Detection, monitoring, modelling, and attribution capabilities for Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) activities and assessing their impacts on Earth's climate and ecosystems

The development of a global SRM governance framework is supported through advanced knowledge, generated by desk research, modelling, earth observation, the documentation of development pathways of various SRM technologies and their potential impacts on the earth system and its parts (oceans, large-scale atmospheric circulation, regional climate such as monsoons as well as changes in precipitation), as well as on societies (impact on decarbonisation pathways, livelihood security, nature dependent value chains etc.) and ecosystems. These are considered substantial gaps by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Group of Chief Scientific Advisors. Aerosol and cloud modelling capabilities for global and regional models concerning Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) and Cirrus Cloud Thinning (CCT)/Mixed Phase Cloud Thinning (MCT) and their effects on atmospheric chemistry and dynamics are enhanced as a solid scientific-technological base for a detection and deterrence system. Policy makers and public authorities have access to robust space-borne, ground-based, air-borne and in-situ EO data (e.g. Copernicus) based on any relevant physical, chemical or social, societal data for the purpose of detection, assessment and attribution for outdoor SRM-development activities. Knowledge about SRM-induced changes to be expected in ecosystems, like shifted precipitation patterns and altered light quality, associated marine and terrestrial net primary production, and on sensitive habitats is enhanced. The knowledge generated shall inform, in the context of SRM technology governance, the detection, monitoring and attribution policy, in the sense of an ecological alert system focused on protecting global biodiversity. Scope: Support provided under this topic must not be used to advocate, promote, or support the development of SRM. The conduct of SRM field experiments as well as the conduct of technical and operational SRM research is out of the scope. The activity aims at enhancing the capabilities to detect, monitor and attribute SRM-related research, innovation or deployment activities. The activity shall be conducted in line with the precautionary approach as outlined by the European Group on Ethics [1] , in accordance with the conclusion of SAPEA reports, the IPCC reviews, and build on the decisions of relevant international bodies, mainly CBD and support the ambitions of the Ocean Pact. In recent years, SRM has been the subject of increased debate amongst a variety of stakeholders. The debate encompasses multiple perspectives, including the scientific and technical challenges, inherent risks, governability and ethical considerations of proposed methodologies. SRM encompasses a range of strategies aimed at reducing global warming by reflecting the Sun's energy away from Earth or allowing excessive energy to leave the atmosphere through means other than reducing greenhouse gas concentrations. While the focus of relevant multilateral environmental agreements is fully on rapid greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and adaptation to climate change, SRM is being proposed by some actors as an additional measure to reduce warming and address negative impacts of climate change. In this framework, the Council conclusions on EU Energy and Climate diplomacy [1] of 21 April 2026 expressed concern that “ large scale climate interventions, in particular solar radiation modification, pose significant risks for the climate, the environment, security, and geopolitics” . Critical uncertainties regarding the effectiveness and wide-ranging impacts of SRM currently obstruct comprehensive risk analysis and evidence-based policy. Knowledge gaps coupled to a lack of robust, formal governance is particularly concerning, as the potential for unilateral deployment by state or private actors could trigger significant international tensions. Historically, SRM has been addressed within the framework of the CBD, specifically through Decision X/33 [1] adopted at COP10 and decision XI/20 adopted at COP11 [4] . Reaffirmed at CBD COP16, these decisions maintain what is widely recognized as a de-facto moratorium on the deployment of SRM and other geoengineering technologies to prevent irreversible ecological damage. The project under this topic should address critical knowledge gaps identified by the IPCC, CBD and Group of Chief Scientific Advisors related to the absence of an evidence-supported governance framework on SRM. The action shall enhance detection, monitoring, and attribution capabilities for SRM by leveraging EU leadership in Earth observation utilizing space-borne, ground-based, and in-situ data. This includes physico-chemical, and social, societal, media or any other relevant data. This robust monitoring framework should be designed to detect and attribute outdoor experiments and deter potential unilateral deployments by private or state actors. All deployment and field experiment-type activities are out of scope of this topic. In the absence of field trials different methods of physico-chemical measurements have to be validated against each other in a natural environment and modelling plays a crucial role for enhancing reliability, applicability and attribution capacity. To that end, the project is expected to significantly advance high-fidelity modelling of aerosol-cloud interactions, specifically targeting SAI, MCB, and CCT/MCT and develop a solid scientific basis for understanding how these methods affect atmospheric chemistry and dynamics. The project under this topic should contribute to the establishment of a potential future ecological early-warning system focused on protecting global biodiversity and expected to predict and monitor how SRM-induced changes, such as shifted precipitation patterns and altered light quality, might disrupt photosynthesis and associated marine net primary production, and sensitive habitats. By identifying these unintended consequences, the project aligns with the CBD and ensures that ecological protection remains a central pillar of any climate intervention research. SRM is mainly criticized for reasons including ethical concerns, general mistrust of technocratic interventions, lack of international governance and regulatory frameworks, risk of termination shock, as well as unknown long- and short-term side effects and high uncertainty. To achieve the goals of the project, the activity should therefore bridge the gap between technical disciplines and the humanities. Only through this transdisciplinary lens can the multifaceted threats to our ecosystems and societies be addressed. In December 2024 the European Commission’s Scientific Advisory Mechanism’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors and European Group on Ethics have published expert advice on the limitations and requirements for research activities related to SRM technologies recommending inter alia highest possible transparency and open science practices. Further, the scientific advisory mechanism recommends setting limits to public support to SRM deployment technology development outside a multilateral governance framework. These considerations should guide the project design and consortium composition. Entities with a known interest in the commercial development or deployment of SRM technologies may create a substantial conflict of interest within a project targeted towards the development of detection and monitoring capacity for a governance framework. Such conflicts should be avoided and related risks managed. To that end EU representatives will be participating in the evaluation committee. Beyond commercial sensitivities, the global discourse surrounding SRM is highly polarized. These technologies are frequently the subject of intense public debate. As the project operates in this highly sensitive discorse, it requires an exceptionally high standard of transparency to build public trust and ensure scientific credibility. Outreach to citizens and civil society in co-designing the R&I agenda and assessing the R&I outcomes is indispensable as part of the project’s methodology and approach; this should have a global engagement dimension to be reflected in the composition of a steering board or similar advisory or feedback structure. Such structure should also advise on the development of a risk assessment regarding the possible misuse of the project results and be in a position to propose mitigation measures. The project should commit to the FAIR-principles (“Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Re-useable”) with respect to research data. Open and early sharing of work helps to accelerate research, increase research transparency and support collaborative as well as inter- and transdisciplinary work. Early and open sharing of research, for example through preregistration, registered reports and / or preprints is strongly encouraged; while stringent management of potentially security relevant information produced or treated needs should be demonstrated. Widest possible use shall be made of Creative Commons licenses [4] for outputs of the project other than scientific publications. [1] https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/543a8475-e9b8-11ef-b5e9-01aa75ed71a1/language-en https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8417-2026-INIT/en/pdf https://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/10/33 Stop-mark or exit ramps might be defined if concrete risk for unintended use of the knowledge created is about to realise in the absence of a restricting governance regime. The advisory stricture shall in this case directly address the Commission services. [2] https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/543a8475-e9b8-11ef-b5e9-01aa75ed71a1/language-en https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8417-2026-INIT/en/pdf https://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/10/33 Stop-mark or exit ramps might be defined if concrete risk for unintended use of the knowledge created is about to realise in the absence of a restricting governance regime. The advisory stricture shall in this case directly address the Commission services. [3] https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/543a8475-e9b8-11ef-b5e9-01aa75ed71a1/language-en https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8417-2026-INIT/en/pdf https://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/10/33 Stop-mark or exit ramps might be defined if concrete risk for unintended use of the knowledge created is about to realise in the absence of a restricting governance regime. The advisory stricture shall in this case directly address the Commission services. [4] https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=13181 https://creativecommons.org/cc-licenses/ [5] https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=13181 https://creativecommons.org/cc-licenses/

Jogosultsági és benyújtási feltételek

"> General conditions 1. Admissibility conditions: Proposal page limit and layout described in Annex A and Annex E of the Horizon Europe Work Programme General Annexes. Proposal page limits and layout: described in Part B of the Application Form available in the Submission System. 2. Eligible countries described in Annex B of the Work Programme General Annexes. A number of non-EU/non-Associated Countries that are not automatically eligible for funding have made specific provisions for making funding available for their participants in Horizon Europe projects. See the information in the Horizon Europe Programme Guide . 3. Other Eligibility Conditions If projects use satellite-based earth observation, positioning, navigation and/or related timing data and services, beneficiaries must make use of Copernicus and/or Galileo/EGNOS (other data and services may additionally be used). described in Annex B of the Work Programme General Annexes. 4. Financial and operational capacity and exclusion described in Annex C of the Work Programme General Annexes. 5a. Evaluation and award: Award criteria, scoring and thresholds The evaluation committee will be composed partially by representatives of EU institutions. described in Annex D of the Work Programme General Annexes. 5b. Evaluation and award: Submission and evaluation processes The following additions to the general award criteria apply: Quality and efficiency of the implementation: - the risk management procedures to address conflict between the creation of a restricting governance framework for SRM and partners' interest in commercial deployment or development of technologies for the deployment of SRM. described in Annex F of the Work Programme General Annexes and the Online Manual . 5c. Evaluation and award: Indicative timeline for evaluation and grant agreement described in Annex F of the Work Programme General Annexes. 6. Legal and financial set-up of the grants described in Annex G of the Work Programme General Annexes. Specific conditions described in the [specific topic of the Work Programme] Application and evaluation forms and model grant agreement (MGA): Application form templates Please use the application form that you will find in the Submission System. You can find examples of standard application forms in the Reference Documents page . Evaluation form templates — will be used with the necessary adaptations Standard evaluation form (HE RIA, IA)   Standard evaluation form (HE CSA)   Standard evaluation form (HE RIA, IA and CSA Stage 1)   Standard evaluation form (HE RIA, IA and CSA Stage 1 BLIND) Standard evaluation form (HE PCP PPI)   Standard evaluation form (HE COFUND)   Standard evaluation form (HE FPA)   Standard evaluation form (HE MSCA)   Standard evaluation form (HE EIC PATHFINDER CHALLENGES)   Standard evaluation form (HE EIC PATHFINDER OPEN)   Standard evaluation form (HE EIC TRANSITION)   Standard evaluation form (HE EIC Accelerator stage 1 - short proposal)   Standard evaluation form (HE EIC Accelerator stage 2 - full proposal)   Guidance HE Programme Guide   Model Grant Agreements (MGA) HE MGA   HE Unit MGA   Lump Sum MGA   Operating Grants MGA   Framework Partnership Agreement FPA   Call-specific instructions   Detailed budget table (HE LS)   Information on financial support to third parties (HE)   Information on clinical studies (HE)   Guidance: "Lump sums - what do I need to know?" Additional documents: HE Main Work Programme 2026-2027 – 1. General Introduction HE Main Work Programme 2026-2027 – 2. Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) HE Main Work Programme 2026-2027 – 3. Research Infrastructures HE Main Work Programme 2026-2027 – 4. Health HE Main Work Programme 2026-2027 – 5. Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society HE Main Work Programme 2026-2027 – 6. Civil Security for Society HE Main Work Programme 2026-2027 – 7. Digital, Industry and Space HE Main Work Programme 2026-2027 – 8. Climate, Energy and Mobility HE Main Work Programme 2026-2027 – 9. Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment HE Main Work Programme 2026-2027 – 10. European Innovation Ecosystems (EIE) HE Main Work Programme 2026-2027 – 11. Widening participation and strengthening the European Research Area HE Main Work Programme 2026-2027 – 12. Missions HE Main Work Programme 2026-2027 – 13. New European Bauhaus Facility (NEB) HE Main Work Programme 2026-2027 – 14. Horizontal Activities HE Main Work Programme 2026-2027 – 15. General Annexes EIC Work Programme 2026 ERC Work Programme 2026 HE Framework Programme and Rules for Participation Regulation 2021/695 HE Specific Programme Decision 2021/764 EU Financial Regulation 2024/2509 Decision authorising the use of lump sum contributions under the Horizon Europe Programme Rules for Legal Entity Validation, LEAR Appointment and Financial Capacity Assessment EU Grants AGA — Annotated Model Grant Agreement Funding & Tenders Portal Online Manual Funding & Tenders Portal Terms and Conditions   Funding & Tenders Portal Privacy Statement