Frequently Asked Questions about the LIFE 2016 Call for Proposals for Integrated projects
General:
Please also see the general LIFE16 FAQ for issues that may be applicable to any LIFE projects
A. Questions raised by applicants of Climate IPs after the invitation to submit a full proposal
No. / Question / Answer1. / Is it necessary that the associated beneficiaries have a PIC number? / The PIC number is not required before submission of the proposal, but if the project is approved, information and supporting documents will be required regarding the legal entities of the beneficiaries not having a valid PIC.
2. / How many Concept Notes were submitted in the 1st stage? How many countries have been invited to the 2nd stage? / 8 concept notes have been submitted and 5 were invited to submit a full proposal.
3. / According to the Application Guide (page 20) “Beneficiaries are therefore strongly advised to build an appropriate safety margin (e.g. 6 months) into the timetable of their proposal.” Is it possible to let the last 6 months without any particular project action, just for delays? / Yes, you can do that.
4. / Where should the audit costs be, under “external assistance” (according to page 71 of the Guidelines for applicants) or under “other costs” (according to page 80 of the Guidelines for applicants)? / Audit costs should be stated under other costs heading.
5. / According to the Guide for Evaluation of LIFE IPs 2016, during the Revision process of the “preliminary long list” of LIFE proposals, applicants shall attend a meeting in Brussels to review the proposal with the Contracting Authority and the “travel and subsistence costs for 10 participants will be considered eligible as part of the project budget”. However, the article II.19.1a of the Grant Agreement for IP projects states that:
"Eligible costs" of the project are costs actually incurred by the beneficiary which meet the following criteria: (a) they are incurred in the period set out in Article I.2.2, with the exception of costs relating to the request for payment of the balance and the corresponding supporting documents referred to in Article II.23.2; A cost shall be considered as incurred in the period set out in Article I.2.2 when:
- the legal obligation to pay was contracted after the starting date and before the end date of the project, or after the signature of the grant agreement by the Agency/Commission in case this signature takes place before the project starting date; Thus, is it possible to include the costs of the abovementioned meeting in Brussels even if they are incurred before the starting date of the project or the signature of the grant agreement? / As an exception to the general rules, you can charge the costs of the revision meeting in Brussels to the project, clearly indicating the meeting in question.
6. / If one beneficiary has funds from its own entity to implement actions related to the Integrated Life, should we sign the A8 form related to these funds as complimentary mobilized funding? / From your question it is not clear what sort of funds the beneficiary has. Please make sure to distinguish between the co-financing and the complementary funding. Please refer to the Application guide which has an extensive section on what could be considered complementary funding (pages 9-11) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/life2016/index.htm#integrated
7. / During the discussions we had after receipt of your letter, it came up that there is a potential to include further actions to better support the Prefectures on the implementation of the National Adaptation Strategy, which comes with an extra cost. Provided that the value for money principle and the character of our concept note is maintained in our final proposal, could you please clarify whether there is a financial limit to the modifications we can do to the budget between the initial concept note and the final proposal which will be submitted in April? / There's no limit on variation, as long as you do not alter the substance of the proposal.
8. / Confirming the funding for project applications under Horizon 2020. With reference to the guidance section 3.3. (Stage 2: The full proposal- Technical application forms), guidance on ” Form A8 – Letter of intent from managing/competent authority/entity” text: “Important note: A coordinating / associated beneficiary / co-financer of the LIFE IP may also sign this form if it is responsible for the management of the given complementary fund. When the complementary actions are funded through projects already financed by the EU (e.g. H2020) or by any other non EU funding, the A8 form should be signed by the beneficiary of that project. When instead the complementary actions will be financed by EU programs managed by the national or regional authorities like Structural and Rural Development Funds the A8 form should be signed by the body responsible for the management of that fund.” We as the Coordinating Beneficiary of the LIFE-IP on Mitigation will also be submitting a project proposal to Horizon 2020 to mobilise funding for a Complementary Action. We will submit the proposal to H2020 prior to the deadline of the LIFE-IP Climate application. At that time we will not have information on the status of the Horizon 2020 application. May we, as the Coordinating Beneficiary, sign form A8, indicating that the funding is not confirmed? / No, if the complementary action is not funded yet, the A8 form should be signed by the body responsible for the management of that fund.
9. / Interpretation of cost categories. With reference to VIII.3 DURABLE GOODS – EQUIPMENT (new or second hand), PROTOTYPE & INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS of Annex X to the Model LIFE Grant Agreement Financial and Administrative Guidelines, we would like to ask for clarification with respect to the interpretation of infrastructure costs. For example would a charging station for an electric vehicle be considered infrastructure or equipment? / It would have to be encoded the same way as you would do for your internal books according to the national accounting rules. Also as we don’t know what sort of charging station for an electric vehicle that would be it is difficult to give a clear answer.
10. / How can we provide adequate/further assurance that regional funds for complementary actions will be made available? Should we provide e.g. letters of intent or other written proof? / Please use the A8 forms to provide information on the complementary funds. Any additional information that you might provide, e.g. letters of intent, brief text how the complementary actions would benefit the IP, etc. would strengthen the proposal. In the proposal itself, the complementary actions could be described in the appropriate places and, if there is an A8 complementing the description, this will help make the proposal more coherent and clear.
11. / We put a lot of effort in creating synergy mechanisms between different policies (energy housing, environment,….) contributing to the regional renovation strategies in the residential sector. How could we specify these synergy mechanisms? References to legislation, mentioning of outcome and further use of best practices? / Indeed, references to legislation, mentioning of outcomes and further use of best practices would be appropriate. Moreover, linking it to the complementary actions and funding would be desired. Because at the end of the day, the integration with other policies should help implement the climate plan or strategy and it will not be possible only with the Integrated Project alone.
12. / As part of a C-action one of the IP’s associated beneficiaries plans to tender external consultancy activities. Is it possible to organize a tender by an non-profit partner (not a formal partner in the IP) directly or should this kind of tender (as we suppose) always be initiated by the IP’s associated beneficiaries? / If the external consultancy is paid by the associated beneficiary the tender should be initiated by the associated beneficiary. We won’t be able to pay a not formal partner in the IP.
13. / Can we add an annex to our full proposal? E.g. a schematic overview of all IP-actions (see enclosed example), or the calculation methodology for GHG reduction? / You are welcome to add annexes to the full proposal. However, the example you attached, seems to be of direct relevance to the proposal and having it integrated in the proposal would make the proposal clearer.
14. / Since our project proposal was also submitted in the LIFE IP call 2015, we wonder if the expert team of reviewers is the same for the 2016 call? If so, we can make references to issues that have changed in our new proposal as compared to the first full proposal. / The proposal will be evaluated on its own merits, as a standalone piece of information. We don’t know yet if the experts that evaluated the proposal last year will be evaluating the proposal this year. It is up to you to include the information that will be relevant to understand the proposal.
15. / The evaluation report of our proposal 2015 mentions the proposal would have benefitted from more innovative solutions within the scope of its high ambitions. Concerning these innovative solutions we would like to know if the emphasis should be on innovation in the European context or within our country (use of good practices/methodologies that proved to work well in other member states?). / Emphasis should be put on the innovation that best responds to the needs of the country and it could be a good practice or methodology that worked in other member states but it doesn't have to be limited to Europe.
16. / Schedule of Payments to the Associated Beneficiaries:
Is the Coordinating Beneficiary in a position to determine the schedule of the payments described in "Article II.24- Payments and Payment Arrangements? For example, in case an Action is scheduled to be completed by an Associated Beneficiary significantly earlier than the entire project, is there a mechanism for ensuring that the final payment is made upon completion of the Action (e.g. in 2020 for a 2 year Action) or does the Associated Beneficiary need to wait for its final payment until the end of the entire LIFE Integrated Project is completed (e.g. in 2024)? / We suggest to take a look at the model grant agreement, according to which it is foreseen that pre-financing payments will be paid throughout the project implementation according to a defined calendar and defined amounts in percentages. The prefinancings could cover the expenses of actions that will be finished before the end of the project, but it is up to you to design the project activities and financing appropriately.
17. / Eligibility for Complementary Actions:
There is a national project on a relevant topic which was completed at the end of 2016. We would like to mobilise complementary funds for a 2nd phase of this project, which we consider a highly relevant Complementary Action. We would like to understand whether a 2nd phase of a completed project is eligible as a Complementary Action, provided that a new funding decision is provided by the authority managing the fund? / Please refer to the Application Guide which says:
"…for the purposes of Integrated Projects, complementary funding can only be considered to be "mobilised" if such funding:
- has not been granted to or spent by one of the beneficiaries of the IP before the launch of this 2016 call for applications. In exceptional cases and having explicit justifications from the applicants, funds granted before that date can also be accepted but under no circumstances will funds granted or spent before the launch of the LIFE2014 call (1 June 2014) be accepted; and
- has been committed/confirmed by the relevant funding source by the time of the submission of the full proposal and evidenced by a formal letter of intent (i.e A8 form) signed by the competent body representing the funding source clearly confirming the availability or the actual commitment of the complementary funding; or
- in the absence of an actual commitment/confirmation by the time of the full proposal, a formal letter of intent has been signed by the competent body representing the funding source referred to by the applicant, confirming the potential eligibility of the actions proposed by the applicant for funding from this source and indicating the timing and likelihood of a future funding commitment If, for objective reasons, such as the timing of application periods of other funds, these general requirements for a "mobilisation of additional funding sources" are not met, the applicants must provide - at the latest with their full proposal - an appropriate justification for the lack of a formal commitment or letter of intent regarding the funds concerned."
B. Questions raised by applicants of Nature and Environment IPs after the invitation to submit a full proposal
No. / Question / Answer1. / The XY Fund, a Public Legal Entity supervised by the Ministry of Environment, is the major co-financier of our IP proposal (already confirmed). The main objective of XY Fund is to stimulate sustainable development through environmental conservation and by providing administrative, economic, technical and financial support for programmes. The Fund has already agreed to provide X million € that will cover a significant percentage of the project’s co-financing.
However, it would be also valuable for the project if the XY Fund has also an active role in the project, and thus become a partner (Associated Beneficiary) with a budget of approximately 500,000 € (out of which 300,000 € will be requested as EU contribution).
Is it possible (according to the LIFE regulations) that XY Fund could have a dual role in this LIFE IP project and act both as a Co-Financer and an Associated Beneficiary? / At this stage it is up to you to compose your consortium of beneficiaries. You may add or remove them compared to those foreseen in the concept note. At the same time you have to decide if an entity is a beneficiary or a co-financer as they cannot be both at the same time. The solution lies in the fact that beneficiaries do not have to benefit or contribute in the same percentage. The LIFE contribution covers max 60% of the project costs but to what degree the beneficiaries benefit from this contribution it is upto the partnership agreements they agree to. So in your case it would look like (eg. in form FC): that the XY Fund has a cost of 500,000 EUR, contributes X million EUR to the project and benefits from 300,000 EU contribution.