ICAR: NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY PROJECT (NATP) COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAMME. for AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Transcription

1 1 Draft For Discussion ICAR: NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY PROJECT (NATP) COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAMME for AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH BACKGROUND 1. The Competitive Grant Programme (CGP) has been established under the National Agricultural Technology Project (NATP) to provide an incentive for high quality, collaborative research designed to provide solutions to specific problems confronting Indian farmers within their production systems. The research may be strategic or applied, and the competition for funding is open to all institutions, universities, and the private sector having the capacity and expertise needed to conduct the research. 2. Two parallel mechanisms with similar review and approval procedures would be followed under the CGP viz; a) For research that is strategic in nature or involves more than one agroecosystem, research proposals would be solicited widely on topics relating to production system research supported under the NATP. Proposal would be reviewed on a competitive basis at the national level for funding under the CGF. b) For research on a specific agro-ecosystem or production system, proposals would be commissioned from among the institutions and scientific community

2 2 having expertise relevant to the research priorities established for that agroecosystem. Proposal would be encouraged in a way that would provide for an integrated research approach to the constraints and longer term needs of farmers at the production system level. Proposals would be reviewed and at the Agroecosystem level through a process that is similar to that followed at the national level under the CGP. 3. Funding for the CGP under the NATP project would support three different modes of research as follows: a) Location-specific, programme mode research to improve productivity, stability and sustainability of the major production systems b) Cross-cutting research themes in a mission mode (time-bound research), into topics having application across one or more production systems and which provide the prospect of enhancing the economic benefits to farmers and the sustainability of the production systems, e.g., pest management (IPM), and soil and water management, and c) Upstream strategic research involving frontier sciences, cutting-edge technology or other areas of scientific innovation such as socio-economic studies which are crucial to addressing needs at the production system level. 4. The CGP is complementary to the more broad based funding available on a competitive basis through the A.P. Cess Fund. Important distinguishing features of the CGP are that i) the focus is on developing improved technologies and solutions adapted to production systems and responsive to farmer needs, ii) grants are based on proposals developed by multi-disciplinary research teams led by a Principal Investigator (PI); the teams being fully accountable for the research, and iii) the review and approval process provides for a transparent, high quality, technical assessment of proposals and flexibility in funding according to the specific needs of research projects. 5. Specific objectives of the CGP are:

3 3 a) To more effectively involve the country s scientific community in addressing the needs of poor farmers within their production systems, and to draw more extensively on the comparative advantage of research capacity where it exists outside the ICAR and SAU system. b) To achieve synergies and more cost-effective research through mechanisms that enhance teamwork, collaboration amongst NARS, public and private institutions, both within and outside India 1, and greater participation of stakeholders in the formulation and funding of agricultural research proposals. c) To broaden the participation of the private sector in supporting research, development and pilot testing of innovations, and d) To promote stronger linkages between agricultural research and tertiary level training in agriculture, to enhance the quality of training, and to provide incentives for young scientists to excel in the field of agriculture. ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE 6. The Competitive Research Grant is managed, on behalf of the National Steering Committee for the NATP by the Research Review Committee (RRC), for which the Project Management Unit of NATP provides the CGP Secretariat. The organization and management of the CGP is as follows; 7. National Steering Committee for NATP: NATP policy and high-level coordination would be through a National Steering Committee chaired by the Secretary DARE (who is also Director General of ICAR), and with representatives from DAC, Senior Management of ICAR and DOE, selected SAU vice-chancellors and State Agricultural Commissioners, and the Ministries of Finance and Planning. The Steering Committee defines overall agricultural research policy guidelines, national research goals and objectives and approves work plans and annual budgets proposed by ICAR management under the NATP. The Steering Committee appoints members of the CGP Research Review Committee (RRC). 1 International collaboration is encouraged under NATP. See para. 14.

4 4 8. Project Management Committee (PMC): Overall responsibility for managing the implementation of the NATP, would be through the PMC. Membership: of the committee would comprise the Director General ICAR (Chair), DDGs of ICAR, Additional Sec. MOA/DAC, Joint Sec. MOA/DOE, and National Director PMU: (member/secretary). Responsibilities of the committee would include the quality of the research and extension linkage under the project and the refocusing of research around production systems, in line with ICAR s overall institutional objective of making its research effort more responsive to farmer needs. The Committee would have specific responsibilities under NATP for setting the criteria for research, and periodically reviewing the efficacy of the process in bringing about a more demand driven, farmer responsive research and technology dissemination program. The PMC would be responsible for delegating the responsibility and authority to the Research Review Committee (RRC) for overviewing the CGP (see below). 8. Research Review Committee (RRC): The RRC would be delegated responsibility by the PMC for overviewing the CGP review, approval and implementation process. ( Terms of reference attached in Annex 2). The committee meets quarterly to overview and guide the operations of the CGP, take decisions on the award of research grants, and approve work plans and budgets prepared by the CGP Secretariat. The RRC overviews the scientific review and approval process for all research within the ICAR/SAU system under the NATP. 9. The members of the RRC are selected on the basis of their scientific knowledge and professional credibility from universities, the scientific community, government institutions, private sector and ICAR. The National Director, of the Project Management Unit of NATP (PMU) is the member secretary of the CGP. CGP Donor representatives would be ex-officio members of the RRC. The Chair of the RRC is from outside ICAR and selected on the basis of his/her preeminence in the field of agricultural science. The majority of members of the RRC are from outside ICAR. Members serve for a period of three years, with some staggering of appointment at the end of the first three years to allow for continuity.

5 5 10. Agro-ecosystem Review: For research proposals that are specific to an agro-ecosystem, the technical and administrative review process is undertaken under the direction of an Agro-ecosystem Director appointed by the Director general of ICAR. Research proposals considered for review at the agro-ecosystem level need to be consistent with the Strategic Framework for Eco-systems Research developed under the leadership of Agro-ecosystem Directors. Each Agroecosystem Director is responsible for nominating members of a Scientific Review Panel which undertakes the technical review and makes funding recommendations to the Agro-ecosystem Director. This process is facilitated by Principal Scientists who are appointed by ICAR management for each major production system. They are ex-officio members of the Scientific Review Panel and coordinate the peer review process and feed-back to PIs. on behalf of the Scientific Review Panel. The RRC is responsible for approving the membership of each Agro-ecosystem Scientific Review Panel with inputs and assistance from the CGP Secretariat. The RRC, is also responsible for ensuring that the quality of the scientific review undertaken at the agro-ecosystem is in line with that for research proposals reviewed at the national level. 11. Research proposals submitted to the Agro-ecosystem Director are prescreened for consistency with the Strategic framework for agro-ecosystems research, administrative and financial requirements and then sent by the Principal Scientists for Production Systems Research for peer review and consideration by the Scientific Review Panel. Research proposals reviewed at the agro-ecosystem level may be approved by the Agro-ecosystem Director upon the recommendation of the Scientific Review Panel, up to a limit of Rs 5,000,000 ( US $140,450 equiv.). Proposals recommended for funding and exceeding this amount are sent to the RRC for approval. (Terms of reference for the Agro-ecosystem Directors and the Scientific Review Panels are given in Annex 3). 12. CGP Secretariat: The CGP Secretariat would be provided by the PMU for NATP project. (Terms of reference for the CGP Secretariat attached in Annex 4). The Secretariat is responsible for the day to day administration and management of the CGP. The technical aspects of this would be would be coordinated by senior

6 6 ICAR scientists who would serve as National Coordinators for the various types of research to be supported under NATP. One of the National Coordinators would be designated as specifically responsible for the CGP. Staff functions provided under NATP would be at no cost to the CGP, but all direct costs are charged to the CGP overhead. The CGP Secretariat. uses the existing ICAR administrative procedures and ensures that the accounts and audit reports are prepared as scheduled, and that copies are made available in a timely manner to sources supporting the CGP. 13. Peer Reviewers : The RRC appoints a core panel of some 20 senior professionals representing the range of disciplines involved, who review and comment on research grant proposals. Other peer reviewers may be used, including international experts, especially for strategic research. Likewise at the Agro-ecosystem level, the Scientific Review Panel appoints a similar group of distinguished scientists as peer reviewers. 14. For both the national level and agro-ecosystem level reviews (see para 2), each proposal meeting the pre-screening requirements is sent for review by at least two peer reviewers having the technical and/or socio-economic expertise relevant to the research proposal objective. The Peer reviewers may also be called upon to assist in the subsequent supervision/spot-checking of the research project s implementation. The peer reviewers rate research proposals and make recommendations on which the final selection of research proposals for CGP research awards are made. Requests for specialized training which may accompany research proposals (see paras 16(c) and 22), would be commented on by the Peer Reviewers. The Peer reviewers may also recommend that research teams make special efforts to link-up or network with international scientists and centers of expertise where appropriate. Special provision/additions may be made in research proposals for this purpose and the CGP Secretariat may be asked to help facilitate such linkages. 15. Peer reviewers also provide written feed-back for submission by the CGP Secretariat or Principal Production System Scientists (at the Agro-ecosystem level)

7 7 to the Principal Investigator for each proposal, both to guide research agreed for funding and to give feed-back on proposals that are not recommended. RESEARCH AWARD PROCESS 16. Criteria for Funding Research: Standard formats for the preparation of research proposals are available through the CGP Secretariat, or Agro-ecosystem Directors, together with instructions for completion and submission of proposals ( see Annex 5). Key criteria to be covered in proposals are: a) Eligibility: Applicants shall be: individual scientists or teams of scientists in public, private or involving international institutions. in possession of an academic degree (not less than a masters degree or its equivalent); and the principal investigator should be resident in India b) Relevance: Research proposed shall be: relevant to the development needs of India as identified by the PMC consistent with the identified priorities of the NATP consistent with the Strategic Framework for Agro-ecosystem Research (in the case of proposals relating to specific agro-ecosystems) c) Purpose: Proposals may be of the following types: An initial research grant - typically for a single year to enable the Principal Investigator to form the investigative team or recruit the graduate student (s), put together a detailed research plan and methodology. Typically, an initial grant will involve some form of survey or investigative study, the data from which will be used to develop an overall research plan and experimental design. This research plan may first need to be presented at a workshop which interested outside

8 8 parties would be encouraged to attend. Further funding could be conditional on the successful completion of this stage. A Main Research grant :-to enable the principal investigator and the research team, to undertake the main work proposed. ( The format for Initial and Supporting Research Grants is given in Annex 5) Specialized training may be required in conjunction with either of the above types of research proposal and funds (other than through the CGP) are also available under the HRD component of NATP. The details of training requests should be costed and justified separately, and submitted along with the research proposals (see para 22).. d) Special Focus: Proposals should include the extent to which stakeholders/farmers have been involved in the formulation of the research proposal, the expected impact and means by which the research findings will be disseminated and adopted by the intended beneficiaries/users. the degree to which synergies are to be obtained in carrying out the research through team work, collaboration and linkages with other institutions and the involvement of post-graduates in the research. 17. The following broad descriptions give a general idea of research topics supported by the CGP. Specific areas of investigation will be defined each year by the PMC, and announced publicly. a) Production Systems Research in the Programme Mode: Proposals should; arise from a process of identification that pays due attention to key local development needs, problems or opportunities of the target production system where appropriate, incorporate PRA or other rural diagnostic techniques in their final design, and on-farm and farmer-participatory evaluations of research outputs respond to requirements of circumscribed geographical areas or districts in which the targeted production systems dominate

9 9 involve interactions between scientists from different disciplines, both in the planning and execution/reporting of research, and if possible synergies between institutions help to create new working partnerships between institutions b) Cross-Cutting Research in the Mission Mode: Proposal in this category should; have a sharp focus on concrete outputs achievable in a short to medium time frame. have application across one or more production systems and provide the prospect of enhancing the economic benefits to farmers, the sustainability of the production systems, or enhancing the efficiency of production systems research through generation of databases or new/improved methodologies. ( Under the NATP, particular emphasis is given to the development and dissemination of more environmentally sound technologies in the areas of pest and disease management, and soil and water resource management). c) Strategic Research; Proposal in this category should; concern a topic of high importance in relation to the pursuit of national agricultural research priorities or sectoral policies as defined by the PMC involve frontier sciences, cutting -edge technology or other areas of scientific innovation such as socio-economic studies which are crucial to meeting future sectoral challenges be strategic, in case of having potential to make wide contribution and impact on scientific advances relating to several production systems originate from a team/centre which offers a core of expertise with demonstrated comparative advantage in the topic concerned, as well as an outstanding scientist available to lead the team build a critical mass of technical expertise and promote networking in the topic concerned identify international networks and linkages with which the team will be collaborating in the conduct of the research

10 10 REVIEW AND AWARD PROCESS 18. Initial Review: The first step in selecting proposals for funding is for the CGP Secretariat or Office of the Agro-ecosystem Director to undertake an initial review to determine whether proposals are consistent with the established guidelines and priorities. At the national level, the initial review is done by National Coordinators for Agro-ecosystems assigned to the PMU. At the agro-ecosystem level, the initial review is done by Principal Scientists for Production Systems Research. The Finance Officer also reviews the proposals and comments as appropriate. Among the important criteria to be used in the initial review are the following: whether the proposal has been prepared according to the prescribed format whether the proposal addresses the stated research priorities and needs consistency with the strategic framework for integrated production system research (in the case of specific agro-ecosystem level proposals) whether the indicated budget is within the CGP funding levels and consistent with financial norms. 19. If there are minor deficiencies, the Principal Investigator may be asked to correct the proposal. If there are major deficiencies, the proposal will be rejected and the Principal Investigator and Participating Institution so notified. Where the financing being requested is somewhat different from norms established in ICAR, this would not be cause for rejection of the proposal. Rather the costs in question would be flagged for special consideration during the review process. 20. Technical Review: Each proposal that passes the initial review will be sent to at least two peer reviewers who are specialists in the subject area of the proposal. Each will review and rank proposals according to the criteria given in Annex 6. Each peer reviewer will give:

11 11 detailed critiques of the proposals, a copy of which will be sent by the CGP Secretariat or office of the Agro-ecosystems Director (as appropriate). These will be sent to the Principal Investigator for the purpose of providing feed-back and guidance to the researchers involved. confidential reports with the above recommendations regarding funding. This will not be sent to the Principal Investigator 21. Peer reviewers would remain anonymous to the PI. They are also required to observe confidentiality and avoid conflict of interest. The CGP Secretariat and Agro-ecosystems Director receives research proposals in confidence and is responsible for protecting the confidentiality of their contents. Peer reviewers should refrain from copying, quoting or otherwise using material from the proposal. If a Peer Reviewer discovers a conflict of interest in providing assessment, he/she should disqualify himself/herself. 22. Award and Grant Conditions: The RRC is authorized to make grants up to Rs25,000,000 (US$702,250 equiv.) without the specific approval of the Project Management Committee (PMC). The RRC may, however refer any matter to the PMC for clarification. Agro-ecosystem Directors are authorized to approve proposals up to Rs 5,000,000 (US $ 140,450 equiv.) upon the recommendation of the Scientific Review Panel. Proposals recommended for funding above that level are sent through the CGP Secretariat for approval by the RRC. At both the agroecosystem level and at the level of the RRC, Principal Investigators would be invited to present their proposals where there are issues requiring further clarification. Funding requests for specialized training may be included in the grant award. Where such costs amount to more than 10% of the grant, however, they would be submitted to the RRC through the CGP Secretariat for approval and/or possible funding under the HRD component of NATP. 23. The research grants are primarily for the provision of operational expenses to carry out research, including the cost of coordination/supervision by the PI of the research team and the records kept by the respective institutions. Some capital expenditures would be permitted, but these are expected to be modest, especially in

12 12 the case of mission mode applied research. Strategic or basic research may require moderate capital expenditures for equipment etc. Any such expenditures which individually or collectively are estimated to cost more than 10% of the grant award, as well as any international travel, training and consultancies require specific justification. Modest costs for manpower requirements (research assistants, technicians and casuals) will be permitted. The CGP/ICAR would have no liability of any kind for staff employed through the grant. Any positions filled would be coterminus with the project. Participating Institutions are expected to provide substantial support (in cash or kind) for the proposed research project. This should be detailed in the proposal and will be taken into account in the review process. 24 Funds will be awarded for up to three years, and may be extended up to a maximum of five years. An extension of up to six months will be routinely granted if they are for report writing and no additional costs are involved. ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES 25. Invitation for Research Proposals: For research that is strategic in nature or involves more than one agro-ecosystem, the CGP Secretariat will publish the Invitation for Research Proposals in daily newspapers. Proposals will be requested according to the priorities established by the PMC for the NATP. (Proposals may be solicited from institutions known to have particular expertise). For research on a specific agro-ecosystem or production system, proposals would be commissioned from among the institutions and scientific community having expertise relevant to the research priorities established for that agro-ecosystem. The Principal Scientists for each Production System would have the primary responsibility for informing and promoting the needed research among relevant scientists, and institutions, both public and private, in the agro-ecosystem.. Proposal would be encouraged in a way that would provide for an integrated research approach to the constraints and longer term needs of farmers at the production system level.

13 13 For both of the above, (para - and -) applications must be made on the CGP Application Form (Annex 5 ), and be in accordance with the guidelines provided. The Principal Investigator and the Participating Institution should also submit a signed Certification of Undertaking (Annex 6) with the application, giving the formal undertaking for the work including certification that proposals and proposed expenditures have been found satisfactory by a Site Team comprised of relevant staff from the Institutions involved. Copies of the forms may be used. The Principal Investigator must submit ten copies of the completed application to the CGP Secretariat or to the Agro-ecosystem Director (as appropriate). Applications must be typed. 26. Registration of Applications: Each application received will be given a CGP code number and entered into a register. This will be done whether the proposals are received by the CGP Secretariat or by Agro-ecosystems Directors. Agro-ecosystem Directors will forward to the CGP Secretariat a copy of all proposals that meet the pre-screening criteria and which are sent for peer review. All research proposals will be filed and treated as confidential documents by the CGP Secretariat and Agro-ecosystem Directors. 27. Finalizing of the MOU: When an application is approved either by the RRC or the Agro-ecosystems Director, the FA DARE, or responsible Financial Officer at the agro-ecosystem level, is notified and an MOU entered into between the CGP, and the Participating Institution, where not covered adequately by an existing MOU. The CGP code number will be quoted on all accounting documents to facilitate appropriate posting of expenditures according to the source of funds 28. The CGP Secretariat or Agro-ecosystem Director (as appropriate) undertakes to ensure timely and regular disbursement of funds, payment of overheads and scheduled reporting to the PMU. Upon completion of the project, equipment provided by the CGP will normally become the property of the Participating Institution unless otherwise previously agreed.

14 The Participating Institution undertakes to administer the agreed work in an efficient manner and to provide the laboratory space, salaries and other facilities and services necessary for the project, consistent with the cost-sharing arrangement detailed in the proposal. The Participating Institution also undertakes to assist in monitoring the implementation of the project. The full cost of this shall be borne by the Participating Institution (see para--). If the Participating Institution is unable to complete the work for which a grant has been disbursed, the full amount of uncommitted funds should be returned to the PMU. 30. The Principal Investigator undertakes to implement the project within six months of the release of funds for the research grant.. A co-pi should also be identified in each proposal, in the event the PI is unable to carry on the work for any reason. If substantial implementation is not commenced within six months, the research award shall be withdrawn. The Principal Investigator also undertakes to submit a semi-annual and annual report, as well as a completion report. Inventions or/patents arising out of a project shall be consistent with the prevailing rules and regulations of ICAR. 31. Financial Regulations and Procedures: Funds will be managed by the CGP Secretariat according to the financial regulations and procedures of ICAR. Funds would be released on an annual basis directly to the Participating Institution/Principal investigator in accordance with the duly authorized MOU and the annual funding requirements of the approved research proposal. The procurement of goods and services will be done according to ICAR s procurement regulations and procedures. The CGP Secretariat and the Agro-ecosystems Director are authorized to approve a reallocation of research grant proceeds between budget headings as required. 32. The Participating Institution will ensure the timely preparation and the accuracy of accounting reports. The CGP grant will be audited by the Accountant General Commerce Works and Miscellaneous (AGCWM), or Accountant General

15 15 of the State concerned, or the Examiner of Local Fund Accounts, or statutory Auditors of the Grantee Institutions, or a Chartered Accountant, or ICAR s own internal auditors, as appropriate. Such auditors will furnish to the CGP Secretariat by the end of December of each year, a certificate to the effect that the accounts have been audited and the grant has been spent on the subjects for which it was meant. Any unspent balance should be returned to the CGP Secretariat on the termination of the project. Likewise any such funds returned to the Agroecosystem Director should be returned to the CGF Secretariat. Further grants in respect of the project will be stopped unless the Audit and Utilization Certificates in the prescribed proforma are received within a period of six months from the end of the financial year during which the grant has been made. 34. To meet the costs of the substantial work associated with peer reviewing, providing follow-up and administering large numbers of small research grants, the CGP charges 5% overhead on all funds made available to it. The Participating Institutions responsible for administering individual research, including the contracting of auditors, shall normally be given an institutional service charge of 10 % of the grant amount, excluding non-recurring expenditures to cover all such costs. More than 85% of the research grant award should therefore be passed directly to the research team. 35. Disbursement of Funds: The Participating Institution will submit a request for an advance to cover expenses for the first year s research under different subheads (i.e. salary, recurring contingencies, non-recurring contingencies, etc.) as agreed under the proposal. Requests for disbursement should be sent to the CGP Secretariat for projects approved by the RRC or to the Agro-ecosystem Director (where approved at the agro-ecosystem level). In the case of the latter, the request for release of funds would be sent to the CGP Secretariat following review and clearance by the responsible Financial Officer. Thereafter the request for release of funds shall be accompanied by the Audit and Utilization Certificates wherever necessary. The release of second/subsequent installments of grants will be subject to receipt of satisfactory annual progress reports, audit reports, and Utilization Certificates, by the CGP Secretariat or Agro-ecosystem Director as appropriate.

16 16 However, 10% of the last annual installment will be withheld until the completion report is received, as well as the final Audit and Utilization Certificates, which should include all the liabilities of the last year incurred before, but defrayed after the close of the scheme. 36. Reporting Requirement: The following reporting schedule should be followed. a) A semi-annual progress report will be submitted by each Principal Investigator which records; progress in relation to performance objectives, the schedule of actions, constraints and plans for the next six months. Two copies of each report should be submitted. At the national level the reports are reviewed by the National Coordinators for the various types of research. If follow-up action is required, the National Coordinator records what action was subsequently taken in the space provided at the end of the report. At the Agro-ecosystem level, such reports are reviewed by the Principal Scientist for the Production System concerned. A copy of the report is then sent to the CGP Secretariat along with the comments of the Principal Scientist of any follow-up actions taken. If the report is not received by the office of the Agro-ecosystem Director or the CGP Secretariat within two months after the reporting period, the Participating Institution will be directed to stop further expenditure of funds until the report is received. No further disbursement of grant funds would be approved until the situation is satisfactorily remedied. A draft outline for progress reports is given in Annex 5. b) For projects taking more than one year, an annual report will be required. The report is a detailed description of progress in the year; it summarizes significant results from the previous 12 months work, and provides the work plan and budget for the coming year. If follow-up action is required, the National Coordinator records what action was subsequently taken in the space provided at the end of the report. If progress is unsatisfactory, the CGP Secretariat may, after consultation with the peer reviewers bring this to the attention of the RRC which may terminate the award. At the Agro-ecosystem level, reports are reviewed by the Principal Scientist for the Production System concerned. A copy of the report is then sent to the CGP Secretariat along with the comments of the Principal Scientist of any follow-up actions taken. Similarly, at the agro-ecosystem level, Principal Scientists

17 17 for Production Systems Research would bring unsatisfactory performance to the attention of the Agro-ecosystem Director who may cancel the award. In case of conflict, the decision of the RRC shall be final, and c) A Completion Report is also required. This report should stress results and likely impact. The final payment to the institution will not be issued until the report (and the audit report) is received. 37. All reports will be examined for completeness, attachment of required documentation and relation to the projected expenditure plan. The Participating Institution and/or Principal Investigator may be asked to provide explanations and make additions and corrections. 38. Monitoring and Evaluation: The CGP Secretariat will be responsible for synthesizing the monitoring and evaluation reports from Principal Investigators, for review by the RRC. For projects approved at the agro-ecosystem level, the Principal Scientists for the Production Systems would be responsible for synthesizing the M&E findings and their timely submission to the CGP Secretariat. The CGP Secretariat will also contract for an independent review of the effectiveness and impact of the CGP for the mid-term review of the NATP. 39. The CGP Secretariat and the Agro-ecosystems Director would arrange workshops and seminars to train researchers from wide ranging institutions on how to prepare research proposals, maintain records, and efficiently manage research projects. The CGP Secretariat and the Agro-ecosystems Director may also be requested by the RRC or the Scientific Panel (as appropriate)to arrange selected supervision visits to review; progress in the implementation of projects changes that can be made for those projects that appear to be in trouble whether the reports reflect reality and to gain information to pass on to others as to how to conduct a successful project. 40. Publication and Dissemination: The Competitive Research Grant encourages scientists to publish their results in scientific journals. Publications in

18 18 peer-reviewed international journals provide important support for researchers seeking new funding from the CGP and other agencies. Such publications should be submitted as part of the Annual Report and/or Completion Report. The following acknowledgment should be included in CGP project-funded publications: This research was supported by ICAR (in part, if applicable) under the Competitive Research Grant Programme code number ---. FUNDING SOURCES AND POLICIES 41. Funding of the CGP is currently through the NATP which is supported by an IDA Credit. Over the longer term it is envisioned that the CGP would be established as a Fund (CGF) that could be financed from public and private institutions, donors and individuals. Based on experience with the CGP, additional funding may be sought from other contributors. Earmarking of funds for specific purposes by the contributors could be permitted in such a case, and special conditions relating to proprietary rights and royalties might be considered through addendums to the agreement between the CGP, the Principal Investigator receiving the award and the Participating Institution. To attract industry funding the allocation of matching funds in support of research grants might also be considered.

19 19 Annex 1 Page 1 NATP Project Management Committee (PMC) Terms of Reference Membership: Director General ICAR (Chair), DDGs of ICAR, Additional Sec. MOA/DAC, Joint Sec. MOA/DOE, and National Director PMU: (member/secretary)) Objectives 1. The Project Management Committee (PMC) would have overall responsibility for managing the implementation of the NATP, which inter-alia would include the quality of the research and extension linkage under the project and the refocusing of research around production systems, in line with ICAR s overall institutional objective of making its research effort more responsive to farmer needs. The Committee would have specific responsibilities under the Project for setting the criteria for research, approving projects for funding, and periodically reviewing the efficacy of the process in bringing about a more demand driven, farmer responsive research program and stronger linkages with the technology dissemination process.

20 20 Annex 1 Page 2 Specific Assignments 1. Review and approval of the manual of procedures and standards by which research proposals under the project are to be formulated, reviewed, funded, implemented, monitored and evaluated. 2. Delegation of responsibilities and authority to the Research Review Committee which would be charged with overviewing the research review, approval and implementation under the NATP. 3. Establishment of criteria for research in line with national priorities and the goals of the NATP, 4. Overview and facilitation of inter-disciplinary research collaboration within ICAR and the linkages of ICAR s research with extension services to ensure technology being generated by the research system is adapted to farming systems and responsive to farmer needs. 5. Periodic review of the effectiveness with which the research and technology linkages are being conducted under the project and follow-up with corrective actions as necessary 6. Special focus to ensure cross cutting issues that are central to the sustainability of the production system, particularly pest management (IPM) and soil and water management, are integral components of the production system research and the strategic framework to be developed for each agro-ecosystem. 7. Approval and monitoring of terms of reference for agro-ecosystems Directors under the project which would require that a) all production system research is to be developed within a strategic framework that includes inter -alia i) a comprehensive integrated pest management research program, and ii) an integrated approach to soil productivity management, b) fostering of interdisciplinary teams of researchers and linkages with extension services to

21 21 formulate and implement specific programs to

22 22 Annex 1 Page 3 adapted technologies to be responsive to farmer needs, c) establishment of procedures and the training of staff to ensure i) timely progress and accounts reporting and ii) timely auditing of accounts under the project and d) and overview of the agro-ecosystem to ensure research operational funds are being allocated in proportion to priorities established for the production system, and 8. Orientating the commodity and discipline based research orientation of ICAR to a more production systems mode in order to be more responsive to farmer needs. Schedule of Meetings The PMC would meet at least monthly. The agenda and minutes would be prepared by the National Director PMU in consultation with the DG of ICAR.

23 23 NATP Production Systems Research Annex 2 Page 1 Terms of Reference for Research Review Committee and Peer Reviewers Membership: Universities and Scientific community (two members), Government institutions (two members), Private sector (two members), ICAR Representatives (two members), the manager of the CGP Secretariat (member secretary). Exofficio members CGP donor representatives Background 1. The RRC is the decision making body of the CGP. The committee meets quarterly to overview and guide the operations of the CGP, take decisions on the award of research grants, and approve work plans and budgets prepared by the CGP Secretariat.. The RRC delegates responsibility for the technical review and authority to approve research proposals at the agro-ecosystem level to the appointed Agro-ecosystem Directors and their Scientific review panels (see separate terms of reference). However, The RRC maintains an overview of the scientific review and approval process for all research within the ICAR/SAU system under the NATP, and may take or recommend to the National Steering Committee for NATP, corrective actions as necessary to

24 Responsibilities 24 Annex 2 Page 2 2. The members of the RRC are appointed by and responsible to the National Steering Committee for NATP. They are drawn from universities, the scientific community, government institutions, private sector and ICAR, with the National Director, of the Project Management Unit of NATP (PMU) as member secretary. CGP Donor representatives would be ex-officio members of the RRC. The Chair of the RRC is from outside ICAR and selected on the basis of his/her preeminence in the field of agricultural science. The majority of members of the RRC are from outside ICAR. Members serve for a period of three years, with some staggering of appointment at the end of the first three years to allow for continuity. 3. The committee meets at least quarterly to overview and guide the operations of the CGP, take decisions on the award of research grants, and approve work plans and budgets proposed by the CGP Secretariat. The RRC is authorized to make grants up to Rs25,000,000 (US$702,250 equiv.) without the specific approval of the National Steering Committee for ICAR. Proposals recommended for funding by Agro-ecosystem Directors above Rs 5,000,000 (US $ 140,450 equiv.) are also sent through the CGP Secretariat for approval by the RRC. Funding requests for specialized training may be included in the grant award. Where such costs amount to more than 10% of the grant, however, they would be submitted to the PMU for possible funding under the HRD component of NATP. 4. In carrying out its responsibilities in overviewing the scientific review and approval process for all research within the ICAR/SAU system under the NATP, the RRC may request the CGP Secretariat to arrange selected supervision visits to review; progress in the implementation of projects changes that can be made for those projects that appear to be in trouble whether the reports reflect reality and to gain information to pass on to others as to how to conduct a successful project.

25 Review Process 25 Annex 2 Page 3 The RRC appoints a core panel of some 20 senior professionals representing the range of disciplines involved, who review and comment on research grant proposals. Other peer reviewers may be used, including international experts. The peer reviewers rate research proposals and make recommendations on which the final selection of research proposals for CGP research awards are made by the RRC. A score card for peer reviewers is attached. Peer reviewers provide written feed-back for submission by the CGP Secretariat to the principal investigator for each proposal, both to guide research agreed for funding and to give feed-back on proposals that are not recommended. Peer reviewers may be called upon by the CGP Secretariat to assist in the selective supervision of projects.

26 26 Annex 2 Attachment 1 Peer Review Scorecard Research proposals should be rated against the following criteria. A scoring of 1(low) to 5 (high) should be given for each of the criteria. Criteria would be weighted by the RRC (or Scientific Review Panel at the agro-ecosystem level). Peer reviewers can, however, make additional comments and recommendations to the RRC/Scientific Review Panel regarding the suitability of the proposal for funding. Criteria for Research Proposal Review Ranking (1(low) to 5 (high) 1. Involvement of stakeholders in formulation of the research proposal 2. Scientific merit and quality 3. Appropriateness of the research methodology 4. Likely achievement of objectives within the time-frame and budget indicated 5. Expected economic benefits and identification of monitorable performance indicators. 6. Availability of the necessary research facilities and infrastructure. 7. Proposed approaches to hazardous procedures, environmental concerns and ethical considerations. 8. Availability of the necessary research facilities and infrastructure. 9. Synergies to be obtained from team work and collaboration 10. Involvement of post-graduate students and the contribution to their training

27 Total 27

28 28 Comments of Peer Reviewer: Confidential Annex 2 Attachment 1 cont. Peer Reviewer Recommendation Recommended for funding: Check Category Recommended for funding after minor corrections/revisions have been made Proposal recommended for revision and resubmission Not recommended for funding: Additional Comments for Consideration by the RRC:

29 29 Comments of Peer Reviewer Feed-back to Principal Investigators Annex 2 Attachment 1 cont. Recommended for funding after minor corrections/revisions have been made: Feedback to PI: OR Proposal recommended for revision and resubmission Feedback for PI:: OR Not recommended for funding: Feedback to PI

30 30

31 31 Annex 3 Page 1 NATP Production Systems Research Terms of Reference for A) Agro-Ecosystems Directors B) Principal Scientists for Production System Research, and c) The Technical Review Panel Background Under the National Agriculture and Technology Dissemination Project (NATP), special emphasis is to be given to production systems research to promote multidisciplinary approaches to improving the quality and relevance of new technologies generated by the national agricultural research system (NARS). Specific development objectives comprise the following: Establishment of a new, more problem-oriented and/or demand-led, mode of operation; A shift in the balance of the research portfolio of the ICAR/SAU system to give greater prominence to multi-disciplinary, location-specific research; Sharpening the focus of research on problems of national importance, Increasing the proportion of research output which responds directly to the needs of small-scale farmers, women and disadvantaged groups; Strengthening the work on frontier sciences and socio-economic studies to raise the efficiency and relevance of production system research;

32 32 Annex 3 Page 2 Responsibilities a) Agro-ecosystem Directors To achieve the objective of reorienting ICAR funded research from the traditional commodity/discipline approach to a production systems/inter-disciplinary mode of research, Agro-ecosystem Directors have been appointed for the major agroecosystems and charged with responsibility for promoting and guiding an integrated program of research designed to address the constraints and longer term needs of farmers within the production systems of that agro-ecosystem. Major agrecosystems defined include, i) Arid Zone ii) Coastal Zone, iii) Hill and Mountainous Areas, iv) Irrigated Areas, and v) Rainfed Areas. The overriding responsibility of the Agro-Ecosystems Director would be to: i) Establish, through a bottom-up strategic planning approach, the priority agricultural issues constraining development, ii) Develop a Strategic Framework for the agro-ecosystem within which to guide research designed to meet farmer s needs within their production systems iii) Appoint a Scientific Panel with responsibility for reviewing research proposals generated by research teams within the agro-ecosystem iv) Approving research proposals reviewed and recommended by the Scientific Review Panel. Agro-ecosystem Directors may approve research proposals upon the recommendation of the Scientific Review Panel, up to a limit of Rs 5,000,000 ( US $140,450 equiv.). Proposals recommended for funding and exceeding this amount are sent to the RRC for approval, and

33 33 Annex 3 Page 3 iii) Coordinate the various research efforts ongoing in the agro-ecosystem and promote their integration within a production systems approach iv) Ensure that the priority production and socio-economic conditions of farmers are being addressed in a comprehensive way through the research programs iii) Strengthen the dissemination of technologies through the forging of closer links with the extension services, and iv) Put in place a monitoring and evaluation system so as to have feedback on the effectiveness of the overall research program at the production system level, and v) Preparing semi-annual and annual progress reports for the Project Management Committee on the status of achievements under the NATP within the agro-ecosystem.. The Agro-Ecosystem Director is accountable to the Project Management Committee (PMC), which is chaired by the Director General of ICAR. The PMC gives full authority to the Agro-Ecosystem Director to carry out the responsibilities listed above. All research proposals for funding under the CGP relating specifically to the agro-ecosystem should be reviewed at the agro-ecosystem level b) Principal Scientists for Production System Research The agro-ecosystem Directors would be assisted by Principal Scientists for Production System Research. The would also be appointed by ICAR and charged with the following responsibilities.

34 34 Annex 3 Page 4 i) Assisting the Agro-ecosystem Director in the preparation of a Strategic Framework for Agro-ecosystem research to guide the overall direction of research and technology dissemination and to guide the formulation of research proposals ii) Promoting and coordinating an integrated approach to Production System Research within the production system for which they are responsible. iii) Leading and consensus building among scientists, and institutions, both public and private, in the production system as to the constraints and longer term needs of farmers. iv) Conducting the initial review of proposal received at the agro-ecosystem level for consideration under the CGP, and v) Sending proposals for peer review and processing peer reviewer comments for consideration by the Technical Panel. c) Scientific Review Panel Each Agro-ecosystem Director is responsible for appointing a Scientific Review Panel upon clearance by the RRC which undertakes the technical review and makes funding recommendations to the Agro-ecosystem Director. The scientific competency of the Scientific Review Panel parallels that of the RRC in that the members are drawn from universities, the scientific community, government institutions, private sector and ICAR. A representative of the CGP Secretariat is also a member. The Chair of the RRC is from outside ICAR and selected on the basis of his/her preeminence in the field of agricultural science. The majority of members of the RRC are from outside ICAR. Members serve for a period of three years, with some staggering of appointment at the end of the first three years to allow for continuity.