July Innovations Against Poverty Analysis of Cycle 2

Transcription

1 July 2012 Innovations Against Poverty Analysis of Cycle 2

2 Contents Page 1 Introduction and Headlines 3 2 Application process 6 3 Applicant characteristics 9 4 Review of scoring criteria 16 5 Grantee characteristics 20 6 Concluding remarks 25

3 Introduction 1 Get other pic Waste ventures? Photos from Vagga till Vagga,a small grantee from Cycle 1 and Waste Ventures, a large grantee from Cycle 1

4 Section 1 Introduction Introduction Innovations Against Poverty (IAP) supports inclusive businesses as they develop and scale-up. The programme is funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and provides financial assistance in the form of grants up to 200,000. For those applicants interested in small grants of up to 20,000, a fast-track, one-stage application process is available. For all other applicants a two stage application process is followed. The first stage is to submit a short concept note outlining the basic idea from which a selection of concepts are shortlisted. The second stage is then to prepare full applications, a selection of which are funded. The programme operates internationally, with a targeted focus on sub Sahara Africa and Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Applicants can be based in any country but their inclusive business must be in a low-income country. IAP began in 2011 and projects from the first application round were selected in June and November The results of Cycle 1 were written up in a report here, showing the details of the157 applicants and 22 grantees. This report focuses on Cycle 2. It s aim is to provide information on the profile of projects that applied ( applicants ) and those that were selected ( grantees ). This information is useful to us as we manage the programme, and track trends. It is also useful to future applicants (along with other guidance material on the IAP web page and practitioner hub), and to others interested in how inclusive business is supported. Some caveats are important: This report describes which projects have been selected, however it is not prescriptive of those that should apply in future Cycles. IAP is looking for a diverse portfolio of projects and entrepreneurs considering applying should not assume that future projects must have a similar profile. Percentages are given throughout the report to aid in rapid interpretation of data, but they are based on a small sample and should not be considered as statistically significant. Further information from IAP, including guides for applicants, can be found on the IAP web-page and on the Practitioner Hub on inclusive business. 4

5 Section 1 Introduction Headlines Applications received Global spread IAP received 110 applications for small grants and 126 concept notes for large grants. Out of the total of 236 applications, 11 received funding (5 large grants and 6 small grants). Two of the projects awarded with large grants in Cycle 2 were previously awarded small grants in Cycle 1. Applicants can be headquartered in any country, but must operate in a lower income country. During Cycle 2, applications were received from organisations headquartered in 47 countries. The top 4 countries of applicant headquarters were Uganda, Zambia, Sweden and Kenya which correspond with the promotional events that took place in those countries from May to September Of the 236 applications submitted in Cycle 2, a total of 58 different countries were listed as the country of operation with the majority (51%) of applicants operating in Africa. Among the organizations granted funding, just under half are headquartered in low-income countries. The 11 grantees represent 9 different countries of operation, with the majority (91%) of grantees operating in African countries. Sectoral spread Amongst applicants, agriculture & food followed by energy & infrastructure were the two sectors most strongly represented. The 11 grantees cover these two sectors as well as health and other which includes information & communication. Assessment criteria Other characteristics of grantees IAP assesses applications against 5 criteria. Development and commercial are the two criteria categories with the greatest difference in averages between grantees and unsuccessful applicants. The majority of grantees are classified as small organisations (i.e. having less than 50 employees), and all but one of the organisations funded are companies (rather than NGOs). IAP is open to considering applications from large companies, but to-date does not have any in its portfolio. For the majority of the projects, people living in poverty at the base of the pyramid (BoP) will benefit as consumers, rather than as producers of goods and services.

6 Application process 2 Photos from GSS, a small grantee from Cycle 1 and Eco-MICAIA Limitada, a small grantee from Cycle 2

7 Section 2 Application process Large grants overview The large grant application process is a two stage process where applicants first submit concept notes and the strongest applicants are invited to submit full applications. The various steps in this process and the number of applicants at each step for Cycle 2 are outlined below: 1 st step Applications are received, filed and filtered through an initial screening 126 concept notes were received 2 nd step The strongest applications are forwarded for a further more detailed review 31 concept notes underwent a more detailed review 3 rd step The strongest concept notes are shortlisted by Sida and requested to submit a full application. 12 applicants were recommended to submit full applications 4 th step Full applications from shortlisted applicants are evaluated. The strongest applications are recommended for funding. Sida makes the final selection. 12 applicants submitted a full application, 5 were selected for funding 7

8 Section 2 Application process Small grants overview The small grant application is a one stage process, where applicants submit an application and selections for funding are made from this submission. The various steps in this process and the number of applicants at each step for Cycle 2 are outlined below: 1 st step Applications are received, filed and filtered through an initial screening 110 concept notes were received 2 nd step 3 rd step The applications concept notes are forwarded for a further more detailed review The strongest applications are recommended for funding. Sida makes the final selection. 47 concept notes underwent a more detailed review 6 applications were recommended for funding 8

9 Section 2 Application process Small grants overview The small grant application is a typically a one part process, with applicants submitting an application and selections for funding made from this submission. However, during Cycle 2 a number of applications that were potentially strong but needed clarity were invited to resubmit after feedback was provided. This two stage process will not be used going forward. The various steps in this process for Cycle 2 are outlined below: 1 st step Applications are received, filed and filtered through an initial screening in Stockholm The applications concept notes are forwarded for a further more detailed review in London 110 concept notes were received Applicant characteristics 3 2 nd step 47 concept notes underwent a more detailed review 3 rd step The strongest applications are recommended funding. Sida makes the final selection. 5 applicants were selected for funding Applications that have great potential but are not strong enough to be recommended for funding are asked to resubmit their application. 6 applicants were selected provided feedback and invited to resubmit an application 4 th step The strongest applications are recommended funding. Sida makes the final selection. 6 applications were resubmitted, 1 was selected for funding A total of 6 applications were selected for funding from Cycle 2 Photos from IRDI, a small grantee from Cycle 1 and Sanergy, a large grantee from Cycle 1

10 Section 3 Applicant characteristics Where are applicants and grantees headquartered?(from Cycle 2) IAP is a global programme with a targeted focus on sub Sahara Africa and Middle East North Africa (MENA). Applications can come from companies originating in any country, but the country of operations must be in low-income countries. The 236 applications submitted in Cycle 2 came from organisations headquartered (HQed) in 47 countries. Over the course of May to September 2011, promotional events were conducted in Uganda, Zambia, Kenya, Mozambique and Sweden which account for the higher number of applications received in these countries. Country of organisation s HQ, applications Cycle No. small grant applications No. large grant applications/concept notes Out of the 11 applications (small and large grants) chosen for funding, 8 different headquartered countries are represented, with 45% of the successful applicants being headquartered in low-income countries. Country of organisation s HQ, grantees Cycle 2 HQ classification No. small grants No. large grants 3 3 HI-large grants LI-large grants 3 2 HI-small grants LI-small grants LI = HQ in a low-income country HI = HQ in a high-income country

11 Section 3 Applicant characteristics Where are applicants headquartered? (From Cycle 1 & 2) The deadline for Cycle 1 was 31 May 2011 and received 157 applications. The deadline for Cycle 2 was 25 November 2011 with 236 applications submitted. The breakdown between low-income and high-income countries was similar between the two cycles, though there were more applicant companies headquartered in Asia in Cycle 1. The table below illustrates the continental breakdown of applicant headquarters, submitted and successful, from Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 combined. Continent of HQ No. of large grant application No. of large granted No. of small grant application No. of small granted Total no. of applicants Total no. of grants Success rate large and small grants % distribution of portfolio (33 grantees) Africa % Asia % Europe % North America % 33% 12% 43% 12% Oceania South America 1 1 Not stated Grand Total % 100%

12 Section 3 Applicant characteristics Where are applicant projects operating? (From Cycle 2) Applications can come from companies headquartered in any country, but the country of operations must be in low income countries. Of the 236 applications submitted in Cycle 2, a total of 58 countries were represented with the majority (51%) of applicants operating in Africa. The chart below shows the top 8 countries of operation for all applications (small and large) submitted in Cycle 2. Thirty (30) applicants stated that they are operating in more than one country and the data below includes the multiple operation countries for those applicants. The Other category covers countries ranging from Honduras to Indonesia. Rwanda Ghana India Mozambique Country of applicants operation Tanzania Zambia Number of times mentioned in applications Kenya Uganda Others

13 Section 3 Applicant characteristics Where are applicant projects operating? (From Cycle 2)(contd.) The 11 grantees from Cycle 2 (small and large grants), are operating in 9 different countries, with 91 % of these in Africa. One project will be operating in three countries and three (3) projects will be operating in Uganda. The chart below shows the total number times each country was listed as the country of operation showing unsuccessful applicants in lighter green, and successful grantees in darker green. Countries where grantees (and applicants) operate* Nigeria Madagascar China Ethiopia Ghana Mozambique Tanzania Kenya Uganda Grantee s continent of operation 10 1 Asia Africa No. of times* the country is mentioned as the project base for applicants not selected No. of countries that grantees are operating in *One grantee from Cycle 2 is operating in 3 countries (Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania) and is represented in dark green all three countries.

14 Section 3 Applicant characteristics What sectors are covered by applicants? (From Cycle 2) IAP accepts applications from all sectors (excluding weapons, tobacco or gambling industry). Of the 236 applications submitted in Cycle 2, 34% were in agriculture & food and 12% were in energy & infrastructure sectors. The 11 applications (small and large grants), chosen for funding cover 4 sectors ( Other includes information & communication as well as professional, scientific & technical activities ). In the charts below, the length of the bars illustrates the total number of applicants (large grant to the left and small grant to the right) within each sector. The number passing the initial screening and those applicants finally chosen for funding is reflected by darker nuances of purple or green. It should be noted that IAP sometimes redefines sector classification of grantees. For example, a company might categorise their application focused on providing information to farmers via their mobile phones as agriculture but IAP would categorise the project as Other (information & communication ). This recategorisation is only done for those successful applicants. Large grant applicants no. passed inital screening and no. granted* Small grant applicants no. passed inital screening and no. granted Water, sanitation and waste Retail and manufacturing Finance Other Health Energy & infrastructure Agriculture and food Water, sanitation and waste Retail and manufacturing Finance Other Health Energy & infrastructure Agriculture and food No. applicants rejected in initial screening No.applicants rejected after detailed review No. applicants rejected in initial screening No. grantees No. grantees *This graph does not explicitly show the number of large grants that were shortlisted from the concept note stage. No. applicants rejected after detailed review

15 Section 3 Applicant characteristics What sectors are covered by applicants?(from Cycle 1 & 2) Looking at both the first and second cycle combined, the majority of applications (115, 29%) come from the agriculture & food sector followed by other (99, 25%). Other covers sectors such as information & communication and professional, scientific & technical activities. Of the applications chosen for funding, energy & infrastructure constitutes the majority of the portfolio with 10 grantees, 30 percent of the portfolio. IAP sectors No. of large grant application No. of large granted No. of small grant application No. of small granted Totalt no. of applicants No. of granted total Success rate large and small granted total % distribution of portfolio (33 grantees) Agriculture & food % Energy & infrastructure % Finance % Health % Other % Retail & manufacturing Water, sanitation & waste management % Not stated Grand Total % 24% 30% 6% 15% 9% 0% 15% 0% 100%

16 Review of scoring criteria 4 Photos from Cafe Direct Producers Foundation, a small grantee from Cycle 2

17 Section 4 IAP assessment criteria A review of IAP assessment criteria The IAP assessment team reviews applications and concept notes and scores them on the IAP eligibility criteria detailed below. For more information please see the detailed assessment criteria guidance available on Commercial 1 A Cost sharing 3 project will score highly if it is, or has the potential to be a profitable business that can operate in the private sector at scale, promoted by a team and/or organization with a strong commercial track record in a relevant sector, and where some kind of successful piloting has been done, and where the promoters have a financial commitment to success. Very early stage projects (which are usually better candidates for small, fast track grants) will need to clearly demonstrate commercial intentions, through their applications and proposed IAP funded activities. A project will score highly if it has the potential to have a net positive impact on the lives of a substantial number of poor and disadvantaged people, particularly women, through direct benefits arising from the business. Applicants will be assessed on both the breadth and depth for which people living at the BoP will benefit. Applicants are also encouraged to demonstrate less direct improvement to the environment or from systemic changes. Additionality 5 Projects Development 2 High scores will be given to projects that fully (or more than) match IAP funding in cash, which is genuine risk capital and not a grant from another donor, or in-kind resources that can be demonstrated to represent a very strong commitment from the project promoters. A project will score highly if it demonstrates high potential to be innovative, where this innovation can be in any aspect of the business model, the product or service, or the market context. Scores will be discounted where the risk of not realizing the commercial and development benefits arising from the innovation are high. Innovation 4 will be assessed regarding the extent to which IAP support makes a difference to the chances of the project achieving commercial sustainability and development impact. A project will score highly if it demonstrates strong value for money as demonstrated through the IAP funded activities.

18 Section 4 IAP assessment criteria On which criteria did the applicants score well, badly, or variably? Applicants for both large and small grants were assessed and scored against the five IAP criteria, for which the maximum scored varied from 10 to 30. Only those applicants that made it past the initial screening (Step 2) were scored. Average scoring for grantees and unsuccessful applicants Score categories Commercial Development Cost sharing Innovative Additionality Maximun score possible Grantees (average) Unsuccessful applicants (average) Sum of scores Overall the average score for grantees lie above 60% of the maximum score in each category whereas average scoring for those passing initial screening but not being selected for funding mainly is below 50 %. The development and commercial categories are the criteria in which grantees achieved highest scores relative to the maximum. Both these categories are also where the difference in average scoring between grantees and those that were not selected is greatest. In Cycle 1, commercial viability was also the area of weakest performance and highest discrepancy.

19 Section 4 IAP assessment criteria On which criteria did the applicants score well, badly or variably? (contd.) Splitting the data out by sector allows for a more detailed view on scoring. The highest scoring sector was energy & infrastructure followed by agriculture & food. One of the main differences between grantees and unsuccessful applicants in the agriculture & food sectors was innovation. There were also large differences in commerciality and development criteria for applicants in the energy & infrastructure sector. Average scoring for grantees and unsuccessful applicants by sector Agriculture and food (grantees) Agriculture and food (not selected) Energy & infrastructure (grantees) Energy & infrastructure (not selected ) Health (grantees) Health (not selected) Other (grantees) Other (not selected) commercial development cost sharing innovative additional

20 Grantee characteristics 5 Photos from Nuru Energy, a large grantee from Cycle 1 and MAKIT, a small grantee from Cycle 1 and a large grantee from Cycle 2

21 Section 5 Grantee characteristics What do grantees look like? (Cycle 2) Type of organisations Status of IB project: Applicants were encouraged to state the current status of their inclusive business project, and multiple answers were allowed. The answers given by the 11 grantees are illustrated below. Seven (7) projects put themselves in two or more phases. Many of the projects supported by IAP are at design and/or implementation stage. Only two of the projects are scaling up. 9% 91% Company NGO Status of IB project Size of Organisation Medium Small 91% 9% Small = <50 employees Medium = employees 0 Size and type of organisations: Most grantees from Cycle 2 are small, start-up companies*. Only one is an NGO. All companies list themselves as a social enterprises combining a mission with a commercial structure. Four (4) of the awarded projects are established companies, however for 2 of them the inclusive business project is a separate start-up. *A start-up means less than one year of normal market operation.

22 Section 5 Grantee characteristics What do grantees look like? (contd.) Inclusive business (IB) models either target the base of the pyramid (BoP) beneficiaries as producers (e.g. small holder farmers receiving higher incomes due to improved supply chain linkages) or consumers (e.g. rural customers with improved access to electricity through solar products). Many projects benefit both, but the data presented represents the primary beneficiary. Three-quarters of the grantees from Cycle 2 focused on BoP beneficiaries as consumers. In Cycle 1, 68% targeted consumers as the main BoP beneficiary. Main Beneficiaries Beneficiaries Agriculture & food Energy & infrastructure Health Other Consumers Producers As we would expect to see, when looking at project types within the four sectors as illustrated above, most consumer-focused projects falls into sector energy & infrastructure or health and the producerfocused projects can be found mainly within the Agriculture sector. 27% 73% Consumers Producers It should also be noted that IAP counts projects where small holder farmers are targeted as buyers of products and services as consumer projects. For example, a project focusing on small holder farmer buying information/inputs to enhance crops would be counted as a consumer project rather than a producer project. IAP accepts applications and funds both consumer and producer focused projects, but one of IAP s outcome objectives is to improve access to more affordable essential products and services for people living in poverty. Achieving this objective is reflected through the selected distribution of consumer/producer projects within the portfolio.

23 Section 5 Grantee characteristics What levels of funding were requested? Applicants are assessed on how their proposed activities provide value for money to IAP and Sida. IAP also reserves the rights to grant an applicant funding, but for a lesser amount than they applied for. The distribution of funding allocations for large and small grants are illustrated below, with ranges illustrated to the right. Grant funding by type of applicant Minimum Maximum Average Large grants 53, , ,000 Small grants 11,750 20,000 19,000 Funding allocated by grantees No. of large grantees No. of small grantees 0

24 Section 5 Grantee characteristics What levels match funding were put forward? One of the eligibility and assessment criteria is the cost-sharing element of the project. IAP requires that organisations match (at a minimum) 50% of the total project costs. Matching costs can be realised through (realistically) valued in-kind contributions, but higher score are given to projects that fully (or more than) match IAP funding in cash or other measures that demonstrate genuine risk sharing on behalf of the applicant. For more information please see the detailed assessment criteria guidance available on Matching grant contribution and IAP grant contribution (Euros) 725 As illustrated (to the left) the total match contribution for both large and small grantees were higher than the total IAP contribution. Although the amount of funding granted by IAP in Cycle 2 was less than 1 million Euro, the total amount of organisation and IAP funding leveraged as part of Cycle 2 is over 3 million Euro Eighteen (18 %) of grantees provide match funding to the IB project that is equivalent to the IAP grant, but the majority provide a higher match contribution. For 36 %, the match contribution corresponds to over 200% of the IAP funding. 0 Large grant Total matching grant contribution 416 Small grant Total IAP grant contribution Company contribution/ requested grant No. grantees 100% 2 between % 5 over 200 % 4

25 Concluding remarks 6 Photos from Waste 2 Energy, a small grantee from Cycle 2

26 Section 6 Concluding remarks Summary Cycle 2 summary Innovations Against Poverty (IAP) is pleased to have concluded a successful Cycle 2 and is appreciative to all entrepreneurs who submitted applications to the programme. Out of the 236 applications received, 11 projects were funded representing diversity in country of operations, sector and IB status. Project summaries, blogs and other information on these projects can be found on the Inclusive Business Practitioner Hub. As mentioned in the introduction, this report describes which projects have been selected, however it is not prescriptive of those that should apply in future Cycles. IAP is looking for a diverse portfolio of projects and entrepreneurs considering applying should not assume that future projects must have a similar profile. Future cycles The deadline for Cycle 3 was in April 2012 and the deadline for Cycle 4 is November All material (applications, deadline information, etc.) will be posted on the IAP site. For Cycles 3 we expect to have a lower proportion of small grants than for Cycles 1 and 2, and for Cycle 4 we expect this to continue. We also expect to increase the focus on projects that benefit the poor as consumers, which will enable IAP to impact on larger numbers of people. However, all entrepreneurs that meet the IAP criteria are welcome to apply. Guidance The IAP programme is a heavily competitive one. Entrepreneurs with inclusive business ideas who are interested in applying are encouraged to read the further guidance available on the IAP site and Inclusive Business Practitioner Hub. Both sites also have details on the existing portfolio of projects which will be helpful to review when developing an application. Future information on the IAP portfolio Further information on the portfolio of IAP projects (including basic characteristics as well as projections for development and commercial impacts) will be published in the fall of 2012.

27 While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy based on currently available data, there may be errors for which we apologise, and we recognise interpretation of messages always contains some subjectivity. For any questions, please contact Linda Leifsdotter at For more information, and the latest updates on Inclusive Business, please visit our shared Practitioner Hub at: Innovations Against Poverty Innovations Against Poverty is managed for the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) by PwC in Sweden, in alliance with Njord Consulting AB, Orgut Consulting AB and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.