P2

UK AID MATCH PROPOSAL FORM

This completed form will provide detailed information about your proposal and will be used to assess your proposal and inform funding decisions. It is very important you read the UK Aid Match Guidelines for Applicants and related documents before you complete this proposal form to ensure that you understand and take into account the relevant funding criteria.

How: You must submit a Microsoft Word version of your proposal and associated documents using the templates provided, by email, to UKAidMatch@dfid.gov.uk. The form should be completed using Arial font size 12. We do not require a hard copy.

When: All documentation must be received by the published funding round deadlines. Documents received after the deadline will not be considered. What: You should submit the following documents: (all templates are on the UK Aid Match web page: www.gov.uk/uk-aid-match.

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

Sections 3 – 7 : Maximum of 15 (fifteen) A4 pages.For applications for projects which will work in more than 1 country, you may use an additional 2 pages for each additional country (ie. an application for working in 3 countries can be a maximum of 19 pages). Section 8 : Maximum of 3 (three) A4 pages per partner

NOTE: Please complete section 8 information for your own organisation AND for each partner organisation involved in delivering your project.

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.

UK Aid Match funded projects can work in up to 3 countries. For proposals to work in more than one country or in different regions within a country, you will need to include information about each country/region where the project context, beneficiaries, approach or the expected results are different. This is to enable DFID to assess your proposal within each of the contexts you plan to use UK Aid Match funds in.

2. Logical framework and activities log: Please refer to the UK Aid Match Log-frame guidance and use the Excel log-frame template provided.

3. Project budget: Please use the template provided and refer to the UK Aid Match Guidance for Applicants (G1), the Budget Template Guidance (G3), and all tabs on the budget template. You also need to provide detailed budget notes (in the budget template) to justify the budget figures.

For proposals to work in more than one country or in different regions within a country: Where there are substantial differences in the costs of the project in different countries or regions within a country, you need to include these in the budget and provide an explanation for the differences.

4. Risk register/matrix: This should include the main risks related to the project and how you will manage these risks. Please use your own format for this. 5. Project organisational chart / organogram: All applicants must provide a project organisational chart or organogram which includes all the implementing partners and explains the relationships between them. Implementing partners are defined as those that manage project funds and play a prominent role in project management and delivery. The chart should also include other key stakeholders. (Please use your own format for this).

6. Communications Plan: You will also need to complete a Communications Plan and submit this with your application. The plan is comprised of two parts (communications plan and activity timetable). You must also include final written evidence of commitment from your communications partner(s).

7. Cross-cutting issues: Your proposal must explain how it will achieve good value for money and inclusion of marginalised people or groups who live in the project location(s). It should demonstrate how you have determined that the proposed project would offer optimum value for money and that the proposed approach is the most economic, effective and efficient way of addressing the identified problems. It should explain how the proposal will meet the needs of the target population equitably including how it will address any barriers to inclusion of people/groups which are in the project location(s) including in relation to gender, age, disability, HIV/AIDs and other relevant categories depending on the context (eg. caste, ethnicity etc.)

8. Capacity building, empowerment and advocacy: If your proposal includes capacity building, empowerment and/or advocacy objectives it must explain how they contribute to the achievement of the project's outcome and outputs. Please explain clearly why your project includes these elements and what specific targets you have identified. Refer to the Guidance for Applicants (G1) for advice on this.

Before submitting your application, please ensure that you have included all relevant documents by completing the table at section 9.

UK AID MATCH PROPOSAL FORM

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

1.2 Contact person Name: Peter ReynoldsPosition: Director of FundraisingEmail: peter.reynolds@concern.netTel: +44 207 801 1872

SECTION 2: BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT2.1 Project title Post Ebola Livelihoods and Food Security Recovery for

Vulnerable Households in Tonkolili District, Sierra Leone

2.2 Country(ies) where project is to be implemented

Sierra Leone

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

Tonkolili District, Northern Provience

2.4 Duration of grant request (in months)

36 months

2.5 Project start date (month and year)

1st March May 2016

2.6 Total project budget? In GBP sterling

£800,000837,551

2.7 How much do you expect your appeal to raise? What percentage is this of the total project/programme budget?

£800,000

100 %

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

N/a

SECTION 3: PROJECT DETAILS3.1 ACRONYMS

For words which you would normally use acronyms for, please write these words in full the first time you use them, followed by the acronym in brackets, and use the acronym after that. Where you feel that it would be useful to provide an explanation of any acronym, please add these here.

BRACE Building Resilience and Community EngagementCC Community ConversationsEVD Ebola Virus DiseaseFAO Food and Agriculture OrganisationFFS Farmer Field SchoolGDP Gross Domestic ProductHH HouseholdIPM Integrated Pest ManagementLANN Linking Agriculture, Natural Resource Management and NutritionLPG Living Peace GroupsM&E Monitoring and EvaluationMAFFS Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food SecurityMDG Millennium Development GoalsNRI Natural Resources InstituteNSADP National Sustainable Agricultural Development PlanPCN Project Concept NotePUCAFS Peri and Urban Community Action for Food SecurityPHL Post Harvest LossesSCP Smallholder Commercialisation ProgrammeSRI System of Rice IntensificationTIPRP Tonkolili Integrated Poverty Reduction ProgrammeTDC Tonkolili District CouncilVSLA Village Savings and Loans Association

3.2 PROJECT 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 should relate to the outcome statement in the logframe).

By the end of the project, a targeted 4,000 vulnerable households (HHs) directly & indirectly affected by Ebola in Tonkolili district will have sustainably improved food security through improved quality and quantity of their own food production and will be generating sufficient income to meet on-going household (HH) food and non-food needs. Resilience to future livelihood shocks will have been improved through increased food and financial security.

3.3 PROJECT RATIONALE (PROBLEM STATEMENT)Describe the context for the proposed project, by considering the following questions. What specific aspects of poverty is the project aiming to address? What are the causal factors leading to poverty and/or disadvantage? (If applicable) what gaps in service delivery have been identified and how has your proposal considered existing services or initiatives? Which specific groups/people do you expect to benefit? Why and how were these groups chosen? How does the proposal fit with national/regional development plans and with other efforts (eg. of governments, donors, the private sector) to address the development challenges which your proposal aims to address? How does it fit with activities of other development actors? Why has the particular project location(s) been selected and at this particular time?

The context for the project is overall poverty in Sierra Leone: despite significant strides by the Government & development partners and recent economic growth, Sierra Leone continues to rank near the bottom of the HDI (183/187) and is unlikely to meet Millennium Development Goals (MDG) targets on food security, health, education & equality. The recent Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak has severely eroded development gains made in the last decade, with a full recovery expected to take several years. In the short term the economy faces an estimated Gross Domestic Product (GDP) contraction of 23.5%1. UNOCHA predict that over one million people across Sierra Leone will suffer from food insecurity. Tonkolili is Sierra Leone’s poorest district with 76% living below the poverty line2. The district was already experiencing food security problems pre Ebola, with an average hunger gap period of 6.5 months3. Here, 15.8% of children under five suffer from moderate acute malnutrition4 (above the national average of 12.9); 48.9% of children under five are moderately stunted and 31.0% are severely stunted which is an indicator of the long-term cumulative effect of inadequate nutrition. 22.5% of the total population in Tonkolili is severely food insecure, while 51.6% is moderately food insecure, meaning that 74.1% of the district’s total population is food insecure.5 The project specifically targets agriculture & food security, which have been adversely impacted in the short to medium term. The many negative effects of EVD include: disruption to the usual crop-planting season6, and to harvesting; lost income (agricultural sales & agricultural wages); markets closed; travel restrictions; households quarantined; and of course the deaths of family members7.Using Concern’s HCUEP8 analysis of poverty, the main causal factors are a lack of assets and/or a poor return on available assets, inequality and risk & vulnerability. Particularly;(1) The absence of sufficient food of good quality at household level has contributed to high rates of malnutrition. The majority of the population, 82.1% and the extremely poor in particular, are entirely dependent on limited crops (rice, cassava, some vegetables) but returns are very low, with yields significantly lower in comparison to national averages, with low agricultural productivity (per unit of land); (2) pre/post-harvest crop losses are estimated to be 30-35% (Ministry of Agriculture). The low returns (yields & income) on agricultural assets are due to: poor farming practices, weak extension service, lack of seeds and other inputs, poor market access and low levels of value addition, labour shortage and limited access to affordable credit and saving facilities9.(3) Tonkolili district suffers from severe infrastructure deficits (poor roads, WASH facilities, housing, schools, clinics) with many communities very isolated due to poorly maintained dirt roads which are almost impassable in the wet season. This inhibits access to food markets and other services and results in high transport costs. (4) The crisis highlights how vulnerable the country is to shocks, natural and manmade, whether it be Ebola or other communicable diseases, bushfires, crop failure, pests, ill health and environmental and climate change issues. UNDP estimate that EVD has caused a 30% drop in agricultural production10.It’s important to note that access to land is not in itself a major issue in Tonkolili: the communal land ownership system means that any household with physically able members can farm on land allocated to them. This is why the poorest people are nevertheless ‘farmers’. But because of all the issues just outlined, having access to land doesn’t equate to being food secure.Due to the unprecedented scale of the Ebola outbreak, resources were channelled primarily to the health sector in 2014/15 resulting in a significant gap in livelihoods interventions. The main gaps identified include boosting extension to farmers, increasing yields and income, improving

1 All Africa, 26/04/20152 Poverty Profile Sierra Leone 2013, World Bank and Statistics Sierra Leone3 Figure from the baseline survey for the Concern implemented BRACEII project4 Sierra Leone National Nutrition Survey (SLNNS, 2014)5 The State of Food Security and Nutrition in Sierra Leone’ (2011), WFP6 Due to enforcement of Ebola bylaws which reduced/prevented normal groupwork activities7 The Food Security Situation in the context of Ebola Outbreak in Sierra Leone,A Rapid Assessment Report. MAFFS &FAO Sep 20148 How Concern Understands Extreme Poverty (HCUEP)9 Tonkolili Contextual Analysis 201210 UNDP Response to the Ebola Crisis in Sierra Leone 2015

processing and marketing and providing access to credit. The existing MAFFS Smallholder Commercialisation Programme (SCP) targets wealthier farmers thus leaving a gap between the extreme poor that Concern targets.This project will specifically support the poorest, most vulnerable HHs (particularly female-headed, often widowed or divorced women, or with many dependents – children, elderly & disabled, EVD orphans and survivors) who were especially impacted by EVD and need support to recover from the setbacks caused by the crisis and get back on track for longer term livelihood and food security. Inequality issues, especially related to women’s access to land, control over resources, violence against women and participation in decision making negatively impact on food security as women undertake 70% of subsistence farming, accounting for 80% of food production. The proposed project is in line with the Government and other agencies recovery and longer term plans including the National Sustainable Agricultural Development Plan (NSADP) 2010-2030 and the recent MAFFS SCP. It also builds on the recovery efforts undertaken in 2015 by the Government’s Agenda for Prosperity and the UNDP Restoring Livelihoods And Fostering Social & Economic Recovery programme.Given pre-existing needs, an intervention to refocus on agricultural livelihoods could not be timelier: due to ongoing Ebola related restrictions, many farmers will not be able to fully undertake their normal farming activities in 2015; hence 2016 should be the first opportunity to fully reactivate farming. Concern has being working in Tonkolili since 2002 and this project builds on the long experience gained and in-depth understanding of the livelihood and food security issues in the district. It also complements the ongoing EVD related Concern health projects in the district.

3.4 TARGET GROUP (DIRECT AND INDIRECT BENEFICIARIES)Who will be the DIRECT beneficiaries of your project, where direct means those benefiting at outcome level? Describe the direct beneficiary groups, and state how many people are expected to benefit, differentiating between male and female beneficiaries where possible, as well as other sub-groups. Also explain how you have calculated the beneficiary numbers.

DIRECT: a) Description of groups: Vulnerable/poor HHs affected directly and indirectly by Ebola in 7 chiefdoms11 in Tonkolili district: Based on a total of 4,000 households averaging 6

members per household12; Selection will be based on beneficiary assessment

and participatory wealth ranking exercise to identify the poorest/most vulnerable HHs.

b) Number of beneficiaries:

Total: 24,000 (Female: 14,400; Male: 9,600)

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 It is expected that wider members of the communities directly involved will also benefit indirectly from the activities.

Estimated at 10% or 2400

b) Number Total: Female (1440) Male (960)

3.5 POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACT

11 Kunike, Kunike Barina, Gbonkolenken, Tane, Yoni, Malal Mara and Kholifa Rowalla in Tonkolili district12 The 2013 DHS for Sierra Leone reports household size as 5.9 in rural areas

Please describe the anticipated impact of the project in terms of poverty reduction. What changes are anticipated for the beneficiary target groups identified in 4.4 (both direct and indirect beneficiaries) within the lifetime of the project?

This project intends to mitigate the impact of Ebola on food security and protect future livelihoods for most vulnerable households in Tonkolili District building on and learning from previous livelihoods interventions in the district and reaching approximately 4,000 vulnerable households directly & indirectly affected by Ebola. The specific changes this project seeks to achieve are the following: Improved quality and quantity of food production to improve food security. Increased incomes to meet on-going household food and non-food needs.By the end of this project we expect that poor and vulnerable households’ agricultural production and income will have been boosted and their future livelihoods safeguarded.

Improved farming practises to increase food production (Output 1): Targeted households will have increased their rice and other key crop yields high enough for

household consumption and to produce a surplus for sale. Increased crop diversity and higher yields should increase access to nutritious food all year

round, providing a more diversified household diet with nutritional benefits especially for women and children.

Reduced post harvest losses through better storage facilities and improved seed management (Output 2): Reduced post-harvest losses and improved community and household grain and seed storage

and management will improve availability and access to improved seeds in the community and promote marketing activities.

Enhanced income for farmers by improved processing, adding value and marketing of their crops (Output 3): Improved access to markets combined with marketing skills and value addition activities should

increase incomes from agricultural produce. Improved access to food processing facilities will reduce the labour required for normal food

processing especially rice de-husking for women.

Improved access to credit and saving facilities through support to Village Saving and Loan Associations (VSLA) (Output 4): Improve yields and incomes through better farming practices and financial security through

effective savings should reduce vulnerability in the long term Increased household income would allow for critical household expenses such as health and

education costs.

Other cross-cutting results will include: Time saved through improved farming practice, access to food processing facilities and easier

market access will allow women to engage in other preferred activities including childcare. Addressing cross cutting issues, especially gender inequality should significantly improve

community trust, cohesion, cooperation and empowerment of women and ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable households benefit including those living with HIV&AIDS, those suffering from stigma and discrimination due to Ebola, female headed households….

Impact on indirect beneficiary target groups: Indirect beneficiaries will benefit from better access to markets through road rehabilitation, increased availability of food in the local markets due to surplus production from the project participants, better access to community owned food processing facilities, increased knowledge and exposure to improved farming practices from observation of participants farms and sharing knowledge, improved

access to credit as communities replicate the Village Savings and Loans Association (VSLA) approach and increased gender equality.

3.6 DESIGN PROCESSDescribe 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? What lessons have you drawn on (from your own and others’ past experience) in designing this project? Please describe the outcomes achieved and the specific lessons learned that have informed this proposal.

This proposed project has been designed in response to the Ebola crisis and the need to support the recovery of livelihoods and food security for affected households. It builds on Concern’s long engagement in livelihood programming in Tonkolili, is in line with the country strategic plan and the Tonkolili Integrated Poverty Reduction Programme (TIPRP). It draws on the findings of a 2012 participatory contextual analysis conducted in Tonkolili by Concern & local partner NGOs, and a 2013 baseline study. It also draws from the findings of a participatory evaluation of Concern’s Tonkolili based Building Resilience and Community Engagement (BRACE) II programme which ended in 2014. This evaluation involved focus group discussions, wealth ranking and proportional piling exercises & interviews. This project considers the preliminary research conducted on the impact of Ebola on agriculture & food security, with inputs from MAFFS, Tonkolili District Council (TDC), farmers & communities affected by Ebola in Tonkolili. The project draws on the rapid assessment report conducted by MAFFS and FAO in September 2014. Feedback from staff and beneficiaries involved in ongoing Concern food security projects and especially in the direct Ebola response activities have been considered.

The project design has been modified since the Project Concept Note (PCN) approval. This is because we secured short term recovery funding to implement (immediately) activities that had originaly been planned in the PCN for the project’s phase 1. Thus the proposal now focuses on the medium to long term recovery set out in the PCN as phase 2. The main lessons learnt are based on the outcomes from previous Concern projects, especially BRACE II and the ongoing TIPRP which found amongst others that: Farmer Field Schools (FFS) have been very successful and should be continued. Farmers have increased their production (27% for rice), and while households reduced the

rice hunger gap by 1-3 months for the majority of beneficiaries, this was not sufficient enough to fully meet consumption needs all year round or to have surplus to sell.

Greater effort needs to be placed to promote improved rice production and storage. Household incomes have increased through diversified livelihoods and affordable credit via

VSLAs. Training on product value chain analysis complemented with access to mechanical processing to add value to products resulted in increased income and marketing opportunities, and VSLAs have been an important mechanism for community led social protection.

Enhanced involvement of women in farm-related planning and decision-making leads to increased agricultural productivity. Gender equality improved at household level through the Community Conversations (CC) approach and women became more involved in decision making.

Systems for Rice Intensification (SRI) can give increased (25%) yield, requires 75% less seed and water and has environmental benefits compared to conventional rice growing approaches.

Seed stores reduce post-harvest losses and promote market activities but household storage also needs to be considered.

Rural communities are risk averse and also generally lack trust in their relatives, neighbours and leaders but use of CC and Living Peace Groups (LPG) can address this. Capacity building to the TDC, local communities and civil society organisations has given increased understanding of the governance process. Many people are no longer afraid to raise issues affecting their communities and demand their rights, which was a challenge in the past.

Market access and access to other key social services has been greatly developed due to improved roads and bridges.

3.7 PROJECT APPROACHPlease provide details on the project approach proposed to address the problem(s) you have defined in section 3.3. Why do you consider this approach to be the most effective way to achieve the project outcome? Please justify the timeframe and scope of your project and ensure that the narrative relates to the logframe and budget.

Concern has worked in Sierra Leone since 1996 and in Tonkolili since 2002 and has implemented a series of successful livelihoods interventions in the district, including BRACE (2007-2014) with

MAFFS, Njala University & University of Greenwich. To address the problems defined in section 3.3 the project will use the following successful approaches used and proven on previous livelihood projects and incorporating relevant lessons learnt and recommendations. The timeframe of 3 years is required considering the seasonal farming calendar, the difficulties of implementing during the rainy season and to ensure farmers have had sufficient practical experience to master improved practices such as SRI.

Output 1: 4000 HHs in Tonkolili district trained on improved farming practises to increase food production:FFS are the extension approach that will be used as a platform for the promotion of best agricultural practices among farmers. MAFFS and FAO support the use of FFS in Sierra Leone as the most efficient and effective extension approach to use compared to conventional extension13 approaches. The weekly training and demonstration sessions, facilitated by MAFFS and Concern staff, and using FAO FFS training materials, exposes male and female farmers to improved farming practices. Training covers the FFS concepts and methodologies, agricultural calendar, timely planting, basic crop morphology, improved crop husbandry and practices, crop diversity, vegetable production, crop rotations, composting, green manuring, seed selection and germination testing and Agro-Ecological System Analysis (AESA) for effective environmental management, Integrated Pest Management (IPM), harvesting and post-harvest management of crops, seed storage management, farm record keeping and exchange visits to other FFSs. The approach provides opportunities for farmers to identify and analyse the problems they encounter themselves through experience sharing and interaction, experiential learning and practical demonstrations. It facilitates the farmers as a group to experiment with different options and techniques to suit their own particular circumstances as these can be tried at the FFS demonstration plot without the farmers bearing all the risk and costs if it fails. This gives them more ownership of the learning which they can then apply on their own individual farms. The lesson learnt from Concern’s previous work with FFS, which found that longer support was required than just one farming season, will be incorporated in the project, with support for a second farming year albeit at a reduced level of intensity. BRACE II found a higher level of crop and food diversity than previously assumed, therefore FFS training and support will focus on how to increase yield including using improved varieties and improved soil fertility management and better husbandry practices. This element will also learn from and share experiences with the ongoing “Linking Agriculture Nutrition and Natural resources” (LANN) project which promotes vegetable production with women’s groups. Specifically, this will include growing and utilisation of edible wild foods with high nutrient value which has been piloted by the LANN Project. There is also a multiplier effect of knowledge and skills gained on best farming practices been transferred to other farmers (non-FFS members) in their communities through the FFS trained farmers. A planned new twenty five (25) FFSs will be established with the target communities with an average of 30 (at least 60% will be female) farmers who have not received training before. The FFS approach will be adapted to demonstrate the Systems Rice Intensification (SRI) approach to farmers (described hereafter). In addition, FFS will be used as forums to discuss other crosscutting issues such as; gender equality, HIV & AIDS, prevention of gender-based violence (GBV), Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), and advocacy. SRI is in itself a DRR strategy as SRI plants are deeper rooted and healthier, and hence more drought, disease and pest resistant. Well-designed Inland Valley Swamps (IVS) reduce the risk of flood damage and allow for vegetable production in the dry season thus mitigating against drought.

Systems of Rice Intensification (SRI) is an environmentally friendly method for promoting growth of more productive & robust plants. This approach uses concepts and practices that change the management of plants, soil, water and nutrients used in growing irrigated rice. The SRI approach can be adapted by male and female farmers to their local conditions for best results and can be used on IVS and upland fields. This approach represents good value for money through producing

13 In Sierra Leone, the normal extension approach is top down through research institution and MAFFS extension staff, prescribing technical solutions that work under ideal conditions, FFS is farmer lead and has a better impact at farmer level.

higher yields (up to 25% higher) whilst requiring significantly less seeds per unit area (75% less) compared to conventional planting of rice14 and is environmentally friendly compared to traditional paddy rice systems or the upland slash and burn system. Experience gained under BRACE II and trials by MAFFS will be used to implement this approach complemented by experience Concern has gained in other countries with SRI as required. Where communities have access to suitable IVS, these will be developed (10 planned) as they have the potential to produce much higher yields, up to 100% over non developed IVS and can allow double cropping so 2 rice crops can be harvested per year and vegetables on the small plots in the dry season. In combination with SRI and improved water management, soil fertility management and careful site selection, yields can be sustainably increased. The ability to have much higher yields per unit area will also allow groups to get more crops from a smaller area which in turn will take pressure off the upland areas where the traditional harmful slash and burn system is practiced. Concern has good experience with improved IVS under previous projects and established over 14 IVS with technical support from the Engineering Department of MAFFS. This is in line with the government’s agricultural development strategy in converting inland valley swamps (IVS) to crop cultivation. Work on IVS and SRI will also draw on experience and learning from the ongoing Climate Change project titled “Community Led Management of Natural Resources in the Kangari Hills” which has strong links with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Output 2: Reduced post harvest losses through better storage facilities and improved seed management:Post-Harvest Losses (PHL) are high – up to 30% - which negate any improvements in yield . A PHL approach will be used to prevent further loss based on the positive experience of establishing community based seed stores in previous projects. This will allow for safe storage that is vermin and theft proof and keeps seeds dry. The stores also make it possible for farmers to market grain since they can store it after harvest and sell it later when prices increase. The plan is to construct and or rehabilitate 10 seed stores. A community seed store committee will be established and a competent store manager who has a proven track record in running a commercially viable business will be selected by the committee and trained to manage the store. The committee, with support from Concern, will agree on an appropriate mechanism to remunerate the manager. Training visits will be made to existing seed stores to get hands on training and to learn how other communities manage paying for storage and for loaning seeds. The seed store will also serve as a social protection net where seed or grains can be distributed to those who have suffered crop failures or other major shocks. Since the main function is to store seeds for planting next year, as well as grain for household consumption and/or sale, seed stores enable communities to retain high quality seed and assist with the supply and promotion of improved seeds in the communities. To further help the communities attain financial security, a Warehouse Receipts system will be piloted where the farmer depositing seed or grain will receive a receipt from the store which can then be used as collateral with the MAFFS supported agricultural financial institutions in the district or with the VSLAs. Farmers are often forced to sell at harvest, when prices are lowest, due to immediate cash needs, so this system will allow them to access cash and keep the grain until prices increase. Concern has not previously used this in Sierra Leone but has experience with a pilot system in Malawi. Lessons from that experience, such as the need for improved training of farmers on improving the quality of their product to attain higher prices, will be incorporated.Following discussions with households having no easy access to the community seed stores, support will be provided to 400 HH to improve their storage of grain at home. Currently grain kept at home for consumption suffers loss from vermin, adverse weather, moisture, theft and contamination with foreign matter. Experience that Concern has internationally with hermetically sealed containers will be referred to for this activity. Concern’s current experience with the Sustainable Technology to Overcome Pest Rodents in Africa Through Science (STOPRATS) project will be included to help with vermin control. Improved rat traps used on STOPRATS as an

14 Result of System of Rice intensification (SRI) Trial at Makali Agricultural Training Centre, Tonkolili

IPM approach have proved very successful in reducing rats and their damage to stored grain. Given the high post-harvest losses incurred of up to 30%, construction of seed stores and provision of home storage will significantly reduce losses and hence represents good value for money.Output 3: Enhanced income for farmers by improved processing, adding value and marketing of their crops:A market access and value addition approach will be used since their absence is one of the key causal factors for the low return to agricultural assets. Following a more comprehensive survey of the feeder roads in the project locations, key sites will be identified for construction of small culvert bridges to allow year-round access. An estimated 20 culverts will be required. This is necessary especially in the rainy season where many small roads leading to communities are inaccessible to vehicles. After constructing 38 culverts under BRACE II and improving the feeder roads, farm gate prices increased as more traders could access the farms directly, while communities could access markets and other social services such as health and education and at a lower transport cost. The proven approach of engaging private construction firms with technical support from Concern’s engineering team in collaboration with TDC and the Sierra Leone Roads Authority (SLRA) will be used. This was deemed good value for money as private construction firms have the experience, skills and equipment required and can deliver a high quality product in a short time frame. Where needed, repairs will be made to sections of the roads themselves by establishing community self-help feeder road improvement initiatives which will be carried out by community volunteer youth in the chiefdoms to complement the culverts constructed; this is estimated at 30 kms. This approach was successfully used previously when the youth organised themselves into labour groups and received hands-on training in basic feeder roads improvement and management, as well as basic tools and some incentives to rehabilitate over 50kms of feeder roads.

Earlier projects provided crop processing machines such as rice mills, cassava graters, and groundnut threshers to add value, and this will be repeated. Concern’s engineering department will give technical support along with roofing materials and cement, while the communities will build the actual structures. This builds on the recommendations generated from the Value Chain Analysis workshop facilitated by Greenwich University and the Natural Resource Institute (NRI) in 2012, which identified the main crops suitable for value addition as rice, cassava, sweet potato, pigeon pea, groundnuts and maize. Peppers have a high demand and so will be considered for expansion. The groups will be given training on value chain analysis, and exchange visits will be carried out to existing groups engaged in value addition and crop processing. Crop processing machines will only be provided based on a detailed value chain analysis including market research, cost benefit analysis, gender analysis and capacity in the group or community to identify an individual with the suitable entrepreneurial experience to successfully operate a profitable business while still ensuring the poorest have preferential access. It is estimated that 10 will be needed but this will be confirmed later with the communities.Concern’s recent experience and successes with similar crop processing enterprises on the Peri and Urban Community Action for Food Security (PUCAFS) project’s Income Generating Activities (IGA) will be incorporated. On that project, rice milling generated the highest profit. Training in maintenance and small business management will be provided. Lessons learnt, including the need to fully cost in maintenance, labour and depreciation, will be included and should ensure that good value for money is attained. This element will liaise with MAFFS’s “Linking Farmers to Markets” project to share experience. As these activities rely on having sufficient quantities of raw materials produced, they will only start in the second year.

Output 4: Improved access to credit and saving facilities through support to Village Saving and Loan Associations (VSLA)Village Savings & Loans Associations (VSLAs) will be used to enhance community coping

mechanisms and reduce reliance on external interventions. New VSLAs will be established and existing VSLAs enhanced15 (planned total of 48). This will support rural savings and allow women farmers to make investments to increase their food production and/or income level to access food and non-food items. All participants will benefit from training on group management, leadership training and training to manage funds with the added indirect benefits of encouraging greater engagement with wider community activities. Concern’s experience with 53 VSLAs is very positive and is a cost effective method of helping communities’ access credit and create savings. The majority of participants (standard membership is 30) in current VSLAs are women, and this has proven to be a good approach to empower women and give them more control over their livelihoods.

In addition, All participants will benefit from basic literacy and numeracy training to manage funds with the added indirect benefits of encouraging greater engagement with wider community activities. The literacy activities will aim at increasing the level of esteem and confidence among women farmers and increase their level of understanding and positioning for leadership within the groups and in their communities as a whole. This will be based on the experience from BRACE II of providing Functional Adult Literacy (FAL) to women’s groups.

Gender equality will be mainstreamed across the project with a clear emphasis on the specific needs of women and how these needs will be considered and met when designing activities, allocating resources and measuring impact. All data will be gender disaggregated. Women will be specifically targeted as they undertake over 70% of subsistence farming, and female headed HHs are amongst the poorest and most vulnerable in the district. The project will aim to ensure that women and other marginalised individuals and groups in the community are equally represented and benefit equitably from project inputs and activities. Flexibility in the timing of activities will be considered, to match the requirements of each group. All interventions will analyse the involvement of women, their role in decision making, control over and access to assets, and the impact of the activities on their already considerable workload.From Concern’s experience, two approaches that proved very effective at promoting gender equality, empowering women and overcoming many of the obstacles women face, and which have impacted directly on improved food security, are Community Conversations (CC) and Living peace groups (LPG), two approaches that complement each other: the first approach covers general community concerns which the community itself is facilitated to identify; while the second approach focuses purely on gender issues especially on domestic and sexual based violence, and aims to address the inequitable norms and beliefs about male and female identities and social roles that sustain violence. It is based inside the household and with couples that become community role models for improved gender equality. Through CC, community members come together to discuss issues affecting their development (especially gender inequality) and identify strategies to address them. It aims to generate behaviour change, especially with men’s attitude and treatment of women, and to encourage communities to identify ways to address gender issues that affect their livelihoods and wellbeing. Experience with CC in BRACE II was very positive in building social cohesion and empowering participants to work together successfully in the different groups that were formed to run the activities. The LPG approach has a transformative impact on behaviours and relationships. It was used in 22 communities on the recent “Engaging Men to Contribute to Safer Communities in Tonkolili District Project”16, with very positive impacts. From a gender perspective, these changes have addressed issues of equity, by improving the conditions of women, in terms of their freedom from sexual and gender based violence, reduced workloads, improved health, food security and improved relationships across all family members. This strategy also showed evidence of addressing women’s strategic interests, by starting to address the structures that oppress women. This is seen in reports of women’s involvement in decision making about and control of household rice stores, as well as their involvement in household and LPG agricultural

15 Refresher training and materials if required16 ‘Engaging Men to Contribute to Safer Communities in Tonkolili’ was a project funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which ended in March 2015

planning. This approach will greatly help in facilitating much greater engagement of women farmers in the food production and income generating activities of the project. Both CCs and LPGs will be included alongside the core activities at the VSLA and FFS to ensure improved social cohesion and gender equality and tackle some of the root causes of poverty. This element will look into linking with the newly established Sierra Leone Women Farmers Forum just launched by MAFFS.

Value For Money (VFM) will be a key consideration for all activities and at all stages as Concern believes that investment in strengthening livelihoods and building resilience that may reduce the need for emergency interventions is better value for money in the long term. For this Concern looks at three levels: economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Regarding economy, Concern’s procurement procedures will ensure that inputs purchased are done at the most competitive price. Economies of scale arise as the project takes place under the umbrella of the TIPRP, this will allow for utilisation of existing resources, infrastructure, transport, and staff and enhance learning and synergies especially with ongoing programmes such as LANN and Climate Change. Using already proven approaches, costs will be saved as materials such as FFS training manuals already exist. Concern has being working on livelihood programmes in Tonkolili for 13 years and has developed approaches and methods that have proven to be effective and efficient under the local circumstances and context. Establishing the VSLAs is efficient as the average cost to establish one is £370, which is mainly start-up cost and training, with ongoing running costs much lower. Savings per year average £400 and the participants get to benefit from affordable interest rates. Of the majority of loans, 48% are for farming activities with 40% for income generating activities which strongly supports the outcomes of the project. An assessment carried out previously by Concern’s Micro Finance Advisor recommended using VSLAs as the best approach to implement. The grain stores are of a solid concrete design, with a lifespan estimated at 50 years, and despite the initial high cost of £6600, they represent excellent VFM when considering the savings in PHL of stored crops and improved quality over the lifespan compared to having no proper storage. They also facilitate market activities and act as a social safety need for those suffering from extreme shocks. Crop processing equipment is based on what is appropriate to the local context including ease of operation, maintenance and availability of spare parts and from previous experience shows good VFM with rice and cassava processing. On the PUCAFS project, a case study found one woman reporting sales of processed cassava rising from £5.90 to £17.60 per day when using a Concern supplied groups cassava processing unit which greatly improved her livelihood status. Cost benefit analysis of the main activities will be undertaken to ensure Concern is using the most effective methods and maximising the impact for the beneficiaries compared to the input costs. The project represents good VFM if it reduces or prevents future emergency food security situations - during the EVD crisis, the cost of supplying food and related items to quarantine HHs was costing £44 per week. If we take an average peak hunger gap of 3 months then this equates to £570 per household. In this light, the project cost per beneficiary in the long term is much lower than providing emergency support instead of building long term capacity and resilience to reduce food insecurity and protect livelihoods. Finally, while we acknowledge that our proposed staff costs appear to be high when compared to the rest of the budget, it is important to highlight that the project’s approach is foremost a training-based project seeking practical behaviour change. As such, considerable staff time in the field will be required as well as a high staffing level due to the bad roads and isolation of many poor communities. From experience it will be key to the project’s success to have sufficiently qualified/experienced staff on the ground to deliver the activities, provide quality training and ensure that the learnings/results are actually implemented, monitored and sustainable.3.8 SUSTAINABILITY AND SCALING-UP

How will you ensure that the benefits of the project are sustained? How will costs of any posts or maintenance of infrastructure provided by the project be paid for after project funding finishes? 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.

The project will strive to help vulnerable HHs overcome the recent setbacks caused by the EVD crisis by empowering them with skills and opportunities needed to achieve sustainable reductions in food insecurity and sustainable increases in income levels in a timely manner. Through the use of the four interrelated project outputs, we will ensure that productive and social assets vital to food security are protected, recovered and enhanced. The project will achieve this by tackling the key underlying causes of food insecurity and low incomes described in Section 3.3.To achieve this, the project will support improved farming practices (Output 1) including SRI that will lead to sustainable increases in crop production, community seed banks and household storage that are high quality and have strong community management structure to sustain them. Value addition & marketing (Output 2) coupled with the VSLAs access to credit (Output 4) will help vulnerable groups and individuals generate higher incomes. Capacity building at all levels will contribute to the beneficiaries having the necessary skills/knowledge to sustain the benefits after the end of the project. Higher incomes will allow for future investment in productive assets and will also build resilience to cope with future shocks. The use of CC and LPG (cross-cutting activities) will enhance sustainability by helping beneficiaries, especially women overcome obstacles to long term development.Infrastructure works (Output 3) such as the culvert bridges will be maintained by the TDC and the Sierra Leone Roads Authority (SLRA) and ongoing road maintenance done by the trained and equipped youth groups with support from the local chiefdoms. We anticipate that the successful introduction of SRI will be adopted by other agencies in future projects and will be included in future Concern food security projects. The use of VSLAs has been scaled up within Concern projects and hopefully will be adopted by others when they see the impact. It is anticipated that groups involved in food processing, seed stores and food production will develop sufficiently to be accepted into the MAFFS Smallholder Commercialisation Plan which would help them continue to develop and enhance their livelihoods. If the pilot Warehouse Receipts system is successful, this can be rolled out to other communities in the future. The use of vermin and weather proof seed stores and HH sealed storage containers will be continued into future projects, and we hope that other HHs will adopt the sealed HH seed containers themselves once they see the reduced losses.

3.9 SCALING YOUR PROJECT UP OR DOWNHow will you expand or reduce the scope of the project if your appeal income is different from what you have estimated it will be?

The project can be scaled up or down by decreasing or increasing the number of community groups in the intervention area. The main activities are based on key units such as FFS, VSLA, seed stores, and crop processing units so these can be adjusted up or down pending the available funds. Since the components are so tightly integrated, we would plan to keep all four as a package, and reduce or increase the number of communities. Removing any part of the package would mean the full impact not being achieved.

SECTION 4: PROJECT RISKS AND MITIGATION4.1 How does your organisation approach the identification and management of risks associated

with the delivery of a project? What systems and processes do you have in place?Please also include with your application a separate risk register/matrix showing the risks associated with your proposed project and how you will mitigate them, for which you should use your own format.

All Concern country programmes are based around detailed country strategic plans which contain a detailed analysis of risks and vulnerabilities associated with implementing programmes. This is supported by a comprehensive contextual analysis for the main programme operational areas so

that programme managers are fully aware of the risks in the district and how to manage them. All project proposals are reviewed by technical experts at Concern’s headquarters in Dublin who check that all risks have been considered in the project design and appropriately mitigated.Concern also mainstreams DRR across all projects which entail carrying out risk and vulnerability analysis and plans on how to mitigate the associated risks. Concern maintains strong links with local community groups, Paramount Chiefs, local councils, relevant government Ministries and Line Departments to ensure effective collaboration and local ownership over these projects. This is key to ensuring Concern has a mandate to implement the activities described above.

4.2 ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGEWhat are the opportunities and the risks of the project in relation to environmental sustainability and climate change? Please specify what overall impact (positive, neutral or negative) the project is likely to have on the environment and climate change. Where relevant, please also specify what impact the environment and climate change are likely to have on the project. In each case, what steps have you taken to assess any potential impact?  Please note the severity of the impacts and how the project will mitigate any potentially negative impacts, as well as how it will make use of opportunities to increase the positive impacts.

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) predicts that, due to the likelihood of increased rainfall and rising temperatures in Sierra Leone as a consequence of climate change, rainfed rice will do well in the future along with cassava, but that groundnut yield will decline. Based on these climate change opportunities, the project proposes to focus on rice production, which has the greatest potential to increase food production. Likewise based on the IFPRI results, the project will advise farmers to avoid groundnuts and to focus on other crops adapted to higher temperatures (cowpeas, sweet potatoes, cassava).In Tonkolili conversion of swamps to IVS has increased food security with 2 rice harvests per year plus vegetable production. However there may be some negative impacts on the environment due to changes in water storage and possible increased flooding downstream. Iron toxicity 17 can also be an environmental issue in IVS. To mitigate these effects, the project will carefully select IVS sites that balance the needs of downstream users with the sustainable, productive use of the wetlands for irrigated agriculture and biodiversity. Appropriate measures will be taken to mitigate iron toxicity. Experience in soil fertility management in the Kangari Hills project18 will be included in this project. Using IVS and SRI which has higher yields (25%) and much lower water requirements (30-40% less, reduces the need for slash and burn cultivation on uplands with its associated negative environmental impact. Less slash and burn should mean more carbon sequestering in unburnt areas which is positive for climate change and the environment.SRI has lower methane (CH4) emissions, 60% lower in some trials, than conventional rice production19though nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions may increase and there is wide variation in emissions with soil types. Overall these may cancel out and be neutral for climate change.There is a high demand for chilli pepper normally grown on uplands so the project will focus chilli production on the IVS in the dry season instead to reduce environmental damage on the uplands.The crop storage, VSLA, and marketing components are expected to have neutral impacts on the environment. Construction activities will be carried out in an environmentally sensitive manner. Bridges over significant water courses will be raised to accommodate the increased peak flows expected and culvert capacity will be increased.

SECTION 5: MONITORING, EVALUATION, LESSON LEARNINGThis section should clearly relate to the project logframe and the relevant sections of the budget.

17 Traynor, D, “Sociological and Environmental Impact Assessment of Inland Valley Swamps in Tonkolili District, Sierra Leone”. Concern Worldwide, December 201218 EU Community Led Management of Natural Resources in the Kangari Hills, EDF 135-00319  Jain, N, Dubey, R, Dubey, DS,  Singh, J, et al. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emission with system of rice intensification in the Indo-Gangetic Plains. Paddy Water Environ, august 2013

5.1 How will the performance of the project be monitored? Who will be involved? What tools and approaches are you intending to use? What training is required for partners to monitor and evaluate the project?

The monitoring & evaluation of the project activities will be participatory involving various stakeholders at different levels of the impact chain tracking (inputs, outputs, outcomes & impact). Concern’s Programme Quality/ M&EM teams have been involved from the design phase of the project and as part of their overall M&E activities, they will lead project stakeholders to design appropriate M&E tools. Overall M&E of the project will be led by the project M&E Advisor.A detailed project monitoring framework will be developed for regular data collection, and information will be compiled monthly. Quarterly project monitoring results will be compiled, shared and utilised. Data collected will include: group attendance at FFSs, training topics, attendance at all trainings, establishment of demonstration plots, distribution of inputs, areas planted in groups and individuals plots, yields for crops, application of farming practices, post-harvest losses, seed store records, market prices, output per crop processing machine, household income, average monthly savings of the VSLAs, meteorological data, etc. Project participants and other stakeholders will be trained on the data collection tools to assist in collecting and recording data at beneficiary level.A baseline will be established in the operational areas at the beginning of the project, through the collection of information on the agreed indicators in the logical framework. These indicators will serve as a regular monitoring tool and will be validated by the beneficiaries during the community M&E sessions. To speed up the process and improve quality in data collection, the team will use Concern’s Digital Data Gathering (DDG)20 system.One internally facilitated mid-term review will be conducted to document progress and learning, and to make recommendations for improvement. Based on these, the project will incorporate learning and develop measures to improve quality, effectiveness and efficiency of implementation. Annual learning reviews and reflection events will be facilitated to enhance continuous learning in the project. As the Warehouse Receipts system is a pilot, specific M&E will be developed for this component to capture the results and learnings to facilitate possible replications in future. An End of Project Evaluation (EOP) towards the end of the project will involve assessing progress of the implementation and achievement of project goals including its relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability and learning. A key outcome of both the mid-term review and annual reviews will be the incorporation of learning into the project implementation for future improvement.

5.2 Please use this section to explain the budget allocated to M&E. Please ensure there is provision for baseline and on-going data collection and an end of project review. If you think there is a case for undertaking an independent mid term review of the project, or a final independent evaluation (eg. if the project is testing a new approach, or working in a particularly difficult or sensitive context, or is high value), please include costs for this in your budget.

The budget for M&E includes provision for baseline and on-going data collection, mid-term review and annual reviews and an end of project evaluation based on costs used for current projects.

5.3 Please explain how the learning from this project 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.

Learning will be incorporated into Concern Worldwide and partner organisations through regular reporting and documentation, involvement of Technical Advisors in FIM and M&E (from the Strategy Advocacy and Learning Unit in Dublin) in the development and subsequent implementation of this

20 DDG is a system were surveys and information gathering is digitised to eliminate transaction costs of paper-based systems and to speed up analysis and reduce error.

programme and sharing of lessons learnt through the Concern Worldwide FIM Working Group. Externally, the involvement of stakeholders from the start of the project, notably government staff in MAFFS and TDC will ensure buy-in and interest from the outset.

SECTION 6: EXPERIENCE/TRACK RECORD6.1 What is the value added of your organisation in delivering the proposed intervention? What is

your organisation’s track record in delivering similar interventions in similar contexts for a similar cost? Please include the details of the development results achieved. If your organisation has not delivered this type of intervention before, what learning/evidence underpins your proposal?

Concern has a strong track record in delivering food security projects in Sierra Leone and in many other countries in similar contexts with similar agro-ecological conditions. In Sierra Leone, Concern has at least 8 years’ experience working with FFS approach in Tonkolili district to help male and female farmers increase production via improved farming practice, improved varieties and using IVS. It has similar experience with community based seed stores. Among the results from these activities was a 27% increase in yields, and a reduction of 1-3 months in the hunger gap for over 80% of the farmers. The introduction of SRI has shown at least 25% increase in yields over conventional rice growing approaches and uses less seed, hence higher income and lower costs. The seed stores have contributed to reduced losses due to vermin, leakages from thatch roofs, wild fire disaster and thieves compared to when seeds were kept in their houses. The seed stores have also enhanced marketing of local agricultural produce combined with improved market access due to road rehabilitation. The number of households mechanically processing either rice or cassava increased from 16% to 26%. Improved marketing and selling of different crops saw an increase from 19% to 25% in the number of households with three or more sources of income. There was a doubling of profit generated by groups engaged in small businesses and a big demand for VSLA which allowed many poor and vulnerable farmers access credit at affordable rates.

The pilot work on a Warehouse Receipts system is new in Sierra Leone, but Concern has good experience with a similar system in Malawi where a farmers group deposited groundnuts with a commercially run warehouse company who specialise in storing and marketing agricultural products. The farmers received a receipt for the quantity received and the value for that quantity and quality at that day. This receipt was subsequently used to borrow money from a commercial bank for a group activity. When prices had increased 3 months later, they sold the produce and repaid the loan. This pilot engagement with the commercial warehouse company proved more successful than anticipated with value added to the group of 35% compared to if they had sold their produce at time of harvest.

Hermetically sealed storage containers have been used successfully by Concern in Somalia and Pakistan and experience from there will be incorporated into this element.

SECTION 7: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION7.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Please outline the management arrangements for this project. This should include: A clear description of the roles and responsibilities of each of the partners. This should

refer to the separate project organogram, which is required as part of your proposal documentation.

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

An explanation of how your organisation will manage the delivery of the project, including

arrangements for managing delivery partners and how they will report to your organisation.

Concern Worldwide Sierra Leone will be the main implementing agency for this project. Concern’s Country Management Team21 will provide oversight for all aspects of project implementation. The Country Director and Programme Director will be the main link between the project and Concern’s UK office in London. Concern has a network of technical personnel in other country programmes as well as in the Dublin headquarters who will provide ongoing technical advice. All procurement will be done through Concern systems to ensure VFM and donor compliance.Concern’s Area Coordinator (AC) in Tonkolili district and the Food Income and Marketing (FIM) team will be responsible for day to day implementation including Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) in conjunction with Concern’s country Programme Quality (PQ) Unit & Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) (PQ&M) team. The district FIM coordinator who manages all the FIM projects will be directly involved with the project manager and direct project staff in day to day activities and will also be responsible for financial management in collaboration with the district and national finance teams. The project will be supported by the administration, logistics and transport function (Systems) in Tonkolili office with support from the Freetown office. As the project comes under the umbrella of TIPRP it will be managed alongside the other FIM related projects and will get technical support from the cross cutting issues staff and engineering department. Building on our existing good working relationship with the district government agencies, the FIM team will liaise with TDC, MAFFS and SLRA to ensure smooth implementation of the project.Role FTE Role FTECountry Director 0.10 Project manager 1Programme Director 0.15 Agriculture supervisor 1Systems Director 0.15 Agricultural officers 7Country Financial Controller 0.125 Market Development Supervisor 1M&E managerCoordinator 0.15 Market development officers 1Area Coordinator 0.20 Mainstreaming Oofficers 1.66FIM Coordinator 0.50 M&E Advisor 1Total 1.4

1.37513.66

7.2 NEW SYSTEMS, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND/OR STAFFINGPlease outline any new systems, infrastructure, and/or staffing that would be required to implement this project. Note that these need to be considered when discussing sustainability and project timeframes.

Almost all of the capacity for undertaking this project is already in place, at least in the first year of its lifetime while the parallel Climate Change and LANN project and new DEC funded Ebola recovery project continue. As indicated in the budget, a proportion of the salary costs of various existing staff (as well as infrastructure costs) will be allocated to this project; new positions to be created for this intervention will be: the project manager, the agriculture supervisor and officer positions, markets development supervisor and officer positions, and the mainstreaming officers at field level with the targeted beneficiaries. There is no requirement for any new infrastructure to support the project.

7.3 COLLABORATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTORSHow will you coordinate project implementation with other development actors and ensure no duplication of effort (including with other DFID funded activities)? How will you work with local/national government and private sector providers?

21 Country Director, Programmes Director, Systems Director, Country Financial Controller and Area Coordinator

Concern has a long history of collaboration with MAFFS in Tonkolili and has good coordination with other stakeholders at district and national level through the regular NGO coordination meetings chaired by MAFFS and through overall development coordination meetings with TDC covering all sectors in the district. The FIM coordinator also attends the national Food Security coordination meeting in Freetown on a regular basis and other relevant coordination meeting, especially with UN bodies, including UNICEF, WFP and FAO. The Freetown based Programme Director is in regular contact with the key stakeholders and donors in Freetown as part of normal networking and coordination activities so all of this should ensure no duplication of effort.The project will be delivered through the existing FIM team at district level and community level, and will collaborate with MAFFS field extension staff for support with the FFS training and other relevant activities.

SECTION 8: CAPACITY OF APPLICANT ORGANISATION AND ALL IMPLEMENTING PARTNER ORGANISATIONS (Max 3 pages each)Please copy and fill in this section for your organisation AND for each implementation partner

8.1 Name of Organisation Concern Worldwide (UK)

8.2 Address UK: 13/14 Calico House, Clove Hitch Quay, London SW11 3TN

SL: 23A Cantonment Road, Off King Harman Road, Freetown, Sierra Leone

8.3 Web Site www.concern.net

8.4 Registration or charity number (if applicable)

UK: 1092236 (Company number 4323646)SL: INGO/018/2015 (Sierra Leone registration number)

8.5 Annual Income UK:

Income (original currency): £23,511,552Income (£ equivalent): £23,511,552Exchange rate: N/aStart/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From: 01/01/2014 To: 31/12/2014NB: 2013 Group figure for Concern Worldwide, an Irish

based charity, of which Concern Worldwide (UK) is a subsidiary, is €145,455,000.

SL:

Income (original currency): €15,400,000Income (£ equivalent): £11,260,480Exchange rate: 0.7312Start/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From: 01/01/2015 To: 31/12/2015

8.6 Number of existing staff Concern Worldwide (UK):UK: 69Concern Worldwide: 2,869Concern Sierra LeoneSL: 220

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

Existing staff 1.4 3.035 FTE (Sierra Leone)Project office staff (Tonkolili) = 5 2 Mainstreaming Oofficers (1.66 FTE) 1 Area Coordinator (0.2 FTE) 1 FIM Coordinator (0.5FTE)

1 M&E Coordinator (0.15 FTE)

Head office staff (Freetown) = 4 Country Director (0.1FTE) Country Financial Controller

(0.125FTE) Programmes Director (0.15FTE) Systems Director (0.15FTE)

New staff 13.66 12 FTE (Sierra Leone)Project office staff (Tonkolili) = 12 1 Project manager (1FTE) 1 Agricultural Supervisor (1FTE) 1 Market Development Supervisor

(1FTE) 7 Agricultural officers (7FTE) 1 Market Development project officer

(1FTE) 1 M&E Advisor (1FTE)

8.8 Organisation category (Select a maximum of two categories)

Non-Government Org. (NGO) X 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 which this partner will directly manage.

A): Concern Worldwide (UK) will bear overall responsibility, and its Board of Trustees will be accountable to DFID for, the contract management and donor compliance of this proposed grant in terms of ensuring timely and effective reporting and full compliance with UK Aid Match terms, conditions, and regulations. Concern will bear responsibility for the overall project management; financial management, monitoring, reporting and evaluation as well as capacity building, security management, adherence to donor guidelines, coordination with stakeholders and dissemination of learning. Concern will be responsible for the day-to-day implementation of the programme, and will ensure the quality and smooth implementation of the project activities.B): £800,000837,714; 100%8.10 EXPERIENCE: Please outline this organisation's experience and track record in relation to

its roles and responsibilities on this project (including technical issues and relevant geographical coverage). What development results has this organisation achieved which are relevant to this proposal (ie. for similar interventions in similar contexts for a similar cost)? Please include details of any external evaluations of this organisation’s work (relevant to the proposed project) which have been completed and whether they are available.

Concern Worldwide (UK) is an integral part of Concern Worldwide, an international NGO dedicated

to tackling poverty and suffering in the world’s poorest countries. Since Concern Worldwide (UK) was established in 2005, the organisation has grown its reach and profile amongst its peers and with key funders. A member of the Disasters Emergency Committee and the Start Network, Concern Worldwide (UK) is recognised for its expertise in the humanitarian sector, as well as the development sector (health, education, livelihoods). Structures are in place to provide advisory and technical support both in regards to contract management and reporting, technical advice (International Programme Support Team) and policy and advocacy (Policy & Advocacy Team).Within Concern (UK), the International Support department consists of the Head of International Support, Programme Funding Coordinator and a growing technical team (including Maternal & Neonatal Health, Social Protection & Safety Nets, Education and Environmental Health Advisors) in London. The department enhances the impact of Concern’s work with poor people through:Connecting Concern into the UK development/humanitarian community, bringing emerging thinking on best practice back into Concern’s programming, and contributing Concern’s own learning to shaping that thinkingProviding technical and programmatic support to country teamsIn all partnerships with UK donors, providing for smooth communication to maximise the value of the partnership; and ensuring that country teams are set up to meet the agreed donor obligations.

Through the International Support Team, Concern (UK) will liaise with the country team and the wider organisation to meet the highest standards of donor compliance on this proposed contract, providing effective & timely reporting, as well as guaranteeing that all terms and conditions are met. Beyond the UK-based technical advisers already mentioned, Concern (UK) will support this programme to achieve its stated impact by drawing in as appropriate the wide range of technical advice Concern has in place around the world, including in gender equity, equality, Monitoring & Evaluation, Maternal & New-born Health, Nutrition, Health & HIV, Livelihoods and Agriculture.Concern also has extensive experience in implementing multi-country programmes, (BRACED) and health programmes through country programmes.Concern has been present since 1996 in Sierra Leone and since 2002 in Tonkolili. Our long term presence in, and ongoing commitment to Sierra Leone have allowed us to develop & foster positive relationships with administrative and political authorities at national as well as at district level. This has resulted in Concern engaging directly with the Government of Sierra Leone to support, for example, development of the National Disaster Reduction Policy & the National Social Protection framework. Currently and in recent years Concern has successfully implemented large multi-year grants funded by DFID (ISIS RaISES Education Consortium project implemented in Tonkolili schools and catchment communities; Freetown Urban WASH Consortium project), EC (SHAPE and BRACE, both in Tonkolili, in the MCH and Livelihoods/Food Security sectors respectively), USAID (Child Survival Project in Freetown), and Irish Aid (integrated programme in Tonkolili), as well as innovative complementary cross-cutting projects such as the UK FCO funded Engaging Men (on GBV) project, and the Irish Aid funded Community Conversations approach to fostering positive and sustainable change in attitudes and behaviours at community level. Concern was quick to respond to the Ebola Emergency, starting awareness-raising activities in May 2014 and scaling the response up significantly as the context evolved with funding from a number of donors including a significant grant from DFID to lead on safe and dignified burials in Western Area, as well as UNICEF funding to support and manage 13 Community Care Centres (CCCs) in Tonkolili alongside the continuing sensitisation and contact tracing work and support to quarantined families. Concern’s knowledge and close working relationships with communities and various state and non-state actors in Tonkolili and Western Area has been integral to the success of this work.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 2014, Concern UK was responsible for the management of nearly £13.8m of institutional funding across 16 country programmes. £13.6m was from various DFID funding channels; £381k from other governments; £993K from the DEC; other institutional donors include Comic Relief. Most of the

grants and contracts were themselves part of larger multi-year projects. 2014 was a typical year, excluding DEC income.Some examples of funds managed over recent years:Concern UK holds two DFID BRACED grants in South Sudan and Chad and the Republic of Sudan, of £5 and £10 million respectively.We have recently started implementing an Aid Match project in Zambia of £1.4m for Promoting Women’s Empowerment as a Pathway to Improved Household Nutrition in Central Province.We also hold a DFID Civil Society Challenge Fund (CSCF) grant for 2011-2015 of £473,400 (Economic empowerment of women in Dessie Zuriya, Ethiopia), as well as two Global Poverty Action Fund projects, in Tanzania (£1.9m 04/13—03/16) and in Pakistan (£1.4m 12/13-11/16). The Tanzania project is improving agriculture-based livelihoods, nutrition and participation in governance in Northwest of the country, while in Pakistan the project is contributing to the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger in one district of the Punjab.DFID, through CBHA, funded Concern UK with a £4 million in an Early Recovery Grant for Pakistan (2010-2011). We also managed a DFID grant in Somalia of £2million for emergency food and nutrition support for drought affected populations in Southern Somalia (2011-2012) and a £1.1 million DFID grant for the South Sudan 2014 emergency response.Concern UK managed two Comic Relief grants: one of £800k in Ethiopia, on a Partnership for HIV prevention and impact reduction (2010-2013), and one of £1 million in Uganda, for Sustainable and Equitable Wealth Creation (2010-2015).

Since 2012 DEC appeals have supported responses in Haiti, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Syria/ Lebanon, the Philippines and most recently Sierra Leone and Nepal.

From 2011 until present, Concern Sierra Leone has received and has been implementing the following projects from various donors (most recent/current projects, not including (Ebola) emergency response grants):

SN Source of funds

Purpose Amount Time covered

1 Irish Aid Tonkolili Integrated Poverty Reduction Programme

€ 4,120,996 Jan 2012 - Dec 2016 (5 years)

2 David Barker Education - Lanin Biznes £125,000 Jan 2013 - Dec 2017 (5 years)

3 DFID Education - RaISES (Rebuilding and Improving Schools after Ebola in Sierra Leone)

£1,238,806 Nov 2012 - Aug 2016 (3.8 years)

4 Irish Aid FIM - Linking Agriculture, Nutrition and Natural Resource Management (LANN)

£468,500 Nov 2013 - Apr 2016 (2.5 years)

5 European Union

FIM - Stop Rats: Sustainable Technology to Overcome Pest Rodents in Africa Through Science

€ 104,237.00 Jan 2014 - Dec 2016 (3 years)

6 European Union

FIM - Community Led Management of Natural Resources in the Kangari Hills

€ 439,871.10 Jul 2014 - Apr 2016 (1.7 years)

7 DEC FIM/Health - Psycho-social and food security support for Ebola recovery

£280,824 May 2015 - Oct 2016 (1.5 years)

8 USAID Health - Child Survival Project $3,080,322 Oct 2011 to Sep 2016 (5 years)

9 DFID Health - Freetown WASH Consortium - Phase II

€ 2,218,114.08 Apr 2013 - Mar 2016 (3 years)

10 UK Aid Direct

Health - Reduction of teenage pregnancy in Tonkolili

£787,223 Jan 2016 - Dec 2018 (3 years)

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.

All Concern Worldwide (UK) 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 was the fraud detected? What action did your organisation take in response? How will you minimise the risk of fraudulent activity occurring?

Concern Worldwide has a clearly laid out Anti-Fraud Policy since 2011 explaining the structures put in place for preventing and mitigating of fraud starting from having all staff sign this policy upon recruitment. Managers and all staff are made aware of all types of fraudulent activities to help them detect and watch out for during their day-to-day work. Strong financial control, clear and transparent logistics procedures, and donor-based programme implementation also set the ground for prevention of fraud. None. Concern’s anti-fraud strategy informed the 2011 revision and rollout of the updated Concern Worldwide Anti-Fraud Policy, which Concern Worldwide (UK) adheres to. Internal audits are carried out and our work encourages an environment of openness, transparency & whistle-blowing.

Frauds that have occurred in Sierra Leone in the past five years in Concern:Year Fraud details Amount €2011 None None2012 None None2013 None None

2014Fraudulent claims relating to

training expenses. €8002015 None None

In relation to the 2014 fraud – an allegation of mismanagement of funds was brought to the CD by a member of staff. An investigation was then conducted into the allegations, which resulted in disciplinary action being taken, which included termination of staff contracts, written and verbal warnings for staff involved. The level of discipline taken was based on level of culpability and level of seniority. There was less action taken against those who cooperated during the investigation. As a result, several additional layers of monitoring have been introduced. There is now a separate M&E unit which is autonomous from the direct line management of individual projects. In addition catering services are more rigorously vetted. Concern has recently instituted a preferred supplier list which includes a preferred list for services, including catering.Concern Sierra Leone has a clearly laid out Anti-Fraud Policy since 2011 explaining the structures put in place for preventing and mitigating of fraud starting from having all staff sign this policy upon recruitment. Managers and all staff are made aware of all types of fraudulent activities to help them detect and watch out for during their day-to-day work. Strong financial control, clear and transparent logistics procedures, and donor-based programme implementation also set the ground for prevention of fraud.8.14 DUE DILIGENCE: How has your organisation assessed the capacity and competence of this

organisation to deliver the proposed intervention and to manage project funds accountably? What is your assessment of their capacity and what is the evidence to support this? How will your organisation manage the risks of under-performance and financial mis-management by this organisation throughout the lifetime of the project?

As Concern will implement this project directly, there are no implementing partners for this project.

SECTION 9: CHECKLIST OF PROPOSAL DOCUMENTATIONPlease check boxes for each of the documents you are submitting with this form.All documents must be submitted by e-mail to: ukaidmatch@dfid.gov.uk

Mandatory Items CheckY/N

Proposal 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

Risk register/matrix Y

Project organisational chart / organogram Y

Project bar or Gantt chart to show scheduling of activities Y

Communications Plan - 2 documents: C1 (communication plan form) and C2 (communications activity timetable)

Y

Written evidence of confirmed appeal communications partnership(s), e.g. an email or letter

Y