In this page, you will find the most frequently asked questions from potential applicants, as well as the answers to those questions.
The information in this document is based on the rules and conditions in the CBE JU Annual Work Programme (AWP) 2026 . This FAQ for applicants complements but does not replace the AWP. In the event of different interpretations, the information provided in the AWP always has precedence.
For additional questions, please contact info[at]cbe.europa.eu.
Below you will find general information about where to look for information in regards to the 2026 call.
The most relevant information sources are:
On 26 March 2025, the CBE JU Governing Board approved the second amendment of the 2025 Annual Work programme, which was subsequently published on the CBE JU website. The main updates compared to the previous version (dd. 9 January 2025) include:
• Call closure deadline: 18 Sept 2025 17:00 Brussels time instead of 17 September;
• Update of all 13 topic texts, based on clarification requests received from applicants;
• Increased budget (€ 172 million compared to € 165 million), where each IAFlag topic now has a budget of € 20 million, each IA topic has a budget of €14 million, and each RIA topic now has a budget of € 7 million;
• Updated CBE JU-specific requirements (AWP section 2.2.3.1), specifically the description of the feedstock; the ex-ante and ex-post environmental performance assessment; the economic aspects for IA-Flagships; and the deletion of the ‘recommendations to stakeholders’;
• STEP seal applicable to all IA incl. Flag topics (see AWP sections 2.2.3.3 and 2.2.4).
Below you will find the general information about the specifics of CBE JU in context of calls for proposals.
The Horizon Europe General Annexes apply to CBE JU Call 2025, with the exceptions introduced in section 2.2.3 of the AWP 2025. 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 AWP 2025.
The 3 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 on 4 Apr 2025), organisations can find partners for (CBE JU and other) project ideas among the organisations registered in the 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:
o at least one independent legal entity established in a Member State; and
o 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 Call 2025. For more information, please consult the list of participating countries in Horizon Europe.
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.
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 (http://biconsortium.eu/), 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 (Call 2025 topic-specific Q&A), so that this information is publicly available. If you have topic interpretation questions, please contact info@cbe.europa.eu.
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:
A. Personnel costs. New since 1 May 2024: the option to use personnel unit costs.(see dedicated webinar dd. 19 June 2024 on Personnel Unit Cost – New cost method in Horizon Europe (19 June 2024) (europa.eu))
B. Subcontracting costs
C. Purchase costs (incl. Travel and Subsistence, Equipment and Other goods, works & services)
D. Other cost categories
E. 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.
In Call 2025, a budget line has been assigned per topic, and the Annual Work Programme (AWP) 2025 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 Call 2025 Annual Work Programme (as found on https://www.cbe.europa.eu/reference-documents). 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, 3 budget examples are provided, each with 5 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).
Below you will find the general information about project timing and duration.
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.
In this part, topic-specific Q&A (if any) are addressed per ‘type of action’: Coordination & Support Actions (CSAs), Research & Innovation Actions (RIAs), Innovation Actions (IAs) including Flagship projects. In an introductory section (6.0), terminology-related questions that affect more than 1 topic are discussed.
The Annual Work Programme (AWP) 2025 provides the following clarifications about terminology:
• In the introduction (p. 5-6), a list of acronyms, definitions and abbreviations is provided;
• A glossary (incl. references) is provided in section 4.2, and includes the explanation of topic-specific terminology.
The SRIA (https://www.cbe.europa.eu/system/files/2022-06/cbeju-sria.pdf) 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.)
Section 2.2.3.1 of the AWP 2025 describes the feedstock sourcing eligibility condition as follows: “Proposals shall confirm in Part B that:
• if the bio-based feedstock is processed in EU/EEA/EFTA countries, the bio-based feedstock comes from such countries or from neighbouring Associated Countries;
• if the feedstock is processed in an Associated Country, the bio-based feedstock comes from the same country or from neighbouring EU/EEA/EFTA countries, or neighbouring Associated Countries.
For limited samples of bio-based feedstock for the purpose of testing processes or technologies this eligibility condition does not apply.”
For demonstrating and upscaling value chains however, the feedstock sourcing eligibility condition shall apply, and this value chain needs to be considered when presenting a qualitative business case (for RIAs), and the business case, model (IAs incl. Flagships) and plan (Flagships).
a) Can animal-based by-products be used as an input?
The topic refers to the Waste Framework Directive (WFD), and its article 2(2)(b) includes the following: “This Directive shall not apply to animal by-products, including processed products, covered by Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009.” This means that animal by-products, such as bones, fat etc, fall under a different regulatory framework:
- Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 governs animal by-products and their disposal or use (e.g. for pet food, fertilizers, biodiesel).
- As long as these materials are handled according to the ABP Regulation, they are not considered waste under the WFD.
Therefore, animal-based by-products can only be considered as an additional / complementary waste stream; biowaste, as qualified under the WFD, should be primarily addressed.
a) What production volume is required to be considered a flagship?
There is no minimum threshold prescribed by the topic. However, it is up to the applicants to convince the expert-evaluators that the processes demonstrated align with the expected end of TRL 8 as well as all other requirements described in the topic text. Moreover, the business plan presented must be clear, compelling and credible.
a) Are food and feed ingredients included in the scope?
Applicants are always allowed to have co-production, but food and feed ingredients per se are not the scope of this topic. This clarification was added in the second amendment of the AWP 2025 (cf. Q 1.2).
a) The topic indicates that pure proteins, protein-rich mixtures and protein-enriched ingredients are in scope. Can you clarify the meaning of the reference, which specifies that at least 50% in weight protein content is expected?
50% protein content is referred to the dry form and a "wet" product is eligible as long as its dry form meets the 50% threshold requirement stated under the scope.
b) Is the production of culture medium / nutrient solution from fermentation of bio-based feedstock in scope?
It is in scope if all process steps use bio-based feedstock and the primary purpose of the fermentation is to produce proteins.
c) Is the production of green amino acids and hydrolysed protein from plant biomass in scope?
Amino acids and hydrolysed proteins fall within the scope of the topic, provided that their role as nutritional protein sources is substantiated. Despite their smaller molecular size, their metabolic and nutritional functions align with the topic’s objectives. Emphasis should be placed on demonstrating nutritional efficacy and sustainable production from biomass.
d) What are the target consumers that CBE JU envisages? Can the focus be on general consumers, or elderly, or do for example young consumers also need to be included?
In the context of the topic, ‘early stage’ does not refer to ‘young consumers’, but rather to the consumer’s involvement early in the project. Whether the focus is on any particular age group, is a decision of the applicant, but is not prescribed in the topic.
a) Can multiple polymers be blended?
The topic’s main focus is not on polymer blends but on polymers and/or co-polymers; the latter combining different monomers and not simply blending 2 polymers together. If there is the justified need for an additive to attain certain properties, this is not excluded.
b) When referring to (bio)-catalyst recycling, is this referred to the recycling of catalyst during the polymerization process or is it referred to recyclability of catalyst during the recycling process?
The catalyst recycling refers to recycling within the production/polymerization stage. The focus of the topic is on enhancing the industrial process, recovering and reusing catalysts in-line, thereby reducing costs, minimising waste, and improving sustainability of the production step(s).
c) The topic states that composite end-products are out of scope. Typically unsaturated polyester resins are used in composite end products. Does this mean that unsaturated polyester resins are out of scope?
Developing the resin and testing it in other application areas can be in scope. However, as stated in the topic text, developing a composite with the resin is out of scope.
a) Is a biomass power plant to produce energy through burning of forest biomass in scope?
Energy production is not eligible as primary application under CBE JU (see also Q 6.0.2).
b) The topic scope prescribes to test the local value chain by optimising logistics, improving cost efficiency, and collaborating with central hubs for further processing and refining. Do “hubs” refer to existing initiatives at local level, for example pilot initiatives in which forest owners, managers and other operators are already developing new forest-based value chains?
The term “central hub” refers to processing facilities that are receiving the pre-processed biomass (or, if relevant, an intermediate product) from forest managers. They can be existing or new facilities.
a) Does "applied in natural soil conditions" require testing under real outdoor field conditions, or would laboratory or greenhouse experiments using natural soil be sufficient?
The topic text includes i) “Validate the delivery system(s) for fertilising products (lab-scale and/or small-scale field trials), ensuring agronomic efficiency, safety, scalability and sustainability with similar or improved properties compared to conventional systems”, and ii) “Assess the long-term effect and biodegradability of delivery system(s) when applied in natural soil conditions, applying standard tests, methods and protocols. Biodegradability-related aspects should also be monitored and assessed in fresh, estuarine or marine water (considering the risk of dispersion in water)”. Therefore, the main point is “in natural conditions”; if lab-scale or similar trials can simulate the long-term effect of an application in natural soil conditions, it should be in scope.
b) Are fertiliser-based delivery systems that are not authorised for use in EU organic farming out of scope? For example mineral fertilizers that are not allowed to be used in organic farming.
Mineral fertilisers are still in scope for conventional farming systems, but not for the organic farming systems. Organic farming should be included (mandatory) as one of the farming systems to be considered. In practice, the applicant should foresee at least an action on one delivery system that can be used in organic farming and can decide themselves about the other farming systems.
c) Would the use and testing of bio-based delivery systems in fertilising products that include biostimulants in their composition be considered within the scope of this call?
As biostimulants are considered fertiliser products under current EU regulation, delivering systems addressing biostimuants are considered in scope.
d) In relation to fertilising products, the regulation refers to the components listed in Annex II of Regulation (EU) 2019/1009. Could you clarify whether: The scope of the topic refers to the core fertilising material being delivered (e.g. compost, digestate, organic fertilisers) is also one of the materials listed in Annex II — and not just the carrier or coating (i.e., the delivery system)?
The topic calls for the development of the delivery system, not of the fertiliser itself. Nonetheless, the fertiliser formulation can be adapted to explore synergies with the delivery system, if relevant.
a) Should natural rubber be targeted: which plant species are in scope?
Although the topic text does not provide a list of acceptable plant species, all biomass should respect the CBE JU specific requirements, especially those related to feedstock sourcing and feedstock environmental sustainability (incl. ILUC). For more information, please consult section 2.2.3.1 of the AWP 2025.
Should the feedstock sourcing criterion not be met (e.g. because the envisaged feedstock is cultivated in a non-eligible country): as the scope of the topic also allows synthetic rubber routes, it would be allowed to use biochemistry/biotechnology approaches in more closed systems based on the feedstock, so that only a limited amount, if any, of biomass would need to be imported.
b) Are polymers with a rubber component in scope with the topic?
Polymers that incorporate rubber components, such as TPOs (thermoplastic olefins), ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene), and HIPS (high impact polystyrene), may be considered within the scope only if the rubber phase they contain (e.g., polybutadiene in ABS or HIPS) is derived from natural or synthetic rubber and if the proposal clearly addresses the biomanufacturing of that specific rubber component.
c) Does the scope of this topic include elastomeric fibres (e.g., elastane-like materials) as part of the broader category of rubber or rubber-like materials, when used in industrial applications such as textiles?
Elastomeric fibres (e.g. elastane-like materials) can fall within the scope of the topic, provided that they are derived from or based on rubber or rubber-like polymers and the proposal clearly aligns with the call’s goals—such as reducing fossil-based inputs, enhancing recyclability, and supporting European bio-based production. While tire and high-performance applications are key targets, other industrial uses (including textiles) are also eligible if they contribute to sustainable, bio-based rubber value chain(s).