The selection group for EIP-AGRI Operational Groups evaluates applications against the following selection criteria (the criterion weighting factor is in brackets):
1. To what extent does the project contribute to sustainable development and the objectives of the CAP plan and/or the regional rural development plan? (20%)
4 points: The project will significantly contribute to the implementation of the plan objectives and sustainable development.
3 points: The project will contribute well to the implementation of the plan objectives and sustainable development.
2 points: The project will moderately contribute to the implementation of the plan objectives and sustainable development.
1 point: The project will contribute to a little extent to the implementation of the plan objectives and sustainable development.
0 points: The project meets the eligibility criteria, but does not contribute sufficiently to the implementation of the plan or sustainable development.
2. To what extent does the composition of the EIP-AGRI Operational Group reflect the commitment of the project? (20%)
4 points: The commitment of all the Operational Group members to the objectives and results of the project is very high. The composition of the Operational Group is excellent in terms of achieving the project objectives.
3 points: The commitment of the Operational Group members to the objectives and results of the project is good. The composition of the Operational Group is balanced in terms of achieving the project objectives.
2 points: The Operational Group members’ commitment to the project objectives and results is moderate. The Operational Group is missing a partner essential for the achievement of the objectives.
1 point: The Operational Group members’ commitment to the project objectives and results is weak. The Operational Group is missing one or more essential partners. Farmers and forest owners do not play an active role in the project.
0 points: The project has no EIP-AGRI Operational Group. The partners do not include farmers and forest owners.
3. How likely is it that the project will produce an innovation or a new method or operating model that will serve a broad practical need in primary production? (30%)
4 points: Extremely likely: The project involves excellent expertise in terms of implementing an innovation. The idea originates from primary production. If implemented, the innovation has very broad usability potential.
3 points: Very likely: The project involves good expertise in terms of implementing an innovation. The idea originates from primary production. If implemented, the innovation has broad usability potential.
2 points: Somewhat likely: The project involves fairly good expertise in terms of implementing an innovation, but the expertise should be complemented in some respects. Farmers and forest owners are actively involved in the project. If implemented, the innovation has usability potential.
1 point: Not very likely: It is possible that the project will generate an innovation, but the probability is low. The project does not involve all the partners essential for developing the innovation. The innovation does not have broad usability potential.
0 points: The project does not have elements that would produce something new.
4. What is the quality and feasibility of the project plan? (15%)
4 points: The project objectives, methods, target group and its needs have been studied and analysed excellently, and the planned activities are consistent. The project makes effective use of the most relevant and up-to-date data and methods. The feasibility of the project is excellent. The project has very relevant contractual partners and an excellent ability to implement the project objectives.
3 points: The project objectives, methods, target group and its needs have been studied and analysed well, and the planned activities are consistent. The project uses the most relevant and up-to-date data and methods. The feasibility of the project is good. The project has good contractual partners and the ability to implement the project objectives well.
2 points: The project objectives, methods, target group and its needs have been studied and analysed, and the planned activities are fairly consistent. The project uses conventional data and methods. The project is feasible. The project has contractual partners and the ability to implement the project objective.
1 point: The project objectives, methods, target group and its needs have been studied and analysed poorly, and the planned activities are not very consistent. The project does not use the latest data and methods. The project is feasible in some respects. The project has partners and the ability to implement the project objectives.
0 points: The project objectives, methods, target group and its needs are unclear, and the planned actions are inconsistent. The project is unfeasible, or the evaluation cannot be done due to missing information. The project does not have actual partners.
5. How cost-effective is the project in relation to the results sought? (15%)
4 points: The project’s cost-effectiveness is excellent: the project seeks to achieve the objectives very cost-effectively with the planned measures.
3 points: The cost-effectiveness of the project is good: the project seeks to achieve the objectives cost-effectively with the planned measures.
2 points: The cost-effectiveness of the project plan is moderate: the project seeks to achieve the objectives fairly cost-effectively with the planned measures.
1 point: Cost effectiveness is poor: achieving the project objectives with the planned measures is realistic, but the implementation method must be made significantly more cost-effective, and the cost estimate must be updated.
0 points: The project plan is not cost-effective: the project does not seek to achieve the objectives cost-effectively with the planned measures, or the evaluation cannot be carried out due to missing information.