The following information is provided to guide applicants responding to the Crops to End Hunger 2022 proposal call. Information is drawn from live Q&A sessions and input from granting organizations Germany's BMZ/GIZ.
This page was updated on August 22, 2022. Please check back for further updates, and/or refer your questions to n.enghwa@cgiar.org
Please see the Proposal Call and read the Guidelines.
-
Will the full USD15M be granted in this session? Ideally yes, but it will depend on quality and amounts sought in submissions. The current CtEH agreement has an end-date of Dec. 2023. We are in the process of drafting a new side agreement that governs this funding, potentially extending the pooled funding to end-2025, but this is not confirmed. Ideally these are to be synchronized with the implementation period of the current investment plan/initiatives
-
Are minimum/maximum fund values strict? Is there an optimal grant size? Min and max are general guidance. There will be some flexibility on this issue. Please describe clearly the ideas and give us time to discuss among GI initiatives how the work would be handled – e.g. submitted by one center or across 15 stations. There is no optimal size. But if you have a flexibility on the amount, then please indicate it (e.g. we can do it in 2 locations or 5 locations). Ensure you explain why you choose this location/project to show best value for money and ROI. It does not necessarily increase your chance of funding by submitting as many proposals as possible.
-
If it is a multi-center co-submission, is it ok to go over the maximum? Yes, but if the funds requested are above the range, there needs to be very strong justification. We want to see evidence of a 1CG approach, so combining Centers on one proposal may actually be a selling point. Proposals will not be penalized for combining across Centers, but there may be negotiations to bring down the total. If two or more partners are implementing, then describe the benefits (e.g. less overhead, synergies etc.).
-
Are extensions possible and how would they be handled? If we believe one may be needed, do we include this in proposal?
Deadlines are strict. But this is the concept phase, so please reach out to us in the development stage. If what you are thinking are along the right lines, then we can work with you to align it with the Guidelines. For deadlines, work should be planned to finish before end 2024. There may be opportunities for extension, but the concept should plan to end at end 2024. If in the future, that becomes impossible, there will be discussions about extension. If it’s a new breeding approach, the implementation could be within this proposal timeline, but the impacts may flow after the life of the CtEH funding. But the (eventual) expected impact need to be explained, e.g., change, capacity improvement, uptake, readiness for impact etc.
-
How can we avoid duplication of submissions for CAPEX? Submissions will be assessed at the concept note due date, but some equipment/CAPEX will likely be covered in an existing facility upgrade proposal (15 stations upgrade), which is in addition to the current call. You are advised to connect with EiB’s Bish/Gustavo to avoid duplicating work. Note that CtEH is really focused on addressing key bottlenecks, not just for replacing existing activities with more modern equipment
-
Will existing / past investment be factored in, or will submissions be penalized because of this? No, as long as there's a clear path to impact aligned with the Guidelines.
-
For stations that work on multiple crops, can multiple submissions be made? Can they be joined together in one submission?
Yes, both are possible, as long as there's clear prioritization within the crop network and it descreases costs for joint management of the proposals. It should be made clear what is most critical investment that could yield highest ROI: generate cost savings, improve operations etc. Also see 2.
-
What if the investment will be used outside the priority regions, e.g. CAPEX in Latin America but that serves priority areas? This is possible as long as the benefits are aligned with priority crops and regions. The final outcome of the investment benefit (including gender, climate) must match the priorities described in the Guidelines. Proposals will be scored and an overall score from an overall assessment. There is not a “yes” or a “no” that either guarantees or refuses funding of a proposal based on one amongst the many criteria.
-
What is organizational change? How does a one-off investment target organizational change? Resources required to augment the breeding processes, can be personnel, OPEX, CAPEX, etc, but not be routine/operational in nature. If it’s an upgrade of the program or a new approach, then it would fit under this concept. E.g., opening a new breeding line that has not been considered in Initiative planning would not fit. But if a crop is trying to get to a point where it can, for example, genotype and it needs a marker panel, it can be seen as a one-time investment catalyzing change. Please understand that this is an investment and not sustained funding
-
Gender relevance can be challenging to fit in for each aspect of the proposal, so how do we go about incorporating this? This is gender mainstreaming and even if a challenge, it is a necessity and policy to give it the required attention. Please ensure you describe how your project will consider/impact gender at the implementation and/or beneficiary stages. You might reach out to the Gender Platform’s Nicoline de Haan for help. Nicoline will participate in some FAQ calls to advise on how to best describe the gender components.
-
How important is it to link with GI Initiatives? Please try to leverage the overall program logic. Initiative results frameworks are currently somewhat broad, and most proposals should have little issue relating Initiatives to the CtEH investments under. CtEH should be seen as complementary funding, but it is important to separate items which are already supported to avoid ambiguity – explain how CtEH is complimentary to Initiative work. E.g., mapping staff 50% to an Initiative and 50% to CtEH is not recommended. For investments not being captured under existing GI framework, that's fine as well.
-
Can submissions be made from within Initiatives themselves? It’s possible but must be clearly articulated that it’s vital, and not items already covered by Initiative. Describe why it is not covered by the Initiative. As above, we would like to avoid shared positions, e.g., 50% CtEH and 50% initiative, because it’s difficult trace results back to the investment for reporting. If it’s to support existing Initiative staff, explain how can staff capacity will allow the goals to be better achieved.
-
Can submissions come directly from NARES? Ideally these would be coordinated with CGIAR leads, who will need to submit the Concept Note/Proposal.
-
How do we incorporate BPAT, especially since they are often long, detailed plans? BPAT and existing improvement plans (IP) will be used as part of the concept note/ proposal selection criteria. But there is some flexibility. Many BPAT reports are extensive, and in some cases not very recent. Both BPAT and IP will factor in as part of the screening criteria, but if there are items not specifically spelt out in BPAT, it’s possible to put it forward. The crop team will have to decide what is best method to tackle the areas described in BPAT. "It is always good to start, even if the journey is long. If you do not start - you’ll never get to your destination," - Stefan, GIZ.