Skip navigation

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' ratings


Novelty:
Feasibility:
Impact:
Presentation:

Judges'' comments




This is a compelling proposal that outlines key problems and suggests an innovative way of addressing them. It offers an approach that would align several of the SDGs and ensure their attainment. The approach seems to be relevant to a number of countries and it would be necessary to ensure that it is indeed tested in several geographies simultaneously. If it can be implemented in a number of countries with similar results, it would provide important insights and a possible pathway. Importantly, this work has been going on for decades and is ready to be scaled up.

The proposal is well written and detailed; the proposer has also answered the queries from the first round. The proposal is most appealing from two perspectives - it has a long and detailed track record of what works and what doesnt, and it is very much a 'bottom-up' approach using ecosystem adaptation, in a familiar environment for the farmers to work in, rather than an expensive technological fix which is completely alien to local people.

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' ratings


Novelty:
Feasibility:
Impact:
Presentation:

Judges'' comments


Judge 1: This is a well-written and interesting proposal. It does not have trade-offs with other SDGs (outright) but it is somewhat limited in scope (focused on one particular management strategy that can be used in one particular type of agriculture). I would like to see the budget fleshed out to understand how these numbers for overall budget were determined. (What is the money spent on in each year?) I'd also like a clearer connection to existing Climate Co-Lab proposals. That would strengthen this proposal

Judge 2: This is a worthwhile and appealing initiative, although not novel and has been tried and proposed in various forms elsewhere. Needs an improved analysis of such other initiatives, the key challenges and solutions to overcome these from more successful initiatives

3comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Michael Hands

Jan 23, 2018
08:13

Member


1 |
Share via:
Proposal
creator

I do not accept that this initiative has been tried elsewhere in any convincing way.  The Inga alley-cropping technique was developed by the (4) Cambridge Alley Cropping Projects (1988-2002) which I directed.  Inga Foundation was created in 2007 to implement the findings of those research projects and is the pioneer in this field.  Others have begun replicating the technique ... with mixed success.  Some have misguidedly changed the proven management protocols that we have successfully implemented.  We have received many groups at our demonstration farm at Las Flores in the Cuero valley (Honduras) and have given intensive training to 12 groups from Central America and Peru.  

Alley-cropping itself was developed during the 1970s-80s at IITA, but has not been widely successful as originally conceived.  Inga alley-cropping functions in a fundamentally different way.  No project has extended the technique at the current scale of over 200 families as in IF's Land for Life Program or made it the heart of an integrated and complete rural livelihood as in our Guama Model.

Mike Hands.  Inga Foundation.


Michael Hands

Jan 23, 2018
09:27

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
creator

It is certainly true that the proposal is focussed on one particular management strategy.  The global problem that it addresses is immense:  An estimated 250-300 million families are thought to be dependent upon slash-and-burn agriculture in the World's tropical regions.  This figure is broken down and estimated to be around 100 million families in the Humid Tropics (ie. rain forest regions).  There are few, if any, sustainable alternatives available to them.  This technique required a complete re-thinking of the problem and a completely new solution.  That is what we are claiming here.  The proof may be seen here in Atlantida, Honduras.  We are inundated with demand for the Guama (inga) Model as the families begin proving it to their neighbours.

Mike Hands.  Inga F.


Michael Hands

Jan 23, 2018
09:02

Member


3 |
Share via:
Proposal
creator

Cost summary for Climate CoLab Proposal: Jan 2018

Inga Foundation:  Land for Life Program

Below is a cost breakdown of actual total expenditure from 2012 to end 2016

Full program estimates were for $US 2.2million.  

Many items and programs have been suspended or curtailed.  

The original field program has been completely retained and fulfilled.

The great majority of current and proposed spending is on local salaries for the field workers and extension officers.  To fulfil a regional teaching role, Inga F. will require considerable spending on capital items:  Teaching blocks, accomodation, vehicles, etc.

US $ ............... 5-year total actual expenditure 2012-2016

US $

Local Salaries .................................................................... 350,422

Inga F Salaries ...................................................................... 8,170

Capital costs (land, vehicles, buildings)...............................176,241

Recurrent costs: Materials.............................................       140,879

Recurrent costs: Transport..............................................      119,753

Recurrent costs: Travel......................................................      50,975

Recurrent costs: Admin, audit, legal, etc.......................           17,548

Mike Hands.  Inga F.