I think some of the responses were a mite harsh on Eddie there, I think he's trying to make a couple of valid points but they're just getting lost a bit.
Point 1 (Which I think has been pretty well covered) - How will this be differentiated from the MVP award?
The MVP award would be for the best player within an individual clan war, awarded to the player who contributes to the team's win through their actions within the war.
The contribution award would be for the best overall contributor to a clan, awarded to the player who contributes the most to the clan's operations outside competing for the clan war.
In the examples you gave I believe that the items like training, scouting opponents etc would qualify for the contribution award and not the MVP award. It shouldn't be too difficult to draw a line between the two, and might just need a post if/when the suggestion is implemented giving some guidelines between the two. I'd also agree with your point about conflicting with the MVP award, if it seemed that the mods felt that this threatened their idea. Since they've come out in support of it, I think we can safely say that there is room for both to exist.
Point 2 - How will nominees be able to prove they deserve the award
Actually I think that this is a self-correcting problem. Jefjef's example about KOA stands up - if someone who has not provided a contribution to the clan were nominated, the clan would intercede anyway. There may not be 100% agreement about who earns the award on any given year, but if an undeserving member were nominated you can be sure the other members of the clan would speak up.
I'd think of it like the awarding of a general achievement medal in a tournament. The TDs approve the initial criteria for the medal and allow the tourney to run. Once it finishes the TO identifies the winner of the GA medal and the TDs award it. I'm pretty sure the TDs don't go through and check the games to make sure the correct winner is listed, instead they trust that the TO will keep honest records, and they know that if the TO doesn't then it will be raised by one of the participants. The TDs know that as long as the criteria is agreed beforehand and the reasons for the award are published, that this provides a safeguard in itself. (Apologies to the TDs if I've made that up, but hopefully the logic stands anyway).
As for the final point about clans who haven't won, I think that suggesting that no-one has earnt a contribution is mighty harsh. KOA didn't win our first couple of wars, but there were still a few people in the clan who put in a shedload of work. Perhaps the reasons for a nominee from a clan who hadn't won could be looked at a little more closely if there was a suggestion that the medal may not be deserved, but I can't think of any clan at the moment who would be eligible for the award but who is likely to have no-one who deserves to be awarded one.