African Soil Health Consortium Project Initiation Document

African Soil Health
Consortium
Project Initiation Document
Project Executive: Dannie Romney
Senior Users: Dannie Romney, Patricia Neenan
Senior Suppliers: Morris Akiri, Andrea Powell
Project Manager: To be recruited
Date: November 2010
PID Version: November 2009
Part A – Background (1)
Executive Summary
The project will work to achieve the vision of success through delivery of 5 key objectives.
Objective 1 and 2: Define and describe the ISFM framework and prepare generic core reference content (Level 1 content) that applies across different
cropping systems as well as core cropping systems reference content (Level 2 content) that incorporates ISFM:
•
Inventorize and collate existing extension information on ISFM in multi-media formats available in the public domain;
•
Synthesize new knowledge on ISFM into formats that are meaningful and useful to stakeholders and integrate ISFM knowledge in generic
extension materials for prioritized cropping systems;
•
Incorporate guidelines on approaches and processes that ensure decision-making processes take account of both biophysical, socioeconomic
and gender factors.
Objective 3: Build capacity of national product preparation teams to develop customized site specific material (Level 3 content) for on-going development
initiatives in the identified cropping systems and contribute to impact on livelihoods:
•
Build capacity to develop and adapt information on ISFM into appropriate formats in country level institutions;
•
Work directly with currently funded initiatives including AGRA to contribute to delivery of impact through: developing information in customized
formats for specific target audiences including different gender and socioeconomic groupings in order to support productivity improvements
through soil health interventions including the efficient and effective use of fertilizers and; introduction of ISFM principles into curricula in
educational institutions and organizations in SSA.
Objective 4: Learn and share lessons related to the process of knowledge synthesis and communication and how this contributes to change:
●
Evaluate the process of product development; how different user groups (differentiated by gender and other socioeconomic groupings) source
and use knowledge and the value of different communication products for such diverse groups and; how attitudes and behavior change
amongst those involved or impacted by debates on how to improve soil fertility and how ISFM is seen vis a vis alternative approaches as a
result of the influence of project awareness raising activities;
●
Support M&E activities implemented by collaborating projects (such as AGRA) to assess impact and the contribution of the project.
Objective 5: Communication of mechanisms for application and use of ISFM framework and of the value of using ISFM:
●
Contribute to long-term impact by: raising awareness of ISFM amongst stakeholders and providing information needed to improve decisionmaking by policy makers, extension workers, input suppliers and other supply chain actors that influence the implementation of ISFM and
influencing curricula in educational institutions that will positively impact on the capacity of future graduates to promote state-of-the-art ISFM
technologies in SSA.
The project we will draw on expertise from a Technical Advisory Group (TAG), comprising individuals from organizations active in researching and
implementing ISFM in SSA as well as representatives of private sector input suppliers and other key expertise such as gender, policy processes and
development communication to synthesize up-to-date information on ISFM and use it to produce materials in a range of formats targeted at different
stakeholders including policy makers, private sector actors, extension workers, farmers and university students.
Part A – Background (1)
Purpose and Objectives
Purpose:
To synthesize and disseminate up-to-date knowledge on integrated
soil fertility management (ISFM) to drive increased productivity in
smallholder farms in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)
Objectives
•
To define and describe the ISFM framework and prepare generic core
reference content (Level 1 content) that applies across different cropping
systems
• To prepare core cropping systems reference content (Level 2 content)
that incorporates ISFM
• To build capacity of National product preparation teams to develop
customized site specific material (Level 3 content) designed to support ongoing development initiatives in the identified cropping systems
• To learn and share lessons related to the process of knowledge
synthesis and communication and how this contributes to change
• To establish communication of mechanisms for application and use of
ISFM framework and of the value of using ISFM
Part A – Background (2)
Key Stakeholders and Beneficiaries
● Stakeholders and Beneficiaries:● Donor(s): Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
● End-user(s): Direct: Change agents in on-going initiatives
to introduce ISFM (incl. extension workers, agro dealers,
NGOS, as well as media (print, TV, radio, web) and policy
makers), agricultural institutions
Indirect: Farmers working in AGRA-funded projects and
other initiatives working towards improving productivity of
Farming systems in SSA
● Partner(s): AGRA, Technical Advisory Board (including
individuals from WUR, TSBF-CIAT, WARDA, CIRAD,
AGRA, CIMMYT) IFDC, IPNI, ICT-KM Programme,
Advanced Research Institutes/CG centres,
● CABI Centres/Departments: CABI Africa, Publishing
Part B – Implementation (1)
Proposed Organisation Structure
● Corporate Management:
● Project Board:● Project Executive: Dannie Romney
● Senior Users: Dannie Romney, Patricia Neenan
● Senior Suppliers: Morris Akiri, Andrea Powell
● Project Assurance: Patricia Neenan
● CABI Budget-holder: Project Manager
Note that, if not the Project Executive, the CABI Budget-holder must have written confirmation from the Project
Executive, and the Project Manager if required by Project Executive, prior to authorising payment.
● Project Manager: George Oduor
● Team Managers: Jane Frances Asaba,
Negussie Efa, Chris Parker
Part B – Implementation (2)
Stages
Stages
Work Packages / Deliverables in Stage, unless indicated in Stage Name
Stage
Completion Date
a) Business Plan Development (optional)
Work Packages / Deliverables
Inception report; Project Launched; Literature review completed;
Operational linkages defined; Hand book completed; 2 Peer reviewed
papers; ISFM tools developed; Website structure developed
Period one (Jan-Dec 2011)
Operational linkages with at least four projects; communication and
knowledge products completed; 2 peer reviewed papers; ISFM tools
tested; core reference materials in pocket guide format; site specific
materials developed and tested; outcome mapping report; level 1
materials on website
Period two (Jan-Dec 2012)
Project working with identified initiatives; 2 peer reviewed papers; sit,
specific materials developed and tested, prize winner chosen, lessons
learned shared; outcome mapping report; Level 2 materials on website
Period three (Jan-Dec 2013)
Project working with identified initiatives; lessons learned and shared;
outcome mapping final report; level 3 materials on website
Period four (Jan-Dec 2014)
Part B – Implementation (3)
CABI Resource Requirements
Staff
Time Required on Project
(and/or role on project)
(Indicate whether time is in Days or Months)
Dannie Romney
151 days
Jane Frances Asaba
753 days
Negussie Efa
377.5 days
Project manager (George Oduor)
753 days
Post doctorate-cropping systems
645 days
Post doctorate-policy
645 days
Chris Parker
56.5 days
Tracy Head (could be others in publishing
or marketing
80.5 days
Administrative support: Florence Chege,
Vincent Ndambuki, Mary Odhiambo
120; 190 & 45 days respectively
2 Journalist interns
1290 days
Part B – Implementation (4)
Customer Acceptance Criteria
Acceptance Criteria
Target
Measures
IFSM content of information
materials is from credible
sources
Partners/End-users
Engage respected experts in
TAG/TWG/network with
institutions involved in ISFM
Copy rights of researchers
/authors protected
Researchers
Observe copyrights; Ensure
Fair use of materials (Noncommercial) use
Quality and suitable delivery
channels and formats of info.
materials for different user
groups
Direct and indirect end-uses
Consult with users and where
necessary engage them in
development of materials
ISFM stakeholders in
selected countries in SSA
accessing and using info
materials and applying
relevant technologies
B&MGF/AGRA/Govts.
Work closely with existing
projects /institutions involved
in ISFM e.g. AGRA
A Soil Health Consortium for
Africa (SHCA) established &
continues to operate after the
project
Donors/Partners
Engage project partners;
secure resources; build in
sustainability.
Part B – Implementation (5)
Project Exclusions & Interfaces
Exclusions
●
●
●
●
Location of the project activities is limited to the 4 countries with on going
ISFM initiatives to be identified by the AGRA the key project partner (most
likely Ghana, Mali, Mozambique and Tanzania)
The direct target users of the ISFM information materials are: change
agents linked to the AGRA soil health program; these will range from policy
makers to university lecturers, extension workers, and input suppliers
Indirect beneficiaries of the project outputs are farmers (men, women,
young, old, participating in AGRA-funded projects and other initiatives
involved in improved productivity projects in SSA
The materials produced will be in three languages i.e. English, French and
Portuguese
Interfaces
●
●
●
Project will interface with AGRA’s soil health project and other B&MGF
funded projects
Potentially could provide content for Plant Wise knowledge bank and
Project may interface with other programmes/projects aiming to improve
productivity in SSA e.g. Those run by IFDC and IPIN
Part B – Implementation (6)
Key Constraints & Assumptions
Constraints
●
●
●
●
No ISFM specialist – they will need to be recruited
CABI does not have adequate in-house editorial skills for ISFM and media
(audio/video) production - will outsource technical editor, media skills, etc.
Project duration limited by scope & level of funding acceptable to the donors
Content of info. materials will depend on participation of and willingness of
relevant institutions/partners /(TAG/TWG) to contribute knowledge.
Assumptions
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
ISFM remains priority for governments and NGOs
IARCs agree to contribute to project
AGRA supports on-going development initiatives to work with the project
All partners (TAG, AGRA, CABI etc.) well staffed and working harmoniously
Suitable post-doctoral researcher recruited and producing required
articles/papers and data
Solutions exist for all knowledge gaps identified in AGRA and other projects
Sufficient resources (funds and staff) allocated by on-going initiatives for the
production and use of Level 3 materials
Favorable climatic and political conditions existing in project countries
Part C – Reasons for CABI (1)
Key Business Benefits - Strategic
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Invited by Gates Foundation to lead consortium
Potentially a stepping stone to additional Gates funding and a platform
for discussions on other areas where CABI may contribute
Potential for Publishing and ID units to work together
May provide source of content for Plant Wise knowledge bank
Open new engagements for CABI with countries where it has not
worked before e.g. Mali; Strengthening CABI’s engagements with
countries where it has been working e.g. Ghana, Mozambique and
Tanzania.
Initiate new partnerships for CABI through working with organisations
such as AGRA and a range of partners in the private and academic
sectors working on ISFM
Showcase CABI Africa’s capacity in managing projects on KFD/KM
Opportunity to work in a “new” area of communication – production &
dissemination of information resources for different user groups
working at the interface of research and development
Part C – Reasons for CABI (2)
Key Business Benefits – Financial
(Externally funded Projects only)
Full Project Budget – Planned
Comments
Donor Currency:
$US
Exchange Rate to £:
1.6 (0.63)
Overheads are a maximum of
15%, so have to bury some in
the budget, hence extra tabs
Overall Contract Value in £ (if known):
£2,831,121
Costs Billed to Project Donor (£)
Gross Revenue (Total Project Revenue):
£2,831,121
Payments to External Collaborators:
£137,500
Net Income:
£2,693,621
CABI Implementation Costs (£)
CABI Staff Costs:
£958,913
Direct Costs:
£1,328,236
(other direct costs, for example travel, etc)
Net Profit/Loss (Project Contribution):
£406,472
Net Project Contribution (%):
15.09%
Note that the financials should match the information in the Project
Financial Analysis (PFA) form.
Staff costs billed to donor
don’t match these figures
since we had to use actuals
See the tab ‘Real overheads
to CABI £)
Part D – Risks (1)
Key Risks
(for Collaborator, Security, Technical Risks, see next slides)
Risk
Owner
Likelihood
(L)
(1=Low;
3=High)
Impact
(I)
(1=Low;
3=High)
Total
(L x I)
(1=Low;
9=High)
Management Strategy
Unfavourable climate
and political
conditions
1
2
2
Suspend or relocate activities
Resources are not
made available for
the production and
use of Level 3
materials
1
2
2
Prevention – engage all
potential partners/collaborators
to get their buy-in from project
inception
Solutions not found
for some knowledge
gaps identified in
AGRA and other
projects
2
2
4
Acceptance – propose further
research /investigation to find
solutions
Project & partners
not well staffed and
lacking some skills
required for project
1
3
3
Prevention – engage all partners;
recruit people with relevant
skills.
(Choose from Prevention, Reduction,
Contingency, Transference, Acceptance,
and give brief description of how applied)
Part D – Risks (2)
Collaborator Risks
Collaborator Name
(to be paid by CABI)
Has CABI
worked
with them
before?
(Yes / No)
Assessment of Collaborator Risk
Include, for example:
• Their reputation;
• Past experience of working with them (if
appropriate).
How much (£) in total
is the Collaborator to
be paid?
TSBF-CIAT
No
Have a high reputation in area of soil
health and hand picked by Gates
To be defined
during project
WARDA
No
Have a high reputation in area of soil
health and hand picked by Gates
To be defined
during project
IFDC
No
Have a high reputation in area of soil
health and hand picked by Gates
To be defined
during project
IPNI
No
Have a high reputation in area of soil
health and hand picked by Gates
To be defined
during project
WUR
No
Have a high reputation in area of soil
health and hand picked by Gates
Nothing
AGRA
No
Have a high reputation in area of soil
health and hand picked by Gates
Nothing
Part D – Risks (3)
Security Risks
Location of Work
Has CABI worked
there before?
(Yes / No)
Is there a current, or
likely, security risk in that
location?
(Yes / No)
Is an alternative
secure location
eligible for
project?
(Yes / No)
Africa, specific countries to be
identified in early stage of project
To be identified
Unlikely to choose
insecure countries
Not applicable
Part D – Risks (4)
Technical Risks
Technical Work (CABI Component)
Has the Lead Centre previously
undertaken this Technical
work?
(Yes / No)
Has another area of CABI
previously undertaken this
Technical work?
(Yes / No)
Solutions not found for some
knowledge gaps identified in
AGRA and other projects (ISFM)
No
No
Resources are not made available
for the production and use of
Level 3 materials
Yes
Yes
Project & partners not well staffed
and lacking some skills required
for in the project
Yes
Yes
Part E – Dissemination & Impact (1)
Dissemination of Results
Dissemination Method
Target Results
Measures
Communication/Advocacy
strategy developed and
implemented
Strategy developed and
implemented by project partners
and institutions interested in ISFM
No of partners involved in
development of strategy; No of
partners using strategy to
communicate/disseminate info
materials
Meetings/ consultation meetings
of stakeholders; partner
activities in the field
Behavioral change partners who
will get / use the information
resources/materials; Change in
KAP by farmers resulting from use
knowledge disseminated (in 4
project countries and beyond) ;
Attendance lists of meetings;
M&E reports on impact on
stakeholders
Dissemination
workshops/conferences
involving project partners
At least two presentations at
regional/ international meetings
No of participants attending
workshops/ conferences;
Workshop /conference reports
Journal/Conference paper s
Technical and scientific community
(ISFM And Communication)
Citations/request for reprints
Case studies
Case studies on approaches for
communicating ISFM developed
and shared with partners and
through project website
No. Case studies developed;
No. of downloads from project
website
(what, how, etc)
Part E – Dissemination & Impact (1)
Dissemination of Results
Dissemination Method
Target Results
Measures
Training workshops for
stakeholders
At least one skills training
production of information
resources held in each project
country.
Attendance lists
Newsletters
3 newsletters per year
No of newsletters produced,
no disseminates; No. of
partners receiving newsletters
Visits and presentations in
Project countries
2 visits per country/year
Back to office reports; M&E
reports
Technical Reports
At least 2 reports per participating
country /year disseminated to
project partner and other relevant
institutions & posted on project
website
Registered dispatch
No. of reports on project
website
Project website
Website to contain downloadable
information resources developed
under project (audio, video &
print)
No of visits to site, no of
downloads /given period
(what, how, etc)
Part E - Dissemination & Impact (2)
Impact of Project
(Scientific, Technical, Commercial, Social, Environmental)
Impact Target
Measures
Existing projects actively using info. materials to
improve productivity in farming & cropping
systems in sub-Saharan Africa
Continuous M&E, technical reporting from project
sites,
ISFM incorporated in course curricula in
universities and colleges in SSA
Continuous M&E, technical reporting from
universities
Awareness of ISFM raised among stakeholders
Continuous M&E, technical reporting; case
studies
Policy-makers, extension workers, input suppliers
and other supply-chain actors using information to
take /influence decisions on ISFM
Continuous M&E, technical reporting; case
studies
Part F – Reporting and Sign-off (1)
Reporting
Information Provider
Information Required
Interested Parties
Frequency
a) Project Executive
b)
c)
a) Project Inception report
b) Mid –term evaluation report
c) End of year report
Corporate
Management (CABI)
a) Once
b) Once/
c) Once/yr
d) Once
a) Project Manager
b)
c)
a)
b)
c) Mid year report
d) End of year report
e) Final technical & financial reports
Project Board
(CABI), partners,
donor
a)
b)
c) Once/yr
d) Once/yr
e) Once
a) Project Manager
b)
c)
a) Case studies from projects
b)
c)
Marketing (CABI)
a) When published
b)
c)
Part F – Reporting & Sign-off (2)
Supporting Documentation
As a minimum to accompany the completed PID:
● Project Financial Analysis
Extra supporting documentation may be provided:
● Results Framework
● Any other documentation as appropriate
Please note that projects with an Intellectual Property Right (IPR)
component require the contract to be submitted to PMG prior
to signature.
Part F – Reporting & Sign-off (3)
Authorisation
Project Executive / EMT: ……………………………………………
Date: …………………………………………………………..
PMG Sign-off (Level 1 Projects) …………………………………………..
Date: ………………………………………………………………………….
Approval of:
 PID
 Development of Business Plan
PMG Comments and/or Follow-on Actions:
Appendix A – New Product / Initiative (1)
Strategic Fit
Customer Needs & Trends
Market
Attractiveness
<£ per annum, size, strategic
importance>
What Problem
Are We Trying
to Solve?
<Evidence from market research, in-market
interviews>
Market Growth
& Trends
<% CAGR, evidence>
Purchasing
Criteria
<evidence>
Profitability
<High/Medium/Low, evidence>
Purchasing
Process
<evidence>
<Significant existing players,
partner opportunities, quantified
scale of competition>
Preferred
Pricing
Models
<evidence>
Competition
Appendix A – New Product / Initiative (2)
Proposed Product / Initiative Specifications
Product / Initiative Scope
<Summary definition of product scope and objectives, Key selling points – how is this
product better than the competition?>
Workflow Integration
<Explain how product fits into user’s workflow>
Revenue Model
<Subscription, purchased, sponsored>
Sales & Marketing
Strategy
<Online marketing/conference attendance/direct mail/telesales, etc>
Technology Strategy
<In-house development or third party solution?>
Financial Impact
Revenue Opportunity
<£ p.a. after 3 years, Gross/net revenue, Evidence, e.g.. no. of subscriptions @ £x, Annual
growth rates, Total project revenue/contract value, etc>
Total Investment
Required
<quantify, breakdown of expenditure (staff costs vs. direct costs), capex vs. P&L
expenditure, payments to collaborators, etc>
Return on Investment
<profitability target, return on capital employed, pay-back period/break-even, net project
contribution, etc>