FAQ for applicants

The most relevant information sources are:

• The CBE JU website, where you can find:

  • Call-specific information (e.g. Annual Work Plan (incl. topic texts));

  • The CBE JU networking platform used before, during and after the 12 March 2026 info day;

  • Other CBE JU reference documents (e.g. the Council Regulation establishing CBE JU, the Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA), etc.);

• The Funding & tender opportunities portal (formerly known as the Participant Portal), where you can find:

  • As of 12 March 2026: the CBE JU 2026 call topics, including the portal’s topic-specific partner search facility; 

  • The 'Applying for funding' section of the Horizon Europe online manual (as CBE JU follows most of the Horizon Europe rules, this online manual is also relevant for CBE JU);

  • The list of National Contact Points. The role of these NCPs is to guide potential applicants in choosing relevant topics and types of action, to provide advice on administrative procedures and contractual issues, and to assist in partner search.

  • Should no specific CBE JU NCP be identified in this database, NCPs linked to bioeconomy and/or ‘Cluster 6’ could be useful contacts. 

  • The Annotated Model Grant Agreement (cf. the new version dd. 1 April 2025)

  • The applicable General Annexes. For the calls under the Horizon Europe Work Programme 2026-2027, the applicable General Annexes are found here. Therefore, this version of the general annexes is applicable to CBE JU 2026 call. 

• The European IPR Helpdesk offers free of charge, first-line support on IP and IPR matters to beneficiaries of EU-funded research projects and EU SMEs involved in transnational partnership agreements.

• The BIC website (Bio-based Industries Consortium, the private partner of the CBE JU), which provides additional services such as partnering opportunities with BIC members.

• The EEN website (Enterprise Europe Network), which offers networking and other business & research opportunities (mainly) for SMEs.

The Horizon Europe General Annexes apply to CBE JU 2026 call, with the exceptions introduced in section 2.2.3 of the 2026 AWP. Examples of the differences include:

• The threshold for the evaluation criterion 'impact' is 4/5 for all types of actions;

• The threshold for total score is 11/15 for all types of actions;

• An extra, CBE JU-specific evaluation subcriterion in the 'impact' evaluation criterion of Research and Innovation Actions, Innovation Actions incl. Flagships (i.e., evaluators will assess the “Ability to ensure the level of in-kind contribution to operational activities (IKOP)  defined in the call/topic as % of total projects eligible costs (RIAs 5%, IAs 15% and IA-Flagship 20%)”); 

• The page limit of the ‘Part B’ part of the proposals is 70 pages for Innovation Actions (incl. flagships), and 50 pages for Research & Innovation Actions (RIAs).

The technological readiness level scale, defined in section B of the Horizon Europe General Annexes, will be used as reference in the CBE JU call to indicate the appropriate technological context. Specifically: 

• Research & Innovation Actions (RIAs) are expected to be at the level of laboratory or simulated environments and expected to deliver mainly TRL 4-5 at the end of the projects; 
• Innovation Actions (IAs) are demonstration activities in relevant and operational environments and expected to deliver TRL 6-8 at the end of the projects. In particular, Flagship projects will need to deliver TRL 8 at the end of the projects.

The expected end TRL is specified in each RIA and IA topic. 
 

In addition to the requirements described in each topic text, the proposals must also address specific CBE JU requirements. Rather than repeating these requirements in each topic text, they are presented in section 2.2.3.1 of the 2026 AWP.  

The most relevant sources are:

• The CBE JU networking platform;

• The (members only) BIC partnering platform; 

• The partner search section of the Funding & tender opportunities portal (see below). For more information, please consult Q 1.1.

Via the partner search facility of the Funding & tender opportunities portal (available after call publication in April 2026), organisations can find partners for (CBE JU and other) project ideas among the organisations registered in the P

portal. This facility can be accessed via:

• A central page

• Per topic. When opening a topic page on the Portal, organisations can publish partner requests for open and forthcoming topics by logging into the Portal, going to the ‘partner search’ section (accessible via the menu on the left side of the screen), and clicking on the ‘view/edit’ button. 

CBE JU follows the same rules as described in section B of the Horizon Europe General Annexes. Specifically: 

• Legal entities forming a consortium are eligible to participate provided that the consortium includes: 

  • at least one independent legal entity established in a Member State; and 

  • at least two other independent legal entities, each established in different Member States or Associated Countries.

• Applications for ‘Coordination and support actions’ (CSA) may be submitted by one or more legal entities, which may be established in a Member State or Associated Country.

As affiliated entities do not sign the grant agreement, they do not count towards the minimum eligibility criteria for consortium composition (if any).

No additional requirements exist regarding consortium size and resource & funding distribution.

CBE JU follows Horizon Europe’s ‘global approach’, which means that participants from all over the world, regardless of their place of establishment or residence, can participate in CBE JU calls. However, only participants from the EU, associated countries, and low- and middle-income countries are automatically eligible for funding. For more information, please consult section B of the Horizon Europe General Annexes, as well as the list of participating countries in Horizon Europe.

Status 10/04/2025: For Morocco, Egypt, the Republic of Korea and Switzerland, transitional arrangements are in place, meaning that entities located in these countries will be allowed to be beneficiaries in the grant (i.e. they are entitled to receive funding), IF the association agreement with these countries is signed by the time of the Grant Agreement signature deadline (for Call 2025 projects: May 2026). Otherwise, they will have to become associated partners (i.e. not requesting funding). In practice, this means that consortia can add organisations from these countries in a Call 2025 proposal and request funding for these entities, noting that there is a chance that, should the proposal score highly and be invited for Grant Agreement Preparation, no funding will be assigned to these entities should the association agreement be delayed. 

Since 2024, the UK is an associated country. Therefore, UK entities are automatically eligible for funding in 2026 call. For more information, please consult the list of participating countries in Horizon Europe. 

The UK association agreement only applies from call and budget 2024 onwards. From a budgetary point of view, this means that any carry over from budget 2022 and 2023 will not be used to finance UK participants. This will be ensured by CBE JU; participants will not have to take any actions in this regard.

See question above.

Yes. Each proposal will be evaluated on its own merits, including the expertise and operational capacity of the consortium. However, if the same organisation is involved in multiple proposals that are invited to the Grant Agreement Preparation (GAP) phase, then their operational capacity will need to be reassessed. If deemed insufficient, there is a risk that the organisation will be asked to choose in which project they want to participate in.

It is up to the proposal writers to convince the expert-evaluators that the coordinator has the right expertise to manage the (type and size of the) consortium, that the management structures & procedures are adequate, etc. Therefore, different types (e.g. universities, SMEs, large enterprises,...) of coordinators are possible, in all different types of action (CSA, RIA, IA). 

As CBE JU is an industry-driven programme, many expected impacts listed in the topic texts can only be effectively reached with some form of industrial involvement or support. In addition,

For RIA and IA (incl. Flagships) proposals, certificates of BIC membership should be uploaded/attached to the proposal as an Annex (one document combining all membership certificates). These certificates should be requested to BIC here.

This means that for RIAs and IAs (incl. Flagships), if organisations want that their IKOP is counted towards the thresholds (5% for RIAs, 15% for IAs, 20% for Flagships), they should be a BIC member or become a BIC member before the call closure date of 22 September 2026, 17:00 Brussels time.

The following information concerning the above-mentioned membership has been provided by BIC (CBE JU is not responsible or involved in the internal BIC procedures):

• Companies in proposal consortia that are not yet a BIC member can become an Industry BIC ‘Full’ member or a BIC ‘Project’ member. BIC ‘Project member’ is a temporary status, at the earliest, from the opening of an annual call, until the results of the evaluation are known and/or the grant agreement has been signed:
• Universities, research institutes or non-for-profit organisations that want to contribute with IKOP and that are not yet an ‘Associate member’ of BIC, can become Associate members before the closure date of the annual call:

More information on how to join BIC can be found here.

Yes. While BIC membership extends to all legal entities within a group of companies, the name and PIC number of the legal entity appearing in the proposal need to match the ones on the BIC membership certificate, as only contributions from BIC members can be qualified as IKOP. Hence, each legal entity appearing in a proposal and wishing to contribute IKOP must possess a unique BIC membership certificate.

Legal entities linked to current BIC industry members can request a BIC membership certificate by following the steps explained here and by using this link to request the certificate.  
 

Yes to both questions. While BIC membership extends to all legal entities within a group of companies or institution, the name and PIC number of the legal entity appearing in the proposal need to match the ones on the BIC membership certificate, as only contributions from BIC members can be qualified as IKOP. Hence, each legal entity appearing in a proposal and wishing to contribute IKOP must possess a unique BIC membership certificate.

For more information about specific cases (e.g. what to do if one or none of the 2 entities is a BIC member?), please consult the BIC website.

Yes. BIC offers different types of membership (e.g. industry/full members, associate members, even project membership – cf. Q 3.1.8 above and here). In CBE JU proposals, all types of BIC members can provide IKOP.

In Q 4.2.3-4 below, practical examples are provided how IKOP can be provided even when the standard funding % is 100%. In this case, the BIC member should manually decrease their requested funding via the proposal’s budget table. 
 

No, mainly because of the following reasons:

• CBE JU Calls follow a competitive process, and the programme office cannot provide individual guidance in the interest of transparency and fairness;

• CBE JU proposals are not evaluated by CBE JU staff members, but by external experts with diverse expertise, who evaluate each proposal individually and in a panel setting. It is therefore up to each consortium to clearly describe how their proposal ticks all the boxes described in the topic text, and to convince these external experts (not CBE JU staff) that and how the proposal’s objectives, concept, expected impacts and implementation measures are in line with the topic text; 

• The CBE JU topic texts are the result of co-creation between the European Commission and BIC, and include the feedback from CBE JU’s Scientific Committee and States Representatives Group. Based on these inputs, the topic texts are written in such a way that they clearly explain the challenge, yet leave a fair amount of freedom to proposal writers to come up with a suitable solution. It is up to each consortium to convince the external experts if and how the proposal’s solution is appropriate to address the challenges and expected impacts described in the topic text. 

• Proposal writers have 30-70 pages depending on the type of action to develop their idea and to convince expert-evaluators. A 1-page summary of a proposal idea might at first sight be 100% relevant for a topic text, but when described in 30-70 pages, it might NOT be relevant after all (and vice versa).

However, please consult your National Contact Points to obtain idea-specific feedback.

Furthermore, organisations from some so-called ‘widening countries’ can request an external expert to provide recommendations on how to improve their proposal’s quality. For more information, please consult the relevant page of the NCP_WIDERA.net portal.   
 

CBE JU will discuss any significant topic interpretation issues with BIC and/or the EC. If clarifications on a topic (not proposal) level are necessary, they will be added to this FAQ document under heading 6 (2026 call topic-specific Q&A), so that this information is publicly available. If you have topic interpretation questions, please contact info[at]cbe.europa.eu. 

Expert-evaluators and CBE JU staff are bound by a confidentiality agreement and will incur serious sanctions in case of violations. Furthermore, CBE JU services will verify that no conflicts of interest could occur before a proposal is allocated to expert-evaluators. 

The only mandatory annex is the ‘part B’ of the proposal (= the descriptive / narrative part of your application). In 2026 call, the following annexes should be added to your proposal (only) if applicable:

• RIAs, IAs incl. Flagships: one annex including all BIC membership certificate(s) 

• IAs incl. Flagships IKAA Annex (optional and indicative Annex during submission and evaluation; see Q 4.2.4)

• Flagships: Business plan

All Annexes should be uploaded via the Funding & Tender Opportunities Portal. CBE JU-specific ‘Part B’ and other annex templates are found under each topic in the Funding & Tender Opportunities Portal but also here.

The BIC membership certificate should be requested directly to BIC. More info: see Qs 3.1.8-10 above. 

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are indicators to be used to monitor the progress of the CBE programme vis-à-vis its objectives. By fulfilling the requirements under the expected outcomes described in the topic text, the proposal, if selected for funding, is implicitly expected to contribute to these KPIs.

Therefore, when evaluating the impact criterion, the focus will be on how the proposal contributes to the expected outcomes listed in the topic text, not on the related KPIs referred to in the topic text; the latter will become relevant during the Grant Agreement Preparation (GAP) and the subsequent project implementation. Specifically: if a proposal is invited to the GAP, annual deliverables on KPI reporting will be included in the Grant Agreement. This way, how a project contributes to the CBE JU KPIs will be monitored in a more explicit way throughout the project’s duration. More info can be found in the KPI handbook, published here.

Section 2.1 of the proposal template asks to “Describe the unique contribution your project results would make towards (1) the outcomes specified in this topic, and (2) the wider impacts, in the longer term, specified in the CBE JU annual work programme and Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA).

The wider impacts are those expected to be generated by the CBE JU initiative by reaching its objectives, as set in the Council Regulation (EU) 2021/2085 of 19 November 2021 establishing the Joint Undertakings under Horizon Europe. The CBE JU generic and specific objectives are reported in the AWP 2025 in section 1.1. ‘Mission statement of the CBE JU’, and have been used as bases to identify the strategic priorities in the SRIA, which are clearly identified in each topic. By contributing to these strategic priorities and their related CBE JU objectives, the applicants/or selected projects are expected to contribute to wider impacts that will be generated by the CBE JU. Therefore, please refer to the CBE JU specific objectives and the link to CBE JU SRIA strategic priorities identified per topic to describe how your proposal will contribute to attain the ‘wider impacts’ of the CBE initiative.

CBE JU uses the same ‘priority order’ principles (no derogation) as described on p. 28-29 of the Horizon Europe General Annexes.

The expected technological maturity at the end of each project is clearly defined in each topic text. If some of the activities described in a proposal would result in a higher (than the one(s) described in the topic text) end TRL, then it needs to be very clear from the proposal text that only a limited part (both in activities as spent resources) of the project goes beyond the topic’s envisaged end TRL. This is particularly sensitive for RIAs that propose activities that go beyond TRL 5, as different funding rates and requirements are set for IA proposals. Therefore, it is essential to clearly describe the starting and envisaged end TRLs of all components of your project, so that external expert-evaluators can clearly assess if and how much of the proposal’s activities fall within the topic’s TRL scope.

We refer to Section 2.2.3.1 – ‘Economic aspects’ of the 2026 AWP, where these concepts are explained. Please note that in 2026 call, an updated approach is used compared to 2025 call.

All types of eligible costs for CBE JU funding are described in the article 6 of the Grant Agreement (GA). The Horizon Europe Annotated model GA (AGA) provides more concrete examples. Ineligible costs are detailed under Article 6.3.

As a basic rule, to be eligible, costs must be:

• Actual and incurred by the beneficiary

• Incurred during the project duration (except for costs of the final report)

• Indicated in the estimated budget in Annex 2 (budget of the action)

• Incurred in connection with the action as described in Annex 1 (proposal description)

• Identifiable and verifiable, in particular recorded in the beneficiary’s accounts (according to accounting standards of the beneficiary’s country and to usual cost accounting practices)

• Compliant with the applicable national law on taxes, labour and social security

• Reasonable and justified, and compliant with the principle of sound financial management

Five cost categories are considered:

1. Personnel costs. New since 1 May 2024: the option to use personnel unit costs (see dedicated webinar dd. 19 June 2024 here.

2. Subcontracting costs

3. Purchase costs (incl. Travel and Subsistence, Equipment and Other goods, works & services)

4. Other cost categories

5. Indirect costs 

The Horizon Europe Annotated model GA (AGA) provides an overview of the different types in its introduction (heading “General > How to set up your project — Consortium composition and roles and responsibilities”), and in art. 8 and 9. In these AGA parts, more information, definitions and examples are provided about:

• the role of the coordinator compared to other beneficiaries;
• the difference between beneficiaries and ‘affiliated entities’ (in previous programmes often called ‘linked third parties’);
• associated partners;
• subcontractors vs suppliers of goods, works and services;
• subcontractors and purchases vs affiliated entities. 

As a general rule, work can be subcontracted in line with the ‘best-value-for-money’ principle, and provided that conflicts of interest are avoided. In addition, subcontracting may only cover ‘a limited part of the action’. For more information, please consult the AGA, specifically the introduction (p. 10-11), art. 6.2B, and art. 9.3.

If the purpose of the action is to carry out the demonstration of a process and test different, e.g. fermentation conditions (the innovation lays in the micro-organism and conditions), then the engineering of the demo plant could be considered as ‘non-core’ activities and carried out under a subcontract. However, if the purpose of the action is to design a specific (e.g. a purification) process and improve it at a big(ger)scale, then the plant engineering would be a core activity and should be carried out by a beneficiary.  

In industry practice, the plant engineering and equipment purchase is often done through a subcontractor. Those are usually included in CAPEX (capital expenditure) and depreciated. In this case, engineering costs would be charged to the CBE JU project as depreciation costs of equipment, infrastructure and assets. 

Article 6.2 of the AGA indicates that subcontractors must be identified according to best value for money rule and absence of conflict of interests. To do so, beneficiaries must follow their internal rules for awarding contracts and be able to demonstrate that the choice of subcontractor follows these rules. There are specific national laws and requirements on public procurement for public bodies and contracting authorities.

If an adequate procedure has been followed to select subcontractors, it might be acceptable that only one company is able to respond to the quality requirements. In such a case, the contractor should make sure that costs charged by the subcontractor are ‘reasonable, justified and comply with the principle of sound financial management’.

As per Council Regulation (EU) No 2021/0048 of 19 November 2021 establishing the Horizon Europe joint undertakings and, in particular, the CBE Joint Undertaking, the CBE Programme Office is to be financed equally by the Commission and BIC. BIC has established a ‘project contribution’ for its members. This project contribution is solely managed by BIC (not by CBE JU). For more information, please see here.

These project contributions are not eligible costs because they are not incurred in connection with the project (action) as described in the Grant Agreement, and are not necessary for its implementation. Furthermore, these contributions may not be deducted from any amounts received by the coordinator as pre-financing.

In 2026 call, a budget line has been assigned per topic, and the 2026 Annual Work Programme provides per topic the average EU Contribution expected per project. Therefore, depending on the budget available and the requested EU contribution of the proposal(s) retained for funding, more than one project could be funded per topic. 

CBE JU uses the same funding rates as Horizon Europe, with one exception: the standard funding rate for Innovation Actions (IAs) is 60% of the eligible costs (except for non-profit legal entities, where the funding rate is up to 100% of the total eligible costs).

To increase their ‘IKOP’ contribution to the project, BIC Members participating in IAs incl. flagships may decide to use a lower funding rate than the maximum applicable funding rate (100% or 60%; see above). A reason for using this lower funding rate could be to fulfil the IA evaluation subcriterion ‘Ability to ensure the level of in-kind contribution to operational activities (IKOP) defined in the call/topic as % of total projects eligible costs (IAs 15% and IA-Flagship 20%)’. To reach this threshold, only the IKOP from BIC consortium members can be taken into account.

For RIAs, the standard funding % for all types of organisations is 100%. Therefore, in order for RIA proposals to reach the 5% IKOP threshold, BIC members should manually decrease their requested funding in the budget table.

‘Additional Activities (IKAA)’ are described in Section 4.1 of the 2026 call Annual Work Programme. If your proposal (only for Innovation Actions) is expected to generate IKAA in line with this definition, you are requested to include a table as an annex to your proposal. A template of this table is provided here and in the ‘part B’ template. This annex is optional and indicative, and will not be taken into account during proposal evaluation. Should your proposal be invited for Grant Agreement Preparation (GAP), an update of your IKAA contribution will be requested, and the table will need to be created or updated.  

'In-kind contributions to operational activities (IKOP)’ can be deduced from the proposal budget and the list of project participants that are BIC members (IKOP= the difference between BIC participants’ total eligible costs and their requested funding). IKOP has to reach 5% (RIAs), 15% (IAs) or 20% (Flagships) of the total eligible costs in the budget to be positively evaluated. These amounts are reflected directly in the proposal’s budget. 

IKOP will (only) be taken into consideration during the evaluation of RIAs and IAs including Flagships, via the CBE JU-specific evaluation subcriterion “Ability to ensure the level of in-kind contribution to operational activities (IKOP) defined in the call/topic as % of total projects eligible costs (RIAs 5%, IAs 15% and IA-Flagship 20%)”. This means that you need to identify the BIC members in your consortium, because only their IKOP will be taken into account for the established thresholds. 5% (RIAs), 15% (IAs) and 20% (Flagship) are minimum thresholds; in this call, no higher scores will be assigned in case of higher (than 5%, 15% or 20%) IKOP contributions. 

Below, three budget examples are provided, each with five project beneficiaries:

• Example 1 is an IA-Flagship proposal with 2 BIC members (beneficiaries 1 and 3), whose total IKOP (= total costs minus requested funding) is € 4.8 million. The ratio IKOP / total proposal costs is higher than the requested 20% for Flagships, meaning that this proposal will be scored positively for the IKOP evaluation subcriterion.

• Example 2 is a non-flagship IA with 1 BIC member (beneficiary 1), whose IKOP is € 1.28 million. The ratio IKOP / total proposal costs is lower than the requested 15% for IAs, meaning that this proposal will be scored negatively for the IKOP evaluation subcriterion.

• Example 3 is a RIA with 1 BIC member (beneficiary 3), whose IKOP is € 200k. The ratio IKOP / total proposal costs is lower than the requested 5% for RIAs, meaning that this proposal will be scored negatively for the IKOP evaluation subcriterion. Please note that:
  • In order to generate IKOP, Beneficiary 3 needs to manually decrease their requested funding amount from € 700k to € 500k (as the budget will automatically assign 100% funding);
  • The ‘total costs minus requested funding’ for beneficiary 5 is not counted towards the IKOP, as beneficiary 5 is not a BIC member.

When completing the budget table in the Funding & Tender Opportunities Portal, the following budget columns are shown, some of which are less or not relevant to CBE JU proposals (all costs in €):

• Personnel costs. Please enter the personnel costs for staff working on the project. The following types of personnel costs are allowed: 
  • Employees (salaries and social security contributions, taxes and other costs linked to the remuneration, if they arise from national law or the employment contract or equivalent appointing act) 
  • Natural persons under direct contract other than an employment contract 
  • Costs for seconded persons by a third party against payment (example: a project team member, who is employed by a third party outside the project. The third party is reimbursed by the participant, and the participant charges these costs to the project) 
  • Unit costs for the work of SME owners for the action (i.e. owners of beneficiaries that are small and medium-sized enterprises not receiving a salary) or natural person beneficiaries (i.e. beneficiaries that are natural persons not receiving a salary) 
• Subcontracting costs (i.e. costs for subcontracted action tasks). 
• Purchase costs. 3 types of purchase costs need to be entered (if applicable) in 3 columns:
  • Travel and subsistence’; 
  • ‘Equipment’ (i.e. the costs for equipment, infrastructure or other assets used for the action). 
  • ‘Other goods, works and services’. 
• Internally invoiced goods and services (Unit costs - usual accounting practices)
• Indirect costs (Flat rate of other budget categories, calculated automatically) 
• Total eligible costs (Total of all previous costs, calculated automatically)
• Funding rate. The funding rate is defined in the call conditions, and should be 100%, except for ‘for profit’ entities in Innovation Actions (IAs) incl. flagships, whose standard funding rate is 60%. The rate is based on / linked to each legal entity’s status (e.g. SME, non-profit, etc.) as found in the Participant Register. If the funding rate does not seem to be in line with an entity’s legal status, please check and update the entity’s data in the Participant Register. If the problem persists, please contact the IT helpdesk.  
• Maximum EU contribution to eligible costs = the highest possible EU contribution for this legal entity (= total costs x funding rate, calculated automatically). 
• Requested EU contribution to eligible costs. The amount that you request as EU contribution needs to be manually entered. This amount can be equal to or lower than the ‘Maximum EU contribution to eligible costs’. In RIA and IA (incl. Flagships) proposals, the requested EU contribution can be reduced as to increase the IKOP (cf. Q 4.2.4 above). 
• Income generated by the action. Please enter the expected income generated by the project (revenues), if any. 
• Financial contributions. In CBE JU / Horizon Europe, ‘Financial contributions’ refer to funding given by third parties to the benefit of a beneficiary for being used specifically for the action. Hence, a typical example could be a specific nationally funded grant/donation to a beneficiary that covers the same action (and its related costs) than the one submitted for funding under Horizon Europe / CBE JU. 
• Other sources of funding – IKOP. Please do NOT complete this column, as it is not applicable to CBE JU, where IKOP is calculated based on the difference between total costs and total requested funding of BIC members. 
• Own resources. ‘Own resources’ refer to the resources at the disposal of a beneficiary and that do not qualify as ‘financial contributions’ (see above) per se. Typical examples could be the financial resources that a beneficiary draws directly from its commercial activity; or resources coming from the beneficiary’s annual operating allocation (like a public university receiving a general annual subsidy from its national Ministry).
• Total estimated project income. Calculated automatically as the sum of requested grant amount, income generated by the project, financial contributions and own resources.
• IKAA. Please enter the amount for expected IKAA (only for CBE JU IAs incl. Flagships, not for RIAs and CSAs; see also Q 4.2.4).

The project duration is defined by the consortium in the proposal and must be in line with the project objectives. Unless the topic text states otherwise, typical – but not mandatory – durations for types of actions are:

• For Coordination & Support Actions (CSAs): 2-3 years

• For Research and Innovation actions (RIAs): 3-4 years

• For Innovation Actions (IAs), including Flagships: 4-5 years

As a general rule, the project starts on the first day of the month following the date when the GA enters into force. The GA enters into force when the last party (i.e. CBE JU) signs it.

If a fixed start date is requested, the start date of the project can never be set before the date of proposal submission. If a fixed date prior to the GA signature is requested, any cost incurred before the GA signature is incurred at the own risk of the consortium member(s). Costs incurred before the official start date of the project are NOT eligible.

The project proposal has to take into account possible causes of delays in the project and plan sufficient time to carry out the action (‘risk management’).

(Only) if unscheduled and exceptional circumstances arise during the project, the consortium has the option to request a duly justified project extension.

The 2026 annual work programme provides the following clarifications about terminology:

• In the introduction, a list of acronyms, definitions and abbreviations is provided;

• A glossary, including references, is provided in section 4.2, and includes the explanation of topic-specific terminology. 

The SRIA provides the CBE JU framework:

• Inputs: Annex V provides a non-exhaustive list of potential feedstocks;

• Outputs. “The bio-based solutions and innovations that fall within the scope of CBE should focus on the production of bio-based chemicals, materials, food and feed ingredients and soil nutrients. Biofuels, bioenergy, food and feed, pharmaceuticals and medical devices are not within the remit of the partnership. The activities to be funded by the CBE JU will follow the principles of cascading use of sustainably-sourced biological feedstock (including bio-based waste, residues and side-streams), as well as delivering innovative solutions with improved climate and environmental performance”.

Regarding the feedstock, the AWP’s section 2.2.3.1 defines some specific requirements such as the feedstock type, sourcing, sustainability requirements, environmental performance, etc.

Each topic text can then further specify the envisaged inputs and/or outputs.

Topics including the implementation and testing of the SSbD framework should align the safety and sustainability assessment with the Commission Recommendation (EU/2022/2510) establishing a European assessment framework for ‘safe and sustainable by design’ chemicals and materials”.

JRC has made available a Methodological Guidance that provides practical suggestions on the most commonly encountered issues when applying the framework, and the Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals (PARC) has developed a toolbox that provides an overview of existing tools for each step of the framework.

According to the EU Taxonomy Regulation, the technical screening criteria for the ‘Do-No-Significant Harm’ (DNSH) ambition include the exclusion of any activity involving the degradation of land with high carbon stock, which means wetlands, including peatland, and continuously forested areas within the meaning of Article 29(4)(a), (b) and (c) of Directive (EU) 2018/2001. This condition is confirmed in the CBE JU SRIA (“Feedstock should be sourced in order to contribute to operations respecting local ecological limits and protection and enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystems services”). Furthermore, under the same DNSH principle, the EU Taxonomy Regulation establishes, covering ‘transition to circular economy’, that peat extraction should be minimised. Therefore: if the topic text provides a broad choice of biomass and if you would consider peat as biomass, you should clearly justify the adherence to the DNSH principle and overall environmental considerations. Furthermore, even if side or waste streams of peat-related bioprocesses would be considered, applicants would not only need to demonstrate they are improving the resource efficiency when using these side or waste streams, but also that the primary process (e.g. burning of peat as fuel) from which these side or waste streams come is also aligned with these sustainability criteria, taxonomy regulation, DNSH ambition, etc.

(Background: Peatlands are ecosystems with a peat soil. Peat consists of at least 30 % dead, partially decomposed plant remains that have accumulated in situ under waterlogged and often acidic conditions. Resolution XIII.12 Guidance on identifying peatlands as Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Sites) for global climate change regulation as an additional argument to existing Ramsar criteria, Ramsar convention adopted on 21- 29 October 2018.)
 

Sucrose or other 1G sugars can be utilised as feedstocks in CBE JU projects provided that the proposals suitably and credibly address the elements indicated in the 2026 AWP under section 2.2.3.1.

Specifically, for IAs, including Flagships, applicants should in their proposal: 

• clarify the amount of agricultural biomass needed for the project operations and forecast prospective volumes needed in the medium-long term after the end of the project. For Flagships, this should be aligned with the proposed business plan; 

• assess if the above-mentioned forecasted prospective volumes have the potential to interfere with the food supply chain; 

• describe possible actions (including project activities) to mitigate the identified risks (if any), such as alternative feedstock sources, in case of potential interference with the food supply chain in future commercial operations

Also, it is noteworthy to highlight that applicants should ensure to include in the proposal suitable information on the geographical origin of the feedstocks, as well as information on how the feedstock is produced or generated respecting local ecological limits.

The cascading use of biomass entails maximising the resource-use efficiency by prioritising the processing steps by value creation (cf. definition on p. 21 of the SRIA). In the context of CBE JU topics, this means - while maximising the value creation and resource efficiency for the biomass conversion route(s) in scope of the topic, it also addresses valorisation of any fraction(s) of the biomass feedstock not converted by the main conversion route(s) and/or of residual streams in order to maximise the valorisation of the biomass feedstock and minimise waste.

Please also consider the “Guidance on cascading use of biomass, with selected good practice examples on woody biomass” and especially the 5 guiding principles. 

1. Resource efficiency

2. Sustainability (‘Any cascading solution to promote the highest economic added value must consider its impact on the other two pillars of sustainability: the social and environmental aspects’)

3. Circularity in every stream and at every step

4. New products and new markets (‘Stimulate uses of biomass with high added value by making new products and new markets’)

5. Subsidiarity (‘Cascading should respect not only national contexts but also regional and local ones in assessing the most economically viable use of biomass’)

The overall recommendation is that CBE projects strive towards fully bio-based solutions. Nonetheless, we recognise that minor (%) parts of inorganic components and/or fossil-based carbon may be justified for functionality, safety and sustainability and therefore are allowed. Moreover, the non-bio-based carbon and/or inorganic content must not affect the safety, sustainability and circularity of the product. The exact % may vary depending on the end application. Also to add that we aspire for higher % bio-based composition, the higher the end TRL (as we go from RIA, to IA to FLAG). For the bio-based content, please refer to available standards which cover the measurement of bio-based carbon content. Proposals must describe, quantify and justify the minor non-bio-based content. Please also check topic-specific requirements (if any).

The Flaghsips topic does not require specifically to build a new large scale facility. The applicant can propose the most suitable solution to achieve the intended objectives, and this should be reflected in the annexed business plan (which is a mandatory requirement for the IAFlag proposal to be submitted).

As part of the panel review, CBE JU will organise hearings with applicants of all Flagships proposals. Hearings are a part of the evaluation process, they are held during the consensus weeks (i.e., normally during the month of November). 

Each hearing consists of a presentation by proposal representatives only focussed on clarifying aspects of the business plan, as defined in the “CBE JU specific requirements” section of the Annual Work Programme, followed by a Q&A with the panel of expert-evaluators. 

The scope of the hearings is to assess the quality and robustness of the business plan of the submitted proposals. 

More coming soon.

Q: Is a full fertiliser portfolio expected (NPK, microbial biofertilisers, organic, organo-mineral), or can projects focus on one or two categories (e.g. one mineral element + microbial + biostimulants)? 

A: The topic requires to demonstrate the efficient industrial production of SSbD bio-based solutions as 
alternatives to current fertilising and/or crop protection products. The applicant can decide the solution to be developed among the list indicated in the topic text [Bioactive molecules 
and/or biotechnology solutions for bio-fertilisers, bio-stimulants and/or pest/disease control 
(e.g., bioherbicides, biopesticides, bioinsecticides), or a combination thereof]. It is not mandatory to demonstrate a full fertilser portfolio.

Q: Should the biorefinery produce final fertiliser products (in bulk, later formulated/branded by end-users) or mainly intermediate ingredients that will be further processed into fertiliser products? 

A: The topic requires the demonstration at TRL8 of the proposed solutions, that must be at least validated at TRL6 and above as final product.

Q: How to deal with the regulation to enter into the market during the project as time of the project is too short ? Is it regulatory approval for the field test required? 

A: Projects are expected to address regulatory aspects, but they are not expected to gain approval for entering the market already during the project lifetime. For field trials of experimental products, applicants will need to obtain authorisation from the local authorities or use a pre-authorised experimental facility. 

More coming soon.

Q: While TRL8 is a requirement to be achieved for the efficient production of nutritional ingredients, does the synergistic co-production of multipl food and feed ingredients and other bio-based products - using a cascading approach - also need to reach TRL8?

A: TRL8 is mandatory for the demonstration of the efficient production of nutritional food ingredients, while other results of cascading approach processes does not require to achieve TRL8 at the end of the project.

Q: Is the use of a microalgal biomass (independently of the cultivation method) in scope for the topic?

A: All sources of bio-based feedstock are in scope. Examples include: plants, invertebrates, microorganisms, fungi, aquatic biomass (including micro and macro algae, seagrass, aquaculture and fishery residues), fermentation of bio-based feedstock (including biogenic gaseous carbon), residues from agriculture, farming (including livestock) and forestry, urban and/or industrial waste streams (including from the food industry). Only the use of biomass as a whole as food resource is not in scope in particular for food crops, livestock, fisheries and aquaculture.

Therefore microalgae are eligible to be used as feedstock.

Q: Does the topic scope include novel food ingredients? And do they need to have approval already? 

A: Novel food ingredients are in scope for the topic. The topic does not require that the ingredients are already approved nor that the approval should be achieved during the duration of the project. The proposal should addess all elements of the topic including  the assessment of the safety of developed nutritional food ingredients, in line with EU regulatory requirements and EFSA guidance documents. Also, please note that all elements of the proposal, including specific requirements such as presenting a business plan, should cover any regulatory compliance aspects as relevant to the application. 

Q: Would cultivated marine biomass and the associated spent growth media be classified as an in-scope bio-based feedstock?

The topic text mentions that ‘all sources of bio-based feedstock are in scope’. Examples are given in the footnote and include aquaculture and fishery residues, but do not specifically exclude cultivated marine cell lines. In addition, please consider that it is clearly stated that ‘direct production of food from food crops, livestock, fisheries and aquaculture is not in scope’ which means that the use of cultivated marine cell lines to create a food product (meaning a whole food matrix or tissue, for example a fish steak) would be out of scope. So, if the plan is to cultivate fish cells and then organise them into muscle, fat, or other tissues this approach would be out of scope. However, if the plan may involve spent medium containing fats/proteins which can be isolated/purified and used as ingredients, for example omega 3s, such an approach might potentially be in scope. 

Q: Does a key conversion reaction based on enzymes as catalyst be a valid biotech process in relation to the topic terminology?

A: Yes, the use of a enzymatic catalist-based conversion is considered a valid biotech route and is in scope for the topic. 

Q: Are the following ingredient categories - enzymes, probiotic biomass, parabiotics, postbiotics, yeast extracts/fibres, single-cell protein - considered in scope for the topic?

A: Yes, all the mentioned categories of ingredients are in scope for the topic. 

Q: Can biogenic gaseous stream be used as feedstock? 

A: Biogenic carbon gases are not an eligible feedstock for the topic. 

Q: Is it expected that biomass feedstock comes from ≥2 sources, or can it come from a single source? Is fermentation waste/side-stream an eligible feedstock? 

A: The topic does not specify a minimum number of feedstock to be used in the project. The list of biomassess mentioned in the topic text is an explanation of the different feedstocks that are in scope and can be used by the applicants. As described in the topic text, urban and/or industrial bio-based waste and side-streams are in scope.

Q: Would cell culture media from a cultivated marine cell platform qualify as an "aquaculture residue" within this category?

A: Yes, this is to be considered as an aquaculture residue, and therefore in scope with the topic. 

Q: Would 2 textile applications (e.g., sportswear and automotive, these having very distinct requirements) be considered two sectors ?

A: Even if both are textile applications, they are targetting two different segmenets and therefore they can be regarded as two different industrial sectors. 

Q: Are vine stocks or residues from olive trees (pruning residues from orchards or end-of-life tree removal) also eligible feedstock for the topic?

A: Both vine stocks and olive trees residues can be considered as woody residues, and therefore in scope for the topic. 

Q: Can woody residues include those from wood based panel manufacturing sites and or wood recycling centres?

A: Yes, the scope of the topic includes 'woody residues generated at forestry and/or at industrial processing sites, including but not limited to, bark, sawdust or residues from wood harvesting and processing. 

More information coming soon.

Q: Is the development of novel measurement and testing facilies (to be used to assess and certify films/coatings properties) also in scope for this topic?

A: The focus of the topic in on the development of the product. If used for the R&I activities in scope of the topic, applying novel measurements and testing activities can be covered. In particular, any technical development related to the measuring equipment / techniques can only be in scope as long as it's necessary for the development of the product. However, in regard to the development of novel facilities for this purpose, this is outside the scope of the topic, if understood as building a new infrastructure (as not required under the topic).     

Q: The call test says, “Develop scalable separation and purification technologies and test the developed innovative solutions on at least 3 use cases.” How should the 3 use cases be understood? Three different technologies, or can be the same technology demonstrated for three different processes, targeted compounds?

A: The topic is requesting to address 3 use cases, and each of them could validate the same technology, but in this circumstance they shoudl address different processes or targeted compounds. 

Q: The topic states that "primary biomass from agriculture and forestry is out of scope" and mention that applicable feedstock can be consulted in the CBE JU SRIA and its Annex V. What of the forest-based feedstock listed in the CBE JU SRIA can be used in the topic?

A: The topic is focusing on unexplored and alternative resources as main feedstock. In relation to forest-based biomass mentioned in the Annex V of the CBE JU SRIA, applicant can use:

• Damaged and/or contaminated wood
• Residues from lignocellulosic biomass from the forest-based industry

Q: Are vegetable oils (including non-edible ones) an eligible source for polymer synthesis in this topic? If not, are derivatives such as fatty acids or fatty acid esters still considered as primary biomass? 

A: The topic is indicating that primary biomass from agriculture and forestry should be out of scope. That means that not only vegetable oils (irrespectively of their edibility) are out of scope, but also fatty acids/fatty acid esters if they have been produced from such primary biomass. 

Q: Should projects develop one polymer demonstrated across at least two market sectors, or two or more polymers each targeting a specific sector? 

A: The final applications of the project should target at least two market sectors. The applicant can decide if developing one or more different polymers to be tested into these at least two market sectors. Also, please note that the topic does not specify any limitation in term of industrial applications for the developed bio-based polymers.

Q: Are Monoterpenes woody residues?

A: Monoterpenes are a class of molecules, not a class of biomass feedstock. They are present in classes of biomass feedstock that are considered woody residues (e.g. bark). The topic scope distinction is on the source of biomass feedstock, not on the kind of molecule of interest.

Q: Could the carbon from emissions generated by municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration be considered in scope for the production of a polymer in this topic? 

A: If the proposal will foresee direct conversion (e.g. via gas fermentation), the use of carbon gases from MSW incineration is not considered in scope for the topic. Conversely, if the carbon gases from MSW incineration are used for growing biomasses (e.g. microalgae) and the convert the biomass, this would be in scope regardless of the initial source of carbon.
 

Q: Are fiber applications for the construction sector in scope for the topic?

A: All end applications that encompass targeting textile are in scope, no specific sector of use of the textile products is identified in the topic, therefore textile for construction sector is in scope for the topic.  

Q: The topic requries to address a number of economic sectors. Can the sectors be agriculture, contruction, textiles, and manufacturing? And can value chain development and policy outputs be part of this call?

A: Agriculture is not expected to be considered in scope for the topic, as it cannot be considered as a non-biobased or partially bio-based sector. If the applicant is addressing elements such as fossil-based fertilisers or chemical inputs for agricultural, the target sector should be the fertiliser/agro-chemical industry and not agriculture at large. The other sectors can instead be covered, under the term "include at least 3 industrial sectors that are critical to the green transition". Call requires inclusion of actors in the value chains (industry actos of various size and position in value chains) and policy makers (dialogue among the stakeholders, and other outputs).