Preparation and Submission of Concept Notes

Staggering of Calls  

For calling proposals from various  consortia components, the PIU will first call for a CN. These calls will be staggered in two tranches advertised in leading news papers, scientific journals, electronic media and through circulars in various leading institutes & organizations viz. public, private, NGOs & financial institutions. Reputed international organizations, industries, cooperatives & extension organization, which have contributed to research- farmer-extension linkages, may be specially targeted for wide publicity.  

The Research Call addresses identified themes, which are relevant to PCS, SRLS and BSR.

Essential parts of the CN under PCS and SRLS (for format see Appendix 9a) may include the following Length not to exceed 8 pages:

v              Title (one line)

v              Scope and dimensions of the study including:

·         Economic significance.

·         Immediate objectives/ developmental objectives.

·         Review of work done/ in pipeline & critical gaps.

·         Methodology and approach.

·         Expected output/ impact/ achievements.

v           Partners (name, designation, qualifications and contributions/ experience of each of the members of the consortium, within the organization as well as expected collaborating organization(s) to be described) with institutional affiliation and envisaged contribution of each member of consortium for the overall Programme.

v           Cost estimates

            A desirable PCS involves several stages from production to consumption. Thus, producers, processors, transporters, traders, consumers, etc. are integrated for accruing benefits at each stage and among the stages to add substantial value to any commodity. A benefit-cost analysis of the entire chain would therefore be an obvious criteria for selecting a commodity for PCS research.

Note: Proposers should note that acceptance of a CN and an invitation to prepare a FP will not guarantee that the proposal will necessarily be accepted for funding.

Format for Submission of CN

After the “Call of CNs”, the prospective CL will submit 1 “hard” copy of the CN to the PIU-NAIP and also provide it electronically (via e-mail and/or on a disc) as detailed in the “Call” in the prescribed formats for different components, namely:  Appendix 7a for PCS and SRLS, and Appendix 7b for BSR.  For proper appraisal of the CN, it is necessary that the application form is neatly typed and complete in all respects and submitted to the PIU within stipulated time.  Summarily or incomplete CNs received after due date will not be entertained. The PIU will acknowledge the receipt of the CN after codification. All CN applications will be treated as confidential.

Processing & Approval of CNs

After preliminary screening, the concerned NC will send the CN to three independent reviewers (approved by the RPC). The peer reviewers will submit their report within one month from the date of receipt of the complete proposal.

Each CN will be critically examined by three peer reviewers and the TAG in relation to prescribed criteria9 for various components (Appendix 8a, 8b and 8c). The proceedings of the TAG meeting on the CN will be presented by the concerned NC in the RPC meeting where a decision to its approval/ modification/ rejection will be taken and this will be communicated to the CL. 

Sponsored Consortia in Component 3

The sub-projects under component 3 may be solicited from reputed stakeholders in case of no-response, poor quality responses etc. for particular selected disadvantaged areas.

Guidelines for Development, Refinement, Submission,  Review & Approval of Sub-project Proposals

 Procedure for Development and Refinement of Full (Sub-project) Proposals

The PIU-NAIP will facilitate development and refinement of FPs (after the CN is approved) through a Help-desk, organizing a stakeholder workshop, providing database information (if available) etc. to the prospective CL. The schematic of approval of research proposals is provided in Figure 3.

For each successful CN, a stakeholder interaction workshop will be convened by the concerned CL who will involve all potential partners. Some additional persons who are not previously listed in the CN, but have capabilities to contribute may also be invited. The CL has to develop a base paper with components and possible partners and their role.  Some of the guidelines to organize the workshop are :

• Each CL will obtain from the participating institutions the names of each consortium partner with their brief CVs, and develop an up-to-date database for each of the sub-programmes along with names of some experts and invite them for the workshop. One copy of the list of experts and participants should be sent to the PIU. Those centers, which do not respond in time can be left out for the first call, and can be considered for the later call(s). The expenses relating to TA/DA of Consortium partners (including one or two resource persons who will be participating in the workshop) and actual logistic expenses may be reimbursed to the Lead Consortium (only for those whose CN has been approved). 

• The workshop has to be conducted in a business-like manner with major emphasis on discussion to arrive at high quality and relevant proposals involving each participant.  The PIU-NAIP may participate in this Workshop with no financial liability to the Lead Institution.

• In the workshop, presentation on general concept of the NAIP, its structure and goals, research programmes identified including value-addition, processing, marketing etc., funding arrangements, M&E indicators etc., are mandatory items of the Programme. This will be followed by a presentation on the problem identified in a participants’ consortium system and research programmes allotted to each CL/ PI and CCPI in relation to a component.

·        Each cooperating center with a specific programme will first develop its programme of work.  The proposals from individual participating centers should emerge out of an interactive process, and be accepted for consideration only when evidence of such an interaction is presented.  The participating centers should be advised about the workshop well in advance.  The individual center programmes will be synthesized in the workshop convened by the CL/ PI and a unified proposal will be developed. PI & CCPIs will develop detailed programmes for each site according to the project proposal, subsequently for implementation of FP. These are: 

CALL OF RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Fig: 3   Schematics for Approval of CGS Research Proposals

Ø   A Bench-mark survey covering environmental, production, sustainability, socio-economic, marketing, M&E indicators should be given due emphasis and involvement of social scientists in the formulation of proposals is considered crucial.

Ø   In drafting the Project Proposal, the team must make a critical assessment of capabilities of each center, the technical programme proposed and equally important, the requirements of funds and facilities proposed by individual centers before finalizing the details.  If any NGO or private organizations are proposed to be involved, their strengths and capabilities would need to be critically assessed before involving them as partners.  As far as possible, Zonal Agricultural Research Stations (ZARSs), KVKs, ATMAs etc. should be involved in the programmes for development of site-specific technologies/ interventions

Ø   The proposal should be developed using the format prescribed after carefully reading the instructions given.

Ø   Training needs at various levels needs to be clearly assessed.

Ø   The PIU should be informed well in advance about the programme of the workshop to be organized for FP.

Ø   The CVs of PIs and CCPIs from the cooperating centers should be obtained by the PIs and appended to the proposals to facilitate examining each center's scientific capabilities and previous experience of the key staff.

            A Helpdesk established at NAARM, Hyderabad would provide assistance to the prospective CLs to develop their FPs.

 Submission of Full Proposal Alongwith Proceedings of the Workshop

The PI will compile proceedings of the workshop that will include a list of participants and comments, criticisms & suggestions given by various participants on each sub-project. The meeting should be chaired by an eminent person who has experience and expertise to guide the meeting. These comments will be considered for modifications, improvement & strengthening of the sub-project by each consortium partner. The CL/PI will forward one hard copy of updated full proposal along with the proceedings of the workshop and one CD at the earliest (within 2 weeks after holding the workshop) to the concerned NC. The proposal shall be submitted through proper channel of the host organization of the CL. The format of FP is given in Appendix 9. Two prototypes (only samples) on value chains namely, biofuels and meat and meat products are given in Appendices 10 and 11.

Criteria for Evaluation of the Full Research Proposal

            A set of criteria contributing to growth, equity, gender, sustainability, involvement of stakeholders, potential multiplier effects, and justification of public expenditure, has been proposed for research sub-project FP evaluation. The criteria for evaluating research sub-projects should consider the strength of the proposal in respect to  the M&E framework, environmental and social framework, impact assessment framework, knowledge management framework, additional resource management, HRD plan, contribution to social capital build-up and environmental strength. Investigators should articulate these criteria in their research proposals in a manner that is easily comprehended by their peers during the evaluation process of the project. The relative importance of different criteria is not the same for each research sub-project. Some criteria may be applicable only at the national, or agro-ecosystem, or at the sub-project level.

Scientific Merit of Full Proposal

            While evaluating the merit of the research proposals and determining how they fit into the stated priorities and strategies for the given consortium/issue of PCS/ SRLS, peer reviewers and TAG must look for logic, evidence of the proposal’s ability to address a high priority problem, innovativeness, critical gaps and the felt need as systematically identified through standard surveys for such purposes. They must also examine whether the application of methods is in line with the adopted designs. The following key questions, if appropriately answered, will facilitate the evaluation and assessment of the proposal’s usefulness. These include:

A. General

·        Is the overall presentation and logic of the proposal sound; are the objectives and hypotheses appropriate and clear?

·        Has a sound justification been given? In particular, does the proposal provide evidence that it is addressing a high priority problem?

·        Is the work innovative as evident from the literature review?

·        Are the research methods and experimental treatments appropriate to the problem?

·        Is the activity chart appropriate and implementation work plan adequate with suitable milestones to track progress?

·        Is there a high risk factor in implementation of the suggested plan/ strategy? If yes, what is the mitigation plan?

·        Is there evidence of similar work being carried out elsewhere?

·        Is the proposed budget estimate appropriate and in line with the priority/ importance of the subject, technical programme and/or proposed time frame?

B. Specific

·        Do the researchers have the skills to complete the research satisfactorily?

·        Is the research infrastructure adequate for implementation of the proposal at the lead and cooperating centers? Is it essential to provide all the requested equipment? Can the existing facilities be renovated/strengthened by providing some accessories, etc.?

·        Are requested resources, including those for contractual help and training, realistic?

·        During the implementation of the Programme, if the performance of any consortium/ center is found to be unsatisfactory, the following measures will be taken:

Ø      First warning that M&E results show substantial delay on scheduled consortium progress with an invitation to explain lack of progress to RPC.

Ø      If this has no results within one month, a second warning that M&E results show substantial delay on scheduled consortium progress, and an invitation to develop plan to overcome slow progress.

Ø      If this has no results within another month, funding to the consortium will be frozen and the PIU will enter into negotiations with the CAC as to how the consortium can be restructured.

Ø      If restructuring is unsuccessful, funding to the consortium will be stopped and unaccounted resources recovered.

C.     Evidence of New Directions / Innovations

·        Does the proposal show evidence of using a multi-disciplinary approach?

·        Is there evidence of a systems approach involving more than one commodity or enterprise? Proposals addressing issues for optimizing of severely constrained processes limiting system production may get added advantage.

·        Is there evidence of involvement of potential beneficiaries? Other things remaining the same, the proposal with focus on disadvantaged areas, vulnerable groups and/ or women will be preferred.

·        Does the proposal take into consideration the production system perspective? Is the proposal independent of other on-going and newly planned researches? What is the suggested linkage and will it be effective?

·        What is the Knowledge Management Strategy and Plan?  What is the results uptake plan?

 Evaluation of Full Proposal (FP)

Processing of FPs by NCs

The concerned NC will assign a code number to each FP (same as corresponding CN). The NC will make a scrutinize various elements of the proposal, with particular reference to the technical programme, its relevance to NAIP, reasonability of demands made and overlaps if any, based on the criteria for evaluation and prepare an information note for the TAG/ RPC meeting (Appendix 12).

The Finance Wing of the PIU-NAIP will examine the proposal from a financial perspective and the Procurement Officer will assess it from a procurement angle (using the information in developing procurement plans of the NAIP).

Evaluation of FP by Referees

The concerned NC will then send the FP to three peer reviewers (one of the reviewer should have also examined the CN). The peer reviewers will critically examine the suitability of the complete proposal covering all the essential and desirable criteria10 in different modes (to be developed by the TAG and the RPC). The peer reviewers will submit their report within one month from the date of receipt of the FP.

Evaluation of FP by the TAG

The concerned NC will prepare the PIU-Notes (including Referees’ reports) and will submit the FP before TAG for consideration. The CL will be invited to make a detailed presentation on the proposal and clarify any queries.  The TAG will refer to the following criteria in order to judge the merit of the sub-project proposal:

Production to Consumption Systems (PCS): For PCS, at the stage of complete and final sub-project proposal evaluation, due importance will be given to:

·           Scientific technological & economic merits of the proposal,

·           The proposal should have backward, horizontal, vertical and/or forward                        linkages for productivity, profitability and international competitiveness as well as export potential.

·           It may also be desirable to consider comprehensiveness, practicality of the target fixed vis-à-vis the bench marks.

·           Strength of the lead institutions and the partners in terms of trained human resources, infrastructure and past achievements on similar lines by the institution.

·           For NGOs consideration refer to section 5.5 and consider its contribution in the concerned disciplines,

·           Due weightage will be given on the likely impact on sociological, environmental and gender issues. Some of the secondary aspects relate to relevance and reasonableness of demand for the equipment items and/or different heads of expenditure.

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security (SRLS): For the SLS & vulnerable groups, the research project should in addition consider the needs of the poor & deprived segments of society, the potential for improvement of production systems in agriculture & allied activities, thus improving NRM, creating rural employment, enhancing household food, nutrition & social security. Priority also will be given to income generating programmes such as bee keeping, mushroom production, milk production, etc. 

            Not only the scientific, technological & socio-economic aspect of the proposal but also the employment generation, nutritional and income security deserve high priority. Weightage may be given on the likely impact on sociological, environmental and gender issues. Some of the secondary aspects may relate to relevance and reasonableness of demands for the equipment and other items under different heads of expenditure.

Basic & Strategic Research in Frontier Areas of Agricultural Sciences (BSR): Scientific merit and the strength of participating institutions will the major criteria for evaluating the FP under BSR.

Site Visit of Consortia for On-the-spot Assessment of the Lead Center

In case of PCS, SRLS and BSR, site visits to selected consortium locations for on-the-spot assessment of the lead center (and/or cooperating centers) may be required.  In such cases, a team comprising of the concerned NC along with at least two members of the TAG will form a team and make a field visit, before taking the proposal to the RPC/ PMC for approval. The team shall consider the following criteria with respect to the submitted project proposal:

• Strength of an institution.

• Its laboratories.

• Infrastructure facilities.

• Field facilities.

• Scientific manpower.

• Technical manpower.

• Commitment & willingness to work.

• Work culture & environment.

• Long term objectives.

• Success stories.

• Patents.

• Financial stability.

• Sustainability.

• Stakeholder contributions.

• For NGOs  refer section 5.5.,

• Commitment of CL. CL shall not have more than one project as leader and be willing to accept to undertake a base-line survey including social and environmental safeguard analysis (as per the NAIP ESF on the Website).

            The Team should make an objective assessment and provide clear-cut recommendations against each one of the above criteria as to whether the proposal deserves funding or not.  In addition to the above-listed consideraions for livelihood security, some of the issues relating to equity i.e. concerning target beneficiaries (tribal & backward), dryland, rainfed, flood prone areas etc., poverty and mal-nutrition should also be considered.

Finalization of Expected Monitorable Impact Indicators of Approved Sub-projects

            The TAG while recommending the proposal to the RPC for approval should finalize the Monitorable Impact Indicators based on the following criteria/ questions:

·        Have the expected outputs been explicitly described and/or quantified? In case of PCS research, the expected outputs may lead to value addition and quantification of impact in terms of profitability, income, employment, exports and sustainability, at realistic ultimate full adoption levels.

·        To what extent have the concerns of the small and marginal farmers/farm women/ women groups been taken into account, particularly with respect to SLS research?

·        What is the justification for public expenditure? Is the proposal backed by an economic analysis?

·        Is there a plan for eventual dissemination of research results?

·        What is the knowledge management plan?

·        What are the other unique features of the proposal that justify the proposed research?

  Evaluation and Approval of FP by the RPC/ PMC

            The proposal alongwith the proceedings of the TAG Meeting (and Site Visit Report if applicable) will be discussed in the RPC to decide on approval.  If the cost of the proposal is more than 10 crores, it will also be discussed in the PMC on the basis of the recommendations of the RPC (Appendix 13).

The following points may be taken into consideration in scheduling the meeting of the RPC:

• Meetings of the RPC would be convened by the respective Member-Secretaries in consultation with the chairperson and the ND, and a notice circulated along with the agenda at least 15 days in advance. The committee meeting should be convened when there is a sufficient agenda/work. Committee meetings for consideration of one or two proposals may be convened only in very exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine.

• The research proposals would be circulated along with referees’ comments and clear-cut PIU notes (to be developed in the format).

• The concerned DDGs and ADGs of the ICAR will be invited to attend the meeting; the PIU-NAIP will send the proposals and comments in advance.

• The NC will pilot the discussion of the FP in the meeting of the RPC highlighting the salient features,  deficiencies, if any, the queries requiring clarifications from the PIs etc..

• The RPC will examine the proposal in all aspects taking into consideration referees', and PIU’s comments, and give its opinion on technical, management, physical and financial aspects.

• The RPC may also interact with PIs if needed.  However, any proposal recommended for major revision should be considered by the TAG/ RPC again (without inviting the PI) for a final decision. Still, in some cases the Chairperson may desire the presence of the PI for resolving particular issues and final clearance of the proposal.  In such cases, the PI can be invited for the second time to attend the meeting of the TAG/ RPC. In all such revised proposals, the PI will without fail provide point-wise responses to any questions raised when forwarding the proposal to the PIU, 

• The PIU will provide an objective appraisal on the extent and type of revisions made in its notes for the TAG/RPC.  If the revision is incomplete/inadequate as judged by concerned NC, such proposals will be returned to PI. If, however, the PI has given a detailed justification for not revising the proposal as advised, such proposals will be taken up for discussion by the TAG/ RPC for taking a final decision on the basis of agreed priorities and available funds.  

• The TAG/ RPC will normally use either of four options while considering individual proposals. These are: (i) proposal is approved for funding; (ii) the proposal is approved subject to minor revisions suggested; (iii) the proposal is to be revised in the light of observations made, and resubmitted to the TAG/ RPC; and (iv) the proposal is rejected. Rejected proposals may after revision be resubmitted in subsequent calls for proposals.  All revisions should be made at the earliest. The minutes of the meeting should bring out details of the observations of the TAG/ RPC on technical, environmental and social safeguards, M&E plan, knowledge management, training/consultancy equipment,  research assistance (RA/ SRF etc.), changes in centers etc., financial and other aspects to work as guidelines for the PI to revise the proposal, and also for the PIU for drafting the sanction order.  The RPC minutes will be circulated to members, DDGs, PIs etc. after approval by the respective Chairperson. 

 Solicitation of Proposals as Sponsored Sub-projects

The RPC/ PMC/ NSC may solicit a limited number of research proposals in specific areas to fill critical gaps.  The committee may identify a suitable PI and collaborators for each of such proposals. 

Signing of MOU & Issuance of Letter of Intent for Approved Sub-projects

            The steps involved are that:

·        Once the minutes of the RPC meeting are officially circulated, a letter of intent will be issued by the PIU.  For this, the concerned NC will examine the revised proposals and verify if the revision has been made in full as advised by the RPC. He/she will record a certificate to that effect on the file, and have a draft sanction letter developed.

·        The draft letter of intent would then be scrutinized by the NAIP Finance & Account Officer for financial norms, budget provision, etc., before the same is approved by ND.

·        The letter of intent will convey approval for the total cost of the sub-project for the approved period not exceeding the total NAIP project period, and financial sanction for the plan period only.  The financial sanction for the period spilling into the next plan period would be issued after the start of that plan period.

·        After issue of the letter of intent, the consortium will sign a contract with the NAIP (ICAR).

·        For all the proposals approved by the RPC, an information sheet will be furnished for endorsement /approval of the PMC by the concerned NC.

·        The proposals which get sanctioned, shall get its project preparation costs reimbursed as per the actual or Rs. 5 lakh whichever is less, provided the expenditure is incurred as per the NAIP norms.

Release of Funds

            The PIU-NAIP will release the funds details of which are given in chapter 8.

Annual NAIP Workshop

The PIU-NAIP will organize an Annual National Workshop of all components under the NAIP in which the salient achievements of the project will be highlighted before senior scientists, managers, administrators, policy planners and all the stakeholders.

 Publication & Dissemination

The achievements of each research sub-project could be published in scientific journals. Other publications may be related to extension, development, policy briefs, etc. Such publications in reputed and interna­tional journals provide important support for a researcher seeking new funding from the NAIP or other agencies. Such publications should be submitted as part of the Annual Report. The following acknowl­edgment should be included in all publications that result from the work in the NAIP funded sub-projects:

“This research was supported by the National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) through its Sub-project entitled “-------------------------” Code number “______.”

            A copy of the reprint of such publications should be furnished to the PIU for information and record. Only those publications having proper acknowledgement shall be considered in the Progress Report of a Consortium/ Sub-project.

For each sub-project, there should be a well-written success story, which should be submitted to the NAIP in hard copy along with an electronic version

Planning for Uptake of Results

            At the time of the second MTR of NAIP, a National Workshop may be organized to plan for uptake of results contained in various sub-projects of the NAIP and to consider measure to ensure sustainability of sub-projects needing continuation after the completing of the current phase of the NAIP. 

 Proposals for Additional Grants and Sub-Project Modification

Proposals for additional grants and modifications in the technical programme of an approved sub-project will be submitted to the concerned NC who will seek the approval of the competent authority.

Procedure for Grant Cancellation

Due to problems beyond redress, a consortium may have to be cancelled. In such cases the approval of the competent authority will be sought according to the provisions of the MOU signed between the NAIP/ ICAR and the consortium.

 MOU among Consortium Partners

            The consortium partners and the PIU-NATP have to sign an MOU; the model draft for such MOUs is given in Appendix 14.