2 of 40

My LIFE experiences��Proposals in progress:�LIFE2022 – 2 proposals (1 ENV + 1 CET)��Successful projects:�LIFE2021 – urbanLIFEcircles*�LIFE2021 – LIFE LATEST Adapt�LIFE2020 – LIFE IP BUILDEST (+ TA project to prepare it)*�LIFE2020 – WOODMEADOWLIFE*�LIFE2018 – LIFE IP FOREST AND FARMLAND�LIFE2017 - CoastNet LIFE�LIFE2017 – LIFE Flying Squirrel�LIFE2010 - LIFE URBANCOWS*�LIFE2005 – LIFE BALTCOAST��Failed and fully disclaimed proposals: 1�Failed and recycled until success: 2 + 1 (in progress ☺)��

3 of 40

Outline of the presentation:

Recommendations for LIFE2022 call, tips and tricks I have found useful
Results of analysis of Estonian proposal evaluations 2019-2020 – an overview of typical shortcomings to avoid
Discussion on annoted application form

4 of 40

LIFE programme is a funding instrument of European Commission, which aims to implement the Union environmental and climate policies. It was established in 1992 and by now has financed more than 5000 projects all across EU.

5 of 40

So many background documents, where to look for what?��

Call document
General Model Grant Agreement and its Annexes
LIFE database
Multiannual work programme for the years 2021-2024 for the LIFE programme
Financial Regulation 2018/1046
Online manual & FAQ
NB!! National contact points

6 of 40

Call document

Expectations of the programme (objectives, scope, expected impacts etc.);
Timetable (earliest starting date, possible duration), expectations on budget (available funding);
Admissibility and eligibility (mandatory documents, eligible partners, expectations on partnerships);
Criteria for exclusion, evaluation procedure and criteria and award procedure.
Instructions how to use other LIFE resources (online manual etc);

Know the whole of it by heart

7 of 40

Call Document: TYPE OF ACTION

Develop, demonstrante and promote innovative techniques, methods and approaches;
Contribute to the knowledge base and to the application of best practice;
Support the development, implementation, monitooring and enforcement of the EU legislation and policy, improving governance;
Catalyse the large-scale deployment by replicating the results, mobilising investment and improving Access to finance.

BEST AMBITION YOU CAN REACH

PUT IN SOME RISK!

8 of 40

Call document: Technicalities – admissibility & required documents

Part A – Funding & Tenders Portal
Part B – Download correct template from specific call
Part C – KPI web tool

Mandatory annexes:

Detailled budget table
Participant information

Optional annexes:

LoS
Cofinancing declarations
Site descriptions and maps
Other annexes

Don’t forget to find needed instructions under ‘i’

LIFE NAT has templates for site descriptions. Consider using them

10 of 40

Model Grant Agreement& Annexes

Instructions for budget, incl. eligibility

Communication requirements

Expected project management

11 of 40

Additional resources

12 of 40

CINEA homepage:

https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/life/life-support-applicants_it

Before you contact secretariat, check. Most likely somebody has already asked it.

13 of 40

Communication toolkit: Communication rules & General Data Protection Regulation

GDPR's seven principles are:

lawfulness,
fairness and transparency;
purpose limitation;
data minimisation;
accuracy;
storage limitation;
integrity and confidentiality (security); accountability.

GDPR is relevant to projects that handle personal data

14 of 40

LIFE youtube channel:�https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-htisi9TeqdRkTTpNtznrg

15 of 40

LIFE Database

Look for projects to collaborate with

Look projects to learn from

16 of 40

CORDIS database

Know the state of the art in the specific field

BONUS points! Uptake of EU research.

17 of 40

LIFE community is a Network of mission oriented people – willing to collaborate also to save the world beyond their project.

It does not harm anyone to ask for advice when preparing a project.

18 of 40

A review of Estonian LIFE project proposal evaluations

2019-2020 traditional projects

19 of 40

Keskkonnaprogramm

Programme	Year	Concept notes	Full proposals	Successful
Environment and resource efficiency	2019	5	1	1
Environment and resource efficiency	2020	4	1	0
Environmental governance and information	2019	1	0	0
Environmental governance and information	2020	1	0	0
Nature and biodiversity	2019	5	2	1
Nature and biodiversity	2020	6	3	1

	Year	Concept notes	Full proposals	Successful
Climate adaptation	2019	1	0	0
Climate adaptation	2020	0	0	0

Climate programme

20 of 40

What was assessed?

Technical quality

Financial quality

EU Added Value – EU policy

EU Added Value – Sustainability

EU Added Value – LIFE MAWP

EU Added Value – Synergies and cooperation

AW 1: Technical quality (< 20 punkti), mille puhul hinnatakse sekkumisloogikat, rakendatavust ja tehtavast investeeringust tekkivat väärtust. Sekkumisloogikas on vaja lühidalt ja selgelt kirjeldada probleemipüstitus, määratleda eesmärgid ja sellest lähtuvad tegevused. Seejuures oodatavad tulemused peavad olema mõõdetavad. Rakendatavuse puhul hinnatakse ambitsioonikust ning realiseeritavust, aga ka planeeritud partnerlust ja planeeritud tegevuskomplekti piisavust, et oodatud tulemused ka tegelikult oleks saavutatavad. Lühidalt tuleb kirjeldada esialgsed peamised riskid.

AW2: Financial quality (< 20 punkti), mille puhul hinnatakse vastavust abikõlbulikkusreeglitele ja hinnatakse projekti kuluoptimaalsust. Eelarve peab olema läbipaistev, kuluread piisavalt põhjendatud, seostatud tegevustega ja hinnakujundus peab vastama turuolukorrale/kehtivatele raamatupidamisnõuetele.

AW3: EU Added Value – EU policy (< 20 punkti), mille puhul hinnatakse seda, kuidas projekt panustab LIFE prioriteetide täitmisse (määratletud LIFE regulatsiooniga [1]).

AW4: EU Added Value – Sustainability (< 15 punkti), mille puhul hinnatakse seda, kas projekti tulemused säilivad ka pärast projekti lõppu ja kuidas neid levitatakse.

AW5: EU Added Value – LIFE MAWP (< 10 punkti), mille puhul hinnatakse seda, kas projekt toetab LIFE mitmeaastase tööprogrammi (seni 3-4 aastased eelarvestusperioodid, mille jaoks sõnastatakse omad fookusvaldkonnad, mis täpsustavad LIFE regulatsioonis toodud prioriteete).

AW6: EU Added Value – Synergies and cooperation (< 15 punkti), mille puhul hinnatakse seda, kuidas projekt panustab teiste EU keskkonnaeesmärkide täitmisesse (rohelised hanked, ringmajandus, elurikkus, dekarboniseerimine jms). Samuti saab siit lisapunkte juhul, kui projekti on planeeritud rahvusvaheline koostöömudel, tulemuste levitamiseks, kogemuste vahetamiseks ja projekti mõju suurendamiseks.

21 of 40

Successful project

Failed project

38 points

68 points

22 of 40

Recycled/upgraded project

Failed project

23 of 40

Technical quality��max 20 pt

LOGICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE PROJECT!!!
Know the state of the art and current baselines.
Intervention logic needs to be feasible.
Expected outcomes / applied funds need to be aligned.
Project needs to be coherent. Leave time to proofread and solve any inconsistencies and mismatches.

Relevant to current AW 3

24 of 40

FEEDBACK	Recomendations
KPIs not sufficiently detailed	Less is more. During proposal stage focus on 5-6 KPI, when starting to implement project, you can add more. Concentrate on the obligatory KPI. Check the ‘?’ of the KPI web tool to see instructions how to define KPIs-
Management structure is unclear and does not explain the roles in the project	Use illustrations/charts When designing organization chart, include CINEA/NEEMO, steering group, external stakeholder panels etc if relevant. Good infographics helps to show also diferent roles of beneficiaries. Be inventive.
Necessary stakeholders missing from partner network	Prove that your approach is adequate. Everyone obvious who seems to be missing could be supporting project by LoS, or engaged as target group. LIFE is more and more looking for International collaboration and also internally quadruple helix engagement.
Action descriptions not detailled enough	While aiming to deliver multi-benefit project, do not fall into the trap that side hussles hinder the primary objective. Provide detailed info on the main focus and don’t dissolve by promising to do everything.
Monitoring scheme inadequate	Monitor the impact of the project actions: keep the coherence between objectives - expected impact. Don’t forget horizontal objectives: socio-economic monitoring, ecosystem services evaluation, biodiversity assessment (if relevant).

25 of 40

FEEDBACK	Recomendations
Expected impact (TRL of the solution) does not seem feasible	Provide additional materials in the annexes (what you have available). Explain product development process in the project. Remember the LIFE programme is not for research. Gut feeling recommends to focus on TRL > 4
Application does not provide information on possible administrative hurdles, permiting procedures etc.	Include this to the risks.
Communication plan is inadequate	Use communication toolkit to plan the obligatory bits. Include the task „communication strategy development“ or similar to postpone the need to provide the finescale details of communication actions Go beyond basic „Best practice report“ & „Facebook community“. Be inventive.
Background infromation does not include information on similar projects	Don’t promise to invent a bicycle. LIFE is an open community and programme has always requested projects to collaborate with similar initiatives in EU.

26 of 40

How to prepare for the logical framework?

27 of 40

Problem tree / objective tree excercise

28 of 40

LOGFRAME excercise to plan the internal logic – avoid inconsistencies

31 of 40

Financial quality��max 20 pt

Compliance with eligibility rules/correct cost categories;
Cost optimality and value for money
Adequate budget details

Relevant to current AW 4

32 of 40

FEEDBACK	Recomendations
Evaluator suspects double funding	Acknowledge yourself that similar actions could run parallelly and how it will be achieve that they are synergetic and not overlapping. Explain internal procedures, how this is avoided
Subcontracting costs exceed 35%	Please check cost categories from MGA, most likely the Subcontracting category does not exceed the 35%. However if it does, it is possible to explain it.
Personnel cost exceeds a rate typical to the applicant country	Evaluators are aware on the montly rates of personnel in MS. When starting to implement your project, you can’t start paying significantly more to your staff than before. Be realistic.

33 of 40

EU Added Value��

How the project contributes to LIFE programme objectives

Sustainability issues (tasks tackling this in the project, and preditions for the post-project stage)

Impact to Grand Societal challenges

Relevant to current AW 1-2

34 of 40

FEEDBACK	Recomendations
Project declares that contributes to implementing EU directives in national scale, however does not specify how.	While explaining the intervention logic (Part B – section 3: workplan) think of questions What? How? When? Where? Why?
Project performance indicators are inadequate	Again, keep consistencies in objectives – expected impact – feasible actions – adequate monitoring tasks and KPI. Remember AMBITION and a bit of RISK when making promises.

35 of 40

FEEDBACK	Recomendations
A close to market project has not included a business plan to the project	„Close to market projects“ – projects that help companies bring their green products, technologies, services and processes to the market. You can add documents in national language Read carefully the call document Special instructions available for this https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/programmes/life/life-close-market-projects_en
Project fails to replicate and transfer the solutions	Programme objective is to Catalyse the large-scale deployment by replicating the results, mobilising investment and improving Access to finance. Dissemination is not replication action. Get inspiration from existing projects „replication strategies“

36 of 40

FEEDBACK	Recomendations
Green procurement and ecolabelling of products is not considered	Does Latvia have central instructions for green procurement (EE has, MoE has prepared a guideline and indicators for the state procurement registry) Check for voluntary green procurement criteria from EC website https://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/eu_gpp_criteria_en.htm Don’t forget relevant ecolabels. Eg don’t exaggerate on ecolabels/gpp of supportive actions while forgetting on the ones relevant to the focus area.
Project does not exploit the results on previous EU funded research projects	Most probably you do. Please find them (cordis database linked above, or the work done by research partners) and present this in sufficient manner. BONUS points.
Project is implemented in only one country	LIFE projects CAN BE very local, however plan for actions catalysing the uptake of results beyond your core geographic scope. Use International umbrella organizations to have the needed impact, if it remains out of your own reach.
Insufficient detail in explaining Synergies and co-benefits with other EU policy areas	Get inspired from: 6 Commission priorities for 2019-24 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024_en Don’t forget UN SDG Take advantage of current crisises - „pandemicproofing“, „energy crisis“, „multi-hazard“ risk mitigation etc. could provide additional points

38 of 40

Conclusions

Know the probleem, its baseline. Prove it with facts and figures. Understand globaal baseline as well as specific local context.
Develop a logical framework. Be ambitious, take manageble risks, but in the long run – focus on feasibility and value for money.
Plan for realistic impacts – both qualitative and quantitative.
Sustainability of the solutions needs to be integral part of the intervention logic as well as proven with facts and declared commitment. Use LoS, if relevant.
Don’t focus on saving only your own little world, but think how your solution could be helping other areas with similar issues in EU. Be inventive in finding measures how to achieve the uptake of the solutions.

1 of 40