1. LIFE+ Project evaluation and selection Markéta Konečná 9 April 2013

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

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

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

5. 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%

6. 3. Award phase: evaluation criteria (roughly 50 - 60% 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

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

8. 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 e-mail if: mandatory financial annexes are incomplete/missing mandatory signatures/ dates of signatures are missing

9. Additional information request Applicants are asked to provide missing information within 5 working days. Email 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 e-mail account which is valid, active and checked on a daily basis throughout the whole selection period.

10. 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 e-mail with questions to the applicant Final decision on basis of additional information … shows that the proposal is admissible n. a.Proposal is deemed admissible

11. 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)

12. Financial selection phase (roughly 5 - 10% 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%

13. 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)

14. 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 30 - 40% of all proposals submitted enter this phase)

15.  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

16. 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

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

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