Skip navigation

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' comments


The proposal did not address the Judges' comments from the last round. Good idea but not novel and not easily sustainable.

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' ratings


Novelty:
Feasibility:
Impact:
Presentation:

Judges'' comments


Judges were interested in learning more about the economic sustainability of the proposal as well as more details on the feasibility of scaling the proposal.

1comment
Share conversation: Share via:

Maria Lumiaho

Jun 15, 2016
08:33

Member


1 |
Share via:
Proposal
creator

Generally, we have changed a few references in the overall proposal, as we believe to have found higher quality references. We also use the term ‘regenerative organic farming/agriculture’ to describe the farming methods that sequester carbon into the soil, and allow the soil to store carbon, again because we believe to have found a better term to describe the methods. We have also agreed not to continue collaboration with a previous partner, and therefore we have removed all references to them from this proposal. Other changes to the proposal are listed below as per section:

Actions

  • We have found a new partner, Finsect, and are working with their farmers, increasing the amount of potential new farmers to 100.

  • Removed references to previous partner

  • We added more detailed descriptions of scalability and financials

Who will take these actions

  • Removed mention of previous partner

Where will actions be taken?

  • Added more detailed description of the new partner

How much will be sequestered vs. business as usual?

  • Changed to a more reliable reference for the explanation of climate impact, thereby changing the way we explain the climate impact

Timeline

  • Removed mention of previous partner

Other related proposals

  • Removed one related proposal, as it didn’t support our methodologies