Please find below the
Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
The focus of the project on strengthening resilience of urban poor women is important. So too, the approach of multi-scalar resilience focusing at household and community level intervention is robust. However, the proposal is more on bundling of financial products (savings and insurance) for strengthening resilience, than on linking social protection with climate risk insurance, thereby, not directly meeting the objectives of this contest. The proposal in its current form would have benefited from (i) clear description of social assistance schemes that government may have with a focus on the urban poor and how such schemes could have been linked to these financial products; and (ii) description of the micro insurance landscape in these cities.
Semi-Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
Dear authors,
Thank you very much for your proposal to our 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 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 and the topic of strengthening resilience of urban poor, especially women, is indeed critical for Asian cities. The suggestion to bundle financial instruments - savings and micro-insurance - is a good idea.
However, the judges have identified the following areas where they see room to further improve your proposal:
• The proposal does not provide sufficient details on the proposed index-based micro-insurance scheme. For example, there is no discussion on how the index will be set and its linkages with wider early warning system/risk information.
• It is not very clear how some of the eventualities (such as community infrastructure) will pan out in the context of pay-out for individual clients.
• While the proposal mentions partnerships with governments and private sector, there is no discussion yet on how this will be achieved.
• The risks covered need to be spelled out more clearly.
• Putting loss of work day or loss of ID could qualify for insurable risk.
• The purchase of food grain is more for micro-finance, unless the risk that led to the purchase of food grain is specified.
• The methodology used to come up with the multi-purpose Index needs to be explained.
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
0comments
Share conversation:
Share via:
No comments have been posted.
