2005-IGM-SPG 10.pdf - Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change ...
2005-IGM-SPG 10.pdf - Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change ...
2005-IGM-SPG 10.pdf - Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
120<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
87<br />
5-Year Trend of Pre-Proposals Submitted<br />
101<br />
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004<br />
52<br />
Number of Pre-Proposals<br />
43<br />
64<br />
<strong>IGM</strong>/10/07-01<br />
<strong>SPG</strong>/10/07-01<br />
Report on 2004 Annual Regional Call <strong>for</strong> Proposals (ARCP) 2<br />
1. Pre-proposals: 64 received<br />
• For Table of Pre-proposals see: <strong>IGM</strong>10/07-01/Appendix 1<br />
<strong>SPG</strong>10/07-01/Appendix 1<br />
• Number received slightly higher compared with 43 and 52 in 2003 and 2002<br />
respectively. Number of pre-proposals received is 87 in 2001 and 101 in 2000.<br />
• 31% submitted a full proposal.<br />
• 18 of the 20 pre-proposals submitted as full proposals advanced to Rapid<br />
Assessment Stage process, 2 were rejected. All of those18 full proposals<br />
passed to stage 1 of review process.<br />
• 13 of the 20 pre-proposals (65%) submitted as full proposals passed<br />
to final stage and have been short-listed to receive funding.<br />
2. Full-proposals: 56 received (5 were ineligible)<br />
• For Table of Full Proposals see: <strong>IGM</strong>10/07-01/Appendix 2<br />
<strong>SPG</strong>10/07-01/Appendix 2<br />
• Number of eligible full proposals (51) received is up 6% on 2003, the number<br />
of proposals was manageable this year, given that 19 reviewers responded<br />
in the review process.<br />
• Eight full proposals were eliminated at the Rapid Assessment Stage (RAS);<br />
leaving 43 full proposals were reviewed by the Scientific Planning Group at<br />
Stage One.<br />
• Thirty proposals (70%) advanced to the final stage (cut-off line was set at<br />
scores of 6 and above).<br />
• Twenty one external mail reviewers were selected according to their area of<br />
interest and expertise to provide comments on a number of “borderline<br />
proposals.<br />
2 This report is on the “Process” and will not cover proposals recommended <strong>for</strong><br />
funding.<br />
�48�