Frequently Asked Questions about the LIFE 2015 Call for Proposals for Integrated projects

General:

Please note that a similar FAQ has been complied for the 2014 call for proposals and you may wish to consult that document in case you do not find information in this current version.

Please also see the general LIFE15 FAQ for issues that may be applicable to any LIFE projects

A. Questions raised before the invitation to submit a full proposal.

No. Question Answer

1 Who can provide assistance and information on Integrated Projects in my country?

The LIFE National Contact Points – as indicated in section 1.5 of the Application Guide for IPs – can provide guidance to applicants. In order to enhance the chances of successful applications and in particular to avoid unintentional competition among projects having similar targets, potential applicants are encouraged to make use of this assistance.

2 Do I understand well that under award criterion 3 (EU added value: Extent and quality of the contribution to the objectives of LIFE) only the direct impact of the LIFE IP will be considered during the assessment of the full project proposal?

No. As indicated in section 4 of the Evaluation Guide for IPs, the Extent and quality of the contribution to the objectives of LIFE will be measured by evaluating several factors. As described in first bullet point under each type of IP, these factors include the expected level of implementation of the targeted plan/strategy/roadmap as a direct consequence of the actions foreseen in the IP or through the complementary actions financed by other means mobilized in parallel to the IP. In addition, however, both the direct impact of the IP itself and the indirect impact resulting from actions catalysed by the IP project will be considered as described in the other bullet points. For instance, for applications related to PAFs, the evaluation will take into account the overall expected improvement of the conservation status of species and habitats, or for water IPs, the overall impact in terms of addressing significant unaddressed pressures or improvements towards WFD good status/potential.

3 What does the 'large territorial coverage' foreseen for IPs mean in practice in the case of waste management plans? Could the IP be implemented in some separate provinces or

It is up to the applicant to decide upon its choice of regions or provinces to be covered by the IP but they should correspond to the plan(s) targeted by the project.

should it be a geographically uniform/continuous area?

4 If the partners of the integrated project are preparing also LIFE traditional project applications as well as Horizon 2020 projects, parallel to the integrated one will this synergy contribute to a position evaluation of the integrated project? Is mentioning the complementarity between an integrated project and a traditional one necessary or not? Where and how should it be reported in the concept note?

Synergy with other EU funds is encouraged for integrated project proposals. While of course it is good to ensure complementarity between a LIFE IP and a running/future LIFE traditional project, it is primarily the complementarity with actions financed by other EU funds (including Horizon 2020 funds, regional development funds etc.) that would be positively evaluated. The information should be indicated in the concept note, under 'complementary actions' and 'funds requested' (forms CNe and CNg).

5 Can a Public Body (i.e. Regional Administrations) directly award a financial contribution to its Regional Agency for the Environment for the implementation of some project activities? If yes, what is the maximum amount?

Financial support of such nature is not eligible under LIFE as public bodies cannot work with the so called 'members'/'affiliates'. The only possibility would be that the Regional Agency participates as an associated beneficiary or as a subcontractor (in the last situation the procurement rules need to be respected).

6 Can the concept note refer to an environmental or climate plan or strategy or roadmap that has not yet been agreed with the EC or not yet adopted?

As indicated in the Application guides, if the formal adoption has not taken place at the time of the submission of the Concept Note, the applicant should explain the status of the adoption and demonstrate that this adoption will take place before deadline for submission of the full IP proposal.

7 What is the difference between plans/strategies and roadmaps, the latter only featuring under the Climate Action Integrated Projects application guidelines?

IPs implementing roadmaps is specific of the Climate Action sub-programmes. The Communication on the 2050 Roadmap for a competitive low-carbon economy encourages industrial sectors to develop low carbon roadmaps, analysing how particular industries can contribute to reaching EU’s 2050 climate action targets. These are the roadmaps to implement with IPs. Examples of sectoral roadmaps which exist under the 2050 Roadmap that could be implemented under LIFE Climate Action IPs, include:

- ceramic industry roadmap - chemical industry roadmap - steel industry roadmap.

Contrary to plans or strategies such as an adaptation strategy or a river basin management plan that are led and will be adopted by public authorities, industrial low-carbon Roadmaps will be adopted by industry itself. Moreover IPs implementing such roadmaps are encouraged pursuant to the Union act “Communication on the 2050 Roadmap” whereas for example an IP implementing a river basin management plan under the Environment sub-programme is a plan required by specific Union

environmental legislation.

8 What does “partial” implementation mean in the context of a Climate Action Integrated Project?

Integrated Projects shall aim towards the full implementation of the targeted action plan, strategy or roadmap. The term “partial” implementation referred to in the application guides relates to specific types of action plans/strategies/roadmaps that given their very broad scope, an IP could focus strategically on part of the action plan/strategy or roadmap. This would need to be duly explained and justified. For example in the implementation of an adaptation strategy, an IP could fund actions for a selection of vulnerable sectors addressed in an adaptation strategy. However, the IP needs to include strategic actions and mechanisms to catalyse a process that will lead to (in due time) the full implementation of the action plan, strategy or roadmap. Contrary to the Environment sub-programme, this wording on “partial” implementation was included given the divergence between types of IPs within the Climate Action sub-programme with some IPs types such as an adaptation strategy or industrial roadmap being much broader in scope than for example a GHG mitigation strategy for the dairy sector which is much more focused. However, the underlying philosophy behind IPs which is working towards the ultimate full implementation of the plan, is the overriding principle for both sub-programmes.

9 How is the second element used for the compilation of the "Preliminary long list" indicated on p. 20 of the Evaluation guide for Environment sub-programme IPs to be understood?

In step 2, proposals (in any area) are listed based on the sub-programme geographical distribution approach, i.e. proposals coming from Member States that have not yet received any financing for IPs under the current 2015 call in the sub-programme for Environment listing them in order of quality. Hence proposals from those countries that have not been listed based on the first step (55% allocation to Nature IPs) will be favoured and appear higher in the list. Note, however, that for the purposes of the third element both the 2014 and 2015 calls of the two sub-programs are considered.

10 What is the deadline for the submission of the Concept Notes for Integrated Projects.

The deadline for submission has been postponed from 1 October 2015 to 10 October 2015 only in order to remedy the contradiction between these differing dates mentioned in various parts of the application guide. Note, however, that 10 October is a Saturday, when Commission's mail services are closed, hence delivery in practice is only possible latest on 9 October. Please make sure therefore that applications sent by post, courier service or delivered by hand reach the Commission mail services on 9 October 2015.

B. Questions raised by applicants after the invitation to submit a full proposal

No. Question Answer

1. Complementary funding We would like to know if other LIFE projects that are taking place in parallel to the LIFE integrated propjet are considered as complementary funds or as funds being mobilised?

The answer is no. We expect that where applicable, the implementation of current and future LIFE projects is harmonised with the IP and therefore we do not take LIFE projects into consideration when assessing the "EU added value: Extent and quality of the mobilisation of other funds" aspects of the proposals.

2. Durable goods Is it possible the acquisition of vehicles?

Yes, the Acquisition of vehicles is possible as long as they are needed for the implementation for the project and meet the eligibility criteria in Art II.19 of the General Conditions of the model grant agreement.

3. Personnel Can the Project LIFE IP hire a Grant holder, and not count as outsourcing? The Grant holder is like a scholarship holder, but not a student.

It appears that we talk about a natural person who is not an actual employee of a beneficiary but is performing some actions under a kind of contract/assignment. The Art. II.19>2 a) of the General conditions foresees such cases: "The costs of natural persons working under a contract with the coordinating beneficiary or an associated beneficiary other than an employment contract may be assimilated to such costs of personnel, provided that the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) the natural person works under the instructions of the beneficiary and, unless otherwise agreed with the beneficiary, in the premises of the beneficiary; (ii) the result of the work belongs to the beneficiary; and (iii) the costs are not significantly different from the costs of personnel performing similar tasks under an employment contract with the beneficiary." If these conditions are met and if the person is performing project actions than it can be possible to hire a "Grant holder". At the same time, just paying a scholarship for somebody not at all related to the project actions is obviously not eligible.

4. Coordinating beneficiary Is it possible to decide that X agency will be the coordinating beneficiary even if they wouldn’t contribute substantially to the budget of the project (sic: but two ministries would cover the majority of the costs)? Our ministry and the agency we are all working for the same government and we

As long as you are all 'competent authorities', it is up to you to choose who is the main applicant (and subsequently the coordinating beneficiary). All beneficiaries must make a financial contribution to the project, but there are no rules about which beneficiary needs to contribute the most.

are managing the project together. We are all competent authorities responsible for implementing the PAF. If not possible, to what degree must the coordinating beneficiary contribute to the budget to be considered credible

5. Land purchase Is land purchase an eligible expense for a Nature IP, to restoration and conservation / enlargement of natural areas, inside Natura 2000? If so, we must indicate the exact cost of land prices? It is very difficult evaluate the price of private land, so we have to know, in LIFE Integrated Project, that this action is practicable? And how we can present the budget of land purchase? It could be an average value per ha? In condition 9, for land purchase, what type of evidences do you mean?

Yes land purchase is possible for Nature IPs as long all 11 criteria are fulfilled. In fact purchase outside N2000 is also possible based on criteria No. 2. You have to calculate the budget based on your best estimates. You do have to be careful to try and get a realistic budget to ensure you can really cover the costs of all actions foreseen in the project but at the same time not to have any significant surpluses that are unspent at the end as that would be a waste of LIFE funds. It is upto you to decide if land purchase is needed or not for the IP. It can be an eligible cost if justified in your proposal. You would have to calculate with an approximate average price per ha based on some market research and talks to potential land owners that may sell the land that you wish to buy. Please make sure you read the provisions regarding land purchase/lease on page 68 of the application guide (i.e. "please indicate the state of discussions with the landowners", etc.) – Evidence of this may be the availability of pre-agreements or letter of intent to sell that is included in the proposal. As regard the last item, we do not prescribe what that evidence should be but we have seen statements from authorities monitoring land sales (Ministry of Agriculture or similar) or from real estate agencies, farmer organisations - so whoever that has a credible information.

6. Interim payments About the audits of the project (guidelines page 70), it is said that an audit report must be submitted each time the project requests an interim payment. The first question is, how many interim payments can the project ask for? The second question is, how many audits can be done in the project? It is important to know since we need to put the cost for this in the budget and we need to procure it.

Number of interim payments depends on the number of Phases your project foresees. Calculating with 2 year phases a project of 6 years will have 2 and an 8 year projects 3 interim payments plus a final one. So this means 3 or 4 audits producing a "certificate on the financial statements" as per II.23.2.d of the General conditions. But it is up to you to decide on the length of the phases.

7. Translation of reports We also want to make sure that we are clear about the costs

The difference is that translation of reports is based on a requirement imposed by the agreement (II.19.2.e of the General Conditions) so it can appear as other costs. External

for translating reports. In the guidelines on page 79 it is said that the costs for translation should always be put under the category “Other costs, F7”, correct? So it cannot be under for example “F3, external assistance”?

assistance is for the delivery of genuine project actions. This aspect is important in view of the 35% threshold set for the external assistance – see explanations on form F3 on page 76 of the guide.

8. Monitoring of actions outside the IP Is it possible to include in the IP a monitoring action in order to monitor a project outside LIFE's project? The concrete action will be implemented by that project, so is it possible to add an action to the IP that monitors it?

The information you provide is not sufficient to determine whether this monitoring action could or could not be included in the IP. I suggest considering the technical coherence aspect of the project actions that are assessed in accordance with Criterion 1 in the Evaluation guide (p. 12-13).

9. Work on sites not yet designated as Natura 2000 site

There are some N2000 sites that we would like to include that have been submitted to the Government for final approval, but this has not yet happened. Can we include these N2000 areas even if they have not officially been approved, but we expect this to happen before our project would start if approved?

Yes, there is no strict requirement to work within existing N2000 sites, focus is rather on the network itself. Please read in this respect eg. 2.3.1 of the Application guide: "IPs should facilitate the implementation of the PAF… ; IPs should support the further development, implementation and management of the Natura 2000 network." Obviously, as regards ensuring the long term sustainability of the project results, designation of sites - where concrete actions take place - by the end of the project is strongly advised.

In this respect I also draw your attention to Criterion 1 on p. 12 and Criterion 3 on p. 14 of the Evaluation guide.

10. Work outside Natura2000 sites

It is clear from the guidelines for the IP projects that Nature IPs shall facilitate the implementation of PAF and thus contribute to the achievement of objectives of Natura 2000. It is also obvious that it has to be explained in the application how the project will help to improve the conservation status of designated habitat types and species in Natura 2000 sites identified in the proposal in a biogeographic perspective. However, the implementation of the national PAF also foresees actions outside Natura 2000 sites that clearly will help to improve the status of habitat types or species inside the sites. However, we do not find it to be clear from the guidelines if such actions that will be implemented outside of the Natura 2000 sites are eligible

As you rightly say, the IPs are designed to implement or work towards the full implementation of the PAFs. This means that you may implement concrete actions (defined in 2.4.2 of the Application guide) outside the existing N2000 to ensure the integrity of the network. In this respect in addition to the answer above I would draw your attention also to the provisions regarding Land purchase in Article II.19.2 (i)(aa) where this philosophy is highlighted well. Of course soft measures, like dissemination actions can in any case be implemented anywhere.

within an IP project or are to be regarded as complementary actions, so further clarification would be appreciated.

11. Partnership/co-funding/2% rule We are planning to include an NGO and a private forest company in the partnership (neither of which are public bodies).

A) Can their co-financing be added to the total co-financing of the national (40%) part (p 10)?

B) We assume that their co-financing should not be included in the amount for which the 2% rule applies for the costs for permanent staff – is this correct? (p 21 and 74).

A) Yes their contribution if they become associated beneficiaries can and in fact should count towards the 40%. In case they remain co-financers without having project tasks their co-financing can also be counted there. I suggest to read in this respect rather 1.7 on p 16 of the guide than p. 10. Furthermore Article II.1 of the General Conditions includes the legal and administrative provisions applicable to the beneficiaries. B) The 2% rule only applies to public beneficiaries. See also II.19.2(a)(iii) of the General Conditions in this respect.

12. Complementary actions vs. IP actions

Can we include a complementary action (for which an application has been sent to a national foundation) but where the fund we have applied for will only cover part of the resources required. If approved, are we able to use LIFE IP resources to cover the part that is not covered by the national foundation or does all of this element need to be calculated as complementary action?

Based on this information it is difficult to give a specific reply. But in general the answer is yes, as long as an action is eligible within the framework of the IP you can include the elements not covered by other complementary funds. Please do read p.10 of the Application guide

13. Beneficiaries

We have two large co-financers, two national agencies. They will provide 95% of the co-financing required to meet the 40% of total budget. Neither of these organisations have however, the personnel resources and experience to take on the project management. A third agency has the experience and competence in managing European projects, but not the financial resources. In the Concept Note the co-ordinating beneficiary one of the two agencies but we would like this to become an associated beneficiary and the third agency to take over as co-ordinating beneficiary. Is this an acceptable

This change/arrangement appears to be acceptable as long as the competent authority responsible for the targeted plan (PAF, RBMP , etc) is at least an associated beneficiary of the IP. Please do provide the justifications in the cover letter of your full proposal or in the proposal itself, as appropriate. Please observe 1.6 and 1.7 of the Application guide where the relevant provisions are explained.

change noting that it will co-finance ca 2% of the costs.) .

14. A8 forms, support letters

The A8 form seems to be focused entirely on obtaining signatures from the complementary actions funders and there is no form on which other stakeholders that we want to reach with the project, but are not funding the project or any complementary actions as such to sign or fill in. How should we thus deal with letters of support from stakeholders? Is this a requirement, or is it adequate with the A8 forms from the complementary fund organisations?

Your understanding of the from A8 is correct. Indeed there is no template for letters of support since key stakeholders are expected to be either beneficiaries or involved via the complementary funding. In case there are further stakeholders whose formal support to the project you find important you may provide their letters of support in the format of your choice. Please do keep the number of such letters to a strict minimum needed since they are not required forms.

15. Audit, After LIFE plan

In the guidelines p 70 and 71, an audit is mentioned as is the After Life plan. Our understanding was that both the After Life plan and the audit were deliverables rather than separate actions. Our question is therefore, should we do a separate action for the After-Life plan and for the audit (which is our understanding from these guidelines)?

These two items are highlighted only because of their importance. The audit is not strictly speaking a project action but the audit certificate issued by the auditor is a requirement for getting interim and final payments as referred to in II.23.2.d of the model Grant Agreement (General Conditions), hence its cost is eligible for funding within the scope of project management.

The After LIFE plan is indeed a deliverable being a distinct chapter of the Final report so it does not have to be a separate action.

16. Actions – general issue

A general question about the actions – is there a preference for fewer actions, with sub actions or more separate actions such as for project management, where we could have a single action describing the whole project management organisation, or divide it up per region as well? This is a question in relation to all of the project actions.

This aspect is addressed in 3.3.3 on p. 65 of the application guide, where the need to keep the number of actions to a reasonable minimum is highlighted and among others it says: "Please be reminded that the number of actions and sub-actions should be limited to those strictly necessary to clarify the logical flow of the project." Please do read further details there.

17. Complementary actions vs IP actions Is it possible to integrate complementary actions into the public relations work of the LIFE-IP (e.g. common brochures, workshops or presentation of complementary actions on the IP website)? Is it possible (or necessary) to use the LIFE logo for these complementary actions integrated in a common PR

Yes, it is possible as long as the provisions of Article II.7 of the General conditions in the Model Grant Agreement regarding visibility of EU funding are met. Accordingly eg. the LIFE logos must always appear when the item in question has been produced with co-funding from the LIFE program, but optionally it can also appear on other PR items if you wish to have a uniform template/layout eg.. for brochures or website. You will need to make it clear for administrative purposes which items you intend to

work? charge against LIFE funding.

18. Project proposal – length Is it allowed to exceed the indicated maximum extent of single chapters of the full proposal? In our case, the indicated 10.000 characters for the chapter ": EU added value of the project and its actions" seem to be not sufficient.

Yes, this is only an indicative volume, but please do remain within reasonable limits.

19. Timing of grant agreement/project start As far as we know, the start for projects last year was slightly delayed. Do you may provide information about the timetable of the evaluation phase 2016 and give an estimate if projects will be ready to start in October 2016?

We only have an indicative schedule as the definitive one will depend on the number of proposals actually submitted. For now – similarly to last year - we foresee revision questions to be sent out late June/early July with revision replies to be sent early September and meetings end of September. The grant agreements will be signed somewhere between October-December. The projects can start either on or after the date of signature of the Grant, but they may also start before the Grant signature (earliest on 1 October). If the project actions start before the Grant is signed, it is at the own risk of the future beneficiary as they need to assume that the Grant will actually be signed. Note, that during the revision meeting the starting date of the project indicated in the original application may be modified in view of the current circumstances.

20. Project proposal – detailed For actions planned for phases 2-4, a summary description is foreseen, especially to enable a higher flexibility for integrated projects on the basis of lessons learned from the first phase. How do the summaries have to appear in the financial forms? Is it enough to give estimates for a logical group of actions being specified with the financial plan for the next phase?

The financial forms should be in line with the technical forms –so reflect the actions or groups of actions described there. For Phase 1, full details will have to be provided, while for the following phases only aggregate information per action are foreseen for each budget category. These costs should still be as realistic as possible so that the value for money of the project could be demonstrated and assessed. At the same time, beyond the obligatory first phase, you may provide detailed information/description – both technical and financial – for as many phases as you can or wish or even for the entire project period.

21. Is it possible to increase the project budget and to which extent?

The budget indicated in the Concept Note can change in the full proposal, but the change needs to be justified and reasonable. In terms of the overall budget, please follow the indication in the Application guidelines and the letter sent to you inviting to submit a full proposal.

22. The Natural Capital Financing Facility (NCFF) is mentioned in the guidelines as a fund, which “could also provide complementary funding, even though NCFF and PF4EE – being supported by LIFE – will not be considered as a

The Natural Capital Financing Facility (NCFF) will not be considered as a mobilised fund. The same reading should be applied for the different parts of the NCFF, which the technical assistance is part of. This means that NCFF technical assistance cannot be considered as a mobilised fund.

mobilised fund” (guidelines page 10). Does this entail, that the technical assistance, which could be up to one million euros per project, is not considered as a mobilised fund?

23. In the guidelines (page 65), it says: “Actions to be implemented during Phase 1 must be described with all details, while actions beyond that period may be described in a concise but clear summary format”. Is it thus sufficient to describe a broader issue/problem and then wait until three months before the end of phase 1 (as mentioned in the example on page 22-23 in the guidelines) to define the specific activities in the following phase?

In principle, yes, but please note that the more information and in more detail you can provide, the better chance the evaluators will have to assess and understand your proposal. The Application Guidelines says: "The (amendment) mechanism will be repeated for each phase until the end of the last one when the final report and cost claim will be submitted. In this way a beneficiary will be able to adapt the IP to a constantly changing reality while providing sufficient information allowing the Contracting Authority to carry out its monitoring and verification functions."(p. 23) Please elaborate on the activities and actions beyond the first phase of the IP as much as possible.

24. If new complementary projects arise throughout the 6 years, is it possible to include these in the LIFE IP? Or are they then excluded from being complementary projects in the LIFE IP?

Please refer to the Application Guidelines p. 10 what can be considered complimentary "mobilised" funding. In particular it says: "…for the purposes of Integrated Projects, complementary funding can only be considered to be "mobilised" if such funding: … - 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." At the same time, if new projects arise during the course of the duration of the LIFE IP, their implementation can be done in a coordinated way in order to ensure their complementarity.

25. Is it possible for an organisation to have more than one role in the LIFE IP? E.g. can an organisation be both a partner (and for instance be part of the steering committee) while also participating in an Advisory Board and billing the consortia for advisory services?

An organisation can have different duties in the project but cross invoicing is not allowed. In the situation you describe this might be the case.

26. In the LIFE IP guidelines, it says that all actions should be Please follow the Application Guidelines recommendations. For later phases the

described individually (9 bullet points on page 66-67 need to be addressed). Is it allowed to group these actions into themes, or should the grouping only be based on which phase the actions fall under (it says in the guidelines, that actions in phase 2 and 3 can be grouped)?

grouping is allowed because at the time of the application some information might still be unavailable.

27. “Clear and unambiguous letters of intent are expected from each of the other complementary funding sources that are intended to be mobilised by the applicant“ (page 56 in the guidelines). Does this mean that the applicant does not need to further document applications for the complementary projects at the time of application? And what will be the consequence, if some of these projects do not get funding?

Please refer to the Application Guidelines p. 10 what can be considered complimentary "mobilised" funding. On the other hand please document applications for the complementary projects throughout the IP as this could be used as one of the success indicators of the IP. If some of these projects do not get funding, we will want to see the reasons and justification why the project did not get funding as planned.

28. All beneficiaries signed a Letter of Intent for the Concept Note. For the Full Application, we plan to have a signed Letter of Commitment from all beneficiaries. This is not a requirement for the LIFE IP, but as the political level is involved, we have decided on this procedure. Should these Letters of Commitment be attached to the Final Application?

No it is not necessary to submit letters of commitments signed by the beneficiaries, however the required application forms – in this case in particular Form A4 - must be signed and submitted.

29. Will the Final Application be compared to the Concept Note? We ask because we have read the following text in an Interreg project evaluation: “Assessment of the Full Application will also consider whether it corresponds to the proposal made in the Expression of Interest. If there are significant differences, particularly with regard to the results that will be delivered, this will be highlighted in the assessment and will be considered when the Steering Committee makes its funding decision”.

Yes, the Final Application will be compared to the Concept Note, because you have been invited to submit the full IP proposal based on the information provided in the Concept Note.

30. Is it allowed to deviate from the Concept Note if the changes are of a minor character? For example, changing the description of the activities e.g. changing the numbering from the activities used in the Concept Note and possibly adding and/or deleting certain sub-activities. It is important

Yes, it is possible to make changes if they are well justified, makes sense and contributes to the better implementation of the project. Overall Concept Note objectives should be maintained.

to note, that the overall activities will stay the same.

31. What is meant with the term ‘legacy strategy’ on page 8 in the Guidelines?

Legacy strategy means strategy that will be implemented after the end of the project.

32. There is no national climate mitigation action plan for the country but all the regions have one. The regions are usually small. We could enlarge the geographical scope of the project by the exchange of experience, study visits, project development facility to the surrounding regions. Would this be a good idea?

If you decide to involve the surrounding regions, please ensure their appropriate involvement in the project, i.e. consider including other region(s) as partners or work through some regional organization. Not least because the other region probably has some strategy or plan on its own. In principle, it would be acceptable to replicate the project results and best practices in other regions.

33. In the form “LIFE Project Specific Indicator Call 2015” number 9.1 What is the definition of climate change adapted area in for the indicator? What is required for an area to be considered climate change adapted?

The area that will be affected by the project activities.

34. How much complementary funding would be considered to be an ambitious amount of euro for the LIFE IP?

There is no set complementary funding threshold defined. The level of mobilization of complementary funds will be evaluated.

35. Is it possible to include complementary actions that start before signature of grant agreement?

Yes, but please note the rules for the funding to be considered "mobilised" (p.10 of Application Guidelines) "…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 2015 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 start of the year of the call (2015) be accepted, and…"

36. Catering costs We are planning a lot of meeting with partners and stakeholders, some of them one day meetings. It says on p.79 in guideline that “Catering costs for normal meeting activities should be covered by the 7% overhead charges”. What is the definition of normal meeting?

Normal meetings are that of the project beneficiaries, steering group etc so anything that is related to the project management itself – these should be covered by the overheads. If you meet third parties like stakeholders that is part of dissemination or similar actions where related cost could be covered from budget lines other than overheads.

37. Personnel costs One of our partners do not need to budget for staff costs but probably for all the other common budget lines. Is this okey or do a partner need to include a minimum figure for staff costs?

It is upto each beneficiary what kind of cost they wish to charge to a LIFE project. So having zero personnel costs for one or more beneficiaries is acceptable.

38. Can a traditional LIFE-project (already financed by the EC or submitted/in the process of evaluation) be considered as a complementary action? We know that it doesn’t count as a mobilised fund.

Yes, LIFE projects can be complementary to each other but as you say it will not be considered for the purposes of the evaluation as mobilised fund.

39. VAT Reimbursement: We know that Vat paid is and eligible cost. “If your organisation is unable to recover VAT paid (for public entities it can only concern VAT related to activities that do not match the concept of sovereign powers) you can opt to include the reimbursement of VAT in your costs submitted under this proposal, in that case then please tick the box 'YES', otherwise tick the box 'NO'.” - A public entity would like to know if they need to give an official statement that they cannot deduct VAT, or is it sufficient to tick the YES-box? - Can their cost estimate be including VAT, or only for those actions that fall outside their role/powers as a governmental organisation?

For the purposes of the application it is sufficient to tick YES or NO. If the grant is signed a formal certificate will be required from the tax authority proving the VAT cannot be recovered. The cost estimate should take into account the actual costs expected to be charged to the project – so taking into account if VAT can be recovered or not.

40. The grant agreement states that beneficiaries cannot act, in the context of the project, as sub-contractor or supplier to any other beneficiary; If two organisations, i.e. a ministry and an executive governmental organisation, have a natural relation as policy maker and executive body of policy plans, programmes and projects, is it a problem that they both participate in a IP, with their own budgets and actions?

No, that is not a problem if beneficiaries are involved in other – complementary – actions. The provisions refer here to the prohibition of being a subcontractor or supplier to the LIFE IP itself (so eg. one beneficiary should not provide services to another one and issue an invoice and ask for a fee for these services).