Business Case and Intervention Summary
Intervention Summary
Web Index and Alliance for Affordable Internet 2012-2014
What support will the UK provide?
The UK will provide up to £1.25 million to the World Wide Web Foundation from 2012-14, to continue to
pilot the generation of an annual “Web Index” that captures the economic, political and social impact of
the Web in over 100 countries. The UK will also contribute to the Alliance for Affordable Internet, a
public-private coalition hosted by the Web Foundation, which aims to increase Web access through
regulatory reform.
Why is UK support required?
The World Wide Web has been an important catalyst for social, political and economic progress over
the last two decades, but its impact has been unevenly felt both within and across countries. Beyond
high-level statistics on the “digital divide”, there is relatively little analysis or public debate on the
reasons why some countries have moved faster and more effectively to harness the Web as an
accelerator of development, or its impact on different groups within society. Many of the indicators that
already exist only measure quantifiable metrics, such as the number of Web users, speed of access,
total number of pages and number of searches per subject, and this is often not publicly available.
To address this gap the World Wide Web Foundation (WF) has created an Index that uses both
quantitative and qualitative data to rank countries on the progress and social utility of the Web. The
Web Index is both an analytic tool and a resource for policy advocacy. It has three key dimensions:
Web readiness - communications and institutional infrastructure; (ii) Web content and use and (iii)
political, economic and developmental impact of the Web. WF now plans to expand and improve upon
this tool over the period 2012-17 to include new data on topics such as climate and environment
indicators, censorship and surveillance, and gender and poverty differentials.
Additionally, WF proposes to coordinate private sector, public sector, and civil society groups to build
the Alliance for Affordable Internet (A4AI), a coalition working to dramatically decrease both mobile and
fixed-line internet access costs. As part of A4AI, WF will produce an Affordability sub-Index, which will
expand on the research and analysis of the Web Index to provide deeper analysis on Web affordability.
There is a strong rationale for UK support as the Web Index and Affordability Index will serve as public
goods and are expected to have a catalytic effect on further investment in Web-based activities that
have wider social utility. Other donors have demonstrated an interest in co-financing, including Google,
who provided an initial grant of $1m that enabled WF to produce the first Web Index (2012) and who
are now committed to contributing towards the Alliance. The proposed project contributes significantly
to DFID’s policy priorities on transparency and accountability, on increasing the engagement and
participation of people living in poverty in development processes, and also links to DFID’s renewed
emphasis on using evidence and innovative technology more systematically in our programmes.
1
What are the expected results?
The intended impact to which the project will contribute is More inclusive policies, services and
business models, underpinned by a more cost-effective and accessible World Wide Web
The intended outcome of this support will be Better information on readiness, access, use and
development impact of the web available to inform efforts to reduce costs of accessing the internet
through policy and regulatory reform
The outputs from this work will be:





The production of an annual Web Index, with data about Web Readiness, Web Use, and the
Impact of the Web
Web Index is produced with high quality research and rigorous methodology standards are
applied
Web Index data is released in accessible formats that are easily usable by academics, policy
makers, and other relevant stakeholders
The Alliance for Affordable Internet coordinates efforts on the regulatory and policy changes
required to reduce the cost of web access
Support and engagement of NGOs, academia, policy makers etc. at the local and regional level
to help shape policy and programming
2
Business Case: Web Index Project 2012-14
Strategic Case
A. Context and need for a DFID intervention
The question of whether societies are ‘open’ or ‘closed’ is increasingly seen as a key distinguishing
feature between countries in the twenty-first century. Open societies are characterised by
transparent and accountable government, with citizens that are engaged in policy processes, and an
economic environment that promotes growth and entrepreneurship.
In order to graduate from poverty, poor people must be able to make informed choices, take actions
for their own development, influence decision makers and hold them to account. Successful
economic and social progress depends on creating the environment where people living in poverty
can be actively involved in overcoming the challenges that they face, overcoming structural barriers
to participation through the creation of channels and opportunities to have greater control over their
own development.
For the last decade or so, there has been increasing attention to how new technologies can support
more inclusive development processes through promoting openness and transparency, and
empowering people living in poverty to engage more fully in economic, social and political life. The
impact of the World Wide Web in fostering more open societies since the 1990s has been dramatic.
The Web has also created new platforms for social and political relationships, improved access to
information and supported more effective service delivery in a number of contexts.
However the impact of the Web has been unevenly felt both within and across countries. The digital
divide which occurs in relation to wealth, gender, and geography shows us that the current impact of
the web largely reflects existing global inequalities and that the web can further reinforce such
patterns of access to resources. Clearly there are large, albeit reducing, differences in terms of
access based on affordability, availability and individual and institutional capacity between developed
and developing nations. Beyond this, there is the further question of how Web access translates into
economic and social benefits for users based on the quality, relevance and utility of the opportunities
that it provides. The spread of cheap smartphones holds the potential to create a second connectivity
revolution in many developing countries, extending Web access to billions more people. However
existing barriers could prevent poor people from deriving the same benefits from the Web that the
citizens of rich countries have done to date. These range from monopolistic conditions in
telecommunications markets keeping broadband prices high, to a shortage of locally relevant content
in local languages, to growing efforts to censor the internet.
Until recently, nobody had attempted to design a simple, comparative instrument to allow policymakers and citizens alike to understand at a glance the uptake and development utility of the web.
Beyond high-level statistics on the “digital divide”, there has in fact been relatively little analysis or
public debate on the reasons why some countries have moved faster and more effectively to harness
the Web as an accelerator of economic and social development, or its impact on different groups
within society. Many of the indicators that already exist only measure quantifiable metrics, such as
the number of Web users, speed of access, total number of pages and number of searches per
subject, and this is often not publicly available.
To address this gap, WF has created an Index that uses both quantitative and qualitative data to rank
countries on the progress and social utility of the web. The Index is both an analytic tool and a
resource for policy advocacy. It has 3 key dimensions: (i) web readiness - communications and
institutional infrastructure; (ii) web content and use and (iii) political, economic and developmental
impact of the web.
Through a ranking approach, the web index aims to catalyse debate at national and regional levels.
3
It will also help decision makers and other stakeholder groups to identify weaknesses in their
country’s Web ecosystem and to develop and advocate proposals for reform. These could include
public-private infrastructure partnerships, better security for Web-based payments, deregulation of
the telecommunications industry or open government data initiatives.
In addition, WF will spearhead an Alliance for Affordable Internet with the ultimate goal of increasing
adoption and use of broadband in low-income countries. By creating the conditions for open,
competitive and innovative broadband markets, regulatory and policy reform can pave the way for
very large increases in internet access.
What is the evidence that better utility of the Web can catalyse development progress?
To date limited evidence exists on how the Web can be used as a catalyst to broader development
outcomes; indeed the creation of the Web Index and this project is intended to stimulate debate and
increase the quality of research in this area to inform policy and practice. In theory, the web
contributes to broad based social and economic development through the following:
 Reducing barriers to trade and commerce, through direct business relationships between
developing nations and international markets
 Increasing transparency and open government, improving accountability and reducing
corruption
 Supporting scalability and quality in delivery of basic services
 Promoting participation through access to information and channels for participation across a
range of sectors (economic, political and social participation)
The common drivers across all such pathways are that the Web has the potential to reach at scale,
can transcend national boundaries and can be used to lowers barriers (physical, economic) to
engagement for a broader range of people. The Web can support an approach to development
which means that citizens are informed and participating in overcoming the challenges that they face.
For example, better access to locally-produced information, through mapping and monitoring could
be critical for increasing communities’ resilience in relation to climate change.
The Web Foundation’s 2012 Web Index is the first attempt to quantify the utility of the Web across
social, economic and political dimensions. Analysis of 61 countries in the 2012 Web Index (below)
shows that of the thirteen DFID priority countries included all except India were in the bottom half of
the overall rankings in terms of contribution of the Web. Based on usage alone, this is unsurprising,
but how internet usage in each context translates into development impact also varies widely. For
example, relatively lower coverage in South Africa has managed to translate into higher overall
impact and contribution in South Africa as compared to Ghana. The relative contribution of the Web
to the economic, social and political spheres is another interesting point of comparison across both
developed and developing nations.
Source: Web Index 2012
Rank
Country
(n=61)
Web
Index
Use
Impact
Economic Political
Social
1
Sweden
100
78.67
100
89.36
100
98.5
2
United States of America
97.31
87.01
91.07
81.14
92.54
89.13
3
United Kingdom
93.83
87.86
88.28
78.85
86.42
33
India
46.58
19.88
51.08
62.19
41.06
46.99
36
South Africa
44.49
18.51
46.86
45.3
34.17
57.76
42
Kenya
32.84
17.74
37.35
49.45
33.12
29.4
44
Pakistan
27.99
18.88
30.37
31.02
26.99
33.56
45
Ghana
27.68
22.91
27.35
26.89
19.37
36.32
4
48
Nigeria
23.57
20.28
28.86
19.95
30.48
36.64
49
Uganda
20.25
13.96
21.75
18.73
24.83
23.91
51
18.64
11.16
23.47
17.22
29.97
25.22
52
Tanzania, United
Republic of
Nepal
18.37
18.16
21.59
21.45
16.59
28.52
55
Bangladesh
13.6
1.62
19.69
16.44
8.38
35.65
57
Ethiopia
10.89
0.7
19.69
17.62
24.05
20.16
60
Zimbabwe
1.94
7.39
6.66
18.08
0
6.92
61
Yemen
0
10.38
0
0
6.5
0
Existing analysis of the economic impact of the Web, particularly in more developed countries shows
that the Web has been an important contributor to economic growth. Research by the McKinsey
Global Institute (MGI) in 2011 gives a quantitative assessment of the impact of the internet on GDP
and growth while considering the most relevant tools governments and businesses can use to get the
most benefit from the digital transformation. It finds that
 The Internet's impact on global growth is rising rapidly. The Internet accounted for 21 percent
of GDP growth over the last five years among the developed countries MGI studied, a sharp
acceleration from the 10 percent contribution over 15 years.
 Most of the economic value created by the Internet falls outside of the technology sector, with
75 percent of the benefits captured by companies in more traditional industries.
 The Internet is also a catalyst for job creation. Among 4,800 small and medium-size
enterprises surveyed, the Internet created 2.6 jobs for each lost to technology-related
efficienciesi (Mckinsey Global Institute, 2011:3-6).
In terms of less developed countries, econometric analysis of 120 countries carried out by the World
Bank showed an increase in economic growth of 1.2% for every 10-percentage-point increase in the
penetration of broadband services (World Bank, 2009:45) with a more pronounced effect in
developing countries. This was even more significant once broadband penetration reached a critical
mass. The same study outlines some of the benefits in developing countries to business, marketing
(in particular for supporting exports markets development) and job creation for developing country
populations. However, to date there is a lack of analysis of how this economic growth accrues to
different groups within populations and how experience to date can inform policy development to
ensure that the Web’s contribution to economic development is maximised.
Beyond economic growth, the Web is a medium that can potentially be harnessed to support a range
of objectives. Research on the role and contribution of the web in this area broadly falls into 2
categories: (i) Web-based interventions to meet various social and political goals (ii) Broader impact
of the Web on individual and group behaviours linked to effects on network diversity and social
capital.
The Web has become an important vehicle for dissemination of information in many contexts and,
with the spread of Web 2.0 services there is great potential for the Web to become an important
platform for participation and collaboration which turns individuals from passive recipients to active
publishers of informationii. Access to information is shown to be a necessary although not sufficient
factor for achieving responsiveness and development outcomes (McGee and Gaventa, 2010:4). As
such the Web, through data generation and reporting, factual content and social media has the
potential to contribute to increased voice of people living in poverty.
The Web also has the potential to improve coverage and depth of media reach particularly through
the use of smartphones for literate populations. There is a moderate but growing body of evidence
examining the impact of media on political accountability.iii Evidence from both developed and less
developed countries has shown that people exposed to and engaging with high quality media are
5
better informed, more civically engaged and more likely to vote.iv
Assessment of a more direct relationship between improved governance and web use has focused
on e-government and e-governance schemes to date. Studies of a range of e-government initiatives
in India have shown that using web-based platforms for government systems has often increased
efficiencies in terms of costs and time for citizens, and in some cases, lessened opportunities for
corruption (World Bank 2009:71-72). In terms of e-governance, however, there is as yet little
rigorous analysis of the added value of web-based opportunities for participation beyond some of the
broader changes associated with these projects including computerisation, changes in policies and
behaviours, making it difficult to isolate the ‘Web effect’.
Analysis of seven interventions in 2010 by the Transparency and Accountability Initiative (TAI) found
that new technologies can, in some exceptional cases, result in increased accountability and
responsiveness by harnessing otherwise unrealised potential (2010:30). However the analysis
showed that in the vast majority of cases the key to success will be how technology can support
incremental improvements in combination with other more traditional actors and strategies (TAI,
2010:8-9). The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) examines the impact of egovernance based on case studies from four countries for political participation. It acknowledges the
added value of ICTs for increasing participation, particularly at the local government level, but
concludes that evidence to date is based on a few successful pilot applications in a number of
countries around the world and there is a need for more systematic evaluation activity that can draw
lessons from across the sector (IDRC, 2007:265).
Studies measuring the impact of ICTs including Web-dependent technologies generally do not
disaggregate gender in data collection or analysis. Anecdotal evidence shows that women could
benefit significantly from Web access and appropriate content (World Bank, 2009:9). For example, in
Kenya (mainly female) nurses working in rural areas are benefiting from on-line training opportunities
which means they have less travel burden but are able to increase their skills. However, women are
less likely to have access to the Web; additionally there can be negative impacts for women
associated with Web use including harassment, sexual exploitation in the form of pornography or
trafficking for example.
It is clear that there is great potential for the Web to support achievement of development outcomes.
While the Web in and of itself will not provide the solutions to development challenges, it offers a
significant and evolving platform to shape the way in which development is done. There are
challenges for Web-dependent initiatives including literacy, cost and infrastructure. The production of
the Index and the resulting dialogue on the contribution of the Web will be an important starting point
for looking at the relationships between the Web and development outcomes. It will help
policymakers, civil society and the private sector to understand and develop evidence on the
following issues
 In which spheres of social, political and economic development is the Web making more
impact and how and where could this be expanded?
 Which social groups are benefitting most from the Web and how could this be
augmented/adapted or changed?
 Which countries are moving faster and more effectively to harness the potential of the Web
and how?
Key elements of the project
The proposed intervention would support the production of the 2013 and 2014 Web Index, building
on the 2012 Index to increasing quality and scope, and further promoting the Index as a tool to
stimulate debate and research on Web Impact among key decision-makers. It would also provide
support to the start-up of the Alliance for Affordable Internet, a public-private coalition working to
increase Web access through regulatory reform.
6
Value of the Web Index
The Index provides data – both newly gathered by the Web Foundation and existing data from
secondary sources – that are aggregated into one easy-to-digest number (a composite score and a
ranking), which summarises the state and utility of the Web to people across over 100 countries. At
summary level, the Index produces a ranking of the countries covered in terms of the utility of the
Web to citizens. This allows policy makers to assess at a glance how their country ranks compared to
others in the region and globally.
Those cross-country comparisons are a powerful tool to stimulate the debate on how the Web could
be used to serve people and improve their lives. It will be of particular value and interest in low and
middle income countries where (with a few striking exceptions) the Web’s social and economic utility
remains relatively low and barriers to uptake remain high. However, there is potential to increase the
utility of the Web at all levels in the rankings, meaning that the Index is of relevance to all countries.
Expanding and enhancing the pilot Web Index
During the 2 years of support, WF will expand both the number of questions and the country
coverage of the expert assessment survey, thereby adding to the value of the Index as a global
comparative diagnostic tool, and showing trends over time in various dimensions. From 2013
onwards the number of developing countries covered in the Index will also significantly increase. The
Index’s assessment of social impact will be improved by expanding the expert surveys used in the
pilot round. The Index will be 'alive' to developments in the ICT sector over time, and will include new
indicators as and when better data becomes available. WF uses R&D to continuously refine the
Index methodology and develops partnerships to support work in areas sorely in need of more
comprehensive and robust measurement, such as gender and poverty differentials in Web use and
benefits; and the extent and impact of various forms of censorship and how the Web can better
support climate adaptation and natural resource management objectives. Subject to funding new
data will be collected on some of these issues in citizen surveys in 2013.
Capacity building, CSO engagement, and leveraging the index to support policy impact
The Web Foundation will conduct a series of workshops and roundtables to build knowledge and
research capacity in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. These engagements will
include representatives from civil society, academia, the private sector and government. The
workshops will be geared to provide hands-on understanding of how the Index was constructed, how
to use it, and how to ‘nationalise’ it, through computing it for the country in question for the various
provinces. The roundtables will focus on using the findings of the Index to stimulate multistakeholder policy dialogue. Through these engagements, WF will also foster peer learning, deeper
research and evidence gathering and use in the countries covered. In addition, a series of ‘hack-athons’ and competitions will help to stimulate the engagement of the tech, social media and
entrepreneurial community in the process of building and popularising the Web Index.
Engagement at the national level will also effectively be reinforced by presentations at conferences of
key stakeholders at the regional or international level, for example at Regional Economic Community
meetings, regional editions of the World Economic Forum, TED conferences, or O’Reilly
conferences.
Communications, website and release of data in open, accessible formats
The launch of the 2012 Web Index generated interest from hundreds of news outlets around the
world. Unlike other leading providers of data about the Web/Internet (ITU, WEF, McKinsey), who do
not release their full datasets free of charge, all Web Index data, including raw datasets, are made
freely available to the public. The data is published in open linked format and the Web Index website
will allow users to create customised scores and rankings using their own preferred indicators and
weightings. In future releases, the visualization tool will be enhanced to allow for time-series
comparisons and additional tools will enable cross country analysis. In addition, WF plans to make
the data more accessible to wider audiences via mobile accessibility options, language releases, and
7
increasing the variety of reusable formats (.xml, .rdf, and .json). WF will create targeted materials for
specific stakeholders, including the release of data in formats for use by statisticians and academics.
Affordability Index and additional research
WF will develop evidence to demonstrate the benefits of affordable pricing and deregulation, identify
policy options for achieving markets that are both socially and economically efficient, undertake case
studies of best practices and policy failures, and assess what changes would be needed to replicate
developed world or middle income country successes in a low income context. WF will leverage the
existing large body of research in this space by the World Bank, ITU, academic institutions and
others to jointly identify evidence gaps, prioritise research efforts, and collaborate on research
products. WF will produce an Affordability Index showing current gaps and areas for improvement.
The Index will be used as an advocacy tool to both raise the issues globally and to stimulate global
dialogue.
Alliance for Affordable Internet (A4AI) - policy dialogue & coalition building
Through a combination of public events, private stakeholder meetings and diplomatic channels, the
Alliance will work with both public and private sector players to diagnose country-specific affordability
bottlenecks; build consensus on the goals of policy reform; and provide technical input on the design
and sequencing of locally-tailored and innovative solutions to achieve those goals. WF will catalyse
in-country networks of both local businesses and civil society to add their in-country voices,
experience, and needs to the advocacy effort.
Why is it feasible for DFID to intervene? What would happen if we did not intervene? What
difference will this intervention have for reducing poverty?
It is feasible for DFID to intervene. The UK recognises the importance of open economies and open
societies to address poverty and inequality. In doing so we are looking to invest in innovative
approaches to disseminating information as a public good, e.g. in order for decision makers to make
evidence based policy, for citizens to provide feedback to government and other service providers,
and to hold decision makers to account.
We are supporting other complementary initiatives on open government and open societies including
the following:
 UK is (with Indonesia) the co- Chair of the Open Government Partnership – a network of 57
countries promoting open government, each of whom have action plans on fiscal
transparency, access to information, disclosure of assets by politicians and public servants,
and citizen engagement.
 We are also supporting the Transparency and Accountability Initiative (TAI), a fast-growing
public movement bringing together a wide range of organisations and programmes aimed at
promoting greater openness on the part of governments, companies and other institutions so
that the public can hold them to account. This is through impact and learning, new
technologies and policy and innovations.
 Jointly with the US, Sweden and the Omidyar Network, the UK is about to launch a new
initiative, Making All Voices Count: A Grand Challenge for Development, that will use modern
information technology, including the web, to amplify the voices of citizens and enable
governments to listen and respond effectively, with the goal of creating more democratic
governance and accountability.
Each of these initiatives offers a low transaction, potentially high impact opportunity to collaborate
with others on transparent and accountable government. Further, the UK is heavily committed to the
transparency of its own aid programme – and to meeting the Independent Aid and Transparency
Initiative (IATI) standards, including through publishing all project documentation and expenditure,
and shortly through launching a new interactive website.
8
There are clear synergies with the UK’s broader work on media, for example the BBC Media Action
partnership which will include some research and evidence development on the role of social media
for more active citizens and accountable states.
The Web Index is a further example of an innovative approach towards the promotion of more
transparent policy making, and equipping citizens to hold decision makers to account, working with a
new and exciting partner. It aims to have a catalytic effect on decision makers to invest further in
Web based infrastructure, and to use information on the impact of the Web to inform policy and
programming. The further development of the Web will also directly benefit citizens, including the
poor, to have further choice and control over their lives, providing them with a basis for challenging
others where necessary.
Consequences of not intervening
Not intervening would miss a significant opportunity to take forward DFID’s new policy priority on
transparency and accountability, and to link that to DFID’s renewed emphasis on using evidence and
innovative technology more systematically in our programmes. It would also miss an opportunity to
learn from other, more innovative partners in this area, and to support important partner countries to
make progress on this agenda.
Reducing poverty
The intervention will enable DFID to understand better how improvements in open government,
transparency and accountability can help to reduce poverty, through learning and experimentation
and a generating stronger evidence base.
B. Impact and Outcome that we expect to achieve
The intended impact to which the project will contribute is More inclusive policies, services and
business models, underpinned by a more cost-effective and accessible World Wide Web
The intended outcome of this support will be Better information on readiness, access, use and
development impact of the web available to inform efforts to reduce costs of accessing the internet
through policy and regulatory reform
The outputs from this work will be:





The production of an annual Web Index, with data about Web Readiness, Web Use, and the
Impact of the Web
Web Index is produced with high quality research and rigorous methodology standards are
applied
Web Index data is released in accessible formats that are easily usable by academics, policy
makers, and other relevant stakeholders
The Alliance for Affordable Internet coordinates efforts on the regulatory and policy changes
required to reduce the cost of web access
Support and engagement of NGOs, academia, policy makers etc. at the local and regional
level to help shape policy and programming
9
Appraisal Case
A. What are the feasible options that address the need set out in the Strategic case?
DFID already provides funding to a number of transparency and accountability initiatives, particularly
at the country level. Less work is going on at a global policy level although this area of work is
growing and is detailed in the previous section. With the development of the first Web Index last year
and the creation of A4AI this is an opportune time to provide funding to ensure that this area
continues to develop and contribute to understanding globally of the role of technologies in catalysing
economic and social development. We consider the options to be the following.
1.
Do nothing. We could decline to fund the Web Index and A4AI. This would run the risk of no
further Web Index being produced following the 2012 launch. The Alliance would go ahead with
reduced capacity and outputs.
2.
Fund on a partial basis. Fund both the Index and the Alliance in 2013 and 2014, to scale up
and improve the quality of work on the Web Index, and to start up A4AI, to a value of £1.25M
over the 2 years. This would entail DFID contributing £500K to the Web Index and £125K to
A4AI per annum, i.e. £625K per annum.
3.
Fund in its entirety. WF wants to expand the Index to cover over 100 countries over the period
2013-16 at a total cost of £3M. The Alliance is budgeted to cost £2M in its first two years of
operation, for which there is a funding gap of £672K. Funding the entirety of the gaps for both
prongs of the programme would thus amount to £3.672M.
4.
Fund a wider range of smaller organisations focused on transparency and accountability
that would deliver other relevant outputs and outcome to the amount of £1.25M. We could
commit more resources to initiatives such as Making All Voices Count, the Transparency and
Accountability Initiative and the Open Government Partnership. All are of these are seeking to
leverage policy changes, including through the use of evidence modern and innovative
technology.
B. Assessing the strength of the evidence base for each feasible option
In the table below the quality of evidence for each option is rated as either Strong, Medium or Limited
Option
1
2
3
4
Evidence rating
Limited
Limited
Limited
Limited
What is the likely impact (positive and negative) on climate change and environment for each
feasible option?
Categorise as A, high potential risk / opportunity; B, medium / manageable potential risk / opportunity;
C, low / no risk / opportunity; or D, core contribution to a multilateral organisation.
Option
1
2
3
4
Climate change and environment risks Climate
change
and
environment
and impacts, Category (A, B, C, D)
opportunities, Category (A, B, C, D)
C
C
C
B
C
B
C
C
10
None of the options proposed are anticipated to generate any potentially high or unmanageable risks
on the environment or global climate.
The work of A4AI could, in the long term, bring about significant increases in the numbers of people in
developing countries with Web access. This would necessarily entail infrastructure development and
energy use and associated carbon footprint. At the same time, increased availability and use of the
Web offers opportunities to reduce environmental impact of other means of information dissemination
(for example, online training courses replacing training that requires participants to travel to take part)
and to increase knowledge and understanding of environmental and climate issues by enabling
people to access this information anytime from anywhere. This can assist international transparency
and accountability of entities’ environmental impacts and provide opportunities for global
environmental champions to connect.
As the Web Index currently stands, it uses some indicators loosely related to energy, environment
and development: (1) electrification rate; (2) Web use for agriculture; (3) reliability of electricity supply.
There is an opportunity for this to be expanded to include further indicators that measure climate
change and environment, such as: renewable energy as a % of total energy; use of social media for
environmental campaigns (e.g. Avaaz – an international campaign and mobilisation websitev); use of
climate monitoring tools for agriculture; etc.
WF has indicated its interest in exploring these opportunities through partnerships with relevant
climate and environment institutions both to inform the methodology/index and in terms of policy and
capacity events to further develop this area.
Risks to the environment and climate change have been categorised as low given travel required to
attend international meetings and capacity building events, and the proposed outputs (conference
papers and reports both soft and hard copies). Recommendations to minimise operational impacts of
the programme include:
 Reducing the need to travel by using teleconference / videoconference facilities and locally based
staff where appropriate.
 If flights are required ensure individuals travel in economy class. Business class travel will also
have a negative impact on the value for money of the programmevi.
 Reduce the carbon footprint of the outputs through, for example, use of online communications,
recycled paper, and minimising printing and printing waste.
 Ensuring that events for the Web Index and Alliance are coordinated so as to reduce the amount
of travel and meetings and to ensure that there is minimal additional financial and environmental
implication for funding the work of the Alliance.
Alternatively, doing nothing (option 1) would result in a missed opportunity to work with the WF to
explore options for further climate and environment indicators in the Web Index. Similarly, working
with multiple partners may limit the coordination of individual indicators and data sets. It may also
increase the operational footprint of the work, with multiple stakeholders requiring multiple
international trips and meetings.
C. What are the costs and benefits of each feasible option?
Options considered include:
A. Do nothing. We could decline to fund the Web Index and A4IA. This would run the risk of no
further Web Index being produced following the 2012 launch.
B. Fund on a partial basis. Fund both the Index and the Alliance in 2013 and 2014, to scale up
and improve the quality of work on the Web Index, and to start up A4AI, to a value of £1.25
million over the 2 years. This would entail DFID contributing £500,000 to the Web Index and
11
£125,000 to A4AI per annum, i.e. £625, 000 per annum.
C. Fund in its entirety. The Foundation wants to expand the Index to cover over 100 countries
over the period 2013-16 at a total cost of £3M. The Alliance is budgeted to cost £2M in its first
two years of operation, for which there is a funding gap of £672K. Funding the entirety of the
gaps for both prongs of the programme would thus amount to £3.672M.
D. Fund a wider range of smaller organisations focused on transparency and
accountability that would deliver other relevant outputs and outcome to the amount of
£1.25M. We could commit more resources to initiatives such as Making All Voices Count, the
Transparency and Accountability Initiative and the Open Government Partnership. All are of
these are seeking to leverage policy changes, including through the use of evidence modern
and innovative technology.
1. Intervention Logic and Evidence
The intervention logic is based on nascent evidence (see business case) that the Web has been an
important contributor to economic growth, and has helped disseminate information, extend media
reach and put in place e-government schemes.
2. Incremental Costs
The following table presents incremental costs (relative to the Do Nothing option) for two years of
programme implementation. DFID’s contribution to the fund will amount to £1.25M, which is assumed
to contribute equally to both years of programme implementation.
Costs (GBP)
1, Web Index
Index Production
Index Communication
Index Overhead (7%)
Subtotal
2. A4AI
Staff & Alliance Building
Country Engagement
Affordability Index
International Advocacy
Sub Total
Minus (Cost Sharing)
Total
DFID Contribution
2013
2014
405,065
244,400
45,465
694,960
428,580
232,800
46,316
707,966
587,447
125,000
190,625
35,625
938,697
612,114
203,125
225,000
10,000
1,050,239
-49,901
1,583,756
625,000 (125 000 for
A4AI and 500,000
for Web Index)
-75,305
1,682,900
625,000
(125 000 for A4AI and
500,000 for Web Index)
Source: WF budget.
To note is that overhead costs include staff costs linked to the production and communication of the
Index. These include:
Web Index
Admin: £150 per day, 2 days per month.
Finance: £300 per day, 1 day per month.
12
CEO: £700 per day, 2 days a month
Systems Manager: £250 per day, 1 day a month.
A4AI
Finance Manager: £300 per day, 1 day per month.
CEO: £700 per day, 9 days a month (3 days in-kind)
Systems Manager: £250 per day, 3 days a month.
Director of Research: £500 per day, 2 additional days a month.
Monitoring & Evaluation Advisor: £250 per day, 1.5 days a month
Project Accountant: £170 per day, 10 days a month.
In addition to these staff costs, WF’s budget factors in salaries for the following staff:
Web Index
Director of Research: £500 per day, 8 days a month.
Project Manager: £60,000 per annum: no unit cost.
Project Work from WF: £210 per day, 8 days a month.
A4AI
Alliance Executive Director: £93,750 per annum; full time
Communications Manager: £31,250 per annum; full time.
Policy and Advocacy Manger: £40,625 per annum; full time
Membership Coordinator: £50,000 per annum; full time
Admin: £22,500 per annum; full time.
We have compared these unit costs to DFID unit cost staff rates (see table below).
Based on DFID staff costs, it would seem that Web Index staff costs are good value for money, in that
they do not exceed the A2 band.
However, it can be seen that staff costs for the Alliance are a/ a significant/disproportionate portion of
the budget and b/ in some instances above A2 level pay bands. It is acknowledged that the Alliance
is a new initiative and WF is looking to significantly scale up their delivery capacity during this phase
including establishing an Africa office. WF is also contributing a significant amount of CEO time in
kind during both years of implementation. However, it will be important to get a sense of how these
will be utilised in order to deliver results during the inception phase to determine whether they are
fully justified.
Cost-savings through sharing staff capacity across projects is shown in the budget to be
approximately £125K across the 2 years. At the moment it is unclear how overheads will be shared
between the two projects.
Costed estimates of DFID staff time (GBP)
Grade/Unit Costs
G3
DD
A1
A2
A2L
B1D
B1
Annual
cost
150,000
100,071
80,571
64,720
55,060
42,783
39,951
day cost
hourly rate
681
454
365
294
250
194
181
94.6
63.0
50.8
40.8
34.7
26.9
25.2
13
C1
33,105
150
20.8
In terms of other unit costs, WF’s detailed budget reflects the following, which we have compared with
unit costs available from UK-based think tanks such as ODI and IDS.
WF Product
1. Web Index
Science council
meeting
Expert Assessment
Surveys
Implementation of
Country Assessment
Survey
Website
Index Launch Event
Roundtable/Workshop
Opinion Maker Event
2. A4AI
Advisory Council
Meeting
Technical working
group meeting
A4AI Launch events
National level coalition
building and technical
assistance
A4AI Expert
Assessment Survey,
Implementation, &
Analysis
A4AI mid-term
evaluation
Unit Cost (£)
18 200
650
658
6500
3 250
19 500
10 500
13 500
5 000
2 085
25 000
2,000
9,375
UK think tank unit costs – for Climate Finance Research
Product
Evidence Paper
Policy Brief
Full Policy Report
Research Paper
Blogs
Webcast/other social media
Events/conferences
ODI
IDS
CGD
IIEG
£24,550 £7,000
£35,993
£12,500
£15,000
£26,223
£52,035
£55,000
£4,000 £3,000
£10,319
£2,000 £1,250
£2,000
£10,283
£6,000
£3,000
£26,530
Though the products are not identical, one may wish to question WF’s unit costs of roundtables and
events in particular, which aside from exceeding the costs of those organised by British think tanks,
seem disproportionate to the actual cost of producing the Indices themselves.
There is also a need to see how costs can be reduced through aligning events (conferences,
roundtables etc) between the Web Index and A4AI initiatives as this is not sufficiently demonstrated in
the submitted budget.
14
Issues for further follow up
Follow up on the budget will be made with WF as part of programme inception and monitoring to
ensure that:
- Staff costs are not disproportional to total budget.
- Staff unit costs do not overly exceed DFID A2/A1 band costs.
- Outreach unit costs are not out of syncs with British think tank competitors.
- Overhead costs for both prongs of the programme are clearly budgeted for and do not exceed
7% of total costs.
- Savings from working across programmes are directly integrated within the final budget.
3. Incremental Benefits
The nature of the present business case is to allocate funds to the construction and dissemination of
the Web Index, as well as to assist with producing and disseminating the A4AI Affordability Index.
Immediate programme benefits are likely to be two- fold:
-
-
Availability of a comparative index which measures four dimensions: web affordability, web
readiness, (communications and institutional infrastructure), web content and use and political
and economic impact of the web.
Catalyse debate around the developmental impact of the web at national and regional levels.
It would be premature and unrealistic to decline other potential benefits of this DFID programme at
this nascent stage.
Valuing the above-mentioned benefits is not a straightforward exercise. Though the creation of the
Web Index as well as the coordination of A4AI may well create value in the medium to long run, by
helping advocate for improved communications infrastructure, it would be overly optimistic to allocate
such long run and removed consequences to the nascent stages of index creation.
As a result, an alternative method is to look at how considered options fair in terms of feeding into the
overall programme’s intended outcome. In this case, the exercise would be to gauge which option
feeds most into the intended impact of “More inclusive policies, services and business models are
enabled through greater utility of the World Wide Web”.
Do Nothing Option 1 Benefit Stream
Under the Do Nothing Option, the following can be expected:
a/ Given that the 2012 Index and A4AI were created without the help of DFID, it is likely that the WF
will be able to find funding from other sources as it did in the past.
b/ DFID though, will not have a stake in the development of an innovative index or in the creation of
A4AI.
Incremental Benefit Streams for Option 2
a/ Financing the founding (2nd and 3rd) years of the index and the first 2 years of A4AI will ensure that
both are on their feet and standing. This will help policymakers better understand the effects of the
Web on economic and social development, as well as enable the Web to be more readily affordable.
It will also help beneficiary countries benchmark themselves on a global scale.
b/ This might help other donors see the project at as a viable one and spark their interest to finance it
in subsequent years too. Bringing other donors on board, particularly from the private sector, will
strengthen the coalition and potentially increase influence and impact of WF’s work
c/ Financing two years of the five year programme also helps build WF’s capacity in a responsible
manner: were all five years to be financed in one go; the organisation would have little incentive to
15
branch out to others partners and put in place the foundations for producing a high quality index and
A4AI network.
Incremental Benefit Streams for Option 3
a/ Financing all five years of the Web Index would help the organisation with long term planning of the
Index construction and communication and as a result enabling economies of scale to be made.
Funding the full gap for A4AI for the first two years would similarly mean that planning could be
finalised and the outreach work of the Foundation could be reduced allowing greater focus on
implementation.
Incremental Benefit Streams for Option 4
It is difficult to envisage programme benefits of option 4 when initiatives have not been identified yet.
4. Balance of Costs and Benefits
To note is that the identified benefits are all of a macro- nature. This is not to say that no micro-level
benefits exist; on the contrary. However, identifying and measuring benefits on the micro level (at a
country-level) would have been overly complex and most likely inaccurate due to the following
characteristics of the programme:
-
Beneficiary countries: Over 100 countries.
Variety of potential target beneficiaries: private sector, government, civil society.
Variety of potential programme benefits increased economic activity, better citizengovernment relations,
Detail of Expected impact of producing the World Web Index and A4AI: very low.
In order to steer clear of mis-measurement risks, the decision to proceed or not with the programme
was chosen to be made on other grounds than a quantified cost-benefit analysis: a ratings and
weightings exercise.
Rating and Weighting Exercise
Methodology and Assumptions
- Weight Scoring reflects the extent to which an option’s benefits contribute to the programme’s
overall impact of “More inclusive policies, services and business models, underpinned by a more
cost-effective and accessible World Wide Web”. Weights add up to one.
- Rate Scoring (ranging from a low 1 to a high 5) reflects how successful a given option is at enabling
the earmarked benefit to unravel.
- Both weights and rates were discussed with relevant stakeholders.
- Cost Scoring: The highest programme cost is attributed the maximum benefit score which is 5. As a
result, option 3 score 5 and option 1 scores 0. This serves to bring benefits and costs to the same
scale, thus making them comparable.
- As a result, the Benefit/Cost ratios can only be used as tools for comparing options: they have no
numerical significance.
-The scoring table reflects weightings over time given that no discounting exercise can be performed
on rating and weighting scores.
16
Criteri
a
Weight
(sum
to 1)
Option 1
Score
(1-5)
Option 2
Score
(1-5)
Option 3
Score
(1-5)
Option 4
Score
(1-5)
Cost to DFID
n/a
0 million
£1.25 million
£ 3.7 million
£1.25million
Cost Score
Overall Benefits
n/a
1.Donor
Leverage/Replication
2.
Understand
Affordability and Impact
of WWW
3.Geographical breadth
4. Capacity Building
5. DFID catalyst
TOTAL BENEFIT SCORE
Benefit/Cost Score Ratio
0.15
Score
(1-5)
0
0
Weighted
Score
0
Score
(1-5)
4
1.7
Weighted
Score
0.8
Score
(1-5)
3
5
Weighted
Score
0.6
Score
(1-5)
2
0.6
4
2.4
4
2.4
4.5
2.7
3
1.8
0.15
0.05
0.05
4
0
0
0.6
0
0
4
4
4
0.6
0.2
0.2
4
3
4
0.6
0.15
0.2
2
1
2
0.3
0.05
0.1
3
N/A
4.2
2.5
4.25
0.85
1.7
Weighted
Score
0.4
2.65
1.5
5. Risk and Uncertainty
There is risk that the Do Nothing option is the better option: indeed there is nothing that indicates
that the Web Index and Alliance will not find funding from other partners (i.e. as the Web Index did in
its first year, with Google). However if DFID attaches enough importance to being involved from the
start in what can potentially be an influential initiative, then this risk is overridden. Furthermore there
is no guarantee that in the absence of DFID funding WF will secure sufficient funds to produce the
next 2 years of the Web Index in 2013 and 2014.
There is also a risk that DFID will omit comparing and contrasting WF’s final budget and unit costs to
other similar programmes that it runs, in order to ensure best value for money. DFID will in particular
need to look out for staff unit costs and the make-up of the 7% overhead costs for which we have no
detail to date.
There is a risk that the A4AI initiative, not being sufficiently detailed at this stage, will not deliver a
tangible output. It might for instance struggle to convert public private partnerships into end results,
i.e. more affordable internet.
Finally there is the risk that the indices produced are not high quality. Indeed, one might question
why Google did not renew its funding of the Web Index after having contributed 1 million dollars for
the production of the 1st version.
6. Competition/Macroeconomic/Fiscal Impacts
The project aims to influence the creation of a regulatory environment that promotes greater Web
utility and access, for example addressing monopolistic conditions in telecommunications markets
that keep broadband prices unaffordably high. Another potential impact of better Web utility could be
increased fiscal accountability and transparency. More generally, the Web can be an important driver
of economic growth as covered in the evidence section of this business case.
7. Financial Sustainability
In order for DFID’s funds to be sustainably invested, the quality of the indices produced will be
17
paramount. In particular, if the indices produced are not informative as to the impact of the internet on
political and economic development or its affordability, DFID funds will not have been sustainably
spent.
8.
Attribution to DFID
Assuming that DFID is the sole financier of the Web Index for this given time period, attribution of the
related benefits will go to DFID. However, should the Index be successful and replicated over more
years, the benefits of that production cannot be attributed to DFID. Indeed it is likely that the impact of
producing such an Index will only be felt in the medium to long run, i.e. after the initial 2 years. DFID
could then attribute the creation of the Index itself, but not the impact its long run production may
have on development.
Similarly for the Affordability Index and related Alliance, the benefits of the work of the Alliance during
this period will be attributed to DFID and the other donors. Benefits of longer-term production of the
production of the Affordability Index and related work cannot be attributed to DFID.
D. What measures can be used to assess Value for Money for the intervention?
This type of intervention does not easily lend itself to monetising the outputs. For this reason, and
given the need to be proportionate in our appraisals, we focus purely on a ratings and weightings
assessment of which option is best likely to achieve the impact.
Detailed and comparable unit cost information for key deliverables are not always readily available
from the WF budget, though note section above which compares unit costs with those of other
organisations in some areas. This type of information will continue to be provided throughout project
implementation, preferably on a quarterly basis, to allow DFID to assess the VfM of the input-output
link.
E. Summary Value for Money Statement for the preferred option
It is expected that Option 2 - Funding the Web Index and A4AI on a partial basis - will deliver the best
value for money. It is difficult at this nascent stage to monetise and/or to quantify the potential
subsequent benefits of both the Web Index and the Alliance. As a result a qualitative CBA was
produced, using the ratings and weightings method. Relative to the Do Nothing Option, Option 2
scored the highest benefit/cost score ratio (2.5).
This score was driven by the fact that under Option 2, DFID is more likely to deliver the overall
programme’s intended impact of “More inclusive policies, services and business models, underpinned
by a more cost-effective and accessible World Wide Web”. This is the case for 5 reasons:
1. It will enable the production of the second and third year of the Web Index.
2. The index will cover at over 100 countries, thus improving our understanding of the Web’s
impact at a global scale.
3. It will help build the world WF’s capacity, by requiring it to bring other partners on board over
the five years. This might help WF in being stronger in the medium to long run in answering
questions linked to the web’s impact in less developed countries.
4. It will help with donor traction on the issue of Web impact.
5. It will help address and measure the issue of Web affordability.
18
Commercial Case
Indirect procurement
A. Why is the proposed funding mechanism/form of arrangement the right one for this
intervention, with this development partner?
The Web Index is produced by the World Wide Web Foundation (WF). This is a not for profit
organisation based in the US and Switzerland. An accountable grant is the appropriate funding
mechanism for this intervention, given WF’s status. This business case and funding arrangement
has been delivered in line with DFID’s rules on accountable grants.
B. Value for money through procurement
No international procurement exercise will be run as DFID will provide WF with an Accountable Grant
to support the Web Index Project. WF has its own internal procedures for procurement of goods and
services, which have been provided to DFID.
19
Financial Case
What are the costs, how are they profiled and how will you ensure accurate
forecasting?
DFID is anticipating providing up to £1.25M to this project over 2012-14 as per the following budget
summary.
Spend breakdown of Proposed DFID
income
2013 Index
2014 Index
Web Index Production
Communications, capacity building &
policy engagement
340,768
333,517
136,500
143,325
22,732
23,158
Alliance for Affordable Internet
125,000
125,000
Total
625,000
625,000
Overhead
WF will prepare an expenditure and cashflow forecast to be submitted to DFID at the start of the
project. This will be updated quarterly. They will provide a monthly 1-line written update on forecast
spend to support internal planning and forecasting.
B. How will it be funded: capital/programme/admin?
Governance, Open Societies and Anti-Corruption Department (GOSAC) will contribute up to £1.25m for
WF from its programme budget for this initiative.
C. How will funds be paid out?
Funds will be governed by a single Accountable Grant with WF. In line with the rules governing
accountable grants, funds will be paid quarterly. The WF are requesting that funds be paid quarterly in
advance since they are a small organisation and are unable to pre-fund activities. To support this
request they are providing expenditure and cashflow forecasts to DFID for the project period (October
2012 to December 2014).
Once the grant begins to be disbursed, to support accurate forecasting and timely payments, WF will
be required to submit an expenditure statement on the completed quarter plus forecast and request for
funds for the coming quarter, showing (a) output spend and (b) type of spend (e.g. staffing costs, travel
and accommodation, provision of goods, provision of services, etc.); In addition, DFID will require one
line written updates on spend on the 25th of each month.
The amount of funding made available to the project will be determined by project performance, as
assessed against the logframe commitments, up to a value of £1.25mln over the period to December
2014.
D. What is the assessment of financial risk and fraud?
WF is a registered charitable organisation which provides guarantees and standards on financial
management and accountability. As a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit in the United States, the Web
Foundation and its Board are accountable to the required standards and regulations for governance,
financial management. As such the risks are low.
A due diligence exercise will be undertaken in line with DFID’s new guidance in this area.
20
E. How will expenditure be monitored, reported, and accounted for?
WF will report quarterly on expenditure against the agreed budget (9 quarters to December 2014). WF
will provide annual audited accounts covering all DFID funds under this accountable grant.
Management Case
A. What are the Management Arrangements for implementing the intervention?
The accountable grant will be managed by the Governance, Open Societies and Anti-Corruption
(GOSAC) in DFID Policy Division.
 The Politics State and Society Team (PSST) Team Leader will oversee and be accountable for
the progress and management of all the components of the programme. S/he will monitor
technical and financial performance of all the organisations involved.
 A Social Development Adviser/Governance Adviser (A2) within PSST will have responsibility for
strategic programme management as well as providing technical oversight.
S/he will be
supported by a Project Officer (B1 GOSAC Programme Manager). S/he will remain in active
contact with the organisation and arrange for annual output to purpose reviews, as well as a
project completion report. S/he will take receipt of regular (every 6 months) monitoring and
financial reports, and alert the Team Leader to any major implementation issues.
 A Private Sector Adviser (A2) from the Private Sector Department in Policy Division will
participate in the transition group/steering committee of the Alliance for Affordable Internet and
any associated responsibilities. S/he will feed into Annual Reviews and other monitoring
processes in relation to Alliance activities and will have quarterly meetings with the Lead
Adviser.
 DFID policy advisers on gender, climate change and research will be engaged in an advisory
capacity as appropriate to steer Web Index work in relation to the expansion of the Web Index
in these thematic areas.
In terms of governance, legal and financial responsibility for WF is held by the Swiss Board of Directors
Oversight of WF strategic planning and activity and financial reporting is the responsibility of its US &
Swiss Boards of Directors which meet quarterly. Dedicated Board committees supervise audit, finance
and governance. The accountable grant will be issues to the Foundation’s US incorporated entity.
Web Foundation will identify one overall Project Manager for this grant, most likely the A4AI Director,
who reports to the WF CEO and will serve as the primary liaison with DFID.
B. What are the risks and how these will be managed?
Funding gaps
The budgeted cost of production of the Web Index for 2013 and 2014 is £1.4 million. DFID is
proposing to contribute up to £1mln towards the project, leaving the project subject to a funding gap.
WF is actively discussing partnerships with a range of organisations and has already secured some
funding from Bain & Co.
The current budget for A4AI is around £2mln for the 2 years, with current committed funding including
£250k from DFID, of £1.6m.
Some costs can be saved and subsidised by overlapping costs between projects. This is currently
estimated at around £125k over the 2 years. WF is currently actively speaking with other donors in
order to fill funding gaps.
21
WF has confirmed that there is no risk of non-delivery of the outputs based on funding gap. For
example, the output currently with the biggest shortfall is development and communication of Web
Index data in accessible formats, which will be delivered through existing core organisational resources
on communications if additional resources are not made available.
Capacity
WF is a relatively small and growing organisation. In order to deliver the proposed projects, multiple
new members of staff will be taken on board. For the Web Index, the full-time Project Manager will
have strong experience and knowledge of research dissemination and policy advocacy in an
international setting and will have demonstrated experience in facilitating diverse groups and processes
to affect change at a national and global level. The full-time Web Index Communications and
Outreach Manager will also have experience with research dissemination and communication in an
international setting and will be well-versed in online media strategies.
Additionally, for the Alliance for Affordable Internet, the following new full time staff will be hired:
Alliance Executive Director, Membership Coordinator, Communications Manager, Policy & Advocacy
Manager and an Administrative Manager. Both the Executive Director and the Policy and Advocacy
Manager will have strong experience and knowledge of policy advocacy in an international setting and
will have demonstrated experience in facilitating diverse groups and processes to affect change at a
national and global level. The Executive Director will be an expert in the internet policy field who is
recognized as a leader by their colleagues and peers.
Supporting the new posts, part-time staff members include the Research Director, the Technical
Manager and the Development Manager, all of whom are existing WF team members and were
responsible for overseeing the development of the 2012 Web Index. In the interim period prior to the
hiring of the Project Manager, the Development Manager will serve as the key point of contact with
DFID.
To complement this, WF will leverage the remaining capacity from existing staff members for the Index
project. The Web Foundation is making the relevant investments in human resources and operations
capacity to ensure each project is allocated sufficient management, administrative and systems
support.
Impact
The Web Index has significant potential to impact upon the way in which the Web is used to further a
range of development outcomes. However, this is a relatively new initiative delivered by a young
organisation and focused largely on a single product. There is a need for close monitoring of the
project, and evaluation of results during a medium-term period (partial funding for 2 years) to ascertain
to what extent WF are able to realise this potential. Any future engagement will be based on proven
performance under this project.
Overlap with other initiatives
There are synergies with other projects and initiatives supported by DFID, some of which are listed in
the above sections. There is a need for GOSAC to pull together the strands of work on the role of
technologies in supporting political, economic and social empowerment, to ensure that the crosslearning from projects are being realised, and that funding is not duplicating activities in a manner that
reduces efficiencies. As the portfolio expands the WF and other work offers significant opportunity to
contribute to the evidence base in this area.
C. What conditions apply (for financial aid only)?
N/A
22
D. How will progress and results be monitored, measured and evaluated?
Monitoring will be undertaken through:
- Quarterly financial expenditure statements, quarterly narrative reports & steering committee
meetings to review progress against the logframe
- Annual report to DFID and wider donors, against the agreed annual workplan and overall
logframe
- Final project report to DFID
It is noted that A4AI reports to donors on a December-January timeline. The milestones included
under Output 4 on the Alliance are in line with that reporting cycle, however WF will provide an update
on implementation at the time of the annual reviews. More detailed information and analysis will be
provided to DFID along with other A4AI donors in line with the project cycle.
In light of this, the period for the accountable grant will be 9 quarters from October 2012 to December
2014.
Evaluation
DFID will conduct a Project Completion Review in 2015, and where feasible will seek to do this jointly
with other funders of the Index.
A4AI will undergo a mid-term evaluation in 2014 which will feed into the end of project review.
Audit
Annual Audited Statements for each of the WF financial years covered by the grant in line with the
terms of the Accountable Grant. This grant must be shown as a separate item of income.
Lograme
Quest No of logframe for this intervention: 3811894
Internet Matters: The Net’s sweeping impact on Growth, Jobs and Prosperity McKinsey Global
Institute,2011
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/research/technology_and_innovation/internet_matters
ii Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of expression, UNHCR
iii Reinikka, R. and Svensson, J. 2004: ‘The Power of Information: Evidence from a Newspaper
Campaign to Reduce Capture’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series:
http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/webfac/emiguel/e271_s04/jakob.pdf; Nathalie Franken, Bart Minten
and Johan Swinnen, 2008: ‘Media, Monitoring, and Capture of Public Funds: Evidence from
Madagascar’, World Development, Volume 37, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 242-255; James M.
Snyder Jr and David Strömberg, 2008: ‘Press Coverage and Political Accountability’, Working paper
for the National Bureau of Economic Research; Jenny Aker, Paul Collier and Pedro Vicente, 2010: ‘Is
Information Power? Using Cell Phones during an Election in Mozambique’, presented at School of
Business and Economics, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, 20 May 2011.
iv Claes H. de Vreese and Hajo Boomgaarden. 2006. “News, Political Knowledge and Participation:
The
Differential Effects of News Media Exposure on Political Knowledge and Participation.” Acta Politica,
41: 317–41. Jenny C. Aker, Paul Collier and Pedro C. Vicente. 2010. “Is Information Power? Using
Cell Phones during an Election in Mozambique.” Draft research report, November 2010. Available
at: http://www.pedrovicente.org/cell.pdf. Michael X. Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter. 1996. What
i
23
Americans Don’t Know About Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press; and
many others.
v http://www.avaaz.org/en/index.php
vi On average, business class passengers are responsible for up to 2.1 times the emissions of an
economy traveller. Kollmuss, A., Lane, J. (2008) Carbon Offsetting & Air Travel, Stockholm
Environment Institute Discussion Paper, Part 1: CO2-Emissions Calculations, 28 May 2008.
http://www.co2offsetresearch.org/PDF/SEI_Air_Travel_Emissions_Paper1_%20May_08.pdf
24