IIAM logo

Instituto de Investigação Agrária de Moçambique

Eventos anteriores Legislação Pessoal Produtos Publicações Contacto


IIAM Geral

Direcção Geral

Direcções

Centros Zonais

Compete : Bolsas Competitivas

Recursos Bibliográficos

Histórias de sucesso

Anúncio de Vagas

Compete
Mozambique Agricultural Research Competitive Grants Program
Vá à versão Portuguese
Links to Compete's Pages
Analysis of Competes First Grant Cycle Concept Papers Top

The first grant cycle was initiated in January 2007. It resulted in 43 concept papers. The following is an graphic presentation that the concept papers as a whole revealed about agriculture research community in Mozambique.
The evaluation process ended up dividing the concept papers into three categories:

  • those invited to proceed to preparing full proposals
  • those asked to re-submit because the presented a clear researchable concept but with weaknesses usually in methodology that needed to be addressed;,
  • those that were rejected (usually because they were either completely outside of IIAMs, priorities, failed to present a researchable concept, or disqualified because the researcher was not working in a Mozambican registered organization)

Thirteen (30%) of the 43 concept papers were developed by women and 3 (27 %) were invited to develop full proposals (see Table 1 and Figure 1 below).

Table 1: 
Gender Distribution of Concept Paper Writers


Frequency

Reject

Re-submit

Proceed to write Proposal

Total

Male

7

15

8

30

Female

3

7

3

13

Total

10

22

11

43

Figure 1
Gender Breakdown between Rejected, Resubmit and Proceed designation of Concept Papers

 

concept papers breakdown

Table 2
Average Illustrative Budgets


Average budget request

Reject

Re-submit

To proceed

Average Budgets

Male

$186,969

$208,850

$170,095

$193,409

Female

$300,382

$147,265

$136,667

$180,154

Average Budget

$220,993

$189,255

$160,978

 

The 43 proposals reflected the broad range of areas in which Mozambican agrarian researchers are involved.  Table 3 below groups the concept papers into 16 areas. Cereals (maize) and Legumes in the top 3 as expected.  However, given that cassava is the number one carbohydrate in Mozambique and the first priority for food security on the IIAM strategic priority list it is somewhat surprising to find roots and tubers (cassava/manioc, sweet potatoes and Irish potatoes) in 4th position.

Table 3
Breakdown of Concept papers by commodity or cross cutting issue


Topic

CPs Total

CPs To proceed

Cereals

12

3

Animals

11

3

Legumes

11

2

Roots and tubers

7

1

Indigenous fruits

6

1

Cropping systems

4

 

Vegetables

4

 

Fruit crops

3

 

IP&DM

3

2

Natural resources

3

2

Medicinal plants

2

 

Oil and industrial crops

2

 

Agro-forestry species

1

 

Biotechnology

1

 

Animal diseases

1

1

Seeds

1

 

 

72

15

Animal production a second-tier priority made an strong showing.  The presence of so many proposals in this area is perhaps a function not only of strong capacity in the country of animal scientists (long-standing Faculty of Veterinary Science at Eduardo Mondlane Univeristy) but also a generalized feeling that in specific provinces such as Maputo and Gaza cattle production makes the best use of the low rainfall grasslands; that provinces such as Tete goat production is an important income generator for small scale family agriculture and finally all over Mozambique chickens represent both a protein source as well as the only source of quick cash.

A very interesting result was the strong showing of Natural Resources Management issues in terms of indigenous fruit, agro-forestry, natural resources and medicinal plants which were either the main focus or a part of some broader concept.  Together they were included in 15 concept papers.  Three of the papers with NRM were invited to produce full proposals.  Important to see that although the Priority setting document strongly favoured crop production that researchers were able to show the links between wild resources and poverty alleviation.  Some of these papers, particularly the medicinal plant research, were truly outside Compete’s mandate but I think the result shows that NRM workers need simply to establish how their work address the key impact Compete is looking for:  poverty alleviation, income generation and food security.

The following graphs show how selection of concept papers changed the relative balance between the research areas.  Crop production researchers selected to produce full proposals declined from 62% to 46%.

Figure 2
Percentage of Concept Paper Topics versus Percentage of Selected Topics

Proposed TopicsSelected Topics

Budget Analysis
The only indication given by Compete as to budget was an upper limit of US $300,000. The graph below has the budgets of the selected group superimposed on the budgets of all the 43.  Very distinctive is that the large group with budgets above $250,000.  Budgets were not used to rank the concept papers but as it turned out none of this high budget group scored well technically.  Equally interesting were the group under $125,000.  These were usually tight, highly focused proposals.


Figure 3
#1

 

Table 4
Concept Budget Distribution by Intervals of US$25,000.

Class limits

Total

To proceed

Low

High

 

 

0

25,000

1

1

25,000

50,000

1

0

50,000

75,000

2

0

75,000

100,000

1

0

100,000

125,000

4

2

125,000

150,000

5

2

150,000

175,000

5

0

175,000

200,000

5

3

200,000

225,000

3

2

225,000

250,000

4

1

250,000

275,000

8

0

275,000

300,000

2

0

300,000

325,000

1

0

325,000

350,000

0

0

350,000

375,000

1

0

375,000

400,000

0

0

 

 

43

11

 

Institutional Diversity, Partners, Mentors
An important goal of Compete is to reach both private sector, NGO and government agrarian researchers throughout the country.  Figure 4 captures the information about the lead researchers graphically and Table 4 gives the actual figures. 


Figure 4
Concept Paper Writer Research Institutions

#2

Table 5
Distribution of Concept Paper Writers between Institutions

 

CPs Total

CPs To proceed

IIAM

28

65%

7

64%

UEM

5

12%

2

18%

ISP

4

9%

1

9%

IITA

1

2%

1

9%

IKURU

1

2%

0

0%

Vachekulo

1

2%

0

0%

Africabio

1

2%

0

0%

Produsola

1

2%

0

0%

Vetaid

1

2%

0

0%

 

43

100%

11

100%

Another goal of Compete was to work towards improving the research capacity of the Zonal Centers which are a part of the IIAM.   And Figure 5 gives the breakdown for the different sections of IIAM. The CZ submitted 18 of 28 proposals received from IIAM.  Nordeste (Nampula) had the most with 9.

Figure 5
Institutional Diversity of Concept Paper Writers

#3

Table 6
Institutional Diversity of Concept Papers and Proposal Writers

 

CPs Total

CPs To proceed

DARN

6

14%

3

27%

DCA

3

7%

1

9%

DFDTT

1

2%

0

0%

CZSouth

5

12%

1

9%

CZCenter

2

5%

2

18%

CZNortheast

9

21%

0

0%

CZNorthwest

2

5%

0

0%

F.Agronomy

3

7%

1

9%

F. Veterinary

2

5%

1

9%

ISPGaza

2

5%

1

9%

ISPManica

2

5%

0

0%

IITA

1

2%

1

9%

IKURU

1

2%

0

0%

Vachekulo

1

2%

0

0%

Africabio

1

2%

0

0%

Produsola

1

2%

0

0%

Vetaid

1

2%

0

0%

 

43

100%

11

100%

The concept paper writers in responding to the IIAM strategy for partnerships with the diversity of NGOs and private sector involvement in agriculture in Mozambique  strategic requirement for partners drew developed partnerships to write and research the concepts presented.  Such partnerships included district agricultural extension agents and NGOs such as World Vision International, Africare, Care and Technosurv. 
Several researchers also proposed mentoring relationships with international organization including ICIPE, ICRAF and ILRI.

Figure 6
Distribution of Proposed Research Sites by Province

#4
Weaknesses Common to Most Concept Papers of the First Grant Cycle Top

1. The Research Question: Although most concept papers were good on describing the context in which their research issue was located most failed to lead from that description to a formulation of a researchable question or hypothesis.

a. For example a researcher might establish in the concept papers that poor farmers need seed and seeds have been developed. At this point one possibility is that an individual could start selling or distributing improved seeds. But the fact is that neither distribution nor sale would be considered research!

b. A researcher might however have questions about when and/or where suitable conditions for the use of these seeds exist and which type of farmer will use them most productively. These questions as well as others could form the basis of a research program. Most concept papers were weak on stating what they did not know and therefore what they needed to research.

2. On farm Trials like all other research methodologies on-farm trials need to be described in function of the questions they are designed to answer. Such a discussion would mention:

a. Types of variables to be built into their design such as soil types, spatial and social characteristics,

b. Types of implementation and data collection protocols to be developed in the full proposal; and

c. Types of data analysis proposed d. Fraca ou ausente descrição das metodologias de OFR em função das questões a responder

3. Research leading to dissemination might consider integrating dissemination alternatives into their research.

4. Inadequate attention given to the economics of the chosen technology, either in terms of money or otherwise (like labor, land, etc.) Papers would be improved looking at this aspect:

a. Most research proposals will benefit from cost benefit analysis of the technology for eventually recommended for dissemination.

b. Aspectos sócio-económicos (incluindo género) e de rentabilidade geralmente não abordados durante o processo de identificação de problemas e soluções.

5. Partners, Mentors and Multi-disciplinarity: Most of the proposed research is multidisciplinary in scope. Researchers need to think more strategically about the use of their partners and mentors in terms of the multidisciplinary aspects of their research. The partner should not be a duplication of a skill already available in the principal researcher. You should be looking for skills that you do not already have. For example, an agronomist may need a partner to design, implement and analyze soil fertility aspects of his or her project. Or a livestock researcher may need a socio-economist to refine the thinking on socioeconomic and gender impacts. Be very clear about the skills you require from your partners.

6. Gender: If you do not have gender analysis in your background then please go and see a socio-economist who can help you sort out this aspect of your concept paper and proposal. You may also seek advice from either member of the Compete team.

Literature Review: All concept papers need to be situating their research questions within the existing knowledge of the issue. Proposals will need enough of a review to demonstrate the present thinking on the subject by your national and/or international research colleagues.


Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Top

1. What would a winning competitive proposal look like? It would be highly responsive to the Request for Proposal (RFP). The table below is an example of how an RFP can be analyzed so that all the key requirements can be responded to in the research design:

RFP Requirements Response Required in the Proposal Opportunities and ideas to consider in the research design
Address issues of rural productivity, food security and income and market Describe a real farmer in a real place with a pressing problem that is true for a lot of other farmers and places; consider the role of gender in the issue and its solution. Mentor?
Address the IIAM’s priority research areas Check the list on the RFP or in the Grants Mgmt Manual. Gender issues?
Adaptive and applied research Consider technologies with potential for immediate/short term impact and adoption. Consider both male and female farmers.
Suggest one or two alternative technologies for solving that problem in a manner that would be acceptable to the farmer and his cohort throughout the region or country ;
Propose how s/he would go about adapting and testing the technology to resolve the selected farm problem;
Opportunity for partnerships for adapting technology?
Recognize previous work Discuss results of on-going or previous trials in Mozambique or relevant other country; Opportunities for partnerships?  Mentors?
Adoption Consider issues of adoption; discuss how adoption constraints affect adaptation.  Mentor? Local field-level partnerships?
Methodology Discuss in some detail.   
Constraints Discuss constraints to testing, including adaptation, adoption, logistics and field management including management of researchers’’ other commitments; Opportunities for partnerships to resolve constraints?
Data treatment Discuss the treatment of data;
Mention the tools you intend to use.
Opportunity for data analysis partnerships?
Technology transfer as a researchable issue Consider how s/he would go about transferring the new technique to the farmers. Dissemination materials? Partnership opportunity?
Strong project management Lay out a thoughtful plan for managing finances and logistics;
Identify indicators and benchmarks;
Indicate where data will be broken down by gender.
Include project mgmt in log frame of activities.

Address: IIAM; Av das FPLM 2698; Maputo; Mozambique; Ph/Fax: 258-21460255;
Email: compete@tdm.co.mz

IIAM Logo USAID Logo ARD Logo