EU Added Value in LIFE Proposals
Fernando Gómez es Technical Manager – EU Projects en Euro-Funding desde 2020, con experiencia coordinando propuestas europeas de I+D+i. Especialista en financiación europea, ha actuado como Technical Manager en programas como Horizon Europe, MSCA, ERC, EIC, LIFE, CBE, Eurostars, Clean Hydrogen, CEF o Innovation Fund, entre otros, y ha coordinado proyectos como REALIZE y ATM-EXCITE. Con más de 17 años de experiencia, ha desempeñado funciones de R&D Project Manager en entidades de referencia como HM Hospitales, IMDEA y CIB-CSIC, además de contar con una sólida experiencia previa en bioenergía y energías renovables. Es evaluador experto para la Comisión Europea (H2020 y Horizon Europe) y para EUREKA, así como mentor certificado de startups por la Fundación Madri+d y asesor acreditado por ACCIÓ en los ámbitos de bioenergía y economía circular. Es licenciado en Biología Molecular y cuenta con másteres en Energías Renovables y Economía Circular, además de formación especializada en gestión de proyectos de I+D+i.
Of all the evaluation criteria in a LIFE proposal, the sustainability section is probably the one that generates the most confusion. Applicants often know what the terms mean in theory, but struggle to translate that understanding into something an evaluator will actually score well. This post walks through the logic behind the criterion, the three key concepts, and what a well-built sustainability strategy looks like in practice.
What evaluators are looking for
It helps to start with the purpose of the criterion. LIFE is a demonstration programme — it funds solutions that are mature enough to be proven, with the expectation that others will adopt them once the project has shown they work. The sustainability criterion is essentially asking: will that happen?
More specifically, evaluators are trying to understand whether the results of the project will generate impact beyond the project period and beyond the consortium itself. A useful question to keep in mind while writing this section is: why would someone outside this project continue, copy, or adapt these results — using their own resources?
Understanding the three concepts
The official guidance defines three distinct mechanisms for sustainability, and it is worth understanding each one precisely, because they are not interchangeable.
Continuation refers to the project’s own partners maintaining and using the results after the project ends. This is the foundational level of sustainability — the minimum expected of any LIFE project. A good continuation plan explains not just that results will be maintained, but how: under what institutional arrangement, with what resources, and by whom specifically. The detail matters.
Replication goes a step further. It means that organisations outside the consortium adopt the same solution for the same purpose. A municipality not involved in the project implements the same approach in their territory. A company in another Member State applies the same circular economy process. Replication is assessed on scope and credibility — the broader and more concrete the expected uptake, the stronger the score.
Transfer is the most ambitious form of sustainability. It means someone takes the project’s solution and applies it in a different context — a different sector, a different type of environment, or a different policy framework. An important distinction: transfer is not the same as dissemination. Sharing knowledge, publishing reports and presenting at conferences are valuable communication activities, but they do not constitute transfer in the evaluator’s sense. Transfer happens when a solution is actually put into practice in a new setting.
What separates a good sustainability section from an average one
The most common gap between proposals that score well and those that do not come down to specificity. It is not enough to state that results have strong replication potential — evaluators need to see the reasoning and the plan behind that statement.
Here is what that looks like in practice. A weaker proposal might say: “The results of this project have significant replication potential and could be adopted by other municipalities across the region.” A stronger proposal says: “The municipalities of [X] and [Y] have expressed formal interest in replicating the approach, as documented in the letters of support included in Annex 3. Work Package 5 includes three dedicated knowledge transfer workshops scheduled at months 18, 30 and 42, designed to equip external organisations with everything they need to implement the solution independently.”
The substance is similar, but the second version gives evaluators something to assess. Three elements tend to make the biggest difference:
Identified actors with documented interest. Letters of support or intent from potential replicators carry real weight because they demonstrate that demand for the solution exists beyond the consortium. A general statement about who “could” adopt the results is much harder to evaluate than a named organisation that has said they will.
A rationale that holds without EU funding. Evaluators look for evidence that the solution makes sense economically or institutionally on its own terms — through cost savings, regulatory alignment, operational efficiency, or policy obligation. If the continued use of results depends entirely on future public subsidies, that weakens the sustainability argument.
Replication activities embedded in the workplan. Sustainability is more convincing when it has its own dedicated actions, budget lines and deliverables, rather than appearing only in the narrative text. A work package focused on replication tells evaluators that it is a genuine project objective, not an afterthought
A practical self-check
Before finalising the sustainability section, it is worth asking: if you removed every sentence that uses the word “potential,” what would remain? If the answer is very little, the section likely needs more concrete content — named actors, specific activities, a clear rationale for uptake.
The strongest LIFE proposals treat sustainability not as a section to complete, but as a design principle that shapes the consortium, the workplan and the budget from the beginning.
If you are preparing a LIFE proposal and would like feedback on your sustainability strategy, the Euro-Funding team is happy to help.
LATEST NEWS
Coordinating EU collaborative projects
Coordinating EU collaborative projects: when execution marks the difference Lucía Duque Teva( Project Manager European Funds )Settings Coordinating a European collaborative project goes far beyond convening meetings or collecting deliverables….
EU Added Value in LIFE Proposals
EU Added Value in LIFE Proposals Fernando Gómez( Technical Manager – European Funds )Fernando Gómez es Technical Manager – EU Projects en Euro-Funding desde 2020, con experiencia coordinando propuestas europeas…
The vision of the EAIC on the future European budget
The vision of the EAIC on the future European budget Marie Latour( European Affairs Director )Actualmente, como Director de Asuntos Europeos en Euro-Funding, cuento con más de 14 años de…