Please find below the
Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' comments
SUBJECT: Climate CoLab Judging Results
Proposal: Best Adaptation to Water Scarcity caused by Climate Change in Himalayan regions
Thank you for participating in the 2015 Climate CoLab Adaptation contest, and for the time you spent in creating and revising your entry.
The Judges have strongly considered your proposal in this second round of evaluation, and have chosen to not advance it as a Finalist for this contest.
We, the Judges and contest Fellows, are truly grateful for your contribution to the Climate CoLab and for your commitment to address climate change.
We encourage you to keep developing your work. Transfer it to the Proposal Workspace to re-open it, make edits, add collaborators, and even submit it into a future contest. You can do so by logging into your account, opening your proposal, selecting the Admin tab, and clicking “Move proposal”.
We hope you will stay involved in the Climate CoLab community. Please support and comment on proposals that have been named Finalists and vote for which proposal you would like to be nominated as the contest’s Popular Choice Winner.
If you have questions, please contact the Climate CoLab staff at admin@climatecolab.org
Keep up the great work. And thank you again for being a part of this mission to harness the world’s collective efforts to develop and share innovative climate change solutions.
2015 Climate CoLab Judges
Additional comments from the Judges:
The idea of combining multiple sustainability technologies in one areas is an interesting one. If successfully implemented, the various technologies mentioned here could have an important impact on a community. But the proposal is missing key details about its objectives and plans. It is not clear whether this proposal actually aims to implement the technologies, or simply to educate people about their benefits and study their possible benefits in a given community. If the aim is to implement them, more detail about how this implementation will be conducted, financed, and managed is needed. Also, it seems that this project would be an interesting opportunity to consider how these technologies could work together and build on their respective strengths. As it stands, each one is discussed separately. I would recommend that the project team take some time to consider how these technologies might work as a linked system. What benefits (in terms of cost, technical advantages, or other) will arise from implementing these technologies simultaneously?
This project looks to solve water scarcity issues in the Himalayan region. I have a few concerns. First, how much effort has already been done for this region on this topic? Perhaps a great deal has already been done on this or nothing. I couldn't tell if this had been researched or local agencies contacted. For example a cursory internet search turned up a story of two agencies that had helped secure water in this area: http://www.trust.org/item/20131103221719-dcup3/?source=spotlight. The solution set is detailed and can draw on similar solutions from other regions. I wasn't clear on how the authors would draw on the existing knowledge for the solutions. I think the lack of novelty here is a strength and not a weakness. Well tested solutions are better than new ones. Lastly, I would have liked to see some discussion of how to export the lessons learned in this project to other regions around the world. Presumably many of the solutions would be valuable in similar parts of the world.
Semi-Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
SUBJECT: Your proposal has been selected as a Semi-Finalist!
Congratulations! Your proposal, Best adaptation to water scarcity caused by climate change in the Himalayan regions in the Adaptation contest, has been selected to advance to the Semi-Finalists round.
You will be able to revise your proposal and add new collaborators if you wish, from July 1st until July 14, 2015 at 23:59pm Eastern Time.
Judges' feedback are posted under the "Evaluation" tab of your proposal. Please incorporate this feedback in your revisions, or your proposal may not be advanced to the Finalists round. We ask you to also summarize the changes that you made in the comment section of the Evaluation tab.
At the revision deadline listed below, your proposal will be locked and considered in final form. The Judges will undergo another round of evaluation to ensure that Semi-Finalist proposals have addressed the feedback given, and select which proposals will continue to the Finalists round. Finalists are eligible for the contest’s Judges Choice award, as well as for public voting to select the contest’s Popular Choice award.
Thank you for your great work and again, congratulations!
2015 Climate CoLab Judges - further comments
This proposal does a good job of outlining the challenges faced by communities in this area, and the potential responses that could be used to address them.
But very little detail is given about the actual project that is being proposed here. It seems that what if being proposed is to convene a group of key actors (listed in the "who will take these actions" section) and to collaboratively assess, design, secure funding for ,and implement specific solutions that are the most appropriate for the Mustang Districts. But no real detail is given about this process. How will be organized? How will the partnership between the different groups be created and maintained? What types of events, training courses, and outreach will be used to involve the local community? How will the pilot community be selected? Much more detail is needed about the precise approach that the project team is going to use.
More detail is also needed about the project team itself. Who are they? What experience do they have with these kinds of projects? What links to they have to the key partners and communities involved?
To reflect the above problems I have reduced the overall feasibility score.
Finally, the budget seems overly vague. It also does not include any budget for the materials needed to build the different interventions described.
We would encourage the project team to keep working on these important issues, but to provide a much more detailed description of the desired outcome, the workplan for achieving it, and the budget needed to carry out the work.
1comment
Share conversation:
Share via:
 Raj Khatri Jul 13, 2015 11:30  | Proposal creator
Proposal has been revised to incorporate comments of judges. Technical team at Kathmandu, Coordination or support team at district and working ream at community has been defined. Process and linkage between various groups has been defined. Last paragraphs of summary has been changed to make projects work more clear. Section "who will take this action" has been elaborated and written as steps. Cost section has been revised to make it more practical and allocated more funds for community.
|
