For official use only
Notation done at: 03.06.2025
Access restriction until: 03.06.2030
Basis: AvTS § 35 lg 1 p 17
Holder of information: State Shared Service Centre
Eesti Geoloogiateenistus 03.06.2025 No 11.1-4/25/2682
[email protected]
F. R. Kreutzwaldi 5
44314 Rakvere
Interreg Programme VI-A – Estonia-Latvia
Monitoring Committee decision about project
application HydroScope
The 3rd call for proposals for the submission of project applications within the Interreg Programme
VI-A – Estonia-Latvia was open from 2 September 2024 and closed on 5 December 2024 at 14.00.
The project application EE-LV00250 Protecting cross-border groundwater resources and
dependent ecosystems from extreme climate events and pollution with real-time monitoring and
digital springs (HydroScope) was submitted by the deadline and after the technical eligibility and
loose quality check was passed on to the quality assessment.
The quality assessment was carried out by the Joint Secretariat according to the quality criteria as
stated in the Programme Manual, chapter 6.3.2 Quality assessment. After quality assessment the
Monitoring Committee carried out the strategic assessment of submitted project applications as
described in the Programme Manual chapter 6.4 Decision-making. Based on the quality
assessment and strategic assessment, the Monitoring Committee selects projects for support from
the programme funds.
On 28-29 May 2025 at its meeting the Monitoring Committee decided with its decision to select
the project HydroScope for financing with the ERDF allocation up to €878,966.00.
Additionally, specific conditions stipulated by the Monitoring Committee must be fulfilled before
the Subsidy Contract can be signed between the Lead Partner and the Managing Authority. These
conditions are provided in Annex 1 of this letter.
Please prepare a cover letter listing all the conditions and your reply to the conditions and send it
to
[email protected]. The signed cover letter must be uploaded and the required changes in the
application form in the Jems system must be made only after the final content of the cover letter
has been agreed with the Joint Secretariat.
The conditions must be fulfilled within 1 month as of the receipt of this selection decision. If a
reasoned request is provided, the Joint Secretariat may extend the time limit for fulfilling the
conditions. The Managing Authority, assisted by the Joint Secretariat will verify the fulfilment of
the conditions. The Joint Secretariat will inform you on the fulfilment of the conditions.
Lõkke 4 / 10122 Tallinn / Estonia / + 372 663 8200 /
[email protected] / www.rtk.ee/ Reg. code: 70007340
In case of questions please turn to the Joint Secretariat: Tõiv Jõul,
[email protected], +372
56500727. Please notice that the Programme Consultant is away during the period 4-9 June 2025
and can reply to your questions after return.
The selection decision of the Monitoring Committee may be disputed in accordance with the
Programme Manual chapter 7.16 Submission of the complaint procedure.
(signed digitally)
Anu-Maaja Pallok
Head of the Managing Authority
Interreg Programme VI-A – Estonia-Latvia
Annex 1 to the Interreg Programme VI-A – Estonia-Latvia Monitoring Committee decision
about project application HydroScope
Conditions for the project HydroScope:
1. Please explain whether and how the planned activities described under Activity 2.5 are
linked to the defined output indicators. If those activities do not contribute to and support
directly the planned jointly developed solutions, they must be removed from the
application form and the budget reduced accordingly. In the case of latter, please also
review the related aspects of Activity 2.4 and either provide justification on keeping them
or remove from the application.
2. Please address the inconsistency between Output 1.1 and Activity 1.4 by clarifying
whether a single unified early warning platform will be developed for both countries or if
a separate platform is planned for Estonia and Latvia. Please ensure a consistent
description throughout the application form.
3. Please explain how the two planned pilot actions are jointly developed between Estonian
and Latvian partners.
4. Please explain and if necessary, include corresponding information on planned system
setup activities in Latvia under Activity 1.2 to complement the Estonian example in
Saaremaa.
5. Please indicate the number of digital spring sites planned in Estonia and Latvia under
Activity 2.2.
6. Please explain how the guidelines developed under Activity 2.4 will be practically
integrated into the platform’s operation and use.
7. For Activity 3.1. please define what types of technical documentation and user guidelines
will be made public and which will be tailored specifically for participating
municipalities. Also, please specify the content and materials planned to be developed for
capacity-building seminars.
8. For Activity 3.1 and 3.2 please provide a clearer structure distinguishing the various
planned materials (e.g., stakeholder-friendly guides, reports, roadmaps) and explain how
they complement one another.
9. For Activity 3.3. please indicate the number, format, and expected audience of
knowledge-sharing sessions. Please also justify the participation in the EGU General
Assembly, including the need for two representatives per country and its relevance for
reaching the project objectives.
10. Please explain why only 5 organisations are expected to continue cross-border
cooperation post-project, despite 7 that are represented in the project partnership.
11. The budget related conditions:
In the budget of LP1 please justify the number of working hours planned for the
financial manager. In case of insufficient justification, the costs must be reduced.
In the budget of LP1 please provide cost-breakdown and justify the costs allocated
for communication and awareness materials. In case of insufficient justification, the
costs must be reduced.
Please justify the needed for participation in the EGU 2026 conference. Please clarify
what is included under the membership fee and abstract submission, and how these
expenses directly contribute to the project’s objectives. In case of insufficient
justification, the costs must be reduced.
In the budgets of LP1 and PP2, please justify the quantity and cost of the digital
spring monitoring equipment, ensuring it is necessary and proportionate to the pilot
activities.
Provide justification for the number of hours allocated to web-based application
development and clarify whether this refers to the same platform described in other
sections of the application form. In case of insufficient justification, the costs must be
reduced.
Please justify the planned catering costs for LP1, PP3, PP4, PP7, ensuring they are
appropriate and clearly linked to project events or activities. In case of insufficient
justification, the costs must be reduced.
Please justify the costs for the high-performance computer for PP3 by specifying its
use in relation to “the study areas” and its necessity for project implementation. In
case of insufficient justification, the costs must be reduced.
PP4 and PP7 listed equipment and related staff costs needs to be justified, ensuring
they are directly linked to pilot activities and necessary for achieving the intended
outcomes. In case of insufficient justification, the costs must be reduced.
Please clarify whether bus rental costs are intended for project staff or external
participants, and how they support specific project activities. Please note that the
travel and accommodation costs for project staff fall under cost-category Travel and
accommodation.