Life Integrated Projects – What did we learn? : Assessment of EU Life integrated projects 2014–2020
Harju-Autti, Pekka; Sahla, Matti; Rinta-Kanto, Elsa (2023-03-21)
Harju-Autti, Pekka
Sahla, Matti
Rinta-Kanto, Elsa
Ympäristöministeriö
21.03.2023
Julkaisusarja:
Publications of the Ministry of the Environment 2023:9This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-361-247-1Tiivistelmä
In 2014, the European Commission started a wholly new approach to EU Life projects by introducing top-down Life Integrated projects (IPs). Since then, 70 Life IPs have been funded. The aim of this report is to reach a comprehensive overall understanding on how successful the EU Life IPs have been – from the project leaders themselves.
Self-assessments of 54 Life integrated projects are analyzed in this report, representing 77% of all the 70 Life IPs. In a quantitative assessment the data was analyzed 1) by Life subprogramme; 2) by Life IP starting year; 3) by number of projects per country; 4) by country groups determined by national innovation environment; and 5) by geographical country groups. The qualitative questions were analyzed in a specific workshop organized for all the IPs.
The results showed that these projects have several strengths: Strong top-down strategical nature, based on national strategy. A long enough project period gives enough time to cooperate and make things happen. IPs work well as platform for new co-operation – complementary funding is particularly good in this. Commission bureaucracy is generally seen as the weakest point. However, fluent co-operation with monitoring team helps effectively to understand the bureaucracy.
Project leaders encourage strongly the Commission to continue supporting this type of projects, which are highly necessary nowadays.
Self-assessments of 54 Life integrated projects are analyzed in this report, representing 77% of all the 70 Life IPs. In a quantitative assessment the data was analyzed 1) by Life subprogramme; 2) by Life IP starting year; 3) by number of projects per country; 4) by country groups determined by national innovation environment; and 5) by geographical country groups. The qualitative questions were analyzed in a specific workshop organized for all the IPs.
The results showed that these projects have several strengths: Strong top-down strategical nature, based on national strategy. A long enough project period gives enough time to cooperate and make things happen. IPs work well as platform for new co-operation – complementary funding is particularly good in this. Commission bureaucracy is generally seen as the weakest point. However, fluent co-operation with monitoring team helps effectively to understand the bureaucracy.
Project leaders encourage strongly the Commission to continue supporting this type of projects, which are highly necessary nowadays.
Samankaltainen aineisto
Näytetään aineisto, joilla on samankaltaisia nimekkeitä, tekijöitä tai asiasanoja.
-
Innovation activity in the ESF projects of Central Finland, Päijät-Häme, and Satakunta : Third intermediate report of the ALUEOSAAJA project
Publications of the Ministry of Education, Finland : 2005:37
(opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö, 2005) -
Cultural projects in EU programmes: Culture in the EU’s Structural Fund projects and in the Rural Development Programme for Mainland Finland in 2007–2013
Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture : 2012:16
(opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö, 2012) -
Evaluation of the transport projects of the Kolari and Sokli mining projects
(liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö, 2009)