Q. How do I SUBMIT A PROPOSAL?

Please see the Project Submission Information page, or click here.

*Important notice regarding the Budget Submission Form:
Please be aware that the budget submission form summary sheet contained an error and was revised on July 14. With apologies to those already working on the budget format available before that date, please ensure that you download the current version - dated July 14 - that is now available.

**Important notice regarding the Application Deadline:
In response to queries regarding the closure time for submissions of proposals the time for submission as been extended to midnight 31 August Sri Lankan time which is 6.30pm GMT.
For information on how to submit your prepared proposal, please click here.

38 FAQs in total (1 new Aug 27):

Q: Are figures allowed in the proposal text boxes?  Do they affect the word count?

Yes, figures are allowed in the text box or can be referred to in an annex.  Words in the figure should be included in the word count.  

Q. Is it possible to be informed once calls for proposals for BDCs are announced?

The CPWF posts announcements for its call for proposals here on our website. The website has an RSS feed which if subscribed to will let you know when we post announcements.

Q. Are there any prerequisites to be invited for tenders or to take part in the open calls?

Organizations that will be invited to tender are ones which are uniquely placed to carry out the research required.  There are no prerequisites for participating in open calls.  However, organizations with little or no relevant experience and expertize will not be successful.

Q: Does the guideline that 30% of budget allocation go to national partners apply to coordination projects?

The 30% guideline is just that, a guideline.  We give the guideline to signal that project proposals properly consider and fund national partners to ensure their participation and ownership of the work to be carried out.  What is an appropriate allocation to national partners depends on the work to be done and will vary from project to project.  Some projects may allocate more than 30% and others less. For more information, please refer to page 7 of the General Guidelines.

Q. Should proposals for the Andes relate only to the seven Phase 1 basins or can one propose activities in other Andean basins?

Activities in Phase 2 will not be restricted to the seven Andean Phase 1 Basins. Benefit Sharing Mechanisms – the subject of Phase 2 in the Andes – are found in many basins other than those studied in Phase 1.

In terms of projects open to competitition, Andes Project 1 should concentrate on basins where BSM opportunities are greatest, whereas Andes Project 3 should have a much broader reach. In contrast, Andes Project 2 will need to focus on a relatively small number of basins.

Q. What criteria should a team use in deciding which Andes Phase 2 projects it should emphasize in proposal development?

Any given team should concentrate on projects where it has the greatest breadth and variety of experience on Benefit Sharing Mechanisms in the Andes, and where the team’s capacity is most likely to contribute to impact on the chosen basins.

Q. Which main partners should one contact in order to develop a proposal?

The CPWF is mandated to promote partnerships among scientists within and outside the CGIAR system. The partnerships constructed by proponents should show a logical integration of interdisciplinarity, and be based on the core competencies and collaborative advantages of the partners. This will be reflected in the assessment criteria where a proportion of the total score is allocated to the quality and institutional mix of the team, including stakeholder participation.

Projects are encouraged, in general, to invest at least as many person-months in national research and development staff (this includes NGOs and CBOs), as invested in those from outside the region.  The program has a target of 30% of overall program resources to be invested in National Institutions, including universities of the river basin countries. This will be taken into account as an evaluation criterion while recognising that will need to be some variability across projects.    

On the Andes, proponents are suggested to explore the partnership developed during Phase 1, both on competitive research and on the Andes Basin Focal Project. 

Q. Regarding the Mekong, are proposals supposed to contain elements in all three of the basins - Sesan in Vietnam, all three 3S rivers in Cambodia and Nam Theun in Laos - or are we correct in selecting one river and set of dams in one of the countries for our proposal?

Each project will work across all three sites. This is the Sesan in Vietnam, one of the 3S rivers in Cambodia (which could also be the Sesan), and the Nam Theun in Laos.

Q: If the proposals that are selected are in different river basins, will one or other of the organisations making submissions be asked to relocate so that all are in the same basin,  or is the use of the word basin referring to the Mekong, with different sub-basin locations?

All projects should be working across all three basins, so this issue should not arise. When the term 'basin' is employed, we refer to the catchments of the Sesan, one of the 3S rivers and the Nam Theun.

Q. For the Mekong, do you already have a favoured project location and lead organisation in mind for each package or is the choice of location and organisation completely open? Is the 3S basin still a favoured location, or can we choose elsewhere?  

The whole of the BDC is intended to be integrated - hence, all projects will need to be working in the same locations.The idea is to focus on three sets of cascades, comprising 2-3 dams in each; the program has decided that one of these be selected from the any of the 3S rivers in Cambodia, another from the Nam Theun and the third from the Se San in Vietnam. It is not necessary that the reach studied be transboundary - in fact, we would prefer if it was not.
                       
We were initially keen for projects themselves to propose where the project sites should focus. We realised, however, that if different consortia applying for different projects would have a difficult time developing budgets and partnerships if they did not know what the sites were from the outset. Another FAQ on this matter is posted directly below.

Q: Does the CPWF have any preferences where the Mekong projects should work: with regard to sites, tributaries or cascades or sets of dams and reservoirs?

Yes. We suggest that proponents think in terms of a cascade of two to three dams from north-eastern Cambodia, north-central Laos, and Vietnam. We also have a preference for cascades of dams where hydropower has been or is being introduced. More specifically, we encourage proponents to focus on the Nam Theun in Laos, a cascade in the 3S area in Cambodia, and the Se San in Vietnam.  

Q. Can an organisation, or a consortium of organisations, realistically go for more than one package and have a good chance of winning, especially if the proposals are linked in some way with each other?
Would we stand a better chance to have a different lead organisation, with the same partners and some team members, for the different proposals?  
                       
As you can no doubt appreciate, all of the questions depend on the quality of the proposals that you are competing with. Of the five projects, three are open call while two will be commissioned. Please note the rules on Institutions and Individuals on page 6 of the Guidelines.  That means that, should you wish, a consortium could develop proposals for all three open projects in one BDC, with the same or different Project Leaders, and a mix of team members.

The idea for this approach was to ensure that we could attract diversity, in terms of the composition of the consortia that applied, the skill sets that they brought to bear and the diversity of approaches and solutions that they were able to suggest.

Hence, the independent review panel and CPMT would certainly be looking for proponents to reveal in what ways that their submission integrates with the other two projects in the BDC. (Note the criterion in alignment and partnerships and team members). A consortium making application for all three projects would be primarily evaluated in terms of the individual projects, and hence would have as much chance of succeeding as some other consortium which made application for just a single project.

The bottom line is that proposing for all three will not gain you greater favour with the independent review panel than a consortium that proposed for just a single project.

Q. Could we draw upon experience in basins adjacent to the Mekong?
                       
We would of course welcome and encourage experience from the region to be used both for the purposes of developing proposals, but also advising the research that you propose or the outcomes that you imagine. Importantly, of course, networks associated with such previous work will be important to the success of CPWF work in the Mekong.

Q. Although the call guidelines have no mention of this, in the budget there is a note stating that “You are requested to provide a 'Letter of Intent' (LoI)  from each of the partner institutions confirming their intention to be included in the team”. Is the LoI is necessary at submission stage?

Yes, it is necessary at submission stage, and an MoU would of course replace that letter at the time of contracting.  

Q. Regarding Annex B, 'Team Members CVs'. Will two page summary CVs of Project Leader and key team members be sufficient?

Note that on page 9 of the Submission Documents that a full c.v. is requested for the Project Leader, and a one page c.v. for the key team members.

Q. Regarding Annex C, 'Complementary Project Experience'  - is this required only from the Project Leader?

Yes, the Project Leader only is required to share this information. 

Q. The guidelines mention that “CPWF has a target of 30% of overall resources investing in national institutes including universities of the river basin countries.” Should this be a guide when allocating the budget among partners?   

Yes, it is a guide only.  Note that the level of allocation does attract a score as part of the review criterion (from 0 to 3).

Q. The budget does not allow to show the budget breakdown among the different partners. So how can we show this? Or, to put it another way, at time of evaluation how will CPWF know the breakdown among the partners?

Section 15 of the Submission Document requests the completion of a spreadsheet showing the budget breakdown by institute and and outcomes of the project. Note that you are also providing a breakdown of personnel costs per institution as the second of the budget spreadsheets.

Q. Regarding 'Budget' personnel - To which cost category can regional investigators /researchers be allocated to? And, are we allowed to add new line items as Principal investigators (Regional)?

Yes, you can if this better reflects the cost centers and team construction.  

Q. Is it necessary to attach a document from the institution to support our research proposal?

This question presumably refers to the lead institution. No, it is not necessary to attach a supporting document as the presumption is that Team Leaders would have cleared their proposals through the normal internal process of grant applications.

Should this not be the case Team Leaders should ensure that their institution endorses the application to join the CPWF Community to avoid any problems at the time of contract negotiation should the application be successful.

Q. In Annex 2 of the proposal, Is it necessary to attach copies of certificate of degrees of the team members? 

No, it is not.  

Q. Which are the evaluation criteria mentioned in the first stage of evaluation (see “Final_General_Guidelines.pdf”), to be conducted by the CPWF Secretariat, once all the proposals are received?

The evaluation criterion for the CPWF initial check by the secretariat are contained in the spreadsheet available on the web. For the CPWF Secretariat these are "CPWF format used with no additional attachments nor substantially exceeds 6000 words in total or limit allocated to sections; every question addressed; project period ends on or before November 2013; no ineligible firms are included in the partnership team; and budget does not exceed the indicative maximum allocated."

Q. Under which criteria will be decided the winner proposal?

Please read the spreadsheet referred to above, and read carefully the General Guidelines as it explains fully the process of reaching the final set of successful proposals.

Q. Given that each basin's Coordination Project should ensure that project activities contribute to the BDC impact pathway, what are the mechanisms for aligning all the basin projects to their respective coordination project? How much leverage does the coordination project have to influence the approaches followed by the other basin projects from the outset?

The mechanism for aligning projects is monitoring and evaluation of progress along mutually agreed BDC impact pathways. M&E is led by the Coordination Project.  Please read the CPWF M&E strategy, in particular the section on Project and Topic-Working-Group Level M&E, where the mechanism is more full explained.  BDC impact pathways are first agreed in the Inception Workshop.

The Basin Leader (who leads and is informed by the Coordination Project) will sign off on project six-monthly reports, and has the leverage of recommending that funding is withheld.

Simply put, projects report to the coordination project and project leaders report to the Basin Leader.

Q. We are expecting a harmonization workshop that would help to align the different projects. Do we need allocate funding for it or is it some thing the CPWF will allocate funds directly?

'Harmonization' begins in the Inception Workshop which will be organized by the CPWF.  The Basin Leader will be expected to help design and co-facilitate the workshop.  Thereafter, the coordination project is expected to hold an annual BDC meeting / reflection workshop, attendeded by principal scientists and key stakeholders from all projects. 

In between the annual meetings, the coordination project will be expected to organize other events, including site visits, virtual meetings, encouragement of participation in Topic Working Groups, etc., that will help ensure aligment within the respective BDC, as well as linking to the broader CPWF community, made up of people working on other BDCs.  The coordination project should budget for all these activities. 

The costs of participating in the annual BDC meeting / reflection workshop by the principal scientists is included in their individual project budgets. The Coordination project would be budgetting for their own costs of these workshops and other events mentioned above.  

Q. What about the budget for participating in the bigger BDC working groups, events…Is it part of the project cost?

Yes

Q: In submission documents for the Mekong projects, we are asked for information on research sites. The BDC description refers to “various tributaries of the Mekong, including (but not restricted to) the common border area between Lao PDR, Cambodia and Vietnam”. Can we choose to work in any tributary of the Mekong, regardless of where other projects are working?

No. All Mekong projects should work in the same sites, on the same tributaries, dealing with the same set of dams and reservoirs.

Q: Are Mekong project sites restricted to transboundary tributaries or cascades of dams and reservoirs?

There is no such restriction. In fact, we have some preference for sites that are located entirely in one country.

Q. Why is section 10.1 in the submission document for Mekong Project 2 seemingly unrelated to the rest of the project?

Sorry about that. Mekong project 2 was rewritten in late June. Section 10.1 in this submission document as posted on July 7 erroneously referred to the previous version of the project. This section was corrected in mid-July. For the record, here is the previous (incorrect) wording of this section, and the corrected wording.

Incorrect

10.1 Project research outputs (from MTP)

Main responsibility
· Strategies for land and rainwater management in catchments that reduce land degradation and siltation while improving livelihoods

With Project 1:
· Methods for scaling up research outputs to the basin level

Corrected

10.1 Project research outputs (from MTP)

Main responsibility
· Information on the costs and benefits of different uses of WSI water at reservoir and catchment levels 
· Improved methods for water valuation in different uses

With Project 4:
· Application of information on water valuation to multi-stakeholder dialogue on water use

Q: In Phase 2, does the potential exist to work in two basins on the same project?

As a matter of principle, CPWF work in Phase 2 focuses on the clearly defined development challenges of individual river basins. In each basin, the development challenge will be addressed through a relatively small number of tightly integrated projects. Project leaders should give whole-hearted support to addressing the basin challenge through integrated research and partnerships.

Cross-basin learning will be emphasized – but not by spreading project teams over multiple basins. Rather, people working on common issues or problems in different basins will be brought together to share experiences, critically appraise each others’ work, and strengthen their capacity. This will be done through 'topic working groups'. This means that projects will work in one basin only, with cross basin learning supported through a different avenue.

But please note that a project leader cannot lead projects in more than one basin – but individual project team members are under no such restrictions.

Q: Is the Nile coordination project just administration or is there also scope for research and synthesis?

The Nile coordination project, like the coordination projects for Phase 2 research projects in the Andes and Mekong basins, goes well beyond administration. It ensures the integration of the activities of all other BDC projects so that together they address the basin development challenge.

The coordination project is responsible for cross-project synthesis research. It carries out research on 'learning how to innovate': the practical application of innovation systems thinking and impact pathways to the BDC agenda. It is, of course, the 'home' of the Basin Leader (BL) and supports the BL’s network building and facilitation efforts.

Note that the BL for the Nile will be selected as part of the competitive process. For the duration of the project, the BL will work full time for the CPWF, through a secondment arrangement to be negotiated within the project contract. The BL will report to both the CPWF Research and Innovation & Impact Directors, with direct supervision from one of them.

The coordination project does have some administrative responsibilities, if only because Project Leaders for other BDC projects in that basin formally report to the BL. Further information on this is provided in the Submission Document – Nile Coordination Project 5.

Q: The deadline for project proposal submission is announced as 31 August. Can this deadline be extended?

No it cannot. All proposals must be received by the end of August. This is because we are committed to many further steps relating to project selection and launch that must be done before the end of 2009.

These steps include distribution of proposals for external review (ER); the ER process itself; synthesis of ER findings by the Management Team and development of recommendations for the CPWF Board; decision-making by the CPWF Board on project awards (during the Board meeting in mid-October); inception workshops for successful project proponents to develop detailed impact pathways; and contracting and formal project launch.

We are however optimistic that proponents will be able to develop their proposals in a timely manner. After all, draft basin development challenges were announced in November 2008 and posted on the web shortly thereafter. Moreover, we anticipate that many of the stakeholders who were consulted in the Andean, Mekong and Nile basins (between February and May of this year) will already have given some thought to BDC projects, and will be eager to join proposal development teams.