Of all the evaluation criteria in a LIFE proposal, the sustainability section is probably the one that causes the most confusion. Applicants tend to understand what the terms mean in theory, but struggle to translate that knowledge into something an evaluator can score well. This article explains the logic behind the criterion, the three key concepts, and what a well-constructed sustainability strategy looks like in practice.
What evaluators look for
It’s worth starting with the purpose of the criterion. LIFE is a demonstration program: it funds solutions that are mature enough to be tested, with the expectation that others will adopt them once the project has proven that they work. The sustainability criterion essentially asks: will that happen?
More concretely, evaluators try to understand whether the project results will generate impact beyond the execution period and beyond the consortium itself. A useful question to keep in mind when drafting 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 guide defines three distinct sustainability mechanisms, and it’s important to understand each one precisely, as they are not interchangeable.
- The continuity refers to the project partners themselves continuing to maintain and use the results after the project ends. It is the basic level of sustainability, the minimum expected in any LIFE project. A good continuity plan not only explains that the results will be maintained, but how: under what institutional structure, with what resources, and who will be the specific responsible party. Detail is key.
- The replication goes one step further. It means that organizations outside the consortium adopt the same solution for the same purpose. A municipality not involved in the project applies the same approach in its territory. A company in another member state implements the same circular economy process. Replication is assessed based on its scope and credibility: the broader and more concrete the anticipated adoption, the higher the score.
- The transfer is the most ambitious form of sustainability. It implies that someone takes the project solution and applies it in a different context: another sector, a different type of environment, or a different regulatory framework. An important distinction: transfer is not the same as dissemination. Sharing knowledge, publishing reports, or presenting at conferences are valuable communication activities, but they do not constitute transfer in the evaluator’s sense. Transfer occurs when a solution is actually applied in a new context.
What makes a good sustainability section stand out from an average one
The most common difference between proposals that receive a good score and those that don’t usually comes down to specificity. It isn’t enough to claim that the results have strong replication potential: evaluators need to see the reasoning and the plan that support that claim.
Here’s what that looks like in practice. A weaker proposal might say: “The project results have significant replication potential and could be adopted by other municipalities in the region.” A stronger proposal would say: “The municipalities of [X] and [Y] have formally expressed their interest in replicating the approach, as documented in the letters of support included in Annex 3. Work Package 5 includes three knowledge-transfer workshops, scheduled for months 18, 30, and 42, designed to equip external organizations with everything they need to implement the solution independently.”
The content is similar, but the second version offers evaluators concrete elements they can weigh. Three factors tend to make the biggest difference:
- Identified actors with documented interest. Support letters or letters of intent from potential replicators carry real weight, since they demonstrate demand for the solution beyond the consortium. A general claim about who “could” adopt the results is much harder to evaluate than a specific organization that has stated it will.
- A justification that stands on its own without EU funding. Evaluators look for evidence that the solution makes economic or institutional sense by itself: through cost savings, regulatory alignment, operational efficiency, or public policy requirements. If continued use of the results depends entirely on future public subsidies, the sustainability argument weakens.
- Replication activities integrated into the work plan. Sustainability is more credible when it includes specific actions, budget lines, and standalone deliverables, rather than appearing only in the narrative text. A work package focused on replication signals to evaluators that this is a real project objective, not something tacked on at the last minute.
A practical check
Before closing the sustainability section, it’s worth asking yourself: if you removed all phrases containing the word “potential,” what would remain? If the answer is “very little,” the section probably needs more concrete content: identified actors, specific activities, and a clear justification for adoption.
The strongest LIFE proposals do not treat sustainability as just another section to fill, but as a design principle that defines the consortium, the work plan, and the budget from the outset.
Fernando Gómez, Technical Manager European Funds at Euro-Funding.
