Ufuk Avrupa Programı Küme 6 Çalışma Programında yer alan 2025 yılı çağrıları özelinde Avrupa Komisyonuna yöneltilen sorulara ilişkin tarafımıza iletilen yanıtlar aşağıda sunulmaktadır.

Ayrıca, benzer şekilde çağrı başlıkları özelinde Komisyona iletilen diğer soru ve cevaplara Funding and Tenders Portal’da yer alan ilgili çağrı başlığının “Topic related FAQ” bölümünden erişim sağlayabilirsiniz.

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-ZEROPOLLUTION-03: Environmental biotechnology applications in service of remediation of polluted ecosystems

Question: Scope: “Proposals should: select and analyse a set of case-studies of degraded soil, sediment and water affected by pollution and contaminants in the EU and Associated Countries”
For each case-study, should all the areas (degraded soil, sediment, and water) be addressed?  Or would it be possible to combine different case-studies addressing only some of the areas and getting results/conclusions that could be applied elsewhere?

EC Reply: It would be possible to combine different case-studies addressing only some of the areas and getting results/conclusions that could be applied elsewhere.

 

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-BIODIV-02-two-stage: Breeding for resilience: enhancing multi-stress tolerance in crops

Question: Non-food agricultural crops are also within the scope of the call. The crops must be cultivated in and grown in member states and associated countries, or can they be grown in third countries such as Africa, India, and Middle East?

EC Reply: In response to both questions, we are unable to provide further specifications beyond what is outlined in the topic description. As stated: applicants “should provide a clear explanation and justification for the selected crop(s) in alignment with the proposal’s objectives and the topic’s expected outcomes, considering as well that activities should be carried out in a range of agronomically relevant pedo-climatic conditions.” Therefore, it is up to the applicants to demonstrate how their chosen crop(s) and geographical scope align with these expectations.

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-CIRCBIO-07: Demonstration, deployment and upscaling of circular systemic solutions in cities and regions (Circular Cities and Regions Initiative)

Questions:

  1. Considering the projects funded under similar topics in previous WPs, are there any sectors/value chains that could deserve more attention? (Or just the opposite, are there any sectors that have been addressed sufficiently?)
  2. Activities related to formation, skills, and capacitation, could they be considered under the Scope of this topic?

EC Reply:

  1. The HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-CIRCBIO-07 topic is sector-agnostic. This means that it does not target specific technologies or industrial sectors but supports a place-based approach. Proposals should select their targeted sector(s) and/or value chain(s), based on a detailed analysis of the local/regional contexts, socio-economic and environmental needs, and specific circular potentials.
  2. The HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-CIRCBIO-07 topic is an “Innovation Action” topic. It is therefore about prototyping, testing, demonstrating, piloting circular solutions for market deployment and replication. This topic specifically focuses on supporting the demonstration and implementation of concrete circular systemic solutions at city/region level. Different activities may be considered to support this, including - but not limited to - training and capacity building activities. 

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-BIODIV-05: Assessing and modelling ecosystems’ dynamic processes to guide restoration activities and to improve models used for climate

Questions: With regards to this part of the scope ''aim at improving and expanding models used for climate and land-use policies, by coupling modelling functionalities as described above'': Is the intention to demonstrate the integration of these dynamic ecological models into land-use scenarios for a given country or all of Europe, and therefore include land-use modellers and have one or more dedicated tasks? Or to collaborate with consortia working with land-use models (e.g. BIODIV-06 and BIODIV-08) and ensure that the ecological models and data produced from this project could be used thanks to respective model developments and collaborations (either a joint deliverables, or more simply a series of technical meetings?)

EC Reply: The aim of the referred part of the scope is to mainstream the requested modelling functionalities into existing models commonly used for climate and land-use policies, so that ecosystem restoration becomes a parameter to consider in such modelling efforts, helping to fully understand how restoration measures can influence both climate outcomes and land-use dynamics. 
This integration is particularly relevant for supporting policy planning exercises such as the National Restoration Plans (NRPs) under the Nature Restoration Regulation, which must explicitly account for climate change impacts, and the National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs), which also rely on coherent land-use and climate modelling. These processes highlight the need for integrated biodiversity–climate–land modelling approaches, capable of capturing dynamic ecosystem processes (e.g. succession, degradation, connectivity) and their feedbacks with climate and land-use trajectories.
Geographic scope covers preferably the whole EU, but can also cover only a few Member States and/or Associated Countries, but with clear potential of replication in other Member States and/or Associated Countries.
In addition, cooperation and collaboration with relevant projects, such as HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-BIODIV-04 and  BIODIV-06, is expected. This could include interoperability efforts or technical meetings to ensure that the ecological models and datasets produced by this project can be used in, or linked to, broader climate and land-use modelling frameworks.

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-ZEROPOLLUTION-05 - EU-India cooperation on cumulative impacts of marine pollution on marine organisms and ecosystems

Questions: 

  1. Is it mandatory that all the Indian partners applying to the Indian call are associated members of the European consortium?
  2. For eligibility in Horizon Europe and Indian calls, would be possible to have just one Indian partner coordinating the activities of all the Indian entities?

EC Reply:

  1. The Horizon Europe eligibility condition requires that consortia must include as associated partner(s) at least one legal entity established in India. However, if multiple entities established in India are involved in the proposal, then, in order to allow for a correct evaluation of the proposal, all of them must be included in the Horizon Europe consortium as Associated Partners. The information about these entities must be included in the proposal, following the Horizon Europe proposal templates.
  2. The eligibility conditions of the Horizon Europe Call topic require to include as associated partner(s) at least one legal entity established in India. Applicants that would like to access co-funding made available for associated partners by the Indian counterpart in selected projects should fulfil eligibility criteria included in the Indian Call. However, if multiple entities established in India are involved in the proposal, then, in order to allow for a correct evaluation of the proposal, all of them must be included in the Horizon Europe consortium as Associated Partners. The information about these entities must be included in the proposal, following the Horizon Europe proposal templates.

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-03-GOVERNANCE-04: Operationalisation of bioeconomy sustainability principles

Questions: Is there a separate formal status for RIV4BFS, or is it sufficient for regions to define goals in their strategies that align with the RIV4BFS concept? (As stated in the RIV4BFS Concept Note, page 8: “the mission and goals of a RIV4BFS are set within well-defined, coherent, and politically endorsed regional policy and strategy choices.”) 

EC Reply: There is no formal status for RIV4BFS and indeed the point is alignment with the regions’ goals to the RIV4BFS concept.

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-ZEROPOLLUTION-02: Environmental impacts from the production of agricultural crops for bio-based industrial systems

Questions: what are the crops that need to be considered? Are they primary agricultural crops as defined in https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/glossary-item/primary-crops_en, including: cereals,dry pulses, protein crops, fresh vegetables and permanent crops for human consumption? 
Or industrial crops as defined in https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Industrial_crops, including: oilseeds, fibre crops, tobacco, hemp, medicinal plants, seeds for herbaceous oilseed plants and seeds for linseed? 

EC Reply: The primary agricultural crops used in bio-based industries are a combination of the two sets mentioned by the applicants. In fact, consulting recent reviews and other publications on the subject, many primary crops providing oil, starch, sugar and fibres are in scope.  See for example, the following websites and reports: Bio-based industry and biorefineries in the EU | Knowledge for policy
Is there enough biomass to defossilise the chemicals and derived materials sector by 2050.pdf

 Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-BIODIV-02: Strengthening the capacity of citizen science in biodiversity observation

Questions:Could you kindly confirm if projects focusing on animal biodiversity would be eligible?

EC Replies: We confirm, any species: could be insects, birds, fish, etc.

 

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-03-GOVERNANCE-08: Effective environmental observing systems and associated governance

Questions:

  1. “observing systems” can this term be interpreted broadly to mean the whole system/framework needed to derive policy relevant information on emissions based on observations?
  2. “governance models” what specifically is meant by this term? Can this also be methodology and software to provide policy relevant information on emissions based on observations?
  3. Is there any special meaning in the term “GOVERNANCE” in the call title, i.e., does this require some specific points to be addressed that would not be required if this was not mentioned in the title?

EC Reply:

  1. This is a very good definition, and could be broader than the focus on “emissions”: it means the whole system/framework needed to provide fit-for purpose information based on observations. We do not prescribe a specific definition of “observing systems”, but nothing prevents the broader definition towards the purpose for which the observing system is being developed/operated for.
    Efficiency and optimization questions could indeed be addressed from the broader added-value or policy information perspective.
  2. This may include methodology and software, but refers more broadly to the structures in place to efficiently manage the observing system, including its internal processes, financing, stakeholder engagement, etc. The intention with this topic is to complement ‘technical’ optimization tools and broader usability of observations  with the corresponding governance/decision-making mechanisms. These could include indeed methodologies and software, but also broader policy questions and processes (e.g. national vs international dimension, political and other barriers, licensing, resourcing, public vs private, etc).
  3. Everything relevant for proposers to know is explained in the text itself, the title is just a title. We do not prescribe the points to be addressed in detail. It is for the proposers to come up with elements that address the expected outcomes and fit within the scope of the topic comprehensively and consistently. See also answer to question above. 

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-CIRCBIO-09 & HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-CIRCBIO-14

Questions: The project is required to reach TRL6-7 at the end. Pharmaceuticals, which are specifically mentioned to be in the scope of this call, require clinical trials for these TRLs. How should this be dealt within the applications, since neither resources nor time frame would permit these clinical trials within the project.
Are clinical trials expected in this topic?

EC Reply: As per the text describing the two topics, HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-CIRCBIO-09: Bioprospecting and optimized production of the terrestrial natural products: new opportunities for bio-based sectors and HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-CIRCBIO-14: Bioprospecting of marine natural products in the omics and artificial intelligence era, clinical trials are not a requested element and therefore should not be part of the proposal. What is indeed requested is that safety to the end-users and operators needs to be assessed and guaranteed. The required clinical trials for developing pharmaceuticals or their ingredients, should be planned outside of the project with other source of funding (for e.g. from Horizon Europe Health Cluster).

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-CIRCBIO-13: Reconstructing areas affected by conflicts: the role of the bio-based solutions

Questions: I would like to clarify the expectations regarding the TRL for the HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-CIRCBIO-13 call. Although the indicated TRL is 3-5, the call refers to the reconstruction of war-affected areas. Does this imply that actual beta-sites or demonstration sites are expected within the scope of the project? If so, could you please elaborate on what these sites should look like in terms of scale, functionality, or expected outcomes?

EC Reply: Thank you for the inquiry and interest in the topic HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-CIRCBIO-13. Indeed, it is correct that this topic is a Research and Innovation Action, thus the expected TRL range is of 3 to 5.

  • Due to the type of topic instrument and its TRL, the  demonstration as such is not part of the scope. However, please note that the topic specifies that a preparatory action is possible, and actually strongly encouraged: “Covering the potential use of the bio-based innovation and nature-based solutions and their interplay in the humanitarian relief sphere and preparing for the deployment of concrete and human-centric applications is strongly encouraged”. 
  • The range of concrete actions to cover this point is left to applicants.
  • Regarding the choice of sites, general guidance is given in the topic text: “The action covers the development of practical solutions to achieve reconstruction efforts and strategies for restoring and ‘renaturing’ destroyed areas, (…) and restoring areas degraded or destroyed by conflicts, (…)”. Finally, the text also clarifies that the “reconstruction of such areas, (can be) both rural, coastal and urban”.

 Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-BIODIV-07 -Integrated and coordinated approaches for coral reefs and associated ecosystems (mangroves and seagrass beds) conservation, restoration, and climate mitigation and adaptation.

Questions: The text emphasizes the need for a fully integrated and coordinated approach that treats coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass meadows as one interconnected system, rather than as separate elements implemented in individual Work Packages (WPs).
1. Does this requirement mean that the project should focus exclusively on regions where all three ecosystems co-occur geographically? 
2. What type of interconnection between the ecosystems does the European Commission refer to in the context of this call (e.g., ecological linkages, biogeochemical processes, joint restoration strategies, etc.)?

EC Reply:

1. Yes.  Expected outcome nr 2: effective management and land-sea planning of those associated ecosystems are based on approaches considering them together 

Under the scope: Where they co-occur, coral reefs (including mesophotic extensions), mangroves and seagrass beds share tight ecological connections.
.. jointly protecting mangroves, seagrasses, and reefs may synergistically increase the success and benefits of conservation
…where shallow coral reefs (including mesophotic extensions), mangroves, and seagrasses coexist and interact…
Plus, as detailed: The capacity for a durable intervention is built in outermost regions, overseas countries and territories of the EU and in third countries, in particular Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States.

2. Type of interconnection between the ecosystems: ecological connections, functional ecology and connectivity, in the spatial extents of their interactions, their seasonal patterns, functional ecology, their species assemblages' and communities, their connectivity through life cycle stages and food webs structures and complexity in the healthy functioning and co-evolutionary processes of these ecosystems and in the biogeochemistry of sediments, consequences of loss of coral reefs (including mesophotic extensions) and associated ecosystems, both in terms of coverage and diversity, on food web locally and cascading on distant communities and of socioeconomic impacts, trophic and life traits connectivity, also under future climate and abiotic conditions. 
Plus, it will be under the remit of each proposal to foresee the best dedicated tasks and appropriate resources for coordination measures, joint activities, and deliverables to address the topic.
 

 

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-CIRCBIO-14: Bioprospecting and optimised production of marine/aquatic natural products in the omics & artificial intelligence era

Questions: How does the commission plan to conduct bioprospecting (TRL1) and achieve TRL6–7 within four years? What concrete definition of TRL6 and TRL7 does the commission expect? Is support from an industrial pilot with initial implementation expected? For pharmaceutical applications, would laboratory tests in animal models (e.g., mice) be considered sufficient, or, in the case of enzymatic processes, would a 10L bioreactor demonstration be adequate?


EC Reply: We would like to clarify that it is the responsibility of the applicant to develop a suitable proposal. According to the topic text ‘Targeted marine/aquatic biological resources can be sourced from their natural environment (in-situ) and/or from open access and public/private collections and gene-banks (ex-situ)’. It is therefore not necessary that the proposal starts from TRL 1 – it could start at TRL 3-5. In fact, this is why prospecting could benefit from existing libraries and databases.

Please refer to the concrete definition of TRL 6 and 7, also found under Annex B of the Work Programme General Annexes:
• TRL 6 — Technology demonstrated in relevant environment (industrially relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies)
• TRL 7 — System prototype demonstration in operational environment

To confirm clinical trials are not a required component of the proposal, and we reiterate that they should not be included. Additionally, we clarify that if a proposal involves the production of a pharmaceutical or its ingredient, the production process itself should achieve a TRL 6-7, whereas the demonstration of the pharmaceutical's efficacy is not expected to reach this level.

 

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-02-FARM2FORK-05: "Developing innovative phytosanitary measures for plant health – focus on systems approach for pest risk management"

Questions: 

  1. Scope of Measures Across the Value Chain:
    Is it sufficient to focus solely on plant treatment in the field, or is it required to address multiple interventions/measures along the entire value chain? In Germany, only physical post-harvest treatment of crops/products is permitted by law. Chemical treatment is not permitted. Could you please clarify which types of post-harvest measures are considered within the scope of this topic?
  2. Definition of International Cooperation:
    Canada is associated to Horizon Europe but is geographically a non-EU country. In the context of this topic, are Canada and other associated non-EU countries considered as “international partners” under the international cooperation criterion?
  3. In order to demonstrate the broad effectiveness of the measures developed under the call, we would like to test different plant species, including non-food plants. Thus, are certain plant species excluded from consideration in this call?
  4. Could you clarify whether proposals should concentrate on agricultural products imported into the EU, exports from the EU to third countries, or both directions? Additionally, is cross-border collaboration the main focus of the term "international cooperation is strongly encouraged" requirement?

EC Reply:

  1. Scope of measures across the value chain:

    This topic highlights the necessity for innovation within a systems approach. Consequently, applicants are expected to propose innovative climate and environmental-friendly measures for an effective pest risk management across the value chain. For commonly employed options, please refer to the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures No. 14, "The Use of Integrated Measures in a Systems Approach for Pest Risk Management" [https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/607].

  2. Definition of International Cooperation:

    Please note that associated countries and third countries are considered "international partners" under the scope of international cooperation (see the Horizon Europe Work programme (2025) - General introduction and the Horizon Europe Work programme (2025) - Annexes)

  3. Non-food plants are not excluded; however, they should not be the sole focus of the proposal.

  4. Agricultural products imported into the EU and/or exports from the EU to third countries are within the scope of the topic. Applicants may refer to the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures No. 14 on integrated measures for pest risk management [https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/607]. International cooperation is encouraged, but its implementation should be consistent with the proposal's objectives and the topic's expected outcomes.

     

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-02-FARM2FORK-14: “Nutrients produced by microorganisms utilising primarily CO2 from the air, with the support of biotechnology”

Questions:

  1. The topic mentions in the expected outcomes: ‘innovative technologies are identified for the use of microorganisms that have been genetically engineered transforming CO2 into nutrients for food purposes and scaled up by SMEs and innovative start-ups;’ Does ‘genetically engineered [microorganisms]’ include microorganisms having been submitted to specific conditions to foster the emergence of genetic traits (oriented/targeted evolution), or does it require controlled specific modification of genome (GMOs)?

  2. In the expected outcome of the project are two bullet points refering to the development of innovative technologies and the improvement of pilot plants to scale up the production and scaling up. among others two technical outcomes, i.e.:

    – innovative technologies are identified for the use of microbes that have been genetically engineered transforming CO2 into nutrients for food purposes and scaled up by SMEs and innovative start-up; 

    – existing pilot plants in Europe are improved to scale up the production by identifying and removing barriers that slow down the scaling up of the production of nutrients for food and food ingredients;

    However, these technological developments are not mentioned in the scope. Which part of the scope/activities is referring to these expected technological developments? It seems that the strain and process development is not reflected in the list of activities that are mentioned in the scope of the topic text. 

    Should the strain and process development be part of a potential project at all or should the proposal only focus on providing and developing business plans/infrastructure/data for future SMEs (as it is described in the scope)?

EC Reply:

  1. We expect the proposal to  target innovative technologies which imply the use of microorganisms that have been genetically engineered transforming CO2 into nutrients for food purposes and scaled up by SMEs and innovative start-ups.  For the purpose of this proposal “Genetically engineered” would imply that genetic modifications have a clear purpose/effect (such as an improvement over a wild-type strain, a new metabolic pathway, etc), whether the modification is intended  to be controlled such as GMOs, gene edition, etc , or not such as directed evolution, random mutagenesis screening, etc. This also means that any microorganisms submitted to a genetic modification before or during the processing for the conversion of CO2 into proteins should be covered.

    The proposal excludes  microorganisms which are naturally occurring and will keep such status during the industrial processing.

  2. The strain are relevant in particular as genetically engineered microorganisms need to be considered for  the creation of business models . As it concerns the process development this is also part of the business models and the design process for scaling up and therefore it is considered  to be an element to include in the analysis of the cost and investment and the scale-up feasibility analysis. We expect that the projects should cover all the value chain from strain development, process engineering and business development for these solutions as all are interlinked.

     

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-02-COMMUNITIES-04: “Creating urban co-creation spaces for driving sustainable food system transformation”

Questions:

  1. In the section "Expected Outcome," under "Project results are expected to contribute to all the following expected outcomes," one of the outcomes is as follows:

    • improved understanding of the local policy ‘mix’/package of measures as well as the effective communication and marketing strategies that are needed to support EU consumer behavioural change towards sustainable diets.

      Could you explain what is meant by marketing strategies in this context?

EC Reply:

  1. The bullet point provides the respective context, “….the effective communication and marketing strategies that are needed to support EU consumer behavioural change towards sustainable diets”, hence marketing is seen in combination with communication strategies, any strategy that communicates and promotes consumer behavioural change.

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-02-CLIMATE-01-two-stage: “Strengthening the resilience of water systems and water sector to climate and global socio-economic change impacts”

Questions:

  1. Is the aim of the expected outcome only regarding the Danube-style basins? Or should this be interpreted in a broad definition: on all the jurisdictional boundaries on which water users are directed / water managers work? 

EC Reply:

  1. The topic expected outcomes focus primarily at catchment level, being large transboundary catchments like the Danube or smaller like the Scheldt. However, if issues/solutions need to consider larger jurisdictional boundaries, or if water users, managers consider that activities or uses impact unconnected catchment to have a stronger integrated approach (for instance regarding water transfer effects or to avoiding spread of invasive alien species as potential effects of strategies), it is to the applicants to justify those in their proposal.”

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-02-FARM2FORK-10: “Diversifying aquaculture production with emphasis on low-trophic species”

Questions:

  1. Can you provide more information/elaborate on this text in the topic: “Collaboration with European research infrastructures such as EMBRC ERIC and with accredited laboratories is encouraged”? Are they referring to ISO accreditation?

EC Reply:

  1. “European research infrastructures are facilities that provide resources and services for research communities to conduct research and foster innovation. ERIC (European Research Infrastructure Consortium) is a specific legal form that facilitates the establishment and operation of research infrastructures with European interest. The list of active European research infrastructure consortia is here. EMBRC, the European Marine Biological Research Centre is a research infrastructure for marine biology and ecology research that enables the research community to use specific facilities, resources and services to accelerate scientific achievements and innovation.

    Accredited laboratories are the ones for which it has been demonstrated that they adhere to established standards, such as the standards of the International Organization for Standardization and/or other international or national standards.

    Collaboration with European research infrastructures and accredited laboratories is encouraged in case they provide services relevant for the work of the proposed project.”

 

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-02-COMMUNITIES-03: “Innovative solutions for resilient and climate-adapted coastal communities in the Atlantic”

Questions:

  1. The call text for 2025-02-COMMUNITIES-03 explicitly calls for applicants to “To ensure complementarities and avoid overlaps, the proposals should foresee to work closely with relevant ongoing Horizon Europe projects, particularly the OKEANO project,…” Could you provide guidance on how applicants should proceed? How to ensure the close working relationship when members of the OKEANO project are unable to participate or advice on projects? 

EC Reply:

  1. Collaboration with the OKEANO project, while desirable, is a recommendation rather than a requirement, as indicated by the use of ‘should’ instead of ‘must’  in the sentence  “…the proposals should foresee to work closely…” Moreover, applicants can refer to collaboration with OKEANO regardless of whether a beneficiary of OKEANO is included in the applicants’ consortium or in the advisory board. If none of the current OKEANO beneficiaries are available to join the new consortium, the collaboration can take place more informally, for example through dedicated meetings and information exchanges.

     

Topic: HORIZON-CL6-2025-01-CIRCBIO-08: Bioprospecting and optimized production of the terrestrial natural products: new opportunities for bio-based sectors

Questions:

Q1: Does the scope require that the identified bioactive compounds be completely novel (i.e., previously unreported in the literature and originating from new extracts, such as from plants or fungi)? Or would it also be within scope to investigate known natural products, already described in the literature or available in chemical collections, but tested for the first time (e.g., using AI-based tools) for a specific bioactivity or disease context?

Q2: Would it be acceptable within the scope of the project to generate new-to-nature derivatives of the initially selected natural bioactive compounds, using biotechnological approaches (e.g., enzymatic modifications in microbial systems) or chemical synthesis (or hemisynthesis), with the aim of improving their bioactivity or pharmacological properties?
 

EC Reply:

lease note this topic is an Innovation Action, where the targeted Technology Readiness Level of activities are expected to achieve TRL 6-7 by the end of the project.

Regarding question 1, the applicants need to ensure  to pursue both the identification (either from natural environment (in-situ) and/or from public and private collections and gene-banks (ex-situ), AND further upscaling (optimized production) of the selected compounds. Thus, both biodiscovery approaches are in scope. As noted, this covers “full integration of digital-driven, ‘-omics’ and associated bioinformatic tools (including AI).

Regarding question 2, the proposed options are fully covered in scope of the topic, under the section (note sections underlined): “The aim of this action is to broaden the range of novel compounds, lowering the production costs, quicken the development pipeline, and enable more innovation for the industrial operators, with clear-cut benefits for the final users (consumers and industries). The biodiscovery pipeline may cover in silico prospecting, genomic characterisation, creation of natural product libraries, bioactivity screening, chemical structure elucidation, natural products isolation and purification, and/or optimized production pathways via biotechnology and biomanufacturing approaches (including via gene editing) in suitable industrial facilities (bioreactors/biorefineries, e.g. microbial production), or synthetic biology approaches.”