ResilientAfrica Network

Resilience Innovation Challenge for Conflict (RIC4CONF) Deadline: 11th Apr 2016.

This call focuses on the sourcing, developing, and scaling of transformative technologies and approaches that will strengthen resilience to shocks and stresses that arise from chronic conflict and its effects. In particular, RAN is looking to catalyse and incentivize the development of solutions that will impact agricultural production and markets, enhance skill building in education curriculum, as well as livelihood diversification and financial inclusion. Grants ranging between US$15,000 to US$40,000 are anticipated under Phase 1 of this call. Winners of Phase 1 Grants will then qualify to compete for Phase 2 grants (which are anticipated to range between US$50,000 to US$100,000), while winners of Phase 2 grants may subsequently complete for Phase 3 (Awards are anticipated to range between US$100,000 and US$ 200,000). The grants will support development of innovative approaches and technologies that will strengthen resilience to the effects arising from chronic conflict within the Eastern Africa region. More..

Brief Overview of ResilientAfrica Network (RAN)

The ResilientAfrica Network (RAN) funded by USAID is a partnership targeting 20 partner universities in 16 African countries. The main agenda of RAN is to strengthen resilience of communities vulnerable to shocks and stresses in Sub-Saharan Africa through university led-local African innovative solutions. ResilientAfrica Network (RAN) is led by Makerere University, with the secretariat at School of Public Health. It is one of eight university development labs under the Higher Education Solutions Network (HESN) of USAID’s Global Development Lab. RAN’s core partners are Tulane University’s Disaster Resilience Leadership Academy (DRLA), Stanford University, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). RAN comprises four Resilience Innovation Labs (RILabs) each working with Partner Universities and focusing on different thematic areas as summarized in the figure below

Note:
For more information and to apply, please visit grants.ranlab.org. Applicants may email any questions on the call or on any aspect of the application process to support.earilab@ranlab.org or call +256 414 343 597

The Eastern Africa RILab identifies and will fund projects in three priority intervention pathways for resilience building around chronic conflict related shocks and stresses.

Intervention Pathway 1: Harnessing curriculum development towards skills development and entrepreneurship:
The majority of the selected RAN target communities have found themselves trapped in chronic conflict rendering them vulnerable to the effects of the conflict. The lack of access to quality education and life skills coupled with very high levels of unemployment are issues that require urgent and novel solutions. Due to the high levels of unemployment, the communities especially the youths have turned to drug abuse (including alcohol and illicit drugs) which render them to engage in high risk behaviours such as prostitution and theft in order to ‘survive’. The other means of survival for these communities that are trapped in chronic conflict and its aftermath is through handouts from government and non-governmental organizations. However, this has created and fuelled a wave of dependency on aid among the community. This pathway focuses on: 1) re-imagining the education system through development and implementation of novel curriculum that will create and further improve the quality of human capital, 2) promotion of psychosocial wellbeing to further promote optimism and self-determination to curb the growing ‘dependency syndrome’ and 3) promotion of vibrant food systems (farming and food value addition).

Intervention Pathway 2: Financial inclusion for wealth creation
Communities often display the potential to bounce back through adaptation and coping strategies in a wake of a disaster. They may bounce back to the same status level or even to a level better than their previous state. The worst scenario is when they bounce back to a level below their prior status as they get trapped by the effects of the shock or stress. Adaptation is often constrained by low and ill diversified livelihoods and the low levels of financial engagement and inclusion. We are thus targeting solutions that will substantially empower RAN target communities by creating better financial inclusion for rural households through savings and access to credit as well as solutions tailored at diversifying livelihoods through highly profitable farm and off-farm businesses.

Intervention Pathway 3: Creating an inclusive environment for every citizen
Most of the current judicial systems are faced with a huge concern of transparency. The current land tenures are not favourable to the traditional folks whose main source of livelihoods is subsistence farming. The chronic conflict in East Africa led to massive displacement of people into camps. For those who returned after the conflict, there were no clear boundaries of the land and some people who know the boundaries had been cleared leaving behind a generation of young people who had no idea of the boundaries. This created a lot of land disputes as people were claiming the same piece of land. Even in DRC, where the communities are faced by chronic conflict which has a linkage to minerals, the major source of livelihoods is agriculture. Other causes of land conflicts within the EA RILab region include lack of documentation as the true land owners, and poor land tenure systems among others. There is an urgent need to influence the land policy reforms. Innovative ideas may focus on building the community’s capacity to engage their leaders and civil servants on pertinent issues through advocacy and/or dialogue in community and leaders.

Click here for details about the pathways.

Download the complete RIC4CONF Document

This section provides the RIC4CONF grants call structure, a description of the three intervention pathways, and a technical overview of the innovation sub-challenges. The Eastern Africa RILab has identified three priority intervention pathways that have a high transformational potential to impact resilience strengthening around chronic conflict related shocks and stresses:

I. Intervention Pathway 1: Harnessing curriculum development towards skills development and entrepreneurship

This pathway focuses on re-imagining the education system through development and implementation of novel curriculum, promotion of psychosocial wellbeing and promotion of vibrant food systems (farming and food value addition)
Track 1: Curriculum development and implementation

Background/Context: Like in many of the countries on the African continent that grapple with chronic conflict, the civil and military unrests often do result in the destruction of much economic and social infrastructure. During a conflict, most of the eligible school-age children do lack access to school as a result of displacements into Internal Displacement Camps or migration to neighbouring countries. The displacements as a result of conflict are compounded by other issues as highlighted here: 1) Instructions and teaching methods-Most rural schools lack adequate learning materials and environments conducive to learning. Training teachers to be more outcomes-based, sensitive to gender, and better able to teach about life skills among other capacities is critical. 2) Approach to curriculum development-Some of the current curricula are rigid and hence not responsive to learner needs. 3) Monitoring and evaluation methods-There is a gap in the current measurement tools and methodologies to assess the quality of learning achievement and the school environment. This calls for an urgent need to create new systems to adequately track learning and demonstrate progress or identify the need for extra help in time to address learning gaps in order to improve school attendance and performance. 4) Supervision-Some of the factors that have contributed to the low participation and completion of schooling include poverty, the indirect costs of education (such as textbooks, uniforms, meals), effects of disease epidemics such as HIV/AIDS, orphanage and ‘cost’ for a family losing girls’ labour at home. 5) Low ICT uptake and integration for skills development and entrepreneurship.

Examples of proposals include (but are not limited to) the following:
  • Teaching and learning methodologies or technologies or approaches that are more effective and interactive e.g. child-to-child learning
  • Novel practical and useful platforms for providing complementary and/or alternative (non-formal) opportunities for education. Alternative basic education may for instance address specific needs of the refugee communities and any other ‘mobile’ communities
  • Develop and mainstream gender responsive pedagogy/platforms to steer education given many families’ cultural preference for enrolling all boys before enrolling any girls.
  • New networks of school or university-level clubs that help promote access to quality education for both male and female students as well as addressing issues of gender, sexuality and HIV/AIDS, menstruation management, child-friendly learning, school mapping, advocacy, peer-to-peer mentoring and mass communication among others.
  • Technologies or approaches that harness new forms of multimedia for learning-radio or television programmes, dramas, debates, music, dance and poetry
  • New technologies or approaches that promote friendly learning environments. For instance a policy environment that allows pregnant girls or young mothers to school (in view of the high rates of adolescent pregnancy in sub-Saharan Africa); safe and secure school environments that are free from sexual harassment, gender-based violence and exploitation, corporal punishment; and an environment with sufficient latrines and sanitation facilities including sanitary pads for the girl child.
RAN would hence want to open the door for a collaborative enterprise with innovators, especially with regard to schools and schooling for Ugandan children.
Track 2: Psychosocial

Background/Context: Based on the untold legacies of the chronic conflict in Uganda and DRC, psychological issues have become a prominent issue which require a robust holistic & sustainable response at family, graphic community and society at large. This track provides a different lens to view psychosocial issues from a clinical perspective to socio-economic opportunities that promote community engagement in productive ventures and subsequently reduce crime and suicidal cases. This will enhance self-reliance, psychological wellbeing, food sovereignty and increased resilience. For instance, in northern Uganda, the region has experienced a slow economic recovery after a long standing 20-year chronic conflict resulting into encampment, high dependency syndrome, non-viable coping strategies such as alcohol brewing for income, low levels of community engagement in productive ventures. There are high levels of crime and suicidal cases. Similarly, the high influx of Congolese refugees into the camps of Kigeme and Gihembe in Rwanda creates a high tension on the existing social services such as healthcare, access to water and good sanitation, food security and nutrition, education, housing. There are also cases of sexual and GBV, low agriculture production and issues related to child protection.

Examples of proposals include (but are not limited to) the following:
  • Novel technologies, approaches or platforms that harness laughing (‘laugh clinics’ to improve psychosocial wellbeing). How might we leverage music, dance and drama and other forms of multimedia or sports to improve communities from the effects of armed conflicts?
  • Invest and regulate traditional medicine
  • Approaches to regulate alcohol (especially local brew) production and consumption
  • Platforms that offer life skills (entrepreneurship networking information)
  • Early diagnostics, investment in modern medicine and regulation of traditional medicine and folk practices.
Track 3: Modernizing agriculture and promotion of value addition

Background/Context: The production and distribution of food intersect with some of the most critical issues of our time: health and nutrition, poverty, energy, climate change, biodiversity, water, and labour. Whereas there has been a global call to end global poverty and hunger, the world’s dominant food and agriculture systems are faced by complex and very urgent challenges including pervasive hunger and malnutrition (both undernutrition and obesity), pollution (including that arising from agricultural activities), labour incongruities, and extreme inequities in distribution of farm land and food access. There are still colossal gaps in the methods of farming as well as post-harvest handling of produce, farmer/community attitude towards farming and a gap in the available policies and frameworks.

Thus, achieving food security, justice, health, and sustainability in food systems, and equitable access to nutritious food, requires significant changes, ideas, and problem-solving by people and organizations in a wide variety of disciplines. Rural farmers are stuck in subsistence forms of agriculture based on small fragmented acreage and inefficient methods of agriculture and livestock rearing. Furthermore, the heavy dependency on rain-fed farming makes the majority of households vulnerable to the unpredictable and erratic rainfall pattern with alternating drought and floods. There is inadequate and ill skilled labour for agriculture-mainly women and children are taking lead in producing food an issue compounded by low mechanization in the agricultural sector. Another challenge that rural communities are faced with is post-harvest handling of produce with a substantial amount of both perishable produce (e.g. vegetables and fruits) and less rapidly perishable produce (e.g. grain and legume seeds) ending into waste. There is limited access to affordable technologies for produce processing to improve its quality before sale (lack of value addition to raw produce). These two factors interplay to drastically reduce the price of their produce. On the other hand, produce distributors who are able to sort, refine and add value to produce often get much higher profits than the farmers. We are seeking a solution that will transform post-harvest handling of produce to facilitate value addition in an eco-friendly way.

We are seeking solutions that can substantially increase the yield-per-acre among rural holdings while making production more efficient and sustainable, modern improved seeds, cropping technologies that resist nuisance weeds, pest control, adaptation to drought, harnessing flood water for agriculture, among other. We are also looking out for projects that have the potential to improve post-harvest handling of produce so as to reduce post-harvest losses.

Examples of proposals include (but are not limited to) the following:
  • Technologies or approaches in Public Health that aim to improve children’s nutrition and health outcomes or address issues of hunger and/or obesity.
  • Technologies or approaches that greatly reduce agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions and promote sustainable agricultural practices.
  • Technologies or approaches that highlight and drive public/stakeholder awareness of issues such as inadequate labour for agriculture. How might we make farming attractive and appealing to the youth?
  • Technologies or approaches that aim to improve storage methods to reduce postharvest food loss and food waste for small-scale farmers in the developing world.
  • Technologies or approaches that collate and disseminate agricultural related information for development e.g last mile communication of climate early warning information
  • Technologies or approaches that significantly increase yield while keeping the production ecosystem green
  • Technologies or approaches that prolong production capacity in drier seasons without disrupting bio-diversity as well as technologies or approaches that leverage flood water for agriculture
  • Technologies or approaches that expand available surfaces for crop and animal husbandry without encroachment on high risk or protected environmental zones
  • Low cost farming implements that make production more efficient as well as sufficient
  • New approaches for increasing yield for indigenous drought resistant starches and vegetables
  • Improved locally adaptable storage technologies
  • Improved locally adaptable technologies for drying/preservation of produce
  • Low cost technologies and approaches for basic processing and local value addition to agricultural produce
  • Technologies or approaches that re-define the existing land tenure systems to foster agriculture and increase yield
  • New forms of cooperatives

II. Intervention Pathway 2: Financial inclusion for wealth creation

This pathway seeks to create and foster a culture that reduces consumerism, improve savings and access to credit. We are also targeting ideas that provide alternative sources of livelihoods for the target communities.
Track 4: Financial Inclusion

Background/Context: There is an increasing number of individuals and business enterprises that still lack access to basic financial services. The rural and poor households who are ‘unbanked’ often find it difficult to access credit, savings and insurance services from commercial banks and other financial institutions. Because of their low levels of financial literacy, they are often considered a high risk group by commercial banks, which are mainly driven by profit. Farmers also lack the collateral they need to secure the size of loans that are required for establishing viable businesses. There is also an issue of lack of a savings culture by the local folks. This includes both monetary savings and storage of some produce surpluses for use in low output months. This is compounded by the lack of insurance services. Without access to finance, it is difficult for rural farmers to attain a well-being of their families, expand their businesses as well as venture into new profitable enterprises. For small and medium enterprises (SMEs) who struggle to secure capital, the lack of access to financial services further creates critical obstacles to their own growth, as well as the economic and employment potential they represent.

We are seeking for innovator teams to develop new models or approaches to increase household access to credit, savings and insurance services to catalyze development among rural households and power investment. Precisely, we are looking out for an avalanche of novel products, services, tools or mechanisms that disrupt current credit financing as well as igniting a culture to save for investment amongst the rural and peri-urban households. We are also looking out for novel insurance schemes that safeguard communities from shocks and stresses that further erode resilience.

Examples of proposals include (but are not limited to) the following:
  • Novel technologies, approaches or platforms to facilitate saving among smallholder farmers
  • Models that simplify saving in commercial and/or rural banks for rural farmers
  • Models, approaches or technologies that channel savings directly to predetermined low risk investments
  • New and disruptive forms of currency that can be channelled into savings
  • Innovative models and approaches for risk mitigation through risk transfer, accessible by rural communities
  • Innovative credit products/services for smallholder farmers (Credit ‘circles’ for the future)
  • Disruptive mechanisms for overcoming traditional barriers to accessing credit in rural communities
  • New and disruptive forms of currency that can be channelled into credit payments
  • Innovative solutions for overcoming non-compliance to credit repayments to ensure continuity of village micro-credit facilities while maintaining farmer confidence
  • Financial literacy programming for underserved communities
  • Programs to support SMEs to access or manage capital
Track 5: Diversifying livelihoods for resilience

Communities trapped in chronic conflict in DRC- north and south Kivu- along with the communities that are displaced into Rwanda due to the conflict in DRC normally depend on humanitarian aid. Similarly, the aftermath of the chronic conflict in northern Uganda has been characterized by a high level of dependency, idleness among the youth and an adoption of some rapid return cottage industries like alcohol brewing by women. This has fuelled a high level of alcoholism among men and use of illicit drugs among the youth. This lack of diversification is driven by either a lack of options for viable business in their contexts, a lack of trade skills to try extra-agricultural businesses or a pervasive fear of risk taking due to lack of entrepreneurial skills. We are therefore targeting solutions that can easily be deployed in the refugee camps in Rwanda, the war-torn communities in DRC and business solutions that can catalyze the pace of recovery after the chronic conflict that ravaged northern Uganda. The proposed ideas should be easy to set up, moderately-to-highly profitable, and rapidly adaptable to rural situations. The purpose is to create viable business for livelihood diversification among communities so as to reduce their dependence on humanitarian aid and subsistence farming in order to increase their incomes.

Examples of proposals include (but are not limited to) the following:
  • Models, approaches or platforms for outsourcing of micro-work for rural youth with access to technology
  • Models or platforms to profit for the rural poor to tap into and profit from emerging industries like mobile telecommunications, mineral exploration, transport and education
  • Highly profitable and low-cost to set up businesses for women, unemployed youth and refugees living in camps
  • Models for development of rural franchises and profitable long-term family businesses among rural poor
  • Public health related models, approaches or platforms to help in diagnosis and prevention of diseases of public health concern as well as those that can be channelled into a business

III. Intervention Pathway 3: Creating an inclusive environment for every citizen

Innovative ideas may focus on building the community’s capacity to engage their leaders and civil servants on pertinent issues through advocacy and/or dialogue in community and leaders
Track 6: Inclusive Governance Systems
This track focuses on two main areas:

1) Governance including access to justice, civic engagement, transparency and accountability, and
2) Sexual and Gender Based Violence especially with a key interest in women's participation and empowerment.

Most of the current judicial systems are faced with a huge concern of transparency. The current land tenures are not favourable to the local community whose main source of livelihoods is subsistence farming. The chronic conflict in northern Uganda led to massive displacements of people into camps. On return, there were no clear boundaries of the land and some people who know the boundaries had been cleared leaving behind a generation of young people who had no idea of the boundaries. This created a lot of land disputes as people were claiming the same piece of land. In DRC, although the communities are faced by chronic conflict which has a linkage to the minerals, the major source of livelihoods is agriculture. Other causes of land conflicts include lack of documentation as the true land owners and poor land tenure systems among other. There is an urgent need to influence the land policy reforms.

Innovative ideas may focus on building the community’s capacity to engage their leaders and civil servants on pertinent issues through advocacy and/or dialogue in community and leaders. How do we propose new frameworks for citizen participation when it comes to discussing issues that concern policy? Citizenship participation in the policy process (‘Bottom-up approach’) is crucial. Teams will also be expected to develop contextually relevant technologies or approaches for addressing Gender Based Violence and asymmetries therein. There are issues of advocacy and dialogue norms – how might we break the socio-cultural norms that prevent women from actively participating in dialogue to end GBV? Also to take note of is the role of art in addressing pressing social issues through visual, literary, performing arts or any other form to change the way we perceive the world and advocate for the desired change cannot be underestimated. Engaging in art can ignite and cause change through provision of a platform for dialogue and collaboration.

Examples of proposals include (but are not limited to) the following:
  • Platforms that engage the local and central governments tailored to promote government accountability, transparency, and responsiveness to the needs of the local communities.
  • Innovative art projects that meaningfully engage with issues of advocacy, justice, and community-building. The ideas may use an array of multimedia- visual/conceptual art, photography, videography, music, dance, theatre/performance art, creative writing, or other forms keeping the context of the target communities in mind.
  • Technologies or platforms for settling disputes (such as land wrangles, etc) among individuals or communities in a manner that promotes community cohesion.
  • Platforms for building the capacity of women, men and the youth to take an active role in combatting Gender Based Violence and advocate for citizens’ rights. The platforms should provide a gender ‘lens’ through which needs and concerns are advocated for.
  • Novel platforms and technologies that empower and improve women's ability to make and act on decisions
  • New communication channels that bring to the table the voice of the minority

Rules for eligibility

  1. Teams of university students, university faculty and student-faculty collaborations from established universities worldwide are eligible to apply.
  2. Organizations are also eligible to apply. Potential applicant organizations may include foundations, NGOs, faith-based organizations, private businesses, business and trade associations, colleges and universities, community based organizations and civic groups. All applicants in this category must be legally recognized entities, formally registered under applicable law, and they should attach evidence to that effect on their application.
  3. Teams of individuals that are not university students are also eligible to apply.
  4. Entities that are ineligible to apply include: Government agencies (local and foreign), non-incorporated entities (informal organizations), and individuals not affiliated with any legally recognized entity as specified in rules i,ii and iii above. Individuals interested in applying for the RIC4CONF call are encouraged to form teams in line with the requirements given in rules i and iii above. Other entities ineligible to apply include any individuals or organizations participating in, linked to, or sponsoring subversive activities including criminal acts, terrorism or related activities. A background check will be conducted on all teams considered for the grants for their status regarding United States Government (USG) Office of Foreign Assets Controls (OFAC) sanctions lists, and for the legal nature of their affiliate organization.
  5. Colleges, universities, and research facilities that are funded by, and/or affiliated to, a foreign government are not considered a foreign government.
  6. Grants may not be awarded to an organization from, or with a principal place of business in, a country subject to trade and economic sanctions administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of Treasury or to any individual or entity subject to targeted trade and economic sanctions administered by OFAC. For more information see OFAC website: http://www.ustreas.gov/ofac/. The current list of OFAC restricted countries includes Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan. However, the list of countries subject to OFAC restrictions may change, and RAN will conduct a final eligibility determination prior to award. All USAID restrictions pertaining to US Government funding apply.
  7. The RAN Resilience Innovation Challenge seeks applications that have an operational focus in low-income and middle-income countries, as defined by the World Bank (http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups). The implementation of the project including pilot and testing will be done in the countries covered by the Eastern Africa RILab – Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Rwanda, Uganda, and Tanzania.

RIC4CONF Teams

  1. A “Team” refers to a group of individuals working on a particular RIC4CONF challenge. Each Team must select a designated Team Leader who will serve as the primary point of contact for this team on all matters related to implementation of the grant, and correspondence. The Team Leader should be the individual responsible for day to day project management and should be reasonably accessible to respond to different tasks related to implementation in case the team is awarded. He/she should be an adult (at least 18 years of age) in sound mental state.
  2. If selected, teams must submit a Letter of Commitment from each team member as part of their submission documents. In this letter, each organization or individual must submit in writing their commitment to participate in project activities, specifying their exact role in the project. Further, the letter should specify the nationality of each individual and Date of Birth for each individual. For individual organizations or affiliate organizations the country where they are incorporated should be specified.

Read More..

The following criteria will be used to evaluate applications at the three different stages of the RIC4CONF call. For mroe information on he judging and selection criteria, please click here.

Evaluation Criteria

 

Evaluation Aspects

Maximum

     

Score

Phase I

     

Alignment to RIC4CONF intervention pathways for

strengthening resilience

Does the proposed solution address the desired resilience outcomes for each sub-challenge/track?

10%

Technical Approach

and Methodology

Is the proposed solution innovative? Does it have the potential to disrupt current practices and approaches? Does it constitute a paradigm shift? Is it feasible? Is it viable? Is it sustainable? Is the proposed implementation methodology sound and appropriate for the local context?

40%

Plausibility of proposed

business model and

potential for scale

Is Scale built into the solution? Is the business model sufficiently disruptive? Is it viable for local communities? Can it be replicated in similar contexts? What is the proposed diffusion strategy?

20%

 

Team composition

Does the team have the required expertise, experience and necessary contacts to deliver? Do they have a local footprint?

10%

 

In-building eco-friendly solutions

and Natural Resource

Conservation

Does the proposed approach incorporate aspects of going ‘green’ for sustainability and resilience building? Are proposed approaches and technologies (where appropriate) ‘green’ and pro-natural resource conservation?

10%

   

Building agency

Does the proposed approach incorporate aspects of the key bedrock/basic issues of developing human agency and resilience building? How does the proposed solution empower the target communities to solve the resilience challenge(s)?

10%

Phase II

     

Technical feasibility

Is the approach or technology technically feasible? Is the solution cost-effective and innovative compared to existing alternatives? Does it have transformative potential? Has it been optimized for efficiency? Have unintended consequences been identified and strategies to amplify or mitigate these been put in place? This will also include early evidence from  Phase I solution development.

40%

 

Business model and

Market viability

Have market assessments been done? Has the business model been refined to reflect the market trends? Is the refined diffusion strategy sufficiently plausible?

30%

People (user) aspects

Is the solution user-friendly? Is it easily adoptable? Is it acceptable given the socio-cultural dynamics? Have aspects that require human behaviour change been addressed? Has the desired behaviour been adequately cultivated? Have agency aspects been promoted?

30%

Phase III

     

Technical Feasibility

Has the technical approach been optimized? [By optimization,

we mean that the prototype or concept is developed to a model

with acceptable or better efficiency than the existing technical

standard (e.g. 75% validity for screening tests, 75% efficiency

for engines, sufficiently acceptable aesthetics, dexterity and

ergonomics (for technology based prototypes) or sufficiently

proven cause-effect linkages, input and process considerations

and clearly established potential confounders (for a conceptual

approach based solution)]

15%

Evidence of adoption

Have a critical number of users adopted and continued to use the solution? Does the solution demonstrate additional positive spin-offs and/or a paradigmatic shift?

25%

Market viability

assessment

Is the solution viable given the operational context? Has the business model been refined to maximize scaling potential?

25%

 

Awareness of and

strategies to

address/comply with

policy and regulatory

requirements

Does the team demonstrate sufficient actionable knowledge on the policy and regulatory environment that could impede or catapult scaling of the innovation? Have appropriate strategies to address policy or regulatory impediments been designed?

10%

Stakeholder buy-in

Have critical partnerships for implementation and scale been identified? Has commitment to participate been sought and received favourable response?

25%

RIC4CONF Time Lines

Activity Date
Call for Applications 9th February – 11th April 2016
First About RIC4CONF Webinar 24th February 2016
Applicant support 2nd Webinar 23rd March 2016
Open day clinic 30th March 2016
Fixed Deadline 11th April 2016 23:59 EAT
Grants awarded and finalists announced 9th May 2016
Phase II Implimentation 1st December 2016 – 30th June 2017
Phase III Implimentation 1st July 2017 - 16th February 2018

APPLICATIONS CLOSED!

© 2017 Makerere School of Public Health - ResilientAfrica Network , All rights reserved.

collapse