LIFE+ Project evaluation and selection Markéta Konečná 9 April 2013

Management Actors:  LIFE Units (E3 and E4)  Consortium of independent external evaluators (contractor)  DG ENV Policy Units  Member States  European Parliament (EP)

1.Opening phase Performed through the eProposal application  Check on submission time  Check on relevant forms

2. Technical selection phase  Technical reliability of the project participants  Scope of the LIFE+ proposal  Specific questions for each of the LIFE+ components

Technical selection: reasons for failure (roughly 5 -15% fail annually this phase) LIFE+ Environmental Policy & Governance Neither innovation nor demonstration: 5% LIFE+ Information & Communication Not within the scope of LIFE+ information & Communication: 5% LIFE+ Nature Not within the scope of this component: 5% Neither best-practise nor demonstration: 5% Less than 25% for concrete conservation actions: 20% Insufficient/ inadequate Natura 2000 conservation status:15% LIFE+ Biodiversity Not within the scope of LIFE+ Biodiversity: 5% Neither innovation nor demonstration (but often best-practise): 25% Less than 25% for concrete conservation actions: 15%

3. Award phase: evaluation criteria (roughly % fail annually this phase) Name of the award criterionMaximum score Minimum Pass score Significant divergence 1. Technical coherence and quality 158> 3 2. Financial coherence and quality 158> 3 3. Contribution to the general objectives of LIFE+ 2512> 4 4. European added value and complementarity and optimal use of the EU funding 3015> 6 5. Transnational character 5-> 1 6. Compliance with national annual priorities and national added value according to the LIFE+ national authority 10-> 2 Total100

Award “survival rate” (%) LIFE+ Information & Communication: 12% LIFE+ Environmental Policy & Governance: 31% LIFE+ Nature: 48% LIFE+ Biodiversity: 25% Average: 30%

4. Admissibility, exclusion and eligibility phase  Checking the general eligibility criteria and the completeness of the proposal forms submitted  Check of the financial annexes submitted (applicants other than public authorities)  Request for additional information by if: mandatory financial annexes are incomplete/missing mandatory signatures/ dates of signatures are missing

Additional information request Applicants are asked to provide missing information within 5 working days. address of the coordinating beneficiary contact person indicated in form A2 may be used for subsequent contact, therefore applicants should ensure that it is an account which is valid, active and checked on a daily basis throughout the whole selection period.

Three possible cases : Initial evaluationQuestion phaseFinal evaluation … shows that the proposal is non- admissible n. a.Proposal is deemed non-admissible … shows further information is needed automatic with questions to the applicant Final decision on basis of additional information … shows that the proposal is admissible n. a.Proposal is deemed admissible

5. Financial selection phase  Financial capacity assessment for all coordinating beneficiaries other than “public authorities”  Request for additional proof in case of doubt about the “public authority” status declared in the proposal (by letter)

Financial selection phase (roughly % fails annually this phase) Proposals rejected  negative assessment (insufficient financial capacity) 50%  assessment not feasible (data incoherent/incomplete) 5%  auditor certificate not unqualified/adequate 5%  proof for public authority status not provided 40%

6. Setting up initial long- and reserve lists Constraints: listing according to merit (scores) at least 50% for projects for Nature & Biodiversity respect of the national allocations (if possible) at least 15% for transnational projects (if possible) STEP 1: nature & biodiversity (inside Natl. Allocations) STEP 2: nature & biodiversity (≥ 50% available budget) STEP 3: remaining projects (inside Natl. Allocations) STEP 4: remaining projects (until 100% consumed) STEP 5: reserve list (10% Nature & Biodiversity; 10% others)

7. Revision phase Aimed at clarifying open questions and improving the quality of the proposals Result:  Revised/reduced project budgets  Exclusion of ineligible costs/actions  Withdrawal of proposals possible  (% of) the proposals on the reserve list are also revised (roughly % of all proposals submitted enter this phase)

 Budgetary reductions are made  Proposals drop out or are excluded → The initial calculation has to be reviewed 8. Setting up the final short- and reserve lists

9. LIFE+ Committee Meeting Member States voting on the proposed list of project proposals →  Successful applicants invited to submit 3 paper copies of the proposal, with original signatures  Unsuccessful applicants informed by letter about the reasons for project failure

10. European Parliament Scrutiny by EP 1 month →  Grant agreements (“contracts”) signed  …or the EP rejects the selection (has not happened yet!)

For more information and the list of evaluation question forms see Guide for the Evaluation of LIFE+ Project Proposals 2013 Thank You