FORMACIÓN PARA LA CAPTACIÓN DE FONDOS EUROPEOS

Bloque III. ELABORACIÓN DE UNA PROPUESTA DE PROYECTO

Sesión 3.5 Criterios y procesos de evaluación

Alicante, 10 de mayo de 2016

Proposalsubmission

Eligibility check

Commission: final ranking list and decision

If abovethreshold

Priority list

1. Individual evaluation report

2. Consensus Group

3. Panel Review

Reserve listRejection Funding

Ethical review(if necessary)

EIR (Ethical Issues Report)

1.- Evaluación individual por parte de 3 o 4 expertos

2.- Reunión de Consenso en la Comisión

3.- Panel de evaluación

Los expertos son seleccionados de la base de datos de expertos o de contactos previos. Reciben un briefing del procedimiento y de los tópicos, de cómo evaluar la propuesta y del uso de laherramienta a tal efecto. Los expertos evalúan las propuestas remotamente y valoran cada apartado. Completan un IER.

Los evaluadores discuten sus IERs bajo la moderación de un agente de la Comisión. Elaboración de los informes: Evaluation Summary Reports (ESR).

Todos los expertos de un mismo panel priorizan los proyectos que hayan pasado el mínimo Envío de ESR. Los ESR sirven para la posterior negociación de las propuestas aceptadas para lafinanciación. El tiempo entre la fecha de cierre de las convocatorias y la comunicación de resultados por parte de laComisión es de 3 a 5 meses.

•Admissibility is checked by the Commission

− Readable, accessible and printable

− Completeness of proposal = presence of all requested forms

− Inclusion of a plan for exploitation and dissemination of results (unless otherwise specified in the WP)

•Eligibility checked by the Commission

− Minimum number of partners as set out in the call conditions

− Other criteria may apply on a call-by-call basis as set out in the call conditions

•“Out of scope” checked by the evaluation

− The Commission will deem a proposal 'ineligible' in clear-cut cases only

Page limits: Clearly set out in electronic system; excess page(s) marked

with a watermark

Fuente: CE, confidencial

Fuente: CE, confidencial

Los criterios de evaluación y la puntuación de las propuestas cambian en cada programa Cada convocatoria especifica los criterios de evaluación y puntuación Los criterios de evaluación se basan en gran medida en los conceptos clave de:

Impacto Eficiencia Coherencia Pertinencia Valor añadido europeo

Fuente: CE

To what extent have the objectives been achieved?

What have been the (quantitative and qualitative) effects of the intervention?

To what extent do the observed effects correspond to the objectives?

To what extent can these changes/effects be credited to the intervention?

What factors influenced the achievements observed?

To what extent did different factors influence the achievements observed?

Typical examples of effectiveness questions

To what extent are the costs involved justified, given the changes/effects which have been achieved?

To what extent are the costs proportionate to the benefits achieved? What factors are influencing any particular discrepancies?

What factors influenced the efficiency with which the achievements observed were attained?

How affordable were the costs borne by different stakeholder groups, given the benefits they received?

To what extent has the intervention been cost effective?

IF there are significant differences in costs (or benefits) between Member States, what is causing them?

Typical examples of efficiency questions

To what extent is the intervention still relevant?

To what extent have the (original) objectives proven to have been appropriate for the intervention in question?

How well do the (original) objectives (still) correspond to the needs within the EU?

How well adapted is the intervention to subsequent technological or scientific advances? (N.B. Could include issues related to the specify policy here e.g. social, environmental)

How relevant is the EU intervention to EU citizens?

Typical examples of relevance questions

To what extent is this intervention coherent with other interventions which have similar objectives?

To what extent is the intervention coherent internally?

To what extent is the intervention coherent with wider EU policy?

To what extent is the intervention coherent with international obligations?

Typical examples of coherence questions

What is the additional value resulting from the EU intervention(s), compared to what could be achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels?

To what extent do the issues addressed by the intervention continue to require action at EU level?

What would be the most likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing the existing EU intervention?

Typical examples of EU added value questions

Los criterios de evaluación de cada programa reflejan los conceptos de impacto, eficiencia, pertinencia,coherencia y valor añadido europeo

Programa Criterios Umbral Máx Peso

H20

20

Excelencia 3 5Impacto 3 5Calidad de la implementación 3 5Total 10 15

Life

Technical coherence and quality 10 20Financial coherence and quality 10 20EU added value (programme objectives) 10 20Contribution to the project topics - 10EU added value (synergies) 7 15EU added value (replicability) 5 10EU added value (R&D uptake) - 5Total 55 100

UIA

Innovativeness 40%Partnership 15%Measurability of Results 15%Transferability 10%Work Plan 20%

Programa Criterios Umbral Máx

Hea

lth

Policy relevance 7 10Technical quality 6 10Management quality 6 10Budget adequacy 6 10Total 25 40

Crea

tive

Euro

pe Relevance and European added value - 30Quality of the content and activities - 30Dissemination, impact and sustainability - 30Organisation of the project team - 10Total - 70

Righ

ts, E

qual

ity,..

(D

aphn

e)

Relevance to the priorities of the call 25Quality of the proposed action 25European added value of the project 10Expected results, dissemination, sustainability and long-term impact 25Cost-effectiveness 15Total - 100

Inte

rreg

Relevance of proposal 5Quality of results 5Quality of partnership 5Coherence of the proposal and quality of approach 5Communication and management 5Budget and finance 5Total - 30

EJEMPLOS(1) Daphne 2014

(2) Europe for citizens 2014

Inelegible

Daphne call – Transnational projects on violence against women, young people and children linked to harmful practices – JUST/2014/RDAP/AG/BULL

Puntuación 77,5/100Punto de corte 789 propuestas financiadas

Daphne call – Transnational projects on violence against women, young people and children linked to harmful practices – JUST/2014/RDAP/AG/HARM

Puntuación 54,5/100Punto de corte 84,533 propuestas financiadas

Europe for Citizens call 2014 – Strand 1. European remembrance

EJERCICIOEvalúa una propuesta

La mayoría de programas europeos de financiación utilizan evaluadores externos y abren convocatorias para laselección de expertos; entre otros:

• H2020, Health, COSME, JPI and Consumer Programmes (simpre abierta):http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/experts/index.html

• Erasmus+ (convocatorias periódicas): http://www.sepie.es/iniciativas/eycext.html

• AAL Programme (al inicio del nuevo ciclo de programación, 2014): http://www.aal-europe.eu/get-involved/register-as-expert/

www.polibienestar.orgbarbara.branchini@uv.es