  the  political 
environment  is  favourable  for  missions  on  climate-
neutral and smart cities. 

•  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 
in  Ukraine,  and 
pandemic,  war 
increasing  geopolitical  tensions  have 
recently  directed  attention  away  from 
these goals.  

Technological 

• 

Accelerating digitalisation 

While transitions to ‘smart’ cities are under way, the 
effects  of  digitalisation  on  carbon-neutrality  are 
mixed. 

Intensifying  financial  pressures  at  the  local  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. 

•  Growth of digital-enabled services 

Economic 

• 

Stagnating 
governments 

tax 

revenues  of  city 

•  Decreasing affordable housing 

•  High 

inflation  rates,  especially 

for 

energy 

• 

Shortage of skilled workers 

•  Rising  economic  inequality  and  urban 

segregation 

Figure 19. Identified factors or possible trends influencing the mission area 

Source: Authors based on Dinges et al. (2021), European Committee of the Regions (2022), Vandecasteele et al. (2019) 

64 

 
 
 
5.3.  Boosting  climate  neutrality  of  cities:  insights  from  international 

examples 

Figure 20 and Figure 21 provide an overview of existing policies in EU and non-EU countries 
related to climate neutrality, smartness, and cities as well as their respective mission areas.38 
The  overview  reveals  that  climate  change,  and  the  low-carbon  transition  are  commonly 
addressed areas in policies adopting a mission-oriented approach. Outside the EU, however, 
there are only a few cases of MOIP addressing issues covered by the mission area of climate-
neutral and smart cities (see Figure 21). 

The EC has become a global frontrunner in connecting climate agendas with the city 
level through mission-oriented innovation policy. In addition to the cities mission, the EC 
spearheads  the  ‘urban  transitions’  mission,  a  mission  operating  under  the  umbrella  of  the 
‘mission innovation’ initiative. The mission builds on the cities mission but has a global reach 
and  includes  the  government  of  India  among  its  core  members.  Compared  to  the  cities 
mission, the urban transitions mission is very similar in ambition as far as the emphasis on 
holistic  solutions  and  involvement  of  citizens  is  concerned  but  focuses  on  ‘pathways’  as 
opposed  to  concrete  outcomes  such  as  climate  neutrality.39  Furthermore,  and  despite  the 
strong representation of the EC and EU Member States in the mission, the mission area is 
defined very differently in terms of ‘net-zero, resilient, and people-centred cities’.40 The notion 
of  resilience  reflects  the  mission’s  ambition  to  integrate  climate  mitigation  and  adaptation 
strategies.  

Moreover, digital solutions play a subordinate role in the urban transitions mission. This more 
technology-neutral or people-centred approach is also reflected in the definition of mission 
areas  in  Austria  and  Sweden.  Whereas  in  Austria  the  mission  area  is  defined  solely  as 
“climate-neutral  city”,  the  aforementioned  ‘viable  cities’  initiative  from  Sweden  added  the 
emphasis on providing “a good life for all within planetary boundaries”, thus stressing also 
social  inclusiveness  and  ecological  compatibility.  Following  again  a  different  approach  to 
urban transitions, India launched a mission specifically dedicated to smart cities. The mission 
addresses a broad area to foster inclusive and sustainable development in cities but defines 
a  set  of  ten core infrastructure  elements  to  make  the scope  of  the  mission  more  tangible. 
Elements  include  robust  IT connectivity,  digitalisation,  and  e-Governance  but  also  themes 
closer to  climate  neutrality such  as  ‘sustainable  development’  and  ‘efficient  urban  mobility 
and public transport’. 

The remaining mission-related policies listed in Figure 20 and Figure 21 address elements of 
climate  neutrality  and  smartness  without  a  dedicated  focus  on  cities.  Instead,  several 
initiatives follow an approach of providing an ‘umbrella framework’ (Larrue, 2022) that brings 
together multiple missions under a common strategic agenda. 

38  The  lists  are  based  on compilations  of MOIP  by Larrue  (2021,  2022). Additional  entries  were  identified  through 
cross-references  in  mission  policy  documents.  For  the  purposes  of  this  section,  the  analysis  does  not  consider 
challenge-led policies based on prizes (e.g. Ireland) and higher-level strategies (e.g. Japan’s Society 5.0, Canada’s 
Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change). 
39 In this sense, the urban transitions mission is more similar to the European Partnership ‘Driving Urban Transitions 
towards a Sustainable and Liveable Urban Future’ than the cities mission. 
40 Mission Innovation (2022, p. 1) 

65 

 
 
 
 
Country 

Austria 

Denmark 

Mission policy 
title (& year 
initiated)  

Definition of relevant mission area(s) 

Thematic focus areas 
(2022)41 

Climate-neutral  cities;  energy  transition;  mobility 
transition; circular economy 

Green missions (2021)42  Capture and storage or use of CO2; green fuels for 
transport  and  industry;  climate-  and  environment-
friendly  agriculture  and  food  production;  circular 
economy with focus on plastics and textiles 

Finland 

Flagship programme 
(2017)43 

Climate  neutrality 
in  Finland,  EU  and  global 
societies,  mitigate  air  pollution  to  sustain  a  healthy 
atmosphere  (atmosphere  and  climate  competence 
centre),  future  biorefineries,  clean  air  and  water, 
lignocellulosics  beyond  plastics,  and  electronics, 
optics and energy applications (competence  centre 
for the materials bioeconomy); wireless connectivity, 
devices 
technology,  distributed 
computing, and sustainable, human-centric services 
and applications (6G-enabled wireless smart society 
& ecosystem) 

circuit 

and 

France 

France 2030 (2021)44 

Small,  innovative  nuclear  reactors  in  France  with 
better  waste  management;  green  hydrogen  and 
cutting-edge 
technologies; 
renewable  energy 
decarbonisation  of  industry  and  input  production; 
zero-emission  vehicles  in  France  and  sustainable, 
sovereign, and resilient mobility; low-carbon aircraft; 
healthy, sustainable and traceable food 

Germany 

Lithuania 

High-Tech Strategy 
202545 

Digital  economy  and  society;  sustainable  economy 
and energy; intelligent mobility 

Mission-based science 
and innovation 
programmes (2023)46 

Smart  and  climate-neutral  Lithuania;  a  secure  and 
inclusive e-society 

Netherlands 

Mission-driven top 
sector policy (2019)47 

Reduction  of  national  greenhouse  gas  emissions; 
carbon-free  electricity  system;  carbon-free  built 
environment;  carbon-neutral  industry  with  reuse  of 
raw  materials  and  products;  zero-emission  mobility 

41 https://www.bmk.gv.at/themen/innovation/schwerpunkte.html, on the cities mission: 
https://nachhaltigwirtschaften.at/resources/nw_pdf/eia/eia_224_en.pdf  
42 https://innovationsfonden.dk/en/p/grand-solutions/grand-solutions-realization-four-green  
43 https://www.esitteemme.fi/flagships/WebView/  
44 https://investinfrance.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/FR-2030_Dossier_Presse_A4-v07-BAT-EN.pdf  
45 https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/hts_broschuere_engl_bf_1.pdf  
46 https://eimin.lrv.lt/en/news/almost-eur78-million-for-mission-based-science-and-innovation-programmes  
47 https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/ronl-c836d802-d3c2-45d6-aad4-0c7b011dae61/pdf  

66 

 
 
 
Country 

Mission policy 
title (& year 
initiated)  

Definition of relevant mission area(s) 

Spain 

Science and innovation 
missions (2021)48 

of people and goods; a sustainable and completely 
circular  economy;  circular  agriculture;  net  carbon-
neutral  agriculture  and  nature  system;  production 
and consumption healthy, safe and sustainable food  

Strengthen technological capabilities for secure and 
sustainable energy autonomy (fusion, hydrogen and 
renewables); promote the substitution, recovery and 
valorisation  of  mineral  resources  and  strategic 
materials for the ecological transition 

Sweden 

Healthy sustainable food 
(2019)49 

Ensure  that every student  in  Sweden  eats  healthy, 
sustainable and tasty school food 

Figure 20. Overview of mission policies and their respective mission areas in EU countries 

Source: authors based on referenced material 

In the United States, which like the EC have set the goal to become climate-neutral by 2050, 
the Department of Energy initiated multiple ‘energy earthshots’ in support of this goal. Each 
‘shot’  addresses  a  different  area  linked  to  climate  neutrality  focusing  on  technologies  for 
carbon removal, reduction, or avoidance.50 The initiative puts a strong emphasis on R&D and 
the acceleration of technological innovation to ignite breakthroughs in the energy system and 
carbon  cycle.  Moreover,  all  shots  aim  to  radically  drive  down  the  costs  of  technologies, 
defining cost-per-unit targets to be achieved within a decade in the cases of the hydrogen 
shot and the carbon negative shot or by 2035 in the remaining shots. 

A  similar  approach  has  been  adopted  in  the  global  ‘mission  innovation’  initiative,  which 
attributes  high  importance  to  achieving  improvements  in  cost-effectiveness.  Alongside  the 
urban  transitions  mission,  the  initiative  encompasses  multiple  missions  targeting  different 
areas  of  climate  neutrality,  notably  carbon  dioxide  removal,  clean  hydrogen,  renewable 
energy systems, and net-zero industries. Innovations in energy and carbon technologies are 
also at the core of MOIP in Australia, Canada, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Hydrogen 
fuel  represents  a  focal  area across  almost  all  initiatives outside  the EU.  Compared to  this 
emphasis  on  energy  technologies,  it  is  noteworthy  that  several  EU  Member  States,  in 
particular Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden, formulated mission areas 
directly targeting the bioeconomy or circular economy. 

48 https://www.cdti.es/index.asp?MP=100&MS=902&MN=2  
49 https://www.vinnova.se/contentassets/1c94a5c2f72c41cb9e651827f29edc14/designing-
missions.pdf?cb=20220311094952  
50 https://www.energy.gov/policy/energy-earthshots-initiative 

67 

 
 
Country (or 
multi-
country 
region) 

Mission policy 
title (& year 
initiated)  

Australia 

Hydrogen industry 
mission (2021)51 

Definition of relevant mission area(s) 

Hydrogen research, development and demonstration 

Canada 

Materials for clean fuels 
challenge (2020)52 

Carbon dioxide conversion, hydrogen production, and AI-
accelerated materials discovery 

Global 

Mission innovation 
(2021)53 

Net-zero,  resilient,  and  people-centred  cities  (urban 
transitions mission); carbon dioxide removal technologies 
(carbon  dioxide  removal  mission);  cost-competitiveness 
of  clean  hydrogen  (clean  hydrogen  mission);  ability  of 
power systems in different geographies and climates to 
effectively  integrate  up  to  100%  variable  renewable 
energy (green powered future mission); cost-competitive 
solutions for the efficient decarbonisation of hard to abate 
energy intensive industries (net-zero industries mission) 

India 

Smart cities mission 
(2015)54 

Cities that provide core infrastructure and give a decent 
quality  of  life  to  its  citizens,  a  clean  and  sustainable 
environment and application of ‘smart’ solutions 

Japan 

Realisation of 
sustainable resource 
circulation to recover the 
global environment by 
2050 (2020)55 

Norway 

PILOT-E (2016)56 

Norway 

Pilot-T (2021)57 

Solutions to global warming and environmental pollution 
through realisation of sustainable resource circulation for 
the global environment 

New,  environment-friendly  energy  technology  products 
and  services:  zero-emissions  maritime  transport  (2.0), 
zero-emissions  land-based  goods  transport,  the  energy 
system  of 
industrial 
the  digital  age,  sustainable 
processes  for  the  future,  a  zero-emissions  hydrogen 
value chain, zero-emissions construction and facilities 

Novel,  smart  mobility  solutions  with  the  potential  to 
contribute  to  the  creation  of  an  efficient,  safe,  and 
environment-friendly transport system for the future 

Norway 

CLIMIT (2005)58 

Carbon  capture  and  storage  technologies  (CCS):  full-
scale CCS value chain in Europe, large-scale storage of 

51 https://www.csiro.au/en/about/challenges-missions/Hydrogen  
52 https://nrc.canada.ca/sites/default/files/2020-11/mcf-brochure-e.pdf  
53 http://mission-innovation.net/ 
54 https://smartcities.gov.in/sites/default/files/SmartCityGuidelines.pdf  
55 https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/moonshot/sub4_en.html  
56 https://www.enova.no/pilot-e/information-in-english/  
57 https://www.forskningsradet.no/en/call-for-proposals/2022/pilot-t/  
58 https://climit.no/en/  

68 

 
 
Country (or 
multi-
country 
region) 

Mission policy 
title (& year 
initiated)  

Definition of relevant mission area(s) 

CO2  on  the  Norwegian  shelf  in  the  North  Sea,  future 
solutions for CCS 

United 
Kingdom 

Industrial strategy 
challenge fund (2017)59 

United 
States 

Energy Earthshots 
(2021)60 

for  a 

low-cost  nuclear;  digital 
Industrial  decarbonisation; 
technologies 
flexible,  more  productive  and 
sustainable  manufacturing  sector;  smart  local  energy 
systems; smart sustainable plastic packaging; production 
of resilient and sustainable food; developing technologies 
to 
the 
foundational industries   

resource  use  within 

reduce  energy  and 

Cost  of  clean  hydrogen  (hydrogen  shot),  cost  of  grid-
scale energy storage for systems that deliver 10+ hours 
duration  (long  duration  storage  shot),  cost  of  carbon 
dioxide removal and storage (carbon negative shot), cost 
of  enhanced  geothermal  systems  energy  (enhanced 
geothermal  shot),  cost  of  floating  offshore  wind  energy 
(floating  offshore  wind  shot),  cost-competitiveness  of 
industrial  heat  decarbonisation  technologies  (industrial 
heat shot) 

Figure 21. Overview of related mission policies and their respective mission areas in non-EU countries 

Source: Authors 

The comparison with MOIP outside the EU reveals that most missions target (hard-to-abate) 
industries  rather  than  cities  and  adopt  a  more  sectoral  approach  vis-à-vis  the  orientation 
towards  holistic,  placed-based  innovations  in  the  climate-neutral  and  smart  cities  area. 
Moreover, missions vary in terms of their openness to different technological solutions but 
place much greater emphasis on the development of new technologies and demonstration of 
tangible,  industrially  scalable  outcomes.  The  mission  area  climate-neutral  and  smart 
cities requires a more demanding MOIP of a transformative rather than acceleratory 
type, which may involve also major changes in everyday life, governance, and business that 
overcome  rather  than  renew  industrial  societies  (Wittmann  et  al.,  2021).  This  broader 
perspective is in line with the results of a recent stakeholder consultation on the priorities to 
be taken in governmental research funding towards achieving deeper emission reductions 
by  2030  and  a  climate-neutral  economy  by  2050.  The  consultation  suggests  that  R&I  is 
needed  across  a  broad  spectrum  well  beyond  the  energy  and  industry  sectors,  including 
mobility,  buildings,  and  socio-economic  and  behavioural  research.  According  to  European 
stakeholders,  governments  should  give  comparatively  less  priority  to  funding  research  of 
hydrogen,  carbon  capture  storage  technologies,  and  digital  technologies  (Sollazzo  et  al., 
2020, p. 71). 

59 https://www.ukri.org/what-we-offer/our-main-funds/ukri-challenge-fund/  
60 https://www.energy.gov/policy/energy-earthshots-initiative  

69 

 
 
 
 
5.4.  Key lessons from the review of the mission area 

The decision to launch a mission in the area of climate-neutral and smart cities is significant 
and timely because many cities have already defined ambitious climate targets and long-term 
visions but are confronted with an ‘implementation gap (Hofstad et al. (2021), Huxley et al. 
(2019) and difficult challenges that they will not be able to address on their own (Gordon & 
Johnson (2018), Huovila et al. (2022), Webb et al. (2023)). Compared to previous, mostly 
sectoral  initiatives,  a  MOIP  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 represents 
an  exemplary  effort  of  connecting  mission-oriented  innovation  policy  with  place-
based  approaches  to  innovation  and  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  (Wanzenböck  & 
Frenzen  (2020),  Schwaag  Serger  et  al.  (2023)).  However,  the  review  presented  in  the 
previous sections shows that cities have also become more vulnerable to transnational and 
global  trends  that  put  local  transformation  processes  at  risk.  Mission-oriented  innovation 
policy, with its focus on bottom-up governance and innovation processes, will thus likely need 
to be complemented with significant efforts at the regional, national, and EU level. 

Locating the mission area ‘climate-neutral and smart cities’ in a global context shows that it 
differentiates  significantly  from  most  MOIP  in  the  domain  of  climate  neutrality  by 
inviting  a  far  more  holistic  and  systemic  approach  to  innovation  processes.  The 
mission  area addresses  some  of  Europe’s  main  challenges  in  achieving  climate-neutrality 
that lies beyond the scope of most missions launched in non-EU countries. This is, notably, 
true 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 (Seto et al., 2021), the 
focus  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  instrumental  in  mobilising  stakeholders  across  governmental  bodies  and  civil 
society  organisations.  Overcoming  departmental  siloes  and  establishing  linkages  across 
different  governmental  levels  is  essential  to  making  urban  transitions  to  climate  neutrality 
possible.61  The  mission  area  attracted  considerable  interest  among  cities  and  inspired 
several Member States to introduce new policies and city administrations to reorganise their 
departments. The mission area was an effective ‘boundary object’ (Janssen et al. (2023) for 
mobilising many important, if not all, actors needed to realise a climate-neutrality in cities. 

While  broadly  framed  to  enable  systemic  innovation  and  compatible  with  established 
initiatives  towards  climate-friendly  and  smart  cities,  the  definition  of  the  mission  area 
comes at the cost of a rather technical jargon and unclear communication of benefits 
for  citizens.  By  contrast,  the  emphasis  on  cost  reductions  and  cost-effectiveness  makes 
many mission areas defined in non-EU countries easier to communicate. At the same time, 
the mission area conveys a rather technocratic, ‘smart’ vision of city governance, which may 
undermine efforts to make citizen involvement a cornerstone of EU’s approach to mission-
oriented innovation policy. Related to this, the mission area does not account of key urban 
challenges associated with increasing social and spatial segregation. Notably, some of these 
issues  have  been  addressed  in  the  urban  transitions  mission  with  its  focus  on  ‘net-zero, 
resilient, and people-centric cities’. The formulation of the mission area, however, seems to 

61 See the mission assessment report. 

70 

 
 
be primarily driven by political concerns of inclusiveness and comprehensiveness rather than 
conveying  the  expected  outcomes  and  benefits  of  the  mission.62  The  mission  area  would 
likely  be  different  if  it  had  emerged  from  a  citizen  co-design  or  consultation  process  as 
opposed  to  political  debates  in  the  European  Parliament  and  European  Council63.  For 
example, including the notion of ‘smart’ in the definition of the mission area and in the Cities 
Mission  was  evidently  a  political  decision,  even  though  it  had  not  been  included  in  the 
proposals of experts prior to the selection of the mission area (EC (2018b), EC/Mazzucato 
(2018))  and  was  removed  by  the  mission  board  in  its  proposed  mission64.  Ultimately,  the 
mission area did not preclude more citizen-friendly formulations of the mission. As the review 
of mission areas from EU and non-EU countries shows, mission areas frequently use different 
terminologies than missions. A notable example is the ‘healthy, clean cities’ mission, which 
emphasised health and cleanliness while operating within very much the same mission area 
as  the  EU’s  Cities  Mission.  A  more  user-centric  design  approach  (Hill,  2022)  to  the 
formulation  of  missions  would  be  a  benefit.  Respecting  the  scope  of  mission  areas  in 
technical  terms,  does  not  preclude  developing  missions  of  high  inspirational  value  to 
stakeholder groups. 

6.  Mission area: soil health and food 

6.1. 

The scope and definition of the mission area 

After a process in which the European Commission intensively interacted with Member States 
over the selection of mission areas, ‘soil health and food’ was one of the five areas that was 
adopted in the autumn of 2018. Other options on the shortlist of about 20-30 options also 
covered options of a more technological nature, like quantum and hydrogen65. The choice for 
selecting  soil  health  and  food  as  a  mission  area  fits  the  imperatives  of  current  views  on 
mission-oriented innovation policy, stating that missions form an opportunity to go beyond 
boosting  R&I  and  technology  development  and  instead  help  to  tackle  actual  societal 
challenges (EC, 2018). 

An interviewee underlined that a more specific motivation for selecting this mission area was 
that it represents a natural capital dimension for which there has been relatively little 
policy  progress  in  the  EU  for  a  long  period.  Meanwhile  soil  health  conditions  have 
deteriorated. Therefore, policy makers from various domains (including agriculture) strongly 
advocated for a mission area that would provide an opportunity to strengthen the awareness 
and  commitment  around  improving  soil  health  –  notably  by  catalysing  or  even  being  a 
fundament under other EU-level policy developments in the domain of soil health and food. 
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  the  Commission’s  proposal  for  a Soil  Monitoring  Directive  that  were 
already in early stages of development (EC, 2020). As also stated in the 2022 SRIP report: 
“R&I is essential for adapting our territories, food, water systems, infrastructure, and our ways 
of  producing  and  consuming”  (EC,  2022,  p149),  for  instance  when  it  comes  to  providing 

62 For example, the ‘healthy, clean cities’ initiative aimed for climate-neutral cities but stressed the benefits in terms 
of health and cleanliness instead, similar to the mission areas on oceans and soil (EIT Climate-KIC, 2020).  
63 For an overview of how various initiatives arrived at their definitions of missions, see Larrue (2021). In the context 
of EU missions, co-design workshops with citizens were held after the mission area had been defined. 
64 The mission selection process is assessed in the mission assessment report. 
65 Source: interviews with EC officials. 

71 

 
 
 
accurate  information  that  allows  for  monitoring  the  evolution  of  soil  (health)  evolution.  A 
particular motivation for taking soil health and food as a topic requiring a mission approach 
is that while there were actual and forthcoming policies (at the EU and national level) dealing 
with soil health, much of these efforts were fragmented and only consider a subset of soil 
health indicators (e.g. only land degradation or erosion, but not biodiversity). One prominent 
mission  could  not  only  provide  knowledge  and  infrastructure  inputs  for  those  separate 
policies, but also align them better and accelerate their visibility and uptake (Bouma, 2022). 

Just like for the other mission areas, a mission board consisting of 15 experts was installed 
in August 2019. The mission board for soil health and food was asked to analyse the mission 
area and, consequently, propose a concrete mission (for more on the mission itself see the 
mission assessment report for soil health). This led to the publication of the ‘Caring for soil is 
caring for life’ report in September 2020 (EC, 2020). 

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.” (EC, 2020, p.34). 
More specifically, the review points at several specific challenges. These are listed in Figure 
22; the provided quotes and sources supporting the provided evidence can be found in Annex 
1  of  the  mission  board  report  (‘Review  of  the  evidence  base:  status  of  soil  health  across 
Europe 2020’).  

Specific 
challenges 

Nitrate 

Evidence for the specific challenge (illustrative excerpts) 

“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 

“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).” 

Water erosion 

“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” 

72 

 
Specific 
challenges 

Evidence for the specific challenge (illustrative excerpts) 

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 

“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” 

Desertification 

“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” 

Figure 22. Evidence base for the mission area – soil health and food 

Source: EC (2020). 

The environmental and societal consequences of deteriorating soil health conditions are not 
to  be  underestimated.  Defining  soil  health  as  “continued  capacity  of  soils  to  support 
ecosystem services”, the mission board for soil health and food (EC, 2020, p.8) stressed that 
improving soil health is crucial for safeguarding the following ecosystem services: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

producing adequate 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 of habitats both above and within the soil;  

supporting the quality of our landscapes and greening of our towns and cities.  

The mission board underlined the potential contribution of a mission in this mission area to 
the UN’s SDGs targets. Those most directly affected by soil degradation, and thus requiring 
soil action, are SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 13 (climate 
action)  and  SDG  15  (life  on  land)66.  These  are  aligned,  to  a  large  extent,  with  the  SDGs 
targeted by the European Green Deal that was adopted around the same time as the mission 
board was preparing its report. A comprehensive overview of SDGs affected by healthy soils 

66 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. 

73 

 
 
and  the  ecosystem  services  they  render  was  proposed  by  a  team  led  by  the  Food  and 
Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and involving the European Commission; see Figure 23. 

Figure 23. Ecosystem services and SDGs supported by healthy soils 

Source: FAO, 2020 

6.2.  Review of the mission area 

6.2.1.  The role of R&I in addressing the challenges 

A first basis for reviewing the mission area is determining whether R&I make a meaningful 
contribution  to solving societal  challenge(s).  Obviously  non-R&I  policies can  often  make a 
tremendous difference but given that the EU mission policies are rooted in Horizon Europe it 
would be problematic if only other policies matter. Indeed, it is part of the MOIP concept that 
they should have ambitious goals (regarding pressing societal challenges) that can only be 
achieved  by  the  development  and  application  of  novel  solutions.  Of  particular interest  are 
solutions that are not stand-alone products, services, etc. for which there are markets, but 
solutions that require the transformation of entire production-consumption systems (Hekkert 
et al, 2020). Such transformations often rely on a range of complementary investments and 
efforts by different actors (including users), targeted  at knowledge development as well as 
infrastructure,  legislation,  awareness  raising,  and  any  other  factor  that  determines  the 
possibility for new solutions to be adopted. If many factors need to change simultaneously to 
create the synergies that foster system transformation, it is essential to bundle and coordinate 
packages  of  R&I  (and  non-R&I)  policies.  This  is  where missions,  as  coordination  devices, 
hold an important promise (Janssen et al, 2021). 

The question here is thus to what extent soil health and food forms an area in which a mission 
approach (with a clear R&I component, and more) can indeed make a difference.  Empirical 
evidence shows that technology can play an essential role in mitigating the harmful impacts 
of industrialisation on the environment and achieving SDGs (Ahmad et al., 2020); and that 
R&I is a mechanism to mitigate air and soil pollution (Alvarado et al., 2021). Moreover, the 
promotion of pro-poor and pro-farmers soil and water conservation measures will be essential 
to support adaptation to climate change (File and Derbile, 2020). It follows that R&I policy will 
have to work hand-in-hand with instruments such as the European Agricultural Fund for Rural 

74 

 
 
Development (EAFRD) or the LIFE programme, promoting agronomic and organic practices 
in soil and water conservation as a viable option especially for smallholder farmers. However, 
despite  the  claims  on  the  necessity  to  implement  a  R&I-led  model  of  sustainability  and 
circularity in the European economy, there are some concerns regarding the orientation of 
recent  research  activities  sponsored  in  the  EU.  Muscio  and  Sisto  (2020:10)  look  at  data 
related to the amounts of money allocated and the projects funded for R&I projects with the 
EAFRD  and  the  FPs  in  the  agri-food  sector.  They  find  that  “the  issue  of  circularity,  while 
widely trusted in policy papers, plays a marginal role in R&I activity. The R&I issue becomes 
particularly  critical  if  we  consider  that  the  global  circularity  gap  is  widening  instead  of 
shrinking. Therefore, to reverse this negative trend embedded deep within the ‘take-make-
waste’ tradition of the linear economy, a strong need exists for change and for the adoption 
of transformative and correctional solutions”.  

The food and drink industry is the EU's biggest manufacturing sector in terms of jobs and 
value added. It is also one of the most resilient sectors in terms of economic performance. 
Food  innovations  are  a  priority  in  continuously  evolving  food  systems  and  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 of 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 indeed a main concern in the literature dealing with healthy soil. R&I 
in  the  agricultural  sector,  the  primary  focus  of  the  EU  Soil  Mission,  has  a  long  history 
(Olmstead  and  Rhode,  2008).  However,  innovation  is  primarily  developed  ‘outside’  the 
agricultural sector and farmers tend to be innovation adopters of technologies developed by 
the chemical, mechanical or ICT industry. Therefore, innovation adoption is a key aspect of 
R&I  policy  in  healthy  soil  and  the  investigation  of  the  factors  influencing  the  adoption  of 
innovations such as appropriate climate-smart agriculture practices (Kangogo et al., 2021), 
is a key concern in Europe and elsewhere (see: Mao et al., 2021; Thinda et al., 2020). 

In Europe, there is great interest in the ‘4 per 1000’ initiative67, pushing for soil organic carbon 
sequestration  (SOC)  and  many  regional  bodies  and  organisations  have  committed  to  its 
ambitious aims. SOC sequestration could be a valuable tool in offsetting GHG emissions and 
improve food quality and adaptation to climate change. However, as noted in Rumpel et al., 
(2020:357): “the potential of soils to sequester SOC is limited by biophysical, socio-economic 
and  political  barriers.  These  need  to  be  overcome  by  region-specific  actions  and  the 
development  and  implementation  of  innovative  technologies.  […]  priorities  will  need  to  be 
decided to ensure that actions are focused on sites and conditions where opportunities to 
increase soil carbon stocks are most likely to be successful. We conclude that the 4p1000 
Initiative  is  likely  to  facilitate  findings  from  site-specific  studies,  practical  experiences  and 
model  predictions  to  be  incorporated  into  future  policy  actions  to  encourage  long-term 
adoption and implementation of sustainable development strategies”. 

Some support can come from the gradual growth of organic farming (Dudek and Wrzaszcz, 
2020). However, even organic farming, in order to be economically sustainable needs to rely 
on innovation is fields such as ICT (Clark, 2020), confirming the transversality of R&I policies 
supporting soil. The role of intermediary stakeholders, especially from the private sector (e.g. 

67 The 4 per 1000 Initiative was created with the goal of achieving an annual growth rate of 0.4% in soil carbon stocks 
(or 4‰ per year) in the first 30–40 cm of soil. 

75 

 
 
crop  advisers),  will  be  fundamental  in  spreading  information  among  farmers  about 
conservation practices, promoting innovation adoption (Eanes et al., 2019).  

Finally, a lack of diffusion of innovative soil management practices is more salient than the 
development  of  those  practices.  Hence,  there is  an  interest  for promoting  healthy  soils  by 
applying living labs as a policy instrument. While living labs have been implemented for quite 
some time, they still have not convinced the academic community of their validity as a policy 
instrument,  at  least  not  at  the  aggregate  level.  As  noted  in  Paskaleva  and  Cooper  (2021: 
102311): “despite their 20-year history, the operationalisation of and outcomes from Living 
Labs  are  still  poorly  understood  owing  to  paucity  of  published  evidence,  compounded  by 
inadequate  research  design  and  insufficient  attention  to  implementing  and  reporting 
performance evaluations”. 

In addition to the results from the literature review, Figure 24 below sums up some expected 
contributions of R&I to addressing the mission area challenges. 

Specific challenges 

Expected contribution of R&I 

Practices for enhancing soil health cannot be 
readily applied, as they have to be tuned to 
place-specific circumstances 

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 

Practices  for  enhancing  soil  health  are  not 
adopted  when  policy  makers  try  to  impose 
them 

“LUCAS  Soil  data,  covering  surface  soil,  show  that 
cultivated  and permanent  crops  have  the  lowest  SOC 
concentrations of all major land cover classes” 

Different  countries  use  different  (or  no) 
indicators for monitoring soil health aspects 

Development, validation, harmonization and integration 
of  indicators,  as  well  as  methodologies  for  measuring 
them 

(innovative) 

soil 
with 
Experiments 
management 
robust 
practices 
methodologies  for  assessing  effectiveness, 
and/or 
some 
dimensions of soil health  

indicators 

cover 

only 

lack 

(like 
For  some  soil  health  problems 
biodiversity  decline)  or  solutions 
(like 
biowaste innovation), there is a shortage of 
applicable insights and techniques  

“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” 

Development  of  ‘technical’  knowledge  on  soil  science 
issues  

Practices  for  enhancing  soil  health  remain 
underutilised as they are or seem not to be 
economically feasible  

Development of knowledge on socio-economic factors 
like business models 

Practices  for  enhancing  soil  health  remain 
underutilised  as  potential  users  are  not 
familiar with them 

Development  of  capacities  (advisors,  education)  that 
support  the  absorption  and  application  of  relevant 
knowledge 

Figure 24. Expected contribution of R&I to addressing the mission area challenges 

Source: Mission board for soil health and food (2020) - Caring for soil is caring for life. 

76 

 
6.2.2.  Developments influencing the mission area 

In the few years since the mission area was defined, the trends in factors impacting soil health 
and food have varied. A first way to assess these trends is by looking at developments in the 
societal  challenges  the  mission  area  addresses.  EUROSTAT68  monitors  progress  towards 
the SDG targets including the four SDGs for which there is the strongest link with soil health 
and food (see section 6.1). The data 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  are  the  increases  in  the  share  of  forest  areas  and,  even  more  significantly,  in 
terrestrial protected areas. Also overall land degradation (not confined to agricultural land) is 
in a better position than five years ago. There is no data available for the soil sealing index. 
The progress on those indicators indicates that, in a number of respects, soil health seems 
to be gradually improving already. On the other hand, there are also several more concerning 
developments – both when it comes to the health of the soils themselves as well as of the 
organisms  that  live  in/on  it.  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  is  still  plenty  of  reason  to keep 
investing in a soil health and food mission area. 

A second way of assessing the relevance of the mission area is by considering the range of 
factors,  including  policy,  social,  environmental,  technological  and  geopolitical  factors  that 
could  influence  the  need  of  policies  for  soil  health  and  food.  Interviewees  have  identified 
several factors, and how these would impact the potential added value of the mission area 
(Figure  25).  One  example  of  such  a  factor,  supported  by  evidence  discussed  in  the  2022 
SRIP report, is the geopolitically driven demand for food security and food system resilience, 
increasing the pressure on food production on European soils (EC, 2022). 

Type of factor/trend  

Short summary of the expected 
impact of the factor/trend 

Environmental:  Worsening  of  biodiversity 
decline,  global  warming  (drought),  extreme 
weather conditions, etc. 

Social: 
produced healthy food 

Increasing  preferences 

for 

locally 

Geopolitical: The EU seeks to be less dependent 
on  other  countries,  including  when  it  comes  to 
food production 

Urgency to improve the health of soils increases 

More local food production puts more pressures 
on  soils,  underlining  the  demand  for  policy 
intervention 

Policy:  CAP  might  be  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  more  healthy  soils,  thus 
reducing the urgency for the mission area 

Technological: Rise of synthetic food production, 
replacing biological/organic food production 

Societies  would  rely  less  on  agricultural  use  of 
soils, potentially lowering soil health challenges 

68 See: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/sdi/overview  

77 

 
 
Type of factor/trend  

Short summary of the expected 
impact of the factor/trend 

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 

Economic/Technological:  Rise  of  solar  panel 
farms on fertile grounds 

Both negative and positive impacts on soil health 
are possible 

Figure 25. Identified factors or possible trends influencing the mission area, in order of descending likelihood. 

Source: authors based on interviews and EC (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.  One  exception  is  found  in 
technological  developments  like  the  rise  of  synthetic  food  production  but  given  the 
widespread  and  deeply  rooted  preference  for  organic  meat  and  vegetables  this  is  not 
regarded as something which will to a large extent replace, rapidly, current ways of producing 
food. 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.  Similarly,  interviewees  remark  that  ideally  the  Common 
Agriculture Policy (CAP) will be reformed in a way that it provides more incentives to land 
managers  to  improve  the  health  of  their  soils.  While  this  would  be  very  welcome,  it is  not 
expected to be a very plausible scenario due to the massive interests associated with how 
CAP funding gets allocated. Moreover, the mission itself might enhance momentum for CAP 
adaptations, which would imply this would not be an exogenous development impacting upon 
the relevance of the mission area. 

to  most 

interviewees)  underlining 

Looking  at  trends  that  are  seen  as  more  likely  to  occur,  especially  various  worrying 
environmental  developments  are  (according 
the 
importance  of  sustaining  or even  augmenting  support  for  the  soil  health  and  food  mission 
area. Obviously, the overall sentiment is not surprising given that all interviewees themselves 
are active in this domain. Still, as one interviewee pointed out, the mission can be regarded 
‘future proof’ when realizing that known soil health issues have existed and been recognized 
for  various  decades,  yet  without  leading  to  a  successful  response.  In  1979-1980  a  ‘soil 
charter’ was published that addressed a couple of concerning issues. Experts reviewing the 
soil charter a few years ago concluded that the same problems were still there, only more 
urgent due to e.g. more intensive farming and accelerated climate change. Hypothetically soil 
health and food would become a less problematic area if food production was industrialised 
and  centralised,  while  simultaneously  also  drastically  improving  its  environmental  impact. 

78 

 
According to interviewees this is not to the case, which is one reason for a growing interest 
in concepts like circular agriculture. More small-scale food production implies that more soils 
have an agricultural use and will face challenges related to e.g. emissions and pollution. 

Moreover, as the mission area addresses other forms of land use, improvements in the health 
of agricultural soils alone are not sufficient. Urban soils and lands used for forestry face soil 
health challenges as well. A trend that is hard to interpret is the rise of solar panel farms, or 
solar parks, on soils that might provide a range of ecosystem services. Recent studies find 
both negative and positive effects, depending on the indicators  used (Choi et al (2020); or 
Lambert  et  al.  (2021)).  More  research  on  models  in  which  solar  parks  and  soil  health 
improvement can be combined as it is telling that current market conditions sometimes value 
fertile soils so little that it is attractive to cover them with solar panels. 

6.3.  Restoring soil health: insights from international examples 

Governments around the world are looking into the potential of using a mission approach to 
targeting societal challenges that require innovative solutions. Many of these initiatives are 
captured by the OECD STIP Compass dashboard on MOIP69. None of the listed examples 
focus explicitly on the area of soil health and food: mission areas (or themes) address either 
food  related  topics  like  food  security,  or  topics  that  aim  to  enhance  environmental 
sustainability. The combination of these types of issues seems to be rather rare. 

Another  common  element  is  that  missions  tend  to  target  technology  domains  instead  of 
societal challenges. While this is not consistent with some of the views on what missions are 
or should be, it is understandable from the perspective that traditionally MOIP were a form of 
R&D,  industrial  and  innovation  policies  geared  towards  boosting  economic  growth 
(Mazzucato, 2018). This background is also reflected in the cases in the dashboard by the 
OECD,  as  it  covers  mission-oriented  policies  that  are  typically  initiated  by  science  or 
economy/business ministries. For instance, Japan has a rich history of developing elaborate 
industrial  strategies,  which  can  explain  why  its  Cross-ministerial  Strategic  Innovation 
Promotion Program (SIP) focused on ‘Technologies for smart bio-industry and agriculture’. 
Similarly, the more recent Moonshot Research and Development Program contains a mission 
area on the ‘creation of the industry that enables sustainable global food supply by exploiting 
unused biological resources. Those mission areas can potentially give rise to innovations that 
improve soil health, but it’s not embedded in how they are framed. Mission areas that have 
soil health (and food) more at the heart of their scope can probably be found when looking 
beyond the science/economy-based ‘umbrella frameworks’ with multiple mission themes and 
instead consider missions led by a sectoral ministry. For example, the Agriculture and Agri-
Food department of the Government of Canada is looking into the formulation of missions 
that address the societal challenges this department is responsible for. To what extent this 
will give a prominent place to soil health and food is still unclear at this stage. 

To  benchmark  the  EU  mission  area  against  a  similar  area  from  outside  the  EU,  relevant 
comparison material can be found in the Australasia region. A recent publication by Klerkx et 
al.  (2022)  describes  which  technological,  economic,  societal  and  policy  developments  are 
taken  into  account  in  considerations  regarding  how  to  use  missions  for  driving  agri-food 
innovation in New Zealand. The authors study the National Science Challenges, established 
by  the  Ministry  of  Business,  Innovation  and  Employment  in  2014,  and  conclude  that 
“challenges such as fragmentation, lock-in of current systems and legacy policies, and limited 

69 https://stip.oecd.org/moip/   

79 

 
 
attention to exnovation70, are still standing in the way of enacting a truly mission-oriented” 
agri-food innovation strategy. They suggest that a coherent mission-oriented strategy would 
benefit from more attention to (amongst others) capacity building; stronger direction setting 
from  central  and  local  government;  and  intensified  use  of  dialogues  with  different 
stakeholders.  As  the  study  examines  to  what  extent  the  agri-food  innovation  system  is 
already mission-oriented, and able to transform instead of only strengthen existing ways of 
producing and consuming, the article has little to say about the background and scoping of a 
particular national mission area (nor about the use of methods that were used in the process 
of defining such an area). 

More  informative  in  that  respect  is  probably  another  recent  study,  on  the  development  of 
mission  arenas  in  Australia  (Fielke  et  al,  2022).  The  authors  combine  the  approach  of 
mission-oriented innovation systems with the responsible innovation literature. Whereas the 
former is obviously directly related to missions, the latter is concerned with making innovation 
more  responsible,  inclusive  and  reflective,  particularly  on  its  social  and  environmental 
impacts. They apply this framework to the case of the Australian agri-food innovation system, 
which differs from the European one in some respects.  

Firstly, there are no clear overarching MOIP (top down), so actors develop their own missions 
(bottom up), something the authors coin as “informal mission development”, involving actors’ 
recognition of innovation as “a collective social process” (p.6). They refer thus to “emerging 
mission (and mission like) activities in the Australian agri-food sector” (p.7), where involved 
actors  need  to  act  in  concert  “to  define  challenges,  develop,  deploy,  and  achieve”  (ibid.) 
collective missions. Thus, whereas there are challenges identified by government agencies 
such  as  the  Commonwealth  Scientific  and  Industrial  Research  Organisation  (CSIRO) 
agency’s goal to “achieve sustainable regional food security and grow Australia’s share of 
premium  AgriFood  markets”71  or  the  National  Agricultural  Innovation  Agenda,  these  are 
supplemented  by  industry  associations’  own  goals  and  roadmaps.  CSIRO  identified  its 
challenges  and  missions  through  trend  modelling/forecasting,  stakeholder  consultation 
(including government and academia) and review of Australian and international priorities like 
the SDGs. In other cases they seemed to be defined by businesses themselves. 

Secondly, what seems to unite all of these informal agri-food missions is a primary focus on 
economic rationales such as increasing production and further establishing Australia’s role 
as exporter of agricultural products, with a secondary focus of also assuring environmental 
sustainability.  Compared  to  a  focus  on  soils  in  general,  this  focus  is  thus  narrower  in  the 
sense of being limited to agricultural soils. On the other hand, it can be seen as broader since 
it looks at agricultural innovation in general, thus including developments which might move 
beyond the use of soil. The different scope probably stems from the strong influence of the 
business sector. The Australian agri-food sector is “proudly one of the least subsidised in the 
developed  world  (Fielke  et  al.,  2022,  p.3),  implying  that  in  the  context  of  agricultural 
innovation coordination and collaboration are traditionally less prevalent than competition. 

To overcome issues of fragmentation and growth-focus, the authors suggest developing a 
cycle (Figure 26) in which people and organisations with ‘responsible innovation potential’ 
(considering a broad range of societal values, not just growth) engage in the determination 
and prioritisation of challenges. This in turn is an input for mission development and based 
on the results, the cycle can be repeated (starting with broad stakeholder engagement). 

70 “Exnovation refers to the stopping or abandoning of an innovation, and it is the opposite of innovation. It is often 
used to describe the discontinuation of a product, service, or technology previously seen as innovative.” 
71 https://www.csiro.au/en/about/challenges-missions/Challenges   

80 

 
 
Figure 26. A mission-oriented innovation cycle 

Source: Fielke et al., 2022, p.1 

Overall, a clear communality in the articles on New Zealand and Australia is the call for more 
stakeholder engagement and dialogues during both the formulation of mission areas as well 
as the implementing and execution of policies fitting the corresponding mission. While there 
is no basis to state whether this was done worse/better or insufficiently/sufficiently in the case 
of  the  EU  mission  area  on  soil  health  and  food,  it  seems  relevant  to  take  these 
recommendations to heart when (re)considering existing or new mission areas.  

6.4.  Key lessons from the review of the mission area 

The  overall  conclusion,  arising  from  the  desk  research  and  interviews,  is  that  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 recognisable, 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 specific domain and relates to various 
societal needs, e.g. those pertaining to food health and food security. Beyond that, soil health 
also covers challenges related to, amongst others, the health of people living on and eating 
from soils, the capacity of soil to purify and retain water, and the possibility of soils to be used 
for carbon sequestration (important for limiting climate change) and cycling nutrients. This 
broad  scoping  makes  it  unlikely  that  the  mission  area  becomes  irrelevant,  as  emerging 
technologies and policies might (partially) tackle some challenges but not all. According to 
interviewees,  all  of  the  aforementioned  issues  are  likely  to  become  more  urgent,  thereby 
underlining  the  importance  of  a  mission  that  tackles  them  while  acknowledging  the 
interdependencies between those challenges and associated societal values. 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 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.  

81 

 
 
In sum, there are no findings suggesting a need to recommend adjustments to the mission 
area. The only potential downside is that while focusing on a broad overarching notion like 
soil  health  allow  to  address  many  challenges,  it  prioritises  or  highlights  none  of  them.  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. Obviously, this is precisely what the 
mission  itself  is  trying  to  tackle  in  various  ways  (see  the  mission  assessment  report). 
However, a critique is that such attempts are somewhat hindered by the fact that soil health 
does not sound as alarming as other more familiar societal challenges related to e.g. cancer 
or  climate  change.  Water  and  biodiversity  related  issues  are  also  covered  by  the  mission 
area, but in a relatively implicit way. So although technically they fall fully within the mission 
area’s scope, a case could be made for defining the mission area (or mission) in such a way 
that  it  directs  more  attention  to  some  increasingly  urgent  but  relatively  unnoticed  societal 
challenges.  Then  again,  given  that  stability  and  clarity  are  fundamental  for MOIP,  it  is  not 
recommended to alter the mission area definition at this stage. It would be more logical to 
ensure that the envisaged communication efforts of the mission sufficiently highlight less well-
known but critical issues like biodiversity decline, and that these efforts target an audience 
that currently is insufficiently aware of this while being able to foster change (including EU 
level policy officials and European Parliament members). 

7.  Conclusions and policy options 

7.1.  Cross-cutting findings 

This study has reviewed the current and future policy relevance of the five mission areas. As 
described in each mission area chapter, as well as in the related mission assessment reports, 
the mission areas were identified and agreed by the co-legislators (the European Council and 
European Parliament) in the Horizon Europe Regulation. The mission areas, defined in only 
a few words in the regulation, were further explored and developed by the mission boards 
with the support of foresight studies and broad consultations with stakeholders and citizens. 
The five mission assessment reports, prepared by the study team, have concluded that the 
scoping of the mission areas and the design of the mission objectives and plans have been, 
generally,  well  managed  in  an  open  and  transparent  manner  and  based  on  the  available 
scientific evidence. Stakeholders consulted appreciate the way the mission area has been 
developed into a set of objectives and actions to deliver on the agreed mission goals. 

How well does the definition of the five mission areas address the major challenges 
the EU faces? 

A  first  observation  is  that  the  concept  of  a  ‘mission  area’  is  not  defined  in  an  official  EU 
document.  A  mission  area  can  be  thought  of  as  equivalent  to  a  ‘grand  challenge’,  which 
Mazzucato  et  al  (2019)  defined  as  “a  difficult  but  important,  systemic  and  society-wide 
problem  with  no  ‘silver bullet’  solution”  (also  termed  a  ‘wicked  problem’).    The  2017  ESIR 
memorandum (EC, 2018) noted that “the overall SDG-framing of a mission-oriented approach 
must be situated within an EU policy agenda built on European values. The EU can drive a 
policy  “frontier”  which  is  at  the  same  time  more  actionable  and  more  ambitious  than  the 
overall SDGs. Obviously not all SDGs can be addressed through R&I policy, nor can they be 
achieved through just EU policy”. 

In contrast to the lack of an official definition of mission area, the Horizon Europe Regulation 
defines a mission as “a portfolio of excellence-based and impact-driven R&I activities across 
disciplines and sectors, intended to: (i) achieve, within a set timeframe, a measurable goal 
that  could  not  be  achieved  through  individual  actions;  (ii)  have  an  impact  on  society  and 

82 

 
policy-making through science and technology; and (iii) be relevant for a significant part of 
the European population and a wide range of European citizens”.  Mazzucato et al (2019) 
offered a more concise definition of a mission as a “concrete target, achievable step towards 
a grand challenge that contextualises projects”.   

In the introduction to the foresight reports prepared for each mission board, it was, noted that 
“Within each of these Mission Areas, a limited number of specific missions shall be defined”. 
Hence, a mission area may potentially require more than one ‘mission’ to solve a systemic 
challenge.  Each mission may, following the definition, set objectives (‘a measurable goal’) 
which have the potential to contribute to solving, the challenge.  Indeed, the OECD (2023) 
note  that  mission-oriented  strategic  agendas  act  as  ‘collective  action  frameworks’.  They 
argue that “the objectives are not the starting point but rather a first result of the mission itself. 
Many missions start with broad objectives, priorities or mission areas”.  

Hence, the first step of a mission is to develop or refine the objectives, most often embedding 
them in a strategic agenda or roadmap. The five EU Missions followed this process with the 
mission  boards  asked  to  devise  a  strategy  with  objectives  and  targets  (the  mission  board 
reports) and then a plan (the implementation plans). 

The  dividing  line  between  ‘mission  area’  and  ‘mission’  prove  to  be  ‘fuzzy’  for  many 
stakeholders  consulted  during  this  review,  including  members  of  the  mission  governance 
structures. The mission areas, defined in a few words, were very broad with no clear direction 
set by the co-legislators72.  As the OECD (2023) note “These loose directional elements do 
not really aim to set a clear orientation, but rather incentivise and facilitate the formation of 
large  partnerships,  wherein  public  and  private  actors  jointly  set  attainable  objectives  and 
develop the collective strategy to meet them”. 

A first question that arises is, therefore, whether the initial definition of mission areas was a 
sufficient basis for developing the missions.  This can be viewed from two perspectives: 

•  Why these five missions areas? Or, in other words, why are the five selected topics more 
important than other possible ‘mission areas’ addressing challenges the EU faces? 

•  Should, or could, these mission areas have led to more than one ‘mission’? 

A first overall conclusion is that the ‘societal relevance’ of each of the five ‘mission areas’ 
is  not  contested,  either  based  on  the  review  of  the  evidence  nor  by  the  stakeholders 
consulted. The table below summarises the challenges and the (principal) SDGs to which the 
mission areas respond. The five areas address complex challenges facing the EU population 
that  require  action  on  the  part  of  governments,  businesses,  education  and  research 
institutions and civil society groups. 

72  The  study  team  was  not  able  to  access  documentary  evidence  on  how  the  five  mission  areas  were  selected. 
Interviewees, including from the EC (mission managers, mission secretariats), were not able to provide insight into 
how the choice was made before being adopted by the Council and Parliament. 

83 

 
 
Mission 
area 

Major challenges addressed 

Adaptation to Climate 
Change, including 
Societal 
Transformation 

Gaps exist between current levels of 
adaptation and the levels needed to 
respond to climate breakdown. 

Commitment to adaptation in line with EU’s 
treaty obligations (Paris Agreement) and 
strategies. 

Contribution to 
SDGs 

SDG 13 – climate action 

Cancer 

Second leading cause of death in the EU, 
first cause of death in children older than 
one year. 

SDG 3 – Ensure healthy 
lives and promote well-
being at all ages 

The EU has less than 10% of the global 
population but a quarter of all (reported) 
cancer cases. 

Healthy Oceans, 
Seas, Coastal and 
Inland Waters 

Unsustainable human footprint in the use of 
(fresh)water resources plus increasing 
pollution (notably (micro-plastics) of water 
and putting at peril future ecosystem 
services 

SDG 14 - Life below water  

SDG 6 - Clean water and 
sanitation 

Progress in reaching good environmental 
status in the EU’s marine waters has been 
slow and the 2020 targets of EU legislation 
were not met 

Climate-Neutral and 
Smart Cities 

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. 

SDG 11 – Sustainable 
cities and communities 

SDG 13 – climate action 

Soil Health and Food 

Current management practices result in 60-
70% of EU soils being unhealthy 

SDG 2 – Zero Hunger 

Increasing water erosion of soils, soil 
sealing, salinisation and desertification put 
at risk capacity to maintain and protect 
biodiversity and food production. 

SDG 6 - Clean water and 
sanitation 

SDG 13 (climate action)  

SDG 15 (life on land).   

Figure 27. How well do the five mission areas address the major challenges the EU faces? 

Source: authors based on references cited in mission area chapters. 

Rather  than  contesting  the  choice  of  the  five  mission  areas,  the  stakeholders  consulted 
tended to discuss the way the scope of the mission area was (re)defined (e.g. the dropping 
of  food  to  focus  on  a  broader  notion  of  soil  health,  or  the  absence  of  the  words  societal 
transformation in the Mission CCA title) when being translated into a mission.  The mission 

84 

 
area ‘takes life’ through the set of objectives defined in the mission which provide an explicit 
scope for the actions to address the mission area. 

The option of developing more than one mission for each mission area does not appear to 
have been considered. Rather the missions defined by the board have tended to adjust the 
scope of the area (e.g. dropping societal transformation from the adaption to climate change 
or viewing  soil  health  as  being  wider than  food  production). Specific  objectives  set by  the 
mission boards can to some extent be considered as ‘sub-missions’ which poses the question 
of whether, over time, some missions might be divided into specific missions (e.g. freshwater 
resources  and  marine  environments  might  be  considered  as  linked  but  with  differing 
challenges and communities of stakeholders). 

At the same time, a second overall conclusion is that the five mission areas are, to a greater 
or less extent, interlinked. Climate neutral cities addresses mitigation of (some of the key) 
anthropogenic  causes  of  climate  breakdown;  while  the  Mission  CCA  promotes  a  greater 
focus on adaptation at local and regional levels given the fact that the action taken to date on 
mitigation  is  not  expected  to  be  sufficient  to  limit  an  increase  in  extreme  climate  events.  
Similarly,  Soil  Mission  and Mission  Ocean  and  Waters  are closely interlinked  with  healthy 
soils  being  a  key  factor  in  maintaining  or  limiting  a  further  decline  in  the  functioning  of 
hydrosphere.    Finally,  the  prevention  of  (and  recovery  from)  cancer  depends  on  multiple 
factors including the quality of the environment (air, water, soil), access to quality and healthy 
foodstuffs, etc.   

The mission areas have been viewed and analysed as distinct topics but the mission boards 
reports,  mission  implementation  plans,  and  the  opinions  expressed  by  stakeholders  (e.g. 
during the policy workshops organised for this study) underline the systemic nature of the 
challenges addressed and the need to identify and take action to optimise the synergies 
between the mission areas (or, more precisely, the missions).  Two of mission areas address 
the  most  complex  systems  on  Earth,  the  soil  substrate73  (“which  we  once  saw  as  a 
homogenous mass, is composed of structures within structures within structures”, Monbiot, 
2022) and the hydrosphere,  on which life depends; two others address how to mitigate or 
adapt to the breakdown, caused by human activity, of the equally complex climate system.  
The human body is a fourth complex system addressed by the missions, with the propensity 
to contract and survive cancer impacted by genetic, social and environmental factors but also 
by the capacity of social and health care systems to take preventive measures, ensure early 
diagnosis,  test  cures  and  provide  care  for  cancer  patients.  Possibly,  the  answer  to  the 
question “why these five mission areas” is precisely their systemic (wicked) nature. 

How important is role of R&I in addressing the mission area challenges? 

The role of R&I in addressing the challenges of a mission area is a key dimension determining 
the translation into a mission. This review has taken stock of the excepted contribution of the 
R&I  for  each  mission  area.  A  third  overall  conclusion  is  that  need  for  sustained  R&I 
investment and outcomes is evident for all five mission areas with, however, differences in 
the  extent  to  which  the  balance  is  given  to  more  ‘research’  (new  discoveries)  to  more 
‘innovation’ (implementation of existing or novel solutions).  

73  'Supporting surface'  on which an  organism grows. The  substrate may simply provide structural  support, or may 
provide water and nutrients. A substrate may be inorganic, such as rock or soil, or it may be organic, such as wood. 

85 

 
 
Mission area 

Expected contribution of R&I to the mission area 

Adaptation to Climate 
Change, including Societal 
Transformation 

Scientific efforts are needed to produce new robust evidence tailored 
to the needs of regional and local authorities as a basis for more 
effective CCA policies 

Underdeveloped evidence in the form of space-based information on 
current and future climate-related hazards, vulnerabilities and risks 

Cancer 

Cancer prevention research has been insufficiently funded given its 
potential role in cancer control 

Unequal R&D activity across R&D stages and between rare and non-
rare cancers. 

Need to increase the translation of research discoveries into 
therapeutic innovation. 

Healthy Oceans, Seas, 
Coastal and Inland Waters 

Research into the interdependencies among the elements of the 
water-climate nexus including the use of digital technologies for 
representing the water continuum and supporting a modern ocean-
water governance and management system. 

R&I is required in ‘ocean ethics’ to increase the awareness of the 
impact of human-activities, on the status of water ecosystems 

Climate-Neutral and Smart 
Cities 

Give greater consideration non-technological innovations and hence 
the important role of R&I in supporting “system innovation in the 
whole value chain of city investment”. 

Key innovation challenges to help urban systems in their transition to 
lower emissions include city management and governance, mobility 
and energy solutions, adaptations to the built environment, etc. 

Soil Health and Food 

For some soil health problems (like biodiversity decline) or solutions 
(like biowaste innovation), there is a shortage of applicable insights 
and techniques.  

Improvements in soil health rank high among specific food system 
innovations likely to be available within 5 years. 

R&I in agriculture needs to account for and support farmers’ 
entrepreneurial environment as an indirect way to support the 
adoption of new technologies and practices. 

Figure 28. The role of R&I in addressing the mission area challenges 

Source: authors based on evidence presented in each chapter 

A fourth overall conclusion is that the scope of the mission areas should have an increased 
emphasis  on  interdisciplinary  R&I  including  a  greater  integration  of  social  science  and 
humanities  (SSH)  and  a  balance  between  technological  and  non-technological  (social) 
innovations. This includes an emphasis on encouraging and motivating adoption of ‘existing 
technologies’ by specific groups (e.g. farmers, citizens, businesses, etc.).  R&I is required to 
support the development and management of new ‘governance tools’ (e.g. digital twins) and 

86 

 
for  the  monitoring  of  the  transformation  of  the  (multiple)  sub-systems  addressed  by  the 
missions. 

Are  there  significant  changes  to  economic,  social  and  environmental  trends  and 
factors influencing the mission areas? 

The review assessed whether the relevance of the mission areas has changed in the last five 
years given developments in environmental, economic and social landscapes. Overall, the 
trends influencing the five mission areas suggest that they are as relevant in 2023 as they 
were five years earlier (during the process of preparation and adoption of Horizon Europe). 

Mission area 

Trends impacting the mission area 

Adaptation to Climate 
Change, including 
Societal Transformation 

Frequency and severity of extreme climate events increasing 

Trend in climate related economic losses is worsening 

Cancer 

The number of cancer cases will increase by 25% in the EU if no action 
is taken. 

Trends in major causes of cancer, e.g. obesity and smoking, are stable 
or worsening. 

Healthy Oceans, Seas, 
Coastal and Inland 
Waters 

Due to trends in climate breakdown, demographic pressures (water-
use, over-fishing), man-made pollution (plastics, nitrates), etc. 
measures to reduce the impact of human activity on ocean and water 
ecosystems continue to be a priority 

Climate-Neutral and 
Smart Cities 

Soil Health and Food 

Projections of future GHG emission trends suggest that existing and 
additional measures the EU and the Member States plan to launch in 
the coming years will not be sufficient to reach the goal of reducing 
GHG emissions to at least 55% (instead of 40%) below 1990 levels by 
2030. 

Worrying trends, for instance, in the use of hazardous pesticides; 
nitrate in groundwater; phosphate in rivers; biodiversity; and 
greenhouse emissions from land use., land use change and forestry. 
These trends suggest that there is still plenty of reason to keep 
investing in a soil health and food mission area. 

Figure 29. Trends influencing the relevance of the mission areas 

Source: authors based on evidence presented in each chapter 

Another way of thinking about the question is at what point would the urgency to act in the 
area be reduced sufficiently that a mission is no longer required. A response is that the 2030 
targets  set  for  the  missions,  are  in  most  cases,  ‘stretched  targets’,  in  the  sense  that  they 
indicate a ‘direction of travel’.  The mission assessment reports, while reporting progress in 
implementing the missions, suggest that there remains a need for sustained action to address 
the challenges of each mission area.  Hence, a final conclusion is that the mission areas, 
as defined by the co-legislators, and further scoped out by the mission boards, appear flexible 
enough to allow their adjustment to identifiable trends over the coming seven years. 

87 

 
 
 
7.2.  Options for the future definition of mission areas 

As noted above, the initial mission area definition and decision process has not been codified 
(which  is  something  to  avoid  from  a  perspective  of  good  governance)  and,  therefore, 
assessing ‘ex-post’ the choice is a difficult exercise.  Should a process of selecting mission 
areas be conducted in the future (in preparation for framework programme 10 (FP10) and 
the next multi-annual framework 2028-2034), a first recommendation is to consider how to: 

•  Define  mission  areas  based  on  an  objective  evidence-base  (including  assessment  of 
mega trends, foresight, etc.) so as to avoid a ‘bidding war’ from a political perspective or 
undue influence by lobbying groups (researchers, business, etc.) 

•  Agree  openly  on  the  criteria  and  the  procedure  for  ranking  alternative  mission  areas, 
including by giving sufficient time and means for citizens to propose ideas that feed into 
a high-level policy debate and final decision. 

These orientations are in line with the four steps for selecting missions proposed by the expert 
group on the Economic and Societal Impact of Research (ESIR) memorandum (EC, 2018). 

As noted, above, the mission areas address complex systems which are at risk of reaching 
tipping points where the systems collapse or switch into other, non-desirable, states.  The 
missions can  be viewed  as means  of  reducing  the  risk of  soil,  water and  climate systems 
reaching  ‘physical’  tipping  points  by  fostering,  through  governance  and  organisational 
innovations,  ‘social’  tipping  points’  (Juhola  et  al,  2022),  where  a  change  in  the  underlying 
elements  or behaviour of  actors  triggers  a large non-linear response  in  the social system.  
Similarly for cancer, while R&I may support the development of new preventative and curative 
methods,  a  social  tipping  point  may  be  required  to  reduce  the  causes  of  cancer  such  as 
smoking and obesity. 

Hence,  a  second  recommendation  is  that  the  definition  and  selection  of  mission  areas 
(challenges)  should  be  based  on  a  deeper  understanding  of  the  social  factors  driving  or 
hindering  change  and  to  identify  the  social  innovations  required.    Indeed,  the  2023  ESIR 
report  noted  that  “Policymaking  needs  greater  awareness  of  how  to  achieve  ‘unlearning’, 
address  lock-ins  and  overcome  inertia  of  patterns,  policies  and  processes  that  prevent 
necessary and desirable change”.  This requires an enhanced use of relevant SSH research. 

A  third  recommendation  is  that  there  should  be  a  structured  and  on-going  process  of 
updating the key trends and factors influencing the five mission areas (and, potentially, pre-
identification of emerging future mission areas).  This study has undertaken a review of trends 
but had a limited brief and resources to address the multiple factors influencing the mission 
areas.    The  societal,  environmental,  technological,  etc.  mega-trends  require  an  on-going 
analysis  of  new  evidence  and  anticipation  (R&I  foresight)  to  provide  a  basis  for  the  re-
assessment of objectives, activities, future Horizon Europe work-programmes and calls, by 
the missions board, mission secretariats, mission stakeholders. 

88 

 
8.  References 

8.1.  Adaptation to climate change, including societal transformation 

Cass,  N.,  Schwanen,  T.,  and  Shove,  E.  (2018),  Infrastructures,  intersections  and  societal 
transformations, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137, 160–167.  

Denton, F., Wilbanks, T.J., Abeysinghe, A.C., Burton, I., Gao, Q., Lemos, M.C., Masui, T., 
O’Brien, K.L., and Warner, K. (2014), Climate-resilient pathways: adaptation, mitigation, and 
sustainable development. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. 
Part  A:  Global  and  Sectoral  Aspects.  Contribution  of  Working  Group  II  to  the  Fifth 
Assessment  Report  of  the  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change.  Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1101-1131. 

European Commission (2022), Science for Climate Action: EU research contribution to IPCC 
Working  Group  II  on  Impacts,  Adaptation  and  Vulnerability,  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union, Luxembourg. 

European  Commission  (2021a),  Adaptation  to  Climate  Change:  Support  at  least  150 
European  regions  and  communities  to  become  climate  resilient  by  2030:  Implementation 
Plan, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

European  Commission  (2021b),  Mission  area  Adaptation  to  climate  change,  including 
societal transformation: foresight on demand brief in support of the Horizon Europe mission 
board, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

European Commission (2021c), Forging a climate-resilient Europe - the new EU Strategy on 
Adaptation to Climate Change, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

European Commission (2021d), Closing the climate protection gap - Scoping policy and data 
gaps, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

European Commission (2020), Accelerating the transition to a climate prepared and resilient 
Europe:  report  of  the  mission  board  for  adaptation  to  climate  change,  including  societal 
transformation, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

European Commission (2019), The European Green Deal, COM(2019) 640 final. 

European  Commission  (2018a),  EU  Urban  Agenda:  Climate  Adaptation  Partnership  Final 
Action Plan, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

European Commission (2018b), Study to support the evaluation of the (2013) EU Adaptation 
Strategy, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

European Environmental Agency (2022), Advancing towards climate resilience in Europe — 
Status of reported national adaptation actions in 2021, Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg. 

European  Environmental  Agency  (2021),  Nature-based  solutions  in  Europe:  Policy, 
knowledge  and  practice  for  climate  change  adaptation  and  disaster  risk  reduction, 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

89 

 
European Environmental Agency (2020), Urban adaptation in Europe: how cities and towns 
respond to climate change, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

European  Environmental  Agency  (2019),  Sustainability  transitions:  policy  and  practice, 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

European  Environmental  Agency  (2017),  Climate  change,  impacts  and  vulnerability  in 
Europe  2016:  An  indicator-based  report,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg. 

European  Investment  Bank  (2023),  Climate  action  and  environmental  sustainability: 
overview, European Investment Bank, Luxembourg. 

European  Investment  Bank  (2021),  EIB  Climate  Adaptation  Plan:  supporting  the  EU 
Adaptation  Strategy  to  build  resilience  to  climate  change,  European  Investment  Bank, 
Luxembourg. 

Fagerberg,  J.  (2018),  Mobilizing  innovation  for  sustainability  transitions:  A  comment  on 
transformative innovation policy, Research Policy, 47(9), 1568–1576. 

Ferreira, J. J. M., Fernandes, C. I., and Ferreira, F. A. F. (2020), Technology transfer, climate 
change mitigation, and environmental patent impact on sustainability and economic growth: 
A comparison of European countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150.  

Feyen  L.,  Ciscar  J.C.,  Gosling  S.,  Ibarreta  D.,  Soria  A.  (editors)  (2020),  Climate  change 
impacts and adaptation in Europe. JRC PESETA IV final report. Publications Office of the 
European Union, Luxembourg. 

Gancheva  M.,  O’Brien  S.,  Tugran  T.,  Borrett  C.  (2020),  Adapting  to  climate  change: 
Challenges  and  opportunities  for  the  EU  local  and  regional  authorities.  Report  by  Milieu 
Consulting SRL commissioned by the Committee of the Regions. 

Global Commission on Adaptation (2019), Adapt now: A global call for leadership on climate 
resilience, World Resources Institute and Global Commission on Adaptation. 

Ghosh,  B.,  Kivimaa,  P.,  Ramirez,  M.,  Schot,  J.,  and  Torrens,  J.  (2021),  Transformative 
outcomes: Assessing and reorienting experimentation with transformative innovation policy, 
Science and Public Policy, 48(5), 739–756 

Hötte, K., & Jee, S. J. (2022), Knowledge for a warmer world: A patent analysis of climate 
change adaptation technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 183.  

Iceland  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Natural  Resources  (2021),  In  view  of  Climate  crisis: 
Iceland’s strategy on adaptation to climate change, Reykjavik. 

IPCC (2022), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of 
Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change  [H.-O.  Pörtner,  D.C.  Roberts,  M.  Tignor,  E.S.  Poloczanska,  K.  Mintenbeck,  A. 
Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge 
University  Press.  Cambridge  University  Press,  Cambridge,  UK  and  New  York,  NY,  USA, 
3056 pp., doi:10.1017/9781009325844.  

90 

 
Kyaw, K. (2022), Effect of policy uncertainty on environmental innovation, Journal of Cleaner 
Production, 363.  

OECD  (2021),  "Strengthening  adaptation-mitigation  linkages  for  a  low-carbon,  climate-
resilient  future",  OECD  Environment  Policy  Papers,  No.  23,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris, 
https://doi.org/10.1787/6d79ff6a-en.  

OECD/The  World  Bank/UN  Environment  (2018),  Financing  Climate  Futures:  Rethinking 
Infrastructure, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264308114-en.  

Parker,  R.,  &  Lundgren,  P.  (2022),  The  role  of  Universities  in  Transformative  Innovation 
Policy, Science and Public Policy, 49(2), 159–167. 

Popp, D. (2017), From science to technology: The value of knowledge from different energy 
research institutions, Research Policy, 46(9), 1580–1594. 

Swart,  R.  and  F.  Raes  (2007),  Making  integration  of  adaptation  and  mitigation  work: 
mainstreaming into sustainable development policies?, Climate Policy, 7:4,288-303. 

United  Nations  Framework  Convention  on  Climate  Change  (UNFCCC)  (2015),  The  Paris 
Agreement, UNFCCC, Bonn. 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2020), Report of the 
Adaptation Committee, UNFCCC, Bonn. 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2022), Compilation 
and  synthesis  of  indicators,  approaches  and  metrics  for  reviewing  overall  progress  in 
achieving the global goal on adaptation,  

8.2.  Cancer 

Aggarwal, A., Lievens, Y., Sullivan, R., Nolte, E. (2022) What really matter for cancer care – 
health systems strengthening or technological innovation? Clinical Oncology (R Coll Radiol) 
2022: 34: 430-35, via The Lancet Commission (2022) 

Ambrose, M. (2016) Biden issues cancer Moonshot Report, Advocates for Research Culture 
Shift,  American 
Institute  of  Physics.  Available  at: 
https://www.aip.org/fyi/2016/biden-issues-cancer-moonshot-report-advocates-research-
culture-shift (Accessed: 19 April 2023). 

Institute  of  Physics.  American 

Barrenho, E., Halmai, R., Miraldo, M., Tzintzun, I., Raïs Ali, S., Toulemon, L., Dupont, J.C. 
K.,  Rochaix,  L.,  (2022).  Inequities  in  cancer  drug  development  in  terms  of  unmet  medical 
need. Social Science and Medicine, 302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114953  

Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN 
estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A cancer 
journal for clinicians, 68: 394-424 

Brown, S., Castelli, M., Hunter, D. J., Erskine, J., Vedsted, P., Foot, C., Rubin, G., (2014). 
How  might  healthcare  systems  influence  speed  of  cancer  diagnosis:  A  narrative  review. 
Social Science and Medicine, 116, 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.06.030   

91 

 
Cambrosio,  A.,  Campbell,  J.,  Keating,  P.,  Polk,  J.  B.,  Aguilar-Mahecha,  A.,  &  Basik,  M. 
(2022). Healthcare policy by other means: Cancer clinical research as “oncopolicy.” Social 
Science and Medicine, 292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114576. 

Cancer  Research  UK  (2020),  “Early  Diagnosis  of  Cancer  Roadmap,”  [Online]  Available: 
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/early_detection_diagnosis_of_cancer_r
oadmap.pdf . [Accessed: 10 April 2023]. 

Carnival,  D.  (2022)  White  House's  Danielle  Carnival:  I'm  moving  the  cancer  moonshot 
forward  with  an  all-of-government  approach,  The  Cancer  Letter.  Available  at: 
https://cancerletter.com/conversation-with-the-cancer-letter/20220218_1/ 
(Accessed:  19 
April 2023). 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Mazzucato, 
M., (2018) Mission-oriented research & innovation in the European Union: A problem-solving 
approach 
2018, 
innovation-led 
fuel 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/360325 

Publications 

growth, 

Office, 

to 

European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2020) Proposed 
Mission. Conquering cancer: Mission possible. Report of the Mission Board for Cancer.  

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation  (2022)  Science, 
research  and  innovation  performance  of  the  EU  2022:  Building  a  sustainable  future  in 
uncertain 
European 
Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/78826  

Publications 

times, 

Office 

the 

of 

Eurostat  (2022)  Sustainable  development  in  the  European  Union:  Monitoring  report  on 
progress towards the SDGs in an EU context 

Eschenbach,  D.A.von  (2005)  Eliminating  the  suffering  and  death  due  to  cancer  by  2015, 
Institute.  Available  at:  https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/eliminating-
Manhattan 
suffering-and-death-due-cancer-2015-5951.html (Accessed: 19 April 2023).  

Feng, W., Wang, C., Lei, X., Wang, H., and Zhang, X. (2020). Distribution of nitrate content 
in groundwater and evaluation of potential health risks: A case study of rural areas in Northern 
China. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 17(24): 9390 

Frederiksen, L. E., Pedersen, C., Mogensen, H., Mader, L., Bautz, A., Talbäck, M., Hirvonen, 
E., Norsker, F. N., Hasle, H., Malila, N., Madanat-Harjuoja, L., Feychting, M., Erdmann, F., & 
Winther,  J.  F.  (2022).  Employment  status  and  occupational  positions  of  childhood  cancer 
survivors from Denmark, Finland and Sweden: A Nordic register-based cohort study from the 
SALiCCS 
-  Europe,  12. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100258   

research  programme.  The  Lancet  Regional  Health 

Freeman, V., Hughes, S., Carle, C., et al (2022) Are patients with cancer at higher risks of 
COVID-19-related death? A systematic review and critical appraisal of the early evidence. 
Journal of Cancer Policy, 2022: 33:100340. 

GovTrack.us (2009) S. 717 — 111th Congress: 21st Century Cancer ALERT (Access to Life-
Saving  Early 
at: 
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s717 (Accessed: 19 April 2023) 

Treatment)  Act.”  Available 

detection,  Research 

and 

92 

 
Kalarivayil, R., & Desai, P. N. (2020). Emerging technologies and innovation policies in India: 
how  disparities  in  cancer  research  might  be  furthering  health  inequities?  Journal  of  Asian 
Public Policy, 13(2), 192–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2018.1511219 

Kourany,  J.  A.,  &  Fernández  Pinto,  M.  (2018).  A  Role  for  Science  in  Public  Policy?  The 
Obstacles, Illustrated by the Case of Breast Cancer Screening Policy. Science Technology 
and Human Values, 43(5), 917–943. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918758173 

Lawler, M. & Crul, M. (2022) Data must underpin our response to the COVID-19 pandemic’s 
disastrous impact on cancer. BMJ 2022:376:o282.  

Lor,  M.  (2018).  Systematic  Review:  Health  Promotion  and  Disease  Prevention  Among 
Hmong Adults in the USA. Journal of  Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 5(3), 638–661. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-017-0410-9  

Lyall, C., Bruce, A., Marsden, W. and Meagher, L. (2013). The role of funding agencies in 
creating interdisciplinary know-ledge. Science and Public Policy, 40: 62–71. 

McCarey, M. and Dayan, M. (2022). Has Brexit affected the UK’s medical workforce? Nuffield 
Trust.  27  November.  Available  at:  https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/has-brexit-
affected-the-uk-s-medical-workforce (Accessed: 9 May 2023).  

McIntyre,  P.  (2022)  The  war  in  Ukraine  and  cancer  patients:  Early  experiences  from  the 
frontline. ecancer. 22 September. Available at: https://ecancer.org/en/news/22234-the-war-
in-ukraine-and-cancer-patients-early-experiences-from-the-frontline  (Accessed:  19  April 
2023). 

President’s  Cancer  Panel  (2022).  Closing  gaps  in  cancer  screening:  Connecting  people, 
communities, and systems to improve equity and access- Executive Summary. President's 
Cancer 
at: 
https://prescancerpanel.cancer.gov/report/cancerscreening/ExecutiveSummary.html  
(Accessed: 19 April 2023). 

Available 

Panel. 

Reihani,  A.  R.,  Ahari,  J.,  Manning,  E.  P.,  Cain,  H.  C.,  Bade,  B.  C.,  &  Zimmerman,  H.  G. 
(2021). Barriers and facilitators to lung cancer screening in the United States: A systematic 
review  of  the  qualitative  literature.  Journal  of  Health  and  Social  Sciences,  6(3),  333–348. 
https://doi.org/10.19204/2021/brrr4  

Rekers, J. v., & Hansen, T. (2015). Interdisciplinary research and geography: Overcoming 
242–254. 
barriers 
https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu048  

and  Public  Policy, 

proximity.  Science 

through 

42(2), 

Rezaei, N. (2023). Cancer Research: An interdisciplinary approach. Springer Cham. 

Rubin,  G.,  et  al  (2015)  The  expanding  role  of  primary  care  in  cancer  control,  The  Lancet 
Oncology, 16(12):1231-1272, DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00205-3 

Rubino,  C.,  di  Maria,  C.,  Abbruzzo,  A.,  &  Ferrante,  M.  (2022).  Socio-economic  inequality, 
interregional mobility and mortality among cancer patients: A mediation analysis approach. 
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2022.101247 

Smye  S.W.,  Gatenby  R.A.,  (2022).  Interdisciplinary  approaches  to  metastasis.  iScience 
25(9):105015. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.105015.   

93 

 
Steward,  F.,  Scannell,  J.W.,  Hickman,  J.A.  (2023),  System  Innovation  for  the  Cancer 
Moonshot, MIMEO 

Schullehner, J., Hansen., B., Thygesen, M., Pedersen, C. B., and Sigsgaard, T. (2018) Nitrate 
in  drinking  water  and  colorectal  cancer  risk:  A  nationwide  population-based  cohort  study. 
Cancer Epidemiology, 143(1):73-79 

The Lancet Oncology (2022) European Groundshot – addressing Europe’s cancer research 
challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission. November  

The White House (2022a) Cancer moonshot. The United States Government. Available at: 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cancermoonshot/ (Accessed: 19 April 2023). 

The White House (2022b) Fact sheet: President Biden appoints Cancer Panel Members and 
cancer cabinet  unveils  priority  actions.  The  White  House.  The  United  States  Government. 
Available 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
releases/2022/07/13/fact-sheet-president-biden-appoints-cancer-panel-members-and-
cancer-cabinet-unveils-priority-actions/  (Accessed: 19 April 2023). 

at: 

Toumazis, I., de Nijs, K., Cao, P., et al. (2021) Cost-effectiveness evaluation of the 2021 US 
preventive services task force recommendation for lung cancer screening. JAMA Oncology. 
2021: 7: 1833-42, via The Lancet Commission (2022) 

Wepner, B., & Giesecke, S. (2018) Drivers, trends and scenarios for the future of health in 
Europe.  Impressions  from  the  FRESHER project.  European  Journal  of  Futures  Research, 
6(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40309-017-0118-4  

World Health Organisation (2022). HPV self-sampling in Sweden leading to faster elimination 
of cervical cancer. Available at: https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/08-09-2022-hpv-self-
sampling-in-sweden-leading-to-faster-elimination-of-cervical-cancer 
8 
September 2022, accessed: 9 May 2023). 

(Published: 

8.3.  Healthy Oceans, Seas, Coastal and Inland Waters 

Battye, W., Aneja, VP., Schlesinger, WH. (2017). Is nitrogen the next carbon? Earth’s Future. 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.1002/2017EF000592 

Copernicus Marine Service (2021). Ocean State Report 

European Commission (2018). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Mazzucato, 
M.,  Mission-oriented  research  &  innovation  in  the  European  Union:  a  problem-solving 
approach 
2018, 
innovation-led 
fuel 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/360325 

Publications 

growth, 

Office, 

to 

European  Commission  (2019).  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament,  the  European  Council,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The European Green Deal. COM/2019/640 
final 

European Commission (2020). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Lamy, P., 
Citores,  A.,  Deidun,  A.,  et  al.,  Mission  Starfish  2030:  restore  our  ocean  and  waters, 
Publications Office, 2020, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/70828  

94 

 
European Commission (2021a). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Emotional 
disconnect  with  Europe’s  aquatic  environments:  Report  for  the  European  Commission’s 
Mission Board for Healthy Oceans, Seas, Coastal and Inland Waters 

European Commission (2021b). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Mission 
Area: Healthy Oceans, Seas, and Coastal and Inland Waters: Foresight on Demand. Brief in 
Support of the Horizon Europe Mission Board 

European Commission (2021c). Secretariat General, 2021 Strategic Foresight Report: The 
EUs capacity and freedom to act 

European  Commission  (2021d).  EU  Missions.  Restore  our  Ocean  and  Waters  by  2030. 
Implementation Plan 

European  Commission  (2022a).  Directorate-General  for  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries, 
Setting  the  course  for  a  sustainable  blue  planet  -  Joint  Communication  on  the  EU’s 
International Ocean Governance agenda. JOIN (2022). 28 final  

European Commission (2022b). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Science, 
research  and  innovation  performance  of  the  EU  2022:  building  a  sustainable  future  in 
uncertain 
Union, 
Office 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/78826 

Publications 

European 

times, 

the 

of 

European Commission (2023). Directorate-General for  Research and Innovation, Science, 
research  and  innovation  performance  of  the  EU  2022:  building  a  sustainable  future  in 
uncertain  times:  Executive  summary,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2023, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/497405    

Europe  Jacques  Delors  (2022).  Revamping  EU  blue  governance:  Why  and  How?  Policy 
Paper 

European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (2019). Global Trends to 2030: Challenges 
and Choices for Europe 

Institute  for  European  Environmental  Policy  (2022).  European  Green  Deal  Barometer. 
Second Edition 

Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change  (2019).  The  Ocean  and  Cryosphere  in  a 
Changing Climate. A Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

Intergovernmental  Science-Policy  Platform  on  Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem  (2021).  Rolling 
work  programme  of  the  Intergovernmental  Science-Policy  Platform  on  Biodiversity  and 
Ecosystem Services up to 2030  

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem (2021). Scoping 
report for the thematic assessment of the interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food and 
health (nexus assessment) with revised chapter structure  

Melillo, JM. (2021). Disruption of the global nitrogen cycle: A grand challenge for the twenty-
first century. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.1007/s13280-020-01429-2 

95 

 
Nardello, I. (2020). The Ocean-Climate Nexus: an EU H2020 project-portfolio analysis (2014-
2019). Expert report for the  European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and 
Innovation 

OCED 
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264251724-en 

(2016).  The  Ocean  Economy 

in  2030,  OECD  Publishing,  Paris, 

Porto, M., Kelman, J. (2000). Water Resources Policy in Brazil. The Science Environmental 
Policy and Law of Instream Flow, Vol(7), No. 3 

United Nations (2022). Sustainable Development Goals Progress Report 

8.4.  Climate neutral and smart cities 

Bundgaard,  L.,  &  Borrás,  S.  (2021).  City-wide  scale-up  of  smart  city  pilot  projects: 
Governance  conditions.  Technological  Forecasting  and  Social  Change,  172,  121014. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121014 

Cardullo, P., & Kitchin, R. (2019). Smart urbanism and smart citizenship: The neoliberal logic 
of ‘citizen-focused’ smart cities in Europe. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 
37(5), 813–830. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X18806508 

Correia, D., Marques, J. L., & Teixeira, L. (2022). The State-of-the-Art of Smart Cities in the 
European Union. Smart Cities, 5(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities5040089 

Corsini,  F.,  Certomà,  C.,  Dyer,  M.,  &  Frey,  M.  (2019).  Participatory  energy:  Research, 
imaginaries  and  practices  on  people’  contribute  to  energy  systems  in  the  smart  city. 
Technological 
322–332. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.028 

Forecasting 

Change, 

Social 

142, 

and 

Di  Girolamo,  V.,  Mitra,  A.,  &  Peiffer-Smadja,  O.  (2022).  Investment:  The  critical  role  of 
intangibles. In European Commission (Ed.), Science, research and innovation performance 
of the EU 2022—Building a sustainable future in uncertain times (pp. 286–395). Publications 
Office of the European Union. 

Dinges, M., Borsboom, J., Gualdi, M., Haindlmaier, G., & Heinonen, S. (2021). Mission Area: 
Climate-Neutral  and  Smart  Cities.  Foresight  on  Demand  Brief  in  Support  of  the  Horizon 
Europe Mission Board. European Commission. 

Echebarria,  C.,  Barrutia,  J.  M.,  &  Aguado-Moralejo,  I.  (2021).  The  Smart  City  journey:  A 
systematic review and future research agenda. Innovation: The European Journal of Social 
Science Research, 34(2), 159–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1785277 

EIT Climate-KIC. (2020). Healthy, Clean Cities (Deep Demonstration Factsheet Series No. 
1). 
https://www.climate-kic.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/DD_Healthy_Clean_Cities.pdf 

Climate 

KIC. 

EIT 

Engelbert, J., van  Zoonen, L.,  &  Hirzalla,  F.  (2019).  Excluding  citizens  from  the  European 
smart  city:  The  discourse  practices  of  pursuing  and  granting  smartness.  Technological 
Forecasting 
347–353. 
and 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.08.020 

Change, 

Social 

142, 

96 

 
European Commission. (2017). LAB – FAB – APP: Investing in the European future we want 
- Report of the independent High Level Group on maximising the impact of EU Research & 
Innovation Programmes. European Commission. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/477357 

European Commission. (2018a). A Clean Planet for all: A European strategic long-term vision 
for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy (COM(2018) 773 final). 
European Commission. 

European  Commission.  (2018b).  Final  Report  of  the  High-Level  Panel  of  the  European 
Decarbonisation Pathways Initiative. Publications Office of the European Union. 

European  Commission.  (2018c). 
the  Commission 
In-depth  analysis 
communication COM(2018) 773: A Clean Planet for all A European long-term strategic vision 
for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy. European Commission. 

in  support  of 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Mazzucato,  M., 
(2018)  Mission-oriented  research  &  innovation  in  the  European  Union:  A  problem-solving 
2018, 
innovation-led 
fuel 
approach 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/360325 

Publications 

growth, 

Office, 

to 

European Commission. (2019). Minutes: First meeting of the interim mission board for climate 
neutral and smart cities. Register of Commission Expert Groups and Other Similar Entities. 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-
register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&meetingId=19311&fromExpertGroups=true 

European  Commission.  (2022).  Towards  a  green,  digital  and  resilient  economy:  Our 
European Growth Model (COM(2022) 83 final). European Commission. 

European Committee of the Regions. (2022). EU Annual Report on the State of Regions and 
Cities. European Union. 

European Environment Agency. (2022). Trends and projections in Europe 2022. Publications 
Office of the European Union. 

European  Parliament,  &  Council  of  the  European  Union.  (2021).  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’). Official Journal of the European 
Union, L243. 

European  Union.  (2019).  Sustainable  Development  in  the  European  Union:  Overview  of 
progress towards the SDGs in an EU context. Publications Office of the European Union. 

Eurostat.  (2022).  Sustainable  development  in  the  European  Union:  Monitoring  report  on 
progress towards the SDGs in an EU context. Publications Office of the European Union. 

Floater, G., Heeckt, C., Ulterino, M., Mackie, L., Rode, P., Bhardwaj, A., Carvalho, M., Gill, 
D., Bailey, T., & Huxley, R. (2016). Co-benefits of urban climate action: A framework for cities 
[Working Paper]. London School of Economics and Political Science. https://lsecities.net/ 

Gordon, D. J., & Johnson, C. A. (2018). City-networks, global climate governance, and the 
road 
in  Environmental  Sustainability,  30,  35–41. 
to  1.5°C.  Current  Opinion 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.02.011 

97 

 
Gronkiewicz-Waltz, H., Larsson, A., Boni, A. L., Krogh Andersen, K., Ferrao, P., Forest, E., 
Jordan, R., Lenz, B., Lumbreras, J., Nicolaides, C., Reiter, J., Russ, M., Sulling, A., Termon, 
D., & Vassilakou, M. (2020). Proposed Mission: 100 Climate-neutral Cities by 2030—By and 
for the Citizens: Report of the Mission Board for climate-neutral and smart cities [Report of 
the Mission Board for climate-neutral and smart cities]. European Commission. 

Hill, D. (2022). Designing missions: Mission-oriented innovation in Sweden—A practice guide 
by Vinnova. Vinnova. 

Hofstad, H., Millstein, M., Tønnesen, A., Vedeld, T., & Hansen, K. B. (2021). The role of goal-
setting 
in  urban  climate  governance.  Earth  System  Governance,  7,  100088. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100088 

Huovila, A., Siikavirta, H., Antuña Rozado, C., Rökman, J., Tuominen, P., Paiho, S., Hedman, 
Å., & Ylén, P. (2022). Carbon-neutral cities: Critical review of theory and practice. Journal of 
Cleaner Production, 341, 130912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130912 

Huxley, R., Owen, A., & Chatterton, P. (2019). The role of regime-level processes in closing 
the gap between sustainable city visions and action. Environmental Innovation and Societal 
Transitions, 33, 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.04.001 

IPCC.  (2022).  Climate  Change  2022:  Mitigation  of  Climate  Change.  Working  Group  III 
contribution  to  the  Sixth  Assessment  Report  of  the  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate 
Change. 

Janssen,  M.  J.,  Wesseling,  J.,  Torrens,  J.,  Weber,  K.  M.,  Penna,  C.,  &  Klerkx,  L.  (2023). 
Missions as boundary objects for transformative change: Understanding coordination across 
policy,  research,  and  stakeholder  communities.  Science  and  Public  Policy,  scac080. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac080 

Larrue, P. (2021). The Design and Implementation of Mission-Oriented Innovation Policies: 
A  New  Systemic  Policy  Approach  to  Address  Societal  Challenges.  OECD  Science, 
Technology and Industry Policy Papers, 100. 

Larrue, P. (2022). Do mission-oriented policies  for net-zero deliver  on their many promises? 
Lessons  from  tackling  complex  and  systemic  societal  challenges.  Green  Growth  and 
Sustainable 
https://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/2022GGSD-
Forum. 
IssueNote1-mission-oriented-policies.pdf 

Development 

Material Economics. (2020). Understanding the Economic Case for Decarbonising Cities—
Why  Economic  Case  Analysis 
is  Crucial.  Climate  KIC, 
tomorrowscities.partners. 

for  City  Decarbonisation 

Mission Innovation. (2022). Net-zero, resilient, and people-centred cities: Action Plan of the 
Urban Transitions Mission. Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, European 
Commission, JPI Urban Europe. 

Peiffer-Smadja,  O.,  Cavicchi,  B.,  &  Ravet,  J.  (2022).  R&I  for  sustainability.  In  Science, 
Research  and  Innovation  Performance  of  the  EU  2022:  Building  a  sustainable  future  in 
uncertain times (pp. 129–187). Publications Office of the European Union. 

Ricci, A., Sessa, C., & Weber, M. (2017). New Horizons: Future Scenarios for Research & 
Innovation Policies in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union. 

98 

 
Salvia, M., Pietrapertosa, F., Maestosi, P. C., Simoes, S., & Reckien, D. (2022). Are "Smart 
Cities” also “Climate Smart”? An Assessment of the EU Mission “Climate-Neutral and Smart 
Cities”.  17th  Conference  on  Sustainable  Development  of  Energy,  Water  and  Environment 
Systems (SDEWES). https://repositorio.lneg.pt/handle/10400.9/4009 

Schwaag Serger, S., Soete, L., & Stierna, J. (Eds.). (2023). The Square: Putting place-based 
innovation policy for sustainability at the centre of policymaking. Publications Office of the 
European Union. 

Seto, K. C., Churkina, G., Hsu, A., Keller, M., Newman, P. W., Qin, B., & Ramaswami, A. 
(2021).  From  low-to  net-zero  carbon  cities:  The  next  global  agenda.  Annual  Review  of 
Environment and Resources, 46, 377–415. 

Shabb,  K.,  McCormick,  K.,  Mujkic,  S.,  Anderberg,  S.,  Palm,  J.,  &  Carlsson,  A.  (2022). 
Launching the Mission for 100 Climate Neutral Cities in Europe: Characteristics, Critiques, 
and 
3. 
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsc.2021.817804 

Challenges. 

Sustainable 

Frontiers 

Cities, 

in 

Sollazzo, F., Bolscher, H., Keeling, W., Cuervo Blanco, T., Milan, B. F., Troy, P., Zabala, M., 
Norrie, A., Berninger, K., & Tynkkynen, O. (2020). In-depth report on the results of the 2030 
Climate Target Plan open public consultation. European Commission. 

van  der  Heijden,  J.  (2022).  Towards  a  science  of  scaling  for  urban  climate  action  and 
governance. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 1–13. 

Vandecasteele, I., Baranzelli, C., Siragusa, A., Aurambout, J. P., Alberti, V., Alonso Raposo, 
M., Attardo, C., Auteri, D., Barranco, R., Batista e Silva, F., Benczur, P., Bertoldi, P., Bono, 
F.,  &  Bussolari,  I.  (2019).  The  Future  of  Cities—Opportunities,  challenges  and  the  way 
forward. Publications Office of the European Union. 

Wanzenböck,  I.,  &  Frenken,  K.  (2020).  The  subsidiarity  principle  in  innovation  policy  for 
societal challenges. Global Transitions, 2, 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2020.02.002 

Webb, R., O’Donnell, T., Auty, K., Bai, X., Barnett, G., Costanza, R., Dodson, J., Newman, 
P., Newton, P., Robson, E., Ryan, C., & Stafford Smith, M. (2023). Enabling urban systems 
transformations: Co-developing national and local strategies. Urban Transformations, 5(1), 
5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-023-00049-9 

Wittmann, F., Hufnagl, M., Lindner, R., Roth, F., & Edler, J. (2021). Governing varieties of 
mission-oriented innovation policies: A new typology. Science and Public Policy, 48(5), 727–
738. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab044 

8.5.  Soil health and food 

Ahmad, M., Khattak, S., Khan, A., Rahman, Z., 2020. Innovation, foreign direct investment 
(FDI),  and  the  energy-pollution-growth  nexus  in  OECD  region:  a  simultaneous  equation 
modeling approach. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 1-30. 

Alvarado, R., Ortiz, C., Jiménez, N., Ochoa-Jiménez, D., & Tillaguango, B. (2021). Ecological 
footprint, air quality and research and development: The role of agriculture and international 
trade. Journal of Cleaner Production, 288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125589 

99 

 
Aubert, B. A., Schroeder, A., & Grimaudo, J. (2012). IT as enabler of sustainable farming: An 
empirical analysis of farmers’ adoption decision of precision agriculture technology. Decision 
Support Systems, 54(1), 510–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.07.002 

Bouma,  J.  (2022).  Transforming  living labs into  lighthouses:  a  promising  policy  to  achieve 
land-related sustainable development. Soil, 8(2), 751-759. 

Choi, C. S., Cagle, A. E., Macknick, J., Bloom, D. E., Caplan, J. S., & Ravi, S. (2020). Effects 
of revegetation on soil physical and chemical properties in solar photovoltaic infrastructure. 
Frontiers in Environmental Science, 8, 140. 

Clark, S. (2020). Organic farming and climate change: The need for innovation. Sustainability 
(Switzerland), 12(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177012 

Dudek, M., & Wrzaszcz, W. (2020). On the way to eco-innovations in agriculture: Concepts, 
implementation  and  effects  at  national  and  local  level.  The  case  of  Poland.  Sustainability 
(Switzerland), 12(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12124839 

Eanes, F. R., Singh, A. S., Bulla, B. R., Ranjan, P., Fales, M., Wickerham, B., Doran, P. J., 
&  Prokopy,  L.  S.  (2019).  Crop  advisers  as  conservation  intermediaries:  Perceptions  and 
policy implications for relying on nontraditional partners to increase U.S. farmers’ adoption of 
360–370. 
practices. 
soil 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.054 

Land  Use  Policy, 

conservation 

and  water 

81, 

EEA  (2016)  Soil  resource  efficiency  in  urbanised  areas:  Analytical  framework  and 
implications for governance 

EEA (2020) Land and soil in Europe: Why we need to use these vital and finite resources 
sustainably 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Mazzucato,  M., 
(2018)  Mission-oriented  research  &  innovation  in  the  European  Union:  A  problem-solving 
approach 
2018, 
innovation-led 
fuel 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/360325 

Publications 

growth, 

Office, 

to 

European Commission (2020), Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Veerman, 
C., Pinto Correia, T., Bastioli, C.et al., Caring for soil is caring for life – Ensure 75% of soils 
are healthy by 2030 for food, people, nature and climate : report of the Mission board for Soil 
health and food, Publications Office, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/821504  

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Voglhuber-
Slavinsky, A., Bisoffi, S., Helming, K.et al., Mission area – Soil health and food : foresight on 
demand  brief  in  support  of  the  Horizon  Europe  mission  board,  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union, 2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/038626  

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Research  & 
innovation  for  healthy  soils  &  forests,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  2021, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/563218  

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Communication 
from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on European missions –  Publications 
Office of the European Union, 2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/084922 

100 

 
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, Downloaded from eurofoodbank.org . 

FAO,  ITPS,  GSBI,  CBD  and  EC.  2020.  State  of  knowledge  of  soil  biodiversity  -  Status, 
challenges and potentialities, Report 2020. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1928en  

Fielke, Simon J., Justine Lacey, Emma Jakku, Janelle Allison, Cara Stitzlein, Katie Ricketts, 
Andy Hall, and Alexander Cooke. "From a land ‘down under’: the potential role of responsible 
innovation  as  practice  during  the  bottom-up  development  of  mission  arenas  in  Australia." 
Journal of Responsible Innovation (2022): 1-17. 

File,  D.  J.  M.,  &  Derbile,  E.  K.  (2020).  Sunshine,  temperature  and  wind:  Community  risk 
assessment  of  climate  change,  indigenous  knowledge  and  climate  change  adaptation 
planning  in  Ghana.  International  Journal  of  Climate  Change  Strategies  and  Management, 
12(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-04-2019-0023 

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. 

Hill, D. (2022). Designing missions: Mission-oriented innovation in Sweden—A practice guide 
by Vinnova. 

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. 

Kangogo, D., Dentoni, D., & Bijman, J. (2021). Adoption of climate‑smart agriculture among 
smallholder  farmers:  Does  farmer  entrepreneurship  matter?  Land  Use  Policy,  109. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105666 

Klerkx,  L.,  Turner,  J.,  &  Percy,  H.  (2022).  Navigating  the  rapids  of  agrifood  systems 
transformation: reflections on Aotearoa New Zealand’s emerging mission-oriented agrifood 
innovation system. New Zealand Economic Papers, 1-15. 

Lambert, Q., Bischoff, A., Cluchier, A., Cueff, S., & Gros, R. (2021). Effects of solar parks on 
soil quality, CO2 effluxes and vegetation under Mediterranean climate. Authorea Preprints. 

Mao, H., Zhou, L., Ying, R. Y., & Pan, D. (2021). Time Preferences and green agricultural 
technology  adoption:  Field  evidence  from  rice  farmers  in  China.  Land  Use  Policy,  109. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105627 

Mazzucato,  M.  (2018).  Mission-oriented  innovation  policies:  challenges  and  opportunities. 
Industrial and corporate change, 27(5), 803-815. 

Muscio,  A.,  &  Sisto,  R.  (2020).  Are  Agri-Food  Systems  Really  Switching  to  a  Circular 
Economy Model? Implications for European Research and Innovation Policy. Sustainability, 
12(14), 5554. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145554 

Olmstead, A.L., Rhode, P.W., 2008. Creating Abundance. Cambridge. 

101 

 
Paskaleva, D. K., & Cooper, D. I. (2021). Are living labs effective? Exploring the evidence. 
Technovation, 106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102311 

Rumpel,  C.,  Amiraslani,  F.,  Chenu,  C.,  Garcia  Cardenas,  M.,  Kaonga,  M.,  Koutika,  L.  S., 
Ladha, J., Madari, B., Shirato, Y., Smith, P., Soudi, B., Soussana, J. F., Whitehead, D., & 
Wollenberg,  E.  (2020).  The  4p1000  initiative:  Opportunities,  limitations  and  challenges  for 
implementing  soil  organic  carbon  sequestration  as  a  sustainable  development  strategy. 
Ambio, 49(1), 350–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01165-2 

Thinda, K. T., Ogundeji, A. A., Belle, J. A., & Ojo, T. O. (2020). Understanding the adoption 
of  climate  change  adaptation  strategies  among  smallholder  farmers:  Evidence  from  land 
reform 
99. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104858 

beneficiaries 

Policy, 

Africa. 

South 

Land 

Use 

in 

Zickafoose, A., Lu, P., & Baker, M. (2022). Forecasting Food Innovations with a Delphi Study. 
Foods, 11(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11223723 

8.6.  References for the conclusions 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Towards  a 
mission-oriented  research  and  innovation  policy  in  the  European  Union  –  An  ESIR 
memorandum, Publications Office, 2018, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/715942 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Stres,  Š., 
Gołębiowska-Tataj, D., Walz, R.et al., Research and innovation to thrive in the poly-crisis age 
– Publications Office of the European Union, 2023,    

Mazzucato, M and Dibb, G. (2019). Missions: A beginner's guide. UCL Institute for Innovation 
and Public Purpose, Policy Brief series (IIPP PB 09). 

Monbiot, G. (2022). Regenesis: Feeding the World Without Devouring the Planet. Penguin 
Books Ltd, ISBN: 9780141992990 

OECD  (2023),  OECD  Science,  Technology  and  Innovation  Outlook  2023:  Enabling 
Paris, 
of 
Transitions 
https://doi.org/10.1787/0b55736e-en. 

Publishing, 

Disruption, 

OECD 

Times 

in 

Sirkku  Juhola,  Tatiana  Filatova,  Stefan  Hochrainer-Stigler,  Reinhard  Mechler,  Jürgen 
Scheffran  and  Pia-Johanna  Schweizer:  Social  tipping  points  and  adaptation  limits  in  the 
context of systemic risk: Concepts, models and governance, Front. Clim., September 2022, 
Sec. Climate Risk Management. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2022.1009234 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you online (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

On the phone or in writing 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. 
You can contact this service: 
  by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 
  at the following standard number: +32 22999696,  
  via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en. 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on 
the Europa website (european-union.europa.eu). 

EU publications 
You can view or order EU publications at op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free 
publications can be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre 
(european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

EU law and related documents 
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official 
language versions, go to EUR-Lex (eur-lex.europa.eu). 

EU open data 
The portal data.europa.eu provides access to open datasets from the EU institutions, bodies 
and agencies. These can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from European 
countries. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This study reviews the current and future policy relevance of 
the five mission areas. The review underlines the systemic 
nature of the societal challenges addressed and the need for 
concerted action across the five areas. The scope of each 
area is sufficiently broad to stand the test of time to the 2030 
horizon addressed by each respective mission. The review 
makes suggestions on the way in which mission areas 
should be defined and selected in the future and their 
continuing relevance monitored. 

Studies and reports