Skip this Video
Download Presentation
The Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Collaborative Research on Aquaculture & Fisheries

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 18

The Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Collaborative Research on Aquaculture & Fisheries - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

The Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Collaborative Research on Aquaculture & Fisheries. AquaFish Proposal Review Panel Conference Call Agenda, 20 May 2013. 11:00 am Panel introduction, review process, pointers 11:30 am Review proposals 11:30 UM 11:50 NCSU 12:10 PU 12:30 UConn

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' The Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Collaborative Research on Aquaculture & Fisheries' - bing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

The Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Collaborative Research on Aquaculture & Fisheries

aquafish proposal review panel conference call agenda 20 may 2013

AquaFish Proposal Review Panel Conference Call Agenda, 20 May 2013

11:00 amPanel introduction, review process, pointers

11:30 am Reviewproposals

11:30 UM

11:50 NCSU

12:10 PU

12:30 UConn

12:50 AU

1:10 pm Discuss panel summaries

2:00 pmEnd panel review

panel people
Panel People
  • AquaFish Director: Hillary Egna
  • AquaFish Research Projects Manager: Ford Evans
  • Panel Members:
    • Randy Brummett
    • Anita Kelly
    • Chris Knud-Hansen
    • John Moehl
    • George Norton
    • Bart Green
general proposal review process
General proposal review process
  • NSF-style peer review
  • For each proposal:
    • 4 to 5 individual critiques
    • 1 panel summary
  • Scribe: first discussant and summary writer - summary presents consensus ONLY. Individual critiques retain divergent views.
  • Panelists have until May 21 (Tues) to change individual critiques and scores.
  • Please notify Ford if you modify your critique.
the review process
The Review Process
  • One scribe per proposal
  • The SCRIBE
      • Presents a summary of the proposal (3 minutes).
      • Comments on strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvement (3 minutes).
      • Records each subsequent panelist’s comments.
  • Each subsequent PANELIST
      • Adds to or addresses previous panelists’ comments (3 minutes).
  • The SCRIBE
      • Reads summary notes at the end of the proposal discussion.
      • Prepares panel summary during “bye”.
      • Bullet format works fine. Careful for errors as this can reduce the credibility of your review.
the review process con t
The Review Process (con’t)
  • The panel summary is read aloud, and viewed online. Everyone “signs” the online statement.
  • Critiques should be bold, and if needed, contain recommendations for funding. Comments, should be constructive. How can this proposal be improved? Rewritten entirely, or parts?
  • The final summaries can not be revised after they are “signed”.
aquafish generalities from the rfp
AquaFish generalities from the RFP
  • Research program primarily
  • Capacity building emphasis/Institutional development
  • Clearly focused outreach
  • Gender integration and planning focus
  • Human nutrition
  • Outgrowth from Title XII legislation
usaid specific guidance
USAID Specific Guidance
  • Focus on research. Build on Phase I and previous research, including VCA (2012).
  • New program area: The Program for Research on Nutritious and Safe Foods address undernutrition, especially in women and children, by increasing the availability and access to nutrient dense foods through research on horticulture crops, livestock, fish and dairy, food safety threats such as mycotoxins and other contaminants and on household nutrition and food utilization.
rfp pointers 1
RFP pointers (1)
  • Balance between topic areas in Integrated Production Systems (4 TA) and in People, Livelihoods, and Ecosystem Interrelationships (6 TA).
  • Each proposal should have TAs in both categories.
rfp pointers 2
RFP pointers (2)
  • Focus on aquaculture research for smallholders and to benefit the poor.
  • No funding for “fisheries only” projects, or “outreach only projects”
  • Focus on key ecosystems and species; less focus on genetics, diseases but acceptable if combined with relevant TAs
rfp pointers 3
RFP pointers (3)
  • Recommended 7 investigations per proposal; max is 10
  • A common GE investigation will be added to each project on feeding: non fed, alternate, full ration (new)
  • Must have primarily research (study/experiment) and at least one outreach investigation (activity)
  • Must have one investigation that is an activity focused on outreach to women or girls
  • Must have on investigation focused on a Value Chain Analysis
rfp pointers 4
RFP pointers (4)
  • Clear goal (Themes A-D) supported by TA and investigations
  • Alignment with USAID goals: gender, capacity building, environmental impact, and other points in RFP
  • Alignment with the FTF initiative in the areas of inclusive agricultural growth and improved nutritional status of target populations
rfp pointers 5
RFP pointers (5)
  • 50% budget (direct costs) in HC
  • Little or no US PI salary (0.16FTE/project)
  • Overall minimal salary support for academic professionals, except true HC
  • No expats, not much use of consultants
  • Students identified and part of research
  • 20% US match on total (eg500k, then 100k)
  • 20% targeted HC contribution on total funding
almost done thank you
Almost done…THANK YOU!
  • Your technical peer review is the first tier.
  • A weak proposal will not move forward to the next tiers of review – USAID and AquaFish programmatic review.
ranking category
Ranking Category

Highly Recommended for Funding

Recommended if Funding is Available

review schedule assignments
Review Schedule/Assignments


5.0 = Excellent

4.0 = Very Good

3.0 = Good

2.0 = Fair

1.0 = Poor

  • Your honorarium
  • A huge Thank You!

Funding for this presentation was provided by theThe Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Collaborative Research on Aquaculture & fisheries

The AquaFish Innovation Lab is funded in part by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Cooperative Agreement No. EPP-A-00-06-00012-00and by US and Host Country partners.

The contents of this presentation do not necessarily represent an official position or policy of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Mention of trade names or commercial products in this presentation does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use on the part of USAID or AquaFish. The accuracy, reliability, and originality of the work presented are the responsibility of the individual authors.

Egna 7/15/08 CIP NH

Egna 7/15/08 CIP NH