What was the “YAP” project all about, again?
In the run-up to the upcoming #GCARD3 global event, we announced “YAP”, the Youth Agripreneurs Project. “YAP” is a pilot project targeting young agricultural entrepreneurs or “agripreneurs” by GFAR (the Global Forum on Agricultural Research), CGIAR (the Global Agricultural Research Partnership) and YPARD (the Young Professionals for Agricultural Development).
Within “YAP” we want to encourage young agripreneurs from all over the world, to think about their projects and formulate their ideas in a concrete proposal. We also wanted to use our blog, as a platform where these entrepreneurs could showcase their projects, while encouraging feedback on their proposals through the comments on each proposal’s blogpost.
In addition, we wanted to show, to a wider audience, how many creative, inspiring and concrete ideas these young people had. Through the online voting process – determining the first selection -, we wanted to inspire young people to “just come out” with their ideas, and use the power of social media to network and advocate for their projects, now and in the future.
Within three weeks, we received 428 YAP proposals from youth around the globe. A first selection was done based on public voting on the proposals, as they were published on our blog.
428 “YAP” entries were MANY more than we initially anticipated. Also the way the online public picked up, and commented on these proposals was overwhelming: Over 116,000 people from all over the world read the proposals, and posted over 60,000 comments.
The selection process
A reminder how we set up the selection process:
The first selection went through public voting: This pre-selection was based on the appreciation of each entry by the online public, based on the formula:
First selection score = (5 * #comments) + (2 * #likes) + (#views)
In view of the large amount of “YAP” proposals, the jury took on the task to go over 30 pre-selected proposals, instead of the original planned “20”.
Not an easy task, knowing the many inspiring and creative projects we received!
The scoring process went as follows:
- Each jury member attributed a score from 1 to 9 to each entry (1 is poor, 9 is excellent). This was “a score”, not “a ranking”, so they could allocate e.g. a “6” to as many as they wanted.
- If a jury member felt they could not judge an entry (e.g. because they work with the entrepeneur or were connected to him/her, or they did not speak the language of the entry), they marked it as “F” – (“Forfait”). When we tallied the scores, “F” scores were replaced with an average from the scores for that entry from all other jury members.
The instructions to the jury were to score each of the pre-selected entries, using the following qualifiers:
- Originality of the proposal, and how “complete” their entry was (e.g budget, measurable output and success factors), and how well it was written in bringing “their message/proposal”.
- Feasibility: is this proposal and its budget realistic?
- Socio-economic impact: everyone can submit a project to raise chickens and make money for themselves, but we want projects that have a positive impact on the community these people are working on, benefitting more than just those who submitted their project.
- Sustainability: can this project sustain itself in the longer term. And… is this project eco-sustainable in the longer term (e.g. we can not feed the people by wrecking the world).
- How constructive and substantial were the comments they got on their proposals: were most comments just “good job” or were there really substantial conversations initiated??
- In short, if, as a jury member, one had US$5,000, what is the likelihood they would fund for each entry?
We then tallied the scores from each jury member, for each entry, and came to a total score for each, determining the finalists.
Note: One donor wanted to stimulate agripreneurs in the Caribbean, specifically in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Cuba, Belize, Guyana, Barbados, St. Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Grenada (while all other Caribbean entries also competed in the “global selection”).
So we allocated an “Additional Prize for Caribbean entrepreneurs”. Two jury members, working with entrepreneurs in that region, rated all of the YAP entries coming from these countries, for this special prize, using the same instructions as for those in the “global” selection.
Which entries passed the pre-selection?
These were the 30 entries, which scored the highest in the pre-selection (the public voting) and went to the jury (in random order):
- YAP Proposal #56: Youth Agriculture Garden (Sanjay Kafle, Nepal)
- YAP Proposal #11: Mushroom Farming (Melano Dadalauri, Georgia)
- YAP proposal #68: Social media as an agricultural extension tool (Devesh Thakur, India)
- YAP Proposal #173: Changing lives one hen at a time (James Makini, Kenya)
- YAP Proposal #197: EduMala Mentoring Program (Dinesh Panday, Nepal)
- YAP Proposal #9: Kuku Kienyeji Farm (Jeremy Riro, Kenya)
- YAP proposal #122: Planting strawberry in Greenhouse (Fisnik Shaqiri, Kosovo)
- YAP Proposal #35: Mushroom Farming (Serem Sila, Kenya)
- YAP Proposal #31: Climate Smart Model Farm (Adnan Arshad, Pakistan)
- YAP Proposal #165: Indigenous herbs and organic farming (Pranav Kumar, India)
- YAP proposal #185: Teaching people to grow catfish (Aduragba Titilayomi Adeoluwa, Nigeria)
- YAP proposal #130: Self-help Business Model in Harmony with Nature (Jony Girma, Ethiopia)
- YAP Proposal #207: Moringa Oleifera Mega Farm Project (Miri Nanyak Nigeria)
- YAP proposal #187: Creating Wealth Through Poultry-Keeping (Oluwadara David Oyebanjo, Nigeria)
- YAP proposal #62: Mechanical pest removal (Josine Macaspac, Philippines)
- YAP Proposal #84 Rejuvenating Declining Citrus Orchard (Madan Poudel, Nepal)
- YAP proposal #124: Vegetable Farming for Improved Production Economy (VeFIPE) (Mohamed Malembo, Tanzania)
- YAP proposal #148: Using Software to Measure Dairy Success in Real-time (Gidraph Mwangi, Kenya)
- YAP proposal #337: Quality Onion Seed Production (Elitumaini Rweyemam, Tanzania)
- YAP proposal #63: Providing affordable food (Richard Chinedu Agetu, Nigeria)
- YAP Proposal #24: Post-Harvest Fruit Bagging (Amol Shirgire, India)
- YAP proposal #229: Living La Vida Verde (Ignacio Vildósola Barceló, Spain)
- YAP Proposal #37: The African Desert Greenhouse (Lillian Beauttah, Kenya)
- YAP Proposal #27: Improved Goat Farming (Sunil Shrestha, Nepal)
- YAP Proposal #21: Growing Golden Grains (Alabi Taiwo Jacob, Nigeria)
- YAP proposal #160: Green Ago Mechanization (Abrhame Endrias, Ethiopia)
- YAP Proposal #32: Integrated Farming of Tomato Trees and Banana (Hubert Hirwa, Rwanda)
- YAP Proposal #7: Climate Resilient Indian Cattle (Nikki Pilania Chaudhary, India)
- YAP proposal #132: School Farms Programme (Alfred Godwin Adjabeng, Ghana)
- YAP Proposal #244: Smart Krishi mobile app (Anil Regmi, Nepal)
Who are the finalists?
The jury selected the following as the finalists for the “YAP” project:
YAP proposal #130: Self-help Business Model in Harmony with Nature (Jony Girma, Ethiopia) (Funded by IFAD)
YAP Proposal #7: Climate Resilient Indian Cattle (Nikki Pilania Chaudhary, India) (Funded by a private donor)
YAP Proposal #37: The African Desert Greenhouse (Lillian Beauttah, Kenya) (Funded by Agropolis Fondation)
YAP Proposal #244: Smart Krishi mobile app (Anil Regmi, Nepal) (Funded by IFAD)
YAP proposal #62: Mechanical pest removal (Josine Macaspac, Philippines) (Funded by Agropolis Fondation)
The “Additional Prize for the Caribbean agripreneurs” went to:
YAP proposal #332: From Farm To Face: the Journey to Natural Skin Care (Kellyann Allicott, Barbados) (Funded by FAO Caribbean region)
A heartfelt congratulations to these finalists!
What do we provide to these finalists?
The agripreneurs selected as the finalists will get a US$5,000 seed fund to facilitate the startup of their project, spread over the period of one year.
During one year, we will mentor these young agripreneurs within their project, linking them with seasoned researchers and practitioners, by integrating them in the YPARD (Young Professionals for Agricultural Development) mentoring program.
We will also train them on new ways to advocate and network using innovative communication and networking tools.
The finalists will be invited to attend the #GCARD3 global event in Johannesburg, where they will receive their first induction training and have the opportunity to network with agricultural specialists from all over the world.
What more can we do to stimulate these young agripreneurs?
One of the main challenges we faced with “YAP”, is the unexpected high amount, and very high quality (and variety) of projects we received. While, unfortunately, only a few can be selected as finalist now, we will do our best to follow-up on the submitted proposals, in the months to come. We will do our utmost best to assist the agripreneurs in various ways, which we still need to explore.
These young agripreneurs deserve our support. And this is not just “us” being the organizers of the project, but “us”, the global community. We do need to step up our support, to encourage, stimulate and enable these young agriculturalists and entrepreneurs. They truly are the future of the world’s agriculture and our strive to provide food security for all, in a sustainable manner. We will, once again, do our best to work with the global community to further extend our support to youth working in agriculture.
If you are interested in sponsoring this project, please check out the details.
A big “Thank you” again to all youth who submitted their project, to the online public in responding with so many comments, to our donors, the jury, and all those involved in the project, who worked very long hours to process and publish the proposals.
“YAP” is a joint pilot project by GFAR, CGIAR and YPARD, in the run-up to the upcoming #GCARD3 global event. Follow the progress of this event via #GCARD3 on Twitter, the GFAR blog, the GFAR website and the CGIAR website.
Picture courtesy CCAFS
116 thoughts on “Flash: Announcing the “YAP” finalists”
it was written that will be 10 YAP selected and now only 6??
In our call for donors, which went out before we launched the project, we specified we wanted to fund 10 agripreneurs. With the available funding we currently have received, we can fund 6 finalists, but we do hope that with the momentum we have built together, more donors will come forward.
The more we can fund, the better. Unfortunately, that is in the hands of the donors.
Will there ever be another call for proposals in the future?
Our first priority right after the GCARD3 event (apart from doing all the logistics and preparation for the mentoring program, working with the donors) will be to further work with the proposals we received (both the pre-selection group, but also all the proposals as such) and see what more we can do.
Expect an update on this, via the blog, towards the end of April.
Meanwhile, please keep an eye on http://YPARD.net, and connect to this network of 10,000+ young agriculturalists. They publish opportunities like YAP on their site (YAP is only one of the many different agripreneurs projects which are available).
It’s very amazing and fantastic way to get young people but I don’t understand about how GFAR will do accountability of Money given to all of the youngsters.
If you can explain, it will be s good learning for me.
First of all, before any funds are dispersed, the finalists will work with their individual mentors, and the mentoring coordinator, to fine-tune their project (specifically on timelines, deliverables within these timelines, and budget).
Once this is done, the funds will be dispersed in 3 tranches over the period of one year (during which they are continuously monitored, assisted and mentored). Each tranche is released based on the agripreneurs delivering on their project for that time period, and by giving bi-monthly status reports in the form of a blogpost.
The status reports will be published (probably on our blog), so everyone can follow (and eventually practically support) these agripreneurs.
I wish the winners the best as they get.mentored and expand their businesses.
To me, however, each and every one of the youth who submitted a proposal, is a winner. They stepped forward and presented their ideas to the world. We hope that getting their proposal public will help them in getting support, too. 🙂
I congratulate the winners and I wish South Africa as host of the conference should be represented at least by one agripreneur
i think the donor influence shaped the final picks.
The voting process is well documented in this blogpost. The final voting was never done by one single person or donor (and only two donors were part of the voting process).
i think so too…the donors chose the projects which they wanted to fund…
I wish the winners all the best
I commend this group, but fund should have been made ready before putting the numbers out.
Sorry, what numbers? The call for sponsors, was directed to sponsors, clarifying what our intentions and goals were.
As mentioned several times before, our support to agripreneurs does not stop here. We will explore other ways, to work with the submitted proposals and assist as many agripreneurs we can, within our possibilities.
Reblogged this on thechinkhokweblog and commented:
Congratulations to the winners
Congratulations to the finalists selected! But I still think the selection process is a flaw because a country like Ghana is the size of just one state in another country. Moreover its only a few people who understand or have internet at their disposal in Ghana… So as the GFAR goes foreword it should look at the quality of the proposals instead of public voting! This is not to say that the selected proposals are not worth winning! Once again congratulations to all selected agriprenuers!
The selection process was made clear from the start. Keep in mind that only the pre-selection was done based on public voting. The jury selected the finalists based on quality, only.
As it is impossible for any jury to look over 400+ proposals, there has to be a pre-selection. We are always open to innovative ideas on how to do a good pre-selection for future projects.
Good that you mention Ghana. I have personally worked in the poorest and most remote areas of Ghana (amongst many countries), and have been surprised how connected farmers and farmers’ communities are. I have been amazed how they use Facebook, e.g. to connect to other farmers and markets. It is true that some areas of the world are better connected than others. Actually, one of the finalists, is not connected where she lives. So she has to shuttle regularly to the next town, to work on the Internet, and still, she made it to one of the 6 finalists.
Congratulations to the finalists. Thanks for the opportunity to share my Ideas on “Moringa production for healthy living”. I am inspired to do more in making people live healthier, happier and richer.
Wishing you the best of luck with your project, @olalekanobisesanevergreen!
I sincerely congratulate the winners and thank GFAR for this initiative, although it couldn’t gather enough donors, because many projects deserved to be helped, regardless for the number of comments. Mine, for example had 71 comments, far from winners, yet I look forward for any assistance Gfar will provide as yoou said in the post (in various ways).
The number of views and comments reveals the impact of the initiative. Do you think it can be repeated on an annual basis?
What about reviewing the selection process that some can find unjust, as it was hard for Many partcipants to gather comments for various reasons: internet availability, lack of networking or lack of time for those who submitted very late?
Once again, thanks.
We are always open to review and fine-tune the process for future similar projects! Looking forward to constructive suggestions how we can do that!
I would like to argue that those who submitted their proposals first were the ones likely to get selected. I don’t think there is fairness because one may have submitted their proposals the earliest and because they had enough time to lobby for votes they got shortlisted even though their proposals were not that convincing. I would suggest that you should give a chance to those that submitted their proposals a bit late because people get information in various ways other instant others not. Being popular because you got more votes with this criteria does not mean that you got it right. That’s my concern.
Congratulations to the winners though. Good luck!
There is no doubt that those who submitted early, had a potential of gathering more public votes. But as you will see in the pre-selection list, there are quite a few who submitted late, and were able to catch up really fast.
We do realize it takes a while for people to get to know about this project (we still, until this morning, receive proposals). However, we did our best to ensure as many people as possible were aware this project was coming up *before* the official announcement, by distributing the news to many different channels.
I would encourage all to connect with the community at http://ypard.net where projects and opportunities like ours are often announced.
If anything, this is a call to all young agripreneurs out there, to connect to networks like YPARD, not only for funding opportunities, but also to network with other agripreneurs and find opportunities to work together.
Thank you GFAR for such opportunity. The number of proposals you got should be a testament to the fact that this youths want to help ensure food security in their communities. I think the first selection criteria of using wordpress really made the voting process difficult. I think it should not be limited to only wordpress users. Thank you
The public voting was not limited to WordPress users. Anyone could view and comment on the proposals, without having a WordPress account (as was made clear in the call for proposals)
While congratulating the winners, it bothers me greatly why no Nigerian was able to make it to the top despite the efforts and quality of proposals submitted from Nigerians. How do we represent this? I still believe something is wrong somewhere, otherwise, how on earth will a Nigerian not make it to the top from among those who sent in their entries as seen and read on this site? This is a big question for the organisers of this programme.
Or can we say all entries from Nigeria were so poorly articulated or what??
Were Nigerians seen as people who do not need to be funded or what? Please do not see me as being sentimental, but the fact need be told.
I am sincerely bothered.
Can I answer this from a pure personal perspective?
In the past four years, I have been closely involved with youth projects. I had many opportunities to work with youth from all over the globe, which also further strengthened my motivation to work with young people, and not to pass any opportunity to assist, mentor, train or encourage them.
During these projects, I crossed path with many Nigerian youth, whom, specifically, I found inspiring, motivated, very entrepreneurial, bright and very positive minded.
If I count it well, 5 out of the 30 pre-selected proposals were from Nigeria, which is well representative for the proposals received. As for the jury voting for the finalists, apart from the additional prize from certain Caribbean countries, there was no bias on nationality.
For your interest, there is a project just launched by IITA (based in Nigeria) for Nigerian agripreneurs: http://www.iita.org/2016-news/-/asset_publisher/CxA7/content/youth-agricultural-program-launched-in-delta-state;jsessionid=15E36647FC1DF78307DCDBF004AA40B3?redirect=%2F2016-news#.VupSXHB5CHw
I just went through the 6 projects selected by the jury.
I have this feelings that something isn’t just right with the quality of projects selected by the jury. The project are below average.
I’m sure u guys delayed the announcement (till midnight) because you knew that the whole process was flawed and had been compromised.
…And to make matters worse, no project from the entire west Africa nor Nigeria was selected.
The jury acted to favor a particular region. So sorry to say this sir, but I think your jury is biased.
Sorry to disagree with you, Austin, while I was not part of the jury myself, I think the quality and potential of the proposals from the finalists is excellent.
Congratulations to all the finalists!! The criteria that double the number of finalists would be screened based on comments n likes made many too much hopeful, since in that case there would have been only 12 to be judged. I can understand the disappointment of those who did hard work in marketing their propopsals & were happy that they will have 50% chances of winning.
The process ultimately followed is a big learning in itself for such expectant YAPs!
“Management of expectations” is indeed always a challenge. Especially in projects like this, which are very close to the applicants’ life. From our side we have done our best to, in this initial phase, to give visibility of the potential of youth agripreneurship. I hope it is inspiring for the entrants, as well as for the wider public, and the donor community!
I recieved very late on YAP proposals writing, so you have closed recieving that?
Hi Sam, unfortunately, we have..
Congratulations to the winners and thanks for the opportunity.
Reblogged this on Sridhar Gutam.
Congratulations to the finalists….am happy you’ve mentioned that you will explore other ways, to work with the submitted proposals and assist as many agripreneurs as you can, within your possibilities. There are many excellent proposals among the unselected… Maybe a word of encouragement, or simple mentoring/trainings organized by respective agricultural Officials in all the States that participated.. So that they don’t lose hope and realize their dreams… I wish this could happen sooner… Thanks
During the #GCARD3 global event in April, we will do an extra effort to raise visibility on the proposals we received (and the role of youth agripreneurship in general), to the world’s brightest minds working in agriculture. Based on their feedback, we will then work on providing extra support (in which ever way possible) to further encourage youth.
Again, I encourage all to connect to http://ypard.net where youth opportunities are continuously posted.
that will be very positive peter. weldone.
Wish the winners the very best. Others we will not rest until another round of applications. Probably by that time we shall have a better case to present.
That is indeed, the spirit, Nkwatsibwe! “YAP” was an opportunity, but only one out of the many… Continue working on your projects, use any possible platform to write about your project, and network with like-minded youth to get mutual support!
Can you please publish points earned by each proposal to help me understand how my project faired in the list of 30 ?
Also, l would like to know expert opinions from Jury Members on my project, as I wish to implement it no matter of its rejection from your side.
Send me an email at p.casier(at)cgiar.org and I will do my best to give individual feedback.
Adnan Arshad YAP #31 (Pakistan) is here to congratulate you all the selected 30 youth participants. I am happy that I am one of them.
Dear Peter sir,
Here I would like to thank you for all your efforts and hard-work. I hope that organization will get more sponsors for funding and we will also be consider again. Best of good luck.
Congratulations to the winners!
We could not all of us be winners, there had to be a few and the fact that we are not part of the winners does not mean no one else should win! It was a good opportunity to tell our stories out there and get a good piece of publicity for what we are doing; whatever influenced the final selection not withstanding!
Admin (Peter), can we get the final tallies posted in a blog here or at least sent to individuals who submitted proposals. I am very much interested to know our reach in terms of views for Kuku Kienyeji Farm.
Send me an email at p.casier(at)cgiar.org and I will do my best to give individual feedback.
I couldn´t agree more Jeremy! It was an excellent opportunity to share our dreams, our visions, our enthusiasm and our determination! Congratulations to all the winners, wonderful proposals!
All the best to the finalists. Their projects are indeed very feasible. I look forward to following the one for the Kenyan finalist. Noble initiative.
I request you to consider my opinions and if possible send to the management: As you know each one from the 30 who are shortlisted is coming from his or her own country where institutions or organizations are available for support as donors.. what i think probably information about this competition didn’t reach out to them.. i suggest to the management of this competition to send them information about competition and telling them about some idea proposal from their countries appears at top 30 but lack private individuals or institutions/organizations to support for seed fund as mentioned.. I think again, this may help to get more funders for other 24 left from 30 shortlisted. Besides, you may use your platform to tell the global about the other 24 for seed fund support. Otherwise, congratulations to all finalists!! 😁😁
Very constructive comments, thank you!
And you are totally right. This will be one of our priorities in the coming months: For the pre-selected proposals but also for the entire set of 428 proposals: find other opportunities.
I personally feel, there is much more work left for us to do, beyond this initial “call for proposals”, with the proposals we received. We will reach out to donors and funders as much as we can. And if not seed funding, we will also look as other mentoring possibilities or assistance in any possible way.
Again, I feel very personal about this, as by launching this project, we have an obligation to further work with these proposals.
PS: if anyone knows of interested donors or funders, we’d like to know of these!
So where do i go to view the finalists list.
The list in this blogpost, is it..!
At least for now. As said, we are looking for more ways to expand this list.
Congratulations to all winners. I do understand and congratulate all youths who submitted their projects. This shows how we can all change this world by our ideas. For all those who didn’t make it to the finals, kindly start small as you look for funding. You can always make a difference with the little you have.
To the organizers thank you for such an opportunity and would like to request that you find time to go through the proposals again as you get more funding because I think there were great ideas that may not be actualized without some assistance and voting doesn’t always guarantee the best. Thank you and looking forward to working with you in future.
Fully agree with you, Manei!
Congratulations to the finalists and to those that made it through the pre-selection. I am grateful to GFAR for the opportunity to show case my
to the online community, their feed back has motivated me to pursue it knowing seeing all the steam it generated through my network circles. Although I did not make it to the finalists, I’ll continue mobilizing all the help and resources to make this dream a reality, so that all those that look up to us will be inspired to embark on projects to secure the livelihood of our next generation.
I look forward to many more opportunities that GFAR will bring to us. I hope to win some day.
Best Regards to you all.
Thank you Amajja! Best of luck to you and your projects.
I call on readers to carefully read the proposals of the 6 finalists and use your discretion to think.
Peter you have done an excellent job with your team.
İ urge all the agripreneur who were not selected to keep following their dreams. İ assure you it will pay off one day.
Congratulations to the finalist and thanks for giving us the opportunity to expression ourselves.
And above all, once again: there are many opportunities around for mentoring or microfunding. Please connect to the large community of young agriculturalists at http://YPARD.net — they often publish opportunities for agripreneurs, grants, training (and for fellowships etc..).
Congratulations for your efforts to encourage agri-enterpreneurship, and congratulations to all the winners. I will like to give the following observations and hope you consider them for future YAP programs.
1. Funds and sponsors should be available before you announce the program, and the exact number future beneficiaries made known.
2. Social media is good but it should not be the only criteria for initial selection, selection should be made using both social media vand the quality of Biz, or 50-50
3. The selection process should be broken into regions for equity and equal representation,eg north Africa, southern Africa, north east Asia, western europe etc.
4. I will suggest you focus more on the unde developed or developing world for maximum impact, from the proposals submitted its observed that majority or all of the proposals originate from Africa and Asia.
thanks for the constructive comments. If you allow me to address them point per point:
Your point 1: It is always challenging. Two donors joined in after we started the project, just because they saw the quality of the incoming proposals, and wanted to be part of it. But what we should do next time, is make clear “we have funding for x projects now”, more can be funded if more donors come forward.
Your point 2: As mentioned before, using social media to come up with a shortlist, always worked well (and we always work with applicants from developing countries), but if we could find a way to rule that out as a pre-selection, that would be great.. We just can not have a jury look at 400+ proposals..
Your point 3: It is very difficult to break it up in regions. One would have to weigh in many different factors (number of potential target candidates, state of agripreneurship, state of poverty).. Either way on weighs, there will always be criticism the “the other got more slots”… Also, e.g. we can not way e.g. Europe or North America versus Sub Saharan Africa, as the access to funding in the latter is much more difficult.
Your point 4: I think the main underdeveloped region we missed was Central/South America, even though the call for proposal went out in Spanish, the pick-up from that region was rather slow…We received few proposals from there… For the rest, the main need for access to mentoring and funding is from Asia and Africa, so that came out well in the proposals, and in the final selection, I think.
Congratulations to the winners though I would like to get your professional point of view on project #215.
Your advices and general view about it please.
Hi Maurice, as mentioned above, you would need to send me an email, and I can give you direct feedback. At the moment, I have a lot of requests for feedback and comments, so it will take some time to answer everyone, and give them the quality of feedback they deserve.
Well wishing all winners
Good initiative… Congratulations to the winners. I think, there are some brilliant projects that would have scaled through if selection was not attached to social media comments and likes. My suggestion though. Keep it up guys! You are wonderful.
🙂 there will always be limitations though, @primeparrot.. I can easily pick 100 proposals that I would fund from my own pocket, which were very well written and well thought out!
But thanks for your well wishes.. 🙂
a good one. looking forward to consideration on #6
Dear Mr Peter,
First of all, I am myself an applicant #20, the YAP was a great experience. This has allowed many young people to show their capacities and their will to get involved in business farming as a business.
Personally, I have get experience on social media and blogging. As it was shared on social networks, many people particularly young people have seen the competition and this can also change their views about agriculture.
All the 428 projects were good but as in all competitions there are winners.
In my opinion, selected or not selected, it will remain a great experience for me. Whatever the choice, I will try my best to realise my project thus my dream.
May be one suggestions for improvement, can be to look at the feasibility, socio-economic aspects and overall quality …. of the proposals. Proposal may be interesting, good and feasible but due to low popularity, they are not selected. In addition, people in under-developed countries may apply for the YAP but due to poor access to internet and large audience on social media, they are penalised.
Hope this will help in the future competitions.
Thank you for this unforgettable challenge and my thanks go to those who are working hard on it.
As you said above, any kind of help is most welcome.
Indeed, as mentioned before, I agree.. However we would need to think of a way to do the pre-selection without a jury having to look at 400 proposals, and while still encouraging people besides the submittors, to look at the proposals (as one of the goals was to ensure the agripreneurs got the visibility and the overall cause of “youth agripreneurship” got the needed visibility…
Congratulations to all the finalists….
Congratulations to the winners!
Please Peter, is this actually a yearly opportunity for youths? And how can those just coming across GFAR know when another opportunity will be opened for the submission of YAP proposals?
This is a pilot project (as mentioned in the many posts before), so from this we want to learn (the amount of interest from agripreneurs, as well as from donors. We would love to repeat this, but our very first priority will be to work with the existing proposals and see what more we can do to support these agripreneurs who have already submitted (and might not be part of the 6 finalists…)..
I’m very happy to hear from you again. My proposal is YAP#32, https://blog.gfar.net/2016/02/25/yap-proposal-32-integrated-farming-tomato-trees-banana-hubert-hirwa-rwanda/ . it was selected in the first 30 proposal.
Anyway, congratulation to all the finalists. We hope the sponsors will choose others from the 30 proposals. I’m doing some critical analysis on this selection and with a constructive&instructive purposes that we can consider globally i will send it to you via email. In fact, those who are claiming for submitting too late, i encourage them to be connected to YAPRD.NET the information is faster.
Very much looking forward to your feedback, Hubert!
Indeed thanks for your detail announcement of the finalist. Its great to have our friends come through but my advise next time should not only be best on the comments, likes but should also focus on the value for community empowerment, food security, malnutrition and social -economic status improving livelihoods and employment. I believe Jury’s did their work but left out serious projects.
yep, we discussed this in the previous comments.. Unfortunately, even if we would be able to fund 50, there would still be proposals “left”, that really deserve funding… That’s why I mentioned before I see it as our first duty now, to work further with the submitted proposals and see what we can do more to assist these agripreneurs.
Thankyou everyone for the best wishes. Congratulations to SMT – Peter for replying to each and every question so quickly.
much as i have an interest in this issue, i just wanted to point out that i read overwhelmingly great agri business proposals which didnt make it just because people didnt comment or liked..etc…i feel this is you could have done more than that…so, for the record and future, arent you going to help these other agriprenuers in any other way?? or by just linking them to other donnors or youth agriprenuer investors etc…????
I covered this in my answers above… There are many ways we can and should think of to expand the support to the agripreneurs who submitted.
My name is Marko, I submitted proposal number 200.
Congratulations to the winners, make a difference with the opportunity!
This competition was for those with access to Internet connectivity. For countries like Malawi where it’s expensive to be online I don’t believe there will ever be a winner from here on these type of competition designs.
Nonetheless I am happy I took part and will continue my efforts in the best way possible for the community.
yes and no.. There are a few of the 30 pre-selected agripreneurs who wrote me their story afterwards, and clearly lived in a very badly connected area. Actually the one who scored the highest in online votes, had to walk every day for 45 minutes to get a connection. And still, he managed to get the highest online score. How? Creativity. He involved public figures and celebrities to tweet/facebook his proposal and used his existing networks very well.
Others worked from cybercafes, from missionary posts, from the internet center at cooperatives…
Of course for different regions, the efforts to get connected, are very different.
This was an amazing initiative. I am not from the farming community or agricultural field. However, my support to one of the projects led me explore many other excellent projects here. It’s inspiring to see so many young people doing everything they can so that the rural farming community can be benefited. Great work and great projects, I must say. I hope the projects which weren’t the finalists today would be achieved in some way or the other. Because our farmers need them.
Thanks Orpita, glad to hear how someone who is not in the agricultural field, discovered how much is actually going on amongst the young agripreneurs… This was one of the goals of our project: general advocacy for the cause of these young enthusiastic agriculturalists!
Congratulations guyz who have qualified to be the winners in this wonderful competition among the youths.I personally wishing them best wishes for their effort and success. Its true that in every competition there is one winner and lucky enough in this competition its more than one which is very impressing to me. As the one who wrote proposal number 307, I hope admin(peter) heard about complaints what others said like the case of Nigeria that submitted many of proposals than any other country but found no one won. it happens guys just imagine in order a bulb to give light it was attempted 999 and upon reaching 1000 it gives light so keep on writing one day you will win.
To admin am still thinking on what best procedure/method apart from public vote and using ur formula which u included ‘likes’ to use because ‘ likes’ part was a challenge since in order to do that required someone with wordpress.com which is not common here in Malawi and it was included in the formula. this brought great difference admin, for instance two guyz, one has 300 comments and 5 likes from poor country and another one has 300 comments and 250 likes from better country and they have similar views. the results of the formula I hope will be completely different between two guyz which is might be because of poor technology in that country hence ur response to my friend above was not valid I think the formula on its own played a little bit role of selection among poor countries in terms of technology. Admin I think that most countries that won are from developed ones and most developing countries that submitted their proposals are not appeared i hope its because of technology advancement since most comments for each proposal were from a country where the author is coming from. Disregard of that I feel the competition was interest and really ensuring the youths to take part in development of the nations not just waiting for elders to take part. Keep it up admin and YAP!!!!!!!!
The issue of connectivity came up several times in the comments… I just want to repeat what I mentioned before: Actually the one who scored the highest in online votes, had to walk every day for 45 minutes to get a connection. And still, he managed to get the highest online score. How? Creativity. He involved public figures and celebrities to tweet/facebook his proposal and used his existing networks very well.
The winners are not from first world countries, though…
But glad you enjoyed the project! 🙂
Let me take this opportunity to appreciate the efforts of jury members and GFAR to come up with finalist in YAP competition…!!May God bless you all; at the same time let me congratulate all youth agripreneurs who make up to 30 YAP Shortlist and 6 YAP finalist;Wishing you all the best of luck
YAP#16 Din’t make up to shortlist of 30 YAP,With that i don’t count as a failure but rather as learning process and motivation to undertake plan B to materialize the idea of changing agro input business in Tanzania;Let me welcome any one with an advice/comment on the idea(Reach me via my e-mail adress;email@example.com)
I will be happy to provide you feedback, but you would need to send me an email. Simply because then I can follow up who I answered and who I did not. please send me a mail asking for feedback via p.casier(at)cgiar.org and I will be happy to help out.
A reminder for everyone: I get a lot of requests for feedback. I want to look at each case in depth, and give you the quality of feedback you deserve. So allow be about a week to come back to you.
I feel happy that the whole process was a true learning process for me.Also, felt bit disappointed as I had put in lot of efforts through social media and had garnered substantial support in form of quality comments.I guess I did n’t make into final entry because of lack of experience in my proposal.I would definitely try again .My Heartiest congratulations to the final six.
Keep trying! there are many opportunities around. Check http://ypard.net – they do a magnificent job in trying to aggregate all opportunities for young people.
Hearty congratulations to the winners!.
****Just a word of caution for commenters***
While we allocate the time to respond to queries, suggestions, remarks, keep it constructive. As you have seen in the past weeks, we publish comments, even if we don’t agree with the arguments (hey, that is what cooperation is all about, agree to disagree)…
But inflammatory discussions is not what we are having on this website/blog. I more than welcome feedback, and if you want to do it discretely, you can send them to me via email, but we reserve the right to delete comments that do not fit within the spirit of positive collaboration.
Hope you understand. 🙂
can you comment on my proposal #111. i need guidance and support for this project
as mentioned earlier, please send me an email p.casier(at)cgiar.org , and I will send you my feedback.
I would like to congratulate the winners. But my main concern is that some projects had enough time to network while others like me had only about 3days to do so. This should have been concerned. Next time advertise until a deadline of submission. Once that closes publish all the projects at the same time so that the is a level playing field and everyone gets equal time and opportunity. How do u expect me to get the same vote and comments with someone with a 2 or 3 weeks head start? This should be corrected in future competitions.
what we can do, is leave more time, after the deadline for submission (e.g. 2 weeks).. Totally leveling the field e.g. everybody comes online at the same time, will be quite difficult, to do practically: many submissions are received during the “open time”, simply because one submission inspires another. People also typically have a fear to “be the first”: at the beginning, submissions come in very slowly. There is always a rush at the end..
But definitively something we should further look into!
I understand no one wants to be the first but with the success of this years competition the next one will receive a lot of attention. I believe if more time is given eg like you suggested 2 weeks after deadline will be fine. So 2 weeks of submission and after deadline 2weeks of networking can work better for most participants.
Well noted Percival!
Heart felt congrats to the winners. To organizers too, thank you very much for the challenge. This challenge inspired me to think on the social impact I would want to have a s an agripreneur. That fact itself has really motivated me to work harder on my project and be the change I want to see.
For a global competition and only six winners; definitely we cannot have everyone in the house. I encourage the winners to represent well the over 400 youth who entered the challenge. If they make this pilot a success I believe next year we will have more donors supporting our start ups.
Thank you everyone who was involved in the process and looking forward learning more opportunities to learn, share and advocate for agriculture and nutrition.
hello..good selection, you did a good job!..i do suggest that donors should try to fund more so that even those who reached in 30 could get atleast half of the fund they want for their project!…instead of not even giving them some fund..i do belive that many if not all of the written proposals are potential to the related areas.
We agree, Aurelia! We will work with existing and future donors to expand the program.
@Aurelia, its very true but in addition, you can’t only do commenting and take it priority because these proposals differ depending on the area to be formed or beneficiaries. I do still believe many proposals left should be given another chance if possible world bank should be also introduced on board because these youth proposals need encouragement and other people would love to comment but the scale of ICT in area is sure challenge. So this still brings down to what would be the better proposal.
Congratulation to the finalists, i wish them all the best. thank you for the opportunity to present our projects to the world. i was amazed by the many comments i received, i even received a bit of money from an anonymous local person to help me to promote my project. even though i did not make the cut, i will still continue working on my project as i really believe that we can make a difference to the lives of many people in our rural areas in Zimbabwe
Oh, that is great, Innocent.. Shows that even showcasing your project, really pays off!
Best of luck to you and your project!
Congrats to the winners it hasn’t been an easy process though. Good luck. I still believe in my Proposal as well, though it did not make it
Keep on the lookout for other sponsoring programs, Linah! http://ypard.net often features more opportunities for youth!
PLEASE MY FELLOW CONTESTANTS WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO NETWORK OURSELVES GLOBALLY VIEW THE LINK BELOW:
Hearty Congrats to finalists… Would like to wish them a great success ahead.
Mine was proposal #12… didn’t even get shortlisted, but have no regrets.
Anyways, I am going to make it happen. I will succeed in my dream and will come back to GFAR not as a participant but as a donor to fund guys who have dreams and determination to realize them.
It was a great learning experience.
Thanks a lot Peter and team… you have been an inspiration and a ray of hope!
Reblogged this on Tales from Travels, the mind's magic carpet and more and commented:
Very proud of Nikki Pilania Chaudhary, India!
Many Thanks Gita Ma’am…..
Teachers such as you have played crucial role in enabling us to do good things for society.
Probably one way you can improve the selection process is to entertain the entries by groups. The groups will be determined by the time when they are submitted. (Example: Group A can submit entries from 1st to 2nd week of a month, Group B can submit entries 2nd to 3rd week and so on..)
So that there will be equal opportunities. Jury can be assigned per Group of Projects. They can then shortlist entries per group. Then pit them against each other (Group A entries vs Group C entries, Group B entries vs Group D entires…etc..) with another set of judges, like a tournament. Then the ultimate shortlist will be judged by your highest panel which can determine the projects to be funded.
This eliminates the chances of entries not being seen by the jury and this will encourage people to strategize their submission time.
Just my couple of pennies. 🙂
Hi Dax.. Yeah, a bit like the “play-offs” in some sport competitions… Would need a bit of extra work, but might do it…
If there was any doubt that the youth are taking the lead role in innovating for agriculture, all doubts need to be shelved now!