1

1. Title of the project : Stemming Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest waste in the groundnut value chain (GnVC) in Malawi and Zambia to improve food and nutrition security in the smallholder farming families.

Duration 36 Months

2. Composition of the proposed partnership in the project:

Partner 1 (Applicant)

Name of organisation: National Smallholder Farmers’ Association of Malawi (NASFAM)

Country of registration: Malawi

Type of actor1: Farmer Organization

Relevant expertise:

Crop production and diversification: Since 1997, NASFAM has focused on diversifying smallholder production to spread risks of sole crop dependency and increase income generating opportunities. NASFAM has 13 years’ experience of assisting smallholders in crop production techniques, variety selection, and harvesting and post-harvest management as well crop marketing and securing new markets.

Extension Delivery: Since its inception, NASFAM embedded farmer extension as a key aspect in improving productivity and farmer organisation. To this end, NASFAM has a network of Association Field Officers who on a daily basis work together with the farmers. In addition, for four years now, NASFAM had trained a pool of 1,457 farmer trainers who complement the services offered by field officers

Farmer mobilization and organization: setting off in 1994 as a project, NASFAM has been involved in farmer mobilization and organization.

Policy advocacy, lobbying and Representation: The role and relevance of NASFAM policy advocacy agenda continues to be critical for smallholder agriculture development.

Adaptive research: in collaboration with National research institutes and CGIAR centres, NASFAM has been involved in a number of adaptive research related to soil health, Aflatoxin management, farmer adoption, extension delivery

1 Indicate if the partner is e.g. a Producer organisation, Farmer federation, Private sector organisation, Non-

governmental organisation, Research organisation, University, …

APPLICATION FOR SUPPORT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIP PROPOSALS THAT PROMOTE DEMAND-

DRIVEN AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION AND RESEARCH UNDER THE

COMPETITIVE RESEARCH FUND (CRF)

2

Experience in innovation partnerships2: Adaptive research; and collaborated with National research institutes and CGIAR centres, NASFAM has been involved in a number of adaptive research related to soil health, Aflatoxin management, farmer adoption and extension delivery.

Legal status3: NASFAM was established in 1997 but was formally incorporated and registered in February 1998.

Role and responsibilities4: To platform for this innovation through organised farmer groups; To provide extension services on the postharvest techniques; To enhance market linkages; and To input into local and national policy processes.

Stake in the innovation challenge/opportunity: To reach scale and sustainability in the adoption of good Aflatoxin contamination reduction practices and technologies through innovative approaches in farmer-led Rural Advisory Services (RAS), capacity-building and effective knowledge management.

Expected input and complementarity5: Organised farmer groups; extension service delivery network; market linkages; policy advocacy and lobbying

Contact details (phone, email) of the person who be involved in the activities of the partnership: email - bmakwenda@nasfam.org and Tel: +265 1 772 866

Partner 2 Name of organisation: Eastern Province Farmers’ Cooperatives (EPFC) Limited.

Country of registration: Zambia

Type of actor: Agri-Business

Relevant expertise: 6 years working in groundnut valu chain development with smallholder farmer groups in Zambia. Focus areas includes: production, quality and marketing.

Experience in innovation partnerships: Has worked in the World Bank project named Market Improvement And Innovation Facility (MIIF). The project was implemented from 2009 to 2011 and was lauded as very successful.

Legal status: Limited Company (Ltd) by guarrantee and it is Not For Profit community organization which ploughs back the profits into expansion of farme programs.

Role and responsibilities: Eastern Province Farmers’ Cooperatives (i) supplies smallholder farmers with high quality and high yielding groundnut seed, (ii) train farmers in seed multiplication and edible groundnut production, and (iii) recover loans and link farmers to better and sustainable markets.

Stake in the innovation challenge/opportunity: Has over 6 300 farmers in its

2 Register relevant experience of the partner. For the leader of the partnership and the research leader, also

indicate experience in respectively leading innovation partnerships and leading research projects as part of an innovation process. 3 For the leader of the partnership and the research leader, also indicate if the partner has managed donor grants

in the past. 4 Indicate if the partner will be e.g. the leader of the innovation partnership, leader of the envisaged research, play

another role … 5 Indicate what the partner will contribute to the innovation process and how this complements inputs of other

partners.

3

outgrower scheme. The organization will the project to reach scale and sustainability in the adoption of good Aflatoxin contamination reduction practices and technologies through innovative approaches in farmer-led Rural Advisory Services (RAS), capacity-building and effective knowledge management.

Expected input and complementarity: Will mobilize and train farmers in groundnut seed production, marketing and value addition.

Contact details (phone, email) of the person who be involved in the activities of the partnership: Whytson Sakala, email: whytsonsakala@yahoo.com; cell: +260 977713103

Partner 3 Name of organisation: Food Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN)

Country of registration: Zimbabwe

Type of actor: Non-Governmental Organization

Relevant expertise: Promote effective Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources (FANR) policies by: (i) Facilitating linkages and partnerships between government and civil society, and (ii) Building the capacity for policy analysis and policy dialogue in Africa, and supporting demand-driven policy research and analysis.

Experience in innovation partnerships: FANRPAN has extensive experience in managing and implementing multi-faceted FANR initiatives supported by various donors in several countries, and working with different partners from grassroots to global levels. Since 2007, FANRPAN has been able to manage a range of ten to seventeen projects annually, running concurrently. Currently FANRPAN is hosting 11 projects supported by major donors that include the ACBF, USAID, the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food, IDRC, NORAD, the Rockefeller Foundation and SDC. The projects are being implemented across the 17 FANRPAN member countries and FANRPAN is working with several partners on these projects.

Legal status: Registered as a Private Voluntary Organisation

Role and responsibilities: Will provide national and regional policy dialogue platforms and the project monitoring, evaluation and learning.

Stake in the innovation challenge/opportunity: To address policy constraints related to Aflatoxin contamination reduction issues through increased awareness of policy makers and through fostering of effective mechanisms for learning and sharing of experiences of Aflatoxin contamination reduction.

Expected input and complementarity: Communications, Knowledge management; Monitoring and Evaluation.

Contact details (phone, email) of the person who be involved in the activities of the partnership: Dr Lindiwe Majele Sibanda Email: policy@fanrpan.org

Tel: +27 12 804 2966 / 3186

Partner 4 Name of organisation: Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich

Country of registration: UK

Type of actor: University

Legal status: Charity

4

Role and responsibilities in the partnership: Provides world-leading expertise on the implementation of agriculture development projects, advice on mainstreaming gender, and socio economic dimensions value chain development, post-harvest technology, value addition and monitoring and evaluation. It has an international reputation for capacity strengthening as demonstrated in its Cassava: Adding Value for Africa Project, which was funded by the BMGF and implemented in Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda, Nigeria and Malawi. It has extensive experience in providing management advice to African institutions.

Stake in the innovation challenge/opportunity: To identify, further validate and disseminate successful Aflatoxin contamination reduction practices and technologies adapted to specific socio-economic and socio-cultural contexts within the GnVC that is benefitting smallholder farmers in the focal countries.

Expected input and complementarity: The NRI will bring capacity building expertise and provide academic rigour to the project. The NRI will be able to contribute the following to the project: (i) Assist agricultural researchers and agricultural research organizations to develop appropriate skills, management practices and strategies to reach high standards of research. (ii) Strengthen the capacities of farmers' organizations, civil society, the private sector and other users of agricultural research outputs in identifying research and learning priorities and participating in multi-stakeholder research activities. (iii) Support agricultural education organizations to attain teaching excellence through the adoption of improved curricula and new learning and teaching methods. (iv) Influence decision-makers to create a more supportive enabling environment for the conduct of effective impact-oriented agricultural research and learning.

Names of the person (s) who will be involved in the project activities: Detailed contacts of the persons(email, phone): Ben Bennett: Ben.Bennett@greenwich.ac.uk and John Linton: John Linton J.Linton@greenwich.ac.uk; Tel no: +44(0)1634 883484 and +44(0)7875406247

5

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

3. Summary of the proposal

In Malawi and Zambia, groundnuts form the basis for food and nutrition security for the majority of

the smallholder farmers and are a vital component in the livelihoods of rural families. The challenge

is that the groundnuts of these smallholder farmers are prone to Aflatoxin6 contamination. The

contamination can occur any time from pre-harvest to post-harvest and has enormous health and

economic consequence. Investing in pre- and post-harvest loss research, technical advice and policy

advocacy to reduce food losses could significantly increase the food and nutrition security in Malawi

and Zambia.

The project therefore aims to reduce pre and post-harvest waste in the groundnut value chain and

thereby increase food and nutrition security of smallholder farmers in in the focal countries. The

project intervenes at three levels:

i. Based on the analysis of major constrains related groundnut value chain (GnVC), promising

pre- and post-harvest practices and technologies are assessed, validated and further

developed through participative evaluation in selected rural households;

ii. The successfully tested practices are documented, appropriate dissemination tools and

methodologies developed, and capacities built at local, national and regional levels; and

iii. Based on the evidence gained from the validation of pre- and post-harvest practices and

technologies, advocacy and policy dialogues are conducted through multi-stakeholder

platforms at the local, national and regional levels with the aim of strengthening these

aspects in policies and regulatory frameworks.

4. Description of the project (max 1500 words) 4.1. Background and rationale Groundnut is an important food and nutrition crop in Malawi and Zambia. In Malawi, groundnut is one

of the strategic crops in the National Export Strategy with groundnut exports ranked second only to

tobacco in terms of foreign exchange earnings. In Zambia, groundnut is the second mostly grown crop

after Maize. Since 2007 Zambia has experienced increased groundnuts production: 37% of the small

and medium scale farming households grew groundnuts in 2011/12; 44% in 2010/11, 49% in the

2009/10 and 44% households in 2008/09. The challenge is the prevalence of Aflatoxin in the

groundnuts value chain (GnVC) compromising food nutrition and dietary value and safety. It does not

only have nutritional and dietary value, groundnut also provides cash to farmers and enrich the soil

with nitrogen through biological nitrogen fixation. Furthermore, the important role that groundnut

plays is threatened by large pre and post-harvest losses that occur due to Aflatoxin contamination. In

recent years Malawi and Zambia lost their share of the world market for groundnuts due, to in part,

high incidence of Aflatoxin. Despite the highlighted Aflatoxin challenge, there are also opportunities like

favourable climate and good soils which are ideal for growing groundnuts in Malawi and Zambia and

there is high demand for groundnuts both internally and for the export market. Taking advantage of

these opportunities can have a substantial impact on the economy of small-scale farmers involved,

especially women. Additionally, there is quasi absence of pre- and post-harvest waste in the GnVC as

topic in politics and rural advisory services (RAS). The value of groundnut as a crop makes Aflotoxin

problem in the GnVC a right federating theme to focus on.

6 Aflatoxins are produced by two fungi, Aspergillus flavus and A.Parasiticus.

6

4.2. Objectives

The goal of this project is to reduce pre- and post-harvest losses by focusing on reducing Aflatoxin in

the GnVC for improved food and nutrition security of smallholder farmers by addressing main

constraining factors of technology dissemination and adoption, knowledge and information sharing,

and policies. The project focus countries are Malawi and Zambia and the specific objectives of the

project are:

1. To identify, further validate and disseminate successful Aflatoxin contamination reduction

practices and technologies adapted to specific socio-economic and socio-cultural contexts

within the GnVC that is benefitting smallholder farmers in the focal countries.

2. To reach scale and sustainability in the adoption of good Aflatoxin contamination reduction

practices and technologies through innovative approaches in farmer-led Rural Advisory Services

(RAS), capacity-building and effective knowledge management.

3. To address policy constraints related to Aflatoxin contamination reduction issues through

increased awareness of policy makers and through fostering of effective mechanisms for

learning and sharing of experiences of Aflatoxin contamination reduction.

4.3. Research questions and methods

Research Question 1: What are the promising practices and technologies that relates to production,

income and gender pathways that has a potential to reduce Aflatoxin contamination in the GnVC?

Major constrains related to production, income and gender pathways to enhance the GnVC, promising

practices and technologies will be assessed (e.g., best agronomic practices; on field Aflatoxin detection;

storage and processing technologies/practices; decontamination technologies; and alternative

groundnut uses), validated and further developed through participative evaluation by women and men

at farm and community level. The applied research will identify and disseminate Aflatoxin resistance

and superior varieties.

Research Question 2: What are the best ways to compile, disseminate and scale up good

practice/technology options for reducing pre- and post-harvest losses due to Aflatoxin contamination?

The project will rely on capacity building initiatives and awareness campaigns to disseminate prioritized

practices and technologies in the focus areas. Care will be taken to ensure that both women and men

are reached – if necessary, through specifically targeted information. Based on the evidence of

successful practices and technologies derived from interventions in Research Question 1, good

Aflatoxin reduction options will be documented (guides, brochures, web, etc.) and promoted in

networks at national and regional levels. For dissemination of the Aflatoxin reduction options and

policies on a wider scale, innovative and pluralistic RAS, suitable for effective dissemination and scaling-

up of Aflatoxin reduction practices, are identified and developed, and capacity building of key actors

(farmer organizations, women’s groups, service providers, public sector) will be conducted by means of

training and learning events at national level in focal countries.

Research Question 3: What are and how can appropriate Aflatoxin regulatory frameworks and

conducive policies on reducing pre- and post-harvest losses in GnVC at national and regional levels be

advocated?

7

Outputs from Research Questions 1 and 2 will lay the basis of evidence-based advocacy and policy

dialogue on GnVC Aflatoxin contamination reduction related issues. Advocacy and policy interventions

will focus primarily on the level of selected focus countries and on the level of regional institutions and

stakeholders. Main activities include the elaboration of policy briefs related to GnVC and Aflatoxin and

the conducting of policy dialogues at national and regional level through multi-stakeholder platforms,

and capacity building of government officials and policy makers with the aim of contributing to the

implementation of improved regulatory frameworks on the subject in Malawi and Zambia.

4.4. Outputs

In this project, flowing from the objectives, the three Research Questions culminate to the three

Results/Outcome Areas central to achieve the project goal. The outputs of the the three Outcome Areas

are:

Outcome Area 1

The outputs of of this Outcome Area are:

Major constraints related to production, income and gender pathways in selected GnVC have

been analysed, including the way that these relate to gender roles.

Promising Aflatoxin contamination reduction practices and technologies have been identified,

validated and further developed.

Aflatoxin contamination reduction practices and technologies have been disseminated and

adopted.

Outcome Area 2

The outputs of of this Outcome Area are:

Good Aflatoxin contamination reduction practices and technologies have been documented

and used.

Farmer-led RAS, suitable for effective dissemination and scaling-up of Aflatoxin contamination

reduction practices have identified and (further) developed.

Relevant actors (RAS agents, farmer org., women’s groups, private sector, government officials, and policy makers) have been capacitated on Aflatoxin contamination reduction practices and technologies.

Outcome Area 3

The outputs of of this Outcome Area are:

Relevant policy briefs on GnVC and Aflatoxin have been elaborated and made available.

GnVC and Aflatoxin has been included in the agendas of local, national and regional policy

dialogue platforms.

4.5. Target group

Beneficiaries/end-users Benefits / outcomes 1. Ultimate beneficiaries (i.e.

smallholder farm families and other value chain actors)

Increased uptake of GnVC post-harvest loss management practices and technologies.

Reduced groundnuts post-harvest losses leading to increased food availability, increased income generation among farmers, manufacturers and processors stimulating rural development.

2. Intermediate beneficiaries (i.e., intermediaries)

Increased knowledge of Aflotoxin contamination in GnVC to bridge the gap between research, policy and practice by synthesizing and communicating GnVC research evidence.

8

3. Policy makers Ability to appraise and use GnVC research evidence in decision making to support integrated policy processes, investment decisions and programming.

4.6. Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning

The Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) system of the project will be designed to provide:

1. timely and useful information for decision making (steering), sharing and learning (capitalization of experiences)

2. evidence of the project effectiveness and efficiency to stakeholders (downward and upward accountability)

The following principles will be applied in defining and implementing the project’s MEL System:

Usefulness: The MEL system will provide relevant and timely information for project steering and for measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of the project.

Reasonable accuracy: The MEL system will strive for reasonable accuracy, within the available means and applying best judgements

Plausible attribution: The project MEL system will make no attempt to establish a formal attribution of observed results and impact to project activities. Rather, it will aim to establish a plausible case for attribution at a reasonable cost based on an established results chain.

Feasibility: The MEL system will have to correspond with the size of the project and the available human and financial means. Monitoring is understood as a task of all technical project staff with the overall project responsibility lying with M&E specialists and ultimately with the responsible Project Manager.

Contribution to knowledge management: The MEL system will generate a reasonable amount of information and useful lessons learned which can be used for learning and decision making.

4.7. Sustainability

The project’s sustainability proposition will build on efforts to ensure up-scaling of project outputs to

inform policy development that ensures uptake and up-scaling as a result of a conducive policy

environment. The necessary levers for sustainability are the following: (1) FANRPAN’s on-going

projects and partnerships ; (2) Regional economic and African linkages; (3) Regional and global

partnerships; (4) Leveraging on CAADP national agriculture and nutrition initiatives; (5) Leveraging on

agriculture and nutrition initiatives of Consortium members; (6) Gender equity/women

empowerment; and (7) Project institutionalization. The project document, if the proposal is selected

for the next stage, will elaborate on these sustainability elements. On environmental sustainability,

mainstreaming RTF initiatives will identify practical, evidence-based policy and practice actions to be

undertaken by key stakeholders and institutions for a triple win so as to achieve food and nutrition

security in the context of a changing environment.

9

5. Logical framework

Hierarchy of objectives / Intervention strategy

Key Indicators Data Sources Means of Verification

Assumptions & Risks

Impact (Overall Goal) Impact Indicators

Food and nutrition security of smallholder farmers in Malawi and Zambia is increased through reduced pre- and post-harvest losses by Aflatoxin contamination at farm and community level

Number of food secure months at household level (physical and economic access to quality food).

Number of rural communities confirming reduced vulnerability to famine due to improved food security.

National statistics

Case studies at household and community level (Food Consumption Scores -FCS)

Specific study reports (Ministry of Agriculture etc.)

Outcomes Outcome Indicators For contributing to goal/impact: Assumptions: Stable socio-political environment in

focus countries Increasing demand for groundnuts Renewed interest of developing

partners in PHM as strategic element for food and nutrition security

Policy environment supportive to issues related to food security issues including PHL reductions (a.o. trade bans, land tenure, crop choice, subsidies, etc.)

Effective and efficient coordination between partners

Risks: Severe/continued crop losses due to

averse climatic conditions (climate change) de-motivating farmers to increase production of groundnuts.

Unforeseen price fluctuations of groundnuts commodities

Outcome 1: Promising practices and technologies that relates to production, income and gender pathways that have a potential to reduce Aflatoxin contamination in the GnVC.

Outreach (No. of farmers reach by the project).

Increased quantity of groundnuts saved from Aflatoxin loss through improved pre- and post-harvest handling.

Increased household incomes from sales of groundnuts saved from Aflatoxin loss.

Project reports

Household/community surveys

Case studies at household and community level

Outcome 2: Good practice options for reducing Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest losses are compiled, disseminated and scaled up and out.

Evidence that good practice options for reducing pre- and post-harvest losses are used by stakeholders not directly involved in the project implementation (policy makers, senior technical staff, rural advisors, NGOs, private sector).

Increased personal and institutional capacities on reducing Aflotoxin contamination among policy makers, senior technical staff and rural advisors.

Survey among GnVC stakeholders and other actors in focus countries

Survey among relevant key persons and institutions who received capacity-building / training

Outcome 3: Appropriate regulatory frameworks (policies, standards, norms, protocols) on reducing Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest losses in food supply chains are introduced and implemented at national and regional levels.

National / regional regulatory frameworks (policies, standards, norms, protocols) that are conducive for reducing Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest losses are tabled for implementation.

Increased level of investments in GnVC in focal countries (by government, donors, private sector).

Households and other GnVC actors are aware of regulatory frameworks (policies, standards, norms) for grains and pulses storage and commercialization.

Project reports,

Published policy briefs,

Newspaper/website etc. articles,

Survey of households and other GnVC actors

Proven cases of investments in GnVC (survey)

10

Outputs (per outcome) and costs

Output Indicators Data sources /

means of verification Assumptions & Risks

For outcome 1: For reaching the outcomes:

Output 1.1: Major constraints related to markets and community & household storage strategies in GnVC have been analysed, including the way that these relate to gender roles.

Major constraints related to production, income and gender pathways that have a potential to reduce Aflatoxin contamination in the GnVC identified per focus country.

Number of intervention strategies for integrating Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest losses designed.

Surveys

Specific studies

Basic (market) information available Targeted survey respondents

(farmers, other value chain actors…) share information and experiences

Output 1.2: Promising Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest losses practices and technologies have been identified, validated and further developed.

Number of promising Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest losses practices and technologies identified and described per focus country.

Level of loss reduction (%, $) compared to current practice established for promising Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest losses practices and technologies.

Cost/Benefit of promising Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest losses practices and technologies.

Compilation of practices and technologies

Loss assessments

C/B analyses

Training materials

Existence of a minimum pool of Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest losses practices and technologies

Identified Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest losses practices and technologies demonstrate significant PHL reduction levels.

Unfavorable C/B ratios

Output 1.3: Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest losses practices and technologies have been disseminated and adopted.

Number of Households/Communities supported by the project that have adopted improved pre- and post-harvest losses.

Percentage of women-headed households out of the total number of supported households that have adopted improved Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest losses options.

Factors of adoption/non-adoption of improved Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest losses options identified.

Adoption studies in focus countries

Minutes of training events

Socio-cultural and religious barriers in relation to new practices can be overcome

Economic situation of households a hindering factor for adoption of new practices

Limited improvement of transport and market infrastructures

For outcome 2:

Output 2.1: Good Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest losses practices and technologies have been documented and used in networks.

Number of good practices documented suitable for use in a rural/smallholder setting.

No. of good practices used in different rural/smallholder setting.

Publications of good practices (Capitalization)

Follow-up survey

Interest of actors in Aflatoxin issues Availability of appropriate practices

relevant to Aflatoxin

11

Outputs (per outcome) and costs Output Indicators

Data sources / means of verification

Assumptions & Risks

Output 2.2: Innovative RAS, suitable for effective dissemination and scaling-up of PHM practices have been identified and (further) developed.

Number of training materials including Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest management issues elaborated.

Number of events conducted Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest management was discussed and further developed.

Number of innovative methods and mechanisms for successful dissemination and scaling up and out of Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest management practices documented.

Minutes of events

Assessments of farmer-led RAS systems for Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest management Guidelines on farmer-led RAS for Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest management

Country fora performing and taking up Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest management issue in longer-term Interest

Output 2.3: Relevant actors (RAS agents, farmer org. private sector, gov. officials and policy makers) have been capacitated on Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest management practices and technologies.

Number of training events conducted (type).

Number of different actors trained (disaggregation per type of persons / sex / organization).

Reports of training events

List of participating persons / organizations trained.

Interest of actors in participating and capacity-building

Actors not applying content of capacity-building

For outcome 3:

Output 3.1: Relevant policy briefs related to GnVC Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest management have been elaborated and made available.

Number of policy briefs related to GnVC Aflatoxin produced.

Policy briefs disseminated (how/where).

Published policy briefs

Survey

Effective ways for disseminating policy briefs identified/available

Output 3.2: Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest management has been included in the agendas of local, national and regional policy dialogue platforms.

Number of policy dialogue events at national and regional level tackling Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest management issues.

Evidence of increased awareness of PHM related issues among different actors (specify: farmer org., policy makers, senior government officials, etc.).

Minutes of events

Survey among participants

Media screening

Basic interest of actors to address Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest management issues at policy level

12

6. Summary of the staff that will be involved in the project

Name Name and type of organisation

Time involvement (days)7

Role in the project

Beatrice Makwenda

NASFAM (Farmer Organization, Malawi)

90 To reach scale and sustainability in

the adoption of good Aflatoxin

contamination reduction practices

and technologies through innovative

approaches in farmer-led Rural

Advisory Services (RAS), capacity-

building and effective knowledge

management.

John Chipeta NASFAM (Farmer Organization)

90

Whytson Sakala EPFC (Farmer Organization, Zambia)

90

To be identified EPFC (Farmer Organization, Zambia)

90

Ben Bennett NRI (Research Organization in the UK)

90 To identify, further validate and

disseminate successful Aflatoxin

contamination reduction practices

and technologies adapted to

specific socio-economic and socio-

cultural contexts within the GnVC

that is benefitting smallholder

farmers in the focal countries.

John Linton NRI (Research Organization in the UK)

90

Hlami Ngwenya FANRPAN ( Non-Governmental Organization)

90 To address policy constraints

related to Aflatoxin contamination

reduction issues through increased

awareness of policy makers and

through fostering of effective

mechanisms for learning and

sharing of experiences of Aflatoxin

contamination reduction.

Lufingo Mwamakamba

FANRPAN ( Non-Governmental Organization)

90

7 Will spend 1 month on average per year for the 3 year project period.

13

7. Budget of the project a. Total budget: ………………………………………………..€300 000.00 b. Own contribution (10%)………………………………..€30 000.00 c. PAEPARD contribution (max 90%)………………. €270 000.00

Personnel costs: Unit Days Amount (‘000 € )

Human resource costs ( max 33%)

Technical support 250 339 84 750.00

Adminstartive support 250 60 15 000.00

Sub Total 99 750.00

Traning , Workshops, Semiars ( 25%)

Perdiem 27 000.00

Travel 24 000.00

Conference / workshop Cost 25 200.00

Sub Total 76 200.00

Durables, consumables (max 20%)8 58 423.83

Publication and Knowledge sharing costs (max 15%): 46 000.00

Overhead (max 7%) 19 636.17

Total: 300 000.00

The above proposals will be evaluated (quality and relevance) based on the major criteria detailed below. Please demonstrate how your proposal responds to these criteria by developing each of them.

8. Expected impact

Each proposal should have a clear specific objective and a vision of how this will contribute to food security, poverty reduction, and increased income of small farmers, women economic empowerment and sustainable management of natural resources, thus contributing to the achievement of the MDGs. By expected impact PAEPARD partners understand the following:

Clear definition of the problem and the challenge that the project intends to address, and the strategy adopted

Clarity of the specific objective Clear identification and quantification of the target beneficiaries and areas of intervention

(e.g., poor smallholders, rural communities in disadvantaged areas, group of women, actors along the value chains, etc.)

Realism of the vision of how the specific objective will contribute to expected impact on MDGs (particularly 1 and 7)

Plausibility of the project logic (how activities will translate in outputs and outcomes) Strategy for dissemination and use of research outputs, and for out-scaling the innovations.

8All procurement of consultancy and supplies will be in line with EC procurement guidelines

14

9. Partnership suitability The project proposal submitted by a Consortium must have a research component that is coming to solve a specific innovation challenge which is primarily expressed by research-users who requested the involvement of research. Each proposal should describe the specific roles and responsibilities of the partners members of the consortium, specifying: how research is coming in to help resolve the issue/challenge; how non-research stakeholders were involved in the proposal formulation; the evidence of demand by users/beneficiaries and if they are expected to play a significant role (e.g. lead project applicant, secondary partner, etc.) during project implementation and thereafter. The proposal should state how it intends to match PAEPARD funding with other funding sources, mobilize additional resources during project implementation, and how activities would continue at the end of PAEPARD support. By this, PAEPARD understands and needs:

Clear definition of the innovation challenge Clear evidence of the demand by end-users and their role in the partnership Clear definition of roles and responsibilities of each consortium partner, and their

complementarities History/strength of partnership

10. Profile of Applicant and partners

The assessment will focus on the required expertise/capacity and experience of the Applicant to lead the development of the proposed partnership and innovation process. This means:

Experience and capacity of the Applicant to lead the multi-stakeholder team Experience and capacity of the Consortium partners to play their described roles in the

partnership

15

11. SIGNATURES (please add signatures as per number of partners involved in the project)

Signature page attached separately. Please return your application form as a PDF file attached to an email to the management of PAEPARD: jmugabe@fara-africa.org or fstepman@fara-africa.org or Patrice.de_vernou@cirad.fr by 2nd May 2014 at 17:00 GMT, mentioning “PAEPARD-CRF Proposal Application” in the subject line. The management of the project will acknowledge receipt immediately or the next day.