- Up to € 5.000 Small projects (up to 12 months)
- Up to €10,000 Large projects (up to 18 months)
- €69,000 Total fund for this call
- 11 countries Eligible in South-eastern Europe
- Download - Project Kit.zip
How this call works: a two-round process
The 2026 call introduces a two-round evaluation to reduce the administrative burden on applicants and focus committee attention on project quality.
Round 1 — Project quality
Submit a short project proposal (Word document) + brief organizational profile (Google Form). No supporting documents required.
→ Up to 1/3 of proposals are shortlisted
Round 2 — Organizational capacity
Shortlisted applicants submit supporting documents and a detailed budget. Full evaluation by the independent committee.
→ Final selection and contracting
All applicants receive a scoring table with committee comments after each round.
1. About the Fund
The Headley SEE Cultural Heritage Fund is an initiative of the Balkan Museum Network (BMN), made possible by the generous support of the Headley Trust UK. The Fund supports innovative and impactful projects dedicated to the conservation and celebration of cultural heritage across South-eastern Europe.
The Fund is distinct from other funding opportunities in the region in that it prioritizes organizational growth, cross-border cooperation, and sector-wide impact. It is designed to be accessible to organizations of all sizes, including newly established NGOs.
For the 2026 call, the Fund introduces two structural improvements informed by feedback from 130 former applicants: a revised two-round evaluation process and a commitment to transparent, scored feedback for all applicants.
2. Areas of Support
We invite projects that address one or more of the following areas:
● Conservation and documentation of heritage, both tangible and intangible (for example archaeological ruins, fortified architecture, engineering works, historical ensembles, ecclesiastical and vernacular architecture, cultural artefacts, etc).
● Raising awareness about cultural heritage issues: legal frameworks, public engagement, policy improvements and similar activities.
● Supporting the capacity of heritage NGOs through network infrastructure, training, networking, and innovation.
● Training the next generation of heritage professionals via on-site courses, workshops, regional visits, and similar activities.
● Engaging young people with heritage through interpretation, accessibility, inclusion and other activities.
● Engaging communities on heritage-related initiatives.
Cross-sectoral themes
Projects that incorporate Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially gender equality (SDG5), or climate action (SDG13), increase accessibility, and improve the lives for marginalized communities, will be viewed favorably by the Evaluation Committee.
What projects are we looking for?
The Fund seeks projects that:
● Improve the lives of citizens and demonstrate community empowerment.
● Contribute to long-term improvements in the heritage sector.
● Promote regional cooperation and cross-border understanding.
● Demonstrate effective partnership and have sector-wide advocacy impact.
● Are grounded in both tangible and intangible heritage — its preservation, promotion, interpretation, and sustainable use.
● Enable strategic and sustainable operations of heritage organizations.
3. Eligibility
Who can apply
The following types of non-profit organisations are eligible:
● Public institutions (museums, galleries, libraries, archives and other cultural heritage institutions).
● Civil society organisations (associations, foundations and cooperatives).
Eligible countries
Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, and Slovenia.
Priority will be given to locally-led organizations employing local experts. Newly registered organizations are also eligible to apply.
Partnership requirement
Projects must be designed and implemented in partnership with at least one other eligible heritage institution or organization. The partner(s) may be from the same country as the lead organization or from a different eligible country. The number of partners should reflect the specific needs of the proposal.
Why partnership is required
The Fund prioritizes regional cooperation and knowledge transfer across the heritage sector. Partnership is the primary mechanism through which projects achieve cross-border reach, shared learning, and durable institutional relationships. A Partnership Agreement is not required at the application stage but should be presented in the final project report.
Other eligibility criteria
● The organization must be registered or in the process of registration, operating in one or more eligible countries.
● Core activities of the applicant must align with the Fund’s areas of support, as evidenced by the organization’s Statutes.
● The organization must be able to receive funds in EUR into its bank account.
● The project must be an original idea (confirmed by a signed Declaration of Honour).
● Implementation must begin in 2026.
● The project must not have already started, and must not be a reproduction of a project already implemented by the same organization.
Project tier | Maximum grant | Maximum duration | Total fund |
Small project | €5,000 | 12 months | €69,000 (all projects combined) |
Large project | €10,000 | 18 months |
The Fund covers 100% of project costs, including project team, infrastructure, and expertise costs. Co-funding is not required, but the ability to contribute to project’s costs may strengthen an application.
Please note: Personnel costs of employees of public institutions are not eligible. The museum or institution must allow staff to work on the project as part of their existing responsibilities.
An organization may submit more than one application as lead applicant, but only one project per organization can be supported. The same organization may appear as a partner in multiple applications.
The 2026 call uses a two-round structure designed to reduce the administrative burden on applicants and ensure that detailed documentation is only requested from organizations with a genuine prospect of funding.
ROUND 1 – Project Quality
All applicants submit a project proposal and a short organizational profile. No supporting documents are required at this stage.
ROUND 2 – Organizational Capacity
Shortlisted applicants (approximately the top one-third of Round 1 proposals) submit supporting documents for full evaluation.
Round 1 — Project quality (all applicants)
What to submit
Round 1 requires two documents:
1. Project Proposal (Word document, downloaded from the Fund website). This is an editable document — you may revise it as many times as needed before submission. The template includes the following sections:
◦ Section A — Applicant information: Name of lead organization, country, type of organization, contact details, and a brief organizational profile (maximum 200 words).
◦ Section B — Project summary: Title, location, duration, project tier (small or large), and total budget requested.
◦ Section C — Project description: Challenge and context (what problem does the project address?), objectives, methodology, activities, timeline, and expected outcomes.
◦ Section D — Partnership: Description of partner organization(s), their roles, and how the partnership contributes to the project’s goals and regional reach.
◦ Section E — Community engagement: How the project involves and benefits the community it serves.
◦ Section F — Sustainability and impact: How the project’s outcomes will endure beyond the project period, and its contribution to the broader heritage sector.
◦ Section G — Risk assessment: Key risks, their likelihood, and mitigation measures.
2. A Detailed budget (using the Fund’s Excel budget template). All costs must be itemized, with taxes and VAT included.
3. Organizational profile form (short Google Form, completed online (link…)). This collects structured data about the lead organization only: registration details, main areas of activity, years of operation, number of staff and volunteers, and previous grant experience. The form takes approximately 10–15 minutes to complete.
4. Signed Declaration of Honour (PDF, scanned).
Download Project Kit.zip
Round 1 evaluation focus
The Evaluation Committee assesses Round 1 proposals on the following criteria. Each criterion is scored from 1 to 10:
# | Round 1 criterion | Max points |
1 | Quality and clarity of the project idea, and alignment with the Fund’s areas of support | 10 |
2 | Identified challenge and evidence of community need | 10 |
3 | Methodology, activities, and realistic timeline | 10 |
4 | Partnership: roles, complementarity, and contribution to regional cooperation | 10 |
5 | Community engagement and involvement of beneficiaries | 10 |
6 | Sustainability and potential for sector-wide impact | 10 |
7 | Quality of the detailed budget: justification, realism, and financial reporting capacity | 10 |
| Round 1 total | 70 |
Following Round 1 evaluation, all applicants will receive a scoring table showing their score for each criterion and a brief written comment from the evaluation committee. Shortlisted applicants will be invited to proceed to Round 2.
Round 2 — Organizational capacity (shortlisted applicants only)
Shortlisted applicants will be notified by email and invited to submit the following additional materials within 14 calendar days:
Additional documents for Round 2
4. Financial summary: Two balance sheets — the most recent completed financial year and the year prior. For newly registered organizations: a current-year income and expenditure plan.
5. Articles of Association (decision to register), in native language and English.
6. Statutes, in native language and English.
7. Safeguarding Policy (template available on the Fund website).
Translation requirements
All supporting documents must be provided in both the native language and English. If documents are not in both languages the application will be excluded. Unofficial ‘true copy’ translations are accepted. The applicant is responsible for accuracy. Machine-assisted translations are accepted provided the applicant reviews them for accuracy before submission.
Round 2 evaluation focus
In Round 2, the committee evaluates organisational capacity and the detailed project design:
# | Round 2 criterion | Max points |
8 | Organisational capacity: track record, staffing, and ability to deliver the project | 10 |
9 | Contribution to the organisation’s strategic direction and development | 10 |
10 | Evaluation plan: indicators, data collection methods, and risk mitigation | 10 |
Round 2 total | 30 | |
COMBINED TOTAL (Round 1 + Round 2) | 100 |
Following Round 2, all shortlisted applicants will again receive a full scoring table covering all 10 criteria, with committee comments for most prominent strengths and weaknesses. The final selection will be based on the combined score.
The following rubric describes what the Evaluation Committee looks for at each score range. Use it to self-assess your application before submission.
Criterion | Strong (8–10) | Adequate (4–7) | Weak (1–3) |
1. Project quality & alignment | The project clearly addresses a specific heritage challenge within the Fund’s areas of support. Objectives are precise and the project’s contribution to the field is articulated. | The project relates to the Fund’s areas of support but the specific heritage challenge is only broadly described. The alignment is present but not fully developed. | The project does not clearly relate to the Fund’s stated areas of support, or the objectives are vague and undefined. |
2. Challenge & community need | A specific, evidenced challenge is identified with reference to the community or site affected. Data, consultation findings, or field observations are cited. | A challenge is identified but the evidence of need is general or anecdotal. The community connection is mentioned but not developed. | No clear challenge is identified, or the need appears assumed rather than evidenced. |
3. Methodology & timeline | Activities are logically sequenced, each linked to an objective. The timeline is realistic and accounts for potential delays. Resources are appropriately allocated. | Activities are listed and broadly linked to objectives but the sequencing or resource allocation has gaps. The timeline is plausible but tight. | Activities are listed without a clear connection to objectives. The timeline appears unrealistic or the methodology is generic. |
4. Partnership & cooperation | Partners have distinct, complementary roles that strengthen the project. The partnership has a potential for long-term and strategic collaboration or explicitly contributes to knowledge exchange. | Partnership is present and roles are described, but complementarity is limited and the choice of partner is not justified. | Partnership appears nominal. Partners’ roles are unclear or duplicative. No collaboration is evident. |
5. Community engagement | The community is actively involved in design and delivery, not only as beneficiaries. Named engagement methods are described and outcomes are linked to community participation. | Community engagement is planned but limited to consultation or attendance. The community’s role in shaping the project is not clearly described. | Community engagement is absent or limited to a mention. The project appears to work for, rather than with, the community. |
6. Sustainability & sector impact | Concrete mechanisms for sustaining outcomes are identified (e.g., policy adoption, institutional embedding, follow-on funding strategy). Sector-wide replication or advocacy potential is articulated. | Sustainability is addressed in general terms. Some thought given to continuation but without specific mechanisms. Sector impact is possible but not clearly outlined. | No sustainability plan. Project outcomes are likely to end with the project period. Sector impact is not addressed. |
7. Organisational capacity | The organisation has relevant experience, adequate staffing, and demonstrated ability to manage projects of similar scale. Previous reports or accounts confirm sound financial management. | The organisation has some relevant experience but the track record at this scale of project is limited. Financial management capacity is adequate but not demonstrated in detail. | The organisation lacks relevant experience or has no demonstrated financial management capacity for a project of this size. |
8. Strategic contribution | The project directly advances the organisation’s strategic plan or long-term development goals. The connection is explicit and grounded in institutional context. | The project is broadly consistent with the organisation’s work but the strategic connection is general rather than specific. | No strategic connection is articulated. The project appears disconnected from the organisation’s core mission or development direction. |
9. Budget quality | All cost categories are itemised and justified. Unit costs are realistic and consistent with local market rates. VAT and taxes are included. Budget narrative explains non-obvious line items. | Budget is mostly complete but some line items lack justification or cost assumptions are unclear. Minor inconsistencies are present. | Budget is incomplete, costs are not justified, or the total requested does not align with the activities described. |
10. Evaluation & risk | At least two specific, measurable indicators are defined for each main objective. Data collection methods are named. Key risks are identified with explicit mitigation measures for each. | Indicators are present but not fully measurable. Risks are acknowledged but mitigation measures are generic. | No measurable indicators. Risks are not identified or the evaluation plan is absent. |
| Date | Milestone |
| 1 April 2026 | Call for applications published |
| 27 April 2026 | Online Q&A webinar — open to all potential applicants (registration link on Fund website) |
| 15 May 2026 | Deadline for questions and clarification |
| 03 June | Round 1 submission deadline (project proposal + budget + online form) |
| 20 June | Round 1 results communicated to all applicants (with scoring table and comments) |
| 04 July | Round 2 submission deadline for shortlisted applicants (14 days after Round 1 notification) |
| 20 July | Final selection announced |
| 30 July 2026 | Planned contracting of selected applicants |
*The dates might be changed to adjust to circumstances.
Pre-application Q&A webinar
A live online Q&A session will be held approximately four weeks before the Round 1 deadline. All prospective applicants are encouraged to attend. The session will cover the application format, evaluation criteria, the two-round structure, and common questions from the FAQ. It will be recorded and made available on the Fund website.
Round 1 submission (all applicants)
Only the lead partner submits the application. Round 1 requires:
1. Project Proposal document (Word template, downloaded from the Fund website and submitted as a Word file via the Google Form).
2. Detailed Budget (Excel template, downloaded from the Fund website and submitted as an Excel file via the Google Form).
3. Organisational Profile Form (completed online via Google Form).
4. Signed Declaration of Honour (PDF document, scanned with stamp and signature). Downloaded from the Fund website and submitted as a pdf file via the Google Form (link…).
Submission: Upload the completed Project Proposal and the Project Budget in the Google Form (link…). If you are not able to use Google Forms, contact the Fund at info@bmuseums.net
Round 2 submission (shortlisted applicants only)
Shortlisted applicants will be notified by email and provided with a secure upload link. The following must be submitted within 14 calendar days of notification:
1. Financial summary: two balance sheets (most recent completed year and the year prior), or an income and expenditure plan for newly registered organisations.
2. Articles of Association (in native language and English).
3. Statutes (in native language and English).
4. Safeguarding Policy (in native language and English). The template is available on the Fund website, but the content MUST BE adapted to the context of your organisation.
Additional documents that strengthen the application (e.g., letters of support, Partnership Agreement, photographs of the heritage site) may be included but are not required at Round 2.
What we do not fund
● Business organisations (startup companies and similar).
● Projects that have already started.
● Reproductions of projects already implemented by the same organisation.
● Scholarships or funding for individual education or research activities.
● Full salaries for employees of public institutions.
● Projects with a political or religious affiliation.
The Headley SEE Fund is committed to making the application process a learning experience for all participants, regardless of the outcome.
Scoring feedback for all applicants
Following each round of evaluation, every applicant will receive a personalized scoring table showing:
● Their score for each evaluated criterion (out of 10).
● A brief written comment from the Evaluation Committee, indicating the strengths of the proposal and areas that could be improved.
After Round 1: All applicants (shortlisted and non-shortlisted) receive Round 1 feedback.
After Round 2: All shortlisted applicants receive complete feedback (all 10 criteria) within two weeks of the final selection being announced.
Evaluation Committee
Applications are assessed by an independent Evaluation Committee. The committee’s decisions are final. The Fund Coordinator does not sit on the Evaluation Committee and is not involved in scoring decisions.
BMN reserves the right not to award any grant if the overall quality of proposals received does not meet the required standard.
The lead partner organization will sign the contract with the Association Balkan Museum Network (BMN), registered in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The lead partner is responsible for financial and narrative reporting on behalf of all consortium partners.
Reporting requirements
● An Interim Report in the middle and the Final Narrative Report at the end of the project, in English.
● A Financial Report at the end of the project, including copies of all invoices, contracts and similar expenditure documentation (bank statements, payment receipts).
● All project documentation must be retained for a minimum of five years after project completion.
● A Partnership Agreement defining roles and responsibilities is not required at the application stage but is recommended to be presented in the final report.
● Other supporting documents such as copies of publications, press clipping and similar.
Membership note: Membership of the Balkan Museum Network (BMN) is considered an added value in the evaluation process but is not a requirement.
For questions about the application process, eligibility, or the two-round structure, please contact the Fund Coordinator:
Aida Vežić, Fund Coordinator
Email: aida.vezic@bmuseums.net
Questions will be accepted via email until 15 May 2026. Questions received after that date will not be answered.
Responses may be compiled into an FAQ document are published here…