Instituto de Investigação Agrária de Moçambique Eventos anteriores Legislação Pessoal Produtos Publicações Contacto |
|
Compete
Mozambique Agricultural Research Competitive Grants Program |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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:
Figure 1
Table 2
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
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
Budget Analysis
Table 4
Institutional Diversity, Partners, Mentors
Table 5
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 Table 6
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. Figure 6
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
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:
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:
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||