1. ENV-NCP-TOGETHER Specific Programme Cooperation in FP7 - Evaluation criteria for a proposal - Dr. Shilpi SAXENA Partner im EU-Project "Environment NCP Together" National Contact Point Environment, Germany

2. Proposal evaluation - timeline Project Idea Project Preparation Write a Proposal Sub- mission Evaluation How to negotiate Project Management t=0 t=9 montht=36 - 48 month

3. XXXX 1.S&T Quality 2.Implementation 3.Impact Eligibility criteriaEvaluation criteria - ref participation - - ref submitted proposal - 1.Who can participate? (universities, research institutions, SME, etc.) 2.Which countries? 1 (EU MS*, EU AC**, ICPC***) 2a. Minimum eligibility? min. 3 independent legal entities 3 MS or AC 2b.Where do ICPCs come in? if specifically stated in call text 1 ICPC List: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/who_en.html; or: Annex 1 of Work programmehttp://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/who_en.html * MS: Member States; ** AC: Associated Countries; *** ICPC: International Cooperation Partner Countries

4. Eligibility criteria - ICPC countries 1 ICPC List: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/who_en.htmlhttp://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/who_en.html 27 EU Member States (MS) More than 140 International Cooperation Partner Countries (ICPC = Africa, Asia, Latin America) Other ICPCs (''High Income Countries'' = USA, Canada, …) Turkey, Croatia, Serbia, FYR of Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Faroe Islands, Republic of Moldova EU Associated Countries (AC) ICPC Money comes from MS / AC to EU  minimum eligibility

5. PART A - Administrative part - Summary - Participants - Financial breakdown - Workplan tables PART B – Main part - Scientific & Technological Quality Section B.1 - Management Structure Section B.2.1 -Consortium Section B.2.3 - Dissemination Section B.3.2 - Ethical Issues Section B.4 Proposal structure - necessities You would mainly contribute where necessary as a partner (see highlighted areas)

6. ProjectEvaluation criteria 1.S&T Quality 2.Implementation 3.Impact PART B – Main part - Scientific & Technological Quality Section B.1 - Management Structure Section B.2.1 -Consortium Section B.2.3 - Dissemination Section B.3.2 - Ethical Issues Section B.4

7. Where to start – Example Environment Work Programme 2013 & its call fiche FP7-ENV-2013-two-stage (81.3 % of overall budget – 248 m €) - Deadline 16/10/2012 (first stage), ~28/02/2013 (second stage) - 22 topics (all CP) Guide for applicants (CP, CP-two-stages and CSA-CA) - Call page of Participants Portal: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/appmanager/participants/portal - Preparing & submitting your proposal: GfA, Electronic Submission Service (SEP) Source: EU Commission

8. Evaluation process & planning Once you have submitted a proposal, what’s next? - Evaluation planning calls: 1-stage, 2-stage (stage 1) (deadline 16/10/2012) Submission Individual assessment Consensus discussions Review Panel deadline Eligibility Ranked list Finalisation Info to applicants Rejection list Rejection list Info to applicants 16/10/2012 3-6 independent experts First week ofNovember Mid December Before Xmas break Third week of November First week ofDecember Source: EU Commission

9. Focus on evaluation criteria Read carefully instructions: Guide for Applicants Evaluation criteria: Annex II to the WP2013 Consider: page limits indication (…less is more) Make sure evaluators can find easily response to evaluation sub-criteria Source: EU Commission; Evaluation criteria and procedures to be applied: Collaborative Project (CP), Annex 4 / 10 In the end effect: 10 out of 15 points in ENV is not enough for mainlisting!!

10. Summary of mandatory page limits Guide for Applicants: CP FP7-ENV-2012-two-stage Excl. Gantt chart 1.3.ii), tables 1.3a-e; Pert diagramm under 1.3

11. Evaluation criteria and scores Source: EU Commission Evaluation not done by EU or NCPs but by individuals!

12. Evaluation Summary Report – how it could look like 1.Scientific / technological quality ''….demonstrates an excellent level of integration and multidisciplinarity……The S/T approach is very sound and established in a stepwise manner…..The tasks, the deliverables and the work plan are very well described and logically spread over the 48 months duration…'' (5,0) 2.Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management ''The consortium is balanced with regards to expertise, although the partners performing … appear to be more experienced than the … partners. There is some concern that the budget may be somewhat high and disproportionately allocated.'' (3,5) 3.Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results ''The decision support system will assist in the transfer of project results to politicians, …managers and other stakeholders….The web site could be a useful outlet, but details on its specifications and operation are not provided.'' (2,0)

13. Where you need to contribute as an ICPC – in short – The coordinator will give send you via the Electronic Submission Service (SEP) the respective forms where you need to contribute Areas for your contribution: - estimate of your budget - your info as an individual partner - data on your (sub-)project - your resources (which you will bring into project)

14. 1. S / T quality – a bit more detailed Limited time & space to convince Make it clear, and be objective - assess risks of failure Provide references, incl. your currently related activities Source: EU Commission

15. 1. S / T quality – a bit more detailed (contd.) Instructions for drafting part B: Collaborative Project (CP), Annex 4 1.1 Concept and objectives - What is the overall goal? - Which specific results are to be achieved? 1.2 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art - What is the status of the research? - How does the project go beyond that? 1.3 S/T methodology and associated work plan - Explain the methods of the sub-projects and / or work packages - Define indicators in order to verify the goal achievements You would mainly contribute where necessary as a partner

16. 2. Implementation – a bit more detailed Source: EU Commission Role & contributions: every single partner Proposal: how partners' activities will be integrated  robust consortium Justify resources allocated Do not exceed maximum EU contribution defined in WP2013 -Reimbursement rates vs. types of activities: from 50% to 100%  BE REALISTIC

17. 2. Implementation – a bit more detailed (contd.) 2.1 Management structure and procedures  relevant for coordinator 2.2 Individual Participants - Are the project partners suited for the tasks? (experience, publications, infrastructure) 2.3 Consortium as a whole  aspects which coordinator needs to explain 2.4 Resources to be committed - Which resources will the partners contribute? (equipment, personnel, infrastructure) Instructions for drafting part B: Collaborative Project (CP), Annex 4

18. 3. Impact – a bit more detailed Source: EU Commission Explain how project & potential outcome(s) will contribute to impacts -accounts for 1/3 of overall score Dissemination, exploitation & potential use of projects results a 'must‘ - IPR (http://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/)http://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/ -Open access policy (OpenAIRE, www.openaire.eu)www.openaire.eu If you are a grant recipient of FP7 (e.g. Environment) – you are required to deposit your publications!

19. 3. Impact – Work Programme 2012* Environment - Challenge 6.1 Coping with climate change ENV.2012. 6.1-1 Funding scheme: EU contribution One or more proposals can be selected Expected Impact: Contribution to WMO Global framework for Climate Services…. New business opportunities for SMEs Prior to the publication of the official WP, an Orientation paper is released, does not include the call-fiche and is not legally binding

20. 3. Impact – a bit more detailed (contd.) 3.1 Expected Impacts listed in the Work Progr.  aspects which coordinator needs to explain 3.2 Dissemination and Exploitation & Management of IP - Which useable results can be expected for which user / target groups? (SME, industry, consumers, research) Instructions for drafting part B: Collaborative Project (CP), Annex 4

21. Evaluation: specific feature… The innovation dimension of proposals -evaluated under criterion ''Impact'' -be reflected in description of objectives & scope -expected impact Some hints… Pay attention to: - formal criteria (font, page limitation, page margin) - proposal quality (your contribution) i.e. include relevant data, numbers Layout: use bullet points, diagrams, charts Write understandably (evaluators: generalists & specialists)