WWF UK
– Value for
Money
BOND
May 2012
WWF UK – WWF Nepal
Purpose of V4M in WWF
• Understand what value for money means for
us and our stakeholders
• Demonstrate or explore evidence that
supports it
• Improve our value for money approaches
• Set a Time frame for the value for money
learning journey.
WWF UK – WWF NEPAL
Approaches
• Management: management processes, resource analysis
and decisions – BOND paper, DFID questionnaire
• Values: stakeholder perceptions of the benefits or values of
their environment – This is an area less well explored and one
we can offer as it is essential to the effectiveness of our work
with stakeholders and beneficiaries.
• Measures:4 Es (economy, efficiency, effectiveness & equity)
– most talk of the 3 Es, but equity is an essential dimension of
conservation work and its development dimensions.
WWF UK – WWF NEPAL
4 Es Framework of value for Money
Figure 1 – Logical Results Framework
Improved fishing
gear,(also: staff,
equipment,
workshops, &
publications)
WWF UK – WWF NEPAL
Revolving
fund for new
ones –
delivery
process
Number of
Fishermen fishing
using sustainable
nets / other gear
Income of
fishermen and
fish stocks
increase
Poverty reduced, &
commercial and
reef fish species are stable /
increasing
Efficiency:
Maximising the outputs for a given level of
inputs – How well do we or our partners
convert inputs into outputs? Is there sufficient
control over the quality and quantity of both
inputs and outputs?
Effectiveness
Ensuring that the outputs deliver the desired
outcome – How well are the outputs from an
intervention achieving the desired outcome?
(there is no direct control over outcomes, but
a clear contribution to them can and needs to
be understood, i.e. theory of change/results
chain)
Cross Cutting
Ensuring that benefits are distributed fairly –
how much impact on poverty reduction in our
priority places does an intervention achieve
relative to the inputs that we or our partners
invest in it? How much resource equity is
there in our interventions for species and
ecosystem services which results in positive
impacts on species and ecosystem health in
our priority places relative to the inputs that
we or our partners invest in the intervention?
Equity
(where cost
effectiveness
here results
as a
consequence
of all four 4
Es being
achieved )
WWF UK – WWF NEPAL
General example
Were the best fishing nets or equipment bought
at the lowest possible cost?
- best for whom? This would need to be
understood from beneficiary perspective or from
a regulatory perspective
Given the number of nets/equipment bought
how many people used them effectively for their
intended purpose and were able to catch a
measured amount of fish?
- effectively for whom? This would need to be
understood from the beneficiaries or from a
standard measure like Catch Per Unit Effort
For those given the nets, did their food security,
income and / or well-being increase and how
much of this is attributable to the new nets?
- attribution would need to be understood from
the beneficiaries perspective and or that of other
stakeholders.
Have the benefits reached the poorest
households and/or the most vulnerable groups
in more remote areas/communities dependant
on natural resources in our priority places? How
are the benefits distributed between men and
women and what difference does this make to
their well being and natural resources? And or is
there sufficient fish resources left to breed and
sustain the population?
cost effectiveness
Economy
Simple Definition
Getting the best value inputs – are we or our
partners buying inputs of the right quality at
the right price? (inputs like: staff, consultants,
raw materials, equipment)
Key Results
•
•
•
•
•
Only 3 programmes are considering value for money in all categories of the 4Es; Coastal
East Africa, Colombia and East Africa freshwater Naivasha.
All of the programmes have concentrated their efforts on improving Effectiveness of their
programmes, although only 3 programmes have enough of results to apply value for
money measures to them; e.g. Colombia, Coastal East Africa and China Africa.
Importantly for PPA, although only three programmes are currently report considering
aspects of Equity, 7 programmes are planning to consider them to some degree –
progress on this will be monitored as we move forward.
The Economy category of value for money was the least well explored, and although 7
programmes mentioned aspects of staff costs verses activity costs, very few of them
explained how costs were kept down, or where economies are being made, the
exception to this was East Africa freshwater Ruha programme which talked of obtaining
pro-bono days from their consultants.
In terms of Efficiency, the most common aspect considered here was leverage, either in
terms of using PPA funds to obtain or access other funding or to obtain local counterpart
support.
– Colombia programme for example has levered project funds from 8 sources, amounting to
£1,124,119 for FY12.
– Nepal programme has levered $26 million from USAID for a five year project with five partners Approximately $5-$6 Million is for Nepal, equivalent to approximately £3.5 million for 5 years or
£700K per year, which gives it a total leverage .
WWF UK – WWF NEPAL
Economy
Efficiency
Effectiveness
Equity
7 programme
considered economy
7 programmes explored
6 aspects of efficiency,
5 plan to do so
10 programmes
explored 8 aspects of
effectiveness and 5
plan to do so.
3 programmes
explored 4 aspects of
equity and 7 plan to do
so.
Nº of programmes considered which aspect of the 4Es (initials for each programme are used)
7- Staff/consultancy
4 – leverage of
8- M&E Systems in
2-target poor &
costs
project funds
place
vulnerable groups
1- Travel costs
3- leverage of local
3- Stakeholder
1-Access to poor &
funds or buy-in
Counterfactual
vulnerable groups
2- Procurement/
3-cost efficiency
3-Learning and
1- Provides access to
financial controls
sharing
information for poor
& vulnerable groups
2- time use
1-Results to
1-increases CSO
beneficiaries
involvement
1-strategic funding
1-Unit cost of impact
1-coordination &
1-Beneficiaries value
communication
of WWF
1 – SROI – CBA &
values
1-New Partnership
1-Established
partnership
Nº programmes planning to consider each aspect of the 4Es (initials for each programme are
used)
none
3-lever project funds
5- Will achieve results 5- Identify poor &
vulnerable groups
1- lever local funds
3- improve M&E
2- poverty issue
for buy-in
system or develop it
awareness
1- variety of small
1- Form new
1- impact on poor &
efficiency gains
partnership
vulnerable groups
WWF UK – WWF NEPAL
Examples
• Management: WWF-UK – procurement
improvements DFID questionnaire
• Values: International Climate Policy and
Climate Adaptation Learning – Stakeholder
Counterfactual, Value of our work
• Measures: Colombia – Bang for buck; Cost
efficiency & leverage
• Measures & Values: China Africa –
SROI/CBA and impact value
WWF UK – WWF NEPAL
Voices not often heard, but whose context we need to understand
WWF UK – WWF Nepal