Scope of the programme

• Countries impacted: Croatia, Spain, Belgium, Greece, Austria and Poland, with pilot destination-level work in Valencia and Poreč-Parenzo.
• Thematic axis: Green and digital transition of tourism SMEs, including sustainability, innovation, resilience, regenerative practices, new business models, Living Labs, and collaboration ecosystems for tourism.
• Funding programme lineage (EU, national, regional): EU.

Description of the project

• Project objective(s):
  - Support tourism SMEs to become more resilient, competitive, sustainable, innovative and digitalised.
  - Build a future-ready support ecosystem for the green and digital transition of tourism SMEs.
  - Create long-term collaboration structures, cluster dynamics and Living-Lab-type approaches that connect SMEs with innovation support organisations and other stakeholders.
  - Provide direct and expert support to SMEs and help them develop new business models, solutions and innovation pathways linked to tourism transition.
• Duration: 36 months (09/2023 – 09/2026).
• Main activities:
  - Coordinate and develop a European collaboration ecosystem for tourism SME transition.
  - Launch and manage open calls providing financial and expert support to tourism SMEs.
  - Mobilise SMEs through networks, campaigns, partners and existing ecosystem relationships.
  - Promote strategic capacity-building, destination-level pilots and 4-Helix / Living-Lab collaboration approaches.
  - Develop long-term cooperation between project partners and related ecosystems beyond the single project cycle.
• Outputs:
  - A transnational support ecosystem for tourism SMEs in transition.
  - Financial support and expertise for 102 SME projects.
  - Open calls and an acceleration programme offering grants and mentoring to selected SMEs.
  - Destination-level pilot activities and strategic collaboration models in Valencia and Poreč-Parenzo.
  - Wide dissemination and mobilisation of tourism SMEs through partner networks and campaigns.

Type of application

• Single applicant: No.
• Consortium members: EUPOLIS GRUPA (Coordinator), Finnova, Envolve, SYNYO, Vestbee, Open Impact, and destination-related partners linked to Valencia and Poreč-Parenzo.
• Subcontractor: Not specified.

Success Factors

• Previous experience with funding: The company had significant prior experience with European projects and EU funding applications. During the interview, it referred not only to FU-TOURISM but also to broader experience with demanding calls such as LIFE and Horizon, which contributed to its internal capacity and proposal readiness.
• Team design & resources: A key strength was the company’s combination of project development capacity, ecosystem-building experience, partner engagement know-how and thematic expertise across tourism, regional development, culture, nature protection, agriculture and innovation. This multidisciplinary profile supported both proposal design and consortium coordination.
• Effective Partnership Building: Partnership building was one of the strongest enabling factors. The company was invited to join the consortium through its existing European network of collaborators, and that network had been built over time through conferences, exchanges and prior contact around common interests. The proposal therefore benefited from trust, continuity and a shared strategic direction.
• Access to information: The company explained that its first contact with EU funding opportunities historically came through newsletters, emails and the monitoring of specialised websites. In the case of FU-TOURISM specifically, however, the opportunity came directly through its transnational network, with partners proposing the call and supporting joint preparation.
• Use of support ecosystems: EUPOLIS GRUPA’s own role as an ecosystem builder was itself a major advantage. Existing networks of collaborators, SMEs and support partners enabled the consortium not only to prepare the proposal, but also to spread information quickly, reach potential beneficiaries efficiently and ensure strong participation in the project’s calls
• Long-term collaboration as a source of credibility: the consortium was not improvised; it reflected ongoing shared interests, which gave the proposal greater coherence and strategic depth.
• Capacity to mobilise real SME and stakeholder networks: EUPOLIS was able not only to design the project, but also to activate relevant ecosystems of SMEs and support actors quickly and effectively.

Barriers & Challenges

• High complexity of EU calls: even for experienced organisations, the preparation of European proposals remains demanding and administratively heavy.
• Slow funding timelines: one of the most concrete challenges mentioned was the long delay between submission and project start, which reduces momentum and creates uncertainty.
• Fragmented access to funding information: opportunities are still often discovered through scattered newsletters, websites and informal channels, even for experienced applicants.
• Some calls are too technical for most SMEs: certain programmes require such a high level of expertise that they remain inaccessible for many smaller actors.

Lessons learned

• Invest in ecosystem-building before the call opens: A central lesson from this case is that successful European collaboration does not begin when the call is published. Relationships, shared concepts and common interests built years in advance became a major competitive advantage at proposal stage.
• Strong networks improve both access to calls and project implementation: Networks helped the company identify opportunities, shape the proposal, form the consortium and later reach SMEs quickly through existing contacts and campaigns. This makes network-building a highly transferable lesson for other tourism stakeholders.
• Simpler and more phased application processes would improve accessibility: The company clearly argued that EU funding procedures could be improved through simplification, phased application models and faster timelines. This is particularly relevant for SMEs, which often lack the internal capacity to absorb long and complex preparation processes.
• Better information-sharing systems are still needed for SMEs: Another important lesson is that discovering relevant EU funding remains too dependent on fragmented information channels and on the applicant’s own initiative. Even experienced actors find funding websites difficult to navigate, which suggests a strong need for better notification systems and clearer information flows.

This best practice shows how a small tourism-related innovation and consulting SME can successfully access EU funding by building a long-term European collaboration ecosystem rather than approaching funding only as an isolated proposal-writing exercise. EUPOLIS GRUPA’s experience demonstrates that ecosystem-building, sustained transnational networking, thematic alignment and a clear continuation vision can make a proposal more competitive and more sustainable over time. It represents a strong example for tourism stakeholders seeking to improve their access to funding not only through technical proposal skills, but also through deliberate investment in partnerships, shared concepts and trusted collaboration structures that exist before the funding opportunity appears.