Every year, in early July, the CP is launching a new AAP with six sections: Master stage, PhD and Post-Doc fellowship, Invited Professor, great mission for biodiversity/inventories, scientific publications. All the members of the partner UMR are informed of the annual available number of grants, of the criteria of admissibility and of the procedure and criteria for evaluation. Then, the time-table is as follows:

- September, the project leaders send their project to the Direction of their UMR, who makes the decision to support it or not after discussion with the scientific committee of the lab; the deadline for submission is the 30th September;

- Early October: the President and the Secretary of the SAB, with help of the BCDiv manager: i) checks the admissibility of each project, i.e. date of submission, validation by the UMR committee and director, presence of two principal investigators (PIs) from two different UMRs; ii) dispatches the applications to two members of the SAB in charge of the report;

- Late November, the SAB makes decisions for the Master by an electronic ballot, in order to inform the Master supervisors of their decision as early as possible in the Academic year, and for them to be able to sign the training agreement before the end of the year;

- Early December, the SAB meats for the evaluation of the five other sections of the AAP; the two written reports (about one page) are discussed and evenly modified by the whole committee; which gives a mark to each project, selects a small number of them and ranks them with special recommendations for the CP; the projects submitted; the mark on 20 takes into account the four following criteria (5 points for each): scientific quality of the project, its capacities of innovation and its originality, the quality of the PIs, and the methodology, risks and feasibility; The SAB also gives peaces of advice to the CP about the appropriateness of the project with reference to the BCDiv general objectives, about the quality of the collaboration between the two partner UMRs, about the quality of the international collaborations involved in the consortium, and about the realism of the budget;

- January of the next year, the CP meats for making decisions about the project which will be granted; it only takes into consideration the projects which have been selected and ranked by the SAB; as all the members of the CP are both judge and party, they are not allowed to discuss the scientific quality of the projects or to modify the selection made by the SAB; they only add three points to the mark of each projects, according to three strategic considerations: i) quality of the transversality, ii) historical dimension of the project, iii) added value for the heritage collections and shared databases, for teaching and training early stage researchers or for dissemination towards the large public;

- Late January, the Director of BCDiv informs the projects leaders of the results of the evaluation (reports and marks), of the final decision and, for the granted projects, of the procedure for launching the project (namely protocol for recruitment).

This procedure proved to be altogether efficient, transparent, fair and as objective as possible, in good accordance with the scientific and institutional contexts and adapted to our objectives of high scientific quality, transversalities and innovation.

In order not to overload the work of the researchers, BCDiv do not request any final report for the AAP projects. It just requires that the project leaders keep it informed in real times of the publications and dissemination actions, and present their results to the BCDiv scientific annual meetings.