1 / 21

ENV-NCP-TOGETHER

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. Proposal evaluation - timeline. t=9 month. t=36 - 48 month. t=0.

pooky
Download Presentation

ENV-NCP-TOGETHER

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  3. Eligibility criteria Evaluation criteria- ref participation - - ref submitted proposal - • Who canparticipate? • (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 ICPCscome in? • ifspecificallystated in calltext • S&T Quality • Implementation • Impact XXXX 1ICPC List: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/who_en.html; or: Annex 1 of Work programme * MS: Member States; ** AC: Associated Countries; *** ICPC: International Cooperation Partner Countries

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

  5. Proposal structure - necessities • PART B –Main part • - Scientific & Technological Quality • Section B.1 • - Management Structure • Section B.2.1 • ConsortiumSection B.2.3 • - Dissemination Section B.3.2 • - EthicalIssues Section B.4 PART A -Administrative part - Summary - Participants - Financial breakdown - Workplantables Youwouldmainlycontributewherenecessaryas a partner (seehighlightedareas)

  6. Project Evaluation criteria • PART B –Main part • - Scientific & Technological Quality • Section B.1 • - Management Structure • Section B.2.1 • ConsortiumSection B.2.3 • - Dissemination Section B.3.2 • - EthicalIssues Section B.4 • S&T Quality • Implementation • Impact

  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 Before Xmas break Info to Info to applicants applicants Consensus Review Ranked Individual Submission Eligibility Finalisation discussions Panel list assessment 3 - 6 independent experts deadline Rejection Rejection list list First week of First week of Third week of 16/10/2012 November December November December Mid • Once you have submitted a proposal, what’s next? • - Evaluation planning calls:1-stage, 2-stage (stage 1) (deadline 16/10/2012) 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 / 10 In the end effect: 10 out of 15 pointsin ENV isnot enoughformainlisting!! Source: EU Commission; Evaluation criteria and procedures to be applied: Collaborative Project (CP), Annex 4

  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 Evaluation not doneby EU or NCPs but by individuals! Source: EU Commission

  12. Evaluation Summary Report – how it could look like • Scientific / technologicalquality • ''….demonstrates an excellentlevelofintegrationandmultidisciplinarity……The S/T approachisverysoundandestablished in a stepwisemanner…..The tasks, thedeliverablesandthework plan arevery well describedandlogicallyspreadoverthe 48 monthsduration…'' (5,0) • Quality andefficiencyoftheimplementationandthemanagement • ''The consortiumisbalancedwithregardstoexpertise, althoughthepartnersperforming … appeartobemoreexperiencedthanthe … partners. Thereissomeconcernthatthebudgetmaybesomewhathighanddisproportionatelyallocated.'' (3,5) • Potentialimpactthroughthedevelopment, disseminationanduseofprojectresults • ''The decisionsupportsystem will assist in thetransferofprojectresultstopoliticians, …managersandotherstakeholders….The web sitecouldbe a usefuloutlet, but details on itsspecificationsandoperationare 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.) • 1.1 Conceptandobjectives • Whatistheoverallgoal? • Whichspecificresultsaretobeachieved? • 1.2 Progress beyondthestate-of-the-art • Whatisthestatusoftheresearch? • Howdoestheprojectgobeyondthat? • 1.3 S/T methodology and associated work plan • Explainthemethodsofthe sub-projectsand / • orworkpackages • Defineindicators in order toverifythegoal • achievements Youwouldmainlycontributewherenecessaryas a partner Instructions for drafting part B: Collaborative Project (CP), Annex 4

  16. 2. Implementation – a bit more detailed • 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 Source: EU Commission

  17. 2. Implementation – a bit more detailed (contd.) • 2.1 Management structureandprocedures •  relevant forcoordinator • 2.2 Individual Participants • Are theprojectpartnerssuitedforthetasks? • (experience, publications, infrastructure) • 2.3 Consortiumas a whole •  aspectswhichcoordinatorneedstoexplain • 2.4 Resources tobecommitted • - Whichresources will thepartnerscontribute? • (equipment, personnel, infrastructure) Instructions for drafting part B: Collaborative Project (CP), Annex 4

  18. 3. Impact – a bit more detailed • 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/) • Open access policy (OpenAIRE, www.openaire.eu) If you are a grant recipient of FP7 (e.g. Environment) – you are required to deposit your publications! Source: EU Commission

  19. 3. Impact – Work Programme 2012* Environment - • Challenge 6.1 Coping with climate change ENV.2012. 6.1-1 Fundingscheme: EU contribution Oneormoreproposalscanbeselected Expected Impact: Contribution to WMO Global frameworkforClimate Services….New businessopportunitiesfor SMEs • Prior tothepublicationoftheofficial WP, an Orientation paperisreleased, does not • includethecall-ficheandis not legallybinding

  20. 3. Impact – a bit more detailed (contd.) 3.1 Expected Impacts listed in the Work Progr.  aspectswhichcoordinatorneedstoexplain 3.2 Dissemination andExploitation & Management of IP - Whichuseableresultscanbeexpectedfor whichuser / targetgroups? (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 indescription 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)

More Related