It’s “food for thought” isn’t it? Or “thought for food?”

A good idea, much needed and scalable. However, I do not see any involvement of the women in the project. How are they engaged? If not engaged, then this has too much of a welfarist approach. It needs a component of empowerment and learning. The women could be engaged in learning about nutrition and passing the information on to their families and to their children otherwise it ends with one healthy pregnancy.

Really cool idea to make corporates follow up on their promises and to give buyers confidence about where their money is going. More could be done with it to influence corporates on who to give to and to have two-way accountability. Charities must also be accountable.

Am not sure I get the idea here. What are the women designing? Nice idea to engage Afghan women in a creative platform. Which women and how will they be accessed? Security measures? What is the outcome of the designing? Is it income generating?

This looks like a well thought through concept which details the target group, the activities and the outcomes, showing a progression from vision to the results. I like that it is replicable and has a wide reach. The visual is straightforward and captures the ideas of learning and growing as flowering from waste regeneration.

I like the concept of building bridges across the divides to support communities to access resources and services. I also like that it is targeting youth to get engaged and involved in social activism to build their communities up. However, running youth camps and partnering with universities etc requires a lot of input and investment from the organisers and will need people trained to do that, which this concept does not cover in its planning. Who will organise and run the camps? What is the role of the universities?

This looks like a very vibrant and dynamic idea but the practicalities are not clear to me. What issues are they addressing and what will the outcome of the dialogue and creativity be? What is it working towards and who exactly is it targeting?

Great idea to connect the community and give them a voice with the municipality. I don't see the follow up and feedback mechanism to ensure that after the issues are raised, the problems are addressed and the community can give feedback and complain if the issue was not address to their satisfaction.

I like the online training idea but there is not enough information to understand what the training will enable the community to do. Do these communities have access to the internet? Is it cost-effective? Do they have devices to work on? Will there be training on how to use the technology for training or is it assumed that they know?

Its a good idea to amplify voices of miners but I do not see enough detail in this concept to understand exactly what the problems and issues have emerged from being invisible. What exactly will amplification of their voices achieve and how will their lives be improved? Why do their voices need to be amplified? Are they being exploited? What social issues have arisen from that? Who are these miners? Are they Men? Women? Boys? Girls? Is there any violence associated with this invisibility and lack of voice? Domestic violence? Negative coping mechanisms?

I like the sustainable element where the coachees become coaches so that this could potentially continue after the 12 months is over. It is wholistic and aimed at well-being with high ownership and involvement. I also like that it is targeting women and speaks to the issues of power.