Horizon Europe · Call Intelligence Brief

Tackling pesticide resistance: early detection, management strategies, and foresight

HORIZON-CL6-2026-02-FARM2FORK-02

Everything you need to decide whether to apply — and how to win.

Deadline 14 April 2026 · 17:00 Brussels
Total Budget €12,000,000
Instrument RIA · 100% funding
Stage Single-stage
Topic Code HORIZON-CL6-2026-02-FARM2FORK-02 F&T Portal, topic page header
Call Identifier HORIZON-CL6-2026-02 F&T Portal: "Call 02 - single stage (2026)"
Instrument HORIZON-RIA F&T Portal, "Type of action"
Budget Model Lump Sum F&T Portal, "Type of MGA": HORIZON Lump Sum Grant [HORIZON-AG-LS]
Funding Rate 100% General Annexes, Annex G — RIA = 100%
Page Limit (Part B) 45 pages RIA + lump sum = 45pp (General Annexes 2026-2027, Annex A)
Evaluation Thresholds 3 / 3 / 3 · cum. 10 STANDARD — no topic-specific override in section 5b
Expected Projects [NOT STATED] Not stated in topic conditions or WP text
Destination Fair, healthy and environment-friendly food systems from primary production to consumption (2026-27) F&T Portal, Destination section
Cluster / Pillar Cluster 6 — Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources / Pillar II WP Part 9
China Eligibility ELIGIBLE ✓ No destination-level exclusion for CL6
Multi-Actor Approach MANDATORY ⚠ Eligibility criterion — section 3, "Other Eligible Conditions"

Verify these facts: Topic page on F&T Portal
Source documents: General Annexes 2026-2027, WP Part 9 — Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment
If any fact above doesn't match the Portal, this brief may be outdated. Check the F&T Portal directly.

CRITICAL: Multi-actor approach is an ELIGIBILITY CRITERION. This is listed under section 3 "Other Eligible Conditions" — not just a recommendation. Proposals that fail to implement the multi-actor approach will be rejected before evaluation, regardless of quality. This is the single biggest compliance trap for this topic.

Source: "The following additional eligibility criteria apply: the proposals must apply the multi-actor approach." — Topic conditions, section 3

Expected Outcomes

(Topic text, Expected Outcomes section — verbatim):

  1. A holistic and science-based approach to tackling pesticide resistance is developed, providing actionable recommendations to improve crop protection strategies and support evidence-based decision-making at all levels.
  2. Farmers, advisors, and practitioners are empowered with knowledge, tools, and integrated strategies—including innovative environmentally friendly and sustainable alternatives that promote agrobiodiversity—supported by data-driven approaches and robust monitoring systems.
  3. Foresight capacities are enhanced, enabling the anticipation of resistance trends and supporting long-term planning to strengthen the resilience and sustainability of agricultural systems.
01

Call Decoder

What the EC actually wants — decoded from the topic text.

1.1 Strategic Signals

1
This is a systems problem, not a technology problem
The topic frames pesticide resistance as a systemic challenge requiring system-level transformation. It explicitly states that pesticides are short-term solutions and that long-term answers require shifts in farming practices. Proposals that pitch a single detection tool or one new biopesticide will miss the mark. The EC wants an integrated approach covering detection + management + foresight + capacity building.

Source: "while pesticides are important short-term solutions, the long-term solutions require shifts in current agriculture or forestry practices and system-level transformations within agri-food systems" — Topic scope

2
Six mandatory activities — the scope is a checklist
The topic uses "Proposals should:" followed by six specific activities. While "should" is softer than "must," missing any of these will create a visible gap against the scope: (1) map resistance risks, (2) develop early detection + predictive modelling (including AI), (3) design IPWM strategies, (4) innovate post-harvest practices, (5) support foresight activities, and (6) enhance capacity-building and stakeholder engagement. All six should be visible in your work plan.

Source: "Proposals should: map resistance risks [...] develop early detection methods [...] design and evaluate innovative integrated pest and weed management (IPWM) strategies [...] innovate storage and handling practices [...] support foresight activities [...] enhance capacity-building" — Topic scope

3
Climate change is the accelerator — not a side topic
Climate change appears in the problem framing, not just as context. It's described as the force that enables pests to survive, expand, and develop resistance faster. Proposals should integrate climate projections into their resistance modelling — not treat climate as a "cross-cutting" afterthought in one paragraph.

Source: "Climate change compounds this issue by enabling pests to survive milder winters, expand their ranges, and increase their exposure to pesticides—accelerating the development of resistance." — Topic scope

4
AI is explicitly invited — but as a tool, not a topic
The scope names "AI-driven approaches" as part of predictive modelling and "advanced technologies for precise and targeted pesticide use." This signals that proposals with AI/digital components will align well with the text — but the topic is about pesticide resistance, not about AI. The technology must serve the agricultural problem.

Source: "develop early detection methods and predictive modelling (including AI-driven approaches) to anticipate and monitor the evolution of pesticide resistance" — Topic scope

5
Must build on existing work — not start from scratch
The topic explicitly requires capitalising on past and ongoing projects and considering international resistance management committees. Proposals that ignore existing Horizon 2020/Europe projects on IPM, resistance monitoring, or agroecology will lose points on Excellence for poor state-of-the-art positioning.

Source: "Proposals should capitalise on relevant research findings, knowledge, solutions and tools, from past and ongoing projects [...] proposals should consider the activities of international committees on pesticide resistance management." — Topic scope

1.2 Scope Boundaries

IN SCOPE (directly from topic text):
  • Agriculture AND forestry — both explicitly mentioned
  • Pre-harvest AND post-harvest stages — storage/handling innovation required
  • Chemical AND non-chemical approaches — agroecological farming practices
  • Detection, management, AND foresight — all three pillars required
  • Pests defined broadly: any species/strain/biotype injurious to plants (EU Regulation 2016/2031)
Our Reading

Based on: The €12M total budget, the RIA instrument, and the breadth of the six "should" activities.

At €12M with projects typically €4-6M for CL6 RIAs, we expect 2-3 projects funded. The scope is broad enough that different consortia could emphasise different crops, pest types, or geographic zones without overlapping. A consortium covering multiple crop systems across different EU climate zones would demonstrate the systemic approach the topic demands.

This is a strategic interpretation based on budget arithmetic and scope breadth. Assess whether it matches your consortium's profile.

02

Compliance Matrix

What kills your proposal before evaluation.

StatusGateRuleYour Check
🔴 CRITICAL Multi-actor approach MANDATORY eligibility criterion. Proposals must implement the multi-actor approach as defined in this WP part. Include farmers, advisors, researchers, industry, policymakers. Name them in the consortium or as associated partners. Describe co-creation, not just dissemination.
🔴 CRITICAL Lump sum budget table Mandatory Excel budget table (HORIZON Lump Sum Grant). If purchase costs >15% of personnel costs per participant, justify in "Any comments" sheet. Download "Detailed budget table (HE LS)" from submission system. Read the 17 Feb 2026 topic update.
🔴 CRITICAL Consortium minimum Min. 3 independent legal entities from 3 different EU MS or Associated Countries (General Annex B, RIA) Standard RIA minimum. In practice, the multi-actor + systems approach requires more partners.
🔴 CRITICAL Page limit 45 pages for Part B (RIA + lump sum, General Annexes Annex A) More room than a CSA (28pp) but still tight for 6 scope activities + multi-actor + foresight.
🟡 IMPORTANT Lump sum cost justification Topic update (17 Feb 2026): if purchase costs exceed 15% of personnel costs per participant, justify in "Any comments" sheet This was a February 2026 update. Many applicants will miss it.
🟡 IMPORTANT Build on existing work Topic requires capitalising on past/ongoing projects and international resistance committees Not a hard eligibility gate, but failing this weakens Excellence significantly. Map relevant H2020/HE projects.
🟢 NOTE China eligibility No destination-level exclusion for CL6 — Chinese entities eligible Standard General Annex B rules apply
🟢 NOTE Gender Equality Plan Required for public bodies, HEIs, and research organisations (General Annex B) Confirm GEP status for all academic/research partners
TRAP: Weak multi-actor implementation. Many proposals mention "we will involve farmers in dissemination workshops" and call it multi-actor. That's not enough. The multi-actor approach requires co-creation from project design through implementation. Farmers, advisors, and practitioners should appear in the work plan as active contributors — not as passive audiences for results.
Need this analysis for YOUR topic? Request a Decision Brief — €79
112 Horizon Europe topics covered · Delivered within 1 working day
03

Scoring Playbook

How to score well on each criterion — for this specific RIA topic.

Scoring overview: 3 criteria, each scored 0–5 in half-point steps. Standard thresholds: 3 per criterion, 10 overall. For RIA, all criteria have equal weight in ranking. Tiebreaker: Excellence first, then Impact. (Source: General Annex D, WP 2026-2027)
Excellence
min 3 / 5
threshold 3 / 5
Impact
min 3 / 5
threshold 3 / 5
Implementation
min 3 / 5
threshold 3 / 5

EXCELLENCE

RIA sub-criteria from General Annex D: clarity/pertinence of objectives, soundness of methodology, ambition/novelty.

What scores 4-5 for THIS topic: Objectives clearly mapped to all 3 expected outcomes (holistic approach, farmer empowerment, foresight capacity). Methodology must cover all 6 scope activities — not cherry-pick 3 and ignore the rest. Novelty lies in the integration: connecting early detection → management → foresight into a coherent system, not just advancing individual components. State-of-the-art must reference existing H2020/HE IPM projects and international resistance committees — the topic explicitly requires this.

IMPACT

What scores 4-5 for THIS topic: Demonstrate how actionable recommendations reach farmers, not just academic journals. EO1 demands recommendations that improve crop protection strategies — show the pathway from research to on-farm practice change. The multi-actor approach is your vehicle for impact credibility: if real farmers, advisors, and industry are co-creating the solutions, the adoption pathway is built-in. Alignment with CAP, Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive, and the Vision for Agriculture strengthens policy impact.

Source: Topic explicitly references CAP objectives, Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive, Vision for Agriculture and Food, and the Biotechnology Communication. — Topic scope, policy alignment paragraph

IMPLEMENTATION

What scores 4-5 for THIS topic: WP structure that maps to the 6 scope activities — evaluators should see each activity reflected in the work plan. Multi-actor approach must be visible in the management structure: an advisory board with farmers is not enough — show co-design mechanisms. The lump sum budget must be credible and proportionate. Risk register should address: farmer recruitment/retention across growing seasons, resistance evolution outpacing the project timeline, and data sharing across sites/countries.
04

Consortium Blueprint

Who you need — the multi-actor approach demands a specific mix.

Minimum consortium: 3 independent legal entities from 3 EU MS or Associated Countries (General Annex B, RIA). In practice, the mandatory multi-actor approach + 6 scope activities require a larger consortium with diverse actor types.

Research & Science

  • Entomology / plant pathology / weed science research groups
  • AI / predictive modelling for agriculture
  • Agroecology / integrated pest management specialists
  • Foresight / futures research institutions

Practice & Industry

  • Farmer organisations / cooperatives (multi-actor core)
  • Advisory services / extension bodies
  • Agri-tech SMEs (precision agriculture, monitoring tools)
  • Crop protection industry (for resistance data access)

Source: "Service to industry and SMEs including spinoffs and startups" + mandatory multi-actor approach

Policy & Coordination

  • National plant protection organisations
  • International resistance management bodies (IRAC, FRAC, HRAC)
  • Living lab or innovation hub in agriculture

Source: "proposals should consider the activities of international committees on pesticide resistance management" — Topic scope

Who's In, Who's Out

Entity / CountryStatusSource
China ELIGIBLE ✓ No CL6 destination exclusion — standard rules apply
Russia / Belarus EXCLUDED Standing EU Council sanctions — all instruments
UK, Switzerland ELIGIBLE Associated Countries — standard rules
Get this level of analysis for any April 2026 topic — €79
Compliance traps · Scoring playbook · Consortium blueprint · All sourced
05

Topic Positioning Guide

How to frame your idea for this specific topic.

Destination Context

This topic sits under Destination "Fair, healthy and environment-friendly food systems from primary production to consumption" in Cluster 6. The destination is driven by the Vision for Agriculture and Food, the Strategic Dialogue on Agriculture, and the Green Deal.

1
Frame resistance as a competitiveness issue, not just an environmental one
The destination text emphasises long-term competitiveness and sustainability of farming. Resistance directly threatens both: fewer effective products = higher costs = lower yields. Framing your proposal as defending European agricultural competitiveness, not just reducing pesticide use, aligns with the destination's dual mandate.

Source: "ensure the long-term competitiveness and sustainability of our farming, fisheries, aquaculture and food sector within the boundaries of our planet" — Destination text

2
Include forestry — most competitors will focus only on agriculture
The topic scope mentions "agriculture and forestry" throughout. Most consortia will be agriculture-focused. Including forestry pest resistance in your scope is a differentiator that shows you read the topic carefully and addresses an underserved dimension.

Source: "Agriculture and forestry face a growing challenge from the dual threat [...]" — Topic scope, opening sentence

3
Post-harvest is easy to overlook — don't skip it
Activity 4 requires innovating storage and handling practices to reduce resistance pressure during post-harvest stages. This is the most specific and least obvious of the six activities. Addressing it seriously (not as one paragraph in a 45-page proposal) shows evaluators your consortium covers the full scope.

Source: "innovate storage and handling practices to reduce resistance pressure during post-harvest stages" — Topic scope, activity 4

Cross-Cutting Alignment

PriorityReferenced?How to Address
Multi-actor approach MANDATORY Eligibility criterion. Farmers, advisors, practitioners in co-creation roles throughout — not just an advisory board.
Biodiversity YES — explicit "innovative environmentally friendly and sustainable alternatives that promote agrobiodiversity" — EO2
AI / Digital YES — explicit "AI-driven approaches" for predictive modelling + "advanced technologies for precise and targeted pesticide use"
Climate adaptation YES — core framing Climate change as the accelerator of resistance — integrate climate projections into modelling
CAP alignment YES — explicit Topic references CAP specific objectives, Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive, Nature Restoration Regulation
Biotechnology YES — explicit "support the Commission Communication on: Building the future with nature: Boosting Biotechnology" — scope
Open Science / FAIR data NOT EXPLICIT Not mentioned in topic. Standard HE requirements apply — DMP commitment sufficient.

Red Flags

Red Flag 1: Single-pest or single-crop focus. The topic asks for a systemic approach covering multiple resistance mechanisms across crops. A proposal focused entirely on fungicide resistance in wheat, for example, is too narrow for this scope. Cover multiple pest types (insects, weeds, fungi) and crop/forest systems.
Red Flag 2: Missing the foresight pillar. EO3 is entirely about foresight — anticipating trends, long-term planning, scenario assessment. This is not an afterthought WP. If your consortium has no foresight capability, you're missing one of the three expected outcomes.
Red Flag 3: Ignoring international resistance committees. The topic explicitly asks you to consider IRAC, FRAC, HRAC and similar bodies. Not referencing them signals you haven't read the scope carefully — and evaluators notice.
06

Quick-Start Checklist

Your action plan — work backwards from 14 April 2026.

Documents to Gather

WP Part 9 — Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources (2026-2027)
Standard Application Form (HE RIA, IA) from topic submission page
Detailed budget table (HE LS) — lump sum Excel template
General Annexes 2026-2027
Multi-actor approach definition from WP Part 9
Read the Topic Update from 17 Feb 2026 — lump sum justification rules changed

Consortium Building (now — Week -3)

Confirm at least 3 entities from 3 EU MS/AC (RIA minimum)
Recruit farmer organisations / cooperatives (multi-actor MANDATORY)
Secure agricultural advisory / extension partner
Include foresight / futures research capability
Consider forestry partner (differentiator — most will ignore this)
Engage with IRAC / FRAC / HRAC or equivalent committees
Check Partner Search announcements on F&T Portal (84 published — high competition)

Proposal Timeline (deadline: 14 April 2026)

By ~20 March: Consortium confirmed, concept note with all 6 scope activities mapped
By ~28 March: Start writing Part B (45 pages — plan multi-actor sections early)
By ~5 April: First draft + lump sum budget table complete
By ~10 April: Internal review. Check multi-actor implementation. Check "Any comments" sheet.
By ~12 April: Portal submission, PDF + Excel upload verification
14 April 17:00 Brussels: DEADLINE

Key Decisions to Make Early

Which crops/pest systems? (Cover multiple — the scope demands breadth)
Include forestry? (Strong differentiator if you have the right partner)
AI/digital component scope? (Invited but must serve the resistance problem)
Geographic coverage? (Multiple climate zones strengthen the systemic argument)
Who leads foresight WP? (Must be credible — not a retrofit onto an IPM consortium)
How many WPs? (Recommend 5-7: mapping, detection/AI, IPWM strategies, post-harvest, foresight, multi-actor/dissemination, management)
Ready to apply? Get your Decision Brief — €79
Request via form · We verify the topic · Brief delivered within 1 working day