GPAF IMPACT PROPOSAL FORM (for Round 4)

The Proposal documentation provides detailed information about your proposed project. This information is used to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the initiative and will ultimately inform the DFID funding decisions. It is very important you read the GPAF Impact Window - Guidelines for Applicants and related documents before you start working on your Proposal to ensure that you understand and take into account the relevant funding criteria. Please also consider the GPAF Impact Round 2 Proposals - Key Strengths and Weaknesses document which has been prepared following the appraisal of the full proposals submitted to previous rounds of GPAF Impact. This document identifies the generic strengths and weaknesses of proposals submitted in relation to the key assessment criteria .

How: You must submit a Microsoft Word version of your Proposal and associated documents by email to gpafimpact@tripleline.com . The Proposal Form should be completed using Arial font size 12. We do not require a hard copy. When: Proposal documentation must be received by the GPAF Fund Manager (Triple Line/Crown agents) by: 23:59 (GMT) on 28th April 2014. Proposal documents that are received after the deadline will not be considered. What: You should submit the following documents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Project Schedule or Gantt Chart: All applicants must provide a project schedule or Gantt chart to show the scheduling of project activities (please use your own format for this).

Please complete the checklist provided in section 9 before submitting your proposal.1

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

SECTION 1: INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPLICANT1.1 Organisation name1.2 Main contact person Name: Nuwa Serunjogi

Position: Programme Funding Advisor DFIDEmail: nuwa.serunjogi@tearfund.orgTel:

1.3 2nd contact person Name: Amy Cummings Position: Programme Funding Coordinator Email: amy.cummings@tearfund.org Tel:

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

SECTION 2: BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT2.1 Concept Note Reference No. IMP-04-CN-2114

2.2 Project title Sustainably increasing household purchasing power and assets through livelihood strengthening and diversification for 17,444 very poor pastoralists in the Abalak region of Niger.

2.3 Country(ies) where project is to be implemented

Republic of Niger, West Africa

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

Communes of Abalak, Akbounou, Azey and Tamaya, Abalak Department, Tahoua Region, Niger.

2.5 Duration of grant request (in months)

36

2.6 Project start date (month and year)

January 1st, 2015

2.7 Total project budget? (In GBP sterling)

£1,179,3821

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

£884,536

75%

2.9 Year 1 funding requested from DFID

£70,088

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

Niger 100%

2.11 Match funding: source(s), amounts, secured or not secured. Please enter match-funding details in the table below (add rows if necessary).

2

Source of funding

Year 1 (£) Year 2 (£) Year 3 (£) Year 4 (£) Total (£) Secured? (Y/N)

Tearfund £23,363 £140,.079 £101,147 £30,257 £294,8465 Y

Total (£) £23,363 £140,079 £101,147 £30,257 £294,8465 Y

2.12 ACRONYMSPlease list all acronyms used in your application in alphabetical order and write out each one in full. You may add more rows if necessary

Acronym Explanation

COFOB Commission Foncière de Base (site level land tenure committee)COFOCOM Commission Foncière Communal (Commune level land tenure committee)COFODEP Commission Foncière Départemental (Dept level land tenure committee)

Co-op Co-operativeDRR Disaster Risk ReductionGNI Gross National IncomeHEA Household Economy ApproachIGA Income generating activityIOM Isle of ManTEARFUND’S PARTNER

Tearfund’s Partner

MDG 1 sub-target a

Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1.25 a day

MDG 1 sub-target b

Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people

MDG 1 sub-target c

Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian AffairsPDES Plan for Economic and Social DevelopmentPRA Participatory Rural AppraisalSIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation AgencyTLU Tropical Livestock Unit. One TLU is equivalent to 250 kg of live weight. A

TLU is equal to a cow and calf, fifteen sheep or 20 goats.UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster ReductionUNHDI United Nations Human Development IndexUNMPHTF United Nations Millennium Project Hunger Task ForceWFP World Food Programme

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

(insert '1' for primary focus area; '2' for secondary focus area and; '3' for tertiary focus area) NB: For this Round (4) the thematic focus is on Jobs and Livelihoods. DFID is seeking

3

projects that are focused on bringing tangible change to poor people’s lives through raising household incomes and improving livelihoods. Agricultural production Governance

Appropriate Technology Health (general)

Business advice and support HIV/AIDS / Malaria / TB

Business (incl. technical) skills Housing

Child Labour Income Generation 1

Child Rights / Child Protection Justice

Climate Change Land

Conflict / Peace building Livestock

Cooperatives Market analysis / information

Core Labour Standards Market access / promotion

Disability Media

Drugs Mental Health

Economic assets Microfinance (Credit, Savings and Loans) 3

Education & Literacy Reproductive Health / FGM

Enterprise development Rural Livelihoods

Environment Slavery / Trafficking

Fisheries / Forestry Trade

Food Security Water & Sanitation

Gender 2 Violence against women / girls / children

Other: (please specify)

3.2 Which of the following Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is the project contributing to (if any)? - Please identify between one and three MDGs in order of priority (insert '1' for primary MDG focus area; '2' for secondary MDG focus area and; '3' for tertiary MDG focus area) NB: For this Round (4) the primary MDG must be MDG 1.1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger 12. Achieve universal primary education

3. Promote gender equality and empower women 2

4. Reduce child mortality

5. Improve Maternal Health

6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

7. Ensure environmental sustainability 3

8. Develop a global partnership for development

None of the above (please explain in section 3.3)

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

4

you are using to determine whether or not they are “off track”. How will this project support the national government’s commitment to achieving identified MDGs? Your response should also inform section 4.3.

Niger is extremely poor, ranked 186 in the UN HDI, with 59.6% of its 17.16m people living below the national poverty line (MDG1 sub-target 1A). It has a population growth rate of 3.8% and GNI of $390, which is well below the GNI of the rest of West Africa1. Official unemployment moves between 10 and 16%, however 54% of the population is considered inactive at any given time due to agricultural and occasional livelihoods.2 (MDG 1 sub-target 1B). Currently 24.47% of Nigeriens are food insecure (MDG 1 sub-target 1C). Niger is one of the 20 countries in the world that has been classified as making no progress towards MDG 13. Some 84% of Nigeriens live in rural areas and about 53% of the population are considered rural and poor4. Pastoral households in the Abalak Dept (Tahoua Region) of Niger has been targeted for this project. Progress towards MDG1 is particularly poor among this group and in this area evidenced by: Average income at proposed sites is reported at about $US 0.93/person/day along with low

levels of household assets, as herd size is 75% below sustainable levels in most households. The poorest households (68% of total) have average incomes of $0.78.5 Commodity prices remain at 2012 crisis levels6.

Unemployment is very high - Tahoua region has the highest official unemployment in Niger. Chronic vulnerability and food insecurity are creating hunger. A 71% cereal deficit and a 67%

pasture deficit reported in October 2013 have caused yet another crisis7. Over 104 communities in the Department are extremely vulnerable. (MDG 1 sub-target 1C).

Livestock is ranked second in exports accounting for 12 to 16% of GDP. The livestock sector is very vulnerable to climate related shocks which threaten the national economy and hinder progress towards MDG1. In 2010, for example, a drought caused a 70% stock loss for pastoralists nationwide. Progress towards MDG 3 and MDG 7 in Niger remains slow. The World Bank states that the share of women in non-agricultural employment is 36% nationally.8 However, in the project area, communal authorities estimate that this figure is less than 12%. In most pastoral households, women’s involvement in household income generation is minimal. Forests have been reduced from 8% of Niger’s surface area in 1990, to just 5.1% in 2010.9 Overgrazing, climate change and encroachment by farmers is destroying thousands of hectares of pasture and forest land each year in the Abalak Dept. and there is a huge loss of bio-diversity as grass and tree species disappear. In terms of sub-targets 7A and 7B, there is no advancement towards MDG7. Both the Nigerien government’s PDES10 and the related strategy of Initiative 3N11 recognize the need to secure and increase production in the livestock sector in order to reduce poverty in Niger. They also emphasize the role of women and environmental sustainability in development. This programme fits well with and supports both PDES and Initiative 3N not only because of its impact on the livestock sector but because of its approach which reduces poverty by: 1) Securing and improving primary livelihoods (MDG 1); 2) Diversifying income generation activities (MDG 1); 3) Empowering women with greater income generating capacity and opportunity (MDG 3); and 4) 1 World Bank (2013) http://data.worldbank.org/country/niger, January 6, 2014.2 Rapport national sur les progrès vers l’atteinte des Objectifs du millénaire pour le développement. INS Niger, 20123 Fanzo and Pronk, (2010). WFP/UNDP http://www.undg.org/docs/10869/Evaluation-of-Progress-on-MDG1-Hunger-Target.100106.pdf January 6,2014.4 Rural poverty in Niger. http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/home/tags/niger. March 13, 2014.5 This data comes from a March 2014 survey of 279 households at TEARFUND’S PARTNER sites and proposed sites. Income includes daily revenue and total household animal capital. 6 HEA surveys at sample site in the Abalak Department, and market surveys. TEARFUND’S PARTNER March 2014.7 Région de Tahoua, Département D’Abalak, CSR/PGCA/Abalak, Evaluation De La Campagne Agro-Sylvo-Pastorale et Hydraulique 2013-2014, 15 Décembre 2013.8 http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/1.5. March 2014.9 Rapport national sur les progrès vers l’atteinte des Objectifs du millénaire pour le développement. INS Niger, 201210 Niger Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, Economic and Social Development Plan, 2012-2015, Ministry of Planning, Land Management and Community Development. IMF country report N0 13/105.11 Initiative 3N Pour La Securité Alimentaire et Nutritionelle et le Dévelopment Agricole Durables « Les Nigeriens Nourissent Les Nigeriens ». Haute Commissariat à L’Initiative 3N, 2012.

5

Promoting these activities in an environmentally sustainable way (MDG 7). The lack of women involved in income generation in pastoral society represents a clear gender-biased obstacle to progress towards MDG1. This is why this programme will place a very heavy emphasis on empowering women.3.4 Please list any of DFID’s standard or suggested outcome and output indicators that

this project will contribute to. Please refer to the Standard Indicators document on the GPAF website. Please note that if stated here, these indicators also need to be explicit in your logframe.

Output 1.2: No. of households assisted with livestock inputs and servicesOutput 1.3: Number of livestock owners satisfied with the quality of livestock servicesOutput 4.3: Gender equality: Percentage new jobs occupied by womenOutput 5.3: Number (%) of people receiving DFID-supported training in natural resource management (or improved agricultural/ fishing practices or biodiversity conservation)

SECTION 4: PROJECT DETAILS4.1 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 may be used for dissemination of information about the fund and should relate to the outcome statement in the logframe).

This programme will contribute to the reduction of extreme poverty (MDG 1) in 1,780 vulnerable pastoral households (about 17,444 individuals) in the Abalak Dept. of Niger. Specifically, through the development of safe, productive, sustainable, strengthened and diversified livelihoods especially empowering women, at least 75% of these beneficiary households will be living above the level of $1.25/person/day by the end of the project. 4.2 PROJECT DESIGN PROCESS

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

Tearfund has been working in partnership with TEARFUND’S PARTNER to design this project and have used the HEA and PRA to gather data from beneficiary households ensuring participation from all the various groups in the community, especially women and the elderly. The data gathered allowed TEARFUND’S PARTNER and Tearfund to assess impacts of past projects on livelihood strengthening and the diversification of activities (animal loans and pilot micro-credit co-ops) from a beneficiary perspective. Feedback from communal (elected) officials, govt extension service workers and tribal authorities have also contributed to the development of the ideas. In late 2013 TEARFUND’S PARTNER did research in communities where it has not worked to get more data related to MDG1 to help in the design and to scale up this programme. Tearfund as the lead partner has supplied technical feedback and extensive counsel on programme development and donor relations. No outside consultants have been used.

6

4.3 PROJECT CONTEXT (PROBLEM STATEMENT)Describe the context for the proposed project? Why have the particular project location(s) and target groups been selected and at this particular time? What specific aspects of poverty is the project aiming to address and how are these affecting the lives of the target groups? What are the causal factors leading to poverty and/or disadvantage? What gaps in jobs and livelihoods have been identified? How has your proposal considered existing services or initiatives? Please also refer to your response to section 3.3 (fit with MDGs) when answering this section. NB: You must present your own analysis of the specific context(s) and the rationale for selection of the beneficiary target groups with reference to relevant MDG targets.

This programme targets very poor pastoral households in the Abalak Dept. who are highly vulnerable to climatic and economic shock. It specifically targets women, and where possible single female headed households where poverty is pervasive. 92% of beneficiaries surveyed at potential sites are living below the poverty line of $1.25/person/day. The average household income is $0.93. (This includes daily revenue and the value of total household animal capital). The poorest households have only $0.78 per person/day.12 24% percent13 of the general population is vulnerable to environmental and economic shocks and are food insecure. Household economies have been shrinking since 2005 making negative progress towards MDG1 and its sub-targets. Pastoralists form an underprivileged group in Niger, and have been hard hit by recurrent drought since 2005, especially in Abalak. Investment for drought recovery and livelihood strengthening and diversification has been insufficient in Abalak, which is in the centre of Niger’s pastoral zone with one of the biggest animal markets in the country. It is also in Tahoua Dept. where unemployment and vulnerability levels are the greatest in the country. Six key factors will be addressed which impede progress towards MDG1 in the Abalak Dept:(1) Lack of primary livelihood recovery from successive droughts. Such crises are increasing in frequency. Crises in 2005, 2010 and 2012 erode people’s ability to recover from each previous drought.14 Beneficiaries have on average 3 Tropical Livestock units (TLU),15 about 25% of a sustainable herd size16 and an average income of $0.93. The resulting lack of purchasing power affects food security with the average beneficiary household consuming 0.62kg/person/day of cereal which is below the national standard reducing progress towards MDG1 sub target C.(2) Conflict nationally and in the region has stopped much of the seasonal migration by men and sometimes women to neighbouring counties to raise income, a coping mechanism in times of stress. Our data shows that households run by single women (husband on seasonal migration, divorce or widowed) have incomes of $0.73/person/day. (3) A small percentage of women participate in income generation. This is an underdeveloped and underestimated opportunity. This problem slows progress towards MDGs 1 and 3.(4) Insufficient livelihood diversification. TEARFUND’S PARTNER’s recent surveys and discussions with stakeholders show that pastoralists understand that livelihood diversification and an increased role of women in income generation are needed to support their households during the annual hunger gap and in bad years. There are few formal wage-based jobs in the Abalak Dept. People lack the capital, capacity and knowledge of opportunities which will enable them to develop preferred secondary income generating activities for themselves. This impacts upon MDGs 1 and 3.(5) The lack of access to markets. Individual beneficiaries do not have the financial resources necessary to bring their animals directly to southern markets and are often forced to sell their

12 March 2014 survey of 279 households by TEARFUND’S PARTNER.13 2014 Plan de Réponse Stratégique, Niger. OCHA, EHP, Janvier 2014.14 P. Gubbels (2012) – ‘Ending the Everyday Emergency’15 Tropical Livestock Unit. One TLU is equivalent to 250 kg of live weight. A TLU is equal to a cow and calf, fifteen sheep or 20 goats.16 TEARFUND’S PARTNERs past PRA surveys and follow up show that average households need 12 TLUs for sustainability, with no other income generating activity.

7

animals at local markets or on site and get the lowest prices, especially in crisis times. Middlemen will buy up the animals in quantity and sell them at southern markets where prices are highest(6) Poor natural resource management. Proper management of shared natural resources (pasture and forests) will directly impact the livelihoods of the beneficiaries, improving animal production. This is especially true for women and female headed households who often depend on the pasture close to the site for their animals. They cannot easily pick up and move 100 klms or more to find pasture. The existing ‘pastoral code’ allows for complete mobility and access of animals to pasture.17 However, it does not provide any methods for controlling or managing the number of animals which can have access to an area of pasture or for how long. Overgrazing causes resource degradation impacting most resident herders. This degradation impedes progress towards MDGs 1 and 7, and poses a grave threat to the national economy in the long term. Existing services and initiatives to combat poverty in Niger have had a role in shaping this project. The goals and aspiration of PDES and Initiative 3N are reflected in this project’s objectives.

4.4 DIRECT AND INDIRECT BENEFICIARIES Who will be the direct beneficiaries of your project and how many will be expected to benefit directly from the project intervention? Please describe the direct beneficiary group(s) under a), differentiating sub-groups where possible, and provide numbers for each sub-category; and then provide a total number in b).

DIRECT: a) Description: Beneficiaries will be extremely poor and vulnerable or extremely vulnerable Tuareg and Wodaabe pastoralists. Priority will be given to households run by single women or widows, or where the men are absent due to migration. Of the 17,444 people approximately 1,221 are people living with disabilities, based on the national statistics.

b) Number Rural Urban TotalTotal 15,680 1,764 17,444Adult Male 2,822 318 3140Adult Female (Female Headed HH)

3,450 388 3,838(304) (60) (364)

Child Male 4,390 494 4,884Child Female 5,018 564 5,582

Who will be the indirect (wider) beneficiaries of your project intervention and how many will benefit? Please describe the indirect beneficiary group(s) and numbers for each category under a) and then provide a total number in b).

INDIRECT: a) Description: They will benefit as they will be selling the animals that the programme purchases, and from increased availability of goods and services developed through the micro credit programme. Their livelihoods will also be strengthened through the development of sustainable resource management practices. Of the 4,361 people approximately 305 will be people living with disabilities, based on the national statistics.

b) Number Rural Urban TotalTotal 3,920 441 4,361Adult Male 705 79 784Adult Female (Female Headed HH)

863 97 960(76) (15) (91)

Child Male 1,097 124 1,221Child Female 1,255 141 1,396

Household size has been determined18 through monitoring of over 150 households in 3 communes

17 Pastoral Code, 2010, Article 3.18 In response to Triple Line Consulting Appraisal and Feedback Letter Point Number 1.

8

in the Abalak Dept. since 2011. The average size of 9.8 is larger than the size commonly used in Niger. This is a result of recurrent drought and the return of many migrant workers from Libya due to conflict. Poor and destitute individuals move in with relatives.

4.5 POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTPlease describe the anticipated real and practical impact of the project in terms of poverty reduction. How does the proposal demonstrate a clear line of sight to poverty reduction? What changes are anticipated in the lives of the main beneficiary groups identified in 4.4 within the lifetime of the project? At what scale or magnitude are these changes envisaged?

This programme will contribute to the reduction of extreme poverty (MDG1) in 1,780 of the most vulnerable pastoral households (about 17,444 individuals) in the Abalak Dept of Niger through the development of safe, productive and sustainable livelihoods. Specifically, through diversifying livelihoods poverty will be reduced in 1,780 pastoral households with at least 75% of those households living above the level of $1.25/person/day by the end of the programme.Impacts on MDG 1 sub-target A The programme will strengthen and improve livelihoods. Average household incomes will

increase by at least 20% and household assets by 30%. 75% of households will rise above the poverty line of $1.25/person/day.

The programme will improve market access for at least 80% of beneficiary households; The programme will diversify livelihoods, making household economies more crisis resilient. Households will be aware of and engage in diversified livelihoods (80% will have two or more IGAs) Impacts on MDG 1 sub-target B and MDG 3 The programme will empower and promote women. Women in at least 50% of households will

be involved in the primary IGA and 30% in the secondary IGA giving them independent income and improved status. This will be introduced in a way that will help remove the gender biased barrier and which will allow men to promote and better support their wives.

The programme will educate women (and men) who will become literate, financially literate and receive management and technical training;

The programme will create opportunities for young men and women to have livelihoods.Impacts on MDG 1 sub-target CBy improving income the programme will enable households to purchase food and increase cereal consumption to at or above national standards, thereby reducing hunger. Impacts on MDG 7 sub-targets A and B: The programme will enable communities to develop shared natural resources, increasing the sustainability of pastoral livelihoods, reducing environmental damage and degradation of pasture land. This will maintain and eventually improve bio-diversity in pasture and forest systems.

4.6 PROJECT APPROACH / METHODOLOGYPlease provide details on the project approach or methodology proposed to address the problem(s) you have defined in section 4.3, and achieve the impact and changes anticipated in 4.5. You should justify why you consider this approach to be the most effective way in which 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. Be realistic and not over ambitious.

Output 1: Primary livelihood strengthened: The primary pastoralist livelihood will be strengthened through a revolving animal loan programme similar to one TEARFUND’S PARTNER has been running for almost 20 years. This will increase animal capital (household assets) by 30% to at least 7 TLU. The number of women owning livestock will increase by at least 800 by the end of the project. This will help resolve problems 1, 2 and 3. Increasing livestock numbers will allow young male animals to be sold, increasing income and assets. The design of the programme ensures that participation of women in livelihood activities will increase by 50%, above initial levels. Men quickly

9

grow to appreciate the increased income and become more open to women getting involved in other IGAs. This helps remove a cultural gender-biased barrier to MDG1. Output 2: Market access improved: TEARFUND’S PARTNER will increase the percentage of beneficiaries de-stocking and re-provisioning with food items in southern markets. This activity has been introduced successfully by TEARFUND’S PARTNER since 2005. A community can transport by lorry a large number of animals to southern markets, where prices for animals are up to 50% higher so they do not lose profit to middlemen. Purchases of food and commodities are also much cheaper. This is a community run and funded activity which isn’t paid for by the project. Output 3: Increased awareness of different income generating activities and capacity to engage in them among male and female beneficiaries: Beneficiary awareness and capacity of income generating activities will be improved using Tearfund’s ‘Think Livelihood Toolkit’ which is designed to help individuals in the community assess their own skills, assets and market opportunities. TEARFUND’S PARTNER will empower beneficiaries, especially women and female heads of households (widows, divorced etc.) through education. There are opportunities based on market research (TEARFUND’S PARTNER 2013) and based on experience in past projects in: 1) Small commerce: Trading in animals and or animal products; trading in bulk foodstuffs such as grain, flour and oil; trading in fuel; trading in animal fodder; trading in fabric and clothing; 2) Vocational / technical: Tailors/seamstress; welding and mechanics; baking and food; brick making; 3) Agricultural: Market gardening; 4) Transport: Transport of people and goods to town and market. These feasible IGA’s will be promoted to the community through PRA methods.19 Output 4: Livelihoods in beneficiary households diversified through micro-credit: The programme will provide capital to beneficiary households helping them put knowledge and skills gained from Output 3 to practical and beneficial use increasing the number of income generating activities especially for women, improving progress towards MDGs1 and 3.TEARFUND’S PARTNER will work with existing site level (community) credit co-operatives or create new ones where none exist. Co-operatives will be trained in basic management and will be legally constituted; they will receive the initial capital from the programme (CFA 1,000,000 equal to €1,522), as a grant. They will then make loans to co-operative members (membership starts at around 50 people, and members will receive training). At least 30% of loan recipients will be women, with a preference for female headed households where possible. Six urban cooperatives will also be set up targeting larger urban centres (Abalak, Tamaya, Akbounou). Output 5: Communities develop shared livelihood resources, strengthening livelihood sustainability: Proper management of shared natural resources (pasture and forests) will directly impact the livelihoods of all beneficiaries, improving animal production and livelihood sustainability.20 This is especially true for women and female headed households who often depend on the pasture close to the site and cannot move 100 klms or more to find pasture. Local management of shared natural resources by the communities living where the resources are found is crucial for long term livelihood sustainability. The only legal way for communities to do this at present is by establishing a COFOB. TEARFUND’S PARTNER has successfully established a COFOCOM and COFOBs. Pastoralists have no formal land tenure since pasturelands are considered as common land belonging to the state, and there is no active pasture management in the Dept. Pastoralists have what the law calls a “Terroir d’attache” or a home territory. The pastoral code gives the residents of these terroirs the right to priority use of the pasture and forests within the territory. This right can only be given to official local land tenure groups (COFOB). These are created by training a local committee in the laws and regulations and basic management practices. The area in question is mapped. The committee is given an official mandate to manage their area. The programme will increase the number of functioning COFOCOM and COFOB, increase the number of women in positions and will increase the number of beneficiaries with improved understanding of existing laws and codes as they relate to pastoralism. This will help resolve the problem of poor natural resource management and environmental degradation (Problem 6). It will improve the long term sustainability of the primary livelihood locally, and the livestock sector nationally, improving

19 In response to Triple Line Consulting Appraisal and Feedback Letter Point Number 420 In response to Triple Line Consulting Appraisal and Feedback Letter Point Number 3.

10

progress towards MDGs 1 and 7. It will also serve as a platform for developing advocacy.Programme time scale and overall approach: To maximize impact, the activities take place close together in time to reinforce one another. This integrated approach is community led, participatory and increases good community governance. This project uses an approach suggested by the UNMPHTF which strengthens agricultural (livestock) livelihoods, increases diversity in income generating activities and increasing access to capital. TEARFUND’S PARTNER capitalizes on its in depth knowledge and understanding of the culture, context and its learned ability to operate among pastoralists.

4.7 SUSTAINABILITY AND SCALING-UPHow will you ensure that the benefits of the project are sustained? Please provide details of any ways in which you see this initiative leading to other funding or being scaled up through work done by others in the future. Describe how and when this may occur and the factors that would make this more or less likely. Please identify how you will mitigate risks to sustainability particularly those that are dependent on handing over responsibility for delivery to others or rely upon a commitment from the beneficiaries. You should also include any significant risks and mitigation measures in section 7.1.

First generation TEARFUND’S PARTNER sites were able to diversify IGA’s and did not request drought assistance in 2010 or 2012. Improved capital enabled funding from different livelihoods during times of crisis.21 IGA’s now exist in activities which were not heavily impacted by climate shocks. Experience at newer sites has shown us that combining micro-credit and an animal loan can help households achieve these outputs faster, improving sustainability and value for money. A key to sustainability is that people are empowered by having the choice and ability to manage resources themselves. The first significant risk to sustainability is climate related disaster and crisis which is mitigated by helping develop diversified livelihoods with income generating activities. Further mitigation is achieved through women (traditionally non-combatants) being involved in income generation. They will have the ability to provide for their families even if the men are absent. TEARFUND’S PARTNER training and education mitigates against both risks, as knowledge will remain after drought or conflict has passed. The exit strategy is straightforward since after initial follow up, the NGO is simply no longer needed. COFOB’s continue which is a local government process. The number of beneficiaries INCREASES even after the funding is finished. The combination of activities and the land management component make it easily replicable. Scaling up: TEARFUND’S PARTNER has 25 years of experience in Abalak and Tearfund has supported TEARFUND’S PARTNER throughout, and has worked hard to raise TEARFUND’S PARTNER’s capacity and to help scale up TEARFUND’S PARTNERs work.

4.8 CAPACITY BUILDING, EMPOWERMENT & ADVOCACYIf your proposal includes capacity building, empowerment and/or advocacy elements, please explain how they these elements contribute to the achievement of the project's outcome and outputs? Please explain clearly why your project includes these elements, and what specific targets you have identified. Please also refer to the Additional Guidance on Empowerment and Accountability on the GPAF web page.

21 Gearheart, R. 2011. A Study to Improve and Enhance Understanding of DRR in the Pastoral Areas of Niger11

At the outset Tearfund will facilitate a start-up workshop covering compliance, quality standards and project planning using an interactive approach. Tearfund will provide a gender workshop to increase awareness of how to empower women. Women are targeted especially, female heads of households, empowering them financially to make more decisions in the household. Tearfund will provide an advocacy workshop increasing the capacity of TEARFUND’S PARTNER and the beneficiaries to obtain rights from duty bearers. COFOBs and COFOCOMs will be strengthened, directly increasing the choices individuals have in managing the lands they live on giving them the ability to know and request their rights by increasing the amount of information available to them and teaching them about channels of access to decision authorities. The programme will advocate for women’s rights within the community, removing gender stereotypes around income generating activities and removing a gender biased obstacle to progress towards MDG1.4.9 GENDER AND SOCIAL INCLUSION

How will the project impact positively on issues of gender and social inclusion? How are you defining social differentiation and addressing any barriers to inclusion which

exist in the location(s) where you are working? Please be specific in relation to gender, age, disability, HIV/AIDs and other relevant categories depending on the context (e.g. caste, ethnicity etc.). How does the project take these factors into account? How is gender mainstreamed and promoted in your project and in your organisation? What analytical tools are you using to identify different needs and priorities of women and men, boys and girls, and excluded groups? Please also refer to the document Gender and the Global Poverty Action Fund on the GPAF website.

This project specifically targets women especially single female heads of households. These are some of the most marginalized groups in pastoral society. This programme is designed to empower women in each output and activity. 20% of beneficiary households are headed by single females. Disabled and elderly people are also included as direct beneficiaries. The baseline survey will determine the exact numbers. The PRA and HEA approaches used in project design use tools which allow for the specific needs and priorities of women to be identified and planned for. The result is that the concept of gender is embedded within each aspect of the programme. There is a gender-biased obstacle to progress towards MDG1 in that women are not involved in income generation for cultural reasons. The project design allows us to remove this barrier in a way that is culturally acceptable to men, and turns them into allies, promoting women’s involvement in income generation. Almost 20 years of experience has shown TEARFUND’S PARTNER that men quickly appreciate the increased income. The approach gives women increased choice by increasing their capacity, knowledge and income. It also gives them increased voice in the home. Evaluation of past programmes shows that men esteem a woman’s opinion and listen to them if they are earning money. It gives them increased voice in the community, with women being members of management committees, running shops, animal fodder banks and being members of credit co-ops. Women in our similar programmes testify to how they are able to better feed and care for their families through increased income and how their stature in the community and self-confidence have been increased. Although starting with a low percentage of women in income generation who are literate, by programme’s end 50% of adult women beneficiaries will have received literacy, technical or vocational training. TEARFUND’S PARTNER has a strong gender policy and has been pushing for women’s rights and empowerment in Abalak since 1990. TEARFUND’S PARTNER seeks to change the existing local perception and role of women in a culturally sensitive way. TEARFUND’S PARTNER pioneered education for young girls in rural areas of the dept. TEARFUND’S PARTNER were the first locally to give women a greater role in livestock programmes.4.10 VALUE FOR MONEY (VFM)

Please demonstrate how you have determined that the proposed project would offer good value for money and that the proposed approach is the most cost efficient way of addressing the identified problem(s). Please ensure that your completed proposal and logframe demonstrate the link between activities, outputs and outcome, and that the budget notes provide clear justifications for the inputs and budget estimates. Please also refer to the value for money guidance documents provided in the proposal pack.

12

This project is investment in prevention, DRR and building disaster resilient communities, which enables a disaster vulnerable country like Niger to be less impacted by crises such as drought while saving money in the longer term on humanitarian interventions. DFID’s ‘Helping Developing Countries deal with Humanitarian Emergencies’ Aug 2013 cites a case study in Kenya – “over a 20 year period - every $1 spent on disaster resilience resulted in $2.90 saved in the form of reduced humanitarian spend”. This value for money argument lies at the core of disaster resilience thinking and is demonstrated in this project.Effectiveness: This programme will be executed by NGOs with over 25 years experience in the project area with similar programmes. Our monitoring and evaluation is set up to gather and change based on stakeholder feedback. The number of direct beneficiaries will increase over the life of the programme and continue to increase after the three years of funding is finished. This project will take place in a remote part of one of the least developed and physically difficult countries on Earth. The activities are designed to be sustainable without NGO involvement after the programme’s end, providing a lasting impact for the money spent. Activities were chosen based on past performance, stakeholder preference and lessons learned from past programmes in which our theory of change has been proven. Economy: For under £68 per person, this programme will make substantial progress towards sustainably reducing poverty in 1,780 pastoralist households (17,444 individuals), with the aim of lifting 75% of them above the poverty line in a sustainable way. It will empower women (MDG3), it will educate and it will promote environmental sustainability (MDG7). In addition, TEARFUND’S PARTNER has procedures which require market analysis before purchasing to ensure best prices. This includes the use of pro forma quotes from at least three merchants for all purchases over $200, and timely planning of the activity to ensure the highest quality and lowest price of goods and services. TEARFUND’S PARTNER has a fixed price for animals because they purchase animals in quantity. TEARFUND’S PARTNER salaries are above the legal minimums for the class of work, but lower than paid by many NGOs. This is because TEARFUND’S PARTNER uses local people when possible. TEARFUND’S PARTNERs Director receives no salary from the project nor do any of the ex-patriot personnel.Efficiency: Expenses for the direct programme activities are far greater than for operational costs, and our planning seeks to maximize cost effectiveness. There are no start-up costs as both Tearfund and TEARFUND’S PARTNER are already present in Niger. Integrating animal loans and micro-credit into one programme is more cost effective and helps achieve the outputs faster, giving additional value for money. Tearfund and TEARFUND’S PARTNER will conduct joint monitoring trips and field trips to decrease transport costs.4.11 COUNTRY STRATEGY(IES) AND POLICIES

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

‘Saving lives, preventing suffering and building resilience’ DFID - Sept 2011 states “the impact of disasters can be significantly mitigated by building the resilience of nations and people, and addressing the root causes of vulnerability.” Two of DFID’s seven objectives are being addressed in this project. 1) “build the resilience of individuals, communities and countries to withstand shocks and recover from them” and 2) “building resilience is central to achieving the MDG’s”. This project takes a pro-active approach to reverse the negative impacts of climate change on the economy of pastoralists. DFID’s ‘Helping Developing Countries deal with Humanitarian Emergencies’ - Aug 2013 relates how investment disaster resilience yields significant savings through reduced humanitarian spend. In ‘Increasing the Effectiveness of UK Aid’ – Oct 2013 “Our strategy is to attack the root causes of poverty, rather than just trying to treat the symptoms” and “we think it’s in everyone’s interests to encourage stability in areas where conflict and terrorism might otherwise dominate.” Providing vulnerable communities with the strength to withstand drought will have the added benefit of helping to insulate them against extremism and conflict.4.12 PAST LESSONS LEARNED

What lessons have you drawn on (from your own and others’ past experience) in designing

13

this project? If this project is based on similar project experience, please describe the outcomes achieved and the specific lessons learned that have informed this proposal.

TEARFUND’S PARTNER has 25 years of experience in Abalak, implementing integrated development, climate change adaptation and also crisis relief with pastoralist communities. During much of that time TEARFUND’S PARTNER implemented programmes aimed to stabilize pastoralists’ primary livelihood and increase animal capital in order to promote sustainable economic and social development. TEARFUND’S PARTNER pioneered its Animal Loan Program and learned the importance of integrating women into household income generation. More recently (2007), as part of a consortium of NGOs working on DRR, TEARFUND’S PARTNER began piloting micro-credit, local land rights commissions (COFOB) and cash transfer, learning how to manage such funding successfully. The programme was successful in getting women involved in IGAs in new ways. The combined experience has taught them many lessons leading to awards and has seen them cited in numerous publications as a model to follow and scale up (Ensor and Berger, 2009; Humanitarian Exchange, 2012). Project evaluations shows that a successful COFOB increases a community’s ability to withstand crisis, preserve household assets (animals) and allows households to remain on site and practice secondary IGAs. Similar past projects show that project success with household animal capital having sustainably increased in over 80% of beneficiary households, cereal consumption in 80% of households at levels at or above national standards, and livelihoods successfully diversified, especially for women. Animal loan repayment was 100% and micro credit capital grew. Drought resilience was greatly increased and 100% of beneficiaries reported an improved household economy, with most no longer needing credit. TEARFUND’S PARTNER’s experience shows that households which are able to maintain and increase assets (livestock) and also diversify into secondary and tertiary IGAs, are more drought secure, have higher incomes and better livelihood sustainability in crisis. At sites where TEARFUND’S PARTNER has been able to combine all these activities they have seen rapid diversification of IGAs including an 80% increase in the number of women involved in IGAs. Cereal consumption has improved (above national standards), there has been up to a 30% reduction in the number of men going abroad for work and an expansion in micro credit capital.4.13 ENVIRONMENT

Please specify what overall impact (positive, neutral or negative) the project is likely to have on the environment. What steps have you taken to assess any potential environmental impact? Please note the severity of the impacts and how the project will mitigate any potentially negative effects.

The project will have environmental impact in two ways:1. 1. The overall impact of the programme on the environment will be positive because a major output

(Output 5) is improved management of natural resources, by the beneficiary communities. This will reduce degradation and improve the environment and bio-diversity, improving progress towards MDG 7. This positive impact has been assessed with COFOBs and their success in reducing environmental degradation.2. TEARFUND’S PARTNER will not increase the number of animals to a detrimental level, and has assessed the potential negative impacts and how to avoid them through discussions with the local livestock extension service.

SECTION 5: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION5.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

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

organisation and each of the partners. This should refer to the separate project organogram, which is required as part of your proposal documentation.

A clear description of the added value of the each organisation within the project.

An explanation of the human resources required (number of full-time

14

equivalents, type, skills, background, and gender).

Tearfund as applicant:1. Providing start-up, advocacy and gender workshops including quality standards. 2. On-going support for implementation through advice on M&E, reporting, food security, income diversification, DRR and resilience.3. Capacity building and monitoring of TEARFUND’S PARTNER finance plus co-financing. 4. Responsible for ensuring TEARFUND’S PARTNER is compliant with all donor requirements including reporting as well as with DFID and Tearfund’s quality standards. 5. Use of TILZ website to disseminate lessons learned from this project. Tearfund HR involved and in position: Programme Funding Co-ordinator 0.3 FTE – UK based, GPAF experienced and female;Technical Resilience Advisor  0.1 FTE – UK based, resilience experienced and female.Niger Country Representative 0.2 FTE – Nigerien, project experienced and male;Project Officer 0.2 FTE – In-country, Nigerien, multi-lingual and project experienced and male;Geo. Management Accountant 0.2 FTE – Regionally recruited, qualified, multi-lingual and male;TEARFUND’S PARTNER as implementing partner: 1. Baseline data collection, programme planning.2. Field operations including relations with local stakeholders and extension services, adherence to quality standards (SPHERE as well as Tearfund’s) and quality control, day to day financial operations, regular monitoring and follow up, field reports and case studies and financial reports to Tearfund, including local audits.TEARFUND’S PARTNERs human resources for this programme include (all personnel already in place):Director (not funded by the programme), 30% of full time. MSc or better, experienced, multi-lingual.Senior Finance Manager 1 FTE qualified and experienced, multi-lingual.National Administrator (Not funded by programme) 10% of full time. MSc or better, multi-lingual.Project Administrator 1 FTE, BAC or better, experienced, local, multi lingual.Chief of monitoring and evaluation, 1 FTE, BAC or better, local, multi lingual.Financial Secretary and office administrator 1 FTE, CEG or better, local and female.Field agents (7, with at least one being female) 1 FTE, CEG or better, local.Local security and maintenance (7) 1 FTE, local.

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

TEARFUND’S PARTNER will run a baseline survey to permit consistent follow up and reporting. A Senior Finance Manager will be recruited for TEARFUND’S PARTNER and will be backed up by 20% of the time of a Tearfund Finance Manager to ensure financial integrity. TEARFUND’S PARTNER finance systems will be reviewed and enhancements made if required. The Tearfund Niger office will work closely with TEARFUND’S PARTNER.

5.3 IMPLEMENTING PARTNERSInclude a list of all organisations to be involved in project implementation including offices of the applicant and any partners starting with the main partner organisation(s). Implementation partners are defined as those that manage project funds and play a prominent role in project management and delivery.

Tearfund – 100, Church Road, Teddington, UK and Tearfund Office - NiameyJeunesse En Mission Entraide et Developpement (TEARFUND’S PARTNER)

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

15

supporting the delivery of the project and in coordination, but do not directly manage project funds.

Admin officials of the Abalak Dept. Program planning and reporting, security, COFODEP. OCHA Dept. level extensions services and planning ministry. Planning reporting, technical input. Communal (elected) officials in each commune, including the Mayor (planning and execution,

COFOCOM/COFOB, community liaison. Tribal authorities. Community liaison, reporting. Local NGOS/church groups. (MASNAT, ADKOUL, Jeyngol) Sharing of information.

SECTION 6: MONITORING, EVALUATION, LESSON LEARNING This section should clearly relate to the project logframe and the relevant sections of the budget. Please note that you will be required to commission an independent project evaluation towards the end of the funding period to assess the impact of the fund. Please allow sufficient budget for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and note the requirements for external and independent evaluation.6.1 How will the performance of the project be monitored? Who will be involved? How will

beneficiaries be involved in the project monitoring and evaluation? What tools and approaches are you intending to use (please be specific)? Are there any new methodologies (e.g. quasi-experimental) to be applied? How will your logframe be used in M&E? What training is required for M&E?

TEARFUND’S PARTNER will use a baseline survey to establish data for its monitoring process; this will be conducted by a local consultant and TEARFUND’S PARTNER personnel, and will use the HEA approach and other participatory methods. Regular follow up of each activity will begin within the first month and will continue monthly. Follow up visits will be done by TEARFUND’S PARTNER, using experienced field agents, coordinated and supervised by the chief of monitoring and evaluation. PRA methods will be used. Follow up visits will also provide opportunities for the stakeholders to provide feedback about programme strengths weakness and suggested changes. Additionally, quarterly visits will be made to monitor progress towards impact indicators in the logframe. This information will be used to provide progress reports. The data also provided many lessons learned, as to how to better combine activities for maximum impact. Lessons learned, along with the expressed ideas made by the pastoralist beneficiaries will be used to modify activities. Tearfund will provide oversight carry out two monitoring visits and use its TILZ website to communicate achievements and lessons learned.

6.2 Please use this section explain the budget allocated to M&E. Please ensure there is provision for baseline and on-going data collection and a final independent evaluation.

Regular follow up and monitoring is done by TEARFUND’S PARTNER and Tearfund personnel. The budget for this is included under fuel £57,600 which includes all transportation for the project.

There is a separate budget line for a baseline survey in year one of £5,141 which will pay for a local consultant and the development of the monitoring data.

An internal evaluation is budgeted in Year 2 for £2,571 which will be done by local (Niger) Tearfund personnel. This will produce interim reports and recommendations.

A final external (independent) evaluation is budgeted in year three for £5,141.

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

Learning from this programme will help shape our strategy in the Abalak Dept. for the next ten years. It will also help TEARFUND’S PARTNER support its advocacy work in trying to change the pastoral code, to provide for a more equitable form of resource management. In addition, Tearfund and TEARFUND’S PARTNER plan to compile a number of case studies during the programme and are committed to sharing the learning gained from this project with a wider public through multiple channels, including our international learning website TILZ, which

16

receives approximately 100,000 visits a year from over 150 countries worldwide. TILZ is multilingual, providing content in French, Spanish and Portuguese and reaching development practitioners working at the frontline of eradicating poverty. 

SECTION 7: PROJECT RISKS AND MITIGATION7.1 Please outline the main risks to the success of the project indicating whether the potential

impact and probability of the risks are high, medium or low. How will these risks be monitored and mitigated? If the risks are outside your direct control, is there anything you can do to manage their effects? If relevant, this may include an assessment of the risk of engagement to local partners; or risks related to natural or man-made shocks (e.g. drought, conflict) and longer term stresses (e.g. land degradation). The risk assessment for your programme needs to clearly differentiate the internal risks and those that are part of the external environment and over which you may have less (or little) control. (You may add extra rows if necessary - as long as you do not exceed the overall page limits).

Explanation of Risk

Potential impact High/Medium/

Low

Probability High/Medium/

LowMitigation measures

(External) Climate related disaster

Medium Medium. 40% chance

Use drought resistant animals in animal loans (goats/sheep). Ensure execution of activities does not take place in the hunger gap. Delay some activities if necessary. The programme itself is mitigation as it will increase resilience.

(External) Regional conflict

Medium Low Help households prepare for returnees. The programme itself is mitigation as it will increase revenue.

(External) Local conflict and terrorism

High Low Use local staff, modify the rural travel schedule, use escorts, reduce the programme profile. TEARFUND’S PARTNER has successfully completed projects during two lengthy armed conflicts.

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

8.1 Name of Organisation TEARFUND

8.2 Address 100, Church Road, Teddington TW11 8QE

8.3 Web Site www.tearfund.org

8.4 Registration or charity number (if applicable)

265464

8.5 Annual Income Income (original currency): Income (£ equivalent): £60,046,00057,957Exchange rate:

Start/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From: 01/04/2012To: 31/03/2013

8.6 Number of existing staff 1,307 200

8.7 Proposed project staffing staff to be employed under this

Existing staff 5 FTE

17

project (specify the total full-time equivalents - FTE)

New staff 0.65 FTE

8.8 Organisation category (Select a maximum of two categories)

Non-Government Org. (NGO) √ Local Government

Trade Union National Government

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

Disabled Peoples’ Organisation (DPO) Diaspora Group or Organisation

Orgs. Working with Disabled People Academic Institution

Other... (please specify)

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

A): Grant management, financial capacity building, start up workshop and planning, project implementation support, monitoring and evaluation, reporting, information dissemination and co0financing.

B): £99,042 – 8.4% for staff salaries (7.93%), publications and monitoring visits

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

Tearfund has been present in the Sahel for 35 years, in Niger for 25 years and for 21 years with TEARFUND’S PARTNER working currently with five local partners in Niger on food security, livelihoods, DRR and resilience projects. Most recently Tearfund has been building up its operational support for partners through the deployment of a Country Representative, Programme Co-ordinator, Project Officer based in Niamey and Regional Finance Management Accountant based in West Africa. These positions will work alongside TEARFUND’S PARTNER implementing staff during the planning and implementation of this project.

The team is further supported by a Technical Resilience Advisor based in the UK but whose technical expertise will be called upon as needed to support this project. They have already been active in the design of this project since the beginning of 2012. Specialist staff members have regularly visited the region and have been responsible in-part for the drafting of specialist documentation related to resilience and livelihood development which significantly feature TEARFUND’S PARTNER’s work e.g. ‘Escaping the Hunger Cycle – Pathways to Resilience in the Sahel’ and ‘Characteristics of a Disaster Resilient Community’ etc.

Tearfund Technical Advisors have a regional and global remit and are able to bring learning from others regions, advising on techniques and approaches. The Advisors will be able to facilitate exchange visits to encourage replication of successful activities across other Tearfund projects .e E.g. a planned partner visit from Somaliland visiting TEARFUND’S PARTNER to learn about TEARFUND’S PARTNER work with pastoralist communities which are similar to their own. Networking through international organisations is extensive and includes Micah –network, Integral, Global Food Security Cluster and EU-CORD where experiences and learning are shared.

Visits by Tearfund to the Sahel are frequent and more than 15 full time staff are deployed full time in the region in six countries in the Sahel providing support to 15XX partners across the Sahel including TEARFUND’S PARTNER. The breadth of experience and knowledge gained will be shared with TEARFUND’S PARTNER and exchange of learning will continue to benefit both organisations and improve implementation of projects across the region and continue shared capacity building. Partners and Tearfund staff meet together periodically to share learning and gain a better

18

understanding of the challenges facing the region. A particular focus has been placed on disaster resilience learning. Tearfund leads the works closely with the DFID sponsored UK inter-agency Resilience Learning GroupDFID resilience working group which seeks to develop a better understanding of initiatives which will give long term and sustainable livelihoods above minimum poverty levels to all the peoples across the region. Tearfund also has a highly active ‘Resilience Community of Practice’ comprising of over 120 members from 28 agencies in 22 countries.

Tearfund has well developed publications covering all aspects of livelihoods development and acts as a vehicle for information dissemination. In particular TILZ (Tearfund International Learning Zone) is a multi-lingual website globally accessed daily at scale by different development actors including Tearfund’s partners.

Tearfund has gained experience managing numerous projects for major donors globally. In particular Tearfund secured a GPAF award in the first round (GPAF-IMP-030) for consortia work in DRC. Experience gained in this challenging and war torn country where successful implementation is being achieved will benefit this project where threats to security could materialise. It is planned that staff engaged on the GPAF DRC project will be available for this project in Niger, if successful. 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.

– DFID WASH in coalition with Oxfam - £6 million for implementation of WASH related activities in DRC and Liberia. 2014–16;

– US State Dept. Population Refugee Migration - £748,243 for livelihoods and WASH related activities in Faryab, Jawzjan and Kandahar in Afghanistan Sept 2013 – Sept 2014;

– ECHO – £238,426 - Emergency WASH in central and southern Africa ;– Scottish Gov’t. - £400,000 for Sustainable Agriculture and livelihood Initiatives in Pakistan;– JOAC - £27,000 – TEARFUND’S PARTNER for emergency relief 2013;– ECHO - £691,000 for Food Security in DRC 2013-14;– USAID/OFDA - £617,000 for Food Security and WATSAN in South Sudan;– USAID/OFDA - £1,010,220 for restoring livelihoods and health in South Kivu DRC Aug 2013 –

July 2014;– ECHO - £1,291,545 for Integrated Response to Malnutrition in South Sudan 2013-14;– US State Dept - Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration - £577,707 - WASH

15/08/2012 - 13/12/2013– USAID/OFDA - £617,197 for WASH for IDPs and returnees Aweil Centre, South Sudan;

01/07/2013-30/06/2014– USAID/OFDA - £ 937,830 - Nutrition, WASH and Emergency Response, Darfur, Sudan,

01/08/2012 - 31/03/2014. – Belgian government - Promoting sustainable approaches to food security and reducing

vulnerability in remote conflict affected communities in S Kivu.  Food Security - £765,878   1 April 2013 -  30 Sept 2014  

– ECHO - £918,315 for nutritional support and emergency preparedness in Sudan, 2013-1– Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD - formerly CIDA)_ - £633,700

for ‘Staying above the Survival Line’ in South Sudan; 2013-1– CIDA - £633700 for ‘Staying above the Survival Line’ in South Sudan;– EuropeAid - £213,093 for ‘Priority Actions to Implement Development Plans for Erdé, Kordo et

Gagal in Chad (2014 – 16)Earlier:– GPAF Round 1 – (IMP-030) £3,431,602 for ‘Water, Sanitation, HIV/Sexual violence support in

DRC 2012-14;– EuropeAid Water Facility €2,384,273 for ‘Water, Sanitation and Hygiene promotion in North

Kivu DRC’ 2011 – 2013;8.12 CHILD PROTECTION (for projects working with children and youth (0-18 years) only)

19

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.

Tearfund has an up to date Child Protection Policy (2009) which equally applies to all Tearfund representatives. Training in child protection is provided for all new staff at induction. In addition this policy is strengthened through the adoption of a ‘Vulnerable Adults Policy’ (2011). Tearfund has supported partners in West Africa with some capacity-building initiatives to increase their knowledge and skills in child protection and to enable them to develop child protection policies of their own. Child protection will be reinforced through a planned workshop at the outset of this project.

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

Tearfund pro-actively works to minimise the risk of such occurrences through:- Partner capacity assessments;- Partner attitude surveys designed to assess the culture of partner organisations and to identify

areas of weakness;- Visits by Geographical Management Accountants to projects to initially assess financial

systems, recommend enhancements but also to interview finance staff and assess their suitability and strengths. This is always undertaken prior to a donor project exceeding £100k p.a. and leads to a recommendation for the level of finance dept specialist staff which will be required. Where appropriate Tearfund embeds its own management accountant within a partner organisation in order to ensure both the donor and Tearfund have confidence in the integrity of financial record keeping;

- Tearfund’s Internal Audit team make visits periodically to all significant donor funded projects and reports to the Tearfund ‘Audit and Standards Committee’ which oversees major projects undertaken by Tearfund on behalf of donors.

20

SECTION 8: CAPACITY OF APPLICANT ORGANISATION AND ALL IMPLEMENTING PARTNER ORGANISATIONS (Max 3 pages each)Please copy and fill in this section for your own organisation and each implementing partner 8.1 Name of Organisation Tearfund’s Partner

8.2 Address B.P. 10469 Niamey Niger

8.3 Web Site8.4 Registration or charity number

(if applicable)128/MI/mdi/DAPJ DU 31 JUILLET 1989 (Nigerien ID)

8.5 Annual Income Income (original currency): CFA 217,253,552Income (£ equivalent): 277,010Exchange rate: 1 GBP= 784.28 CFA

Start/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From: January 1 2013To: December 31, 2013

8.6 Number of existing staff 39

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

Existing staff 19

New staff 0

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) X Ethnic Minority Group or Organisation

Disabled Peoples’ Organisation (DPO) Diaspora Group or Organisation

Orgs. Working with Disabled People Academic Institution

Other... (please specify)

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

A): TEARFUND’S PARTNER will be the main implementing partner, and will be responsible for:The base line data collection; Programme planning and execution: The day to day field operations; Relations with local stakeholders including government and extension services; Adherence to quality standards (SPHERE as well as Tearfunds) and Quality control; Day to day financial operations; Regular monitoring and follow up; Field reports and case studies and financial reports to Tearfund, including local audits.B): £ 885,304, (86%)8.10 EXPERIENCE: Please outline this organisation's experience in relation to its roles and

responsibilities on this project (including technical issues and relevant geographical coverage)

TEARFUND’S PARTNER has been operating in Niger since 1989 and in Abalak since 1990. TEARFUND’S PARTNER has been running similar programmes in Abalak with success for 25 years with funding from donors such as DFID, WFP, EU, Irish Aid, IOM, and SIDA. TEARFUND’S PARTNER began its work among pastoralists in 1990, by helping communities to develop sustainable strategies to continue in their traditional lifestyles while at the same time dealing with recurring drought and desertification. This approach developed into a fixation strategy, which allows communities to develop a fixed site in the centre of their home range, providing access to water,

21

human and animal health services, adult education especially for women, grain and managed pasture. This approach did not oblige them to sedenterize, but they were able to continue moving with their livestock which TEARFUND’S PARTNER helped reconstitute, visiting the fixation point as needed. This integrated approach worked well, and the model was adopted by most of the communities living in the Azawak, with no TEARFUND’S PARTNER involvement.

Beneficiary communities soon saw the efficacy of the approach, and sought to add schools, dispensaries, shops and other communal structures, most recently credit cooperatives to their sites. TEARFUND’S PARTNER has helped in all these areas, starting some of the first primary schools among many clans, and raising the number of girls in school from 0 to 40%. This is not a short term approach, but rather a long term one, and TEARFUND’S PARTNER has been present with the beneficiaries throughout the process.

TEARFUND’S PARTNER began working on resilience building crisis relief in 2005, when it ran large scale relief efforts in the Abalak Department, with DEC, Canadian Grain Banks and other institutional funding. This experience helped TEARFUND’S PARTNER to better understand resilience and also the role of women in the household economy and in food security. Not long afterwards, TEARFUND’S PARTNER did a research study funded by Tearfund looking at the linkages between climate change and water resources management. This further enhanced their ability to design sustainable programs. It also increased their capacity to handle institutional funding and meet major donor requirements.

TEARFUND’S PARTNER began scaling up its approach after the 2005 crisis, when studies showed that it had greatly aided communities to better support and recover from the crisis. This was done with DEC funding and later with DFID funding. These new sites have been hard hit by the many recurrent crisis since 2005, but at most of them the communities are still staying on the land, and retaining animal capital in spite of recurrent severe shocks.

Due to the increasing rate of climate change and crisis, TEARFUND’S PARTNER began devising ways to speed up the move towards sustainability at young or brand new sites. This includes the combination of micro credit and animal loans, as well as the development of land management committees. These are keys to the long term sustainability of development in the pastoral zone, as without pasture and forest management; the basis of the local economy (livestock) will fail. TEARFUND’S PARTNER has succeeded in obtaining management rights for three groups of communities and has successfully advocated on the pastoral code at the highest levels of government.

TEARFUND’S PARTNER is one of the few organisations in the Department which works with two different tribes (ethnic groups with different languages); The Tuareg and Wodaabe. These groups normally are in competition for resources and do not get along. The fact that TEARFUND’S PARTNER has been able to successfully work with both groups and help them to develop joint strategies has helped avoid conflict in the Department. TEARFUND’S PARTNER has staff members highly trained in non-violent conflict resolution.

TEARFUND’S PARTNER has earned international acclaim for its success, including a Sasakawa award from the UNISDR in 2009 and citations from the government of Niger for work in adult literacy, DRR and crisis relief and resilience building including a micro-credit programme and animal loan programme. Most of TEARFUND’S PARTNERs staff are local and understand the language and culture. Its present Director Jeff Woodke has been in Niger since 1987 has a Master’s degree in international development and is a published author and researcher. He has also received citations from the Government of Niger (Governor of Tahoua, Prefect of the Abalak Department and Mayor of the Abalak Department) for his work in DRR, crisis relief and building dialogue between communities. He currently is the Director of TEARFUND’S PARTNER and a researcher at the Arcata Marsh Research Institute.

22

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.

2013; Tearfund UK, Tearfund New Zealand, New Zealand Aid (NZ government) and Tearfund Netherlands; Resilient development program (including animal loan and micro- credit), CFA 191,579,826 (£ 244,274).2013: Tearfund UK, TEARFUND’S PARTNER; Integrated development program; CFA 28,310,963 (£36,098)2012: Tearfund UK, Tearfund New Zealand, New Zealand Aid (NZ government) and Tearfund Netherlands, Isle of Man; Resilient building crisis relief. CFA 257,115,225 (£327,836)2012; World Food Program: Targeted Free Distribution (3100 households); CFA 110,359,809 (£140,715)2012: Tearfund UK, FAO,TEARFUND’S PARTNER; Integrated Development Program; CFA 52,375,766 (£ 66,781)2011: Tearfund UK, DFID (DRR consortium); Integrated Development; CFA 127,502,631 (£162,573)2011: Isle of Man Tearfund UK; Resettlement of returnees from Libya; CFA 52,740,890 (£67,247)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.

Although children are direct beneficiaries, the project will not be engaging with them in terms of activity implementation. Their parents will do the work. TEARFUND’S PARTNER has an up to date Child Protection Policy (2010, revised 2012) with behavioural protocols and adheres to the SPHERE and RED Cross codes of conduct. TEARFUND’S PARTNER also follow Tearfund’s Child Protection Policy. TEARFUND’S PARTNER project staff have received refresher briefings on both its child protection and gender policies in 2014. None of the proposed activities involve children working and children are not directly questioned in monitoring and evaluation unless their parents are present.8.13 FRAUD: Has there been any incidence of any fraudulent activity in this organisation within the

last 5 years? How will you minimise the risk of fraudulent activity occurring?

There has been no fraud in the organization since its inception in 1989. TEARFUND’S PARTNER has rigorous financial procedures and internal controls and its accounts are audited externally every year, and also inspected by Tearfund staff on an annual basis. TEARFUND’S PARTNER receives visits by Tearfund Geographical Management Accountants to improve transparency, financial management and its overall capacity to handle major donor funding.

23

SECTION 9: CHECKLIST OF PROPOSAL DOCUMENTATION 9.1 Please check boxes for each of the documents you are submitting with this form.

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

Y/NProposal form (sections 1-7) Yes

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

Yes

Have you addressed the issues raised in the concept note feedback? Yes

Project Logframe Yes

Project Budget (with detailed budget notes) Yes

Most recent set of organisational annual accounts Yes

Project organisational chart / organogram Yes

Project bar or Gantt chart to show scheduling of activities Yes

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

24