Cluster 6 stage-1 evaluation results are out – how to increase your chances for stage 2?

12th January 2026 at 1:08 pm

The stage-1 evaluation results for Horizon Europe Cluster 6 proposals submitted on 4 September 2025 have now been released. Cluster 6 covers the domains of Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment. Have you been invited to submit a full proposal under one of the ten two-stage call topics of Cluster 6? If so, congratulations on reaching this important milestone. Your proposal has successfully passed an initial competitive screening focused on relevance and strategic alignment with the call objectives.

At stage 2, the European Commission expects a fully elaborated, implementation-ready proposal that clearly demonstrates scientific excellence, societal impact and the capacity to deliver. With stage-2 submission deadline set for 18 February 2026, consortia must move rapidly from a concise, high-level concept to a detailed, evaluator-ready full proposal. This blog explains what your stage-1 success signifies in practice, how evaluator expectations evolve at stage 2, which elements of your initial proposal can still be refined, and how to approach this critical phase strategically to maximise your funding prospects.

What are the stage 1 results?

After three months of waiting for the evaluation results, coordinators and hundreds of project partners have been informed about whether they are invited to submit a stage-2 proposal. Stage-1 submissions for ten two-stage call topics have been evaluated:

What does your stage-1 success tell you?

Stage 1 assessed the strength and relevance of your idea, rather than the full maturity of the project. The evaluators focused primarily on:

• Alignment with the call scope and expected outcomes
• Scientific and policy relevance of the challenge addressed
• Credibility of the overall concept and proposed approach
• Logic of the consortium composition

Successfully passing stage 1 does not imply that your methodology or impact pathways are already fully convincing. It indicates that they are sufficiently promising to warrant a more in-depth evaluation.

Tip: Do not approach the stage-1 proposal as a draft to be expanded. Stage 2 calls for a qualitative step change, not simply additional pages.

What are key stage-2 requirements?

At stage 2, evaluators focus on a fundamental question: can this consortium credibly deliver on its promises, within the proposed timeframe and budget, and in a way that delivers tangible value for Europe? At this stage, Excellence, Impact and Implementation are assessed in full, with substantially higher expectations across all sections of the proposal:

• Excellence must be demonstrated through robust and credible methodologies. This includes:
  • Robust, well-justified methodologies and study designs
  • Clear articulation of interdisciplinarity, including SSH where required
  • Explicit handling of complexity, uncertainty and limitations
• Impact must be translated into clear, measurable pathways aligned with EU food, agricultural and environmental policy objectives. Proposals must show:
  • Concrete pathways to the call’s expected outcomes
  • Credible contribution to EU climate, energy and mobility policies
  • Clear identification of target groups, users and beneficiaries
• Implementation must prove that the consortium can realistically deliver the proposed work within the given time and budget. This means that proposals need to have:
  • Coherent work plan with realistic timing and resourcing
  • Strong governance, risk management and decision-making structures
  • Evidence that the consortium can deliver

What can you change from stage 1 to stage 2? (and what not)

A frequent concern among invited consortia is how far they can adapt their proposal. The Commission allows refinement, but not reinvention, as it used to do in H2020.

You can:

• Strengthen and detail methodologies, datasets and analytical frameworks
• Improve the impact pathway, stakeholder engagement and exploitation logic
• Clarify roles, governance and risk mitigation
• Add missing expertise where justified

You should not:

• Change the core objectives or research question
• Drift outside the call scope or expected outcomes
• Fundamentally alter the project’s logic or ambition

Tip: Use the generalised feedback from the evaluators of stage 1 as a prioritisation tool. The feedback is available on the respective call topic pages (links in the table above). Address all shortcomings and weaknesses explicitly and visibly in Stage 2.

In need of support for stage 2?

At accelopment, we support shortlisted Horizon Europe consortia as they transition from concept to full proposal. The recently started project EXPOSIM was approved through a two-stage Horizon Europe evaluation process, giving us first-hand insight into the specific expectations and pitfalls of full proposal development. Our experience also includes projects such as PHOTONFOOD and ViroiDoc, reflecting our expertise in complex biological systems, food system resilience and data-driven approaches to biological risk management. Together, these projects demonstrate our ability to help projects strengthen scientific integration, implementation credibility and impact pathways, exactly where proposals for Stage 2 are evaluated most critically. With our expertise in proposal structuring, consortium coordination and impact design, we support teams in turning strong concepts into competitive full proposals.

Dr. Johannes Ripperger
Research & Innovation Manager

Andreia Cruz
Research & Innovation Project Manager