GPAF IMPACT PROPOSAL FORM (for Round 2)

The proposal documentation provides detailed information about your proposed project. This information is used to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the initiative and will ultimately inform the DFID funding decisions. It is very important you read the GPAF Impact Window Guidelines for Applicants and related documents before you start working on your Proposal to ensure that you understand and take into account the relevant funding criteria. Please also consider the GPAF Impact Round 1 Proposals - Key Strengths and Weaknesses document which was prepared following the appraisal of the full proposals submitted to the first round of GPAF Impact. This document identifies the generic strengths and weaknesses of proposals submitted in relation to the key assessment criteria.

How: You must submit a Microsoft Word version of your Proposal and associated documents by email to gpafimpact@tripleline.com. The Proposal Form should be completed using Arial font size 12. We do not require a hard copy. When: Proposal documentation must be received by Triple Line by: 23:59 (GMT) on 10th

January 2012. Proposal documents that are received after the deadline will not be considered. What: You should submit the following documents:

1. Narrative Proposal: Please use the form below, noting the following page limits:

Sections 1 – 7 : Maximum of 15 (fifteen) A4 pages Section 8 : Maximum of 3 (three) A4 pages per partner

Please do not alter the formatting of the form and guidance notes. Proposals that exceed the page limits or that have amended formatting will not be considered.

2. Logical Framework: All applicants must submit a full Logical Framework/Logframe and Activities Log. Please refer to the GPAF Logframe Guidance and How-To-Note and use the Excel logframe template provided.

3. Project Budget: All applicants must submit a full project budget with the proposal. Please refer to the GPAF Impact Window Guidelines for Applicants, the Financial Management Guidelines and the guidance notes on the GPAF Impact budget template (for Round 2). The Excel document has three worksheets/tabs: Guidance Note; Budget; and Budget Notes. Please read all guidance notes and provide detailed budget notes to justify the budget figures.

4. Organisational Accounts: All applicants must provide a copy of their most recent (less than 12 months after end of accounting period) signed and audited (or examined) accounts.

5. Project organisational chart / organogram: All applicants must provide a project organisational chart or organogram demonstrating the relationships between the key project partners and other key stakeholders (please use your own format for this).

6. Project Schedule or GANTT chart: All applicants must provide a project schedule or GANTT chart to show the scheduling of project activities (please use your own format for this).Please complete the checklist provided in section 9 before submitting your proposal.

1

GLOBAL POVERTY ACTION FUND (GPAF) – IMPACT WINDOW PROPOSAL FORM

SECTION 1: INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPLICANT1.1 Lead organisation name Concern Worldwide UK

1.2 Main contact person Name: Jane AdisuPosition: Head of International SupportEmail: jane.adisu@concern.netTel: 0207 8011851

1.3 2nd contact person Name: James DaveyPosition: Country Director, TanzaniaEmail: James.davey@concern.netTel: 255 22 270 0327

1.4 Please use this space to inform of any changes to the applicant organisation or Consortium details provided in your Concept Note

SECTION 2: BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT2.1 Concept Note Reference No. IMP-02-CN-0923

2.2 Project title Accelerated MDG1 impact by improving Food, Income, and Governance (FIG) in Northwest Tanzania

2.3 Country(ies) where project is to be implemented

Tanzania

2.4 Locality(ies)/region(s) within country(ies)

Ngara and Biharamulo districts, Kagera Region, Northwest Tanzania

2.5 Duration of grant request (in months)

36 MONTHS

2.6 Project start date (month and year)

July 2012

2.7 Total project budget? In GBP sterling

£ 2,822,000

2.8 Total funding requested from DFID in GBP sterling and as a % of total project budget

£1,937,185

69%

2.9 Year 1 funding requested from DFID

£647,987

2.10 Please specify the % of project funds to be spent in each project country

Tanzania 100%

2.11 Total match funding and status (sources of match funding, amounts, and secured or not secured) - Please enter match-funding details in the table below (add rows if necessary)

2

Source of funding Year 1 (£) Year 2 (£) Year 3 (£) Total (£) Secured? (Y/N)Concern Donations 250,881 296,487 337,447 884,815 Y for Year 1

Total (£) 250,881 296,487 337,447 884,815

SECTION 3: FIT WITH GPAF IMPACT WINDOW3.1 CORE SUBJECT AREA - Please identify between one and three core project focus areas

(insert '1' for primary focus area; '2' for secondary focus area and; '3' for tertiary focus area)

Agriculture 1 Health (general)

Appropriate Technology HIV/AIDS / Malaria / TB

Child Labour Housing

Climate Change Income Generation

Conflict / Peace building Justice

Core Labour Standards Land

Disability Livestock

Drugs Media

Education & Literacy Mental Health

Enterprise development Reproductive Health / FGM

Environment Rural Livelihoods 2

Fisheries / Forestry Slavery / trafficking

Food Security Water & sanitation

Gender Violence against women/ girls/ children

Governance 3

Other: (please specify)

3.2 Which of the following Millennium Development Goals is the project contributing to (if any)? - Please identify between one and three MDGs in order of priority (insert '1' for primary MDG focus area; '2' for secondary MDG focus area; '3' for tertiary MDG focus area)

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger 1

2. Achieve universal primary education

3. Promote gender equality and empower women 2

4. Reduce child mortality

5. Improve Maternal Health

6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

7. Ensure environmental sustainability 3

8. Develop a global partnership for development

None of the above (please explain in section 3.3)

3.3 Explain why you are focusing on these specific MDGs. Are the above MDGs “off track” in the implementing countries? If possible please identify sub-targets within not just the national context but also related to the specific geographical location for the proposed project. Please state the source of the information you are using to determine whether or not

3

they are “off track”. How will this project support the national government’s commitment to achieving identified MDGs? Your response should also inform section 4.4.

Concern Tanzania aims primarily to contribute to MDG 1 – poverty and hunger. In rural Mainland Tanzania 37.6% of the population lives below the national basic needs poverty line1 representing little progress towards the MDG 2015 target of 20.4%. Sixteen percent of children are underweight and 42% are stunted2 (MDG 2015 targets 14.4% and 23.3% respectively). Addressing poverty and hunger in Ngara and Biharamulo districts, Kagera Region, Northwest Tanzania, will contribute to achievement of MDGs. In Ngara, 34% of the population lives below the basic needs poverty line. 3 4 In Biharamulo, the figure is 48% – 27.7% more than the national average and over double the MDG target. Kagera has severe poverty rate of 58.4%, the second worst in the country, with incidence of poverty at 76.2% (the 3rd worst in country).5 Ngara and Biharamulo are the poorest districts in this isolated region.6 One key maintainer of poverty is under-nutrition. Malnutrition threatens economic growth; reduces earning potential, impedes education, directly and indirectly leads to deaths among women/children, and undermines other investments.7 Malnutrition is high in Kagera: underweight is 17.1% and stunting is 43.6%8. The causes of under-nutrition relate to low diet diversity and quantity/quality, frequent child illness, and poor child feeding practices. To ensure accelerated results on the impact level (MDG1) and outcome (see section 3.4) a focus on MDG3 to promote gender equality and MDG7 to ensure environmental sustainability is essential. The three MDGs are mutually beneficial and were selected because of their importance in rural development and challenges faced in achievement. Inequality is a driver and maintainer of poverty. While MDG3 is considered ‘achievable’9 at the national level, at the local level, this is not reflected as female participation in formal village institutions and wage employment is extremely low due to patriarchal traditions, low female education and lack of awareness among women of their rights/abilities to contribute to development and be economically active (see section 4.4).With respect to MDG7, rural water and sanitation is off track in Tanzania. By integrating with our EU-funded WASH programme, there will be triple benefit of maximising use of existing water infrastructure and improving sustainable use of resources, improving household nutrition, and effecting positive changes in gender dynamics,10 thus maximising gains in MDG1/ MDG3.11 In addition, farmers highlight drought/floods as risks across our programming. Through training, farmers will be able to mitigate risks and increase resilience to shocks.

3.4 Please list any of the DFID’s standard output and outcome indicators to which this fund will contribute. Please refer to the Standard Indicators document on the GPAF website. Note if stated here, these also need to be explicit in your logframe.

Level Outcome/Output expected IndicatorOutcome:

Communities diversify and expand their opportunities for household development

1. % change in proportion of rural population below national poverty line

2. Minimum dietary diversityOutputs 1. Target communities

increasing and 1. % of farmers trying specific technology advice from

extension systems on their farms

1 HBS 2007: The Basic Needs Poverty Line is set at TZS 7,253 per 28 days per adult equivalent unit in 2000/1 prices; households consuming less are unable to satisfy basic needs.2 Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey, 20103 Tanzania Human Development Report 2005, 34%4 According to Ngara District Council, livelihoods are deteriorating rapidly after the closure of the refugee camps in 2008 reducing UN expenditure/work opportunities in the area5 Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) 2010 Tanzania http://www.ophi.org.uk/policy/multidimensional-poverty-index/mpi-country-briefings/ (international definitions usually result in higher amounts of poor compared to national poverty line)6 ‘Poverty in Kagera, Tanzania: Characteristics, Causes and Constraints’; PRUS Working Paper no. 42, Sussex university, UK7 Investing in nutrition for national growth and prosperity in Tanzania. Development Partners Group on Nutrition, Tanzania, 2010.8 Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey, 20109 MDG Progress Report, mid-way evaluation 2000-08, United Republic of Tanzania10 Concern’s work on Domestic Plus in Nepal ‘Technology and Gender Dynamics in Domestic PLUS Approach within WASH11 Our approach, which seeks to capitalise on the multiple usages of available water resources through economical use of wastewater for a range of small-scale activities enables people to grow food, earn income, and eventually enhance the quality of their life.

4

diversifying agriculture production and applying nutrition knowledge

2. Change (%) in yields of major crops for target communities

3. % of target households applying minimum dietary diversity

2. Target communities increasing household incomes/assets

1. Annual growth in value added in agriculture and/or livestock for target beneficiaries

2. Change (%) in households income from farm and non-farm sources (disaggregated by gender)

3. % increase in number of local business enterprises in target community

3. Governance structures in target communities and districts are improving management, coordination and regulations on development activities

1. Female active participation in community decision-making

2. % of citizens satisfied their voice is heard by formal institutions (Men & women)

3. % of target population with legally recognised form of a land tenure ( men and women)

SECTION 4: PROJECT DETAILS4.1 ACRONYMS Please list all acronyms used in your application in alphabetical order and

explain them in full.

ANSAF Agricultural Non-State Actors Forum PCMS Programme cycle management systemDADP District Agricultural Development Plan QDS Quality declared seedsDRR Disaster risk reduction QVGAMs Quarterly village general assembly

meetingsCSO Civil society organisation RBA Rights-based approachFFS Farmer field school SACCOS Savings and Credit Cooperative

SocietiesMUAC Mid-upper arm circumference WASH Water, sanitation, and hygiene

4.2 SUMMARY: maximum 5 lines Please provide a brief project summary including the overall change(s) that the initiative is intending to achieve and who will benefit. Please be clear and concise and avoid the use of jargon (This is for dissemination about the fund and should relate to the purpose statement in the logframe).

The FIG initiative is an integrated approach to reduce hunger and improve livelihoods of the poorest people in target districts. It will increase food production and improve nutrition by introducing new techniques, knowledge, and better inputs. It will empower women economically/socially by access to productive assets such as land, and increase in decision-making. Activities are designed to assist communities to have their voices heard/priorities met by local government for long-term benefit.

4.3 PROJECT DESIGN PROCESS Describe the process of preparing this project proposal. Who has been involved in the process and over what period of time? How have the intended beneficiaries and other stakeholders been involved in the design? If a consultant or anyone from outside the lead organisation and partners assisted in the preparation of this proposal please describe the type of assistance provided.

Following Concern’s programme cycle management system (PCMS), a participatory contextual analysis in the community was undertaken to assess needs and priorities of the target group in order to set objectives for support. Communities, civil society organisation (CSO) partners, and local government authorities (LGAs) have been key stakeholders in the design process since May 2011. Technical advisers in Dublin and London have provided support and feedback. The programme design is based on a rapid needs assessment with communities and partners, which involved an assessment of nutritional status, using mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) measurement among

5

children aged 6-59 months; focus group discussions with a spread of the community in 25% of target villages,12 and secondary data analysis, where it exists. The two LGAs and CSO partners supplied information on their activities, priorities, and budgets in order for Concern Tanzania to feed into the district priorities and plans in agriculture, value chain, land, and health. The programme has utilised learning and recommendations from previous and on-going programmes in its design. Please see sections 4.7 and 4.13 for learning. The location has been selected due to the needs assessment and request from communities and LGAs13 to integrate activities with our current WASH programming and will use water runoff for micro-irrigation and vegetable gardens – techniques learned from other Concern countries.14 This integration is in Concern Tanzania’s Country Strategic Plan 2011–15, is recommendation from WASH & livelihoods evaluations,15 and based on recommended practices to integrate agriculture and nutrition.16

4.4 PROJECT RATIONALE (PROBLEM STATEMENT) Describe the context for the proposed project? What specific aspects of poverty is the project aiming to address? What are the causal factors leading to poverty and/or disadvantage? What gaps in service delivery have been identified? How has your proposal considered existing services or initiatives? Why has the particular project location(s) been selected and at this particular time? Please also refer to your response to section 3.3 (fit with MDGs) when answering this section.

12 124 households were represented (50% female, 50/50 youth and adults13 Concern Tanzania has been operating in the region since the refugee crisis of the mid-90s and has received requests.14 Concern Tanzania refers to this approach as Domestic Plus.15 Water and Environmental Health Programme 2007–10, endline report 201116 USAID’s Infant and Young Child Nutrition Project, Achieving Nutritional Impact and Food Security through Agriculture – Resources for linking Agriculture, Food Security, and Nutrition, www.iycn.org

6

Over a third of the population lives in extreme poverty as defined by the Tanzanian Government, 17 and overall the majority of Tanzanians are poor – 88.5% live on less than $1.25 per day.18 One of the major reasons is inadequate investment in rural areas, where three-quarters of the nation depending on agriculture for income live.19 People in rural areas are far from supportive infrastructure such as roads, markets, and health centres. More than half of smallholder farmers are women; 74% of people engaged in agriculture are poor. The sector contributes around 25% of GDP and smallholder farmers produce most of the food for the country. Any investment, therefore, into meeting MDG1 in Tanzania must focus on agriculture; it is the major sector able to combat poverty.20 However, the rain-fed sector is weak, unproductive, and unfavourable to poor farmers.21 Ngara and Biharamulo districts are isolated and are currently under-served by development initiatives, with poverty levels reaching 48% in Biharamulo and food insecurity affecting a third of the population, with lack of food diversification for basic nutrition.22 Accelerated efforts are needed in to get on track with MDG1 targets.The programme will address food and income poverty. Through country experience, we understand the causal factors, reinforced by Concern’s global understanding of extreme poverty. Farmers suffer from the following barriers to economic and health improvement:Lack of skills and knowledge: Low levels of formal and informal education means small-scale farmers lack the skills for agriculture, health, and enterprise. This leads to low production and

17 Household Budget Survey 2007, National Bureaux of Statistics18 UN Human Development Index 201019 Household Budget Survey 2007, National Bureaux of Statistics20 All figures above from: Public Interventions in Agriculture – with what implications on gender? Draft report, ANSAF 201121 Ibid22 District Council assessment and MUAC assessment 2011

7

income, and lack of diversified diet, thus non-fulfilment of MDG1. Only 15% of the districts practise improved farming skills.23 Farmers produce a small selection of crops such as bananas, reducing diet diversification and affecting health of children. Concern assessed the districts in 2011 and concluded that severe acute/global acute malnutrition are high and indicators for micronutrients and maternal nutrition are extremely poor. A Concern MUAC survey found 19.3% of girls and 12.8% of boys with acute malnutrition – showing strong gender disparity.Lack of or low return on assets: Rural farmers, especially the most vulnerable people such as women, sick, and disabled, lack access to productive assets or get low return on them, hampering fulfilment of MDG1 and MDG7. Farmers often lack capacity to maximise resources, for instance water for irrigation, to ensure better return on their assets. The most productive asset is land; only 6% of the population owns a certificate of ownership despite the Village Land Act No 5 of 1999’s entitlements. While land is available to farmers to use, competition for fertile/irrigated land is intense. Lack of formal ownership can lead to land grabbing and repossession of women by in-laws after death of their husband. Farmers in the two districts state they struggle to find credit, halting investment in their livelihoods. While some crops that can earn money are cultivated (coffee, bananas, cassava); value-chain activities are small; local markets are saturated by few products. Markets across borders are not utilised; farmers lack skills on where/how to market their produce.24

Poor governance: Is a major causal factor in persistent poverty in rural Tanzania, which suffers from lack of investment from central government and misallocation of funds. In the two districts, District Agricultural Development Plan (DADP) fund dispersal, comprising the bulk of money to the sector, was as low as 17% against requested amount.25 Analysis has shown that the poorest districts don’t benefit most from DADP funds; instead, the economically better off districts with high staple food production have accessed the bulk of the money. Late dispersals negatively affect farmers, and government schemes such as input subsidies have neglected vulnerable groups such as women and young people.26 Poor governance has led to lack of extension services for farmers

23 District Council and CSO assessment, 201124 All statements above are from community, LGA, and CSO assessment, 201125 LGA assessment 201126 Public Interventions in Agriculture – with what implications on gender? Draft report, ANSAF 2011

8

to learn skills and affordable inputs. In the districts, one-quarter of extension workers required are employed with reduced capacity due to limited refresher training and transport. Participation of citizens in development processes is low; quarterly village general assembly meetings (QVGAMs) are not convened.27 Exclusion of citizens in planning affects quality of services and accountability, decreasing chances of achieving MDG1 and MDG3.Social inequity: Women, who constitute half of the population, contribute 65% of agricultural labour, and work 9–15 hours per day (paid and unpaid),28 are underrepresented in resource ownership, in wage employment, and in leadership at the local level.29 Women lack access to information and markets due to illiteracy and power divisions. In the target districts, just 2% of women said they are entitled to own land/other productive resource when married. Only 14% said they are able to participate in development/income groups such as livestock; a mere 10% said they knew of people in the LGA to represent their interests.30 Women state that the greatest barriers to inclusion are their husbands and information/knowledge; 94% said their husbands forbid them to go to markets. Vulnerability caused by disability, age, and health status creates barriers to inclusion of either sexes in food/income activities, and limits participation due to stigma.Service delivery in the districts in the agricultural sector are limited, due to inadequate DADP funds leading to capacity issues such as extension workers (as stated above), and the ineffective centralised farmer field schools (FFS). Concern Tanzania aims to complement these activities by working within the government’s DADPs, land laws, and contributing to targets for development.

4.5 TARGET GROUP (DIRECT AND INDIRECT BENEFICIARIES) Who will be the direct beneficiaries of your project and how many will be expected to benefit directly from the project intervention? Please describe the direct beneficiary group(s) – differentiate sub-groups where possible - and then provide a total number.

DIRECT a) Description Poor smallholder farmers who have very few assets and poor return from assets, suffer from inequality and are vulnerable to shocks and disasters. Specific groups31 to be targeted: Women: Comprise 80% of the labour force, produce 60% of

food crops. They have low asset base, heavy workload, restricted by cultural norms/institutions/husbands in fully participating/making decisions in development, economic activities, household matters. First priority target sub group.

Chronic sickness e.g. HIV and AIDS: Labour constrained, poor nutrition and strength, receive stigma, limited participation in services and decision-making, household more likely to be poor especially if carer.

Disabled: Less likely to be literate due to lack of schooling, labour constrained, limited participation in social or family activities due to stigma, limited income generation, higher dependency on family members.32

Elderly: Labour constrained, no social security so work through old age, have dependents: grandchildren/orphans, vulnerable to poverty, (22.4% higher in households with elderly), ill health/disability. Excluded from community/ household decision-making.33

27 LGA and CSO assessment, 201128 Integrated Labor Force Survey 200629 For example, only 5% of district councillors across Tanzania are female; World Bank Gender Brief, Tanzania, 201130 All figures: Concern Tanzania rapid community assessment of Ngara and Biharamulu District, 201131 Hereafter described as vulnerable groups32 Tanzania Disability Survey, National Bureau of Statistics, 200833 Achieving income security in old age for all Tanzanians: a study into the feasibility of a universal social pension, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Youth Development in collaboration with HelpAge International, 2010

9

b) Number Output 1: 18,00034 30 participants x 52 FFS plus families sequenced throughout the 3 years with group changeovers

Output 2: 2,000 20 participants in 20 processing groups plus their families

Output 3: 210,146 Population of target villages, two districtsTotal: 210,146 (Women 110,746) 35

Who will be the indirect (wider) beneficiaries of your project intervention and how many will benefit?Please describe the type(s) of indirect beneficiaries and then provide a total number.

INDIRECT

a) Description The districts’ population. The reason for this wide scope is the benefits to the wider community, especially Output 3, which builds capacity at the district level to be able to serve the entire district with land tenure and improved DADP implementation.36

b) Number Approximate total: 560,670 (Total of two districts)

4.6 POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACT Please describe the anticipated real and practical impact of the project in terms of poverty reduction. How does the proposal demonstrate a clear line of sight to poverty? What changes are anticipated for the main target groups identified in 4.5 within the lifetime of the project?

This integrated intervention will have significant impact on poverty and hunger in target districts and will contribute to achieving MDG1 in Tanzania by reducing the percentage of poor people in the districts and reducing under-nutrition. Improving nutrition using recommended approaches will lead to better health and productive capacity, resulting in gains in other investments such as livelihoods and education.37 By integrating with a current WASH programme, we expect significant benefits to the lives of the poorest farmers and their children, through improved health overall. Concern Tanzania expects to reduce hunger and poor nutrition through increased crop yields by up to 600%,38 increased food stocks to reduce hunger periods in between harvests, and through availability and promotion of a full food group diet of animal protein, vegetables, staple grains, and fruits. This will also reduce the risk of poor harvests as it reduces dependency on a few crops, contributing to MDG7. All farmers will benefit from improved nutrition, but especially women (in particular pregnant/lactating), who are providing food to the family. People living with chronic

34 Each output will have minimum 50% women and we will ensure that households containing vulnerable groups will be targeted35 Revised down from PCN to relate to each output36 Land tenure and improved DADP implementation have been seen to spill over into non-target wards and villages across Concern Tanzania’s programmes, as have the improved access to agricultural inputs and food.37 DPG Nutrition 2010; Investing in nutrition for national growth and prosperity in Tanzania. Development Partners Group on Nutrition, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.38 As seen in Concern Tanzania’s most recent EU-funded Integrated Livelihoods Programme in nine districts in Tanzania

10

illnesses such as HIV and AIDS and elderly will benefit from improved yields and nutrition, important due to the burden of care of grandchildren and lack of income/food security in old age; and in order to improve strength and medication for those on anti-retroviral drugs. Those who are labour constrained such as elderly, sick, and disabled people will benefit from efficient techniques and vegetable gardens; those who cannot physically farm will benefit from support to their household (see section 4.10). Children, especially girls, will benefit most from improved yields and nutrition – reducing the high levels of under-nutrition found in our nutrition assessment of 2011. Farmers will get better returns on their crops, increasing their income, especially for the poorest people and for women. Farmers will diversify their income contributing to achievement of MDG1 and MDG3. Households will have greater flexibility in household spending – experience shows that most households make informed decisions to invest in their children’s education, to upgrade houses, purchase food/domestic items, and invest in businesses. The programme will benefit all of the community through availability of processed crops, specifically designed to ensure that women are active in the processing groups and hold leadership positions in for empowerment and control over productive assets. Repeatedly we have seen women who are generating income experiencing positive changes in household dynamics and decision-making. Poor communities will be more aware of entitlements and institutions will be more accountable to people’s needs. Communities will benefit from increased awareness of the responsibilities of all stakeholders in the development process. The initiative aims to build strong communities able to manage their own development priorities through linking all stakeholders for better service delivery/accountability. All village members will benefit but especially vulnerable groups who will participate in village planning. This will support the breakdown of traditional norms and the reduction of stigma in the community against these groups. The poorest people, especially vulnerable groups, can expect to gain formal access to their land,39 which, from experience of land tenure work for the past 7 years, improves confidence and the chances of securing small loans to invest in the land.

4.7 PROJECT APPROACH / METHODOLOGY Please provide details on project approach or methodology proposed to address the problem(s) you have defined in section 4.4. You should justify why you consider this approach to be the most effective way in which to achieve the project purpose. Please justify timeframe and scope of your project and ensure that the narrative relates to the logframe and budget. Be realistic and not over ambitious.

This integrated approach comprising food, nutrition, income generation, and governance complements government initiatives (DADP, land laws, health priorities). The three outputs are mutually beneficial. The programme is designed using this methodology due to needs and feedback from districts, and experience in implementing similar programmes,40. Using proven approaches41 to address the complex relationship42 between the sectors and recommendations for integration, we

39 7,904 individual certificates were distributed, with another couple of thousand in the process, in two years of Concern Tanzania’s EU-funded livelihoods programme in nine districts (2009–11)40 Lesson learning from previous programmes and programmes in other countries in which Concern Worldwide is operational41 USAID’s Infant and Young Child Nutrition Project, Achieving Nutritional Impact and Food Security through Agriculture – Resources for linking Agriculture, Food Security, and Nutrition, www.iycn.org42 This complex relationship has been highlighted by the US Government’s Feed the Future initiative, along with similar initiatives launched by other nations and multilateral agencies.

11

are confident this is the best design for the districts. The main approach is the successful farmer field school (FFS) for food production under Output 1 – a training farm or an animal husbandry group. This is an area of expertise for Concern Tanzania; we will start an FFS in each village so multiple farmers can access training and see the difference in using improved techniques such as weeding, seed spacing, and quality declared seeds (QDS). Progressive farmers will be trained as paraprofessionals through the FFS, and go on to support other farmers, with incentives from the LGA. Farmers will also be trained and supported to produce QDS in order to ensure local access. External evaluators have commended the alternative decentralised approach as it reaches more farmers than LGA-run FFS at district level while still aligned with LGA. A major element is nutritional counselling through FFS and existing structures for extension to caregivers and ‘gate keepers’ (husbands/grandmothers). Kitchen gardens will be promoted to women, giving them greater control over household nutrition. We will coordinate with LGA health/agriculture departments for technical support/ joint implementation, for example, district agriculture and livestock officers and extension workers to conduct training in the FFS and nutrition officers to coordinate/support crop/nutrition education with CSOs. In adding value to the crops in Output 2, all crops will be planned so as not to have negative effects on food security, for instance, crops that are food and cash crops and can be intercropped such as sunflower. A value chain analysis will be undertaken based on local experience and expertise. Gender-value chain will get specific attention, based on learning from organisations in Tanzania concerned with women and marketing. Farmers will be linked with markets through appropriate means. We will use technologies that are appropriate to the communities. There will be an emphasis on post-crop storage and preservation in order for farmers to minimise crop losses and increase value of their crops. Concern Tanzania will support farmers to access credit by helping to form Savings and Credit Cooperative Societies (SACCOS) and warehouse banking schemes. For Output 3 we support joint planning through local networks (see section 4.9) at village level including all citizens, and district level with all stakeholders. By taking part in the process, stakeholders take responsibility, leading to increased transparency. Citizens are more likely to hold their LGA to account. This requires capacity support to all citizens, CSOs, and LGAs and significant community awareness activities. Land tenure is a major component of the integrated approach, guided by land laws and the previous EU Ambassador, Irish Aid, and President of Tanzania have commended the approach for being progressive and central for secured assets. Concern supports the entire process of village/individual ownership, increasing confidence to invest in the land, and the ability to access credit. We work with LGAs, as they have responsibility for continuation. Support/resources will be given to LGAs (equipment for land demarcation etc). LGA staff will jointly implement land work (surveying, development of land use plans, preparation of village certificates and CCROs etc). Concern is experienced in each element of this programme; however integrating agriculture, income generation, and nutrition in villages where we are currently operating a WASH programme is seen as an innovation. We will make efforts to measure nutrition/food security. Learning is being applied (see section 4.13). The most recent external evaluation of our livelihoods programme stated: “The Action has been effective and is already impacting positively on beneficiaries’ general wellbeing, food stocks, productive capacity, confidence in governance and capacity of LGAs to provide services. It has reinforced local confidence and strengthened women’s roles in society.”43

In terms of the methodology for integration, clean water, sanitation, and hygiene are three top recommended services to complement food security/nutrition.44 A WASH programme evaluation recommended wastewater with vegetable gardening, nutrition education, and crop production implementation in districts to improve health and reduce hunger, in particular for women/girls.45

43 Final Evaluation of EU Food Facility Action, implemented by Concern Worldwide, 2009-1144 USAID’s Infant and Young Child Nutrition Project, Achieving Nutritional Impact and Food Security through Agriculture – Resources for linking Agriculture, Food Security, and Nutrition, www.iycn.org45 In response to discovering high rates of under-nutrition of children in 2011, especially girls, in the two districts

12

Concern’s global programming in livelihoods/WASH has informed the integration, which has proved effective in Nepal under the name of Domestic Plus.46 Concern Tanzania intends to mainstream the approach where appropriate, in particular under Output 1 and 2, capitalising on current programming in the districts for maximum impact for poor households. Concern Tanzania acknowledges the importance of gender. See section 4.10. The timeframe is realistic for the results expected based on experience. However, progress depends on capacity of partners/LGAs, especially in land and governance.

4.8 SUSTAINABILITY AND SCALING-UP How will you ensure that the benefits of the project are sustained? Please provide details of any ways in which you see this initiative leading to other funding or being scaled up through work done by others in the future. Describe how and when this may occur and the factors that would make this more or less likely.

Concern ensures that the benefits are sustained by working with partners and complementing the government’s development plans, such as Agricultural Sector Development Plan (ASDP) under which the DADPs sit, and land laws. Specifically, sustainability is ensured though: FFS methodology: farmers adopt and practise skills long after programming. In 2009, we visited programmes implemented 30 years ago, and found improved farming skills, vegetable gardens, crop diversification, and nutrition skills still being utilised. The promotion of drought-tolerant crops, embedding QDS producers in the area will reduce vulnerability to weather, and improved extension services will give greater chance of autonomy and sustainability. We work with appropriate technologies and suitable crops for the environment and capacity of target group. In forming processing groups, training in operation and maintenance of technology, linkages with supply chains/LGAs for parts/support, and training in leadership, finance, bookkeeping etc, will increase sustainability and scale up of those activities. Good governance helps address root causes of poverty, often related to power relations, the inability of duty bearers to deliver, and the lack of poor people’s awareness of rights. Strong local institutions and policies will guarantee sustained positive change hence changes in the lives of beneficiaries. Land tenure will enable the district councils to have the resources and capacity to process CCROs and village land certificates, and spread beyond target villages - eg supported by Concern Iringa District Council has given certificates to all villages in the district. Functional land tribunals/ councils, committees, and land registries will support land tenure long term. Learning is emphasised in this integrated approach; having strong M&E will demonstrate that this is an effective approach to reach MDG1. It can lead to further funding and scale up, especially as it aligns with recommended approaches to agriculture and nutrition, and around high-level initiatives such as the Scale Up Nutrition (SUN), Renewed Efforts Against Child Hunger and Under-nutrition (REACH), and the Tanzanian ASDP. Results will feed into ANSAF policy debates.

4.9 CAPACITY BUILDING, EMPOWERMENT & ADVOCACY If your proposal includes capacity building, empowerment and/or advocacy components, please explain how they these elements contribute to the achievement of the project's outcome and outputs? Please explain clearly why your project includes these elements, what specific targets you have identified.

Communities: Target farmers will receive transformative training on improved agriculture skills, nutrition, crop processing, and governance and targets identified are embedded in logframe indicators. Through the FFS, farmers also learn record keeping: production data, livestock product data, disease scoring, and food budgeting. These skills increase efficiency in practices in FFS.

46 Domestic Plus can be embedded into livelihood and WASH programmes to add value to crops, water, and waste by using resources available: wastewater utilisation for micro irrigation, solar to dry food for preservation, adding value to crops, creating biogas.

13

Partners will support processing groups in management, planning, maintenance and operation. Farmers, especially vulnerable groups who do not easily access information, will be sensitised on contents of laws/policies such as DADP guidelines/ land legislation so they understand entitlements. Human rights training will be conducted.Partners: We work through partnership, therefore we provide support where required to ensure that LGAs and CSOs can plan and implement high quality programmes. We jointly asses partners’ capacity needs and create a plan with benchmarks for improvement. We will utilise internal skills to develop partners’ technical/management capacities, and potentially outsource specific skills eg in human resources, finance, resource mobilisation; M&E and reporting, policy analysis, and cross-cutting themes (gender and HIV mainstreaming).Advocacy: Through supporting QVGAMs and district coordination meetings, we will establish links from citizen to village to ward and district to enable communities to influence their LGAs. At the regional and national level, through networks, Agricultural Non-State Actors Forum (ANSAF) and the Policy Forum,47 we will raise farmers’ issues and public expenditure tracking to influence policy, expressing farmers’ voice, and engaging in discussion on how to support the poorest people with services/schemes. Targets identified are informed by Concern Tanzania’s advocacy strategy.

4.10 GENDER AND SOCIAL INCLUSION How was the specific target group selected and how are you defining social differentiation and addressing any barriers to inclusion which exist in the location(s) where you are working? Please be specific in relation to gender, age, disability, HIV/AIDs and other relevant categories depending on the context (e.g. caste, ethnicity etc.). How does the project take these factors into account?

Concern selects target groups by wealth/vulnerability ranking with communities. Equality mainstreaming with a particular focus on gender is part of programme management in all phases guided by our gender/HIV and AIDS mainstreaming officer. In order to ensure credible and reliable targeting, we carry out participatory community analysis. We use Causal Responsibility Analysis (as per RBA) and the Caroline Moser Framework. Poorer women are targeted (widows, elderly, sick, and large number of dependents). Socio-cultural barriers, largely patriarchal norms embedded into marriages, households, community and policies, limit women in many areas of their lives. Our rapid assessment (section 4.3) revealed an acute lack of awareness among women of their rights, and policies that affect them with only 16% stating they had knowledge of these (see section 4.4). Women in the districts say their greatest two barriers are husbands, and lack of knowledge. This requires significant investment such as awareness raising on rights, and working with men to provide transformative training to change beliefs on gender roles in order to understand negative costs of unequal power relations. We promote women’s rights to participate in all decision-making processes, in community (QVGAMs) and household through joint decision-making on expenditure, cultivation choices, and food budgeting. Women will to take on responsibilities such as committee treasurer, paraprofessional, QDS producer, and processing member. Diversification of household food sources and establishment of kitchen gardens are targeted at women to reduce overreliance on farm produce for household food stocks. Regional statistics suggest the HIV prevalence in districts is 3.4%, HIV and AIDS poses poverty risks. All partners are actively involved in incorporating HIV and AIDS into activities and are provided with technical expertise from our mainstreaming officer. Staff, partners, and communities are provided with information and resources to mitigate/prevent the spread of HIV, and people living with HIV or AIDS are supported and considered in all programme activities. Specific farming activities, such as crop diversification, less labour-intensive crops, kitchen vegetable gardens, and distribution of dairy goats and improved chicken are appropriate responses to the needs of vulnerable groups and those who care for them.

47 Concern Tanzania is a founding member of both of these NGO networks14

Communities recognise that helping vulnerable people “to help themselves” reduces dependence and health risks, and minimises environmental and security risks. We specifically target households containing elderly and disabled people for all outputs because those households are most likely to be poor due to burden of care, reduced labour, and stigma.

4.11 VALUE FOR MONEY (VFM) Please demonstrate how you have determined that the proposed project would offer optimum value for money and that the proposed approach is the most cost efficient way of addressing the identified problem(s). Please ensure that your completed proposal and logframe demonstrate the link between activities, outputs and outcome, and that the budget notes provide clear justifications for the inputs and budget estimates.

Concern has considered the best and most appropriate combination of costs and quality of goods and services to meet the needs of target groups and has planned this intervention with careful consideration of the key aspects of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. These criteria have been applied to the programme design, budget, and work-plan in terms of determining inputs and intended outputs in order to achieve the desired outcomes and impact:Economy : To support the economy of Tanzania, Concern gives preference to goods and services originating in country, provided they are of acceptable quality and are available at a competitive price in a timely manner (seeds and tools, processing machines and pumps). Purchasing committees contain experts in logistics, finance, and technical to ensure all elements are covered.Efficiency : We will use existing resources in the WASH programme (management and administration structures and community mobilisation and governance activities to date). As a result of using Tanzanian seed stock developed for specific climatic zones, we are able to achieve significant crop increases (up to 600%) at a very reasonable cost. By purchasing local seeds and appropriate technologies, farmers outside of the programme are more likely to adopt the intervention, extending its impact. Community-based nutrition promotion is one of the most cost effective ways of increasing welfare in developing countries.48 Poor nutrition in the first 1000 days of life leads to irreversible losses in human potential, leading to reduced educational outcomes, more illness and higher mortality, and eventually resulting in reduced work productivity and earning potential. In addition, poor health loses up to 2.64% of GDP in Tanzania each year, mainly in the agricultural sector.49 Multiple use of water sources leads to efficient return on this vital resource.50

Effectiveness : Integrated approach can achieve greater impact than projects in isolation; by integrating, we increase investments in all sectors. Increased governance will improve services, efficiency/accountability to citizens. Focusing on good governance enables improvements of government services through planning and coordination with target groups.

4.12 COUNTRY STRATEGIES) AND POLICIES How does this project support the achievement of DFID’s country or regional strategy objectives and specific DFID sector priorities? How would this project support specific national government policies and plans related to poverty reduction?

The initiative supports several of DfID’s strategic priorities in Tanzania: Create wealth by improving incomes of target farmers (previous and current programming in other districts have shown excellent results at lifting people out of poorest wealth quintile, and diversifying income streams). Farmers will be supported to establish SACCOs to access micro loans, and warehouse banking schemes to store crops and increase value. With an improved diet in the household, the health will be improved, with a special focus on girl children. This is in line with DfID’s priority on health. As this initiative will be implemented in villages where our WASH programme is currently operational, this will also support DfID’s priority in WASH. The initiative supports DfID’s priority on governance and

48 Ranking among number eight based on economic cost/benefit analysis according to the 2008 Copenhagen Consensus49 Investing in nutrition for national growth and prosperity in Tanzania, Development Partners Group on Nutrition, 201050 For further information on Domestic Plus see http://www.concern.net/news-blogs/concern-blog/learning-new-ideas-nepal

15

rights, as there is a strong focus (improving stakeholder engagement in village planning processes, rights, and information about services). DfID’s priority on social inclusion is addressed through strong focus on gender and vulnerable groups in the programme. Concern works within the government’s policies and processes. Tanzania’s National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (MKUKUTA II) aims to meet the MDG1, as well as feeding into the ASDP and DADP. The government’s Strategic Plan for Implementation of New Land Laws (SPILL), is supported by this initiative, as we follows the Village Land Act No 5 of 1999 to implement the land component. The government has multiple policies to increase social inclusion, to which this programme is aligned.

4.13 LESSONS LEARNED What lessons have you drawn on (from your own and others’ past experience) in designing this project? If this project is based on similar project experience, please describe the outcomes achieved and the specific lessons learned that have informed this proposal.

Considerable learning has been taken from implementing programmes in Tanzania (also see 4.7) and from global interventions. This intervention will take the best elements of previous programmes, and apply them to current WASH villages, adapting to local context. For example:Evaluations: Livelihoods external evaluation (Dec 2011) recommended continuation of FFS to improve production but with more focus on post-harvest storage; furthering investments in value chain; increasing focus on land tenure; and participatory approaches for the most excluded in society. M&E should be less vigorous, utilising partners more, and using more friendly tools.51 External WASH evaluation (2010) recommended WASH with food/nutrition due to high levels of child nutrition in the districts. RBA: Learning taken from our Rights-Based Livelihood Programme (RBLP)52 has informed this approach as engagement and joint planning between citizens and LGAs has proved beneficial to all stakeholders. Continuing service delivery alongside governance work has increased citizens’ trust and built capacity of LGAs to deliver. However, we have learned to be patient, as working with formal and informal structures and institutions has challenges such as presence of deep-rooted cultural practices around participation, gender, and power.

4.14 ENVIRONMENT Please specify what overall impact (positive, neutral or negative) the project is likely to have on the environment. What steps have you taken to assess any potential environmental impact? Please note the severity of the impacts and how the project will mitigate any potentially negative effects.The project will have a positive impact on the environment. In line with DRR techniques, different approaches, such as conservation agriculture, will improve soil fertility, texture, and moisture content, increasing vegetation cover and minimising soil and nutrient erosion. Domestic Plus will accelerate kitchen gardens to increase food and vegetation in the villages. Improved practices from FFS such as small-scale terracing and watershed management will reduce soil degradation and restore foliage in degraded soils. However, promoting micro-irrigation through river diversions and wells could bring negative impact to water sources if precautions are not taken. Using national water laws, we will ensure river diversions maintain sufficient downstream flow, enough for survival of flora and fauna. We will work closely with natural resources departments at the LGAs/environment CSO networks at local/country level. The WASH programme has a detailed environmental impact assessment, it will inform the programme, including water catchment area protection.

SECTION 5: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION5.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT Please outline the project implementation and management

arrangements for this fund.This should include: A clear description of the roles and responsibilities of each of the partners. You must

also provide an organogram of the project staffing and partner management relationships.

A clear description of the added value of the each organisation within the project.51 We set up village-based M&E system to encourage farmers to ‘monitor themselves’ in line with increased downward accountability. However, this failed and unreliable data was collected. We have addressed this failure by putting management of M&E in programme management rather than programme quality, and instituting a results-based management approach to data collection and analysis.52 http://www.concern.net/sites/concern.net/files/tanzania_lessons_from_rba_programming_2011.pdf

16

An explanation of the human resources required (number of full-time equivalents, type, skills, background, and gender).

Two registered local CSO partners will directly implement the project. They have good experience in rural development programmes in the respective districts (production, land rights, environment, RBA and advocacy). Both partners will undertake the same activities outlined under the three outputs in the budget, adapting to their local context. Their role will be community mobilisation, facilitation, coordination, and direct training and support to communities and LGAs. Relief and Development Society (REDESO): will work with Ngara District Council Rulenge Development Diocesan Office (RUDDO): will work with Biharamulo District Council.District management: The programme manager in Ngara will be responsible for implementation assited by 2 partner support officers (PSOs). The PSOs will be qualified in agronomy/rural development/nutrition. All staff are trained on gender equality, HIV and AIDS, DRR, RBA, and accountability and we aim for a gender balance. The PSOs will work with partners on implementation and monitoring. Country management: The country office will support the programme manager and the country office will link project, donors and Concern. The gender and HIV mainstreaming adviser, partner finance support officer, and communications/advocacy officer will support. Dublin-based equality adviser, agricultural adviser, and nutrition adviser will support. ANSAF will help form district networks and public expenditure tracking, linking issues from district to national to influence policy.

5.2 NEW SYSTEMS, STRUCTURES AND/OR STAFFING Please outline any new systems, structures and/or staffing that would be required to implement this project. Note that these need to be considered when discussing sustainability and project timeframes.

Concern already has an office in Ngara District. We will require two mid-level programme staff (PSOs) to support partners to implement technical aspects of the programme and oversee programme quality. There is the potential for staff to be recruited from similar roles within the organisation. We will support partners to recruit staff.

5.3 IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS Include a list of all organisations to be involved in project implementation including offices of the applicant and any partners starting with the main partner organisation(s). Please only include those partners that will be funded from the project budget.

Relief and Development Society (REDESO) Rulenge Development Diocesan Office (RUDDO) Agricultural Non-State Actor’s Forum (ANSAF)

5.4 OTHER ACTORS Include all other key stakeholders who will have a role in the project. Consider issues of integration with other programmes – especially those of the relevant government agencies – and how activities will be coordinated with others. How will you ensure that there will be no duplication of effort?

Key stakeholders are target community members and representatives; ward councillors; LGA agriculture, land, health, and environment departments; CSOs and sub-contractors; other advocacy networks such as Policy Forum; zonal agricultural research centres; the EU (WASH programme donor); regional veterinary and zonal vaccination centres. As per the National Council of NGOs Code of Conduct (2008), we always coordinate closely with district councils and facilitate joint planning meetings with LGA departments, CSOs and key stakeholders to avoid duplication.

SECTION 6: MONITORING, EVALUATION, LESSON LEARNING This section should clearly relate to the project logframe and the relevant sections of the budget. Please note that you will be required to undertake a project evaluation towards the end of the funding period to assess the impact of the fund. Please allow sufficient budget for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and note the requirements for external and independent evaluation.

6.1 How will the performance of the project be monitored? Who will be involved? What tools and

17

approaches are you intending to use? How will your logframe be used in M&E? What training is required for M&E?

As part of our PCMS, a comprehensive M&E plan will be developed as part of the start-up process. This will involve the programme team (Concern, partners and target communities) clarifying all data collection and how results will be used to feed into management decisions. For each key indicator, a simple M&E tool will be developed and administered at household (or other appropriate) level. Two PSOs will provide first-line monitoring. A partner finance officer and systems manager will be responsible for regular monitoring and reviews of partner finance records and procedures to ensure they meet standards. There will be regular field monitoring visits conducted by the support staff and senior management. There will also be specific M&E events as follows: A baseline survey, conducted soon after agreement. Annual joint programme reviews, informed by data collection to measure indicators established in the logframe. This will draw all stakeholders (programme team and target communities) in a single forum to share lessons and experiences of programme. A mid-term evaluation will look at existing monitoring data gathered plus gather additional data to assess progress, adjust, and feed into planning for the second half of the project. Led by an independent external consultant. A full-term evaluation in the last quarter of the final year of implementation will look at all data (plus gather additional data) to provide a complete end line to compare with the baseline to provide as far as possible evidence of outcomes/ impact in people’s lives. Led by an independent external consultant using Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria.

6.2 Please use this section explain the budget allocated to M&E. Please state clearly in relation to evaluation costs and confirm your intention to commission an external evaluation.

There is budget provision for the specific M&E events outlined above as well provision for the allocated cost of specialist support staff and management: Baseline and end line (external) will cost £6,800 each (£13,600); annual surveys: £6,039 each (£18,118); Annual reviews: £2,657 each (£7,972); mid-term review (external): £6,800; final evaluation (external) £6,800.

6.3 Please explain how the learning from this fund will be incorporated into your organisation and disseminated, and to whom this information will be targeted (e.g. project stakeholders and others outside of the project). If you have specific ideas for key learning questions to be answered through the implementation of this project, please state them here.

Our M&E system, case studies, and joint planning review highlight key lessons drawn from programme implementation and feed into organisational learning through regional resource sharing and exchange visits, annual reporting, and reviews. We will establish and implement complaints-handling procedures that are effective, accessible and safe for users. This will contribute to learning, statistics, and tracking trends. For wider dissemination of learning, we employ a communications and advocacy officer who is tasked with publication of key lessons for a wider audience. In Tanzania, these lessons will be shared via the ANSAF and magazine, feeding into policy debate. Key learning questions will be 1) benefits of integrated approach: how best different sectors can be integrated, specifically around appropriate technologies. 2) How best to enable women enter into value chain for empowerment, effect on household dynamics and nutrition.

SECTION 7: PROJECT RISKS AND MITIGATION Please outline the main risks to the success of the project indicating if the potential impact and probability of the risks are high, medium or low. How will these risks be monitored and mitigated? If the risks are outside your direct control, is there anything you can do to manage their effects? If relevant, this may include an assessment of the risk of engagement to local partners; or risks related to natural or man-made shocks (e.g. drought, conflict) and longer term stresses (e.g. land degradation). The risk assessment for your programme needs to clearly differentiate the internal risks and those that are part of the external environment and over which you may have less (or little) control.

7.1This is not the full list due to space constraints. We have attached a full risk matrix

Explanation of Risk Potential Probability Mitigation measures18

impact High/Mediu

m/Low

High/Medium/Low

1. The ability of the LGAs to undertake village land surveys

Medium Medium Identified private sector to complete surveys. This reduces likelihood of LGA extending intervention.

2. Irrigation activities affect downstream water availability

High Low Draw up a full water management plan. Irrigation measures planned are micro, limiting impact downstream

3. Increase of banditry in the area prevents field work

Medium Medium Programme suspension as per Concern security management plan. Reassessment of programme area and/or activity plan

SECTION 8: CAPACITY OF LEAD PARTNER ORGANISATION AND ALL PARTNER ORGANISATIONS AND/OR CONSORTIUM MEMBERS (Max 3 pages each)Please copy and fill in this section for yourselves and each partner /consortium member8.1 Name of Organisation Concern Worldwide Tanzania

8.2 Address P.O Box 6360 Dar es Salaam

8.3 Web Site www.concern.net

8.4 Registration or charity number (if applicable)

Registration No 1426 NGO Act 2001

8.5 Annual Income Income (original currency): € 3,300,430Income (£ equivalent): £ 2,796,974Exchange rate: £1 = €1.18

Start/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From: 01/01/2011To: 31/12/2011

8.6 Number of existing staff 58

8.7 Proposed project staffing staff to be employed under this project (specify the total full-time equivalents - FTE)

Existing staff 5 (FTE)

New staff 2

8.8 Organisation category (Select a maximum of two categories)

Non-Government Org. (NGO) Local Government

19

Trade Union National Government

Faith-based Organisation (FBO) Ethnic Minority Group or Organisation

Disabled Peoples’ Organisation (DPO) Diaspora Group or Organisation

Orgs. Working with Disabled People Academic Institution

Other... (please specify)

8.9 A) Summary of expected roles and responsibilities, ANDB) Amount (and percentage) of project budget allocated to this partner

A) Concern will have overall responsibility for the programme in terms of implementation and quality. The country office will be the main link between project, donors and Concern Worldwide. The country office in Dar es Salaam will support the programme manager in Ngara – who will have responsibility for the day to day implementation of the programme; ensuring cross-organisational learning, and disseminating and replicating best practices. Dedicated programme staff will be responsible to liaise closely with partners and targeted villages on a regular basis to ensure the sequencing and quality of activities is as per this proposal

B) £ 1,074,322 (38%)

8.10 EXPERIENCE: Please outline this organisation's experience in relation to its roles and responsibilities on this project (including technical issues and relevant geographical coverage)

Concern Tanzania have been involved in rural development in Tanzania for 33 years. We’re currently mid-way through a livelihoods programme incorporating the food production, value chain and good governance elements outlined in this proposal. Independent evaluations of the programme have commended the approach and the results seen to date and we have been recognised nationally (to the level of the President of the Republic) for our approach and success in our land tenure element. We have a highly experienced and deeply motivated staff with a track record of being able to deliver. The team has a high degree of competence in programme and partner management as well as specific Technical skills in the areas of rights, agricultural production and value chain development.

Concern Tanzania are well embedded in the west of the country where we have been operating since the mid 1990’s, initially working with refugees (Burundian, Rwandan and Congolese) in areas of camp management and WASH and extending to “host communities” in 2003. We made a strategic choice to remain in the west of Tanzania after the closure of the refugee camps (in 2008) and are currently managing a three year (2010 – 2013) EU funded WASH programme in these exact districts and villages

8.11 FUND MANAGEMENT: Please provide a brief summary of this organisation's recent fund management history. Please include source of funds, purpose, amount and time period covered.

In 2011 our income of £2,796,974 was financed by the Irish Government (£697,950), EU (£1,349,077), Concern US affiliate (£94,833). GORTA, (Irish NGO) (£43,079), with the balance (£612,035) sourced from Concern’s own fundraising and marketing efforts in Ireland and UK. The funds are utilised to fund our livelihood programme to the amount of £1,581,357 and our WASH programme of £1,214,640. (We also spent £977 on a minor flooding emergency response). Our fund management has been in compliance with donor agreements and in the case of EU, subject to rigorous independent audit. In the last five years all donor audits and statutory audits have resulted in unqualified audit reports (and so far as records exist as far back as 1997, Concern Tanzania has never received a qualified donor or statutory audit report).8.12 CHILD PROTECTION (for projects working with children and youth (0-18 years) only)

How does this organisation ensure that children and young people are kept safe? Please

20

describe any plans to improve the organisation's child protection policies and procedures for the implementation of this project.

All Concern staff sign up to a code of conduct as part of employment conditions. The code of conduct was updated in December 2009 to include specific provisions relating to child protection as follows: “As we work in situations that present serious risks to children, Concern will consider how it can contribute to their safety and protection in line with our commitment to the protection of children in our programmes. We will ensure that programmes always take into account the situation of children, the specific protection risks and issues they face (which may be different for boys and girls) and address these as far as possible. We will not tolerate anybody employed by or associated with Concern harming children.”

8.13 FRAUD: Has there been any incidence of any fraudulent activity in this organisation within the last 5 years? How will you minimise the risk of fraudulent activity occurring?

There has been one incident of fraud in the last five years (in December 2011) resulting in the loss of $1,790 (£1,158), decisive action has been taken to recover the amount.

Risk management is an integral part of the Concern Tanzania management process. A full time internal auditor has been employed reporting directly to the Country Director whose primary role is to identify and classify the organisation’s risks, and assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of actions taken by management to manage the risks identified. Concern Tanzania is also subject to regular review (every two to three years) by the HQ based internal auditor, support from the regional accountant (who is mandated to review risk management on every mission) as well as regular donor and statutory audits.

SECTION 8: CAPACITY OF LEAD PARTNER ORGANISATION AND ALL PARTNER ORGANISATIONS AND/OR CONSORTIUM MEMBERS (Max 3 pages each)Please copy and fill in this section for yourselves and each partner /consortium member8.1 Name of Organisation Rulenge Ngara Diocese (Justice and Peace

Department)

8.2 Address Mission Street P.O Box 107, BIHARAMULO

8.3 Web Site Email: rndjpeace@yahoo.com

8.4 Registration or charity number (if applicable)

THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RULENGE NGARA (The Trustees Incorporation Act (Cap.318 RE 2002 of 26 Nov.2009

DATED

Annual Income Income (original currency): $ 189,314Income (£ equivalent): £ 160,436Exchange rate: £1 = $1.546

Start/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From: 01 January, 2011To: 30 December, 2011

8.6 Number of existing staff 14

8.7 Proposed project staffing staff to be employed under this project (specify the total full-time equivalents - FTE)

Existing staff

Accountant 15 hours/weekCoordinator 20 hours/week

New staff Project Manager 40 hours/weekDriver 40 hours/week

21

Cashier 20 hours/weekField Officer 40hours/weekFTE= 4.375

8.8 Organisation category (Select a maximum of two categories)

Non-Government Org. (NGO) Local Government

Trade Union National Government

Faith-based Organisation (FBO) √ Ethnic Minority Group or Organisation

Disabled Peoples’ Organisation (DPO) Diaspora Group or Organisation

Orgs. Working with Disabled People Academic Institution

Other... (please specify)

8.9 A) Summary of expected roles and responsibilities, ANDB) Amount (and percentage) of project budget allocated to this partner

A): RUUD will be responsible for the day to day implementation of the programme in the 27 target villages in Biharamulo. This will include community mobilisation, targeting, agricultural related training, development of business groups and selection of the citizens and committees in respect of the rights related trainings primarily for activities 1.1,1.2,1.3, 2.1,2.2,2.3 and 3.1 with some aspects of activities 3.2 and 3.3

B): £871,760 (31%)

8.10 EXPERIENCE: Please outline this organisation's experience in relation to its roles and responsibilities on this project (including technical issues and relevant geographical coverage)

Our organisation is staffed with people of diverse professions and wide range of working experiences. For more than six years we have been intensively implementing:

Rural Income Improvement Project (RIIP) for supporting rural households to produce enough food for consumption and excess for sale and thereby improve income and food security Biharamulo and Chato districts (six villages)

Land and Resource Rights project that helps rural farmers to know their entitled land rights, to process legal ownership and to facilitate appropriate and productive usage of their lands in Ngara, Biharamulo and Cahto districts.

o To facilitating acquisition of Certificates of Village Land ( 5 villages)o Empowerment of villages to offer Customary Rights of Occupancy (Mkungo village)

OVC/MVC project /(Jali Watoto) for caring and support to orphans and most vulnerable children in Biharamulo and Chato districts ( 8,716 children) in terms of education, health, accommodation, economic and psycho-social support

.

8.11 FUND MANAGEMENT: Please provide a brief summary of this organisation's recent fund management history. Please include source of funds, purpose, amount and time period covered.

Our organisation has for the last 6 years managed various projects worth TZS 1,669,290,350.00 (£667,716) from various funding agencies (Norwegian Peoples Aid-NPA TZS 638,300,000 (£255,320), United States Agency for International Development-USAID TZS. 494,128,553

22

(£197,651), HORIZONT3000 TZS.536,861,797 (£214,744))8.12 CHILD PROTECTION (for projects working with children and youth (0-18 years) only)

How does this organisation ensure that children and young people are kept safe? Please describe any plans to improve the organisation's child protection policies and procedures for the implementation of this project.

Families caring children were facilitated to establish Income Generating Activities Children were supported to acquire Birth Certificates Village vulnerable Children committees were formed A network of village volunteers was established for follow ups, reporting and mobilisation of

resources for support Direct services were provided to children –school fees and Health Insurance

8.13 FRAUD: Has there been any incidence of any fraudulent activity in this organisation within the last 5 years? How will you minimise the risk of fraudulent activity occurring?

No incident of fraud has ever occurred.

SECTION 8: CAPACITY OF LEAD PARTNER ORGANISATION AND ALL PARTNER ORGANISATIONS AND/OR CONSORTIUM MEMBERS (Max 3 pages each)Please copy and fill in this section for yourselves and each partner /consortium member8.1 Name of Organisation REDESO (Relief to Development Society

8.2 Address P. O. Box 2621 Dar es Salaam

8.3 Web Site www.redeso.or.tz

8.4 Registration or charity number (if applicable)

SO 9459

8.5 Annual Income Income (original currency): USD 102,100.00 plus TZS 1651,688,249Income (£ equivalent):£ 727,993.67Exchange rate: £1 = TZS 2,493Start/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From: 1st January 2011To: 31 December 2011

8.6 Number of existing staff 41

8.7 Proposed project staffing staff to be employed under this project (specify the total full-time equivalents - FTE)

Existing staff 6

New staff 3

8.8 Organisation category (Select a maximum of two categories)23

Non-Government Org. (NGO) Local Government

Trade Union National Government

Faith-based Organisation (FBO) Ethnic Minority Group or Organisation

Disabled Peoples’ Organisation (DPO) Diaspora Group or Organisation

Orgs. Working with Disabled People Academic Institution

Other... (please specify)

8.9 A) Summary of expected roles and responsibilities, ANDB) Amount (and percentage) of project budget allocated to this partner

A): REDESO will be responsible for day to day implementation of the programme in the 25 target villages in Ngara. REDESO will be responsible for the community mobilisation, targeting, agricultural related training, development of business groups and selection of the citizens and committees in respect of the rights related trainings primarily for activities 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2,2.3 and 3.1 with some aspects of activities 3.2 and 3.3

B): £823,350 (29%)

8.10

EXPERIENCE: Please outline this organisation's experience in relation to its roles and responsibilities on this project (including technical issues and relevant geographical coverage)

REDESO has good experience in implementation of livelihood projects, 2000–03: agriculture/livelihoods project in Ngara funded by the Netherlands Embassy 2000–07: agriculture/livelihoods project in Ngara funded by Catholic Overseas Development

Agency (CAFOD) 2004–07: Sustainable agriculture project in Kibondo – Danish International Development Agency

(DANIDA) 2007 - 2013 Integrated Livelihoods Programme in Kibondo (Concern Worldwide funded)

8.11

FUND MANAGEMENT: Please provide a brief summary of this organisation's recent fund management history. Please include source of funds, purpose, amount and time period covered.

2010

UNHCRScholarship for Refugee students in TZ Higher learning institutions

693,257,000.00 TZS

UNHCR

Urban refugee Programme - Refugees and asylum seekers in in Camps and mixed solutions

370,000.00 TZS

UNHCR

(Local Integration) Burundians and Somali refugees in settlements and newly naturalised refugees

1,792,799,064.20 TZS 124,080.00 USD

Concern Kibondo Sustainable Agriculture Programme 152,020,367.00 TZS

ConcernNgara - Grant for Water and Environmental Health Programme

116,113,000.00 TZS

Total for 2010 received in TZS

2,754,559,431.20 TZS

Total for 2010 received in USD

124,080.00 USD

2011

24

UNHCRScholarship for Refugee students in TZ Higher learning institutions

258,176,000.00 TZS

UNHCR

Urban refugee Programme - Refugees and asylum seekers in in Camps and mixed solutions

511,691,938.65 TZS

UNHCR

Local Settlement - Local Integration of Burundian refugees in Old

Settlements

665,639,703.50 TZS 102,100.00 USD

ConcernKibondo Sustainable Agriculture Programme

129,279,040.00 TZS

ConcernNgara - Grant for water and environmental health

86,901,567.00 TZS

Total for 2011 received in TZS

1,651,688,249.15 TZS

Total for 2011 received in USD

102,100.00 USD

8.12

CHILD PROTECTION (for projects working with children and youth (0-18 years) only)How does this organisation ensure that children and young people are kept safe? Please describe any plans to improve the organisation's child protection policies and procedures for the implementation of this project.

REDESO being a humanitarian charitable organisation is against all form of child abuse. REDESO ensures that children safety is up held in any dealings; for instance there is a clause in all contract we enter with various entities to ensure they do not permit child abuse or child labour.

8.13

FRAUD: Has there been any incidence of any fraudulent activity in this organisation within the last 5 years? How will you minimise the risk of fraudulent activity occurring?

There was a fraud by the Kibondo branch of REDESO of Concern Tanzania funds in 2011 by one of the accountants working for REDESO. Once the fraud was uncovered (after a routine risk assessment by Concern’s internal auditor) senior management of Concern and REDESO took decisive action resulting in the dismissal of the accountant. The funds were recovered and returned in full by the accountant in question. REDESO and Concern took a strategic decision to remain in partnership after both parties agreed to the secondment of an experienced accountant from Concern to REDESO in order to oversee their financial management systems, which have been upgraded as a result of recommendations from the fraud investigation.

25

SECTION 8: CAPACITY OF LEAD PARTNER ORGANISATION AND ALL PARTNER ORGANISATIONS AND/OR CONSORTIUM MEMBERS (Max 3 pages each)Please copy and fill in this section for yourselves and each partner /consortium memberName of Organisation Agricultural Non State Actors Forum - ANSAF

Address P.O Box 6360 Dar es Salaam

Web Site www.ansaf.or.tz

Registration or charity number (if applicable)

Registered under the Non Governmental Organizations Act, 2002.

Registration Number 00003313

Annual Income Income (original currency): $430,658Income (£ equivalent): £278,563Exchange rate: £1 = $1.546

Start/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From: 01/01/2011To: 31/12/2011

Number of existing staff Five (5)

Proposed project staffing staff to be employed under this project (specify the total full-time equivalents - FTE)

Existing staff 5

New staff NIL

Organisation category (Select a maximum of two categories)

Non-Government Org. (NGO) Local Government

26

Trade Union National Government

Faith-based Organisation (FBO) Ethnic Minority Group or Organisation

Disabled Peoples’ Organisation (DPO) Diaspora Group or Organisation

Orgs. Working with Disabled People Academic Institution

Other... (please specify)

A) Summary of expected roles and responsibilities, ANDB) Amount (and percentage) of project budget allocated to this partnerA): ANSAF is a member-based network focusing mainly on advocacy for better policies and

promoting dialogues and egalitarian discourses related to agricultural sector policy and decision making processes. In this project, ANSAF is expected to play a pivotal role in knowledge and information brokering as well as in linking local issues to national level policy platform. This will involve collecting evidences, research and analysis on policies and practices on specific commodities and public policies that can expedite the effort in addressing food insecurity and poverty in rural Tanzania. ANSAF will play a significant role in supporting both RUUDO and REDESO in developing district level networks, PETs related training as well as inputting into the monitoring element of the rights trainings.

B): £52,568 (2%)

EXPERIENCE: Please outline this organisation's experience in relation to its roles and responsibilities on this project (including technical issues and relevant geographical coverage)

ANSAF has worked as an advocacy institution in the sector. Due to its uniqueness (having private sector and civil society organizations working together), ANSAF has been recognised by the development partners in the sector, the government and donors. It undertakes researches, produces Ulimwengu wa Mkulima Magazine (Farmer’s World Magazine) which bears technical and relevant information for smallholder farmers, small and medium enterprises as well as large scale farmers. On annual basis, ANSAF organizes a Learning and Sharing Event where agricultural practitioners are invited to share their experiences on the topic. Paper presentations comes from lead research, members experience and from outside the country.Over the last six years, ANSAF has been using platforms to influence policies and practices.

FUND MANAGEMENT: Please provide a brief summary of this organisation's recent fund management history. Please include source of funds, purpose, amount and time period covered.

Since its inception, 2006 ANSAF was mainly receiving funds from its members as pledges and annual subscription fees. Development partners such as Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC), Irish Aid were giving funds based on events – Annual Learning and Sharing Platforms. In 2009, ANSAF underwent a transformation to respond to increase demand from stakeholder. In the same year, 2009, ANSAF entered into a three year partnership agreement with Institute for Democracy in South Africa -IDASA (www.idasa.org). The three year project focused on Smallholder Agriculture and Public Expenditure Tracking Studies (PETS). Therefore until 2010 ANSAF budget was a little above Tz 90millions coming from IDASA, Irish Aid, Members, SDC and Gorta. In 2011the organization increased its focus on policy and enhancement of dialogue between policy/decision makers and other stakeholders. More partners increased their support and the 2011 annual budget was Tzs 549millions. The ANSAF accounts are audited on annual basis alongside with the Managing Agent accountsThe main current aim of the major activities (2011-2013) will be Social Accountability Monitoring (SAM) with the goal of promoting proper sector resource allocations, participation, gender

27

considerations in order to address rural poverty and food insecurity among Tanzanians.Our current list of donors include

1. SDC - Tzs 300 millions2. Irish Aid – Tz 105 millions3. Kepa – Tz 9.7millions4. IDASA- Tz 45millions5. Members’ contribution Tz 90millionsIn 2012, we expect to get funding from DfID through its Tanzania Accountability programme (AcT). The amount has to been confirmed.

All the partners are using a pooled fund approach based on the Strategic Plan – (under review) which runs between 2012 and December 2016

SECTION 9: CHECKLIST OF PROPOSAL DOCUMENTATION9.1 Please check boxes for each of the documents you are submitting with this form.

All documents must be submitted by e-mail to: gpafimpact@tripleline.comMandatory Items Check

Y/NProposal form (sections 1-7) Y

Proposal form (section 8 - for applicant organisation and each partner or consortium member)

Y

Project Logframe Y

Project Budget (with detailed budget notes) Y

Most recent set of organisational annual accounts Y

Project organisational chart / organogram Y

Project bar or GANTT chart to show scheduling Y

9.2 Please provide comments on the documentation provided (if relevant)

Please also find attached a detailed risk matrix.

28