CSCF PROPOSAL FORM - aidstream.org GPAF-INN-036 Proposal.doc · Web viewGPAF COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL FORM ... You must submit a Microsoft Word version of your Proposal and

GPAF COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL FORM (Round 1)The proposal documentation provides detailed information about your proposed project. This information is used to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the initiative and will ultimately inform the DFID funding decisions. It is very important you read the GPAF Community Partnership Window Guidelines for Applicants and related documents before you start working on your Proposal to ensure that you understand and take into account the relevant funding criteria. Please also consider the GPAF Proposals - Key Strengths and Weaknesses document which has been adapted from the document prepared following the appraisal of full proposals submitted to GPAF Innovation windows.. This document identifies the generic strengths and weaknesses of proposals submitted in relation to the key assessment criteria.

How?: You must submit a Microsoft Word version of your Proposal and associated documents by email to [email protected]. It should be written in Arial font size 12. We do not require a hard copy.

When?: All Proposal documents must be received by Triple Line on or before 23:59 GMT on Friday 5th April 2013. Proposal documents that are received after the deadline will not be considered.

What?: You must submit the following documents:

1. Narrative Proposal : Please use the form below. The form has been designed to allow you to record all the information DFID needs to assess your proposed project. Please note the following page limits:

Sections 1 – 8 : Maximum of 15 (fifteen) A4 pages Section 9 : Maximum of 3 (three) A4 pages per partnerPlease do not alter the formatting of the form and guidance notes. Proposals that exceed the page limits or that have amended formatting may not be considered.

2. Logical framework: All applicants must submit a full Logical Framework/Logframe and Activities Log. Please refer to the GPAF Logframe Guidance and How-To-Note and use the Excel logframe template provided.

3. Project Budget: Applicants must submit a full project budget with the Proposal. Please refer to the GPAF Community Partnership Window Guidelines for Applicants and Financial Management Guidelines and the notes on the budget template (for Round 4). The Excel template has three worksheets/tabs: Guidance Note; Budget; and Budget Notes. Please read all guidance notes and provide full and detailed budget notes to justify the budget figures.

4. Your organisation's governance documents: e.g. Memorandum and Articles of Association, Trust Deed, Constitution. We need this to check your eligibility. If you have any doubts about your eligibility please contact Triple Line Consulting immediately.

5. Organisational Accounts: All applicants must provide a copy of their most recent (less than 12 months after end of accounting period) signed and audited (or independently examined) accounts.

6. Project organisational chart/organogram: All applicants must provide a project organisational chart or organogram demonstrating the relationships between the key project partners and other key stakeholders Please use your own format for this.

7. Project Schedule or GANTT chart: All applicants must provide a project schedule or GANTT chart to show the scheduling of project activities (please use your own format for this).

1

Before submitting your Proposal, please complete the checklist below to ensure that you have provided all of the necessary documents.

CHECKLIST OF PROPOSAL DOCUMENTATIONPlease check boxes for each of the documents you are submitting with this form. All documents must be submitted by e-mail to: [email protected]

Mandatory items for all applicants CheckY/N

Proposal form (sections 1-8) Y

Proposal form (section 9 - for each partner) Y

Project Logframe Y

Project Budget (with detailed budget notes) Y

Your most recent set of audited or approved organisational annual accounts

Y

Project organisational chart / organogram Y

Project bar or GANTT chart to show scheduling Y

Please provide comments on the documentation provided (if relevant)

2

GLOBAL POVERTY ACTION FUND (GPAF) – COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP WINDOW PROPOSAL FORM

SECTION 1: INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPLICANT1.1 Lead organisation name Find Your Feet

1.2 Main contact person1.3 2nd contact person

(If applicable)

1.4 Please use this space to inform of any changes to the applicant organisation details provided in your Concept Note (including any more up to date income figures)

N/a

SECTION 2: BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT2.1 Concept Note Reference No. INN-05-CN-0962

2.2 Project title Farmer innovation to increase food security and income for 2,900 farming families in Chimanimani, Zimbabwe

2.3 Country(ies) where project is to be implemented

Zimbabwe

2.4 Locality(ies)/region(s) within country(ies)

Chimanimani District

2.5 Duration of project (in months) 36 months

2.6 Anticipated start date of project (not before 01 April 2013)

01/04/2014

2.7 Total project budget? (In GBP sterling)

£266,804

2.8 Total funding requested from DFID (in GBP sterling and as a % of total project budget)

£245,459

92%

2.9 If you are not requesting the full amount from DFID, please list the amounts and sources of any other funding (In GBP sterling and as a % of total project funds)

Commitments have been received from UK trusts for the balance of funds

2.10 Year 1 funding requested from DFID (In GBP sterling)

£84,784

2.11 Please specify the % of project funds to be spent in each project country

100% Zimbabwe

2.12 Have you approached any other part of DFID to fund this

No

3

project?2.13 ACRONYMS (Please list all acronyms used in your Proposal in alphabetical order below,

spelling out each one in full. You may add more rows if necessary)

AfFOResT African Farmers Organic Research and Training

AGRITEX Agricultural Extension Services Department

BLF Big Lottery Fund

CELUCT Chikukwa Ecological Land Use Management Trust

CSO Civil Society Organisation

DFID Department for International Development

EED Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

FALG/s Farmer Action Learning Group/s

FEWSNET Famine Early Warning Systems Network

FYF Find Your Feet

IGA Income Generation Activity

MDC Movement for Democratic Change

NFM Natural Farm Management

NGO Non-governmental organisation

PELUM Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (Network)

PLWHAs People living with HIV and AIDS

SADC Southern African Development Community

TSURO Towards Sustainable Use of Resources Organisation

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

USAID United States Agency for International Development

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UZ University of Zimbabwe

ZANU-PF Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front

ZOPPA Zimbabwe Organic Producers and Promoters Association

SECTION 3: CAPACITY OF THE APPLICANT ORGANISATION3.1 EXPERIENCE: Please outline your organisation's experience that is relevant to the proposed

areas of work

FYF has been involved in agriculture, rural livelihoods/income generation and local institution building for over 20 years. For the past 15 years it has had a special focus in southern Africa on local agricultural knowledge, farming innovation, farmer support, technology generation, agricultural and biological conservation and participatory methodologies that promote community inclusiveness in development projects. This has included new approaches to farmer experimentation, knowledge

4

exchange, inter- and intra- group learning and the application of agroecology for climate change mitigation and adaptation, enabling local farmers to be agents of change in their communities. In Malawi, we have trained almost 1,000 lead farmers each of whom trains 40 follower farmers, a methodology that has been adopted as a national policy. As part of this process, we have linked CSOs to government departments and introduced the private sector to be part of this. Within our organisation we have a number of trained agricultural staff with expertise that ranges from the social organisation of farming systems, agricultural co-operatives, agronomy, livestock enterprises, fish farming, agricultural biodiversity conservation, food processing and human (farmers’) rights. Whereas our previous work in Zimbabwe focussed on agronomy/seed systems and farmer field schools, our current work in the sub-region has been more varied and multifaceted, connecting agriculture to broader social processes of change.

3.2 FUNDING HISTORY: Please describe your organisation's main sources of funding, with an indication of the amounts received and the purpose of the funding.

FYF receives funding from a range of major donors, including the EU, DFID and BLF. We currently have six projects with funding in excess of £200,000, and one of over £1 million which has recently finished. An additional project of over £1million is currently under consideration by the EU. All of our projects take an integrated approach to tackling rural poverty, including influencing policy and lobbying decision-makers, raising awareness of rights, promoting sustainable livelihoods, supporting communities to access government services and schemes, and promoting engagement in local governance institutions. Examples of past/current projects relating to this one are listed below:

Project Funded By Purpose Project amount

Past or current

Food Security,MalawiERPIM2012-2017

BLF and Norwegian Development Fund

Increase food security and reduce poverty for 5,380 resource-poor farming households in two districts of Malawi – Mzimba and Nkhata Bay

£697,250 Current

Food Security,MalawiRFSP2008-2012

EU and Norwegian Development Fund

Improve food production and promote diversified livelihood opportunities for 12,000 resource poor households in the district of Rumphi

Euro 1,402,736

Past

Livelihoods and Education,IndiaSakar2011-2015

DFID Promote the right to quality education and other services for marginalised dalit communities in rural Uttar Pradesh

£369,742 Current

Livelihoods and Labour Rights,IndiaBuniyaad2011-2015

DFID Empower 9,483 marginalised people from brick kiln communities in four districts of Uttar Pradesh to realise their civil, economic, political and social rights

£354,632 Current

Tribal Rights,IndiaBHOOMI Vistaar2012-2015

EU Enable adivasis, supported by representative and effective community based organisations, to exercise their human rights and participate in democratic processes

Euro 365,183

Current

Poverty Reduction, IndiaPAHAL

BLF Empower 6,000 adivasi women in Jharkhand to develop solutions to poverty through improved agriculture, IGAs and access to services

£467,680 Current

5

2009-2014Tribal Rights, IndiaBhuvan2011-2013

EU Empower 2,250 adivasis in Chhattisgarh to access their rights to land and forests and government services and schemes

Euro 265,035

Current

Tribal Rights, IndiaBHOOMI2007-2012

DFID Empower adivasi women in rural Uttarakhand to influence government policy and regain customary rights to manage the forests for their livelihood

£306,996 Past

3.3 CHILD PROTECTION (projects working with children and youth (0-18 years) only)What is your organisation's capacity and experience in relation to child protection? How will you work with your partner(s) to ensure children are kept safe?

FYF and its partners will not directly work with children in this project. However, a FYF Child Protection Policy is in place, which all staff must sign on to and adhere to.

3.4 FRAUD: Are you aware of any fraudulent activity within your organisation within the last 5 years? How will you minimise the risk of fraudulent activity occurring in future?

FYF is not aware of any fraudulent activity within the organisation in the last five years. FYF has a policy of zero tolerance of fraud within the organisation and with its partners, and the Senior Management team promotes a culture of honesty, transparency and accountability. FYF complies with all the requirements of the Companies Act and the Charities Commission and has adopted the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector. The FYF Honorary Accountant compiles monthly and quarterly management accounts, and annual accounts which are reviewed by the Finance and Audit Sub-Committee prior to the external audit. The Board of Trustees continually assesses and monitors the risk of fraud and has developed a range of internal controls designed to minimise that risk (e.g. all cheques require two signatures; the Director must obtain Board approval for any expenditure over £1,000 that does not appear in the budget and provided that there are commensurate cost savings elsewhere). Accountants in FYF's in-country offices examine partner expenditure and carry out regular internal audits of their documentation and assets. All partners (and FYF) are externally audited on an annual basis.

SECTION 4: FIT WITH GPAF COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP WINDOW4.1 CORE SUBJECT AREA - Please identify between one and three core project focus areas

(insert '1' for primary focus area; '2' for secondary focus area and; '3' for tertiary focus area) Agriculture Health (general)

Appropriate Technology HIV/AIDS / Malaria / TB

Child Labour Housing

Climate Change Income Generation

Conflict / Peace building Justice

Core Labour Standards Land

Disability Livestock

6

Drugs Media

Education & Literacy Mental Health

Enterprise development Reproductive Health / FGM

Environment 2 Rural Livelihoods

Fisheries / Forestry Slavery / trafficking

Food Security 1 Water & sanitation

Gender 3 Violence against women/ girls/children

Governance

Other: (please specify)

4.2 Which of the Millennium Development Goals will your project aim to address? Please identify between one and three MDGs in order of priority (insert '1' for primary MDG focus area; '2' for secondary MDG focus area and; '3' for tertiary MDG focus area) 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger 1

2. Achieve universal primary education

3. Promote gender equality and empower women 2

4. Reduce child mortality

5. Improve Maternal Health

6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

7. Ensure environmental sustainability 3

8. Develop a global partnership for development

4.3 Explain why you are focusing on these specific MDGs. Are the above MDGs “off track” in the implementing countries? If possible please identify sub-targets within not just the national context but also related to the specific geographical location for the proposed project. Please state the source of the information you are using to determine whether or not they are “off track”. Your response should also inform section 5.3.

The latest MDG Status Report for Zimbabwe, from 2010, found that MDG 1 is significantly off track.Zimbabwe is unlikely to reach any of the MDGs until political stability pertains (UN 2012; UNDP 2010).1 In Zimbabwe, verifiable data is not possible, yet what is available shows that: 72% of the total population live below the Total Consumption Poverty Line; structural unemployment is 63% (women 70%; men 56%); the Human Poverty Index is 0.513. 58% live below the Food Poverty Line and 1.3 million people are food insecure. 15% of under-fives are underweight, indicating that malnutrition is still rife. The economic crisis has led to a greater dependence on natural resource use, leading to habitat denudation and a concomitant loss in biodiversity. Power shortages have led to greater deforestation, with 61% not having access to clean water and almost 70% having no access to hygienic sanitation facilities. 52% of Zimbabweans are female but women are disproportionately under-represented in political life and decision-making positions, e.g. only 19% of parliamentarians are female. None of the MDGs are in striking distance for Zimbabwe and certainly not for the district of Chimanimani, where the effects of political instability and climate change have heavily impacted

1 Sources of information for this and subsequent data include: UNDP, 2010. 2010 Millennium Development Goals Zimbabwe Status Report. Harare, Zimbabwe. http://www.undp.org.zw/images/stories/mdg/mdgreport2010.pdf?3a1ed061a28f8a5e62fd4865066ea7fa(Accessed 15th November 2012).UN, 2012. Together We Deliver. Harare, Zimbabwe. http://www.zw.one.un.org/togetherwedeliver/millennium-development-goals (Accessed 15th November 2012).

7

http://www.zw.one.un.org/togetherwedeliver/millennium-development-goals

http://www.zw.one.un.org/togetherwedeliver/millennium-development-goals

http://www.undp.org.zw/images/stories/mdg/mdgreport2010.pdf?3a1ed061a28f8a5e62fd4865066ea7fa

upon all facets of life. A baseline survey conducted in 2011 found the majority of households in the district to be food insecure for over 5 months of the year; this greatly impacts upon the ability of the population to generate an income, as their main concern is to ensure survival. MDGs 1, 3 & 7 are therefore important areas for intervention (refer also 5.4).

4.4 Please list any of the DFID’s standard output and outcome indicators that this fund will contribute to? Please refer to the DFID Standard Indicators document on the GPAF website. Please note that if you are using the standard indicators, these also need to be explicit in your logframe.

Adapted DFID suggested indicators will be used in the logframe – none are standard and therefore are not listed.

SECTION 5: PROJECT DETAILS5.1 PROJECT SUMMARY: maximum 5 lines - Please provide a brief and clear project summary

including the overall change(s) that the initiative is intending to achieve, why it is considered to be innovative and who will benefit. (This is for dissemination about the fund and should relate to the outcome statement in the logframe. Please avoid jargon).

The project will increase food security and income for 2,900 farming families in Chimanimani, Zimbabwe, by supporting them to participate in a community-based process of learning, innovation and knowledge exchange. This process will be led by exemplary ‘Tsime’ (‘Source’) farmers, who will share their knowledge and skills with follower farmers, enabling them to produce more food, increase their income and conserve the land on which they depend.

5.2 PROJECT DESIGN PROCESSDescribe the process of preparing this project proposal. Who has been involved in the process and over what period of time? Were representatives of the target group consulted, and if so, how? If a consultant or anyone from outside the lead organisation and partners assisted in the preparation of this proposal please describe the type of assistance provided.

The proposed project will build on a two year pilot project conducted by FYF and four Zimbabwean partners in Chimanimani. The proposal is a joint initiative between FYF, its partners and the farming communities that the project is designed to benefit, representatives of whom have attended the project needs assessment, planning and monitoring workshops for both the pilot and longer term phases of this project. The FYF director and a project officer attended a week long planning and review meeting in which farmers presented their achievements – the work they had accomplished over the past year – and their plans for the forthcoming period and their longer term vision for themselves and the community groups they represented. This work was verified through on-farm field visits during which Tsime farmers explained their demonstrations, reflected on the problems these were designed to address, identified related or new problems that needed attention and suggested ways forward. A smaller but separate meeting with the four partners was held after this, during which partners identified their specific needs, assessed the partnership and FYF’s ongoing role both as a funder but also as a ‘Northern’ participant in the development process. Partners and farmers expressed their satisfaction with the Tsime farming model but highlighted weaknesses in the approach relating to funding limitations (this was only a pilot phase), vastly different knowledge and capacities among Tsime farmers, different interpersonal skills, different agroecological regions and farming inputs/seeds needed. FYF highlighted weaknesses in the project which have been addressed in this proposal. This process preceded the identification of a potential donor and thus reflects the needs and aspirations of the farmers and their communities. This project thus constitutes an agreed approach, formulated as partner generated work plans/and budgets underpinned by a set of embedded values.

5.3 PROJECT CONTEXT / PROBLEM STATEMENTDescribe the context for this project. What specific aspects of poverty is the project aiming to address? Why have these particular project locations been selected and at this particular time? What gaps in service delivery have been identified that necessitate the intervention that you are

8

proposing?

Zimbabwe is now a deficit food producer and fails to meet the national demand of 2.1 million tons of maize, the major staple crop. With over 70% of people living below the poverty datum line, Zimbabwe is a failed state, due to corruption, poor governance and the hegemony of the current leadership. The government of national unity has not fulfilled its expectations. While internecine violence is not as prevalent as in the past, conflict resolution and peace and reconciliation initiatives remain a pressing need in healing the political, socio-economic and psychological scars of historical injustice. Zimbabwe is unlikely to reach any of the MDGs until political stability pertains. Chimanimani is very much a microcosm of the country containing all agroecological regions within its boundary and facing the same problems due to its geographical location. Violence has characterised the district; in the independence struggle and the internecine conflict of the recent past. A growing population with few opportunities outside of agriculture offer youth few alternatives: migration or competition for the same limited resource base. Climate change calls for a robust and resilient agriculture yet government is weak and the extension services lacking both resources and training for farming under conditions of greater uncertainty. The need for an institutional response that encompasses agriculture is sorely needed and this will need to come from below – hence Tsime farmers.

5.4 ANTICIPATED IMPACT ON POVERTY (within the lifetime of the project) Please describe the anticipated real and practical impact of the project in terms of poverty reduction. What changes are anticipated for the main target groups identified in 5.5 within the lifetime of the project?

The main sources of livelihood in the region of Chimanimani are agriculturally based. It is on this premise that the project is designed to work with farmers to increase yields and create avenues for further IGAs. Food security is an issue of endowments and entitlements and this project will build the asset base of communities, offer them robust and productive means of farming that will meet household food needs and generate a surplus for sale while offering a niche organic market, thus enabling them to exercise their entitlements. (MDG1) Based on the fact that farmers learn best from their peers, this project will institutionalise a process of farmer to farmer innovation, experimentation and learning that will establish farming systems that are productive, robust and resilient and will offer a methodology for achieving MDG 1 at a district level. Focusing on Tsime Farmers, who are exemplary farmers in their community for their farming abilities, interpersonal skills and their willingness to support fellow farmers in their community, this project will address food security issues through a process of reflective learning and practice. Tsime farmers will be both women and men and by involving women in the delivery of the initiative it will both affirm the leadership role of women and will help to tackle traditional prejudices against women in this patrilineal society, hence addressing MDG 3. The emphasis of an approach to sustainable agriculture that recognises agriculture as an integral part of wider ecosystem services, promoting biodiversity and environmental conservation while reducing the use of purchased external inputs, will contribute to the realisation of MDG 7. The project will equip farmers with realistic options to go organic in an effort to supply a growing organic market and for soil carbon sequestration (MDG 7). Conflict in the community will be addressed through community peace building exercises already piloted in the district in which gender inequalities will be raised and the roles of women in development valorised (MDG 3). The project will work with 100 Tsime farmers, each working with 20 follower farmers as part of 100 FALGs comprising 2,000 farmers. An additional 800 farmers will be reached though open field days and peace building exercises. There will be an additional 11,600 indirect beneficiaries, based on a household size of five.

5.5 TARGET GROUP (DIRECT AND INDIRECT BENEFICIARIES) Who will be the direct beneficiaries of your project and how many will be expected to benefit directly from the anticipated poverty-reducing changes within the lifetime of the project? Please describe the direct beneficiary group(s) under a) below, differentiate where possible and provide numbers for each sub-category and then provide a total number in b).

DIRECT: a) Description Resource poor farmers: Tsime 100, followers 2,000 and 800 additional farmers

9

b) Number 2,900

Who will be the indirect (wider) beneficiaries of your project and how many will benefit within the lifetime of the project? Please describe the indirect beneficiary group(s) and numbers on each category under a) and then provide a total number in b).

INDIRECT: a) Description Household members of participating farmers

b) Number 11,600

5.6 PROJECT APPROACH / METHODOLOGYPlease provide details on the project approach (or methodology) proposed to address the problem(s) you have defined in section 5.3. Please justify the timeframe and scope of your project and ensure that the narrative relates to the logframe and budget. If this project is based on similar project experience, please describe the outcomes achieved and the specific lessons learned that have informed this proposal.

Based on the empirical evidence that farmers learn best from their peers and that farmers learn best by doing (‘knowing how’ rather than ‘knowing that’) this project will refine a methodology first developed (and adopted nationally in Malawi) in association with the Malawi Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security2, but based on nuanced learning from our Zimbabwe work piloted over the past two years. 100 Tsime farmers identified by communities through the support of CELUCT and TSURO will receive training from AfFOResT and ZOPPA and will each establish and train 20 follower farmers who will constitute FALGs. Farmers will identify constraints, suggest theoretical solutions and formulate experiments to test their hypotheses. Additional assistance will come from the agricultural faculty of UZ and AGRITEX. Farmers will learn the scientific methods inherent in agroecology/sustainable agriculture and will employ their findings in everyday agricultural practice. Farmer field schools will take place, organic certification will be offered to willing farmers and peace building, which will include gender sensitisation, will be conducted. Farmers will learn soil and water conservation technologies, inter- and multiple- cropping, agroforestry, contouring and terracing, storage technologies and seed saving in community seed banks as well as compost making, mulching and green manuring. Mixed farming and crop diversification will be encouraged for climate change adaptation as well as for food and income; animals will provide a store of meat, income and manure. The FALGs will provide a new institutional format for ‘communities of practice’, a new methodology for knowledge creation, and a means of diffusing new knowledge into the Zimbabwe countryside through open field days and neighbouring exchanges. Rather than imposing exogenous solutions from above, the project will work endogenously from below, unlocking the latent capacity of farmers to creatively address their own problems. But the problems of climate change could potentially impose insurmountable obstacles necessitating strategic linkages with other national and international stakeholders which have been factored into the process.

5.7 SUSTAINABILITY OF BENEFITSHow will you ensure that the poverty reduction benefits for the beneficiary population will be sustained?

Building individual and organisational capacity at the community level together with establishing linkages with CSOs, the public and private sectors will ensure that the benefit will be sustained beyond the project period. The new institutional framework established through the Tsime concept will provide a platform for the future development of Chimanimani. Through Tsime farmers all farmers will be reached in due course and as farmers grow in confidence and capability through sharing problems, finding solutions and generating new knowledge, new interpersonal and institutional relationships will be established. Embodied in new organisations – we envisage but would not prescribe a farmers’ co-operative model – and existing private sector companies such as TSURO’s ‘Chimani Delight Investments Pvt Ltd’, the project will provide an opportunity to market collectively and will facilitate linkages between farmers and the private sector. ZOPPA’s work in supply chains for organic produce

2 This agricultural extension methodology has been tailored to the Zimbabwe context, with FALGs providing a localised structure for learning and farmer experimentation made more explicit than Malawi.

10

will provide an incentive for farmers to work towards organic certification afforded by increased margins as evidenced by the increasing demand by urban markets for naturally produced foods. The diversified farming systems that will be encouraged based on the utilisation of agricultural biodiversity and mixed farming practices will address food security needs of farmers operating under marginal conditions and who may indeed struggle to produce the excess needed for markets. It will reduce their dependence on purchased external inputs and work towards self containing ecosystems. The emphasis on capacity building, institutional support and linkages and robust farming systems that the project will encourage – including new modalities for farmer support through a network of Tsime farmers and FALGs – will ensure long-term sustainability of the project.

5.8 SCALING-UP AND REPLICABILITYWhat is the potential for future continuation, replication or larger-scale implementation of the proposed intervention? Please provide details of any ways in which you see this initiative leading to accessing other funding or being scaled up by others in the future. Describe how and when this may occur and the factors that would make this more or less likely.

The Tsime farming model is easily scaled up and replicable. Securing food at the local, district, regional and national level is a priority goal for all African countries but effective systems are not in place. However despite some successes achieved, Zimbabwe’s food supply remains dependent largely on one crop – maize. Similarities with other countries in the SADC region - Zambia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and South Africa, in particular - with their shared colonial history and maize dependency suggest that the proposed solution could have wide impact throughout the south-east African region. A Tsime farmer can train at least 20 follower farmers who themselves could train a further 20, reaching 8,000 farmers with relative ease. This system has been adopted by the Malawian Government and all that is required in Zimbabwe is political will. FYF’s success in Malawi with its lead farmer model has not only secured ongoing funding for this approach but also greater collaboration with the Government of Malawi’s Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, which has begun funding FYF.

5.9 CAPACITY BUILDING, EMPOWERMENT & ADVOCACYIf your project includes capacity building, empowerment and/or advocacy components, please explain how these elements will contribute to the achievement of the project's outcome and outputs? Please also refer to the Additional guidance for GPAF Initiatives focused on Empowerment & Accountability

Given the political environment in Zimbabwe, its potential instability and the ease with which violence can be a predominant feature, the project will work with all stakeholders, but in particular AGRITEX. The project will seek to influence and persuade government officials in the district but will not seek unduly to influence government centrally as in our Malawi work. Clearly the project will seek to build the capacity of farmers and will offer training in natural pest control and organic farming through AfFOResT among others, but this will complement the process through which farmers share knowledge and information. Furthermore the use of agricultural researchers will provide an institutional link to a research institution, and together with AfFOResT, bring science to farmers.Better plant and pest management, animal husbandry and soil and water conservation will improve productivity and food security. This will conserve the natural resource base on which agriculture depends. Access to markets will increase investments in agriculture and lead to greater organisation around marketing possibilities. Farmers will learn negotiation skills so as to deal with external agencies – state, civil society and the private sector.5.10 GENDER AND SOCIAL INCLUSION

How was the specific target group selected and how are you defining social differentiation and addressing any barriers to inclusion which exist in the location(s) where you are working? Please be specific in relation to gender, age, disability, HIV/AIDs and other relevant categories depending on the context (e.g. caste, ethnicity etc.). How does the project take these factors into account?

11

The target group was identified as marginalised - socially, economically and geographically - resource poor farmers running small family farms in the remote district of Chimanimani which is contiguous with Mozambique. These marginalised groups are socially differentiated on the grounds of class, gender and ethnicity from other members of Zimbabwean society, a status maintained structurally through social, economic and political (state) institutions. Social differentiation in (rural) Zimbabwe serves to ascribe identities based on social, economic (class) and cultural factors, gender characteristics, ethnic and racial differences and age and disability to distinguish individuals and/or social groups from one another. As such it reinforces in Zimbabwe the hegemonic purposes of the state. As a political project which serves to create both a class divide and a rural-urban dichotomy, it creates layers of power and privilege characteristic of a neopatrimonial state. Having contained the violence emanating out of the political conflict between ZANU-PF and MDC in the district as a result of peace-building initiatives of two of the partners, the project is well positioned to have a positive impact on the lives of the district’s poor, particularly female and child headed households, youth, people living with HIV and AIDS, and the disabled. However, given the poverty of the area, both absolute and relative – nobody will be excluded should they wish to be included. The target groups have been identified through the pilot project which has preceded this work and TSURO’s and CELUCT’s long-term presence in the district. Hunger and malnutrition has characterised the area; both the threat of long term climate change and the irregular weather patterns of late have exacerbated an already difficult situation. Tsime farmers - both women and men - are leaders in their communities due to their farming expertise, openness to reflective learning and interpersonal and communication skills. A FALG, consisting of roughly 20 farmers, coalesces around the leadership of a Tsime farmer and provides a forum for discussion, learning, demonstration and experimentation. While these groups are largely self-selecting, Tsime farmers make a special effort to include women and youth from poorer households and often the proceeds from demonstrations are used to feed the poor and destitute. Farm trials and demonstrations will prioritise technologies needed for household food security espoused by women rather than cash crops.5.11 VALUE FOR MONEY (VFM)

Please explain why you believe that the proposed project would offer optimum value for money. How have you determined that the proposed approach is the most cost efficient way of addressing the identified problem? Please ensure that your completed proposal and logframe demonstrate the link between activities, outputs and outcome, and that the budget notes provide clear justifications for the inputs and budget estimates.

An investment of £85 per farmer will provide food and income, address the underlying causes of conflict in the community, begin a process of learning, knowledge generation and dissemination, sensitise people about gender, empower women and men, and conserve the physical environment and its agricultural and biological diversity. It will create the institutional linkages connecting farmers in a ‘community of practice’ linking them to service providers and sources of additional expertise. Given the difficulty that the developing world has in meeting budgetary demands, state funded extension services are in decline throughout Africa. The Tsime model is designed to complement state advisory services, but in the absence of an existing incumbent in an agricultural extension post, a Tsime farmer would have the potential to act as an unofficial proxy while a replacement is found or in the event that the post remains unfilled. The ability of a Tsime farmer to reach out to a follower farmer provides a means of leverage – should each member of a FALG, over time, create a FALG then hypothetically over 40,000 farmers can be reached in this way; providing access to a cheap, affordable and relevant farmer support service. At the same time the effectiveness of an approach that draws on existing skills, local knowledge and expertise of farmers provides a mechanism for validating farmers’ knowledge, recognises the need for local solutions to locally situated problems and can entice youth to consider agriculture as an attractive livelihood source. Similarly the approach offers a novel but proven institutional underpinning that will make the initiative sustainable beyond its three year duration. The project can be scaled up in one way or another and be adopted nationally just as the Lead/follower model has become national policy in Malawi. The agricultural technologies promoted are accessible to all, rely on the natural resources that a particular area has, are labour rather than

12

capital intensive, and can be easily adopted or adapted by women or men and empower rural communities by giving them a voice that affords their human rights.3

5.12 COUNTRY STRATEGY(IES) AND POLICIESHow does this project support the achievement of DFID’s country or regional strategy objectives? How would this project support national government policies and plans related to poverty reduction or other key sectoral areas?

In the DFID Operational Plan Zimbabwe (2011 – 2015) it states: ‘Zimbabwe has the agricultural potential to benefit from higher food prices. The interventions in this plan will help fulfil this potential, especially for poor farmers, through a set of integrated interventions providing market linkages, access to finance, agricultural inputs and extension services to the most vulnerable farmers.’ The project will focus on increased production of crops and animals that meet food security needs but are able to meet the demands of a growing organic market and provide farmer support for extension messages and new technology generation. In aiming to reduce the number of food insecure households in rural areas, by the end of the project, the project is directly aligned with DFID’s Strategic Priority on Poverty, Hunger and Vulnerability. It will also contribute to the Strategic Priority on Wealth Creation, by creating economic opportunities through income generating activities that respond to opportunities to add value and also cater for a niche organic market. The project will also support the aims of the Zimbabwe Medium Term Plan (2011-2015), which aims ‘to ensure food security at both the national and household levels’ by inter alia ‘promoting gender responsive extension approaches that give farmers a key role in technology transfer.’ This project not only gives farmers a key role in the transfer of technology but goes further in making farmers key stakeholders in its generation. The inclusion of women as Tsime farmers and in FALGs centralises women’s priorities for food and income that are different from those articulated by men. Zimbabwe’s need for restoring its social fabric and rural, infrastructural reconstruction can be initiated by communities working together in the national interest, yet collectively advocating for their rights simultaneously.5.13 ENVIRONMENT

Please specify what overall impact (positive, neutral or negative) the fund is likely to have on the environment. What steps have you taken to assess any potential environmental impact? Please note the severity of the impacts and how the project will mitigate any potentially negative effects.

Overall the impact will be positive. It will be in line with FYF’s Environmental Statement; the project is designed to promote sustainable approaches that are productive, stable, environmentally sound and equitable but meet the needs of the rural communities dependent on the natural resource base for their livelihoods. Natural farming techniques will underpin this process, through the use of low input production processes that make optimal use of local resources, including: mixed farming, greater use of agricultural biodiversity, agroforestry together with soil and water conservation, water catchment restoration, polyculture and inter and multiple cropping. Contouring and ridging will allow for better soil and water conservation and management and irrigation will be encouraged to supplement natural rainfall. Composting using plant and animal manure will be encouraged. Fragile land will be rested and restored; plant succession will be allowed to take place together with some reafforestation. Land pressures have made Chimanimani a human created landscape, nonetheless much needs to be done to restore the ecological balance that builds future resilience through current actions.

SECTION 6: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION6.1 IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS

Please provide a list of all organisations to be involved in project implementation including overseas offices of the applicant and any partners starting with the main partner

3 In a recent publication - Castro, A.P., Taylor, D. and Brokensha, D.W. (eds.) 2012. Climate Change and Threatened Communities: Vulnerability, Capacity and Action. Practical Publishing, Rugby - the editors call for a voice for farmers not only in climate change strategies but as a human right.

13

organisation(s). Please only include those partners that will be funded from the project budget. Please provide full details for each of the partners in section 9.

1. African Farmers’ Organic Research and Training (AfFOResT)2. Chikukwa Ecological Land Use Community Trust (CELUCT)3. Towards Sustainable Use of Resources Organisation (TSURO)4. Zimbabwe Organic Producers and Promoters Association Trust (ZOPPA Trust)

6.2 PROJECT MANAGEMENTPlease outline the project implementation and management arrangements for this project.This should include: A clear description of the roles and responsibilities of the applicant

organisation and each of the partners. You must also provide an organogram (in a separate document) of the project staffing and partner management relationships.

A clear description of the added value of each organisation (including the applicant).

An explanation of the human resources required (number of full-time equivalents, type, skills, background, and gender).

TSURO and CELUCT will identify Tsime farmers, assist in the formation of FALGs, and provide general training and support. Both partners have an excellent track record of working with communities and in addition CELUCT has a training centre and organic demonstration farm. AfFOResT is a specialist training organisation in natural farming techniques with a history of organic research, natural pest management and conducting farmer field schools. It has a laboratory and training centre on the outskirts of Harare. It will train farmers on natural farming methods. ZOPPA has established an organic brand in Zimbabwe, undertakes organic certification and links organic producers to markets. ZOPPA will train farmers on organic conversion and where possible in the three years will register farmers and bring producers and buyers together. FYF will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the project, reporting and financial management and control. FYF will also bring its Malawi learning to make this a successful project and to pre-empt some of the errors made in the implementation of its Malawi programme. A FYF programme manager will take responsibility for the programme. In addition, UZ will assist in the establishment of farmer participatory research through simple replicated farm trials that address obstacles to successful production outcomes. TSURO will employ a full time project co-ordinator (existing post, male); CELUCT will employ a full time project officer (existing post, female); AfFOResT will employ a NFM trainer (existing post, male); ZOPPA will employ a part time organic trainer (existing post, male); and consultants will be used for farm trials, knowledge management and organisational development of the partners. All of the partner staff have worked on the pilot phase of the project and collectively they have considerable experience of working with farming communities in Chimanimani. The FYF programme manager has eight years of experience in the development sector and has managed a range of institutionally funded projects.

6.3 OTHER ACTORSInclude details of any other key stakeholders or collaborative partners who will have a role in the project (but will not be funded from the project budget). How does this intervention link to or integrate with other programmes especially those of other government agencies?

The project will link to a Comic Relief Project under the administration of Garden Africa, which together with ZOPPA has undertaken work on organic value chains. Partners form part of the PELUM network for southern and eastern Africa, through which wider dissemination of the approach will take place. UZ will provide technical assistance on farm trials. Links to FYF’s lead farmer programme in Malawi will enable a sharing of learning from an already proven methodology. In order to ensure that the project complements, rather than duplicates government interventions, AGRITEX officials will be a part of the programme delivery and help fulfil the Zimbabwe Government's MDG objectives, particularly MDG1.

6.4 NEW SYSTEMS, STRUCTURES AND/OR STAFFINGPlease outline any new systems, structures and/or staffing that would be required to implement

14

this project. Note that these also need to be considered when discussing sustainability and project timeframes.

The FALGs are new structures. These groups are community-based structures, bringing together farmers to share learning and access training. This is a cost-effective model, which requires no external funding after the initial training and support; the learning and skills shared through the FALGs will last beyond the life of the project.

SECTION 7: MONITORING, EVALUATION, LESSON LEARNING This section should clearly relate to the project logframe and the relevant sections of the budget. Please note that you will be required to undertake a project evaluation towards the end of the funding period to assess the impact of the fund. Please allow sufficient budget for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and note the requirements for external and independent evaluation.7.1 How will the performance of the project be monitored? Who will be involved? What tools and

approaches are you intending to use? How will your logframe be used in M&E? What training is required for M&E? How will you involve beneficiaries and other stakeholders?

There are several different layers of M&E within this project; overall M&E will however be conducted by FYF, who have a well established system of M&E to assist in capturing results, learning for the future and improving the quality of our work. Tools specific to this project will be drafted and the standard FYF M&E systems and procedures will also be used to ensure the effectiveness of our work which includes: Baseline survey. A baseline survey will be conducted in Year 1 by an external evaluator and will form the basis for monitoring and evaluating the project. The survey questions will be closely tied to the indicators in the log frame. Routine monitoring. FYF in conjunction with the implementing partners will establish routine monitoring systems to measure progress against log frame indicators. Partner staff will hold regular meetings with the Tsime farmers and FALG members, and all four partners will keep track of progress by recording quantitative and qualitative data. All four partners will meet on a quarterly basis to review progress and share learning. Partners will submit quarterly progress and expenditure reports to FYF for review against planned activities and budgets. Any deviations from activity plans or budget variances of 10% or over will need to be explained before future tranches of funding can be disbursed. FYF UK staff will visit the project at least once a year to ensure accountability to stakeholders, including UK donors and the Board of Trustees, and to provide training to partners as required. Annual reviews. Internal annual reviews will be conducted in Years 1 and 2, during which progress against the log frame indicators will be assessed in consultation with participating communities. Final evaluation. FYF will oversee an independent final evaluation in Year 3, which will measure achievement against the log frame indicators and assess the project using standard evaluation criteria (relevance, impact, etc.). Case studies. Case studies will be produced and used as qualitative tools to monitor changes in the lives of beneficiaries. The beneficiaries will be involved in routine monitoring and annual reviews, and will participate in household surveys and focus group discussions as part of the baseline survey and final evaluation. This system of management and accountability has been tried and tested with success in similar FYF projects. 7.2 Please use this section explain the budget allocated to M&E, and to demonstrate that there is

adequate budget provision to support the M&E processes described in 7.1. The budget must include provision for an independent external evaluation.

The total M&E budget for this project is £35,670, which constitutes 12.8% of the total project budget. This amount includes £7,000 for a comprehensive baseline survey and £9,000 for an independent evaluation at the end of the project. Both the baseline survey and final evaluation will be carried out by external evaluators sourced from within Zimbabwe to reduce costs. As has been explained in 6.1, supportive supervision and monitoring visits will be carried out by all project staff at different frequencies and to varying degrees. The budget thus includes travel to the project area, food and accommodation costs for monitoring visits. The budget also includes funds to cover the cost of internal annual reviews in Years 1 and 2 (travel, venue costs, etc.). UK programme staff will visit the

15

project annually to ensure that the project is progressing against its objectives, to provide any capacity building training that has been identified by project, and to collect case studies. The costs of these visits – flights, in-country travel, food and accommodation – are also included in the M&E budget. £2,500 has been allocated to a Farmer Innovation Study, which will enable lessons from the project to be captured, documented and shared through the networks with which FYF and partners are affiliated.

7.3 How will lessons from your project be identified and learned, and disseminated to a wider audience? - Please explain how the learning from this project will be used within your organisation and disseminated to others.

At the community level, the establishment of the FALGs will facilitate a community-owned process where farmers innovate, learn, reflect and share new ideas, methodologies and technologies. Regular interaction between partner staff and FALG members will provide opportunities for ongoing learning. The implementing partners will share information, learning and experiences during project team meetings, field visits from FYF staff, and annual reviews. They will also share learning with other NGOs through local, national and regional networks in which they are involved, such as PELUM. The external final evaluation, in addition to measuring achievement against the log frame indicators, will identify lessons learned through the project, which will be used to assess the project’s impact and inform future projects. In the UK, project information will be disseminated to FYF supporters through the FYF newsletter and e-bulletin, and to the general public through the FYF website. Lessons learned will be shared through UK networks, including the UK Food Group, the African Smallholder Farmers Group and Bond Working Groups. Good practice, evaluation findings and lessons learned will be documented and disseminated using FYF’s standard knowledge management procedures, such as producing evaluation summary sheets, which are shared with the FYF Board of Trustees. Key learning points will be discussed by the FYF Programmes Committee, which is composed of FYF Board members/staff and external experts from the sector. In this way, the Tsime farmer model has benefited from learning generated by the Lead Farmer model pioneered by FYF in Malawi.

SECTION 8: PROJECT RISKS AND MITIGATION8.1 Please outline the main risks to the success of the project indicating if the potential impact and

probability of the risks are high, medium or low. How will these risks be monitored and mitigated? If the risks are outside your direct control, is there anything you can do to manage their potential effects? If relevant, this may include an assessment of the risk of engagement to local partners. The risk assessment for your programme needs to clearly differentiate the internal risks and those that are part of the external environment and over which you will have less (or little) control. (You may add extra rows if necessary.)

Explanation of Risk Potential impact

High/Medium/Low

Probability High/

Medium/LowMitigation measures

Political instability (ex)High Low Monitored by networking with other

organisations, and mitigated by conducting peace building workshops

Environmental unpredictability (climate change) (ex)

High High Monitored through early warning systems (e.g. FEWSNET) and mitigated by diversifying the agricultural base, building resilient farming systems

Failure of new organic supply chains to meet local farmers’ needs (ex/in)

Low Medium Monitored by facilitating regular communication with/between producers and buyers and mitigated by targeting organic market (based on rigorous research) but hedging bets by identifying a range of marketing possibilities

16

Community disaffection (in)

High Low Monitored and mitigated by promoting and supporting community participation -through FALGs - in all stages of the project, including project pre-design

Women’s involvement opposed by husbands (in)

Medium Low Monitored through regular interaction with female Tsime farmers and FALG members and mitigated by ensuring high levels of gender awareness and prioritisation of women’s leadership roles from the project’s inception (e.g. through gender sensitisation as part of the planned peace-building activities)

Partners lack capacity to manage complex development processes (in)

High Low Monitored by regular communication with partners and mitigated by conducting pre-project capacity assessments, ongoing problem identification and subsequent training

17

SECTION 9: CAPACITY OF ALL PARTNER ORGANISATIONS (Max 3 pages each)Please copy and fill in this section for each partner organisation identified in section 6.19.1 Name of Organisation Towards Sustainable Use of Resources Organisation

(TSURO) / The TSURO Trust

9.2 Address Stand 212 Ngangu T/S Chimanimani, ZimbabwePrivate Bag 2029, Chimanimani, Zimbabwe

9.3 Web Site N/a

9.4 Registration or charity number (if applicable)

Registrar of Deeds, Harare, Reg. No. 629/2009

9.5 Annual Income (from latest set of approved accounts)

Income: USD654,343Income (£ equivalent): £433,340Exchange rate: 1.51

Start/end date of latest set of approved accounts (dd/mm/yy)

From: 01/03/2012To: 31/08/2012

9.6 Number of existing staff 36

9.7 Proposed project staffing staff to be employed under this project (specify the total full-time equivalents - FTE)

Existing staff 1FTE Project Co-ordinator

New staff 0

9.8 Partner organisation category (Select a maximum of two categories)

Non-Government Org. (NGO) X Local Government

Trade Union National Government

Faith-based Organisation (FBO) Ethnic Minority Group or Organisation

Disabled Peoples’ Organisation (DPO) Diaspora Group or Organisation

Orgs. Working with Disabled People Academic Institution

Other... (please specify)

9.9 A) SUMMARY OF EXPECTED ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND B) FUNDING AMOUNT RESPONSIBLE FOR

A): TSURO will take the joint lead, along with CELUCT, in identifying and training the Tsime farmers and supporting them to establish FALGs. TSURO will support the Tsime farmers to organise open days and demonstrations to share knowledge with the wider community. Together with CELUCT, they will be responsible for organising planning meetings with all stakeholders. They will also monitor progress, document lessons learnt and report to FYF.

B): £28,2369.10 EXPERIENCE: Please outline the experience of your partner in relation to their role and

responsibility in this fund (including technical issues and relevant geographical coverage)

Founded in 1999, TSURO is a community based organisation working to improve rural livelihoods in the Chimanimani district. The organisation is based on a membership of about 170 village groups in 21 out of 23 wards of the district. TSURO’s programmes focus on three main areas: sustainable

18

agriculture and natural resource management; community based agro-processing and marketing (honey, peanut butter, cooking oil, dried vegetables and herbs, horticultural produce); and community health (including HIV and AIDS, water and sanitation, environmental health and nutrition). TSURO has developed a decentralised infrastructure with community facilitators recruited from their home wards and two main operating bases in Chimanimani and Nyanyadzi. This structure, deeply embedded within remote communities, allows the organisation to run effective programmes across an area of about 4,000 km². Village based planning, democratic representation, non-discriminatory and value based approaches and participatory methods are all integral parts of the TSURO approach. TSURO has had a long standing relationship with government departments in Chimanimani, and has worked closely with AGRITEX staff.9.11 FUNDING HISTORY Please provide a brief summary of your partner(s) funding history.

TSURO has received funding from a range of donors, including Weltfriedensdienst e.V. (Euro 781,116 for a project on sustainable agriculture and natural resources, 2006-2010), EED (Euro 1.4 million for a project on community health and produce marketing, 2009-2013) and USAID (USD 26,000 for a project on holistic land and livestock management, 2012). TSURO has also received approximately £28,000 from FYF for the pilot project on which this project aims to build. 9.12 CHILD PROTECTION (funds working with children and youth (0-18 years) only)

What is this partner's capacity and experience in relation to child protection? How will you work with your partner(s) to ensure children are kept safe?

TSURO has a child protection policy in place, to which all staff adhere. TSURO has significant experience in this area; for example, activities relating to child rights and child protection form part of the EED-funded community health programme (as above). Although this project will not work directly with children, FYF will work with TSURO to put in place measures to ensure that children are not negatively affected by any activities implemented under the project.9.13 FRAUD: Has there been any incidence of any fraudulent activity in your partner organisation

within the last 5 years? How will you minimise the risk of fraudulent activity occurring?

FYF is not aware of any fraudulent activity within the organisation in the last five years. Before commencing work on the pilot project in 2011, FYF conducted a comprehensive institutional assessment of all proposed partners, including a review of their financial management policies and practices. TSURO conducts biannual audits. Financial management is monitored by a Finance Monitoring Committee and the Board’s Human Resources and Disciplinary Committee.

19

SECTION 9: CAPACITY OF ALL PARTNER ORGANISATIONS (Max 3 pages each)Please copy and fill in this section for each partner organisation identified in section 6.19.1 Name of Organisation Chikukwa Ecological Land Use Community Trust

(CELUCT)

9.2 Address Private Bag 2029, Chimanimani, Zimbabwe

9.3 Web Site www.chikukwa.org


Protocol No. 939


Income (original currency): Euro 300,000Income (£ equivalent): £198,675Exchange rate: 1.51

Start/end date of latest set of approved accounts (dd/mm/yy)

From: 01/01/2012To: 31/12/2012



Existing staff 1 FTE Project Officer

New staff 0









A): CELUCT will take the joint lead, along with TSURO, in identifying and training the Tsime farmers and supporting them to establish FALGs. CELUCT will also support the Tsime farmers to organise open days and demonstrations to share knowledge with the wider community. Together with TSURO, they will be responsible for organising planning meetings with all stakeholders. They will also monitor progress, document lessons learnt and report to FYF.



Born out of a neighbourhood initiative that brought together thirty communal farmers in 1991, CELUCT was founded in 1996. Since then, the organisation has been running community empowerment programmes, as well as the Chikukwa Permaculture Community Centre situated in Chikukwa communal land on the border with Mozambique. The Centre has earned itself a reputation

20

for on-site participatory training courses in sustainable agriculture and natural resource management, attended by small farmer groups and extension workers from Zimbabwe and many other SADC countries. For its outstanding contribution to the empowerment of rural women, the Centre has been awarded prizes by UNICEF and the World Women’ s Summit. Since 2000, CELUCT has been reaching out to the whole of Chimanimani district through its holistic programme, which includes activities aimed at promoting sustainable agriculture and natural resource management, improving livelihoods, supporting vulnerable people, promoting child rights and child protection, conflict transformation and peace building. CELUCT is a founding member of the regional association, PELUM, an active participant in the International Permaculture Conference, and a member of the Peace Building Network Zimbabwe.9.11 FUNDING HISTORY Please provide a brief summary of your partner(s) funding history.

CELUCT has received funding from a range of small and large donors, including EED (Euro 338,000 for a project on child rights, peace building and conflict transformation, 2008-2012), and Tudor Trust (£30,000 for a project on sustainable land use). CELUCT has also received approximately £22,000 from FYF for the pilot project on which this project aims to build.9.12 CHILD PROTECTION (funds working with children and youth (0-18 years) only)


CELUCT has a child protection policy in place, to which all staff adhere. Although this project will not work directly with children, FYF will support CELUCT to put in place measures to ensure that children are not negatively affected by any activities implemented under the project.9.13 FRAUD: Has there been any incidence of any fraudulent activity in your partner organisation


FYF is not aware of any fraudulent activity within the organisation in the last five years. Before commencing work on the pilot project in 2011, FYF conducted a comprehensive institutional assessment of all proposed partners, including a review of their financial management policies and practices. CELUCT has strong financial management procedures in place and conducts biannual audits.

21

SECTION 9: CAPACITY OF ALL PARTNER ORGANISATIONS (Max 3 pages each)Please copy and fill in this section for each partner organisation identified in section 6.19.1 Name of Organisation Zimbabwe Organic Producers and Promoters Association

Trust (ZOPPA Trust)

9.2 Address 10 Natal Road, Belgravia, Harare, Zimbabwe

9.3 Web Site www.zoppa.org.zw


MA289/2008


Income (original currency): £59,738Income (£ equivalent): £59,738Exchange rate: 1

Start/end date of latest set of approved accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)

From: 1 January 2012To: 30 June 2012



Existing staff 1 0.5 FTE Organic Trainer

New staff 0









A): ZOPPA will be responsible for providing training for farmers on organic standards and certification, raising awareness of the developing organic market in Zimbabwe, and identifying and linking producers to viable markets for their produce. ZOPPA will also monitor progress, document lessons learnt and report to FYF.



Founded in 2008, ZOPPA is a national movement that brings together organic producers, promoters and processors for the development of an organic agriculture sector in Zimbabwe. The organisation aims to: promote production, harvesting and marketing of organically produced food according to set standards; lobby and advocate for a policy that supports organic agricultural production in Zimbabwe; establish and monitor an agreed set of standards; and offer the use of an organic label to

22

those who comply with set standards as required by the local or international markets. ZOPPA has five years of experience in organic agriculture standards training and compliance, having worked with 32 farmers associations in the 8 districts of Mashonaland East, 9 associations in Manicaland and individual farmers in the peripherals of Harare. More recently, ZOPPA has conducted research on supply chains and identified potential markets for the sale of organic produce as part of a Comic Relief funded project.9.11 FUNDING HISTORY Please provide a brief summary of your partner(s) funding history.

ZOPPA has received funding from a range of donors, including Hivos (Euro 170,000 for a project to strengthen ZOPPA’s institutional capacity as a leader on organic agriculture, 2008-2011) and Garden Africa (£59,738 for a project to establish viable organic producer associations in Mashonaland East, 2011-2012). ZOPPA has also received approximately £11,000 from FYF for the pilot project on which this project aims to build. 9.12 CHILD PROTECTION (funds working with children and youth (0-18 years) only)


Although this project will not work directly with children, FYF will support ZOPPA to put in place measures to ensure that children are not negatively affected by any activities implemented under the project.9.13 FRAUD: Has there been any incidence of any fraudulent activity in your partner organisation


FYF is not aware of any fraudulent activity within the organisation in the last five years. Before commencing work on the pilot project in 2011, FYF conducted a comprehensive institutional assessment of all proposed partners, including a review of their financial management policies and practices. ZOPPA has clear policies and procedures relating to financial management and internal control systems are in place and reviewed regularly.

23

SECTION 9: CAPACITY OF ALL PARTNER ORGANISATIONS (Max 3 pages each)Please copy and fill in this section for each partner organisation identified in section 6.19.1 Name of Organisation African Farmers’ Organic Research and Training

(AfFOResT)

9.2 Address Plot #4 Dovedale Road, Stapleford Mount Hampden, P.O Box CY 301 Causeway, Harare, Zimbabwe

9.3 Web Site N/a


W/O 12/92


Income (original currency): USD8,800Income (£ equivalent): £5,828Exchange rate: 1.51

Start/end date of latest set of approved accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)

From: 01/10/2012To: 31/09/2013



Existing staff 1 FTE NFM Trainer

New staff 0









A): AfFOResT will provide training to farmers in natural farm management, as well as technical guidance to FALG members to support them to conduct demonstrations and experiments. AfFOResT will also monitor progress, document lessons learnt and report to FYF.



AfFOResT was founded in 1996 with the aim of taking science to farmers and catalysing farmer-based research. Initially it ran programmes in Chinamhora and the Zambezi valley, working with farmers on the production of organic vegetables and organic cotton. Since 2000, AfFOResT has been providing training to organisations and rural farming communities in various areas of ecological farming, including natural pest management and soil fertility management. AfFOResT employs the

24

farmer field school method as one of its main approaches, and has expertise in the areas of innovation and learning, farmer participatory research/experimentation, and farmer action learning. AfFOResT has a fully equipped research and training laboratory and demonstration plot. AfFOResT has also undertaken feasibility studies on organic development in Zimbabwe and produces a range of materials on this subject for various audiences. AfFOResT is involved in various networks, including PELUM, the Natural Farming Network and FAO’s Agriculture Working group.9.11 FUNDING HISTORY Please provide a brief summary of your partner(s) funding history.

AfFOResT has conducted research and training with a range of organisations, including: (in Zimbabwe) World Vision, Lower Guruve Development Association, Zimbabwe Women’s Bureau and Jekesa Pfumgwa Vulingqondo; and (in the region) Kasisi Agriculture Training College (Zambia); Caritas (Mozambique); Care (Tanzania); End-Pronat (Senegal); and six cotton companies (Uganda). The organisation has received funding from a number of organisations, including Danish International Development Aid (DANIDA), Misereor, Novib, the Oak Foundation, Pesticide Action Network UK, Hivos and Organic Exchange. AfFOResT has also received approximately £11,000 from FYF for the pilot project on which this project aims to build. 9.12 CHILD PROTECTION (funds working with children and youth (0-18 years) only)


Although this project will not work directly with children, FYF will support AfFOResT to put in place measures to ensure that children are not negatively affected by any activities implemented under the project.9.13 FRAUD: Has there been any incidence of any fraudulent activity in your partner organisation


FYF is not aware of any fraudulent activity within the organisation in the last five years. Before commencing work on the pilot project in 2011, FYF conducted a comprehensive institutional assessment of all proposed partners, including a review of their financial management policies and practices. The management of AfFOResT’s centre, assets/resources and funding is supervised by a Board of Advisors. The Board monitors programmes on a quarterly basis, and has two sub-committees on projects and finance, each with a team leader other than the AfFOResT Director. These committees are responsible for scrutinising the organisation’s finances and ensuring that good practice principles are adhered to in relation to financial management. The Advisory Board Chairperson, Finance Sub-committee leader and AfFOResT Director are the account signatories.

25

CSCF PROPOSAL FORM - aidstream.org GPAF-INN-036 Proposal.doc · Web viewGPAF COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL FORM ... You must submit a Microsoft Word version of your Proposal and

Documents