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

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

2. AquaFish Proposal Review Panel Conference Call Agenda, 20 May 2013 11:00 amPanel introduction, review process, pointers 11:30 am Reviewproposals 11:30 UM 11:50 NCSU 12:10 PU 12:30 UConn 12:50 AU 1:10 pm Discuss panel summaries 2:00 pmEnd panel review

3. Panel People • AquaFish Director: Hillary Egna • AquaFish Research Projects Manager: Ford Evans • Panel Members: • Randy Brummett • Anita Kelly • Chris Knud-Hansen • John Moehl • George Norton • Bart Green

4. General proposal review process • NSF-style peer review • For each proposal: • 4 to 5 individual critiques • 1 panel summary • Scribe: first discussant and summary writer - summary presents consensus ONLY. Individual critiques retain divergent views. • Panelists have until May 21 (Tues) to change individual critiques and scores. • Please notify Ford if you modify your critique.

5. The Review Process • One scribe per proposal • The SCRIBE • Presents a summary of the proposal (3 minutes). • Comments on strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvement (3 minutes). • Records each subsequent panelist’s comments. • Each subsequent PANELIST • Adds to or addresses previous panelists’ comments (3 minutes). • The SCRIBE • Reads summary notes at the end of the proposal discussion. • Prepares panel summary during “bye”. • Bullet format works fine. Careful for errors as this can reduce the credibility of your review.

6. The Review Process (con’t) • The panel summary is read aloud, and viewed online. Everyone “signs” the online statement. • Critiques should be bold, and if needed, contain recommendations for funding. Comments, should be constructive. How can this proposal be improved? Rewritten entirely, or parts? • The final summaries can not be revised after they are “signed”.

7. AquaFish generalities from the RFP • Research program primarily • Capacity building emphasis/Institutional development • Clearly focused outreach • Gender integration and planning focus • Human nutrition • Outgrowth from Title XII legislation

8. USAID Specific Guidance • Focus on research. Build on Phase I and previous research, including VCA (2012). • New program area: The Program for Research on Nutritious and Safe Foods address undernutrition, especially in women and children, by increasing the availability and access to nutrient dense foods through research on horticulture crops, livestock, fish and dairy, food safety threats such as mycotoxins and other contaminants and on household nutrition and food utilization.

9. RFP pointers (1) • Balance between topic areas in Integrated Production Systems (4 TA) and in People, Livelihoods, and Ecosystem Interrelationships (6 TA). • Each proposal should have TAs in both categories.

10. RFP pointers (2) • Focus on aquaculture research for smallholders and to benefit the poor. • No funding for “fisheries only” projects, or “outreach only projects” • Focus on key ecosystems and species; less focus on genetics, diseases but acceptable if combined with relevant TAs

11. RFP pointers (3) • Recommended 7 investigations per proposal; max is 10 • A common GE investigation will be added to each project on feeding: non fed, alternate, full ration (new) • Must have primarily research (study/experiment) and at least one outreach investigation (activity) • Must have one investigation that is an activity focused on outreach to women or girls • Must have on investigation focused on a Value Chain Analysis

12. RFP pointers (4) • Clear goal (Themes A-D) supported by TA and investigations • Alignment with USAID goals: gender, capacity building, environmental impact, and other points in RFP • Alignment with the FTF initiative in the areas of inclusive agricultural growth and improved nutritional status of target populations

13. RFP pointers (5) • 50% budget (direct costs) in HC • Little or no US PI salary (0.16FTE/project) • Overall minimal salary support for academic professionals, except true HC • No expats, not much use of consultants • Students identified and part of research • 20% US match on total (eg500k, then 100k) • 20% targeted HC contribution on total funding

14. Almost done…THANK YOU! • Your technical peer review is the first tier. • A weak proposal will not move forward to the next tiers of review – USAID and AquaFish programmatic review.

15. Ranking Category Highly Recommended for Funding Recommended if Funding is Available • Do NOT FUND

16. Review Schedule/Assignments Rating: 5.0 = Excellent 4.0 = Very Good 3.0 = Good 2.0 = Fair 1.0 = Poor

17. Logistics • Your honorarium • A huge Thank You!

18. Funding for this presentation was provided by theThe Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Collaborative Research on Aquaculture & fisheries The AquaFish Innovation Lab is funded in part by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Cooperative Agreement No. EPP-A-00-06-00012-00and by US and Host Country partners. The contents of this presentation do not necessarily represent an official position or policy of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Mention of trade names or commercial products in this presentation does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use on the part of USAID or AquaFish. The accuracy, reliability, and originality of the work presented are the responsibility of the individual authors. Egna 7/15/08 CIP NH Egna 7/15/08 CIP NH