A credible nomination allows an evaluator who is unfamiliar with the nominee to understand the contribution, evidence and significance without relying on promotional claims. The strongest submissions are specific, proportionate and easy to verify.
Start with the contribution
Describe what the nominee actually delivered. Explain the challenge addressed, the approach taken, the period of implementation and the people, enterprises or systems affected.
Connect claims to evidence
Useful evidence can include adoption figures, production or market results, programme records, independent references, documented innovations or verified beneficiary outcomes. Select evidence that supports the central claims directly.
Explain agricultural relevance
Show how the contribution strengthens productivity, resilience, inclusion, enterprise performance, market access, knowledge or another outcome relevant to the chosen category.
Avoid common weaknesses
- Submitting an organisational profile instead of a defined contribution.
- Using large figures without explaining their source or period.
- Selecting a category because of its title without reviewing its intent.
- Overstating impact that cannot be substantiated.
Clear evidence and honest context create a stronger nomination than ambitious language alone.