gain rfp round 3 proposal - parliament · web viewan alternative way to view the document is in...

GAIN Request for Proposals (RFP)

National Food Fortification Programme

Implementation and Strengthening Grants

DRAFT PROPOSAL FORM FOR ROUND 4

Submission date: 7 August 2005

Board review date: October 2005

Please ensure that all the following information is completed.

Proposal Name Iron & Folic Acid Flour Fortification Programme in Georgia

Country Georgia

Address of Institutional Contact

NFA - GeorgiaParliamentary Committee for Health & Social Affairs

Date 05/08/2005 (use dd/mm/yyyy format)

Transparency statementPlease list the names of all individuals (including their institutional affiliation) and institutions that have contributed to the preparation of this proposal.Of those who assisted in preparing the proposal, which people will be hired as consultants or staff with GAIN funds?GAIN understands that all information submitted in this proposal is accurate and complete to the best of the knowledge of the National Fortification Alliance members. Provision of intentionally inaccurate or misleading information is, and will be, cause for rejection of the proposal or termination of the project at any point in time.[Please add rows to the table below as required for each individual (using the menu option ‘GAIN Options>Add Row Below’). Please click on ‘(Select answer)’ in the ‘To be hired?’ column and choose ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ from the drop-down list.]

Table : Transparency statement

Name of individual Name of organization To be hired?1

Mr. Giorgi Gegelashvili MP, Parliament of Georgia, NFA Chair

No

Ms. Mariam Jashi UNICEF Georgia NoMr. Quentin Johnson GAIN Consultant NoMr. Gela Kodalashvili Ltd Forte No

Georgia

Name of individual Name of organization To be hired?1

Ms. Manana Tsulukidze Parliament of Georgia NoMs. Eka Kandelaki Pediatricians & Neonatologists Union NoMr. Levan Baramidze Head, Public Health Department NoMr. Vaniko Kurua EDRB BAS Project NoMr. Shota Chkeidze Ministry of Agriculture No1 Will the individual be hired as a consultant or staff [Yes/No]?

Table : National Fortification Programme Management Institution Details

Name of Institution Committee of Health & Social Affairs, Parliament of GeorgiaLegal Status Public Institution Type of Organization State Authority Name and Title of Chief Executive Officer

Mr. Gigi Tsereteli, Member of Parliament (MP)Head, Parliamentary Committee of Health & Social Affairs

Name and Title of Contact (if different from the above)

Mr. Giorgi Gegelashvili (MP)Deputy Head, Parliamentary Committee for Health & Social Affairs, NFA Chair

Address 8, Rustaveli Ave, 0118, Tbilisi, GeorgiaTelephone (+ 995 32) 996178; (+ 995 32 990905)Fax Email [email protected]; [email protected] the institution named in Table is NOT the focal point for the proposal submission and subsequent correspondence, please use Table to provide details of the institution acting as focal point for the proposal process.

Table : Proposal Focal Point (if different from Table )

Name of Institution Legal Status Type of Organization Name and Title of Chief Executive Officer

Name and Title of Contact (if different from the above)

Address Telephone Fax Email

Table : Expected Proportion of Food Vehicle Fortified Nationally

Food vehicle PercentageCurrent level Vehicle 1 0%Level in 18 months Vehicle 1 35%Level in 3 years Vehicle 1 80%

GAIN RFP Round 4/d1 Georgia 2

National Fortification Alliance (NFA) compositionGAIN only accepts proposals from a National Fortification Alliance (NFA).Please use the table below to describe the composition of the NFA. Include the name and type of organization for organizations that are actively involved in supporting the fortification effort, and the role defined for the organization within the proposed fortification programme.In the hard copy of this proposal, please provide a copy of Table E, with the signatures of the NFA representatives, as Attachment 5.1.8, affirming their participation in the NFA processes, including the development of this proposal.[Please add rows to the table below as required for each representative (using the menu option ‘GAIN Options>Add Row Below’).]

Table : NFA Representatives

We have reviewed the final proposal and endorse it. We have read and accept the GAIN Request for Proposals Guidelines. If the proposal is approved we further pledge to continue our involvement and implement the roles and responsibilities designated to our organization in the proposal.Name of Organization

Type of Organization1

Position in NFA2

Role in proposed fortification programme

Name of NFA Representative

Title of NFA Representative

Signature and Date

Please refer to attachment 5.1.8 for Table E hardcopy with signatures by NFA representatives

Attachment 5.1.5.C reflects minutes of the NFA meeting on 04/08/05 with final review and endorsement of the GAIN proposal

1 Individual government ministries, regulatory agencies, health and development NGOs, food production sector, other private sector, professional associations, productivity councils, academic or research institution, media, consumer and volunteer organizations, international organizations, and others.2 Optional—might include Chair, or other formal position.

GAIN RFP Round 4/d1 3

GAIN RFP

National Food Fortification Programme

Implementation and Strengthening Grants

PROPOSAL FORM

PART 1: Programme feasibility – analyses the existing situation, and the feasibility of the overall Programme.

PART 2: Market analysis – covers supply, demand, and market for the food vehicle.

PART 3: Programme detail – requests detailed information on the implementation and coverage of the project.

PART 4: Budget (to be detailed in the separate GAIN RFP Excel spreadsheet template).

PART 5: Required attachments.

The GAIN Request for Proposal Guidelines are available at http://www.gainhealth.org and form an integral part of this request for proposals.

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING ADVICE ON HOW TO COMPLETE THIS FORM AND THE GAIN LOGICAL

FRAMEWORK BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO PROCEED

Technical advice for using this form1. If you have any problems entering information into this document or working with it in any

way, please contact the GAIN RFP Helpdesk at [email protected]. This document is designed to make your communication with GAIN easier, not more difficult, so do please contact the Helpdesk with any queries for assistance with the Word document, Excel spreadsheet, or the requirements of the Proposal.

2. Please enter responses in the spaces provided in the form. The majority of this document is ‘protected’ and cannot be changed. You can only enter information into certain areas or ‘fields’. Where the text ‘please enter response’ is visible, it can be typed over. (Please see the ‘Tips on completing this form’ section below).

3. Tables in the document may require more than one row of information. To add an extra row to a table, place the cursor in a row and choose the menu option ‘GAIN Options>Add Row Below’. To delete a row, place the cursor in the row to be deleted and choose the menu option ‘GAIN Options>Delete Current Row’.

4. If the menu options in the ‘GAIN Options’ menu do not appear to work, ensure that you have enabled the macros in the document. [You should be asked to enable macros when you open the document. Click on the ‘Enable Macros’ button. If the button does not respond, click on the checkbox ‘Always trust macros from this source’ and then click on the ‘Enable Macros’ button again. If no prompt appears at all, and the menu options do not appear to work, choose the menu option ‘Tools>Macros>Security…’, set the Security


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.gainhealth.org/

Level to ‘Medium’, click OK, and then close Word and re-open the GAIN document.] Note: You should only enable macros that you know to be safe—unknown documents may contain harmful macros.

5. Additional documentation and annexes (in addition to those provided in Part 5: Required attachments) can be included in Part 6, where the proposal document is not ‘protected’.

6. GAIN’s Proposal Reviewers are aware of the importance of micronutrients in human health. It is therefore not necessary to include basic or scientific facts about micronutrient malnutrition (such as the global prevalence, the consequences of deficiencies or the general the rationale for fortification, etc).

7. Proposals should be presented in English.

8. All Proposals should be submitted in hard-copy on 8 ½ x 11 inch or A4 pages as well as in electronic format in Microsoft Word documents and Excel spreadsheets.

9. Proposals submitted become the property of GAIN but they will be shared only with people associated with the review and negotiation process. GAIN will obtain approval from the applicant if it wishes to share the proposal with others.

And here are some tips to make completing the form easier:

10.You can use the TAB/SHIFT-TAB or PAGE-UP/PAGE-DOWN keys to move the cursor between the different fields or parts of the document that should be completed, or use the scroll-bar on the right-hand side of the window to move up and down in the document, then click with the mouse to select where you would like to type or paste text.

11.Some of the tables in the document use special ‘drop-down selection boxes’. When you see an entry in a table marked ‘(select)’, this means that you can select one of several fixed values from a list. To select a value, click on the text with the mouse (or move the cursor to the field with the TAB/SHIFT-TAB or PAGE-UP/DOWN keys). A small downward-pointing arrow should appear at the right-hand end of the field. Click on this arrow with the mouse (or press and hold the ALT key and press the CURSOR-DOWN key once) to display a list of choices. Click on one of the choices (or highlight one by using the CURSOR-UP/CURSOR-DOWN keys) and then move to the next field.

12.To navigate more quickly through the document, you can click with the mouse on the page numbers in the Table of Contents to move directly to a particular section of the document. Choose menu option ‘GAIN Options>Go to Table of Contents’ to return to the Table of Contents page. To update the page numbers in the Table of Contents after you have entered some text, choose the menu option ‘GAIN Options>Update Table of Contents’.Alternatively, choose menu option ‘View>Document Map’ to display a list of sections on the left-hand side of the window that can be clicked on directly.

13.To view the document more easily, you can use ‘Page Width’ view (choose menu option ‘View>Zoom…’, click on the ‘Page Width’ radio button, then click ‘OK’). An alternative way to view the document is in ‘Print Preview’ mode: choose menu option ‘File>Print Preview’.

14.If the document seems slow to respond when you are working on your computer, try switching to ‘Normal’ view mode (choose menu option ‘View>Normal’). This will reduce the work for your computer.

15.In order to update the budget tables from the spreadsheet, choose menu option ‘GAIN Options>Update Budget Tables’. If the tables display the wrong values, or the update fails, choose menu option ‘GAIN Options>Find Spreadsheet’ and a window will be displayed to allow you to locate the correct spreadsheet. (Once the update process has completed, the Microsoft Word window may not be visible. Press ALT-TAB or click on the Microsoft Word icon on the task bar – usually along the bottom edge of the screen – in order to make Word visible again).REMEMBER: Always save your work before performing complex operations or switching to a different application.

16.You may find it convenient to create draft text in a separate Word document and then copy and paste the text into this document (or you can prepare text in Part 5 Required attachments).


17.If an error message is displayed while you are working, please contact the GAIN RFP Helpdesk at the address above. Also, it is very important to choose menu option ‘GAIN Options>Update Table of Contents’ to ensure that the document is properly protected again before continuing to work.

Introduction to the GAIN logical frameworkDifferent organizations tend to use slightly different definitions of logical frameworks (logframes). This process of customization maximizes the usefulness of the logframe approach for each institution. However familiar you are with logframes, it is necessary for you to work within the specifics of the GAIN logical framework. As there are five components to a food fortification programme, in the GAIN logical framework you will find five component objectives, each one already defined.

The logframe helps programme designers by supporting logical thinking and is a means whereby an organization, programme, or project may be developed, structured and described. The logframe approach also helps to set, from the beginning, indicators of programme success and impact.

Logframes are a development of the ‘management by objectives’ approach. They are a methodology that provides a structure for designing a project, and a tool for project management, evaluation, and impact assessment. The logframe specifies what the project is attempting to achieve and indicates the means by which the achievement may be measured. It makes the project logic explicit.

Logframes can be read both top-down and bottom-up.

A logframe involves a detailed breakdown of the chain of causality in the project design, which can be read from the bottom-up. For example, this can be expressed in terms of:

IF inputs are provided, THEN activities can be undertaken; IF activities are undertaken, THEN outputs will be produced; IF outputs are produced, THEN component objectives will be achieved; IF component objectives are achieved, THEN the programme objective will be

achieved; IF the programme objective is achieved, this should support the achievement of the

programme purpose; IF the programme purpose is achieved, this should then contribute towards the

overall goal (and thereafter, the ‘super goal’).

Each level thus provides the rationale for the next level down: (reading from the top-down) the goal helps define the purpose, the purpose the objectives, the objectives the component objectives, and so on down the hierarchy.


National Fortification Programme (NFP) logical framework hierarchy

ComponentObjective 3

Sub-objective 3.1Activity 3.1.1Acitivity 3.1.2etc.

Sub-objective 3.2Activity 3.2.1etc.














NFP has no controlover success.

NFP budget not expectedto include MEIfor this area.

* There may be more than one objective, if there is more than one food vehicle.Shading indicates areas where requests for GAIN funds might be made.

This illustration is an example: you may need GAIN support for other (sub)-components and activities of yourprogramme.

MEI - Monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment. NFP - National Fortification Programme.

NFP Key Objective (*)(e.g., the delivery of [amount] of iron per day through fortified

[food vehicle] to [number] of children aged 0-15 and[number] of women of child-bearing age)

Super Goal(e.g., reduction of poverty, Millennium Development Goals)

NFP Purpose(e.g., improved iron status of target population)

NFP Goal(e.g., increase learning capacities in target population)

NFP has partial controlover success.

NFP budget expected toinclude some MEI

for this area.

NFP has full controlover result.

NFP budget expected toinclude MEI

for these areas.

Fulfills the

Fulfills the

Contributes to

Assumed impact

Fulfillsthe

Fulfillsthe

Fulfillsthe

Fulfillsthe

Fulfillsthe

NFP has full controlover success.

NFP budget expected toinclude MEIfor this area.





The following definitions apply to the GAIN logframe:


GOALS: The ‘super goal’ relates to the achievement of Millennium Development Goals, Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) goals, or development goals for the country, and we assume that the achievement of the ‘National Fortification Programme goal’ will impact on the achievement of the ‘super goal’. The ‘NFP goal’ is the reason for undertaking the National Fortification Programme, for example, “to increase learning capacities among a target population”.

A programme goal: Must be consistent with development policy Should be consistent with donor policies Should represent a significant justification for the project Should not be too ambitious (for example, world peace!) so achieving the purpose of

a project should significantly contribute to the fulfillment of the goal Should be expressed as a desired end, not as a means or process Should be expressed in verifiable terms

It should not be possible for a programme to completely fulfill the ‘super goal’; it should only contribute to it (it is not expected that NFP funds would be spent addressing the monitoring and evaluation of this assumed impact). However, a programme contributes to the NFP goal and its contribution can be proven, and should be proven as part of the work of the project (so it is expected that there will be some monitoring and evaluation costs in the programme budget). The NFP purpose contributes to the achievement of the NFP goal.

PURPOSE: What the programme is expected to achieve in nutritional terms once it is completed; the motivation behind the objectives.

The purpose is the anticipated achievement of the programme, usually outside the programme’s direct control. However, in the GAIN context, the purpose of the National Fortification Programme should be in the programme’s direct control (for example, “improved iron status of target population”). In the end, the purpose determines the magnitude of the programme, in terms of resources, personnel, and strategy.

Good practice for the definition of a purpose includes ensuring that: The target groups of the project are specified It can be expected to contribute specifically to the fulfillment of the goal It is realistic, i.e. likely to occur once the project outputs have been produced It is outside the immediate control of the project itself It is a desired state not a process It is precise and verifiable.

OBJECTIVE: An objective is what a group of activities intend to achieve. In order to achieve the objective, a number of activities may be required.

An objective must be: Essential to achieving the purpose Precise and verifiable Specific, Monitorable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound (SMART). Guaranteeable (it is definitely possible to achieve).

A National Fortification Programme can have more than one objective if it has more than one food vehicle. The key objective of an NFP might be, for example, “the delivery of [amount] of [fortificant] per day through fortified [food vehicle] to [number of] children aged 0-15 and [number of] women of child-bearing age”, where the factors in square brackets would need to be specified fully in order for the objective to be precise and verifiable.

COMPONENT OBJECTIVE: Each programme component has a component objective. These objectives relate to the expected outcomes of the component sub-objectives, and together lead to the achievement of the National Fortification Programme objective. In the GAIN logframe, the component objectives and sub-objectives have already been defined.


Component Objective 1: Enable the production and distribution of fortified food in the next 12–18 months.Component Objective 2: Ensure safety and quality of fortified food at the retail level (over a specified period).Component Objective 3: Use of social marketing and communications to increase consumption of the fortified food by the target audience (over a specified period).Component Objective 4: Ensure monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment informs overall programme management.Component Objective 5: To strengthen the capacity of the National Fortification Alliance to manage and administer a sustainable National Fortification Programme.

COMPONENT SUB-OBJECTIVE: Each programme component objective has a number of component sub-objectives. These describe the expected outcomes of the activities that achieve the component objective. For example: Component Objective 1: Enable the production and distribution of fortified food in the

next 12–18 months. Sub-Objective 1.1: Ensure and support procurement of an agreed standard and

quality of fortification mix (over a specified period). Sub-Objective 1.2: Ensure and support industrial implementation of the fortification

process (over a specified period). Sub-Objective 1.3: Ensure and support industrial quality assurance (over a specified

period). Component Objective 2: Ensure safety and quality of fortified food at the retail level

(over a specified period). Sub-Objective 2.1: Development of legislation and standards (by a specified date). Sub-Objective 2.2: Ensure adequate inspection and enforcement of standards and

regulations (over a specified period). Sub-Objective 2.3: Ensure appropriate, timely, and adequate product quality testing

(over a specified period). Component Objective 3: Use of social marketing and communications to increase

consumption of the fortified food by the target audience (over a specified period). Sub-Objective 3.1: The use of advocacy and public relations to support stakeholder

commitment and widespread awareness at all levels (by a specified date). Sub-Objective 3.2: Use of consumer education processes to increase demand for

fortification (over a specified period). Component Objective 4: Ensure monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment

informs overall programme management. Sub-Objective 4.1: Identify a baseline for all indicators (by a specified date). Sub-Objective 4.2: Develop a system to continuously monitor programme indicators

(over a specified period). Sub-Objective 4.3: Carry out regular evaluations (over a specified period). Sub-Objective 4.4: At the end of the funding period, carry out an impact assessment

(by a specified date). Component Objective 5: To strengthen the capacity of the National Fortification Alliance

to manage and administer a sustainable National Fortification Programme. Sub-Objective 5.1: Use of programme communications to maintain/build National

Fortification Alliance cohesion, commitment, and involvement (over a specified period).

Sub-Objective 5.2: Development of coherent programme and project management (over a specified period).

INDICATORS: Measures that provide a simple and reliable means to measure achievement or to reflect the changes connected to a programme or project.

Indicators determine how impact (what change you actually achieve) and performance (how efficiently and effectively you achieve something) will be measured on a scale or dimension.

While indicators are usually quantitative measures, they can include the quantification of qualitative data, e.g., through scoring and ranking (quantitative and qualitative methods and results). It should be noted that indicators are not targets, but they do inform project cycle


management (PCM) in defining monitoring systems because they define the data for collection during the project. As a result, indicators are an indispensable project management and lesson learning tool.

Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI): Indicators that supply concrete proof that you have achieved what you said you would. Indicators that are practical (cost-effective), monitorable (realistically possible to measure), and targeted (specific enough to measure change) are verifiable indicators.

Input Indicators: Indicators that provide a measure of resources that are the basic materials of the programme (i.e. financial; policies; personnel; facilities; space; equipment; supplies; etc.)

Output Indicators: Indicators that provide a measure of programme activities (e.g., percentage of production units producing fortified foods; tons of fortified products produced).

Outcome Indicators: Indicators that provide a measure of whether the outputs have reached the intended audience and had an effect (e.g., amount of product available on the market; percentage of households with fortified products available on a survey day, or reporting consumption of fortified products).

Impact Indicators: Indicators that provide a measure of whether the outcomes actually affected the goal (e.g., percentage of target group with satisfactory biochemical indicators for target nutrients as per WHO guidelines). Impact indicators usually fall within the realm of evaluation.

Proxy Indicators: Indicators that are used to stand in for other indicators that are difficult to measure directly.


Example partial logframe of fortification of soya sauce with ironPlease note:

Empty cells in the table indicate where the applicant would supply more detail. For the key objective of the National Fortification Programme (NFP), only the

structure is generic and common to all fortification programmes (i.e., the fortificants, food vehicle, and specific target groups should be defined through the NFA).

The wording for component objectives and sub-objectives is generic and common to all fortification programme logical frameworks.

Activities that would be carried out to fulfill a sub-objective have not been detailed in this example.

PROJECT NARRATIVE INDICATOR MEANS OF VERIFICATION

ASSUMPTION

SUPER GOAL:

Reduction of poverty

Not applicable Not applicable That increased learning capacity reduces poverty

NFP GOAL:

Increased learning capacity

Increase in scores in Cognitive Skills Test

Applied biannually to target population

That appropriate level of dietary iron increases cognitive capacity

NFP PURPOSE:

Improved iron status

Serum ferritin, transferrin receptor, haemoglobin

Cost per person reached

Blood test taken from a sample of target population

That fortified [food vehicle] (e.g., soya sauce) is physically consumed by target population

NFP KEY OBJECTIVE:

Deliver [defined amount] of iron per day through fortified [food vehicle] (e.g., soya sauce) to [number] of children aged 0–15 and [number] of women of child-bearing age.

Level of iron in fortified [food vehicle]

Tonnage of fortified [food vehicle] on the market

Additional number of population consuming fortified [food vehicle]

Additional number of at risk population consuming fortified [food vehicle]

Additional number of population consuming at least [defined amount] of iron per day

Additional number of at risk population consuming at least [defined amount] of iron per day

Sampling at factories or homes

Surveying at factories

Household surveying

Household surveying

Household surveying and food analysis

Household surveying and food analysis

That the country context and funding environment allows for successful completion of NFP component objectives

COMPONENT OBJECTIVE 1:

Enable the production and distribution of fortified food in the next 12–18 months.

Percentage of available [food vehicle] that is fortified

Percentage of produced fortified [food vehicle] that reaches the market

Change against baseline

Surveying

SUB-OBJECTIVE 1.1: Ensure and support procurement of an agreed standard and quality of fortification mix (over a specified period).

Activity 1.1.1, etc. SUB-OBJECTIVE 1.2: Ensure and support industrial implementation of the fortification process (over a specified period).

Activity 1.2.1, etc. SUB-OBJECTIVE 1.3: Ensure and support industrial quality assurance (over a specified period).

Activity 1.3.1, etc.



ASSUMPTION


Ensure safety and quality of fortified food at the retail level (over a specified period).

Percentage of samples, taken at retail level, that conform to standards

Measure against standard

SUB-OBJECTIVE 2.1: Development of legislation and standards (by a specified date).

Activity 2.1.1, etc. SUB-OBJECTIVE 2.2: Ensure adequate inspection and enforcement of standards and regulations (over a specified period).

Activity 2.2.1, etc. SUB-OBJECTIVE 2.3: Ensure appropriate, timely, and adequate product quality testing (over a specified period).

Activity 2.3.1, etc.COMPONENT OBJECTIVE 3:

Use of social marketing and communications to increase consumption of the fortified food by the target audience (over a specified period).

Percentage of target population aware of benefits of fortification

Percentage of target population purchasing fortified food

Percentage of target population consuming fortified food

(A proxy target group might be required for children 0–15) Survey against

baseline Survey against

baseline Survey against

baseline SUB-OBJECTIVE 3.1: The use of advocacy and public relations to support stakeholder commitment and widespread awareness at all levels (by a specified date).

Activity 3.1.1, etc. SUB-OBJECTIVE 3.2: Use of consumer education processes to increase demand for fortification (over a specified period).

Activity 3.2.1, etc.COMPONENT OBJECTIVE 4:

Ensure monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment informs overall programme management.

Level of monitoring and evaluation and impact assessment (MEI) undertaken

Evidence of response to MEI results

Organizational records


SUB-OBJECTIVE 4.1: Identify a baseline for all indicators (by a specified date).

Activity 4.1.1, etc. SUB-OBJECTIVE 4.2: Develop a system to continuously monitor programme indicators (over a specified period).

Activity 4.2.1, etc. SUB-OBJECTIVE 4.3: Carry out regular evaluations (over a specified period).

Activity 4.3.1, etc. SUB-OBJECTIVE 4.4: At the end of the funding period, carry out an impact assessment (by a specified date).




ASSUMPTION


To strengthen the capacity of the National Fortification Alliance to manage and administer a sustainable National Fortification Programme.

Level of required documentation available on NFA management of the programme

Evidence of sustainable financing for years 4 and 5 of NFP

Levels of partnership satisfaction

Complete and clear organogram





SUB-OBJECTIVE 5.1: Use of programme communications to maintain/build National Fortification Alliance cohesion, commitment, and involvement (over a specified period).

Activity 5.1.1, etc. SUB-OBJECTIVE 5.2: Development of coherent programme and project management (over a specified period).



Table of Contents


PART 1 PROGRAMME FEASIBILITY 15Preparation 151.1 The wider situation in your country 151.2 The National Fortification Programme 181.3 The National Fortification Alliance (NFA) 211.4 Targeted results 221.5 Targeted funding 27

PART 2 MARKET ANALYSIS 302.1 Food fortification components 312.2 Supply analysis 322.3 Demand analysis 342.4 The market 36

PART 3 PROGRAMME DETAIL 403.1 Fortification 403.2 Goal, purpose, and key objective 423.3 Production and distribution 443.4 Safety and quality of fortified food 483.5 Social marketing and communications 523.6 Monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment 573.7 Programme management and administration 62

PART 4 BUDGET 704.1 Budget overview 704.2 Cofinancing 70

PART 5 REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS 735.1 Required attachments 73

Part 6 Additional Information 74


PART 1 PROGRAMME FEASIBILITYIn this section, applicants are encouraged to examine the National Food Fortification Programme plan and start to develop a logical funding application for specific funds that shows a relevance and compatibility with GAIN’s objectives for the specific round of grants, and has a clear place within the National Food Fortification Programme work. There is also a need to show the proposed national level baseline and context for monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment that indicates the national coverage levels that are expected.

Preparation To complete this section, you will need to read the RFP Guidelines, found on the

http://www.gainhealth.org/ website, which indicate what GAIN will and will not fund. All words in italics are defined in the attached glossary.

1.1 The wider situation in your country1.1.1 Describe briefly the intended contribution of the National Fortification Programme to

the National Development Plan, the Millennium Development Goals, and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), where these exist for your country.

Micronutrient malnutrition, has reemerged as an alarming public health concern for Georgia during the last decade. The contributing factors are rooted into the context of social and economic transition and increasing poverty. The country suffered from both civil war in the 1990s and the collapse of the Soviet Union with disruption of the socio-economic infrastructure.

14 years after declaring independence, economic activity in Georgia is still at 41% of its 1990 level. As per the current GDP level - 3.3 billion USD or 762 USD/per capita - Georgia is a developing country, while the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) considers it as a Least Developed Country (LDC). Georgia has the lowest level of GDP growth from 1990 amongst the former Soviet Union countries. The Human Development Report of 2004 ranks Georgia at the 97th place (vs.88th in 2003) out of 177 countries included in the Human Development Index (HDI).

The National MDG Report in 2003 reported 54.5% of population to leave below Official Subsistence Minimum poverty line, while 16.6% under alternative - Extreme Poverty line.

The resulting economic downturn and financial austerity has affected nutritional practices and accessibility of the population to balanced and adequate food rations. In 2001, 44 percent of the population could not attain 2,100 kcal/day and nearly one-third was below 1,800 kcal/day, a poor diet that increases susceptibility to illnesses and decreases overall human capital in the society. The national diet has significantly changed from a balanced diet of most food types to one where bread is the major source of calories. As a result, the Georgian population and particularly children and women in poor income households became vulnerable to both macro- & mirconutrient malnutrition, especially affected by high prevalence of iodine deficiency disorders (IDD) and iron deficiency (ID)/iron deficiency anemia (IDA).

The Global VMD report estimates 33% of under-5 children and 31% women of reproductive age (15-49) to be affected by iron deficiency anemia. 21% of children are considered to be affected by Goiter. Estimated prevalance of sub-clinical VitA deficiency among under-6 month children is reported as 11%.

However baselines for the current proposal are based on the most up to date reports available from the National Centre for Nutrition and MOH. the latter defines IDA rate among women of reproductive age as 43% and ID prevalance among children as 33.6%.

The main objective of the National Fortification Programme is to contribute to attainment of poverty reduction goals through reducing prevalence of micronutrient malnutrition and elimination of vitamin and mineral deficiencies (VMDs) in Georgia. The objectives of the National Fortification Programme is directly linked to the national MDGs and the UN


http://www.gainhealth.org/

Development Assistance Framework for YY 2006-2010. Prevention of Micronutrient Malnutrition has been among the key priorities of the Georgia's National Health Policy and Strategic Plan for YY 1999-2010.

In addition to the National Health Policy and Strategic Plan, the Government of Georgia currently has a regulated bread pricing policy and programme. The price of bread is controlled by the government of Georgia through a combined wheat subsidy and revolving fund for wheat purchases. This programme has been in effect for several years and it is the governments intention to continue to ensure that the price of bread in the marketplace will remain at current levels. Recent attempts to increase the price of bread has resulted in widepsread political unrest within the country, population affected by the extreme levels of poverty have become particularely susceptible to increased prices on bread.

In view of the ongoing delicate political situation in the country and in the region (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Pankisi Gorge with displaced Chechen Refugee families) the Government of Georgia will continue both the bread price support mechanism AND support the flour fortification programme over and beyond the five years of the programme with the collaboration of the flour milling industry. The key objective of the National Flour Fortification Programme is the fortification of all the locally milled (large mills porviding 90% supply) and all the imported flour. This will be controlled through the mandatory flour fortification law and regulations and the control and monitoring of all flour imports and all milled flour supplied by the 6 large mills in the country.

1.1.2 Is there a national nutrition policy or a national plan in your country?Within the framework of the 1999-2010 National Health Policy and Strategic Plan Government of Georgia developed a comprehensive National Food and Nutrition Action Plan for 2005-2010. The document elaborated by leadership from the Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs and WHO/Euro technical assistance was finalized in June 2005 to serve as the operational framework for the national food and nutrition policy and response.

The draft plan addressess 10 key components: 1. Inter-sectoral coordination, 2. Food security, 3. Infant and young child feeding policy and practices 4. Food & nutrition policy in schools 5. Malnutrition and prevention of micronutrient deficiencies 6. Legislation and standards 7. National food & nutrition database 8. Food safety policy 9. Healthy nutrition & behaviour change and 10. Promotion of physical activity.

It has been agreed that the National Task Force for Prevention of Micronutrient Malnutrition and Food Fortification (acting as the NFA in Georgia) will be the lead coordination entity for coordination of the follow-up to the 2005-2010 National Food and Nutrition Action Plan. Further to the Policy and Action plan, Government of Georgia as noted in the Letter of Intent to GAIN (submitted in Jan 2005) has already put in place the initial grounds for national level food fortification through adoption of the national law on “Prevention of Micronutient Malnutrition through Food Fortification in Georgia”. The law adopted by the Parliament of Georgia in February 2005 introduces legislative and adminitrative regulations for fortified food import, production and sale in the country.

The primary focus of the law is the universal salt iodization strategy with banning import, production or sale of non-iodized salt (for human & animal consumption). Furthemore the law as an umbrella document stipulates creation of supporting economic environment for import, production and sale of other fortified food as a public health priority and provides flexibility for adoption of legislative and normative acts for regulating standards, QC/QA mechanisms and economic incentives for FF initiatives. 1.1.2.1 When was this established or adopted?1. National Health Policy and Strategis Plan for YY 1999-2010 endorsed in 1999.2. 2005-2010 National Food & Nutrition Action Plan - finalized in June 2005


3. Georgia Law on "Prevention of Micronutient Malnutrition through Food Fortification in Georgia”, adopted in February 2005

1.1.3 Describe in detail the performance of all existing food fortification programmes, including salt iodization. Include details on the following:a. Foods fortified, nutrients, and when the programme startedb. Major funding sources and implementing agencies involved in each programmec. Current coverage (percentage of population consuming fortified food)d. Qualitative (levels of nutrients within acceptable levels) and quantitative

(percentage of production fortified) compliance by industrye. Strengths and weaknessesf. How problems are being addressed.

Promotion of Universal Salt Iodization in Georgia has been acknowledged as the single widescale FF programmme implemented in Georgia. However there is no local production of the salt - the country by 100% depends on imported salt supplies. Thereby focus of the programme was establishment of the legislative and regulatory environment for QC/QA of iodized salt at all levels (import, wholesale/retail & household) as well as advocacy & programme communication. IDD/USI programme launched in 1996 was led by the Government of Georgia with support from UNICEF and USAID. The programme since 1999 has attained notable achievements, namely: 1. Market demand on iodized salt has been increased - import of iodized salt to Georgia has increased from 2,017 tones in 1999 to 34,144 tons in 2004. The existing levels of import meets 100% of the country requirement for edible iodized salt supplies;2. Consumption of adequately (>15 ppm) iodized salt by HHs increased from 8.1% in 1999 to 67% in 2003; 3. 76.8% of HHs is aware of IDD, while 98.3% of population familiar with IDD issues are also aware of iodized salt benefits.4. Goiter prevalence among children has decreased from 54% in 1997 to 39% in 2003, while in total population IDD has dropped from 57.7% in 1997 to 44% by 2003. 5. A strong legislative framework established in 2005 to lead the country to USI certification.

Current coverage: 67% of HH having available adequately iodized salt supplies (>15 ppm) fortified by KIO3 National standard for iodized salt: 40+/- 10 PPM. Household level: > 15 PPMLocal production: 0%

Strengths: legislative basis banning import and sale of non-iodized salt, high public awareness, commitment from government and private sector partners for USI. Weaknesses: inadequacy of the monitoring and evaluation systems for QC/QA. GoG and UNICEF under the current programme of cooperation have prioritized development of a M&E framework as the key milestone for the year 2005. UNICEF will be supporting the technical expertise, IT and capacity building of the agencies involved within the unified M&E and reporting system.

1.1.4 Please describe briefly any other efforts to fortify food in your country.Up to date food fortification programmes, led by local food manufacturing companies are limited to small-scale projects for iodine tea fortification, iodine flour, lemonade and butter fortification. One of the 6 leading milling companies, Forte Ltd has installed special “Biuhler” equipment (Mixer) that has been used for flour fortification with Vit C as an improver factor. However until recently there has been no comprehensive initiative for food fortification supported by relevant national policy or government leadership.

1.1.5 Please indicate any key lessons learnt from past and present approaches.1. Strong governmental commitement, leadership and inter-agency coordination has been prerequisite for concerted response to the USI programme. 2. Inadequacy of M&E system both on product QC/QA and micronutrient malnutrition surveillance is the priority issue addressed by ongoing partnership of Government and international agencies (UNICEF, WHO). The current framework for M&E and reporting on the flow of fortified food envisaged inter-linkage of state customs (import), state statistics (import


& HH), standards department (customs, production) and state sanitary inspectorate at national & sub-national levels (wholesale/retail). Under the framework of the National Food & Nutrition Action Plan WHO and UNICEF will ensure technical and financial support to the Government of Georgia and NFA for optimization of the M&E system and development of the unified national database. 3. Advocacy for community mobilization and engagement for creating the public demand on fortified food has to be strengthened

1.2 The National Fortification Programme1.2.1 Current status of National Fortification Programme

Is the National Fortification Programme described in this document a new programme?

Yes - the Iron and Folic Acid Flour Fortification programme submitted to GAIN RFP is the new programme to be launched by the Government under the National Food & Nutrition Action Plan and the 2006-2010 UNDAF.

1.2.2 Please describe the National Fortification Programme goal.Goal of the programme is to reduce prevalance of the iron deficiency/iron deficiency anemia (ID/IDA) among the Georgian population and the most vulnerable groups - pregnant women and under 3 children through launch and scaling up of national iron & folic acid flour fortification programme over YY 2006-2009.

1.2.3 Please describe the purpose of the National Fortification Programme, including:Indicators of impact (particularly on the poor and vulnerable)What level of change from a stated baseline is required to consider the purpose achieved?

Impact: - Reduction of IDA prevalence among women of reproductive age (WRA) from 43% in 2004 to <20% by end 2009 - Reduction of ID prevalence among children from 33.6% in 2004 to <20% by end 2009 Outcome: - Ensuring that by end 2007 at least 35% and > 80% by end 2009 of the country population and target groups consume iron fortified flour products vs. 0% in 2005. Level of change: 35% increase in consumption of iron fortified flour in 18-month period and 80% increase in 3 years.

1.2.4 Please describe the key objectives of the National Fortification Programme, including:Output indicatorsWhat level of change from a stated baseline is required to consider each of these objectives achieved?

Please note: There can be more than one key objective, if you are using more than one food vehicle—each vehicle should have its own key objective.

The major objectives of the national fortification programme is to attain virtual elimination of IDD through USI attainmeent by end 2006, reduction of ID/IDA prevalance among the general population, children and WRA through iron flour fortification and expansion of the fortification programmes as per the research based data.

In regard to IDA prevention, flour fortification programme has been focused on policy development and enforcements, institutional and human capacity building for production and quality control, advocacy and communication, M&E and programme management support.

Key Objective of the NFP: Within 3 years provide 1,812,000 average population living under poverty line and 1,006,000 women of reproductive age with an additional 0.773 grams/day iron or 57% of EAR for the group


GAIN supports the idea that there are five components to the work of the National Fortification Programme.

1. Production and distribution2. Safety and quality of fortified food3. Social marketing and communications4. Monitoring, evaluation, and impact evaluation5. Programme management and administration

1.2.5 For the component objective of each of the five components of your National Fortification Programme’s work, please describe the indicators and their means of verification, and assumptions. You may add further components, if you find it necessary.

Component 1. Production and distribution - the component will cover procurement of fortification equipment for the leading 6 companies, establishment of fortificants’ revolving funds for transitional period, technical assistance for modification of the existing millers to accommodate new equipment, training for production and supervisory personnel operation and maintenance of the new equipment and quality assurance standards, trade, accounting and reporting arrangements. The quality assurance system at the production level will require capacity building of specialists in flour additive systems, additive-system maintenance and lab testing.

Flour Imports - through the introduction of flour fortification standards, mandatary regulations and legal enforcement all imported flour will be fortified.

Indicators: Within 12 month after launch of the project production of fortified food is launched with relevant distribution systems in 3 large scale mills; Within 18 months after the launch of the project production of fortified food is operational in all 6 targeted large mills in the countryand 67% of imported flour will be fortifiedMeans of Verification: Records from the target 6 large-scale mills (LSMs) Field monitoring visits to the LSMs Customs documents from border entry points Market analysis of wheat flour at wholesale & retail levels

Assumptions: Subject to availability of the projected financial resources

Component 2. Safety & Quality of Fortified Food - establishment and implementation of a sound quality control/quality assurance system for locally fortified flour will be the initial grounds for putting in place FF quality control mechanisms. The system will be integrated into the existing sanitary and standards surveillance systems with clear delineation of responsibilities among each concerned partner.

Indicators: % of available flour fortified by iron & folic acid as per national standards at roduction, import, wholesale, retail & HH levels

Means of Verification: Reports of the M&E system for fortified food flow (import, production, sale) by customs, state standards & sanitary inspectorate - quarterly/annual reports to NFA Household (HH) surveys by State Department of Statistics (SDS) in 2006, 2008 & 2010 linked to the routine quarterly HH surveys

Assumptions: Unification of the M&E and reporting system underway by the government.

Component 3.


Social Marketing and Communication - It is essential to raise public awareness of the benefits of fortified flour through senior level advocacy and social mobilization campaigns. An integrated and research-based communication strategy will be developed and implemented in partnership with milling industry, government, media and NGO sectors. Social marketing strategies will be also referred for promotion of the fortified flour consumption.

Indicators: % of target population aware of benefits of fortification % of target population purchasing fortified food & IFF % of target population consuming fortified food & IFF

Means of Verification: HH surveys - SDS - baseline in 2006, follow-up in 2008 & 2010

Assumptions: Increased public awareness and knowledge of benefits of fortifications substantiates high consumption of fortified foods

Component 4. Monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment - The programme will cover an integrated M&E framework with jointly agreed process, output and outcome indicators and M&E mechanisms for impact & action tracking. Routine food surveillance integrated into sanitary and state standards control mechanisms will be complemented by household surveys on consumption of fortified flour & other dietary patterns for further research and FF programme expansion. The surveys will be also integrated into routine SDS HH studies. M&E will be putting special focus on programme performance and financial execution process as a programme management assessment indicators. In addition a baseline survey will be carried at the start of the programme with an interim survey 2 years and final survey 4-5 years after the starting date of the programme.

Indicators: Unified M&E and impact assessment system with agreed on list of indicators & workflow among NFA is established by end 2005 and fully operational starting from 2006 Government & private sector agencies involved in M&E, QC/QA & impact assessment have clearly defined ToR & shared-responsibilities among the partners NFA receives quarterly reports on M&E & QC/QA from the State Department of Statistics & Sanitary Inspectorate, target LSMs (LIA), on import, production & market analysis of fortified food NFA receives annual, bi-annual reports on impact assessment surveys (HH surveys, ID/IDA surveys among the target population) from SDS, MLHSA & international partners. Impact indicators: serum sampling, Hb & folate testing among target groups

Means of Verification: ToR and workprocess guidelines developed by NFA Cluster for M&E. Normative acts by MLHSA & MoAg on national standards, QC/QA for fortified food & impact assessment system Quartely & annual reports submitted by SDS, Sanitary Inspectorate & PHD/MHSA to NFA secretariat. Reports shared by international agencies on related survey findings - MICS, RH Surveys in 2005 & 2009

Assumptions: The ongoing reform process of the state surveillance system has to be completed by end 2005. The Government prioritized to downsize the number of agencies involved in M&E and impact assessment for better streamline of the unified M&E system. Currently Customs, SDS, State Standards, Sanitary Surveillance Departments engaged in QC/QA at various levels of the product flow in the market, with no operational integrated reports. Surveys subject to availability of financial resources

Component 5.


Programme management and administration - Implementation of an effective IFF will need to be relying on effective management and operation system, including competent staff and relevant administrative arrangements.

Indicators: NFA ensures continuous operation, M&E, performance review and recommendations for the NFP

Means of Verification: Minutes of the NFA meetings Representation and rate of participation of various NFA partners Programme evaluation reports Field monitoring reports by NFA secretariat & partners

Assumptions: NFA sustainability subject to financial resources for operational & human resource management

The ongoing policy and legislative work process will be expanded to create enabling market environment for FF programmes. The policy development envisages revision and refinement of national manufacturing standards for food fortification and putting in place strong law enforcement mechanisms for quality control and quality assurance. Technical assistance provided through GAIN will be complemented by experts support from national NFA partners - UNICEF, WHO, EDRB BAS programme, etc.

N.B.: If you have a logical framework for the National Fortification Programme or project text, please include it with this document, in addition to answering the questions above.

1.3 The National Fortification Alliance (NFA)GAIN only accepts proposals from a National Fortification Alliance (NFA).

1.3.1 Please describe the nature of the NFA (e.g., is it an informal or formal body?; does it have legal status?; has it been formed through a decree or law, or a more informal process?) and membership of the NFA.

Task Force for Prevention of Micronutrient Malnutrition and Food Fortification Initiatives in Georgia, acting as a National Food Alliance (NFA) is a multi-sectoral partnership forum established in December 2004. The alliance was built on the experience of the National IDD Council (NCIDD) established in 1996 under the State Chancellery of Georgia and coordinating the national IDD and other micronutrient malnutrition prevention efforts among government, NGO and private sector partners. The NCIDD discontinued functioning under the State Chancellery due to political transition and subsequent government structure changes in early 2004.

Since NCIDD function was discontinued, the Parliamentary Committee on Health and Social Affairs leading adoption of the USI & FF Law established a Task Force for Prevention of Micronutrient Malnutrition and Food Fortification. The Task Force (NFA) chaired by the Parliamentary Committee on Health and Social Affairs with membership of government line ministries (Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Agriculture), other national authorities (Public Health Department, National Centre for Nutrition, National Centre for Disease Control and Medical Statistics, State Standards Department, State Department of Statistics), private sector (food industry representatives, salt & flour importer, flour manufacturers & milling companies), UN (UNICEF, WHO) and international and national NGOs (ACTS Georgia, Bakers' association, Pediatricians & Neonatologists Association, IBFAN Georgia Group, Institute for Strategic Research, Georgian Development Agency), scientific research centres & professional association is a joint forum for policy development & enforcement of food fortification programmes. It represents and reflects the interests and activities of all sectors and organizations needed to implement and sustain national food fortification programmes.


The Task Force has been entrusted to oversee coordination and implementation of the 2005-2010 National Food & Nutrition Action Plan developed by Public Health Department through WHO technical support. Matrix of the national food fortification programme is included in the attached National Food & Nutrition Action Plan document.

1.3.2 Please show evidence of strong government, industry, and civil society support for and commitment to the NFA (e.g., letters committing to finance certain aspects, MoUs drawn up, or minuted statements of actions to be undertaken by sectors involved and the commitment of financial and human resources).

The multisectoral partnership of the NCIDD (as the initial coordination mechanisms) for VMD programmes in Georgia stems from 1996. Thoughout 7 years of operation the council has made a notable difference in the creation of suporting legal and economic environment for USI, jointly agreed advocacy & social mobilization initiatives, M&E activities, etc.

Since establishment of the new coordination mechanism at the Parliament of Georgia (with cancelation of NCIDD), members of the Task Force for Prevention of Micronutrient Malnutrition and Food Fortification were actively involved in coordination meetings for revision & adoption of the Georgian Law on micronutrient malnutrition & FF, follow-up discussions on the legal and normative acts as well as QC/QA systems. The Task Force in agreement with the key membership was entrusted to coordinate the 2005-2010 National Food Fortification Section under the national Food & Nutrition Action Plan.

The multisectoral nature of the Task Force membership is presented in section 1.3.1 & attachments under section 5 for NFA Charter, Memorandum of Partnership & Signature for the RFP Proposal.

The Task Force members (core team from government, industry, NGO & international gencies) were actively involved in the process of the country application to GAIN alliance. Engagement of the partners in development of the Letter of Intent to GAIN, completion of feasibility studies for IFF programme & attendance of the GAIN partnership and programme development workshop in Geneva (Government, Industry, NGO & UN agency) as well as finalization of the draft proposal in joint review and consensus is the proof of the support and committment to the NFA.

Members of the NFA have been involved in the secretariat on the voluntary basis, the commitement reflected by all member agencies within the Memorandum of Partnership (Ref.: Attachment # 5.1.4 & 5.1.6).

Parliamentary Committee for Health & Social Affairs has allocated office facilities and staff for NFA operations - Chair & secretary. Field experts from the Ministries of Health & Agriculture, Private Sector & International agencies have been invited as the technical experts and leading the 4 clusters of the NFA: 1. Legislation, 2. Industry 3. Social Marketing, 4, QC/QA & M&E. All staff & technical consultants have been working on the voluntary basis as the contribution of reach member agency to the NFA work.

1.4 Targeted results1.4.1 If this is an ongoing programme, are fortified foods already on the market? If so,

please describe which foods are already fortified or enriched and with which micronutrients, and reaching which target groups.

The Iron & Folic Acid Flour Fortification programme RFP submitted to GAIN is the new programme to be launched by Government. There has been no local production or import of foritifed wheat flour up to date.

1.4.2 Poor and deficient populationsWho are the poor and deficient populations to be targeted by the programme?NOTE: you may classify these populations by income levels, by geographical area, by gender, by urban/rural, etc., as appropriate, but you must state your classification criteria.


[Please add rows to the table below as required to define each target group (using the menu option ‘GAIN Options>Add Row Below’).]

Table 1: Definitions of Poor and Deficient Target Groups

Description of poor and deficient target groupsTarget group 1,812,000 population affected by poverty - % of rural population vs. %

urban Target group Women of Reproductive Age (15-45) – 1,006,000

IDA prevalence was doubled in WRA from 21.1% to 43% (1990-2001)Target group Children from 6 months to 15 years of age - 804,000

33.6% affected by ID and 21.6% by IDA

1.4.3 Nature of the micronutrient problemPlease describe the micronutrient problems in your country.[Use Table 2 and Table 3 to provide summary data as available. On each row, please indicate a target group from Table 1 using the drop-down list in the ‘Target group’ column. For deficiencies other than iron, iodine, vitamin A, folic acid, add the deficiency description in the ‘[Describe other deficiency]’ space. Please add rows to each section of the tables as required (using the menu option ‘GAIN Options>Add Row Below’).]

Iron deficiency, and specifically iron deficiency anemia (IDA), has been one of the major public health concerns in Georgia. According to the results of a study conducted in 1980s Georgian IDA index was similar to that of the developed European countries, while subsequent studies and surveys demonstrate increasing trend of ID/IDA. Georgia witnessed the IDA pick in 1991–1996 during political and economic crisis.

Despite unavailability of non-interrupted and comprehensive national data on ID/IDA, the existing administrative and survey data still provide opportunity to draw a consolidated analysis of iron deficiency status trend in Georgia. Meanwhile reports available through the National Centre for Nutrition (NCN), Public Health Department (PHD), National Center for Disease Control and Medical Statistics as well as Institute of Hematology do provide a reasonable baseline data on ID/IDA that justify urgency of extended and sound prevention interventions targeting both at general public and especially high risk groups.

Based on consolidated analysis of national and sub-national studies NCN and PHD reports 4.2-fold increase of IDA among child population over the last decade, with the latest data reporting ID and IDA among 33.6% and 21.6% of under-15 children, respectively. Inadequate nutrition was identified as a contributing factor in 66.2% of cases. The same agencies report that IDA prevalence was doubled in WRA from 21.1% to 43% (1990-2001), while male population remain under low risk groups with current IDA index of 11.2% (2001). The table below demonstrates trend of IDA in 1990-2001 revealed through 3 randomized studies. The 2003 data (Ref.: NCDCMS) revealing ID/IDA as a contributing factor close to 60% of complications in pregnancy and delivery is another alarming finding calling for urgent action for integrating supplementation and IEC activities within national MCH services as well as introduction of wide scale prevention interventions.

Some other studies and research provide interesting variation of regional IDA prevalence and dietary characteristics useful for sub-national planning of target interventions. For instance highest IDA index was observed in western Georgia and Adjara region where traditional, cultural, religious factors determine low intakes of foods from animal origin .

As per analysis of survey and scientific research data it is evident that WRA is the major risk group to ID/IDA translated into the life-cycle transmission of inadequate iodine status into child population. However the population at large affected by impoverishment of dietary ratios are currently iron deficient or under increasing risk of ID. Diet of the major part of Georgian population is low in iron or contains iron, which is of low bioavailability.

Results from HH survey carried out by State Department of Statistics (SDS) revealed that 41% and 28% of families are on diets of less than 2100 Kcal/day and 1800 Kcal/day, respectively. Other studies seem to confirm the findings. HH analysis carried out by STC in


2002 reported that 30.5% of families were “food insecure with moderate hunger”, while additional 21.8% were categorized as “food insecure with severe hunger” . Thus the decade of chronic poverty and low incomes did exert impact on food security capacity of Georgian families.

Low nutrition value of the diets is mostly reasoned by decreased ratio of meat and diary products, while within the limited dietary ratios, bread and flour food-products is abundant. Bread and bread grains constitutes 28.2% of daily food ratio of the Georgian population on national average, followed by vegetables (29.9%), fruits (8.4%), diary products (17%) and meat (4%). A strong correlation exists between lower economic status of households and increasing intake of bread and bread-grain products as a daily nutrition ratio. Child health surveillance and survey data have also repeatedly reported predominantly high proportion of bread, cereals & flour-products, followed by beans, fruits, vegetables and diary. Meat and seafood is not been registered as part of daily nutrition rations.

Against the background of socio-economic changes taking place in Georgia in the last decade, the prevalence of anemia reemerged as a public health concern. The surevy and national administrative data available on ID/IDA report increasing rates of micronutrient malnutrition. Iron Deficiency Anemia (IDA) in children rasied 4.2 times over the last decade. The most recent nationwide information on iron deficiency comes from the assessment performed by the Public Health Department of the MOLHSA in partnership with the Scientific-Research Institute of Hematology and the Scientific-Research Institute of Pediatrics during 1999-2001. The survey reported 31.8% prevalence of ID among 0-15 aged children including 11.4% with latent deficiency and 20.4% with IDA. The highest rate of ID was reported among infants of age 6 to 12 months: 61.1%, including 44.4% with IDA.

A high rate of iron deficiency among children was also confirmed by a survey implemented by the National Center for Nutrition among 1,312 under-15 children in Tbilisi, West Georgia and East Georgia. Overall, iron deficiency was found among 35% of the children surveyed, and 21.4% had developed IDA. Relatively low levels of iron deficiency were reported in East Georgia, though IDA rates were almost the same (21.25 to 21.6%) in all the surveyed districts. Children in rural areas were found to be more affected by iron deficiency. The highest rate of IDA was reported among infants (under 12 months), reflecting poor nutritional status of mothers and inappropriate feeding practices of infants.

Vitamin Deficiency The results of survey conducted in the frame of state programme on A, B and C Vitamins deficiency shows the following situation on vitamin deficiencies:A Vitamin 14.3 %B Vitamin 6.0 %C Vitamin 12.3 %Vitamin A Supplementation (MICS)

Overall, 8.6 % of women who had a child in the previous 12 months reported receiving a Vitamin A supplement before their infant was two months of age. Women in urban areas were more likely to receive a Vit A supplement vs. women in rural areas – 10.6% vs. 6.6%.

Table 2: Micronutrient Deficiencies (Biochemical Indicators)

Target group % deficient1 Source, date, and nature of survey2

Iron deficiency anemia

Target group 2 43%based on Hb

using WHO cutoffs

Surveys by Public Health Department & National Centre for Nutrition. To be confirmed by MICS 2005


Target group % deficient1 Source, date, and nature of survey2

Iodine deficiency disorders prevalence

Target group 3 40%based on Urinary I

using WHO cutoffs

Surveys by National Centre for Nutrition. To be confirmed by UIE Survey in 2005

Vitamin A deficiency prevalence

Target group 1 14.3% - based on

serum sample from

regional levels

Surveys by Public Health Department, 2000

Folic acid deficiency prevalence

Target group 1 Unknown To be determined from the baseline survey at the start of the programme

Describe other deficiency

(Select target group)

1 Define indicator and cutoff used for each nutrient and population group; 2 Please state the nature of the survey, e.g., national, randomized expenditures vs. intake; household or individual; food balance sheets, etc.

Table 3: Micronutrient Deficiencies (Dietary Indicators)

Population Daily intake1 Source, date, and nature of survey2

Iron intake Target group 1 0.54 g per person per

day

Food balance sheets - FAO

Vitamin A intake Target group 3 Unknown Folic acid intake Target group 1 Unknown Describe other deficiency

(Select target group)

1 Please specify units; specify per person or per adult equivalent; 2 Please state the nature of the survey, e.g., national, randomized expenditures vs. intake; household or individual; food balance sheets, etc.

1.4.4 Please name the food vehicle (or vehicles) to which this document is related.[Part II: Market analysis of the RFP requests detailed information on the supply, demand, and market for fortified food. This document is concerned with the choice of food vehicle and fortificant.]

Wheat Flour

1.4.5 Please discuss why the food vehicle was chosen, what alternatives were considered, and what are the benefits and limitations of the vehicle chosen.

Following assessment of a number of fortification options, fortification of wheat flour was defined as the strategy of the greatest potential impact for reaching the ID affected population, especially among vulnerable social-economic groups. Wheat floor was identified as the best appropriate food vehicle reaching the vast majority of the population, widely available and routinely consumed by all households, including the most vulnerable.In addition data from the FAO Food Balance sheets for Georgia (2002 data) show that the per capita consumption of wheat is 169 kg per person per year. Based on current extraction rates (80%) in mills in Georgia the flour consumption is estimated to be 135.2 kg per person per year

1.4.6 Please name the specific fortificant or micronutrient mix to which this GAIN grant request is related.

NFA seeks support from GAIN to launching in iron & folic acid fortifation of the wheat flour. Iron-Folic Acid is the initial combination of micronutrients. Other premixes containing iron and B group vitamins will be considered in the future after the 5 year programme has been running.


1.4.7 Please discuss why the specific nutrient or nutrient mix was selected. Describe the rationale for the choice of all major micronutrients that the programme intends to add, with reference to deficiencies already identified or to be avoided.

Various analysis and studies on ID/IDA justify urgency of expanded and sound prevention interventions targeting both general public and target groups. i.e. NCN & PHD report 4-fold increase of IDA among the child population in 1990-2001. IDA prevalence also was doubled during the same decade (from 21% to 43%) in women of reproductive age. ID/IDA is identifyied as a contributing factor in 60% of obstetric complications in ANC and perinatal periods.

SDS reports that bread and bread grain products constitutes up to 30% of the daily food ration of the Georgia population. Independent surveys report wheat flour and processed products to comprise 35% of the total food expensitures among HHs. The figure amounts up to 70% in rural households, conditioned motly by social-economic crisis.

1.4.8 Do you have any information, based on studies you have carried out or obtained otherwise (please describe how), about:a. Bioavailability of the fortifying nutrient in the context of the local diet?b. Loss of the nutrient in production, storage, distribution, and home use?

Data from various researches and studies (State Department of Statistics, UNICEF, Save the Children and other) provide interesting variation of regional IDA prevalence and dietary characteristics useful for sub-national planning of target interventions. i.e. highest IDA index was observed in western Georgia and Adjara region where traditional, cultural, religious factors determine low intakes of foods from animal origin. The population at large affected by impoverishment of dietary ratios are currently iron deficient or under increasing risk of ID. Diet of the major part of Georgian population is low in iron or contains iron, which is of low bioavailability.

A consequence of the processing of wheat to make the wheat flour is that a large proportion of the vitamins and minerals are removed in production with the outer layers of the grains. A typical light-colored baker’s flour with a mineral content of 0.5% contains only about 1/10 of the original iron, 1/5 of the original folic acid and less than 1/10 of B-carotene (a pre cursor of vitamin A).

1.4.9 Please show evidence of the proposed food vehicle being widely consumed by the poor in general and also within the specific target groups.

Low nutrition value of the diets is mostly reasoned by decreased ratio of meat and diary products, while within the limited dietary ratios, bread and flour food-products is abundant. Bread and bread grains constitute 28.2% of daily food ratio of the Georgian population on national average, followed by vegetables (29.9%), fruits (8.4%), diary products (17%) and meat (4%). A strong correlation exists between lower economic status of households and increasing intake of bread and bread-grain products as a daily nutrition ratio (the products contituting 35% of household food expenditures nationalwide, the figure amounting to 70% in rural setting). Child health surveillance and survey data have also repeatedly reported predominantly high proportion of bread, cereals & flour-products, followed by beans, fruits, vegetables and diary. Meat and seafood is not been registered as part of daily nutrition rations.

In addition the price of bread made from wheat flour is controlled by the government though a price support mechanism and revolving fund for wheat imports used by the national milling industry. Georgia imports 50% of its wheat flour requirements from Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Turkey as the local milling capacity can only meet 50% of the demand.The milling industry is privately owned in Georgia with 6 mills providing 90% of the locally milled flour.

It is the intention of the government of Georgia to continue to subsidize the price of bread AND to cover the cost of the flour fortification programme for the 2nd year period of the RFP through removing custom & tax duties on fortification premixes (36%). The procurement of the supplues following the 1st 18 month will be shifted to the industry.


1.4.10 Please show what the coverage of the target groups is currently for fortified food, and what it is expected to be after three years. (Please do not only give percentages—please give actual numbers as well).[Please use Table 4, and complete one row for each target group in Table 1 using the drop-down box in the ‘Population’ column. Please add rows as required (using the menu option ‘GAIN Options>Add Row Below’).]

Table 4: Increase in Coverage of Population for Fortified Food

Population consuming the commodityIn 2004 In 18 months time In 3 years time

Population Number % Number % Number %General population 4,315,000 0 1,510,250 35 3,452,000 80Target group 1 1,812,000 0 634,000 35 1,449,600 80Target group 2 1,006,000 0 372,100 35 804,800 80Target group 3 804,000 0 281,680 35 225,344 801.4.10.1 Please describe how you estimated the figures in Table 4.As per State Department of Statistics total population of Georgia is 4,315,000, including:Women of Reproductive Age (15-45) – 1,006,000 (23.3% of total population)Children under-15 – 804,000 (18.6 % of total population)Poor population – 1,812,000 (42% of total population) It is assumed that there is no supply of fortified flour in 2004.

Local production is around 625,000 kg/day. Per capita consumption of flour is 0.322 kg/day.In 18 months time 40% of only locally produced flour (250,000 kg/day) will be fortified and 67% of the imported flour will be fortified. Under the assumption of Even Distribution (% of total population), this will cover:776,400 people of general population at per capita consumption (250,000/0.322)326,000 Poor People181,000 WRA144,400 Children under 15

In 3 years time 95% of only locally produced flour (594,000 kg/day) will be fortified and 95% of all the imported flour will be fortified. Under the assumption of Even Distribution (% of total population), this will cover:1,844,000 people of general population at per capita consumption (594,000/0.322)744,480 Poor people430,000 WRA343,000 Children under 15

1.5 Targeted funding1.5.1 Please indicate how the grant request fulfils GAIN’s objectives for this funding round.The current proposal being the integral part of the national food and nutrition action plan seeks GAIN support for launch and scaling up of the national iron & folate flour fortification program for ensuring accessibility of low income and at-risk target populations to Iron Fortified Flour.

1.5.2 Please indicate in which of the five component areas of the National Fortification Programme’s work the GAIN grant is requested for.

Component 1. Production and distribution The component envisages building up the system of production and distribution for the iron/folate fortified flour in the country. The component has been critical as the initial investment in launching the IFF programme in the country. Procurement of the fortification equipment (collection conveyers, feeders, discharge systems) & initial supply of fortificants for revolving fund, lab equipment & test kits serve as basis for institutional capacity building for the 6 target large scale mills. GAIN support is requested to fill up the gap of resources, as none of the existing partnership programmes can provide the equipment & requested supplies. GAIN funds are requested to cover the initial investments. Following launch of the process, first by GAIN & Government resources the flour producing companies are expected


to take over procurement of the fortificants. The milling equipment available at the largest of the local mills and the routine QC/QA programme will serve as the major in-kind contribution from the private sector.

The second major contribution of the component is the human capacity building: training of the technical & lab personel in operationalization of the fortification process & the on-site QC/QA system in the milling industry. Technical and financial assistance for the activities can be also provided by UNICEF country office.

Component 2. Safety & Quality of Fortified Food NFA within the scope of the food security and quality assurance seeks support from GAIN in provision of lab equipment for target plants (6 LSMs) as per component 1. Additional funds from GAIN will be requested for procurement of lab equipment & test kits supplies for QC/QA system at customs, SDS & sanitary inspectorate levels for the 1st 2 years of the project. Starting from 2008 the Government of Georgia through the respective responsible agencies will be ensuring procurement of the test supplies (sanitary inspectorate & public health department). As cited in the activities 2.1-2.3 NFA & UNICEF would ensure coverage of the techanical assistance and training needs for the agencies/companies engaged in the unified M&E scheme for fortified food flow. In addition changes to the legislation and implementation of a flour standard will be used to cover both national flour and any imported flour.

Component 3. Social Marketing and Communication The GAIN funded activities under the 3.5 component include external expertise for development of the communication strategy and baseline HH survey on knowledge, attitude and practice analysis of the fortified food consumption. UNICEF country office can support external consultancy mission, while market & HH research - field work is requested form GAIN. HH surveys of fortified food consumption will be integrated (linked) to the routine quarterly HH surveys by SDS, thereby ensuring substantial cost-saving for the wide-scale sampling and national representative survey.

Component 4. Monitoring, evaluation & impact assessmentUnder the M&E component NFA requests GAIN funding for supporting external consultancy for evaluation of the progress & status of the IFF programme and GAIN project as well as baseline and follow-up HH & school based surveys in 2006 & 2008 as per the nationally agreed standards and M&E indicators

Component 5. Programme management and administrationGAIN is requested to fund the NFP related operational & staffing support for the initial 3 years period, with subsequent shift of the resource contribution to the NFA partner agencies (i.e. shared contribution from private sector partners as a NFA membership fee).

1.5.3 Please indicate how the GAIN funds will be matched with other funds in order that the overall National Fortification Programme objectives can be completed.GAIN will expect to see evidence of matched funds after a grant is awarded.

The scope of the NFA proposal submitted to GAIN targets to fill up the existing financial and technical capacity gaps within the food fortification component of the national food and nutrition action plan (2006-2010).

The NFP budget enclosed to the proposal document demonstrates the total financial needs for the 5 year programme (4 031 280 USD) and the contributions projected/requested from various stakeholders.

Overall estimated government contribution for 5-year programme is 1 162 280 USD (28.8%), covering the government staff costs engaged in national programme management, QC/QA & M&E components, running costs for the implementing government institutions as well as the share to the fortification costs as the subsidy to wheat supplies and VAT excemption of the fortificants premixes.


Private sector contribution through covering the fortification premix costs and the staffing/operational costs of the industry is estimated as 1 500 000 USD (37.2%).

UNICEF as one of the main international agencies supporting the VMD & food fortification programme will be contributing overall 170 000 (4.2%) USD.

WHO will be granting technical support for M&E component - follow-up survey for impact assessment. Any further financial assistance will have to be defined under the 2006-2007 BCA.

Total funds requested from GAIN comprise 1,199,000 USD - 29.8% of the total NFP.

UNICEF Country office within the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) will contribure to definition of the baseline ID/IDA rates among women of reproductive age (WRA). The survey is underway with national and 1st sub-national data to be available by end-2005.

UNICEF will expedite financial and technical support for putting in place a sound M&E framework under the scope of the comprehensive national Food & Nutrition NPA for 2050-2010. WHO will be granting technical expertise to the impactct assessment baseline and follow-up surveys. UNICEF has been also committed to support social marketing & communication components under the overall framework of the healthy nutrition promotion in the country.

NFA considers Business Advisory Service (BAS) Programme in Georgia as one of the possibilities of counterpart funding which is a new SME support initiative to be funded by EDRB. Enterprises involved in the national food fortification program can apply to the BAS Programme for subsidies to lower the cost of professional advisory services in a broad range of management consulting areas, including:• Management information systems and other IT solutions• Strategy development, including enterprise restructuring, reorganization and management• Business planning, including business plans and feasibility studies for project finance• Market research and marketing planning• Cost accounting and cost reduction studies• Engineering studies• Quality management and ISO systems• Business partner and investor search• Other types of advisory services

The fact that one of the major milling enterprises [Forte Ltd] has already been operating and producing about 50,000 tones of flour per year reaching nearly EUR 12 mln. annual sales can be viewed as a strong start up position. Actually, the Mill is the only one in Georgia having the best model of milling processes and new production line from the milling machinery world leader manufacturer – Buhler AG of Switzerland. This ensures a significant increase of high-grade flour yield that will be the immediate respond to the growing demand from the bakery and household markets. Technical reconstruction of the mill was carried out with the help of WB in 1999. Local consultants together with experts from St. George’s Mill of Athens, Greece conducted a complete rehabilitation and modernization of technological processes. In 2004 the company supplied the micro dosing scale and made a step forward to the improving the rheological balance and stability of the products and further technical, managerial and commercial improvements are considered in order to strengthen the market position and reach the targeted financial performance during 2005.


PART 2 MARKET ANALYSIS

Please note that you will need to complete this section for each food vehicle.It is recommended that a reference list be kept, of all documents consulted during the completion of this section—the documents will be needed again during the GAIN appraisal process.

Overview

Agricultural product

e.g. wheat

Food vehicle

e.g. flour

Food product

e.g. breadUnfortified

Fortified FortifiedUnfortified

Fortified Fortified

Fortified Fortified

Fortified

ConsumptionCommercial processing(milling and baking)

Agricultural product

Food vehicle

Food vehicle

(fortified)

Food product

(fortified)

Consumer(home baking)

This symbol indicates fortification, either through a commercial process or the use of 'sprinkles' by consumers.

Another example for the above illustration would be oilseeds (an agricultural commodity) and edible oil (the resulting food vehicle), with refining and cooking processes rather than milling and baking processes.

General The structure and performance of the market in which the food vehicle is supplied and

demanded affects the degree of effectiveness (coverage) of the fortification programme.

In-country fortification increases the likelihood that coverage will be high. If the food vehicle is imported, rather than processed in-country, legislation and regulations are needed to ensure that imports comply with national fortification guidelines.

Supply The more food that is produced and consumed on-farm, the less likely it is that coverage

of the fortification will include the most vulnerable consumers.

If food processing is spread out over a greater number of agro-industrial actors it is less likely that coverage will be high.

The greater the share of non-industrial, small-scale processing of the food vehicle, the less likely that fortification will be introduced consistently and over a wide share of the market.


The greater the extent to which fortification is conducted by the local agro-industry, the greater the likelihood of consistent fortification quality.

The existence of an active agro-industry association increases the likelihood that corporate social responsibility will contribute to a higher coverage rate of fortification.

Demand Coverage of the fortification programme will increase in relation to the extent that those

most at risk of micronutrient deficiency can be identified and their consumption habits understood.

Fortification will be more successful if the food vehicle is already consumed in-country by target consumers.

The more essential the food is to consumers, the greater the likelihood that coverage will be high.

Fortification should not result in a significant price increase.

Fortification programmes are more successful if the entire processing industry supplies fortified products to the market; however, if consumers are not convinced of the need to consume the fortified good, a parallel market for unfortified substitutes may still persist in the market.

If near-perfect substitutes to the chosen food vehicle exist in the market, and if these substitutes are not fortified, coverage will be reduced unless consumers are aware and convinced of the advantages of the fortified product.

Market It is important to know whether the government attempts to intervene in the setting of

prices.

A tax will increase the price to consumers, discouraging consumption, whereas a subsidy will decrease the price paid by consumers and encourage consumption.

An import duty or tariff will raise the domestic price of the food vehicle relative to its border price and thus discourage consumption.

Consumers may not consistently purchase the fortified food vehicle if its price is not stable, or if it becomes notably more expensive than non-fortified substitutes, at least during certain times of the year.

Access by consumers to the fortified food vehicle is enhanced to the extent that the food vehicle is available more broadly through various kinds of markets.

Access by vulnerable consumers to the fortified food vehicle may be especially enhanced if it is distributed as part of various food programmes, where they exist.

2.1 Food fortification components

2.1.1 Identify the processed food vehicle chosen for fortification.Wheat Flour2.1.1.1 Identify the primary food product made from this food vehicle, if different from

above.Bread


2.1.1.2 Identify the agro-industrial process by which the agricultural product is converted into a food vehicle for fortification.

Imported or locally grown wheat is milled in roller mills and flour of different grades is produced. Three types of flour (high quality, type I & type II) are milled in Georgia and all three types will be fortified. Type I flour represents the largest proportion of the flour milled & imported into Georgia.

2.2 Supply analysis

PLEASE NOTE: If production and imports are not in the same form (such as oilseeds and vegetable oil), please convert into comparable units of measure.

2.2.1 On average, over the last five years: Percentage

2.2.1.1 How much of the food vehicle is produced in-country? 50

2.2.1.2 How much of the food vehicle is imported through official channels? 45

2.2.1.3 How much of the food vehicle is imported as processed food product?

0

2.2.1.4 How much of the food is received as food aid donations? 1.5

2.2.1.5 How much of the food ‘leaks in’ through unofficial channels? <5

2.2.1.6 How much of the food is exported? 0

2.2.1.7 Given these answers, what percentage of total domestic supply of the food, over the last five years, was produced in your country?

50-60

2.2.1.8 Additional comments?The milling industry in Georgia can only produce 50% of the total flour demand in the country. The balance of the demand is satisfied by flour imports from Russia, Ukraine, Kazahkstan and Turkey. 6 large mills provide 90% of the locally milled flour.

One of the key components of the flour fortification programme will be the introduction of a mandatory flour standard and import controls to ensure all the imported flour coming through official channels will be fortified.

WFP has been providing average 12,000 tons per year for the targeted beneficiaries - 20,000 households - 80,000 people (4 member/family).

2.2.2 How much of the domestically produced food is sold off-farm, compared to the amount retained for own-consumption by farmers?

On average 90% of the wheat is sold off-farm and only 10% is milled in farm stone mills and consumed by farmers. But the tendency of own-consumption is going down as per the market analysis carried ut by the Ltd Forte.6 large mills produce 90% of the locally milled flour.It is notable that a number of medium & small scale mills are existing, but not operational in the country due to the low competetive capacity in wheat supply & flour pricing vs. the Large Scale Mills. Large Scale Mills are far more cost-effective in production & can offer product at affordable price to the customers.

2.2.3 How is agro-processing of this food organized?The main supply of wheat is imported (about 70-80%) and only small quantity is grown locally (20-30%). The wheat is delivered in industrial large, medium mills (small portion of only locally grown wheat is milled by farmers in small stone mills) and ground into white, brown and whole wheat flours. About 90% of the flours milled is white bread flour. Then flour is delivered in backeries for production of bread and pastry products or sold in small packaging to households.


Number

2.2.4 In your country, how many of the following facilities are there that are relevant for processing your food vehicle? (Please enter the number, if known, or else specify “few” or “many”).

2.2.4.1 Industrial-scale flour mills? 6

2.2.4.2 Crushing plants?

2.2.4.3 Refineries?

2.2.4.4 Additional comments?Medium & small scale mills though existing, are not operational due to a low competetive capacity at the local market.

2.2.5 Who owns the facilities? (Tick one box on each line relevant to your food vehicle) State Private Mixed

2.2.5.1 Industrial-scale flour mills?2.2.5.2 Crushing plants?2.2.5.3 Refineries?2.2.5.4 Additional comments?Optional

Percentage

2.2.6 What percentage of the processed food vehicle does the non-industrial processing sector supply?

< 5%

2.2.6.1 Additional comments?Type of flour from non-industrial process is mainly produced from the local farmer's wheat supplies and used for HH consumption in the rural areas or for production of dark bread. Exact share of the non-industrial flour is not known, though estimated flow of the product is set as <5% by stakeholders analysis.

2.2.7 What percentage of total consumption is processed by the industrial sector when compared to the non-industrial sector?

95%

2.2.7.1 Additional comments?As already cited above, 3 types of flour (high quality, type I & type II) are milled in Georgia through industrial sector and all three types will be fortified. Type I flour represents the largest proportion of the flour milled & imported into Georgia.

Yes No

2.2.8 Are fortified versions of the food vehicle also imported?2.2.8.1 Additional comments?It is proposed that the mandatory fortification will be applied to all flour - nationally produced and imported starting from 2006.

Yes No

2.2.9 Is fortification introduced solely by the local agro-industry?2.2.9.1 If yes to 2.2.9, what percentage of the total available amount

of fortified food vehicle is imported?Percentage:

2.2.9.2 Additional comments?Optional


Yes No

2.2.10 Does a business association exist to which agro-industrial processors (industrial and/or small-scale) belong?

2.2.10.1 If yes to 2.2.10, on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest), how actively does the association already collaborate with public authorities on public policy issues?

Rating:

2.2.10.2 Is the association part of the NFA?2.2.10.3 Additional comments?Millers & bread producers association are members of the NFA. The majority of the enterpreunors in the milling and baking business are also membres of the Business Federation of Georgia. However the Business Federation of Georgia is not yet the member of the NFA though NFA is inviting the federation to join the alliance.

2.3 Demand analysis

2.3.1 Please describe, in specific terms, the vulnerable consumers in your country, i.e., those most at risk of micronutrient deficiency, such as the poor, pregnant women, women of childbearing age, children under the age of five, adolescent girls, the elderly, and rural households. Please give an estimate of the number of people within each category in your country.

As per State Department of Statistics total population of Georgia is 4,315,000, including:

Women of Reproductive Age (15-45) – 1,006,000 (23.3% of total population). 43% of the target group is affected by IDA

Children under-15 – 804,000 (18.6 % of total population). 33.6% and 21.6% of the target group are affected by ID & IDA, respectively

Population under poverty – 1,812,000 (42% of total population).

Yes No

2.3.2 Is the food vehicle chosen for fortification already part of the local basket of foods traditionally consumed in your country?

2.3.2.1 Additional comments?Culturally bread plays an important role in the food consumption habits of the Georgian population. It is consumed three times a day with a variety of the types of bread. Bread constituting 30% average calorie intake.

Yes No

2.3.3 Do your most vulnerable consumers traditionally consume the food vehicle?

2.3.3.1 If no to 2.3.3, why is this food vehicle proposed for fortification?Please enter response2.3.3.2 Additional comments?In some regions rural poor may consume as much as 75% of the calories as bread.

Percentage

2.3.4 What percentage of total food expenditure is spent, on average, on this food vehicle?

2.3.4.1 Across the nation? 35

2.3.4.2 In rural households? 70

2.3.4.3 In urban households? 20


Percentage2.3.4.4 By the vulnerable population? 70

2.3.4.5 Additional comments?Ref.: State Department of Statistics - food consumption surveys.

EssentialNon-

essential

2.3.5 Is this food vehicle considered an ‘essential’ or ‘non-essential’ element in the diet of these groups?

2.3.5.1 General population?2.3.5.2 Rural consumers?2.3.5.3 Urban consumers?2.3.5.4 Vulnerable population?2.3.5.5 Additional comments?Ref.: State Department of Statistics - food consumption surveys.

Yes No

2.3.6 If the price of the fortified food increased, would consumers:2.3.6.1 Increase the amount they purchased?2.3.6.2 Decrease the amount they purchased?2.3.6.3 Buy the same amount?2.3.6.4 Additional comments?Ref.: NFA Meeting - stakeholders analysis

Yes No

2.3.7 Would the same be true for vulnerable consumers?2.3.7.1 If no to 2.3.7, then please explain.Please enter response2.3.7.2 Additional comments?Ref.: NFA Meeting - stakeholders analysis

Yes No

2.3.8 If the income of consumers increased, would they:2.3.8.1 Increase the amount of fortified food they purchased?2.3.8.2 Decrease the amount of fortified food they purchased?2.3.8.3 Buy the same amount?2.3.8.4 Additional comments?Ref.: NFA Meeting - stakeholders analysis

Yes No

2.3.9 Would the same be true for vulnerable consumers?2.3.9.1 If no to 2.3.9, then please explain.Increase in income of poor households would increase diversity of their dietary rations, currently led by the wheat flour products2.3.9.2 Additional comments?Ref.: NFA Meeting - stakeholders analysis


Yes No

2.3.10 Is the food vehicle mostly sold:2.3.10.1 In bulk (large volume sacks or drums)?2.3.10.2 In smaller, packaged quantities to consumers?2.3.10.3 In small, unpacked quantities, scooped or pumped from a

large bulk package?2.3.10.4 As a food product?2.3.10.5 Additional comments?Food vehicles is consumed as bread and bread/bakery products.

Yes No

2.3.11 Are purchasing practices the same for vulnerable consumers?2.3.11.1 Additional comments?All consumers buy bread from bakeries & retail shops (large, medium & small size).

Yes No

2.3.12 Is fortification of this food mandatory, according to government regulations?

2.3.12.1 Additional comments?Since 50% of the flour consumed as bread is imported flour fortification has to be mandatary to ensure adequate intake of fortified food from both national & imported flour. Government in Feb 2005 adopted mandatry fortification (iodization) of imported salt supples and will imply the same to the flour imports.

Yes No

2.3.13 Are unfortified versions of the food available in the local market?

2.3.13.1 Additional comments?Unfortified versions will be phased out with the introduction of the mandatary flour fortification (to be adopted by the Parliament by 1st of April 2006) and 95% of the all bread products will be fortified by the end of the year 5 programme.

Yes No

2.3.14 Are there alternative foods that substitute in the local diet for the proposed food fortification vehicle?

2.3.14.1 If yes to 2.3.14, then please explain.Food products made with maize flour are consumed as a traditional snack food, but it is not used as an altarentaive to bread. 2.3.14.2 Additional comments?Optional

2.4 The market

Yes No

2.4.1 Is the price of the food vehicle to be fortified set by:2.4.1.1 The market interaction of supply and demand forces?2.4.1.2 Public authorities?2.4.1.3 Other? (Please explain below)Please enter response


2.4.1.4 Additional comments?

Yes No

2.4.2 Is the price of the food product to be fortified set by:2.4.2.1 The market interaction of supply and demand forces?2.4.2.2 Public authorities?2.4.2.3 Other? (Please explain below)Please enter response2.4.2.4 Additional comments?Optional

2.4.3 What is the consumer price of the unfortified food product per unit quantity? (Please specify units of measure)

$0.6 per 1 kg of bread, and avarage $1.2 per 1 kg of pastry products.

2.4.4 What is the expected consumer price of the fortified food product per unit quantity? (Please specify units of measure)

The price is not expected to increase (expected price difference 0.3%)

Yes No

2.4.5 Does the consumer price of the fortified food vehicle or food product include a domestic tax or a subsidy?

2.4.5.1 If yes to 2.4.5, what is the tax or subsidy per unit quantity? (Please tax or subsidy, and units of measure)

The price includes 18% VAT

Yes No

2.4.6 Is a duty or tariff applied to the border price of the imported food product?

2.4.6.1 If yes to 2.4.6, what is the cost per ton or other quantity? (Please specify units of measure)

Generally, there is no import of food product, but import of food vehicle - wheat & wheat flour is subject to a customs duty of 36% of invoice value

2.4.7 How much will fortification cost per unit of the food vehicle produced in an industrial scale processor? (Please specify the units of measure used, e.g., metric tons (MT) of flour; kilogrammes (kg) of flour; liters of oil; etc.)

About $1.5 /MT Flour, based on the calculation performed by the miller company. You will need to consider the costs of: The fortificant Depreciation of equipment Additional labor Additional costs of quality control, packaging/labeling, and advertising.

2.4.8 If small-scale processing is common in your country, how much will fortification cost per unit of the food vehicle produced in a small-scale processor? (Please specify the units of measure of the food vehicle).

Not applicable You will need to consider the costs of: The fortificant Depreciation of equipment Additional labor Additional costs of quality control, packaging/labeling, and advertising.

Yes No

2.4.9 Will the increased cost of fortification be passed on directly to consumers?


2.4.9.1 Additional comments?It is proposed that the Ministry of Health in colloboration with the industry will cover the increased costs for fortification. The reason behind is that the bread prices are already subsidized by the Government while the population are extremely sensitive to the fluctuations in the bread pricing.

Yes No

2.4.10 Will the state compensate food processors for the cost of fortification?

2.4.10.1 Additional comments?The initial investments in the equipment and premix start-up funds will be the major incentive for the millers provided through the Government initiative under the NFP.

2.4.11 What are the market prices of the non-fortified and fortified food vehicles? (Please give the price per unit of measure, e.g., 1 kg of non-fortified maize flour costs: …, and 1 kg of fortified maize flour costs …)

1 MT of fortified and non-fortified flour costs the same about $305

2.4.12 What is the market price of non-fortified substitute foods?There is no substitute for this food vehicle

2.4.13 Describe how these prices vary by season throughout the year.Price fluctuations on flour are in range of +/- 20%. Generally, high in the beginning of summer and low in fall. Or depending on world wheat harvest and prices. Through the government subsidy and revolving reserve supply of the wheat mechanism the price remains constant and does not affect the consumer.

Yes No

2.4.14 Is the food vehicle or product, in its unfortified form, already available on the local market?

2.4.14.1 Is it available in retail shops?2.4.14.2 Is it available in open-air markets?2.4.14.3 Is it available in rural markets?2.4.14.4 Is it available in urban markets?2.4.14.5 Is it available all year round?2.4.14.6 Additional comments?Bread & bakery products are sold through all the above channels.

Yes No

2.4.15 Is the food vehicle or product, in its fortified form, already available on the local market?

2.4.15.1 Is it available in retail shops?2.4.15.2 Is it available in open-air markets?2.4.15.3 Is it available in rural markets?2.4.15.4 Is it available in urban markets?2.4.15.5 Is it available all year round?2.4.15.6 Additional comments?Although the bread is not fortified at the moment, by the end of the year 5 of the programme 95% of fortified bread will be available through all the above channels.

Yes No

2.4.16 Do extra-market channels of distribution exist (or are they envisioned) for this food vehicle?


2.4.16.1 If yes to 2.4.16, then please explain.<5% of the product considered to be leaked through unofficial channels

By ‘extra-market channels of distribution’, we mean distribution of food in exchange for work, receipt of health services, receipt of education services, in emergency relief programmes, and in other possible situations.


PART 3 PROGRAMME DETAILReviewers are looking for evidence that the applicants have clearly thought through and addressed all aspects of the National Food Fortification Programme and all activities for which GAIN funding is being requested (the project). The more evidence that the applicant provides to show well planned activities and budget, the more favorably the Proposal Review Panel will view the proposal. Detail is requested on five major programme components. All five components should be described, whether or not they are already functioning. After each component is described, you will be asked to identify and give more detail on those sub-objectives and activities for which you are asking funding from GAIN.

If more than one food vehicle is proposed to be fortified, each food vehicle should have its own objective, but the component objectives and sub-objectives and activities can remain singular.

When referring to the entire programme, please use the word programme, and when referring only to the proposed GAIN-funded activities in the initial three years, use the word project.

3.1 Fortification3.1.1 Please complete Table 5 and Table 6, detailing the types and levels of fortification to be used, the amount of production to be fortified, and the

average daily consumption of fortified food vehicle. In the ‘Population’ column in Table 6, please use the drop-down list to select from the list of target groups defined in Table 1. [The table is reproduced here for your reference – you can only update it under point 1.4.2]

Please use the formulas below to calculate values for the columns with shaded headings (EAR = Estimated Average Requirement). If you need assistance, please contact the GAIN RFP Helpdesk.[Please add rows to the tables for each combination of food vehicle, micronutrient, and population. Place the cursor on a row in the table, and choose menu option ‘GAIN Options>Add Row Below’.]

Added Micronutrient Units Consumed

Daily=

Proportion of Production to be

Fortifiedx Level of

Fortification x Adjustment For Iron Compound or Retention Factor for

Vitamin A x Average Daily Consumption

Proportion of Daily Need Covered by

Fortification = Added Micronutrient

Units Consumed Daily EAR for

Micronutrient


Table 5: Projected Levels of Fortification of the Food Vehicle

Food Vehicle

Proportion of Production to be Fortified (%) Micronutrient

Micronutrient Compound

Level of Fortification (ppm)

Adjustment For Iron Compound (%)

RetentionFactor for Vitamin A (%)

Wheat flour 80 Iron Electolyte Iron 60 ppm 50% 0

Table 6: Projected Levels of Fortification Reaching Consumers

Food Vehicle Micronutrient Population

Average Daily Consumption (g/day)

Added Micronutrient Units Consumed Daily (units/day)

EAR for Micronutrient (units/day)

Proportion of Daily Need Covered by Fortification (%)

Wheat flour Iron Target group 1 322 0.773 grams 1.34 grams 57%Wheat flour Iron Target group 2 322 0.773 grams 1.34 grams 57%EAR = Estimated Average Requirement

3.1.2 Please describe the reasoning behind the choice of food vehicle and micronutrients, including justification for the projected proportion of production to be fortified and the average daily consumption values for the different target groups.

After examining a number of fortification options, fortification of wheat flour was defined as the strategy of greatest potential for reaching the ID-affected population, especially among vulnerable social-economic groups. Wheat floor was identified as an appropriate food vehicle that reaches the vast majority of the population, is widely available and routinely consumed by all households, including the most vulnerable.


3.2 Goal, purpose, and key objective3.2.1 Please complete Table 7 below (using the information already detailed in Part 1 of this RFP, under points 1.1 and 1.2).

[NFP = National Fortification Programme].

Table 7: GAIN RFP logical framework (Part A)

Project narrative Indicators Means of verification AssumptionsSuper goal:Poverty reduction, improvement of child and women health status (MDGs goals 1, 4, 5)

Not applicable Not applicable Political & governance stability Availability of resources for fulfillment of the projected government programmes - EDPRP, national MDGs

NFP goal:> 20% reduction of micronutrient and vitamin deficiencies among general population and target groups - women and under-15 child population by 2010 vs. 2005 baselines

Prevalence of iodine deficiency among children and women of reproductive age Prevalence of Iron deficiencies among general population, women of reproductive age & under-15 children Prevalence of Vit A among children

UIE surveys among school aged children - UNICEF/GoG, 2005 & 2008 National Admin data on IDD from National Centre for Nutrition in 2005-2010 ID survey among women of reproductive age - MICS 2005 & 2009 VitA Surveys - GoG in 2006 & 2009

Availability of financial resources for scaling up of the projected interventions Technical expertise available at the NCN for implementation of the surveys

NFP purpose:Improved iron & folate status among the general population and target groups - women and under-15 child population by 2010 vs. 2005 baselines

Serum ferritin levels among the surveyed targets Transferrin receptor among the surveyed targets Serum folate levels among the surveyed targets Hb levels among the WRA

Basline & follow-up survey data - 2006 & 2009 MICS 2005 & 2009

Availability of financial resources for scaling up of the projected interventions


Project narrative Indicators Means of verification AssumptionsNFP key objective:Within 3 years 1,812,000 people living under the poverty line and 1,006,000 women of reproductive age will be provided with 0.773 grams/day iron or 57% of EAR for the group

Level of iron/folate in fortified flour at production & wholesael/retail levels Total additional number of population consuming fortified flour and processed products by 2007 & 2009 vs. 0% in 2005 Total additional number of reproductive women consuming fortified flour & proceesed products by 2007 & 2009 vs. 0% in 2005 Total additional number of under-15 children consuming fortified flour & proceesed products by 2007 & 2009 vs. 0% in 2005

HH Surveys 2007 & 2009 - State Statitics Department MICS 2009 Fopod consumption surveys

Availability of financial resources


3.3 Production and distribution3.3.1 Please complete Table 8 below. For each sub-objective, please give at least one outcome indicator. For each activity, please give at least one input

indicator and one output indicator.Please tick the box in the ‘GAIN’ column if you are requesting GAIN funds for the activity on that row.[Please add rows to the table for each activity required to achieve each sub-objective. Place the cursor on an activity row, and choose menu option ‘GAIN Options>Add Row Below’.]

Table 8: GAIN RFP logical framework (Part B)

Project narrative Indicators Means of verification Assumptions GAINComponent Objective 1: Enable the production and distribution of fortified food in the next 12–18 months.

Within 12 month after start of the project production of fortified flour is launched with relevant distribution systems in 3 large scale mills Within 18 month after start of the project production of fortified flour is operational in all 6 targeted large mills in the country & 50% of the imported flour is fortified Within 3 years locally produced flour is sustained and 95% of imports is fortified

Records from the mills Field monitoring visits to the mills Market analysis of wheat flour at wholesale & retail levels Verification of the customs recorts/data for import

Availability of the projected financial resources

Sub-Objective 1.1: Ensure and support procurement of an agreed standard and quality of fortification mix (over a specified period).

Within 6 month after launch of the project fortificaiton mix (premixes) of agreed standard & quality is procured and delivered to the target 6 large mills

Purchase orders by GAIN LIA Procurement and dispatch reports

International procurement of the premixes (non available at local markets)


Project narrative Indicators Means of verification Assumptions GAIN Activity 1.1.:

Forecasting, selection of suppliers and procurement of fortification mix compliant to nationally adopted WHO standards on IFF

Quantity, source and specification of fortificants mixed procured Conformity of the fortificaiton mixes to the national standards

Purchase orders by GAIN LIA Procurement and dispatch reports

market analysis and selection of suppliers to be carried out by NFA coordination supply procurement for GAIN supported activities to be led by the implementing agency followed by shifting of the procurement management to individual companies

Sub-Objective 1.2: Ensure and support industrial implementation of the fortification process (over a specified period).

No. of companies out of 6 large mills fortifying flour with the standard premix within 18 month from the project launch vs. 0% by 2005 No. of companies fortifying flour within 3 year period vs.0 in 2005

Records from the mills Field monitoring visits to the mills Market analysis of wheat flour at wholesale & retail levels

Offshore procurement of the equipment (non available at local markets) as per admin & financial regulations of the LIA

Activity 1.2.:Procurement of fortification equipment for the 6 large scale mills (collection conveyers, feeders, discharge systems)

No. of companies with fortification equipment operational within 18 month and 3 years from the project launch vs. 2005 Type & number of fortification equipment procured and distibured to large scale mills

Purchase orders by GAIN LIA Procurement and dispatch reports Records from the mills Field monitoring visits to the mills

Offshore procurement of the equipment (non available at local markets) as per admin & financial regulations of the LIA. Equipment specificaiton to be defined by NFA

Activity 1.2.:Training of the technical and management staff in operation & maintanance of the fortification equipment and the process workflow

No. of technical & management staff trained by 2006 & 2008 No (%) of mils covered by the programme with staff skilled in operation of the fortification process by 2006 & 2008

Training reports Progress reports to NFA Field monitoring visits

Please enter description


Project narrative Indicators Means of verification Assumptions GAIN Sub-Objective 1.3: Ensure and support industrial quality assurance (over a specified period).

By end 2008 all large mills covered by the programme have QC/QA capacities for IFF on site.

Performance records from the mills Field monitoring visits to the mills Training reports

To be part of an integrated M&E and QC/QA of fortified food products

Activity 1.3.:Procurement of laboratory equipment & test kit supplies for setting up the local QC/QA systems at all 6 target plants

No. of companies with IFF QC/QA systems on cite - lab testing capacities (lab equipment, test systems) operational within 18 month and 3 years from the project launch vs. 2005

Procurement & distribution reports Performance records from the mill Field monitoring visits to the mills


Activity 1.3.:Training of the technical staff in QC/QA and workflow/reporting within the unified national M&E system for food safety & quality

1.3.2. No. of technical & lab staff trained in the targeted 6 plants by 2006 & 2008

Performance records - mills Field monitoring visits to mills Training reports

Activity 1.3.:On-going fortification and QC/QA of the process

Fortification process in operation by all 6 mills

Performance records - mills Field monitoring visits to mills


3.3.2 For each GAIN-funded activity, please give additional narrative description:a. Detailing why GAIN funding is required, rather than funding from any other source.

Component 1 envisages building up the system of production and distribution for the iron & folate fortified flour in the country. The component has been critical as the initial investment in launching the IFF programme in the country. Procurement of the fortification equipment (collection conveyers, feeders, discharge systems) & initial supply of fortificants for revolving fund, lab equipment & test kits serve as basis for institutional capacity building for the 6 target large scale mills. GAIN support is requested to fill up the gap of resources, as none of the existing partnership programmes can provide the equipment & requested supplies. GAIN funds are requested to cover the initial investments. Following launch of the proces, theflour producing companies are expected to take over procurement of the fortificants. The milling equipment available at the local mills also serve as the major in-kind contribution from the private sector.

The second major contribution of the component is the human capacity building: training of the technical & lab personel in operationalization of the fortification process & the on-cite QC/QA system. Technical and financial assistance for the activities can be also provided by UNICEF country office.


Resources available within the national nutrition programme (PHD - MLHSA) though limited are available for supporting programme communication and human resources costs at the public health department. Governmental contribution has been also ensured through staffign at various public organization engaged as the key stakeholders in NFA - customs, SDS, Sanitary Inspectorate, etc.

b. Detailing inputs and outputs.Activity: 1.1.1Input: purchasing fortification premixes for the target 6 LSMs through offshore procurement; Output: All 6 target LSMs provided with initial 1 year supply of mixes as the revolving fund.

Activity: 1.2.1Input: Procurement of fortification equipment for the 6 large scale mills (collection conveyers, feeders & discharge systems ). Output: By end 2007 all 6 target LSMs equipped with essential equipment for launching the IFF process;

Activity 1.2.2Input: financial & technical assistance for carrying out local staff capacity building training - in-service training of technical & managerial personel. Output: By end 2007 all 6 target LSMs have staff competent in operational and workflow system for IFF process; Activity 1.3.1input: Purchase of laboratory equipment (scales) & test supplies for setting up the local QC/QA systems at all 6 target plants. Output: By end 2007 all 6 target LSMs are equipped for ensuring local QC/QA.

Activity 1.3.2Input: financial & technical assistance for carrying out local lab staff. Output: By end 2007 all 6 target LSMs have staff competent in operational and workflow of QC/QA system at the plan level (samplying, testing, QA plan operation & reporting levels);

c. Detailing how sustainability (after the end of GAIN funding) will be achieved for each of these activities.As the GAIN funding is requested for initial capital investment for FF process, maintainance of the equipment will be handled over to the target mills. Sustainability of the fortificants & lab supplies will be assured from the participating provate sector companies, as well as the service staff (technical, managerial & lab) costs.

NFA partners (i.e. PHD, UNICEF) will ensure continuity of the human capacity building component though provision of technical assistance (expert) or small grants programmes for training sessions.

Premix will be purchased by the government as part of the overall bread subsidy programme during the 2nd year, while the costs will be shifted to the industry with government subsidy as the VAT/customs tax excemption for fortificants premixes.


3.4 Safety and quality of fortified food3.4.1 Please complete Table 9 below. For each sub-objective, please give at least one outcome indicator. For each activity, please give at least one input


Table 9: GAIN RFP logical framework (Part C)

Project narrative Indicators Means of verification Assumptions GAINComponent Objective 2: Ensure safety and quality of fortified food at the retail level (over a specified period).

% of available flour fortified by iron as per national standards at production, import, wholesale, retail & HH levels

Reports of the M&E system for fortified food flow (import, production, sale) by customs, state standards & sanitary inspectorate - quarterly/annual reports to NFA HH surveys by SDS, 2006 & 2009

Unification of the M&E and reporting system underway

Sub-Objective 2.1: Development of legislation and standards (by a specified date).

National standards for food fortification and sanction mechanisms defined by end 2005 Law or normative acts on mandatary iron flour fortification adopted by Government by April 2006

Normative acts on standards, reporting lines & sanctions issued by Ministry of Labour, ealth & Social Affairs, Ministry of Agriculture & Ministry of Finance

Law on USI & FF adopted by Parliament in Feb 2005

Activity 2.1.:Technical assistance to NFA and line ministers in endorsement of the standards for foor fortification, including IFF, reporting flow and sanction mechanisms

International consultancy for NFA made available by fall 2005 Normative acts endorsed by end 2005

Normative acts on standards, reporting lines & sanctions issued by Ministry of Labour, ealth & Social Affairs, Ministry of Agriculture & Ministry of Finance Consultancy report

To be supported by UNICEF Georgia


Project narrative Indicators Means of verification Assumptions GAIN Sub-Objective 2.2: Ensure adequate inspection and enforcement of standards and regulations (over a specified period).

Clearly defined framework and workflow on M&E and reporting for fortified food (including IFF) at all levles of the market flow available & operational by end 2005 Regularity and quality of the M&E and inspection process by customs, SDS & sanitary inspectorate Follow-up sanctions to the violations reported in QC/QA of the fortified food, including IFF

Reports of the M&E system for fortified food flow (import, production, sale) by customs, state standards & sanitary inspectorate - quartelry/annual reports to NFA Market survey on fortified food QC/QA - 2007 & 2009

To be supported by NFA & UNICEF Georgia

Activity 2.2.:Training for national partners involved in QC/QA of fortified food at customs, SDS & sanitary inspectorate departments

Availability of a responsible officer (focal points) at customs, SDS & sanitary inspectorate departments covering M&E & reporting No of focal points involved in fortified food QC/QA system trained in M&E & reporting by 2005, 2007 & 2009 Guideline on QC/QA and reporting for fortified product flow available by end 2005

Letters of assignment/nomination of focal points by respective agencies - customs, SDS & sanitary inspectorate departments Training reports QC/QA & reporting guidelines endorsed by NFA & line ministers

To be supported by NFA & UNICEF Georgia


Project narrative Indicators Means of verification Assumptions GAIN Sub-Objective 2.3: Ensure appropriate, timely, and adequate product quality testing (over a specified period).

% of imported IFF tested at customs level as per agreed on sampling frame & testing methodology % of IFF produced at local large scale mills tested at per agreed on sampling frame & testing methodology Market & HH surveys on fortified food carried out as per unified M&E framework and action plan in 2006 & 2008 % of available flour fortified by iron as per national standards at roduction, import, wholesale, retail & HH levels

Reports of the M&E system for fortified food flow (import, production, sale) by customs, state standards & sanitary inspectorate - quarterly/annual reports to NFA Market & HH surveys by SDS, 2006 & 2008

Subject to timely completion of the national surveillance system reform underway

Activity 2.3.:Procurement of lab equipment and test supplies (kits, reagents) for supply security and non-interruption of the QC/QA system at customs, SDS, sanitary inspectorate & LSM levels. Provision of IT support for HIS flow to individual reporting points as per needs assessment

Availability of testing equipment & IT support for HIS flow at customs, SDS, sanitary inspectorate, LSM & NFA M&E cluster Availability of continuous stock of test supplies (kits & reagents) at plants level, state inspectorate & customs services for routine surveillance

Reports of the M&E system for fortified food flow (import, production, sale) by customs, LSM, SDS & sanitary inspectorate - quarterly/annual reports to NFA Procurement and dispatch reports of lab equipment, IT equipment and test kits for initial revolving fund




Customs, SDS & sanitary inspectorate and beneficiary small scale mills ensuring continuity of the QC/QA system through security of testing equipment supplies, regular reporting and feedback monitoring systems

Continuity of the QC/QA workflow

Reports of the M&E system for fortified food flow (import, production, sale) by customs, LSM, SDS & sanitary inspectorate - quarterly/annual reports to NFA



NFA within the scope of the food security and quality assurance seeks support from GAIN in provision of lab equipment for target plants (6 LSMs) as per component 1. Additional funds from GAIN will be requested for procurement of lab equipment & test kits supplies for QC/QA system at customs, SDS & sanitary inspectorate levels for the 1st 2 years of the project. Starting from 2008 the Government of Georgia through the respective responsible agencies will be ensuring procurement of the test supplies (sanitary inspectorate & public health department). As cited in the activities 2.1-2.3 NFA & UNICEF would ensure coverage of the techanical assistance and training needs for the agencies/companies engaged in the unified M&E scheme for fortified food flow

b. Detailing inputs and outputs.Activity: 2.3.1 Input: The only financial contribution requested form GAIN is for procurement of lab equipment & test kits for cutroms, SDS & sanitary inspectorate services for QC/QA system. Supply assistance for the 6 target LSM wll be addressed under component 1 of the proposal. Output: All government & private sector agencies will have competence and capacities to ensure continuity of the safety & 2quality control of the fortified food, specifically for iron fortified flour within the GAIN supported project

c. Detailing how sustainability (after the end of GAIN funding) will be achieved for each of these activities.Equipment fo WC/WA system will remain as the capiral investment from the GAIN project. Test supplies will be funded through the government-led QC/QA system with contribution from the private sector (mills & importers for obtaining certificate of conformity) as well as the staffing support for the relevant participating agencies (cutsoms, SDS, sanitary inspectorate & LSM)


3.5 Social marketing and communications3.5.1 Please complete Table 10 below. For each sub-objective, please give at least one outcome indicator. For each activity, please give at least one input


Table 10: GAIN RFP logical framework (Part D)

Project narrative Indicators Means of verification Assumptions GAINComponent Objective 3: Use of social marketing and communications to increase consumption of the fortified food by the target audience (over a specified period).

% of target population aware of benefits of fortification % of target population purchasing fortified food % of target population consuming fortified food

HH surveys - SDS - baseline in 2006, follow-up in 2008 & 2010

Increased public awareness and knowledge of benefits of fortifications substantiates high consumption of fortified foods

Sub-Objective 3.1: The use of advocacy and public relations to support stakeholder commitment and widespread awareness at all levels (by a specified date).

Number and sectoral representation of NFA partners Availability of the NFA Partnership Memorandum Advocacy & social marketing strategy for food fortification developed in 2006 Progress in implementation of the communication strategy per bi-annual reviews No. & % of milling companies involved in fortification in 2006 & 2008 vs. 2005 No. & % of companies importing fortified flour in 2006 & 2008 vs. 2005

Minutes and records of the NFA meetings Strategy document for 2006-201 Progress reports on communication strategy discussed at NFA Local flour market analysis Regular reporting from Customs, SDS, 6 target LSMs & Sanitary Inspectorates HH surveys - SDS - baseline in 2006, follow-up in 2008 & 2010

Sucecsful advocacy and PR efforts and enabling policy frameworks translates into high commitments of various stakeholders in fortification field



Design and implementation of - reserch-based advocacy & social marketing strategy with involvement of all sectoral partners of NFA (Government, NGO, private, interantional development agencies, media)

External expertise to NFA for development of the advocacy & social marjketing strategy for 2006-2010

Number and sectoral representation of NFA partners, public organizations, mass media and NGOs engaged in development & implementation of the social marketing strategy

Progress in implementation of the communication strategy per bi-annual reviews No. & % of local milling companies involved in fortification in 2006 & 2008 & 2010 vs. 2005 No. & % of companies importing fortified flour in 2006, 2008 & 2010 vs. 2005 Number of advocacy events, media publicity (TV/Radio spots & reportages) promoting flour fortification issues Development of the fortified food logo and support promotion of the labelling

Minutes and records of the NFA meetings External experts report and finalized advocacy & social marketing strategy for 2006-201 Progress reports on communication strategy discussed at NFA Local flour market analysis Regular reporting from Customs, SDS, 6 target LSMs & Sanitary InspectoratesHH surveys - SDS - baseline in 2006, follow-up in 2008 & 2010

National Logo for iron fortified flour products

Progress in advocacy and social marketing strategy stimulates the involvements of sectoral partners for achieving the main goal Subject to availability of financial resources.


Project narrative Indicators Means of verification Assumptions GAIN Sub-Objective 3.2: Use of consumer education processes to increase demand for fortification (over a specified period).

Baseline level and progress in awareness & consumption of fortified flour by general population, WRA & under-15 children in 2008-09 vs. 2006 baseline. Information sources and the best cost-effectice channels of information dissemination among the general public & most vulnerable target groups identified for reserch-based consumer education - TV/Radio/press media health & education service, transport, etc. Number and sectoral representation of NFA partners, public organizations, mass media and NGOs engaged in development of the social marketing strategy

HH surveys - SDS - baseline in 2006, follow-up in 2008 & 2010

High level of consumer education means high demand for fortification



Implementation of consumer educaton campaign through media, health and education sectors

No. of TV/Radio & printed media activities supported for food fortification per year vs. planned in the strategy No. of IEC pakages developed/distributed annually vs. planed in the strategy No. and % of primary health care providers trained in promotion of healthy nurtrition and food fortification Timeleness of the consumer education activities vs. planned No & % of schools promoting healthy nutrition and FF through schools feeding systems and health cabinets

Media monitoring Progress reports from LIA & sub-recipient agencies Advocacy & social marketing strategy & the progress reports

Availability of financial resources Top be integrated into general health nutrition communication


The GAIN funded activities under the 3.5 component include external expertise for development of the communication strategy and baseline HH survey on knowledge, attitude and practice analysis of the fortified food consumption. UNICEF country office can support external consultancy mission, while market & HH research - field work is requested form GAIN. HH surveys of fortified food consumption will be integrated (linked) to the routine quarterly HH surveys by SDS, thereby ensuring substantial cost-saving for the wide-scale sampling and national representative survey.

b. Detailing inputs and outputs.Activity 3.1.1. Inputs: support in design, implementation, data processing & reporting for the HH surveys - KAP on fortified food consumption in 2006 & 2009External consultancy to be funded through UNICEF Georgia. Outputs: survey data on KAP on iron fortified flour products available - baseline and follow-up

Activity 3.2.1. Development/printing & distribution of IEC materials (posters, leaflets, calendars, etc) for different audiences – politicy-makers, government officials, flour producers, media, child, adolescent & adult population, WRA, breastfeeding mothers. Development and promotion of the fortified food logo through National competition for the best works. Development of TV spots, cartoons, talk shows for promotion of fortified food, including IFF. To establish permanent column header in the most popular national magazines and newspapers “fortification is good for health”, to have annual competition for the best line article; implementetion of the healthy nutrition education including food fortification issues through health & education system. Mobilizatio of


NGOs, funds, public-private institutions for involvement in the advocacy for fortified food consumption. Outputs: population has increased access to information on fortified food benefits and can recognize the iron fortified flour through the Logo.

c. Detailing how sustainability (after the end of GAIN funding) will be achieved for each of these activities.Fortified food promotion under healthy nutrition education will be integrated into the health & education workprocess & curriculi. National Logo for fortified food will be continued to be placed by the manufacturers, importers; Widescale communication activities will be co-funded by governments (Public Health Department), UN & other international agencies (UNICEF, WHO, ACTS). Ultimate gola is to fully integrate the elaborated advocacy and communication on healthy nutrition in routine IEC activities of the Public Health Department, with substancially reduced expenses for sustainability. Ministry of Labour, Health & Social Affairs should be advocating for free air time of the healthy nutrition promotion, while private sector campaigns promoting fortified food & recognition of the Fortified Food Logo.


3.6 Monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment3.6.1 Please complete Table 11 below. For each sub-objective, please give at least one outcome indicator. For each activity, please give at least one input


Table 11: GAIN RFP logical framework (Part E)

Project narrative Indicators Means of verification Assumptions GAINComponent Objective 4: Ensure monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment informs overall programme management.

Unified M&E and impact assessment system with agreed on list of indicators & workflow among NFA is established by end 2005 and fully operational starting from 2006 Government & private sector agencies involved in M&E, QC/QA & impact assessment have clearly defined ToR & shared-responsibilities among the partners NFA receives quarterly reports on M&E & QC/QA from the State Department of Statistics & Sanitary Inspectorate, target LSMs (LIA), on import, production & market analysis of fortified food NFA receives annual, bi-annual reports on impact assessment surveys (HH surveys, ID/IDA surveys among the target population) from SDS, MLHSA & international partners.

ToR and workprocess guidelines developed by NFA Cluster for M&E. Normative acts by MLHSA & MoAg on national standards, QC/QA for fortified food & impact assessment system Quartely & annual reports submitted by SDS, Sanitary Inspectorate & PHD/MHSA to NFA secretariat. Reports shared by international agencies on related survey findings

Major reform process of the state surveillance system underway to be completed by end 2005. The Government prioritized to downsize the number of agencies involved in M&E and impact assessment for better streamline of the unified M&E system. Currently Customs, SDS, State Standards, Sanitary Surveillance Departments engaged in QC/QA at various levels of the product flow in the market, with no operational integrated reports. Surveys subject to availability of financial resources


Project narrative Indicators Means of verification Assumptions GAIN Sub-Objective 4.1: Identify a baseline for all indicators (by a specified date).

Baseline for all M&E & impact assessment indicators identified by end 2006 (ID/IDA rates among WRA & children, consumotion of IFF, production levels & import of IFF, public awareness on fortified food benefits including IFF, workprocess related indicators - institutional & human capacities involved in the programme management, normative acts & documents to be developed, etc.)

Database of indicators under unified M&E & impact assessment system. Database to be available and routinely updated at the NFA secretariat and shared with all concerned partners

Major reform process of the state surveillance system underway to be completed by end 2005. The Government prioritized to downsize the number of agencies involved in M&E and impact assessment for better streamline of the unified m&E system. Surveys subject to availability of financial resources

Activity 4.1.:External expertise for streamlining M&E system and list of programe indicators for fortified food M&W, QC/QA & impact assessment standards. Baselin assessment & surveys

By end 2005 Government of Georgia and NFA partners have consutants recommendation, report & unified M&E database for food fortification & impact assessment

Baseline for programe indicators identified through consolidation of MICS, RH & HH/school based surveys

Survey findings External consutants recommendation, report & unified M&E database

MICS & RH 2005 surveys to contribute to ID/IDA basline determination. Data gap to be filed up with HH & school surveys on ID prevalance among children & KAP on fortified food, including IFF Consultancy to be funded through UNICEF Georgia


Project narrative Indicators Means of verification Assumptions GAIN Sub-Objective 4.2: Develop a system to continuously monitor programme indicators (over a specified period).

All public & private agencies egnaged in unified M&E system have staff skilled in QC/QA, M&E & reporting NFA received quarterely reports on M&E & QC/QA from the State Department of Statisics & Sanitary Inspectorate, target LSMs (LIA), on import, production & market analysis of fortified food NFA receives annual, bi-annual reports on impact assessment surveys (HH surveys, ID/IDA surveys among the target population) from SDS, MLHSA & international partners.

Quartely & annual reports submitted by SDS, Sanitary Inspectorate & PHD/MHSA to NFA secretariat. Reports shared by international agencies on related survey findings

Major reform process of the state surveillance system underway to be completed by end 2005. The Government prioritized to downsize the number of agencies involved in M&E and impact assessment for better streamline of the unified m&E system. Surveys subject to availability of financial resources

Activity 4.2.:Guidelines for M&E developed & staff of engaged public & private agencies trained on workflow processes for fortified food M&E & impact assessment

Guidelines developed by end 2005 Training sessions implemented in 2006 & 2008 List of focal points from respective agencies trained (SDS, customs, sanitary inspectorate, PHD, LSMs, NFA secretariat) available for NFA reference

Guidelines & trainign reports List of focal points trained & engaged in unified M&E workflow

UNICEF Georgia office to be supporting guidelines developmentg & training for partner agencies

Sub-Objective 4.3: Carry out regular evaluations (over a specified period).

Evaluation of iron flour fortification programme in 2006, 2008 & 2010

Evaluation reports for NFA External consultancy contracted by NFA or LIA

Activity 4.3.:Recruitment of an international consultant for external evaluation of the programme in 2006, 2008 & 2010

Evaluation reports on status & progress of IFF programme (market & stakeholders analysis) available in 2006 2008 & 2010 with relevant follow-up recommendations

Consultancy reports

External consultancy contracted by NFA or LIA


Project narrative Indicators Means of verification Assumptions GAIN Sub-Objective 4.4: At the end of the funding period, carry out an impact assessment (by a specified date).

Data from impact assessment surveys available by end 2008 & 2010 (ID/IDA rates among WRA & children, consumotion of IFF, production levels & import of IFF, public awareness on fortified food benefits including IFF) vs. 2006 baselines

Survey report in 2008 & 2010 Surveys subject to availability of financial resources

Activity 4.4.:Implementation of HH & schools based surveys on ID/IDA prevalance, awareness & consumption of fortified food, icluding iron fortified flour products

HH & schools based surveys on impact assessment of iron flour fortification programme carried out in 2008 & 2010

HH & school based survey reports in 2008

MICS & RH surveys to be verifying the survey findings


Under the M&E component NFA requests GAIN funding for supporting external consultancy for evaluation of the progress & status of the IFF programme and GAIN project as well as baseline and follow-up HH & school based surveys in 2006 & 2008 as per the nationally agreed standards and M&E indicators.

WHO technical support will be available for baseline and the follow-up survey for impact assessment. Technical support can be granted, while any further financial support will have to be negotiated under the 2006-2007 BCA.

b. Detailing inputs and outputs.Activity 4.1.1Inputs: Implementation of impact assessment on ID/IDA & KAP on fortified food/IFF. Output: Baseline for impact assessment available in 2006 through GAIN support surveys, MICS & RH 2005 reports. (Baselie to be covered by Public Health Department & MICS 2005).

Activity 4.3.1Inputs: Rectuitment of an international consultant for programme evaluation in 2006, 2008 & 2010. Output: external evaluation report on NFP programme & GAIN project status, progress & recommendations

Activity 4.4.1Inputs: Implementation of HH & schools based surveys on impact assessment of iron flour fortification programme in 2008 & 2010 (MICS & RH surveys)


c. Detailing how sustainability (after the end of GAIN funding) will be achieved for each of these activities.Routine workflow of the M&E, QC/QA to be sustained by the relevant public/private agencies integrated to the ongoing activities. i.e. local QC/QA at the milling level (addressed in section 3.4 table 9) sustained by the target LSMs, QC/QA at import level - by customs department & independent reference labs through funding by importer companies, M&E at wholesale & retail level - by state inspectorate within ongoing food safety & quality control activities, HH surveys integrated to quarterly HH surveys by SDS, school based surveys to be budgeted by PHD & international agencies partnership programmes.


3.7 Programme management and administrationGAIN is looking for evidence that:a. The National Fortification Alliance represents public sector, private sector, and consumers and functions as an effective partnership and oversight

organization.b. There is an experienced and capable institution managing the overall programme as well as the GAIN-funded activities (the project).c. The National Programme Manager is, as necessary, assisted by a Project Manager who has the necessary experience and accountability to guarantee

successful implementation of the additional activities funded by GAIN.

NOTE: The implementing institution and the Project Manager assigned or recruited for the GAIN-funded project will be responsible for both the provision of resources in a timely manner, and for keeping the NFA informed of the implementation progress. In regard to the activities financed by the GAIN grant, the implementing institution would be responsible for ensuring that: such activities’ implementation follows GAIN’s policies and procedures; separate accounts are maintained for GAIN funds utilization; GAIN is provided with periodic reports on physical implementation and funds utilization, including annual audit reports.

3.7.1 Please complete Table 12 below. For each sub-objective, please give at least one outcome indicator. For each activity, please give at least one input indicator and one output indicator.Please tick the box in the ‘GAIN’ column if you are requesting GAIN funds for the activity on that row.[Please add rows to the table for each activity required to achieve each sub-objective. Place the cursor on an activity row, and choose menu option ‘GAIN Options>Add Row Below’.]

Table 12: GAIN RFP logical framework (Part F)

Project narrative Indicators Means of verification Assumptions GAINComponent Objective 5: To strengthen the capacity of the National Fortification Alliance to manage and administer a sustainable National Fortification Programme.

NFA ensures continouos operation, M&E, performance review and recommendations for the NFP

Minutes of the NFA meetings Representation and rate of participation of various NFA partners Programme evaluation reports Field monitoring reports by NFA secretariat & partners

NFA sustainability subject to financial resources for operational & human resource mngt


Sub-Objective 5.1: Use of programme communications to maintain/build National Fortification Alliance cohesion, commitment, and involvement (over a specified period).

NFA partnership remains with the same agency composition or expende beyong 2006 NFA partners have a clear understaning, roles & resposibilities in the alliance within the NFP

NFA Partnership List ToR & chart of te NFA management


Activity 5.1.:NFP programme manager & GAIN project manager esure continuous information sharing and capacity building sessions for the NFA members on updated in NFP & project progress

NFA partners are trained/updated on NFP progress and GAIN project implementation within NFA meetings and external traning sessions NFA partners have an increased capacity & skills in advocating for food fortification & IFF in particular ToR for individual agencies within NFA identified and endorsed

Minutes of the NFA & reports of the capacity building sessions ToR & chart of te NFA management Media reportaes with involvement of NFA partners Financial & technical contribution from various stakeholders


Sub-Objective 5.2: Development of coherent programme and project management (over a specified period).

By end 2006 NFA has a contracted project manager, M&E officer & secretarial staff with clear ToR and accountability terms

NFA organogram Staff contracts issued by LIA

Sustainability subject to financial resources

Activity 5.2.:NFP programme manager & GAIN project manager esure continuous information sharing and capacity building sessions for the NFA members on updated in NFP & project progress

1 programme manager contracted by LIA in 2006 for 3 year period 1 project manager contracted by LIA in 2006 for 3 year period 1 secretary contracted for NFA by LIA for 3 year period

NFA organogram Staff contracts issued by LIA

Sustainability subject to financial resources


NFA as a mechanis of <1 year experience needs institutional & human capacity building if the NFP management has to be effective. Sustainability of the operational & human resource funding, recruitment of competent staff with clear ToR is critical for building an efficien system of the programme coordination &


interagency partnership. GAIN is requested to fund the NFP related operational & staffing establishments for the initial 3 years period, with subsequent shift of the resource contribution to NFA partner agencies (i.e. shared contribution from private sector partners as a NFA membership fee)

b. Detailing inputs and outputs.Activity 5.1.1Input: Operational support for implementation of the NFA meetings and external training sessions for partners. Output: increased capacity of NFA partners on food fortification issues & sustainability of the NFA meetings & record tracking.

Activity 5.2.1Input: Recruitment of a project manager, M&E officer & secreterial staff for 3-year period. Output: Availability of an national expertise for leading the NFP programme & GAIN project implementation, M&E and sustainability of the operational/secretarial support (i.e. meetings, travel, advocacy events)

c. Detailing how sustainability (after the end of GAIN funding) will be achieved for each of these activities.NFA will be discussing the various approaches towards sustainability of the secretarial staff (1 project manager, 1 M&E officer & 1 secretary) through resource mobilization from various international partners or shared contribution from private sector represenatives as the membership fee to the NFA. Experience from other public-private programmes (GAVI, GFATM) implemented in Georgia clearely demonstrates that with gained experience credibility of the partnership is increased, members become more committed to sustainability of the alliance and contributing to the joint programme activities.


3.7.3 Profile of the National Fortification Alliance (NFA). (Please refer to Part IV of the GAIN RFP Guidelines).Please give the name of the National Fortification Alliance.

Task Force for Prevention of Micronutrient Malnutrition and Food Fortification - National Fortification Alliance

3.7.4 Date of constitution of the current NFA.24.12.2004 (use dd/mm/yyyy format)

3.7.5 If the NFA is or includes an already existing body, briefly describe the work previously done, programmes implemented, and results achieved.

NFA has been built on the experience of the National IDD Council operational in 1996-2003 period. However the scope of the partnership work has been expanded beoynd IDD/USI issues and is including overal initiatives for Prevention of Micronutrient Malnutrition & Foof Fortification.

The NFA is Chaired by the Parliamentary Committee for Health & Social Affairs who has led the successful advocacy for adoption of the national legislation on USI and food fortification,. Currently the NFA is leading the process of the normative acts & standards development. NFA is leading the meetings of the partner agencies as well as four cluster groups on 1. Legislation & Advocacy, 2. Industry 3. Communication & Social Marketing, 4, QC/QA & M&E.

3.7.6 Describe the organizational structure and linkages among various units (e.g., secretariat, subcommittee, standalone); describe the decision-making mechanism. Please attach copies of Terms of Reference, operating rules, and other relevant documents—see Part 5.

NFA is composed of the Chair, Secretary & members from government, NGO, private sector & international partners. The Cluster groups are established in 1. Legislation & Advocacy, 2. Industry 3. Communication & Social Marketing, 4, QC/QA & M&E.

3.7.7 Describe the mode of operation of the NFA (e.g., frequency of meetings; functions and responsibilities of the NFA). Please attach the minutes or records of the previous three meetings (please translate into English)—see Part 5.

Please refer to the NFA Charter attached. Abstract from the NFA Charter:

2.1 Goal of NFA:Promote prevention of microelements and vitamins deficiency disorders in Georgia through food fortification.

2.2 Objectives of the Task Force:• Elaborate National Fortification policy;• Create required legislation;• Develop mechanisms for implementation of the adopted laws;• Coordinate work of the governmental and non-governmental institutions in the field;• Promote awareness raising among population;• Promote inter sectoral fortification programmes;• Promote flow of ecological food products fortified by microelements and vitamins;

The NFA meets at least once in a quarter as the routine coordination schedule and on ad hoc basis as per needs of the NFP coordination issues. i.e. since its establishment in December 2004 NFP has already called 7 meetings to discuss the draft USI & FF law related issues, GAIN application, food safety and quality M&E mechanisms, etc.

Minutes of the latest three NFA meetings are attached as attachment No. 5.1.5


3.7.8 Partnership. To ascertain to what extent the NFA has developed into a true partnership, as defined in the GAIN Partnership Toolbook, please answer the following questions:a. What is the contribution of each partner to the partnership? By contribution, we

mean staff time, facilities for meetings, expertise, network, administrative support, and other types of in kind contribution, etc.

b. What are the selection criteria for institutions or companies to be introduced as partners in the partnership?

c. Do you have a partnership Memorandum of Understanding? If so, please attach a copy—see Part 5.

d. How would you identify indicators for the success of partnerships?e. How can you describe the added value of the partnership?f. Does the programme intend to carry out partnership building activities for the

NFA? Please describe.As per the NFA Charter Members of the Task Force are: Members of the Parliament, Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs, Ministries of Agriculture and Finance, Public Health Department, National Center for Nutrition, State Standardization Department, State Department of Statistics, Hygienic Institute, representatives of food industry, importers of food products, media, international and local NGOs, international organizations, including UN agencies (UNICEF, WHO), etc.

Following participation of the NFA management at the GAIN partnership workshop the NFA members were requested to endorse the partnership alliance through a signature of the memorandum of patnership (enclosed as annex 5.1.4& 5.1.6). Partners thereby have committed their voluntary contribution and involvement in NFA for attainment of the common goal of the alliance in VMD prevention.

Any governmental and non-governmental organization, individual or juridical entity can become the member of the Task Force. Membership eligibility status is decided by the joint decision of the Task Force members.

Members of the Task Force are: Chairman, secretary and members. - The Chairperson of the Health and Social Issues Committee of the Parliament of Georgia recommends the Head of the NFA to the members of the Health and Social Issues Committee, who vote for or against the nominated candidate.- Task Force secretary is elected during the first meeting of the group. The statute is developed during the same meeting and later Chairperson of the Health and Social Issues Committee of the Parliament of Georgia approves the Statute.- Task Force is an advisory body; members work for free and do not receive payment for their job.

Contribution of the various stakeholders to the NFA cover allocation of human resources (government ministries, regulatory agencies, academia & research institutions, NGOs, private sector, international agencies), allocation of office spaces & premises (Parliament, Ministry), capacity building of NFA partners in technical issues (supporting international or national trainign & expertise by international organizations - UNICEF, WHO, BAS), arrangement of the field monitoring visits to the food industry for on-cite training & QC/QA system assessments (food industry), IT support to NFA (Parliament, UNICEF considering support in 2006), etc.

Although some of the general success indicators of the partnership can be identified and listed hereby (progress in legislation review and enforcement, efficiency of the information flow within M&E system, partnership memorandum, contribution of the NFA partners to NFP, no. & representation of the NFA partners, success of the NFP programme and resource leveraging, level of attainment of the NFP objectives, etc.), NFA has not yet endorsed commonly agreed indicators for partnership assessment. In fall 2005 one of the NFA meetings will be dedicated to identification of the partnership evaluation indicators to be enclosed to the NFA charter documentation & partnership memorandum.

The project proposal submitted to GAIN consideraiton does cover a component for NFA capacity enhancement through recruitement of the project execution staff who would also


ensure continuous information-education sharing on up to date trends in VMD & programme management skills, as well as participation of the NFA partners at various national & inernational workshops and seminars for knowledge & skills building.

3.7.9 GAIN expects that a national institution that is part of the NFA is responsible for the National Food Fortification Programme. Please describe the current management structure and implementation mechanism of the National Food Fortification Programme.

Public Health Department of the MLHSA is the leading national institution in the healthy nutrition field through its network of regional (12) and district (66) departments and coordination of the National Centre for Nutrition. The PHD has led development of the 2005-2010 action plan for food & nutrition, including healthy nutrition promotion, prevention of VMDs & food fortification. The Public Health Department has professional staff leading the national Food & Nutrition programme under the department of Epidemiological Supervision and Management.

3.7.10 Who is the National Fortification Programme Manager, and what is the link between the Programme Manager and the institution listed above?

Mr. Robizon Tsiklauri - MD, PHD. Head of Department of epidemiological supervision and management, Public Health Department, Ministry of Labour, Health & Social Affairs. Coordinator of the Food & Nutrition Policy & Strategic Plan including Food Fortification Programme.

3.7.11 Briefly summarize the job description of the National Programme Manager.Coordinating inter-agency & inter-sectoral initiatives amongthe line ministries & local/international agencies on food fortification issues - legislation & regulation, industry, monitoring - safety & quality assurance and communications, using the effective administrative tools in order to manage the programme realization processes adequately.

Coordinating activities on developing of : a) regulatory and executive framework for producers; b) legislative process focused on food fortification; c) strengthening process of capacity of the project stakeholders, introduction of new effective techniques for the monitoring and evalution; d) awareness of the government officials in charge of decision making, significance and need of the anemia prevention on government level; e) awareness among population, high motivation and high demand for fortified flour - encouraging producers, and etc.

3.7.12 Will the national institution responsible for managing the National Fortification Programme also be selected as the institution responsible for the management of the GAIN-funded project?

As per the decision of the NFA partners the Public Health Department will not be the Leading Implementing Agencies considering the non-flexibility of the fiduicary and administrative arrangements related to the programme execution by the government agency. However the PHD programme manager will be supervising the programmatic aspects of the GAIN project manager through the agreed on ToR by NFA.

a. If YES, GAIN would like to see the appointment of a GAIN-funded Project Manager to assist the Programme Manager in the implementation, coordination, follow-up, and reporting of the GAIN-funded project. Please provide Terms of Reference for the proposed Project Manager, qualifications needed, proposed salary, and the mechanisms for their recruitment. Please attach a copy of the Terms of Reference—see Part 5.

N/Ai. If you already have a suitable candidate in mind, provide details. If

available, please attach a copy of CV and Letters of Recommendation—see Part 5.


N/Ab. If NO, give details of the national institution or body that you have selected for

management, implementation, and coordination of the GAIN-funded project.NFA is considering 2 organizations as candidates for GAIN funded project management, implementation & coordination.

The 1st preference is given to the ''Institute of Strategic Reesrach"' - national development NGO, while the 2nd candidate is the international NGO ''A Call to Serve Georgia'' (ACTS Georgia).

Both candidates of LIA proposed by NFA are the members of the alliance since its establishment in December 2004.

The NGO Institute of Strategic Research has been a newly established professional alliance in the field of health, nutrition & social affairs. The NGO has entered in memorandum of understanding with the Parliamentary Committee on Health & Social Affairs to ensure technical expertise to the legislative & policy development process led by the Committee. The pool of experts brought together by the NGO has been acting as the advisory body to the Parliamentary Committee. The Parliament has ensured allocation of the relevant office premises to the NGO as the contribution to the joint partnership. The latter experince has been shared from other field commitees of the Parliament, benefiting from availability of the NGO capacities and expertise in the fields of human right, gender empowerment, governance & other issues under the frameworks of the international partnership programmes supported by UN agencies, EU, NDI, etc.

However further to the expertise, the Institute of Strategic Research ensures availability of open, transparent & flexible fiduicary and administrative arrangements for international or national development programmes to be led by the Parliamentary Committee. Considering the intersectoral constitution of the NFA and the needs for availability of the transparent, easy to access and open administrative arrangements and the possibility to oversee the programme management & implementation by equal participation of NFA members, it is considered that the Institute of Strategic Research can be considered as a reasonable candidate for LIA.

The second alternative for LIAs is one of the international NGO ''ÁCTS Georgia'' working in the country since 1990 with a proven expertise in health & nutrition programmes. A Call to Serve (ACTS) International, a US-based nonprofit organization is headquartered in Columbia, Missouri. ACTS-Georgia is a Georgian affiliate of the development and humanitarian aid NGO.

A Call To Serve Georgia (ACTS Georgia) has been engaged in the food & non-food humanitarian aid programmes as well as a variety of health programmes (child survival, salt iodization, essential drugs & primary health care projects, diabetes prevention & control) under partnership programmes with variuos US government agencies. The NGO has a well established operational mechanisms, international audit systems and experiences professional staff.

Taking in due consideration the proposed fiduicary system by GAIN with a thorough appraisal systems and financial management/audit, NFA considered to agree on the lead implementing partner who could ensure time & cost-effective, flexible & transparent process of financial & admin execution of the programme.

Building on the criteria of transparency and driven by the interest of the joint partnership, NFA is ready to discuss the various candidates of the LIA with the GAIN secretariat upon review of the proposal and positive evaluation of the NFP programme.

i. Will this national institution appoint a Project Manager for the GAIN-funded project?

Yes. NFA is considering to recruit any staff covered by the GAIN proposal based on the open selection process - agreed ToR & qualification criteria for each project & secretariat staff,


announcement of the ToR through printed media & the national vacancy website (www.jobs.ge).

Comparative analysis and selection of the candidates will be discussed at the NFA meetings following approval of the project.

ii. How will the Project Manager relate to the Programme Manager?The ToR of the project manager will include liaison with the Public Health Department on continuous basis and information sharing/reporting to the programme manager under approved ToR by NFA.

3.7.13 Describe the current role of the national institution or body that you have selected for management, implementation, and coordination of the GAIN-funded project within the NFA.

Both candidates of LIA proposed by NFA are the members of the alliance since its establishment in December 2004. The NGOs have been actively involved throughout the development of the letter of intent and the GAIN proposal process.


PART 4 BUDGETDO NOT TRY TO FILL IN THE TABLES IN THIS SECTION. For this section you need to download and complete the implementation plan and budget spreadsheet in the GAIN RFP Round 4 Microsoft Excel workbook. Both this Word document and the Excel spreadsheet must be submitted to complete the proposal.

If the spreadsheet is accessible from the same computer as this Word document, the tables below can be updated to show summary values from the spreadsheet. [Choose menu option ‘GAIN Options>Update Budget Tables’. If this does not succeed, choose menu option ‘GAIN Options>Find Spreadsheet’ to locate the correct spreadsheet and update the tables. THIS PROCESS WILL AUTOMATICALLY UPDATE Table 13 AND Table 14 BELOW FROM THE SEPARATE GAIN SPREADSHEET.]

Further guidance is provided with the spreadsheet.

4.1 Budget overview4.1.1 Please describe the basis of the budget estimates and provisions, limits of accuracy,

what contingencies have been built into the estimates, and what financing arrangements are foreseen in case of over-runs.

Please enter responseNOTE: Table 13 IS GENERATED AUTOMATICALLY FROM THE SEPARATE GAIN SPREADSHEET.

Table 13: Detailed Summary Budget for GAIN funds, US$ thousand

- Component Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 <01.01.1901 >02.07.1905 TotalProduction and distribution

Fortificant mix 400 000 200 000 0 0 0 600 000Industrial implementation 68 000 10 000 10 000 0 0 88 000Industrial quality assurance 16 000 0 0 0 0 16 000

Safety and quality of fortified foodLegislation and standards 0 0 0 0 0 0Inspection and enforcement 0 0 0 0 0 0Product quality testing 83 000 0 0 0 0 83 000

Social marketing and communications Advocacy and public relations 20 000 0 0 0 0 20 000Consumer education 120 000 0 0 0 0 120 000

Monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessmentBaseline 30 000 0 0 0 0 30 000Monitoring 0 0 0 0 0 0Evaluation 22 000 12 000 22 000 0 0 56 000Impact assessment 0 0 20 000 0 0 20 000

Programme management and administrationProgramme communications 10 000 10 000 10 000 0 0 30 000Programme and project management 42 000 42 000 42 000 0 0 126 000

Total 811 000 274 000 104 000 0 0 1 189 000

4.2 CofinancingRequested GAIN funds are only available for the first three years of the programme. After this time, the programme must be sustained by domestic and other sources.

NOTE: Table 14 IS GENERATED AUTOMATICALLY FROM THE SEPARATE GAIN SPREADSHEET.


Table 14: Proposed 5-year Fortification Programme Budget, by Source, US$ thousand

Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 <01.01.1901 >02.07.1905 TotalGAIN 811 000 274 000 104 000 0 10 000 0 0 1 199 000Gov'mnt 242 280 225 000 225 000 225 000 245 000 0 0 1 162 280Private 20 000 220 000 420 000 420 000 420 000 0 0 1 500 000HKI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0MI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0MOST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0UNICEF 60 000 30 000 20 000 10 000 50 000 0 0 170 000WFP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 133 280 749 000 769 000 655 000 725 000 0 0 4 031 280

4.2.1.1 What are the risks that support will not be available? How will you mitigate those risks? What will happen to the programme if the envisioned co-financing is NOT available?

Unavailability of the financial resources requested by the NFA from GAIN allinace is essential for launching implementation of the flour fortification programme and establishment of the start-up institutional resources - equipment, fortification premix revolving fund, etc.

Co-funding from the government is essential for sustainability of the fortification programme cost - fortification premix supplies. Other component to be susteined through state buidget is the human resource management and the running costs of the M&E system at customs, state statistics, state sanitary inspectorate, etc. NFA staff representing various government agencies are also funded through government resources.

Major risk associated with government co-funding is the increased cost of fortification to be fully covered by private sector. Once the government ensured adoption of the mandatary flour fortification law and VAT/tax excemtpion of the fortified wheat flour in 2006 the risk factors will be reduced to minumum.

Co-funding from international agencies - UNICEF, WHO, BAS projects is essential for ensuring continuous availability of technical assistance, resources for national staff capacity building, advocacy and on-going liaison with country level partners. The majority of the projected activities are part of the country cooperation projects endorsed by government and the international agencies and thereby risk for the support not to be available is very low.

4.2.1.2 Sustainability. Please discuss how this programme is to be sustained after the GAIN

grant closes.Sustainability of thye programme is reflected in narrative and component-wise review of the RFP project in section 3. Summary of the major statements:

Sustainability from Government:1. Mandatory FF legislation;2. VAT/customs tax excemption policy for fortified wheat flour;3. Sustainability of the staffing and operational costs at the concerned government institutions - customs, state sanitary inspectorate, state statistics department, public health department, NFA members from government institutions.

Sustainability from private sector: 1. Cost of fortification - fortification premix with customs/VAT excemption;2. Staffing costs - operation & QC/QA;3. Distribution and social marketing - national logo; 4. Contribution to the unified M&E and reporting system.

Sustainability from international agencies:1. Continuous technical expertise - UNICEF, WHO, BAS;


2. Technical support for M&E & Impact assessment - WHO (technical expertise)2. Continuity of national capacity building initiatives - UNICEF2. Funding major surveys that provide valuable inputs for VMD data - i.e. MICS survey by UNICEF


PART 5 REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS5.1 Required attachments5.1.1 Documentation to support the statement of commitment, sustainability and future

expansion of food fortification, including government and ministerial proclamations, articles in the press, or letters of interest and endorsement.

5.1.2 Food law and legislation relating to fortification.

5.1.3 Overall communications and marketing strategy (if already developed).

5.1.4 Terms of Reference, operating rules, and other relevant documents of the NFA.

5.1.5 Minutes of the last three meetings of the NFA.

5.1.6 Partnership Memorandum of Understanding for the NFA (if any).

5.1.7 Signatures of National Fortification Alliance (NFA) representatives (hard copy of Table ).

5.1.8 Organizational chart of the National Fortification Programme and project management structure.

5.1.9 Complete Terms of Reference for the Project Manager.

5.1.10 CV and Letters of Recommendation for the Project Manager (if already selected).

5.1.11 Complete description of the implementing institution selected for the GAIN-funded project.

5.1.12 Country map indicating location of production units and the extent of their catchment markets.


PART 6 ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONPlease use this section to include any additional notes or information that you feel may be useful to the application, but would not stand alone as separate documents. (You may also use this section as a working area for text during the preparation of the proposal—there are no restrictions on entering or modifying text in this section, and spell checking is also enabled).To assist our Proposal Reviewers, when adding additional text, please clearly indicate the appropriate point number from the main document.

You may add text below this line:

Enclosed to the Project Proposal please find 8 attachments:

1. Attachment No. 5.1.1 - Endorsement letter by the Minister of Labour, Health & Social Affairs

2. Attachment No. 5.1.2 - Georgian Law Concerning the Prevention of Iodine, Other Microelements and Vitamins Deficiency Disorders

3. Attachment No. 5.1.4 & 5.1.6 - Charter of the NFA and the Signature of the Member Agencies for Partnership in NFA (Georgian)

4. Attachment No. 5.1.4 & 5.1.6 - Charter of the NFA and the Signature of the Member Agencies for Partnership in NFA (English)

5. Attachments No. 5.1.5 (5.1.5.A, 5.1.5.B & 5.1.5.C) - Minutes of the last three NFA meetings

6. Attachments No. 5.1.7 - Organizational structure of the NFP & Management 7. Attachment No. 5.1.8 –Signature of the NFA representatives, Hardcopy of the

Table E. 8. Attachment No. 5.1.12. Country map on distribution of the production cites &

catchment markets

Development of the communication & marketing strategy is integral to the project proposal – part 3.

ToR & CVs for the project manager is not available as the selection process will be launched upon review and positive evaluation of the GAIN proposal. Please ref.: to section 3.7.12

Description of the LIA candidates is presented in section 3.7.12. As noted the NFA remains flexible to consider other alternative candidates with GAIN Secretariat upon positive evaluation of the project content and the NFP framework.


Glossary

BASELINE: The measurement of key indicators before any intervention is started. You have to have an indicator in order to make a baseline measurement. Baseline measurements are required in order to set realistic targets, measure change, and make comparisons. No baseline = no evaluation.

A baseline survey is the act of measuring the starting point for a particular indicator. It is not a general survey of the situation—that would be a situation analysis.

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT and UTILIZATION: Developing and enhancing skills related directly to, in the case of this document, food and nutrition policy, programming, and/or advocacy, and linking training (especially advanced degree training) with relevant opportunities for retaining human resources in the regions and countries.

COMPLIANCE: In food fortification, compliance occurs when the industry produces the fortified foods according to specifications/standards on the level of fortificant and the specified compounds, within the accepted variability.

COMPONENT: Each National Fortification Programme should cover the five required components—whether or not GAIN will finance those components.

Production and distribution: production process and distribution method for the fortified food product(s).

Food control: legal and procedural measures to ensure the quality of food fortification.

Social marketing and communications: raising public awareness of food fortification and promoting fortified products.

Programme monitoring and impact evaluation: assessing programme progress and effectiveness.

Programme management and administration: representation on the National Fortification Alliance and management capacity within the National Fortification Programme.

DEFICIENT: Pertaining to an individual or a population having inadequate dietary intake of one or more micronutrients. Deficiencies are more prevalent amongst the low income, poor, displaced, isolated, or marginalized. However, deficiencies can also occur amongst middle-income groups.

EFFECTIVENESS (PROGRAMME OR PROJECT COVERAGE): This is a measure of the degree of achievement of the expected results, objectives, and goals. It is best done through the analysis of indicators. In the GAIN context, the strongest indicator of programme effectiveness is coverage (number or percentage of population consuming sufficient fortified food).

EFFICIENCY: This is a measure of the volume of resources (human, material, financial, etc.) used, in relation to the results achieved (how economically or optimally the inputs are used to produce outputs or achieve objectives).

EVALUATION: A process where judgments are made about the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of a programme or project. Evaluation aims to explain why things are happening and to share important lessons. This aims to provide evidence that the programme is reaching its nutritional targets. In food fortification this generally involves measuring levels of added micronutrients in food as well as the micronutrient status of people. Evaluation plays a very important role in improving activities through the feedback of results.

FOOD CONTROL: The sum of all activities carried out by government officials or their designees for the proper evaluation and certification of fortified foods in order to verify that these products meet established norms and standards.

FOOD PRODUCT: A food product is the form that a food vehicle is transformed into for retail and/or consumption. Examples are either fortified flour, or fortified bread. The agricultural product would be wheat. This can become a food vehicle, e.g., flour. This in turn can become a food product, e.g., bread. There can be unfortified flour and unfortified bread, as well as fortified flour and fortified bread. Wheat, flour, or bread can be imported in unfortified or fortified forms.

FOOD VEHICLE: The food commodity that is selected to be fortified and carry the micronutrients to the intended population.

FORTIFICANT: The micronutrient that is added to a fortified food.

FORTIFICATION: food fortification is defined as the practice of deliberately increasing the content of essential micronutrients (vitamins and minerals, including trace elements) in a food, so as to improve the nutritional quality of the food supply and to provide a public health benefit with minimal risk to health.

FORTIFICATION TYPES: A food fortification programme can include fortification of one or more foods that are widely consumed (mass fortification), and/or fortified foods designed for specific population subgroups (targeted fortification), such as complementary foods for young children or rations for displaced populations, and/or voluntary fortified foods available on the market (market-driven fortification).

IMPLEMENTING INSTITUTION: Local organization that manages the food fortification project funded by GAIN on behalf of the NFA.

INPUTS: Financial, human, and material resources used for the development activity.

MARKET ANALYSIS: A study of economic, demographic, and other factors to determine supply and demand, market trends, and other factors affecting the market for a product or service.

MEI: Abbreviation of ‘monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment’.

MICRONUTRIENT MIX: A mix/blend of fortificants usually purchased from a vendor that contains specified micronutrients in specified quantities.

MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS: The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) relate to the section of the Millennium Declaration dealing with development and poverty eradication and summarize some of the key commitments made at the major UN conferences of the 1990s. Within the Declaration, four of the eight goals, eight of the 16 targets, and 17 of the 48 indicators, are health-related.

MONITORING: The continuous collection, review, and use of information on programme implementation activities for the purpose of identifying problems, such as non-compliance, and taking corrective actions so as to fulfill stated objectives (WHO/NHD/01.1). Monitoring aims to explain what is happening.

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: This is a strategic planning and programming instrument developed by a country government. It indicates directions of socio-economic development for a country as a whole and its regions. It contains proposals of objectives, activities, and the volume of intervention from government funds and international aid donors.

POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGY PAPER (PRSP): The stated aim of the PRSP is to present a coherent strategy that helps poor countries to experience faster sustainable growth and achieve a substantial reduction in poverty. If successful, PRSPs could provide a process of improved national co-ordination and higher levels of resources for comprehensive poverty

reduction activities. As PRSPs prioritize poverty-reducing spending, the health sector is expected to benefit. PRSPs describe macroeconomic, structural, and social policies and programmes to promote economic growth and reduce poverty, as well as associated external financing needs and major sources of financing.

PREMIX: A “production ingredient (mix)” prepared by diluting the micronutrient mix with a carrier.

PROGRAMME: In this RFP, the term “programme” is used to refer to the proposed five-year national food fortification programme.

PROJECT: In this RFP, the term “project” is used when referring to the activities proposed for funding by GAIN for the initial 3 years of the programme.

TARGET GROUP: A group of people who will benefit directly in a measurable way from interventions and assistance.

VEHICLE: The food commodity that is selected to be fortified and carry the micronutrients to the intended population.

End of document

gain rfp round 3 proposal - parliament · web viewan alternative way to view the document is in...

Documents