Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at
Skip navigation

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' ratings


Judges'' comments

The proposal adopts a wider climate risk management approach by linking measures to adapt (WP1 and WP2) and manage residual risk (WP3). The tiered approach proposed for agricultural insurance focusing at farmer and group level is interesting. While the proposal mentions that in Nepal, diverse social assistance programs exist for the promotion of agriculture (subsidies on fertilizer, seeds etc.), there is no description of how such social assistance programs will be linked in this project, which is the key objective of the contest. WP1 could potentially explore the available social protection programs for farmers and how such programs can be enhanced with climate risk considerations.

Linking technical yield improvement and value chain development to financial risk management is the novel part, insofar as it recognizes the perceived priority needs of rice farmers as a point of departure. Building on a feasibility study offers a solid foundation for implementation of the pilot. Good to see acknowledgement that focus on the insurance work package is quite likely crucial to the success of the proposed pilot. Surprising that liking insurance to credit is not more strongly addressed, although certainly scope for diversification as well as tailoring of financial products to farmer needs to emerge through active farmer engagement in the pilot. Note: nice to see in-kind contribution of relatively expensive out-of-region personnel costs accounted for in the budget.

Well articulated objectives with clear indicators. Good emphasis on data and analysis to guide interventions. Some indication on longer term issues - such as institutionalizing the process, the toolbox etc. would help.

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' ratings


Judges'' comments

Dear authors,
Thank you very much for your proposal to the contest. The judges have decided to advance your proposal to the Semi-Finalists round. For the revision phase, we would like to provide you with some feedback and guidance from the judges that should help you improve your proposal and address open questions for the finalist round.
Overall, the judges found your proposal very interesting and appealing by offering a systemic view of risk management for rice farmers, spanning climate-resilient rice cultivation, value chain development, and crop insurance. The value chain development aspect of the proposal makes it innovative and appealing, and this is integrated well into the more traditional focus areas of climate-resilient cultivation and crop insurance. The focus on rice farmers provides an opportunity to replicate such activities in many other countries where rice is the staple food.
By positioning climate risk insurance under a wider risk management framework (linked to adaptation measures in agriculture and value chain development), the proposal demonstrates a holistic approach for strengthening resilience. The suggestion for developing a two-tiered crop insurance scheme is interesting and worth exploring.
However, judges have identified the following areas where they see room to further improve your proposal:
• The proposal should further explore some of the challenges, such as a method for establishing average yield for the insured crop. There might be also challenges in securing rice yield data, which estimates actual variability in yield (for example due to seasonal flood and droughts).
• While the proposal recognizes the limited liquidity within cooperatives, it needs to further detail the involvement of both insurance companies and government. This will also depend on insurance regulations and how much the insurance services and products offered by the cooperative are legally recognized in Nepal.
• The proposal also needs to consider analysis of legal and regulatory frameworks.
• It is expected that the proposal is targeting semi-commercial or commercial farmers and not subsistence farmers. There might be an opportunity to explore if the government can provide premium subsidies to the small and marginal farmers as part of formal social protection programs.
• In terms of presentation: Although the graphs and charts are clear and informative and acknowledging the constraints in terms of space, the proposal is not always clear. For instance, the description in the summary is not clear in presenting the issue and the strategy to address it.
• Summary section: It is not clear what the author understands by standard insurance.
• Existing social assistance programs: It is not clear whether there has been a review or mapping (or plans to be) of existing social assistance or social insurance programmes currently serving the targeted area.
• Definition of risks: How have the risks been identified? Via a desk review? Or have these been identified and validated with the proposed beneficiaries?
• Beneficiaries: Have the targeted cooperatives already been identified? Is there any information on the livelihoods, living standards and capacity/assets in these cooperatives? What are their main income generating activities and common risks/constraints?
• Scalability: there is a need to work on a strong justification on the scalability of the proposal There is no apparent evaluation framework which can help to assess innovative approaches, their potential improvements, cost-effectiveness and scalability. There is no budget lined linked to evaluation (or monitoring).
• WP1- very limited detail on the specific activities proposed under this component. For instance, there is no indication on the methodology to be used to assess the climate change impact on rice cultivation- household/income impacts? Production impact? How will this be assessed?
• Insurance companies: Have any preliminary discussions been had with potential companies interested in being part of this scheme? There is no indication on what will be the process for the design of the insurance components - including differentiated rates based on capacity to contribute; links with government programmes, and private sector.

Please also note that, as semi-finalists to the contest, you are requested to provide a detailed budget for the spending of the seed funding (40,000 euros) that the team winning the Judge’s choice award will be granted for the implementation of their proposal.

Good luck and all the best,
The contest fellows

Share conversation: Share via:

Juna Shrestha

May 13, 2018


1 |
Share via:

Dear contest fellows

Thank you very much for your helpful and encouraging comments. We have incorporated your suggestion into the revised proposal.

Best regards

ClimateRe team