Ocena Wniosków LIFE+ / Przykładowe uwagi KE do Wniosków

Prezentacja na temat: "Ocena Wniosków LIFE+ / Przykładowe uwagi KE do Wniosków"— Zapis prezentacji:

1 Ocena Wniosków LIFE+ / Przykładowe uwagi KE do Wniosków
Nabór 2011 Points to make during the Presentation: In this third part of my presentation, I will cover all the main aspects of the Selection Process, and how the Commission will evaluate your proposal. I will also present some of the most common reasons for proposals being rejected in the 2007 Call for Proposals. Additional points: Background information: Evaluation Guide 2009. Andrzej Muter Wydział ds. Projektów UE 2011 NFOŚiGW – Warsztaty przygotowania wniosków LIFE+

2 „Guide for the evaluation of LIFE+ project proposals 2011”
Ocena Wniosków LIFE+ Cały proces oceny wniosków został szczegółowo opisany w przewodniku na rok 2011 p.t.: „Guide for the evaluation of LIFE+ project proposals 2011” (tłumaczenie polskie - Zasady Oceny wniosków LIFE+ Przewodnik na rok 2011) Points to make during the Presentation: In this third part of my presentation, I will cover all the main aspects of the Selection Process, and how the Commission will evaluate your proposal. I will also present some of the most common reasons for proposals being rejected in the 2007 Call for Proposals. Additional points: Background information: Evaluation Guide 2009. 2

3 Etapy procesu selekcji wniosku
Faza weryfikacji dopuszczalności, wyłączenia i kwalifikowalności, Faza wyboru, Techniczne kryteria wyboru, Finansowe kryteria wyboru - sprawdzenie płynności finansowej oraz zdolności do zarządzania dużymi dotacjami środków z UE potencjalnego beneficjenta koordynującego Faza przyznawania, Faza zmian. Points to make during the Presentation: In this third part of my presentation, I will cover all the main aspects of the Selection Process, and how the Commission will evaluate your proposal. I will also present some of the most common reasons for proposals being rejected in the 2007 Call for Proposals. Additional points: Background information: Evaluation Guide 2009. 3

4 A. FAZA DOPUSZCZALNOŚCI, WYŁĄCZENIA I KWALIFIKOWALNOŚCI
Dopuszczalność i wyłączenia – terminowość, kompletność i format (10 pytań) Kwalifikowalność – zakres LIFE+ W naborze wniosków w 2010 r / 748 wniosków odrzucono na tym etapie Points to make during the Presentation: The first stage in the Selection Process is the Admissibility, Exclusion and Eligibility stage. Admissibility: The Commission will check all proposals submitted by the deadline for completeness and format (proper forms used, properly filled in, none missing, etc.). Proposals may be rejected right away (for instance, if two or more obligatory forms are missing). Or – in some specific cases – the Commission may contact applicants for missing information. For more details, refer to the Evaluation Guide. Eligibility: Proposals will also be checked for their general eligibility for the LIFE+ Programme, for instance whether they are on EU territory and fall within the scope of LIFE+. To ensure fairness to all applicants the Commission applies the rules and criteria strictly. Too many proposals are needlessly rejected at this stage for problems that could be avoided. From the 2007 Call, 17% were rejected at this early stage, often for mistakes that could have been avoided. The national authority may also carry out an admissibility and/or eligibilty check before submitting proposals to the Commission. Additional points: Background information: Evaluation Guide pp. 4 – 6. Detailed questions: Evaluation Guide p. 22. Checklist: Guidelines for Applicants (LIFE+ Information and Communication) Section 7 (LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance) Section 7 and (LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity) Section 6.

5 Prośba o uzupełnienie dokumentów, jeśli:
FAZA DOPUSZCZALNOŚCI I KWALIFIKOWALNOŚCI Prośba o uzupełnienie dokumentów, jeśli: we wniosku brakuje nie więcej niż jednego formularza (pytanie kwalifikacyjne nr 4); w formularzach brakuje jednego lub więcej obowiązkowych podpisów/dat złożenia podpisów (pytanie kwalifikacyjne nr 6 i 10 (jeśli dotyczy)); brakuje jednego lub więcej załączników finansowych (pytanie kwalifikacyjne nr 8). Points to make during the Presentation: The most common reasons for rejecting proposals at the admissibility and eligibility phases are listed here: Admissibility The address given in the proposal is not correct / not checked / inbox full / spam filter rejects Commission / … The Commission will use the address given in the proposal to contact you if additional information is required. Possibly as a result of problems with the address, the applicant did not reply to a request for further information Forms missing or incomplete / signatures or dates missing / obligatory financial annexes missing or incomplete / … Use of outdated forms or wrong format for annexes Eligibility The project does not fall within the scope of LIFE+ Additional points: Background information: 5

6 FAZA DOPUSZCZALNOŚCI I KWALIFIKOWALNOŚCI
PODSTAWOWE PROBLEMY Dopuszczalność i wyłączenie Nieprawidłowy adres zamieszczony we wniosku / nie sprawdzana poczta / przepełniona skrzynka owa / filtr antyspam odrzuca e Komisji / … Wnioskodawca nie odpowiedział na prośbę o dostarczenie dodatkowych informacji Niekompletny formularz / brak dat lub podpisów / brak obligatoryjnych załączników finansowych lub załączniki niekompletne / … Wykorzystanie nieaktualnych formularzy lub nieodpowiednia forma załączników Kwalifikowalność Projekt nie mieści się w zakresie Programu LIFE+ Points to make during the Presentation: The most common reasons for rejecting proposals at the admissibility and eligibility phases are listed here: Admissibility The address given in the proposal is not correct / not checked / inbox full / spam filter rejects Commission / … The Commission will use the address given in the proposal to contact you if additional information is required. Possibly as a result of problems with the address, the applicant did not reply to a request for further information Forms missing or incomplete / signatures or dates missing / obligatory financial annexes missing or incomplete / … Use of outdated forms or wrong format for annexes Eligibility The project does not fall within the scope of LIFE+ Additional points: Background information: 6

7 JAK UNIKNĄĆ ODRZUCENIA WNIOSKU?
FAZA DOPUSZCZALNOŚCI I KWALIFIKOWALNOŚCI JAK UNIKNĄĆ ODRZUCENIA WNIOSKU? Zapoznać się dokładnie z wytycznymi dla wnioskodawców – wykorzystać listę kontrolną w sekcjach 6 lub 7 Korzystać z wytycznych dla wnioskodawców i formularzy wniosków opracowanych dla 2011 roku Zabezpieczyć odpowiednią ilość czasu oraz środków by napisać wniosek Wypełnić WSZYSTKIE wymagane formularze Dostarczyć WSZYSTKIE wymagane informacje w odpowiedniej formie i języku Points to make during the Presentation: There are a number of relatively simple rules to follow to avoid your proposal being rejected at the admissibility or eligibility phase: Read the Guidelines for Applicants carefully – use the Checklist in Sections 6 or 7 Use the 2009 Guidelines for Applicants and Application Forms Ensure enough time and resources to write the proposal Fill in ALL required forms Provide ALL the information requested, in the right format and language Additional points: Background information:

8 JAK UNIKNĄĆ ODRZUCENIA WNIOSKU?
FAZA DOPUSZCZALNOŚCI I KWALIFIKOWALNOŚCI JAK UNIKNĄĆ ODRZUCENIA WNIOSKU? Sprawdzić poprawność adresów / skrzynka pocztowa nie jest przepełniona / e Komisji nie są traktowane jako spam SPRAWDZIĆ strona po stronie czy wersja PDF jest identyczna z wersją papierową oraz czy można ją prawidłowo wydrukować z nośników CD / DVD Sprawdzić zakres proponowanego projektu: Zakres zgodny z jednym z trzech komponentów LIFE+ Points to make during the Presentation: To continue from the previous slide: Ensure the address you provide works / the inbox is not full / the Commission’s s are not spammed / … and make sure you check it regularly. CHECK page by page that the pdf version corresponds to the paper version, and prints out properly from the CD / DVD – take 20 minutes to check that the pdf is complete, comparing it to the full printed version, page by page. Check the scope of the proposed project: 1) Takes place in the EU and 2) Falls within scope of the LIFE+ component it is submitted under. Additional points: Background information: 8

9 B. FAZA WYBORU Techniczne kryteria selekcji – techniczna wiarygodność uczestników, zakres projektu, itp. Finansowe kryteria selekcji – zgodność z określonymi zasadami finansowania 76 / 728 propozycji odrzucono w fazie selekcji Points to make during the Presentation: All proposals deemed Admissible and Eligible will pass to the Selection Phase. Here, the Commission checks whether the proposals fulfil the general technical and financial criteria, as listed in the Application Guides, etc. Technical: Technical reliability of participants. Scope of proposal. Plus a number of specific questions for each component. Financial: Verify compliance with the Financial Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of “Applicant must have stable and sufficient resources of funding to maintain this activity throughout the period during which the action is being carried out … and to participate in it funding”. 22% of all proposals were rejected at this stage in the 2007 Call. However, a staggering 95% of the proposals rejected at this stage were LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity. Therefore, potential applicants to the LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity component should pay special attention to the Selection phase criteria. Additional points: Background information: Guide for Evaluation pp. 7 – 9 (technical phase) and pp. 9 – 10 (financial phase). Detailed list pp. 23 – 24. 9

10 TECHNICZNE KRYTERIA WYBORU
Techniczna wiarygodność uczestników (na podstawie dotychczasowych doświadczeń KE z wnioskodawcami, lub słabo opisany potencjał techniczny wnioskodawcy); Zakres Wniosku LIFE+ (wniosek odrzucany na skutek nie mieszczenia się w zakresie LIFE+) Specyficzne pytania dla każdego komponentu Np.: 25 % działań twardych w komp. I, innowacyjność i demonstracyjność, miejsce realizacji projektu Points to make during the Presentation: All proposals deemed Admissible and Eligible will pass to the Selection Phase. Here, the Commission checks whether the proposals fulfil the general technical and financial criteria, as listed in the Application Guides, etc. Technical: Technical reliability of participants. Scope of proposal. Plus a number of specific questions for each component. Financial: Verify compliance with the Financial Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of “Applicant must have stable and sufficient resources of funding to maintain this activity throughout the period during which the action is being carried out … and to participate in it funding”. 22% of all proposals were rejected at this stage in the 2007 Call. However, a staggering 95% of the proposals rejected at this stage were LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity. Therefore, potential applicants to the LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity component should pay special attention to the Selection phase criteria. Additional points: Background information: Guide for Evaluation pp. 7 – 9 (technical phase) and pp. 9 – 10 (financial phase). Detailed list pp. 23 – 24. 10

11 FINANSOWE KRYTERIA WYBORU (1)
Kilka przesłanek odrzucenia wniosku: znajdowanie się w sytuacji opisanej w art.. 93 (1) i 94 rozporządzenia finansowego nr 1605/2002 (postępowanie upadłościowe, likwidacyjne; przestępstwo; nie opłacanie składek, itd.), negatywny wynik audytu KE wobec beneficjenta koordynującego lub współbeneficjenta, brak wkładu finasnowego beneficjenta koordynującego lub współbeneficjenta, dług beneficjenta koordynującego wobec KE Points to make during the Presentation: All proposals deemed Admissible and Eligible will pass to the Selection Phase. Here, the Commission checks whether the proposals fulfil the general technical and financial criteria, as listed in the Application Guides, etc. Technical: Technical reliability of participants. Scope of proposal. Plus a number of specific questions for each component. Financial: Verify compliance with the Financial Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of “Applicant must have stable and sufficient resources of funding to maintain this activity throughout the period during which the action is being carried out … and to participate in it funding”. 22% of all proposals were rejected at this stage in the 2007 Call. However, a staggering 95% of the proposals rejected at this stage were LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity. Therefore, potential applicants to the LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity component should pay special attention to the Selection phase criteria. Additional points: Background information: Guide for Evaluation pp. 7 – 9 (technical phase) and pp. 9 – 10 (financial phase). Detailed list pp. 23 – 24. 11

12 FINANSOWE KRYTERIA WYBORU (2)
W przypadku prywatnych organizacji handlowych oraz prywatnych organizacji niehandlowych: • raport biegłego rewidenta lub bilans poświadczony przez biegłego rewidenta oraz rachunek zysków i strat nie przedstawiają „nie budzącej zastrzeżeń opinii” na temat rentowności finansowej beneficjenta, • na podstawie testu rentowności finansowej można stwierdzić, że koordynujący beneficjent nie posiada zdolności finansowej, niezbędnej do zapewnienia swojego wkładu współfinansowania w ramach proponowanego okresu trwania projektu; beneficjent nie posiada zdolności finansowej niezbędnej do zarządzania kwotami wskazanymi we wniosku budżetowym w ramach proponowanego okresu trwania projektu. Points to make during the Presentation: All proposals deemed Admissible and Eligible will pass to the Selection Phase. Here, the Commission checks whether the proposals fulfil the general technical and financial criteria, as listed in the Application Guides, etc. Technical: Technical reliability of participants. Scope of proposal. Plus a number of specific questions for each component. Financial: Verify compliance with the Financial Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of “Applicant must have stable and sufficient resources of funding to maintain this activity throughout the period during which the action is being carried out … and to participate in it funding”. 22% of all proposals were rejected at this stage in the 2007 Call. However, a staggering 95% of the proposals rejected at this stage were LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity. Therefore, potential applicants to the LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity component should pay special attention to the Selection phase criteria. Additional points: Background information: Guide for Evaluation pp. 7 – 9 (technical phase) and pp. 9 – 10 (financial phase). Detailed list pp. 23 – 24. 12

13 FINANSOWE KRYTERIA WYBORU (3)
Prywatne organizacje o charakterze komercyjnym (wymagana gwarancja finansowa w przypadku nie spełnienia co najmniej 2 warunków): Stosunek „całkowitej wnioskowanej dotacji dzielonej przez liczbę lat realizacji projektu” / „kapitał podstawowy” jest mniejszy od 1, Stosunek „aktywa bieżące” / „zobowiązania bieżące” jest większy od 1 (wskaźnik bieżącej płynności finansowej), Stosunek „zadłużenia ogółem” / „aktywa ogółem” jest mniejszy od 0,8 (wskaźnik zadłużenia), Podmiot wykazuje zysk z działalności operacyjnej (EBIT) Points to make during the Presentation: All proposals deemed Admissible and Eligible will pass to the Selection Phase. Here, the Commission checks whether the proposals fulfil the general technical and financial criteria, as listed in the Application Guides, etc. Technical: Technical reliability of participants. Scope of proposal. Plus a number of specific questions for each component. Financial: Verify compliance with the Financial Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of “Applicant must have stable and sufficient resources of funding to maintain this activity throughout the period during which the action is being carried out … and to participate in it funding”. 22% of all proposals were rejected at this stage in the 2007 Call. However, a staggering 95% of the proposals rejected at this stage were LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity. Therefore, potential applicants to the LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity component should pay special attention to the Selection phase criteria. Additional points: Background information: Guide for Evaluation pp. 7 – 9 (technical phase) and pp. 9 – 10 (financial phase). Detailed list pp. 23 – 24. 13

14 FINANSOWE KRYTERIA WYBORU (4)
Prywatne organizacje o charakterze niekomercyjnym (w tym NGO): (wymagana gwarancja finansowa w przypadku nie spełnienia co najmniej 1 warunku): Stosunek „całkowitej wnioskowanej dotacji dzielonej przez liczbę lat realizacji projektu” / „uzyskane dotacje” jest mniejszy od 1, Stosunek „aktywa bieżące” / „zobowiązania bieżące” jest większy od 1 (wskaźnik bieżącej płynności finansowej), Stosunek „zadłużenie ogółem” / „aktywa ogółem” jest mniejszy od ,8 (wskaźnik zadłużenia). Points to make during the Presentation: All proposals deemed Admissible and Eligible will pass to the Selection Phase. Here, the Commission checks whether the proposals fulfil the general technical and financial criteria, as listed in the Application Guides, etc. Technical: Technical reliability of participants. Scope of proposal. Plus a number of specific questions for each component. Financial: Verify compliance with the Financial Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of “Applicant must have stable and sufficient resources of funding to maintain this activity throughout the period during which the action is being carried out … and to participate in it funding”. 22% of all proposals were rejected at this stage in the 2007 Call. However, a staggering 95% of the proposals rejected at this stage were LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity. Therefore, potential applicants to the LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity component should pay special attention to the Selection phase criteria. Additional points: Background information: Guide for Evaluation pp. 7 – 9 (technical phase) and pp. 9 – 10 (financial phase). Detailed list pp. 23 – 24. 14

15 FINANSOWE KRYTERIA WYBORU (5)
Wnioski zostaną odrzucone, gdy żadne z kryteriów nie jest spełnione a wskaźniki różnią się znacząco od progów wskazanych powyżej. Points to make during the Presentation: All proposals deemed Admissible and Eligible will pass to the Selection Phase. Here, the Commission checks whether the proposals fulfil the general technical and financial criteria, as listed in the Application Guides, etc. Technical: Technical reliability of participants. Scope of proposal. Plus a number of specific questions for each component. Financial: Verify compliance with the Financial Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of “Applicant must have stable and sufficient resources of funding to maintain this activity throughout the period during which the action is being carried out … and to participate in it funding”. 22% of all proposals were rejected at this stage in the 2007 Call. However, a staggering 95% of the proposals rejected at this stage were LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity. Therefore, potential applicants to the LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity component should pay special attention to the Selection phase criteria. Additional points: Background information: Guide for Evaluation pp. 7 – 9 (technical phase) and pp. 9 – 10 (financial phase). Detailed list pp. 23 – 24. 15

16 PODSTAWOWE PROBLEMY – KRYTERIA FINANSOWE
FAZA WYBORU PODSTAWOWE PROBLEMY – KRYTERIA FINANSOWE Brak zdolności finansowej Brak zapewnienia współfinansowania Ryzyko bankructwa Beneficjent nie jest w stanie udowodnić statusu podmiotu publicznego Points to make during the Presentation: The main reasons for rejecting proposals according to the financial criteria included: Lack of financial capacity to manage such large grants within the duration of the project Co-financing not assured Risk of bankruptcy Beneficiary unable to provide proof of public body status Additional points: Background information: 16

17 PODSTAWOWE PROBLEMY – LIFE+ PRZYRODA
FAZA WYBORU PODSTAWOWE PROBLEMY – LIFE+ PRZYRODA Mniej niż 25% budżetu na konkretne działania ochronne Główne działania projektowe (np. zakup gruntów, odnowa siedlisk) są niezgodne z wymogiem zlokalizowania projektu na obszarze Natura 2000 Niewłaściwy status ochrony w ramach obszaru Natura 2000 Points to make during the Presentation: The main reasons for rejected LIFE+ Nature proposals under the technical criteria were as follows: Less than 25% of budget on concrete conservation actions (and they were not eligible for exemption from this rule). There were two main problems with site related actions in the 2007 Call: Main project actions (e.g. land purchase, habitat restoration) did not comply with the criteria for an appropriate Natura 2000 designation of the project area, nor with any exemptions (see Guidelines). E.g. a project targeting a bird species, if the project area is an SAC designated under Habitats, but not an SPA under Birds. The official Standard Data forms for Natura 2000 sites did not include any information on the presence of the target species / habitat type (therefore, legally, the site not designated for it). Additional points: There are some exemptions to the 25% rule (see slide 21 Part 1). Background information: 17

18 PODSTAWOWE PROBLEMY – LIFE+ RÓŻNORODNOŚĆ BIOLOGICZNA
FAZA WYBORU PODSTAWOWE PROBLEMY – LIFE+ RÓŻNORODNOŚĆ BIOLOGICZNA Niewystarczające dowody na to, że projekt ma charakter demonstracyjny lub innowacyjny (wiele projektów miało charakter najlepszych praktyk ochronnych poza obszarami Natura 2000) Mniej niż 25% budżetu na konkretne działania ochronne Poza zakresem LIFE+ Różnorodność biologiczna Points to make during the Presentation: For LIFE+ Biodiversity the main reasons for rejection were: Less than 25% of budget on concrete conservation actions (they focused on research, planning, inventories, database building, etc.). Insufficient evidence that the project was demonstration or innovation: e.g. many projects were best practice conservation actions, outside Natura 2000 areas Proposals were outside the scope of the component. Additional points: Background information: 18

19 JAK UNIKNĄĆ ODRZUCENIA WNIOSKU?
FAZA WYBORU JAK UNIKNĄĆ ODRZUCENIA WNIOSKU? Przedstawić odpowiednie dowody potwierdzające status prawny i finansowy Przedstawić w czytelny sposób problem środowiskowy Szczegółowo opracować projekt Points to make during the Presentation: Address the following points to ensure that your proposal is not rejected at the Selection Phase: Properly document legal and financial status You must provide sufficient information on your financial capacity and co-financing to allow the Commission to judge your financial capacity accurately. You must also be able to prove your public status if you claim it in the forms. Clearly explain the environmental problem Lack of a clear presentation of the environmental problem and how the project will address it indicates a fundamental weakness in the elaboration of the project. Elaborate the project properly Good projects presented badly will be rejected because of an apparent lack of coherence or clarity. Take the time to present the project clearly and logically. Additional points: Background information: 19

20 JAK UNIKNĄĆ ODRZUCENIA WNIOSKU?
FAZA WYBORU JAK UNIKNĄĆ ODRZUCENIA WNIOSKU? 25% na konkretne działania ochronne w ramach LIFE+ Przyroda i Różnorodność biologiczna LIFE+ Przyroda: sprawdź dane o obszarze Natura 2000 LIFE+ Różnorodność biologiczna: sprawdź zgodność z wytycznymi wnioskowania do LIFE+ (zgodność z Komunikatem Komisji o powstrzymaniu utraty różnorodności biologicznej niekoniecznie oznacza odpowiednie kwalifikacje do LIFE+) LIFE+ Różnorodność biologiczna: upewnij się, że działania projektowe mają charakter demonstracyjny lub innowacyjny Points to make during the Presentation: Focusing particularly on LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity proposals: Ensure that your project includes a minimum of 25% concrete conservation actions for LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity. These must be clearly identifiable in the proposal (proposals can be rejected due to lack of information). Planning, monitoring, inventories, etc. do not usually constitute concrete conservation actions. LIFE+ Nature: check the data on Natura 2000 site designation, the official Nature 2000 site boundaries, and the species and habitat types targeted are identical to the information that the Member State has submitted to the Commission in GIS format and in the official Standard Data forms. LIFE+ Biodiversity: check compliance with the LIFE+ application guides (compliance with the Communication does not necessarily equal eligibility for LIFE+) LIFE+ Biodiversity: ensure that all the main Project Actions are demonstration or innovation. Additional points: Background information: 20

21 C. FAZA PRZYZNAWANIA Kryteria Punkty maksymalne Próg min.
Spójność i jakość techniczna 115 88 Spójność i jakość finansowa Wkład do realizacji generalnych celów LIFE+ 225 112 Europejska wartość dodana oraz komplementarność a także optymalne wykorzystanie finansowania EU 330 Transnarodowy charakter 55 - Zgodność z corocznymi priorytetami krajowymi i krajowa wartość dodana według krajowych władz LIFE+ 110 OOgółem 1100 Points to make during the Presentation: All proposals that successfully pass the Selection phase, enter into the Award Phase. Here, proposals are scored according to six criteria with a maximum of 100 points in all. The first four of these criteria have thresholds, meaning that a proposal will be rejected if it scores below the threshold for one of these criteria. The criteria are as follows: Technical coherence and quality: clear, coherent, realistic and feasible in terms of actions, timetable, budget and value for money. Projects can gain a maximum of 15 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 8 will be rejected. Financial coherence and quality: budget must be consistent with the technical actions; contribution and budget must comply with Regulation, etc. Transparent, coherent, cost-efficient and value for money. Projects can gain a maximum of 15 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 8 will be rejected. Contribution to the general objectives of LIFE+: If the problem is relatively important at European level, if the proposal is expected to make a significant contribution to solving the problem, and/or if the project is expected to generate findings that are widely applicable. Projects can gain a maximum of 25 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 12 will be rejected. European added value and complementarity and optimal use of EU funding: projects will be examined according to, inter alia: Demonstration/innovation/best practice Lessons learned Stakeholder involvement Limiting carbon footprint Synergies with other instruments Projects can gain a maximum of 30 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 15 will be rejected. 5. Transnational character: Projects involving participants from more than one EU country can gain up to 5 additional points on this criterion. There is no minimum score so no proposal can be rejected on this criterion. 6. Compliance with national annual priorities and national added value according to LIFE+ national authority: Proposals can gain up to 10 additional points based on the assessment of the national authority. As explained earlier, the scoring under this criterion will only be used when comparing proposals within a country, not between countries. Again, there is no minimum score so no proposals can be rejected on the basis of this criterion. Additional points: Background information: Evaluation Guide: pp. 11 – 15. Detailed list: Evaluation Guide pp. 25 – 30.

22 Jakość i spójność techniczna – pytania pomocnicze – patrz podręcznik oceny
Czy stan wyjściowy przed podjęciem działań został właściwie opisany (problemy i zagrożenia, stan czynności przygotowawczych, upoważnienia, pozwolenia, itp.)? Czy istnieje czytelny związek logiczny między zagrożeniami i problemami, celami, działaniami oraz oczekiwanymi rezultatami projektu? Czy dla każdego z działań ustalono, w jaki sposób, gdzie, kiedy i przez kogo będzie ono realizowane? Czy działania są właściwie opisane oraz określone przy użyciu danych liczbowych i czy podano informacje wystarczające do oceny ich kwalifikowalności? Czy, jeśli to stosowne, działania przedstawiono na mapach? Czy przewidywane efekty projektu są opisane wystarczająco szczegółowo oraz przy użyciu danych liczbowych? Czy przedstawiono zestaw wskaźników do oceny postępów projektu? Czy budżet projektu jest uzasadniony i spójny, a przewidziane koszty adekwatne do proponowanych działań oraz środków (tj. czy projekt jest opłacalny)? (...) Czy projekt może zostać zaakceptowany przy minimalnym wysiłku związanym z wprowadzaniem zmian technicznych? Points to make during the Presentation: All proposals that successfully pass the Selection phase, enter into the Award Phase. Here, proposals are scored according to six criteria with a maximum of 100 points in all. The first four of these criteria have thresholds, meaning that a proposal will be rejected if it scores below the threshold for one of these criteria. The criteria are as follows: Technical coherence and quality: clear, coherent, realistic and feasible in terms of actions, timetable, budget and value for money. Projects can gain a maximum of 15 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 8 will be rejected. Financial coherence and quality: budget must be consistent with the technical actions; contribution and budget must comply with Regulation, etc. Transparent, coherent, cost-efficient and value for money. Projects can gain a maximum of 15 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 8 will be rejected. Contribution to the general objectives of LIFE+: If the problem is relatively important at European level, if the proposal is expected to make a significant contribution to solving the problem, and/or if the project is expected to generate findings that are widely applicable. Projects can gain a maximum of 25 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 12 will be rejected. European added value and complementarity and optimal use of EU funding: projects will be examined according to, inter alia: Demonstration/innovation/best practice Lessons learned Stakeholder involvement Limiting carbon footprint Synergies with other instruments Projects can gain a maximum of 30 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 15 will be rejected. 5. Transnational character: Projects involving participants from more than one EU country can gain up to 5 additional points on this criterion. There is no minimum score so no proposal can be rejected on this criterion. 6. Compliance with national annual priorities and national added value according to LIFE+ national authority: Proposals can gain up to 10 additional points based on the assessment of the national authority. As explained earlier, the scoring under this criterion will only be used when comparing proposals within a country, not between countries. Again, there is no minimum score so no proposals can be rejected on the basis of this criterion. Additional points: Background information: Evaluation Guide: pp. 11 – 15. Detailed list: Evaluation Guide pp. 25 – 30. 22

23 Jakość i spójność finansowa – pytania pomocnicze – patrz podręcznik oceny
Do jakiego stopnia wszyscy beneficjenci zapewniają wystarczający wkład własny do budżetu projektu? Czy dane finansowe zawarte w formularzach FA i FC są zgodne z Indywidualnymi zobowiązaniami finansowymi ze strony beneficjentów / współfinansujących? W jakim stopniu dane dotyczące wydatków w formularzach FA – FC oraz F1 – F7 są spójne? (…) Czy koszty personelu, przedstawione w formularzu F1, są uzasadnione i wystarczająco dokładnie określone? (…) Czy projekt jest najbardziej opłacalną ofertą? Czy, kiedy będzie to możliwe, koszty będą negocjowane? Czy koszty są stosowne względem warunków krajowych? Czy koszty zarządzania projektem (zarówno ze strony beneficjentów, jak i Komisji) są adekwatne do wielkości i zamierzeń projektu? Points to make during the Presentation: All proposals that successfully pass the Selection phase, enter into the Award Phase. Here, proposals are scored according to six criteria with a maximum of 100 points in all. The first four of these criteria have thresholds, meaning that a proposal will be rejected if it scores below the threshold for one of these criteria. The criteria are as follows: Technical coherence and quality: clear, coherent, realistic and feasible in terms of actions, timetable, budget and value for money. Projects can gain a maximum of 15 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 8 will be rejected. Financial coherence and quality: budget must be consistent with the technical actions; contribution and budget must comply with Regulation, etc. Transparent, coherent, cost-efficient and value for money. Projects can gain a maximum of 15 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 8 will be rejected. Contribution to the general objectives of LIFE+: If the problem is relatively important at European level, if the proposal is expected to make a significant contribution to solving the problem, and/or if the project is expected to generate findings that are widely applicable. Projects can gain a maximum of 25 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 12 will be rejected. European added value and complementarity and optimal use of EU funding: projects will be examined according to, inter alia: Demonstration/innovation/best practice Lessons learned Stakeholder involvement Limiting carbon footprint Synergies with other instruments Projects can gain a maximum of 30 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 15 will be rejected. 5. Transnational character: Projects involving participants from more than one EU country can gain up to 5 additional points on this criterion. There is no minimum score so no proposal can be rejected on this criterion. 6. Compliance with national annual priorities and national added value according to LIFE+ national authority: Proposals can gain up to 10 additional points based on the assessment of the national authority. As explained earlier, the scoring under this criterion will only be used when comparing proposals within a country, not between countries. Again, there is no minimum score so no proposals can be rejected on the basis of this criterion. Additional points: Background information: Evaluation Guide: pp. 11 – 15. Detailed list: Evaluation Guide pp. 25 – 30. 23

24 Zgodność z ogólnymi celami LIFE+ – pytania pomocnicze – patrz podręcznik oceny
Do jakiego stopnia cel projektu dotyczy problemów ochrony środowiska o znaczeniu ogólnoeuropejskim, biorąc pod uwagę założenia europejskiego ustawodawstwa i polityki środowiskowej oraz indykatywną listę tematów przedstawioną w Wytycznych? W jakim stopniu przewiduje się, że projekt przyczyni się do skutecznego i trwałego rozwiązania problemu, którego dotyczy? W jakim stopniu przewiduje się, że projekt przyczyni się do powstania rezultatów, które będą mieć szerokie zastosowanie? W jakim stopniu projekt przyczyni się do wdrażania, aktualizacji i rozwoju wspólnotowej polityki i ustawodawstwa w dziedzinie ochrony środowiska, włączając integrację zagadnień środowiskowych z innymi instrumentami polityki? W jakim stopniu zapewniono długoterminową kontynuację oraz trwałość rezultatów projektu? Points to make during the Presentation: All proposals that successfully pass the Selection phase, enter into the Award Phase. Here, proposals are scored according to six criteria with a maximum of 100 points in all. The first four of these criteria have thresholds, meaning that a proposal will be rejected if it scores below the threshold for one of these criteria. The criteria are as follows: Technical coherence and quality: clear, coherent, realistic and feasible in terms of actions, timetable, budget and value for money. Projects can gain a maximum of 15 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 8 will be rejected. Financial coherence and quality: budget must be consistent with the technical actions; contribution and budget must comply with Regulation, etc. Transparent, coherent, cost-efficient and value for money. Projects can gain a maximum of 15 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 8 will be rejected. Contribution to the general objectives of LIFE+: If the problem is relatively important at European level, if the proposal is expected to make a significant contribution to solving the problem, and/or if the project is expected to generate findings that are widely applicable. Projects can gain a maximum of 25 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 12 will be rejected. European added value and complementarity and optimal use of EU funding: projects will be examined according to, inter alia: Demonstration/innovation/best practice Lessons learned Stakeholder involvement Limiting carbon footprint Synergies with other instruments Projects can gain a maximum of 30 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 15 will be rejected. 5. Transnational character: Projects involving participants from more than one EU country can gain up to 5 additional points on this criterion. There is no minimum score so no proposal can be rejected on this criterion. 6. Compliance with national annual priorities and national added value according to LIFE+ national authority: Proposals can gain up to 10 additional points based on the assessment of the national authority. As explained earlier, the scoring under this criterion will only be used when comparing proposals within a country, not between countries. Again, there is no minimum score so no proposals can be rejected on the basis of this criterion. Additional points: Background information: Evaluation Guide: pp. 11 – 15. Detailed list: Evaluation Guide pp. 25 – 30. 24

25 Europejska wartość dodana oraz komplementarność i optymalne wykorzystanie środków finansowych UE – pytania pomocnicze – patrz podręcznik oceny W jakim stopniu uwzględniono czynności polegające na monitorowaniu, ocenie i ewaluacji skutków proponowanych w projekcie działań na potrzeby rozpowszechniania informacji oraz nabytego doświadczenia? Czy działania dotyczące monitorowania i oceny efektów są stosowne i odpowiednio zaprojektowane dla powyższego celu? W jakim stopniu wniosek uwzględnia komunikację, wymianę doświadczeń, tworzenie sieci i działania polegające na rozpowszechnianiu informacji? Czy spełnione zostały wszystkie wymagania dotyczące sposobów komunikacji? Czy wszystkie działania są stosowne i odpowiednio zaprojektowane na potrzeby komunikacji i rozpowszechniania informacji o efektach projektu oraz nabytym doświadczeniu? W jakim stopniu konsultowano się z interesariuszami oraz na ile są oni zaangażowani w projekt? (…) Czy istnieją jakiekolwiek dowody, że działania przewidziane w projekcie zostałyby sfinansowane i zrealizowane niezależnie od wsparcia finansowego programu LIFE+? Points to make during the Presentation: All proposals that successfully pass the Selection phase, enter into the Award Phase. Here, proposals are scored according to six criteria with a maximum of 100 points in all. The first four of these criteria have thresholds, meaning that a proposal will be rejected if it scores below the threshold for one of these criteria. The criteria are as follows: Technical coherence and quality: clear, coherent, realistic and feasible in terms of actions, timetable, budget and value for money. Projects can gain a maximum of 15 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 8 will be rejected. Financial coherence and quality: budget must be consistent with the technical actions; contribution and budget must comply with Regulation, etc. Transparent, coherent, cost-efficient and value for money. Projects can gain a maximum of 15 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 8 will be rejected. Contribution to the general objectives of LIFE+: If the problem is relatively important at European level, if the proposal is expected to make a significant contribution to solving the problem, and/or if the project is expected to generate findings that are widely applicable. Projects can gain a maximum of 25 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 12 will be rejected. European added value and complementarity and optimal use of EU funding: projects will be examined according to, inter alia: Demonstration/innovation/best practice Lessons learned Stakeholder involvement Limiting carbon footprint Synergies with other instruments Projects can gain a maximum of 30 points for this criterion; any project scoring below 15 will be rejected. 5. Transnational character: Projects involving participants from more than one EU country can gain up to 5 additional points on this criterion. There is no minimum score so no proposal can be rejected on this criterion. 6. Compliance with national annual priorities and national added value according to LIFE+ national authority: Proposals can gain up to 10 additional points based on the assessment of the national authority. As explained earlier, the scoring under this criterion will only be used when comparing proposals within a country, not between countries. Again, there is no minimum score so no proposals can be rejected on the basis of this criterion. Additional points: Background information: Evaluation Guide: pp. 11 – 15. Detailed list: Evaluation Guide pp. 25 – 30. 25

26 FAZA PRZYZNAWANIA PODSTAWOWE PROBLEMY Faza przeglądu – cztery kryteria z minimalnymi wartościami progowymi 402 / 652 propozycji odrzuconych, ponieważ jedno z kryteriów (1-4) uzyskało liczbę punktów poniżej ustalonego minimum Zwykle kryteria 1 i/lub 2 (techniczna i/lub finansowa spójność) Points to make during the Presentation: In the 2007 Call, 36% of all proposals were rejected because they were below the threshold for at least one of the Award Criteria 1 to 4. They are usually rejected due to failure to meet the minimum score for Criteria 1 and/or 2 – i.e. technical and/or financial coherence. Additional points: Background information: 26

27 JAK UNIKNĄĆ ODRZUCENIA WNIOSKU?
FAZA PRZYZNAWANIA JAK UNIKNĄĆ ODRZUCENIA WNIOSKU? Potraktuj wszystkie kryteria poważnie, w szczególności kryteria 1 i 2 Dostarcz wszystkie żądane informacje Wykorzystaj formalne narzędzia zarządzania projektem aby zaplanować projekt (np. matryca logiczna) Points to make during the Presentation: To avoid your proposal being rejected at the Award phase: Take criteria seriously, especially Criteria 1 and 2 Provide all information requested – for instance in Technical Forms B Use a formal project management tool to plan the project (e.g. Logical Framework) to ensure coherence. Additional points: Background information: 27

28 D. PROCES SELEKCJI – FAZA ZMIAN I NASTĘPNE KROKI
Listy: długa, krótka i rezerwowa Faza zmian Komitet LIFE+ Badanie przez Parlament Europejski Umowy o przyznaniu dotacji (“kontrakty”) Points to make during the Presentation: All proposals passing the Award Phase will be ranked depending on their respective scores. A “Long list” of proposals will be drawn up based on the results of the Award phase. As well as the relative scores, this Long List must take into account that: 50% of LIFE+ budget must be allocated to nature and biodiversity projects; Projects must be distributed among the EU member states; and Ideally at least 15% of the budget should be allocated to transnational projects. The remaining projects are put on a Reserve list, and may be added to the Long List should a proposal fail to be brought into line with the LIFE+ requirements. The projects on the Long list enter the Revision phase, when applicants are asked to revise their proposals to bring them into line with LIFE+ requirements. The aim of the revision phase is to ensure coherence among all proposals listed on the preliminary long and reserve lists, all open questions regarding feasibility, cost-effectiveness and eligibility of individual actions, compliance with the LIFE+ Regulation and Common Provisions, etc. On the basis of this, a “Short list” is submitted to the LIFE+ Committee for its opinion of projects to be co-financed. The European Parliament must then scrutinise the Short List to ensure that the Commission has not exceeded its implementing powers. Then grant agreements are sent to each successful applicant. Additional points: Background information: Lists: Evaluation Guide pp. 16 – 18. Revision Phase: Evaluation Guide p. 19.

29 Przykładowe pytania KE zadane w fazie zmian (1)
Prosimy o rozszerzenie opisu działania w celu uzasadnienia wysokiego kosztu (6 x w jednym piśmie) tego działania. Wyjaśnienie powinno zawierać np.: wielkość i liczbę interwencji danego typu i zaproponowane konsultacje społeczne. Poprawić opis działania w zakresie interesariuszy, tak by pokazać, że są oni aktywnie zaangażowani w projekt. Wskazać jeden podmiot jako odpowiedzialny za zadanie lub podzielić działanie na dwa odrębne. Koszt zadania powinien zostać niezmieniony. Uzasadnić wybór miejsc i liczbę zainstalowanych piezometrów. Wskazać monitorowane obszary i przedstawić plan poboru próbek oraz opis; podać jakie parametry będą mierzone. Uzasadnić zakres proponowanego monitoringu w kontekście konkretnych działań projektu. Points to make during the Presentation: All proposals passing the Award Phase will be ranked depending on their respective scores. A “Long list” of proposals will be drawn up based on the results of the Award phase. As well as the relative scores, this Long List must take into account that: 50% of LIFE+ budget must be allocated to nature and biodiversity projects; Projects must be distributed among the EU member states; and Ideally at least 15% of the budget should be allocated to transnational projects. The remaining projects are put on a Reserve list, and may be added to the Long List should a proposal fail to be brought into line with the LIFE+ requirements. The projects on the Long list enter the Revision phase, when applicants are asked to revise their proposals to bring them into line with LIFE+ requirements. The aim of the revision phase is to ensure coherence among all proposals listed on the preliminary long and reserve lists, all open questions regarding feasibility, cost-effectiveness and eligibility of individual actions, compliance with the LIFE+ Regulation and Common Provisions, etc. On the basis of this, a “Short list” is submitted to the LIFE+ Committee for its opinion of projects to be co-financed. The European Parliament must then scrutinise the Short List to ensure that the Commission has not exceeded its implementing powers. Then grant agreements are sent to each successful applicant. Additional points: Background information: Lists: Evaluation Guide pp. 16 – 18. Revision Phase: Evaluation Guide p. 19. 29

30 Przykładowe pytania KE zadane w fazie zmian (2)
Wskazać grupę docelową dla przygotowywanego w ramach projektu Podręcznika. Wskazać pośrednie wskaźniki zaawansowania każdego z działań, którego okres realizacji przekracza 12 miesięcy. Proszę potwierdzić i uzasadnić, że czas przeznaczony na wybór firmy wykonującej roboty jest wystarczający, by zakontraktować najlepszą firmę z dostępnych na rynku. Proszę potwierdzić i uzasadnić, że podjęto stosowne środki w celu zmniejszenia ryzyka niedostarczenia na czas materiałów budowlanych. Czy na prowadzone w ramach projektu prace budowlane są wymagane pozwolenia i czy ich uzyskanie nie wpłynie na przewidziany harmonogram projektu. Czy zatrudniony w ramach umowy zlecenie personel nie jest stałym personelem beneficjentów projektu będącym podmiotami publicznymi? Points to make during the Presentation: All proposals passing the Award Phase will be ranked depending on their respective scores. A “Long list” of proposals will be drawn up based on the results of the Award phase. As well as the relative scores, this Long List must take into account that: 50% of LIFE+ budget must be allocated to nature and biodiversity projects; Projects must be distributed among the EU member states; and Ideally at least 15% of the budget should be allocated to transnational projects. The remaining projects are put on a Reserve list, and may be added to the Long List should a proposal fail to be brought into line with the LIFE+ requirements. The projects on the Long list enter the Revision phase, when applicants are asked to revise their proposals to bring them into line with LIFE+ requirements. The aim of the revision phase is to ensure coherence among all proposals listed on the preliminary long and reserve lists, all open questions regarding feasibility, cost-effectiveness and eligibility of individual actions, compliance with the LIFE+ Regulation and Common Provisions, etc. On the basis of this, a “Short list” is submitted to the LIFE+ Committee for its opinion of projects to be co-financed. The European Parliament must then scrutinise the Short List to ensure that the Commission has not exceeded its implementing powers. Then grant agreements are sent to each successful applicant. Additional points: Background information: Lists: Evaluation Guide pp. 16 – 18. Revision Phase: Evaluation Guide p. 19. 30

31 Przykładowe pytania KE zadane w fazie zmian (3)
Beneficjent wskazuje „konsultantów zewnętrznych” do działania 4. Proszę podać zakres ich pracy oraz wytłumaczyć dlaczego nie zostali oni wskazani jako „external assistance”? Czy przy ich wyborze będą stosowane zasady zamówień publicznych? Podać w jaki sposób określono koszty odczynników chemicznych? Czy przy opracowaniu harmonogramu projektu uwzględniono wszystkie możliwe przeszkody, włączając niekorzystne warunki pogodowe, czas potrzebny na uzyskanie niezbędnych pozwoleń itp.? Nie jest jasne, do jakiego stopnia zaproponowane działania będą się utrzymywały w przyszłości, proszę opisać działania konserwacyjne, jakie muszą być wykonywane w przyszłości i podać źródła ich finansowania. Wskazać odbiorców 100 kopii raportów i analiz sporządzonych w wyniku działania. Points to make during the Presentation: All proposals passing the Award Phase will be ranked depending on their respective scores. A “Long list” of proposals will be drawn up based on the results of the Award phase. As well as the relative scores, this Long List must take into account that: 50% of LIFE+ budget must be allocated to nature and biodiversity projects; Projects must be distributed among the EU member states; and Ideally at least 15% of the budget should be allocated to transnational projects. The remaining projects are put on a Reserve list, and may be added to the Long List should a proposal fail to be brought into line with the LIFE+ requirements. The projects on the Long list enter the Revision phase, when applicants are asked to revise their proposals to bring them into line with LIFE+ requirements. The aim of the revision phase is to ensure coherence among all proposals listed on the preliminary long and reserve lists, all open questions regarding feasibility, cost-effectiveness and eligibility of individual actions, compliance with the LIFE+ Regulation and Common Provisions, etc. On the basis of this, a “Short list” is submitted to the LIFE+ Committee for its opinion of projects to be co-financed. The European Parliament must then scrutinise the Short List to ensure that the Commission has not exceeded its implementing powers. Then grant agreements are sent to each successful applicant. Additional points: Background information: Lists: Evaluation Guide pp. 16 – 18. Revision Phase: Evaluation Guide p. 19. 31

32 Krajowy Punkt Kontaktowy
Departament Ochrony Przyrody Wydział ds. Projektów UE NFOŚiGW Tel. (22) (I komp) 435 (II komp.) 396 (III komp.) 543 fax. (22) Points to make during the Presentation: All proposals passing the Award Phase will be ranked depending on their respective scores. A “Long list” of proposals will be drawn up based on the results of the Award phase. As well as the relative scores, this Long List must take into account that: 50% of LIFE+ budget must be allocated to nature and biodiversity projects; Projects must be distributed among the EU member states; and Ideally at least 15% of the budget should be allocated to transnational projects. The remaining projects are put on a Reserve list, and may be added to the Long List should a proposal fail to be brought into line with the LIFE+ requirements. The projects on the Long list enter the Revision phase, when applicants are asked to revise their proposals to bring them into line with LIFE+ requirements. The aim of the revision phase is to ensure coherence among all proposals listed on the preliminary long and reserve lists, all open questions regarding feasibility, cost-effectiveness and eligibility of individual actions, compliance with the LIFE+ Regulation and Common Provisions, etc. On the basis of this, a “Short list” is submitted to the LIFE+ Committee for its opinion of projects to be co-financed. The European Parliament must then scrutinise the Short List to ensure that the Commission has not exceeded its implementing powers. Then grant agreements are sent to each successful applicant. Additional points: Background information: Lists: Evaluation Guide pp. 16 – 18. Revision Phase: Evaluation Guide p. 19. 32