Business Case and Intervention Summary
Intervention Summary
Title: Global Network of Climate Technology Innovation Centres
What support will the UK provide?
The UK will provide £19m to the five-year Climate Technology Programme (CTP) to support
the design and initial implementation, and international coordination of Climate Innovation
Centres (CICs) in developing countries. The CTP is a multidonor Trust Fund managed by
infoDev (Information for Development), a global partnership programme in the Financial and
Private Sector Development Network of the World Bank Group. DFID will be a seed investor in
the programme, alongside at least two other donors. £18m will support the design and
establishment of 9 new Climate Innovation Centres (CICs), as well as supporting the growing
global network of CICs. £1m of the £19m will fund an independent evaluation of the
programme and will be competitively procured and managed by DFID. The evaluation will
provide insight for other DFID programmes helping to support innovation and entrepreneurship
in developing countries.
Climate Innovation Centres (CICs) provide targeted services (such as finance and training) to
assist the private sector – especially entrepreneurs and small-medium enterprises – to
proactively and profitably develop innovative technology and business solutions to domestic
energy, resource and environmental challenges. They are modelled on the Carbon Trust’s
services and structures in the UK. A recent Bloomberg New Energy Finance study found that
there is an undersupply of in-country support for climate innovations in developing countries.
At least 14 developing countries have specifically requested infoDev’s support in setting up
their own CIC, but are unable to undertake feasibility studies due to a lack of funding. This
includes both low income and middle income countries. The Bloomberg report suggests that
while “CICs could be developed individually, but there is much greater benefit in building a
network of connected centres”. There is also clear demand from in-country entrepreneurs, with
– for example – over 200 applications received within 12 months of launching the Kenyan
Climate Innovation Centre (54 entrepreneurs are currently being supported). An example of
one such entrepreneur receiving support from the Kenyan CIC is in the box below.
1
Kenneth Ndua
Energy All Round Stove (EARS)
Kenneth Ndua has been working with women’s groups in Kenya since 2002. He observed that many people were
suffering from illnesses related to smoke inhalation and contaminated water, and worked to design a multipurpose
fuel efficient cook stove called EARS (Energy All Round Stove). The stove is compatible with different types of
biomass, and can boil up to seven litres of water while cooking food. Once boiled, the water is 95% free from
bacteria and contaminants.
The Kenyan CIC has been offering technical
assistance and advisory services to help
Kenneth identify and evaluate manufacturing
options to achieve greater scale. The CIC will
further assist him to quantify the company’s
financial needs, and to identify new sources of
financing, including from local investors.
In this photo, Kenneth demonstrates his
energy-saving cook stove to Prof. Judi
Wakhungu (left), Cabinet Secretary for
Environment, Water and natural Resources
and Edward Mungai (middle), Kenya Climate
Innovation Center, Chief Executive Officer at
the Kenyan CIC launch in September 2012.
DFID’s funding will support the establishment of nine, individual CICs, and the co-ordination
and cross-learning of the growing CICs network, such that individual CICs are more
interconnected and efficient. Funding will also support evidence gathering and market analysis
of the global trends in climate technology innovation in developing countries, enabling national
CICs to respond to wider market and technology trends as well as promote potential synergies
with other developing country innovators and entrepreneurs. DFID’s support will decrease in
the latter two years of the programme, as more donors and investors come on board,
representing the UK’s role as a seed funder into this programme. It is also anticipated that
individual CICs will be self-sufficient after 10 years (predominantly using a revolving loan
mechanism, and through partnering with local governments, universities and the private
sector), with donor support being replaced with other sources of investment after 5 years.
The CICs support local economic growth at the SME level, as well as supporting employment
opportunities for women. Many of the locally designed products and services will also benefit
women and girls in their homes and daily activities (e.g. cooking, water collection or growing
food).
Why is UK support required?
1.29 billion people live on less than US$1.25 a day and lack access to basic services including
energy and water. A number of interconnected global and local challenges are likely to
exacerbate their situation further:
 natural resources are becoming more scarce and expensive;
 changing climate and weather patterns are threatening communities and livelihoods;
 population is growing, placing greater demands on the environment; and
 the recent volatility of the global economy, with some predicting more frequent shocks
and stresses.
In all the above, the poor generally suffer first and most.
To address these needs in the face of these challenges, locally-relevant solutions,
2
technologies and business models are needed. However this is an area of unmet need developing countries often have weak innovation “ecosystems” to facilitate and promote local
innovation. As a consequence, they are often passive recipients of technologies developed
elsewhere, which, if unsuitable for local conditions, fail to gain market acceptance and achieve
scale. Supporting local entrepreneurs and start-ups can help address this problem – providing
communities with access to services, such as energy and water, via context-specific and
sustainable technologies, while also supporting the creation of jobs and businesses, and the
development of a local market. The CIC can provide a physical base for SMEs to get technical
and business model assistance, as well as helping them access information about markets
and the latest national and international trends, offering small “proof of concept” grants (below
£50k), and loans to develop their product and business model, for example through
recruitment of skilled staff. Loans are repaid into a revolving pot, so that further loans can be
made to other SMEs. As such, the support provided by the CIC is categorised as technical
assistance.
However, developing country entrepreneurs and start-up businesses face many challenges,
including securing funding for early-stage R&D, access to technology testing facilities, skills to
develop a valid business proposal for investors, finding the right suppliers and partners, and
information on the latest trends nationally and internationally.
The Climate Technology Programme (CTP) has been designed to address an identified gap in
the market, where there is strong and growing demand. The programme was developed
initially by infoDev with DFID support to strengthen climate and environment-relevant
innovation in developing countries, through stand-alone national Climate Innovation
Centres (CICs). Centres are developed through locally-led consultations with stakeholders
(e.g. entrepreneurs, investors, donors, civil society, researchers, government) to identify
priority technologies, current barriers to scale-up and commercialisation, financing gaps and
opportunities for collaborations and partnerships among stakeholders. The first CIC was
launched in Kenya in September 2012 with a total of £9.5m support from DFID, Danida and
the World Bank. As of August 2013, the Kenyan CIC is supporting 54 clean technology
ventures with mentoring, training and proof-of-concept funding, from over 200 applications in
the following sectors: renewable energy, agribusiness and water and sanitation. Funding has
also been secured for a CIC in Ethiopia (£9m between UK and Norway) and in principle for
Vietnam (up to £8.8m between UK and Australia), while there are currently another 5 CICs at
different stages of development, with a total anticipated funding gap of over £40m to launch
and begin operations.
In its ten years of operation, infoDev has built a network of over 240 incubators in 93
countries, helping to establish up to 20,000 firms/entrepreneurs, 75% of which still exist three
years after leaving an infoDev incubator. The network gives infoDev access to a vast
community of innovative developing country technologists, entrepreneurs, financiers,
academics, governments and donors. They have demonstrated success in making similar
developing country innovation hubs viable and sustainable in the medium-long term, and in
supporting individual SMEs to successfully engage with the market, including helping with
links to local government.
This business case will contribute towards meeting this funding gap, with the UK a leading
contributor in the early years, with funding tapering off towards the end of the five year
programme as other donors and private investors crowd-in, and the successful SMEs pay
back their loans into the local revolving fund.
3
With a number of CICs now either operational, raising funds for implementation, or in early
scoping, the CTP aims to address a knowledge and capacity gap within the embryonic global
network of CICs by generating strong inter-linkages and cross-learning between each Centre.
At the heart of the programme is creating and proactively disseminating global public goods
across the network –and developing successful innovations and approaches across
continents. To achieve this the CTP will on a global level:
 assess, design and launch country-level demand for future CIC development and
establishment;
 connect individual CICs, and the entrepreneurs they support, to a global network of
suppliers, export markets, partners and experiences/best practices;
 support cross-Centre collaboration opportunities such as events, training and
exchanges;
 coordinate and disseminate lessons learnt from individual projects, as well as on
policies and strategies to support innovation; and
 provide comparative analysis, measurement and benchmarking of global climate
technology innovation trends including detailed performance evaluation of each CIC.
Through these activities, the CTP helps to maximise the opportunities for impact from the
individual CICs and the technologies and companies they support. In addition, the CTP will
provide crucial new evidence on best practice in supporting developing country
entrepreneurship including what works, what doesn’t and why. This will support more targeted
and responsive policy decisions that reflect real-world trends and lessons learned, and will
promote sustainable and sustained economic growth.
In January 2013, infoDev launched the CTP’s first five year business plan to address the
challenges as described above. Funding is needed to initiate the programme and start
realising the opportunities, capitalising on the momentum following the launch and
oversubscription for the Kenyan CIC.
In addition, our funding will enable new CICs to move from concept to reality, if and when they
meet key criteria including the potential development impact, government support, market
demand, lack of current service provision (etc.). Centres which will benefit from this funding, if
they meet these criteria, could include India, Ghana, Nepal, Tanzania, Nigeria, Bangladesh,
and Rwanda, among others.
The programme is in-line with UK, DFID and the UK’s International Climate Fund priorities on
creating and using new technologies, building knowledge and innovation through research and
development, influencing the architecture and delivery of climate finance by piloting new
innovative mechanisms, and promoting private sector investment in low carbon infrastructure
and service delivery. It builds on the UK’s comparative advantage in green technology, and by
providing technical assistance and financial support to entrepreneurs, we will raise the
capacity of countries to grow their own economies in a self-sufficient way and to trade on
global markets. DFID’s Secretary of State highlighted the opportunity of programmes to
support technology in a speech in October 2012 saying, “I want to make sure that DFID is at
the heart of this technology debate, and doing all it can to pioneer innovation and the use of
technology to improve development.”
What are the expected results?
The programme aims to build a global community of practice of entrepreneurs and innovators
4
providing clean, safe, reliable and sustainable access to energy, water and other natural
resources to poor communities in developing countries. The programme will support the
development and deployment of technologies and services by local players, creating jobs and
sustainable businesses, contributing to livelihoods and wealth creation.
The anticipated results from this programme by 2023 include1:
1. Support for up to 14,000 ‘green’ jobs and 590 businesses2, including at least 4,000
for women3
2. Improved energy access and reliability for households resulting in an additional
consumption of up to 200GWh of energy, which is equivalent to 180,000 people with
improved access to clean energy
3. 1.6 million people with improved access to clean water
4. Around 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (tCO2) reduced or avoided
5. A private sector leverage of 5 – for every £1 DFID spend, over £5 of private
investment is created to scale up the CIC-supported innovations and business models
6. A public sector leverage of 5 – stimulating significant additional funding raised from
the public sector to support the implementation of CICs (other donors, local
governments)
This will be achieved through4:
7. 9 new CICs established and launched to provide a country-driven approach to
supporting climate innovation (in 10 years the Centres are anticipated to be 100% selfsufficient, with donor support replaced by private investment, local government etc. by
year five).
8. Local capacity built through 9 new and 3 existing5 CICs deploying technical
assistance to innovators and SMEs, and facilitating partnerships, best practice and
technology support (web-enabled systems and software) through a globally linked
network.
9. Over 150 demand-led reports, market summaries, smart lessons and relevant
content produced to measure, disseminate and benchmark CIC activities, results
and achievements internationally to provide targeted evidence and data for policy
makers and private investors.
10. Over 120 domestic, regional and international events, exchanges, training
sessions, networking activities and policy dialogues to support CIC coordination
and facilitate improved south-south climate technology collaboration, business linkages
and market access.
1
Based on long-term programme projections: 10 year
There is a distinct lack of data available on green jobs in developing country markets. As such, job
numbers have been calculated using available data from Europe and the US. Data from this
programme will contribute directly to the lack of evidence in this area. Result targets will therefore be
revised on an annual review basis to reflect this.
3 Drawing on analysis from the Kenyan and Ethiopian CIC business plans, the programme will aim for
at least 30% of jobs created will be for women.
4 Based on programme funding duration: 5 years
5 The three existing CICs are those already receiving DFID country office funding in: Kenya
(alongside Denmark funding), Ethiopia (alongside Norway funding) and Vietnam (in final stages of
DFID approval and will be alongside Australia funding). Benefits to these CICs from the global
network and this business case have been calculated as a higher success rate for CIC-supported
companies in those countries, due to the additional benefits being in a network brings.
2
5
Business Case
Strategic Case
A. Context and need for a DFID intervention
What is the problem we are trying to address?
1.29 billion people live on less than US$1.25 a day6 and lack access to basic services including
energy, water and sanitation. Global and local challenges exacerbate the problem:
- resources are becoming more scarce and expensive7
- changes in the environment are threatening communities and livelihoods8
- population is growing9
- the global economy’s recent volatility, with the poor predicted to suffer from more frequent
shocks and stresses in the future10
In all the above, the poor generally suffer first and most. Women, in particular, are more vulnerable to
the above and yet have the fewest opportunities to engage productively in the economy.
The scale and urgency of this challenge means rapid and significant improvements in our
response is required. There is value in adding new, innovative tools to the way we help alleviate
poverty in the rapidly changing world. In particular, accelerating innovation in technologies and
business models will be essential to help reduce the current and long-term impacts of resource
scarcity, environmental change and to support economic growth. But developing countries have
relatively weak innovation systems and institutional capabilities to facilitate and promote innovation,
compared to most industrialised countries. As a consequence, countries are often passive recipients
of technologies developed elsewhere, which may be unsuited to local conditions and markets, and
limit countries’ ability to develop and improve their own innovative abilities11. The lack of locallyrelevant projects and private sector activity reduces opportunities for innovation through experiencebased learning12 – capabilities associated with learning by doing, using and interacting. These
capabilities are increasingly recognised as crucial to developing countries’ own capacity to
innovate13. Ultimately, there is significant unmet need for support for SMEs operating in this area,
and successful models for analogous sectors (such as ICT and agriculture) that we can draw on to
help address these problems.
This section sets out the need / demand for these services; the opportunities for developing
countries; and the market failures and other barriers which are currently preventing solutions to be
developed and deployed in the right way, in the right places at the right time.
Existing demand and gaps in climate innovation
An immediate need for developing countries is to build their own, local capacity to adapt and modify
6
The World Bank Development Research Group, Global Poverty Indicators 2010. Available at:
http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/home
7 Evans, A. & Evans, J. (2011) Resource Scarcity, Wellbeing and Development. NYU Center on International
Cooperation, New York and Centre for the History ofthe Emotions, Queen Mary University of London, London.
8 UNFCCC (2007) Climate Change: Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation in Developing Countries.
UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany.
9 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2011) World Population Prospects The 2010 Revision.
10 Farhad, M. (2011) The Global Economic Crisis, Contemporary Protectionism, and Least Developed
Countries (LDCs). World Trade Institute, Switzerland.
11 Sagar, A. & Bloomberg New Energy Finance (2010) Climate Innovation Centres: A new way to foster
climate technologies in the developing world? infoDev/World Bank, Washington, DC.
12 Jensen, M.B., Johnson, B., Lorenz E. and Lundvall, B-A. (2007) ‘Forms of knowledge and modes of
innovation’, Research Policy 36(5):680-93.
13 Marcotte, C. and Niosi, J. (2000) ‘Technology Transfer to China The Issues of Knowledge and Learning’,
Journal of Technology Transfer 25(1):43-57.
6
existing and widely available technologies (e.g. solar PV) and service delivery models (e.g. pay-asyou-go payment plans) to suit the requirements of their own, local markets. There is an abundance of
technologies suitable for use in developing countries, but often these need to be altered to suit local
weather conditions (e.g. amount of sunlight, wind, rainfall); local supply chains (e.g. types of
agricultural waste available); or local infrastructure (e.g. access to roads, telecommunication
networks). In addition, knowhow about customer behaviours, cultures and traditions is needed to
conduct the necessary modifications and successfully commercialise and market technologies and
services to consumers (e.g. using rural radio, partnering with trusted suppliers). Localised innovation
(both technology modification, and marketing and branding) as a complement to technology imports
is essential. Evidence suggests that these capabilities are crucial to a country’s development, and
can determine the rates and patterns of development and industrialisation14.
Developing countries suffer not only from an inadequate pipeline of relevant products or service
models to suit their needs, but also from markets incapable of exerting the kind of ‘pull’ that would be
needed to incentivise the private sector to enter these markets without additional support. This is
because developing country consumers are often too poor to have the collective purchasing power
that would stimulate such innovation.
Gaps in the evidence base – what works, what doesn’t
The evidence base, including analytical research on climate innovation is often only available in
industrialised economies. This body of knowledge in a developing country context, including practical
information for use by the private sector and SMEs, is often fragmented, limited and/or absent.
Moreover, the current information that is available on ‘green’ industries in developing countries often
lacks an empirical, firm-level evidence base. This programme will conduct research at the firm-level
to facilitate learning through data-driven analysis. To appropriately capture and disseminate this
research, the programme will package and share information from individual countries to the global
climate innovation community. In addition, there is a separate budget assigned to support an
independent evaluation at the end of the programme, which will be managed and commissioned by
DFID. This will help test the assumptions and processes that underpin the theory of change as
described in this business case – providing insight for other DFID programmes that support
developing country entrepreneurship.
Through a series of consultations, including in-country analysis in multiple DFID countries, the
following urgent needs for developing countries have been identified:
- Energy – modern energy services are crucial to human well-being and to a country’s
economic development. However, globally over 1.3 billion people are without access to
electricity and 2.6 billion people are without clean cooking facilities15. The launch of the UN’s
Sustainable Energy for All targets and goals for 203016 and the UN High Level Panel’s
proposed Sustainable Development Goal Number 7: Secure Sustainable Energy by 2030
(focusing on energy access, renewable energy and energy efficiency) provide an opportunity
to build on international interest and accelerate innovation and investment to address the
needs of the poor17. In addition, relative to the overall economy, the clean-tech economy
offers more opportunities and better pay for low- and middle-skilled workers18.
- Adaptation for changing environmental conditions – the world is already locked into a
14
Ockwell, D., Ely, A., Mallett, A., Johnson, O., Watson, J. (2009) Low Carbon Development: The Role of Local
Innovative Capabilities. STEPS Centre, University of Sussex, UK.
15 IEA (2012) World Energy Outlook 2012. International Energy Agency, France.
16
More information on the Sustainable Energy for All agenda can be found here:
http://www.sustainableenergyforall.org/.
17 UN High Level Panel (2013) A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies
through Sustainable Development. United Nations, New York.
18 Brookings Institution, Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment
7
-
-
changing environment due to past greenhouse gas emissions. Projected impacts of climate
change are severe19. Adaptation solutions are urgently needed in developing countries,
particularly areas already prone to erratic rainfall, droughts, floods and cyclones, as climate
change will further exacerbate on-going challenges. Private sector activity is particularly
limited in the development of adaptation solutions.
Water – there are likely to be about 800 million people with unimproved water supplies and
more than 2 billion lacking sanitation facilities by 2015 20. In addition, there is a growing
understanding of the links between water and climate – with energy needed for water
purification, pumping and transporting; and water-related climate impacts increasing the need
for adaptation.
Resource scarcity – as identified by the UN High Level Panel “people living in poverty suffer
first and worst from environmental disasters like droughts, floods and harvest failures, yet
every person on earth suffers without clean air, soil and water. If we don’t tackle the
environmental challenges confronting the world, we can make gains towards eradicating
poverty, but those gains may not last. The proposed Sustainable Development Goal Number
9 to: Manage Natural Resource Assets Sustainably attempts to focus international efforts on
this issue.
The opportunity
There are significant opportunities for developing countries to innovate and leapfrog the
developed world’s incumbent technologies, harnessing new technologies (e.g. mobile phone
payments) and markets in areas of comparative advantage (for example, bioenergy).
The fast increase in the use of mobile telephones across developing countries, even in the absence
of a fixed telephone infrastructure is an example – with people using mobile banking and social
networking, and completely bypassing older, more traditional banking or communication routes.
Across Africa, smartphones are outselling traditional computers by four to one21. In addition,
increasingly research indicates that many new, technological breakthroughs are likely to come from
the developing world to be transferred to developed economies through new reverse, disruptive and
open innovation approaches22.
The value to the whole of society from private investment in research and development (R&D) is
often much higher than the return to the private company itself. In a review of the economic benefits
of R&D spend, Salter and Martin (2001)23 describe social rates of return often above 50 per cent,
while private returns range between 20-50 per cent. The rates of return for developing countries are
likely to be even more significant given the already small amount of private R&D investment.
Economic rates of return were recently estimated in India to be above 100%24 for R&D in
development-focused environmental technologies.
Barriers to progress
However, innovative entrepreneurs and small-medium enterprises (SMEs) are held back by a range
of market failures, government failures and more general market barriers/risks described below.
These are present across local, national and international levels.
19
All from World Bank 2010 World Development Report - 1-2 billion more facing water shortages p.5 (citing
Parry and others 2007, table TS.3, p.66); more frequent and intense extreme events p.5.
20 Bradley, D. (2012) Water Security and Health Brief No. 3 Oxford University Department of Zoology, London
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
21 York, G. (2013) “The entrepreneurs of Africa’s Silicon Savannah”, The Globe and Mail. Available at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/african-and-mideast-business/theentrepreneurs-of-silicon-savannah/article14073645/?cmpid=rss1 [Accessed 03 September 2013].
22 Morey, J., Milford, L., Madeira, L., Stori, V. (2011) Moving Climate Innovation into the 21 st Century: Emerging
Lessons From other Sectors and Options for a New Climate Innovation Initiative. Clean Energy Group.
23 Salter, A.J., and Martin B.R. (2001) ‘The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical
review’, Research Policy 30:509-32.
24infoDev. (2010) India Climate Innovation Center Business Plan. The World Bank, USA.
8
Market failures:
- Information asymmetries: different players (SMEs, entrepreneurs, funders, consumers, etc.)
have access to different information e.g. about demand level, willingness to pay, real costs.
Information is not easily accessible and as a result some market players can use their
information asymmetries to increase profits.
-
Patron-Client issues: financial institutions (patron) do not have perfect information on
innovating companies (client) risk profiles. Companies in new areas find it difficult to signal
their risk profile and therefore financial institutions consider them riskier than they might be
and apply higher interest rates for loans.
-
Negative externality of climate change, pollution of natural resources (e.g. water quality) and
resource scarcity are not incorporated into private decision making and is also not included in
the private discount rate. Therefore the market is unlikely to deliver at the speed required to
avoid catastrophic changes in the climate and environment.
-
Positive externalities: innovation and education result in positive externalities for society and
therefore individuals and organisations tend to underinvest in these activities:
o As companies are unable to secure the return to their investment, they tend not to
invest in risky innovation.
o The underinvestment in education and training can act as a constraint to being able to
modify and adapt technologies for local conditions.
Government failures:
- Political intervention in the macro economy distorts the market and creates uncertainty of
longer term returns on investment.
-
Lack of strong institutions: this creates a number of issues:
o
o
o
o
Rent seeking – companies may invest effort in rent seeking rather than productive
activities if they feel that State institutions are too weak.
Capital constraints: underdeveloped financial institutions tend not to fund more risky
investments (e.g. innovation and R&D) and interest rates are often extremely high.
Contract liability: lack of strong legal institutions to enforce contracts makes it harder
for companies to work together and there is more potential for malpractice and
therefore greater uncertainty and higher risks for projects. This also means that
patents (intellectual property rights) are not as effective a solution to help capture the
positive externalities of innovation.
Long-term instability of government and its institutions means that the social discount
rate is relatively high. As a result positive and negative externalities to society will be
discounted heavily, so the social impact of climate change or education/innovation is
only considered in the short-term. This results in governments backing projects with a
faster return, possibly creating lock in to high carbon technologies.
Market barriers:
- Transaction costs: of turning innovation into commercial action and of interaction between
different market players.
-
Infant demand markets: therefore greater costs associated with bringing products to market
and for first movers.
-
Global economic environment: the price of import commodities are affected by global
activities, also cheap, and often unsustainable imported products can undercut locally
produced and locally suitable products.
-
Access to finance: Many new companies will not be able to gain access to finance or will face
high costs of capital as starting up a business is risky and many people lack the capital to
fund this stage.
-
Opportunity
cost
of
development:
The
time
9
lag
between
R&D
investment
and
commercialisation of the technology can result in insufficient/low commercial returns.
-
High discount rate: people tend to value positive outcomes now more than in the future, so
even if the market could deliver, it is unlikely to do so at the speed required to keep us under
2 degrees C.
A global network of Climate Innovation Centres (CICs)
This business case aims to address the market failures and barriers; evidence gaps; and many of the
government failures described above through a nascent World Bank Group programme – the Climate
Technology Programme (CTP). The CTP is a five year programme aimed to address the needs of
private sector innovators in developing countries by providing access to the latest technologies,
information, financing and expertise to participate in growing international ‘green’ technology
opportunities. Country-level Climate Innovation Centres (CICs) serve as crucial delivery hubs for
global activities coordinated by the CTP. In addition, the programme contributes to the currently weak
global evidence base on what works and what doesn’t in supporting local entrepreneurship, and
provide information on trends in developing country climate technologies. The DFID-funded
independent evaluation of this programme will be particularly valuable in contributing to the global
evidence base on climate entrepreneurs.
The concept of a ‘network of climate technology centres’ was presented by the Government of India
at the 2008 UNFCCC negotiations on the back of a report by the UK’s Carbon Trust25 and the Indian
Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi26 as a means of helping accelerate the global transition to a low
carbon, more resilient economy, with an emphasis on the opportunities in developing countries.
Since then, strong demand for new CICs from developing countries themselves, and a growing need
to build a strong support network for this nascent industry has led to the launch of a five year CTP
programme plan in January 2013. Evidence suggests that networks play a central role in
sustaining companies’ competitive advantages and industry vitality. Value is added through
sharing of lessons learnt, and opportunities to acquire external resources (notably through
collaboration). Learning from others, even if under alternative contexts can accelerate the process of
technology adaptation and innovation – as companies do not need to reinvent the wheel.
Technological interactions, in particular, have been found to lead to increases in social capital that
greatly improve the transfer of resources between networks and the amount of resources available 27.
As a complement to the top-down approaches to support technology transfer being discussed at the
UNFCCC climate negotiations; the UK and a growing number of like-minded donors (including
Norway, Denmark and Australia) have started funding the establishment of national CICs in Kenya,
Ethiopia and Vietnam to support the development and growth of local innovation capabilities and
businesses. infoDev (Information for Development) – a global partnership programme in the Financial
and Private Sector Development Network of the World Bank Group – has been leading the design
and implementation for these Centres since July 2009 through its Climate Technology Programme
(CTP). DFID also supported the UK’s Carbon Trust in 2009/10 to provide expert climate innovation
advice to infoDev for the first two pilot CICs (infoDev and the Carbon Trust now have an on-going
working relationship).
The Climate Technology Programme (CTP) utilises infoDev’s track record in supporting the private
sector in developing countries, particularly high-growth, small-medium enterprises. infoDev’s historic
experience is in the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) sectors of developing
25
The Carbon Trust, Grubb, M., Bremner, C., Omassoli, S. (2008) Low carbon technology innovation and
diffusion Centres, London: The Carbon Trust.
26 Sagar, A. (2008) Technology cooperation in the greenhouse, presented at Key Elements in Breaking the
Global Climate Change Deadlock meeting, Centre for Global Studies/OECD/Centre for International
Governance Innovation, Paris, March.
27 Lin, H-M., Chen, H., Sher, P. J., Mei, H-C. (2010) ‘Inter-network co-evolution reversing the fortunes of
declining industrial networks. Long Range Planning 43:611-638.
10
countries. Building on this knowledge and experience, infoDev has more recently begun supporting
innovation in agribusiness, and a targeted, women entrepreneurship programme28, alongside the
Climate Technology Programme – the focus of this business case. In ten years, infoDev has built a
network of over 240 incubators in 93 countries, which have helped establish up to 20,000
firms/entrepreneurs, 75% of which still exist three years after leaving an infoDev incubator29. This has
led to the creation of more than 220,000 jobs. The network gives infoDev access to a vast community
of technologists, entrepreneurs, financiers, academics, governments and donors. They focus on
enhanced business opportunities for small and medium enterprises, wealth generation, economic
inclusion, and job creation as tools for poverty reduction and sustainable growth of developing
countries. They therefore have a strong track record in this area of supporting SMEs via a model
which can become self-sustaining in a short period of time.
Climate Innovation Centres (CICs) seek to utilise this model to build local capacity and address
barriers to innovation in-country, by offering a tailored suite of financing and services that support
domestic entrepreneurs and small-medium enterprises (SMEs). By creating a national hub, CICs
encourage local networks and partnerships. The expectation is that this will lower prices for
consumers and improve market penetration of locally-relevant technologies, such as solar energy
and drip irrigation, increasing access to services for communities, while supporting sustainable job
and business creation.
The CICs are designed as locally owned and run
Ethiopia CIC Mission Statement
institutions that provide a suite of support services that
The Ethiopia Climate Innovation
address the specific needs of local innovators and
Centre
will provide a holistic set of
companies – illustrated in the box to the left which
early-stage
financing, business
describes the Ethiopian CIC’s Mission Statement. Over
support
and
capacity building
an eight-month process, a local adviser is hired to
services
to
the
Ethiopian private
undertake the core scoping activities – often a climate
sector, including women and rurally
technology entrepreneur themselves with an intimate
based entrepreneurs and business
understanding of the landscape in which entrepreneurs
owners, working to develop, launch
are faced with within their respective countries. The
and grow innovative climate
process begins with a mapping exercise of the relevant
technology ventures that promote
stakeholders identifying opportunities for partnerships
Ethiopia’s climate resilience and
and collaboration (including donor agencies, NGOs,
green growth.
etc.); important technologies for the country (e.g.
agriculture, water, energy efficiency, waste, etc.); and
financing opportunities that exist already (e.g. donor supported challenge funds) to determine any
gaps.
In-country stakeholders engaged during the scoping, design and implementation process include
R&D facilities; business incubators; industry representatives; SMEs; investors; NGOs; universities;
international institutions and local government representatives. The multidisciplinary group is integral
to the development of the CIC business plan, providing feedback and participating in stakeholder
workshops and individual consultations. The end result is a national CIC business plan that reflects
the needs of the country and is endorsed by a diverse group of principle stakeholders. Figure 1 below
illustrates the range of activities undertaken by an individual CIC.
28
More details on these can be found on their website: http://www.infodev.org/
This rate of success is much higher than SME success rates even in developed countries owing to the
complete and tailored package of support provided to the entrepreneurs/firms through the infoDev incubation
centres.
29
11
Figure 1: Activities to be undertaken by individual CICs
A recent DFID-supported study conducted by Bloomberg New Energy Finance analysed the existing
lack of capacity of such Centres around the world, and provided recommendations for common
functions CICs could perform30. 550 relevant organisations were analysed in 68 countries including
business incubators, seed funds, multilateral organisations and others. Of these, only 12% (67
centres) were found to support or facilitate some level of climate innovation, with just 5% (25
centres) dedicating more than half their effort to climate/environment technologies. The
majority of centres and organisations are focused on ICT or agriculture. Of the organisations that
were mostly climate/environment focused, less than half have operations in the developing world
(with very few of these focusing on solutions for poor people, but instead focus on industrial
technologies, such as more efficient manufacturing techniques). The report concludes that “while
there are up to 70 institutions globally that support climate innovation, their geographical distribution
is patchy, their technical focus biased towards mitigation rather than adaptation, and there are large
gaps in the services they provide compared with what is needed” (Sagar, NEF, 2010:12). The report
also recommends the development of a global CIC network, “CICs could be developed
individually, but there is much greater benefit in building a network of connected centres”.
The increasing request for support from developing countries (infoDev has received 14 individual
requests since 2010) illustrate that the country demand is there. In addition, the huge response to the
initial call for proposals by the Kenyan CIC (200 individual proposals from entrepreneurs, of which 54
are now being supported) illustrates that in-country demand from entrepreneurs also exists.
Green tech is increasingly seen as a major contributor to growth, worth about £3.3 trillion in 2010/11.
In the UK, low carbon and environmental goods and services (LCEGS) accounted for around 8%
GDP, with analysis suggesting it may have accounted for over a third of all UK growth in 2011/12 31.
As such, this is an area where the UK has an interest and experience, and where we can add value.
30
Sagar, A. & Bloomberg New Energy Finance (2010) Climate Innovation Centres: A new way to foster climate
technologies in the developing world? infoDev/World Bank, Washington, DC.
31 CBI (2012) The Colour of Growth: Maximising the Potential of Green Business. CBI, London.
http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/1552876/energy_climatechangerpt_web.pdf
12
The opportunities for developing countries to participate in this growing sector are strong, particularly
those with abundant renewable resources (e.g. wind, solar, geothermal). There are attractive
opportunities for joint ventures and collaborations between countries – including amongst innovative
UK businesses and developing country partners.
What next?
Building on experience and lessons learnt from supporting developing country entrepreneurs,
infoDev, working with donors, including DFID, have identified key criteria for successful
implementation of CICs. CIC business plans are in development in a number of countries which meet
these criteria. Two CICs have secured full funding to be implemented (Kenya and Ethiopia). Those in
later stages of development include Vietnam, India, Ghana and the Caribbean. These centres now
need to secure a mix of funding (local and international, public and private) to launch their five year
implementation programmes. Following the five year programme, donor funding is no longer deemed
necessary as Centres increasingly become self-sufficient, relying on returns on early investments in
good ideas, and a more diversified and predominately local funding inputs.
The CTP assesses and chooses to support those countries with the strongest evidence base and
business plan for a national CIC against the following criteria:
-
Clear need for intervention i.e. countries with clear environmental and developmental
vulnerabilities such as low energy access, low access to clean water, resource scarcity,
vulnerability to climate variations, etc.
-
Significant, direct impacts on the lives of poor people through access to services (e.g.
clean water and energy), increased livelihoods, and/or enhancement in local environment
conditions
-
Strong government buy-in e.g. government contribution – either financially or in-kind (e.g.
office space)
-
Demonstrated demand / pipeline of innovative entrepreneurs ready for support, with a
sufficient potential for success (i.e. potential for the entrepreneurs to repay loans)
-
Local ability to deliver on the ground quickly
-
Opportunities for spill-overs and lesson sharing within the region, South-South, etc.
-
Demonstration of good value-for-money from donor-funded technical assistance
-
Demonstrated potential for strong governance – especially from local partners to run the
CIC and work with local businesses and banks, and to secure good mix of funding (public and
private)
-
No existing service provision – i.e. needs to demonstrate a CIC would be truly additional in
the country, not just duplicating other activities
In September 2012, the first CIC was launched in Kenya with the support from the UK, DANIDA
and the World Bank. Already the Kenya CIC has secured £9.5m of funding from donors (£4m from
DFID-Kenya), is supporting 54 local entrepreneurs covering renewable energy, water and sanitation
and agribusiness. The Ethiopia CIC is due to launch in autumn 2013 with £9m of funding secured
(from the UK, Norway). We would expect that, depending on the type of country supported, there will
be a higher proportion of finance leveraged / private sector support for CICs developed in MICs,
rather than LICs or those in fragile states.
Three countries have already been assessed as meeting the criteria for implementation funding, and
have business plans in development (India, Vietnam and Ghana). They are strong contenders for
establishment of CICs, and now need the right mix of funding (local, public, private) to come together
to launch. infoDev will make the final assessment, based on this, as to which proposals demonstrate
strong value for money to receive funding from the centralised CTP and support their implementation.
It is highly likely that India will be the first on this list to receive funding and launch TA activities.
13
Significant interest has been received from other developing countries for local CICs, including
Tanzania, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Nigeria. However, these countries cannot
secure the necessary resources to evaluate the opportunity within their own country contexts, to
determine whether a CIC is the right solution, or to learn effectively from others (either through the
establishment of a CIC or through more disparate innovation support). This programme will be able
to support this assessment, but may not fund the actual CICs if other donors/investors can be
secured.
As the demand for new, national CICs increases there are compelling opportunities at the global
level to build and strengthen linkages between individual CICs across countries – facilitating
knowledge sharing; lesson learning; access to global market analysis and information – while
building the evidence and database on what works, what doesn’t and why. Through the CTP, the
global CIC network could provide:
-
Support for new CICs in priority countries that meet the criteria described above.
-
Evidence-based analysis of activities across all current CICs providing toolkits for climate
entrepreneurs, investors and governments, including those that do not have access to a CIC.
-
Connecting CICs through standardised approaches including web-based tools and
regional and international networking opportunities for CIC-supported companies.
-
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) benchmarking and capacity building to strengthen
M&E processes in CIC countries.
This investment to increase the capacity and results delivery of each CIC also sets the framework for
Centre’s to become self-financing and for new CICs to be established with less donor/concessional
finance in the future.
Fit with other innovation programmes
This business case aims to address the gap in resources to support such a network by providing
dedicated funding to the growing Climate Innovation Centre network through the Climate Technology
Programme (CTP), established and managed by infoDev. It is one of a suite of DFID-funded
programmes that support climate technology innovation in developing countries. Each programme
focuses on different financing and capacity gaps (or ‘valleys of death’) along the innovation chain
(illustrated in Figure 2 below). Programmes under this package support national priorities and local
needs; promote global collaboration between developing and developed country stakeholders; as
well as supporting the enabling environments needed to foster innovation.
14
Figure 2: The technology innovation chain or process
Technology
Prizes
Business
model prizes
National Climate Innovation
Centres
Results-based financing
Early-stage fund for SMEs and
entrepreneurs
REACT challenge
fund
Climate innovation research
Source: Sagar A (2011)32
Given the riskiness associated with supporting innovation, an effective response to the uncertainty of
returns is to develop a portfolio or menu of approaches and of technologies/ideas to reduce the
impact of individual failures33. As such, DFID is working on the following programmes as part of our
innovation package. These programmes are deliberately focused on entrepreneurs and smallmedium sized enterprises (SMEs), rather than large multinationals and large infrastructure projects,
which face different barriers along the technology chain – notably at the later commercialisation
phase. Here there are issues of securing large-scale finance (particularly in underdeveloped markets
with risk-averse banks)34. Large multilateral development bank (MDB) investments are on the far
right of the diagram. The key support packages the UK currently have to support SMEs (the left and
middle of Figure 2) are:
-
-
-
Low carbon results-based financing: a programme to support deployment of existing
renewable energy products and technologies by providing a cash payment to the project
developer when they achieve results (e.g. x solar lanterns sold; y new households connected
to a renewable mini-grid). The cash payment tapers off each year until the project is earning
revenues and is sustainable without the extra support.
Renewable Energy and Adaptation to Climate Technologies (REACT) challenge fund: the
programme provides matched-funding to small-medium enterprises in certain African
countries to support expansion of their current businesses.
Early-stage flexible fund (in design): flexible finance to support early-stage entrepreneurs and
SMEs to develop and test their business models. The fund will support various climate
32
Menon, J., Sagar, A. (2012) Prize-Driven Innovation for Development. X PRIZE Foundation report
commissioned by DFID. Available at:
http://teamsite/sites/policydivision/srvm/lowcarbon/Renewable%20Energy%20Technology/Prize%20Driven%20
Innovation%20for%20Development.pdf
33 Stern, N. (2006) The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
34 The UK Government (DFID and DECC) are currently working on Programmes that try to overcome these
barriers through various instruments, including information (through a web-based index that ranks countries on
their climate-investor friendliness – ClimateScope) and innovative financing (such as quasi-equity for green
energy projects in Africa – Green Africa Power).
15
-
-
-
technologies in a range of countries and aims to build these enterprises to a position in which
they are attractive to private investors, such as venture capitalists.
Climate innovation research: commissioning a series of key questions on innovation and
deployment of climate technologies – why has it worked in some context and not others; what
are the social, cultural and institutional issues; how do we measure innovation in the informal
sector; etc.
Innovation prizes – for technology and business models – using innovation or incentive prizes
to incentivise private sector R&D into solving environmental problems for poor people in
developing countries.
A global network of national Climate Innovation Centres (in yellow box): the focus of this
business case.
The CTP is both additional and complementary providing a dedicated space for interested players
(entrepreneurs, multinationals, investors, governments) to network and gain information about the
current state of climate technology development and trends, both globally and locally – including
opportunities for funding through alternative donor funded programmes such as the UK-supported
Climate Development Knowledge Network (CDKN). For example, the recently launched Kenyan CIC
is collaborating and coordinating with the UK-funded African Enterprise Challenge Fund on sourcing
deal-flow and is partnering with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) to create
streamlined approaches to IPR for green technologies in Kenya. Systematising opportunities to
collaborate with global networks and organisations for individual CICs supports efficiency and value
for money.
Based in previous experience of early-stage SME networks in developing countries (through
infoDev’s incubator network), it is envisaged that in the long-term, much of the CIC network will
become self-sustained from funding at local and regional levels. Reflecting infoDev’s 10 years
knowledge of incubation centres in developing countries, each CIC is designed to be financially
sustainable over the long term with revenues covering as much as 70% after 7 years, and fully selfsufficient in 10 years. Donors are expected to exit as major funders of individual CICs after the first
five years, with investment income and operational revenue from royalties, fees and sponsorships
subsidising a majority of the ongoing cost of the programme. Further support to supplement the
entire costs of the CIC will be sought from local governments and stakeholders in the long term.
Why the UK?
The UK is recognised as a thought leader in climate technology innovation, through our support
domestically for innovation (notably through the UK’s Carbon Trust) and our international efforts in
pushing the climate technology negotiations to deliver more for developing countries. In addition, we
are one of the few countries working on practical options for supporting developing country
innovation capacity. DFID has been instrumental in establishing the Climate Technology Programme
with infoDev with a small amount of initial funding (under £1m). This initial funding from DFID-London
has secured a further £8.85m of funding from DFID country offices (for the individual Kenyan and
Ethiopian Centres – all of this funding is from the UK’s International Climate Fund), £16.5m from
other donors, including Danida, AusAid, Norway and the World Bank, and to £2m from the
Government of India to establish an Indian CIC (the Indian CIC requires additional sources of funding
to launch).
However, the CIC concept is still at an early stage of deployment, with only a few countries able to
secure the finance needed (often up to £10m over five years) to implement a national CIC. Given the
UK’s low carbon and innovation expertise, we have an opportunity to be a leading contributor to the
growth and effectiveness of the emerging/nascent CIC network and promote the sharing of
lessons globally through the Climate Technology Programme. We expect our involvement in this
project will leverage other donors support.
16
Supporting UK and DFID priorities
This programme will contribute towards DFID’s overall aim to support economic growth and improve
lives of women and girls. In addition, the programme will directly support the following DFID results:
-
DFID’s Structural Reform Plan target, specifically: Support climate technology innovation
centres in at least two countries
-
Potential new MDGs (as recommended by the High-Level Panel in May 2013), including:
o Goal 7: Secure sustainable energy
 Ensure universal access to modern energy services
 Double the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix
 Double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency in buildings,
industry, agriculture and transport
o Goal 9: Manage natural resource assets sustainably
 Reduce deforestation and increase reforestation
 Improve soil quality, reduce soil erosion and combat desertification
o Goal 5: Ensure food security and good nutrition
 Increase agricultural productivity with a focus on sustainably increasing
smallholder yields and access to irrigation
 Reduce postharvest loss and food waste
o Goal 8: Create jobs, sustainable livelihoods, and equitable growth
 Increase new start-ups and value added from new products through creating
an enabling business environment and boosting entrepreneurship
-
DFID’s Results Framework, particularly the indicator: Number of people with improved access
to clean energy as a result of DFID funding
-
UK’s International Climate Fund objectives, including: driving innovation and new ideas for
action, and creating new partnerships with the private sector; and demonstrating the viability
of new, transformational approaches to achieve low carbon development.
The consequences of not intervening
Without the UK’s intervention, the Climate Technology Programme is unlikely to secure the funding
required to achieve real scale and impact. It is likely that a limited number of countries will be able to
secure the funding required to undertake the scoping work around CIC opportunities. As such, there
will be a lack of investment in ‘green’ solutions that meet the needs and requirements of local, low
income consumers. Given the uncertainty of returns, it is unlikely the local and international private
sector will take the necessary risks to invest (as a first mover) in innovation for low income
consumers, who will continue to be unable to access clean energy and climate-resilient products and
services. At the more macro-level this would result in fewer opportunities for economic growth and
private sector activity.
Opportunities for small businesses and entrepreneurs to develop their ideas into marketable
businesses and sustainable jobs will be restricted, given the limited access to context-relevant
information, training and support. Without the support of the growing network, there will be missed
opportunities for lesson learning, knowledge sharing, spill-over effects, and collaborations including
South-South and South-North. This could limit the success of the CICs themselves, as regional and
international networking and lesson learning events will not be supported.
Global data collection and analysis of the trends from the different CICs will not be collected and
disseminated. This would limit the amount of robust evidence available on innovation activity in
developing countries, resulting in less effective policy and investment decisions made.
B. Impact and Outcome that we expect to achieve
The programme aims to build a global community of practice of entrepreneurs and innovators
17
providing clean, safe, reliable and sustainable access to energy, water and other natural resources to
poor communities in developing countries. The programme will support the development and
deployment of technologies and services by local players, creating jobs and sustainable businesses,
contributing to livelihoods and wealth creation.
The anticipated outcomes from this programme by 2023 include35:
1. Support for up to 14,000 ‘green’ jobs and 590 businesses36, including at least 4,000 for
women37
2. Improved energy access and reliability for households resulting in an additional consumption
of up to 200GWh of clean energy, which is equivalent to 180,000 people with improved
access to clean energy
3. Around 1.6 million people with improved access to clean water
4. Around 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (tCO2) reduced or avoided
5. A private sector leverage of 5 – for every £1 DFID spend, over £5 of private investment is
created to scale up the CIC-supported innovations and business models
6. A public sector leverage of 5 – stimulating significant additional funding raised from the
public sector to support the implementation of CICs (other donors, local governments)
This will be achieved through38:
1. 9 new CICs established and launched to provide a country-driven approach to supporting
climate innovation
2. Local capacity built through 9 new and 3 existing39 CICs deploying technical assistance to
innovators and SMEs, and facilitating partnerships, best practice and technology support
(web-enabled systems and software) through a globally linked network.
3. Over 150 demand-led reports, market summaries, lesson learning documents, and
relevant content produced to measure, disseminate and benchmark CIC activities,
results and achievements internationally to provide targeted evidence and data for policy
makers and private investors.
4. Over 120 domestic, regional and international events, exchanges, training sessions,
networking activities and policy dialogues to support CIC coordination and facilitate
improved south-south climate technology collaboration, business linkages and market access.
35
Based on long-term programme projections: 10 year
There is a distinct lack of data available on green jobs in developing country markets. As such, job numbers
have been calculated using available data from Europe and the US. Data from this programme will contribute
directly to the lack of evidence in this area. Result targets will therefore be revised on an annual review basis to
reflect this.
37 Drawing on analysis from the Kenyan and Ethiopian CIC business plans, the programme will aim for at least
30% of jobs created will be for women.
38 Based on programme funding duration: 5 years
39 The three existing CICs are those already receiving DFID country office funding in: Kenya (alongside
Denmark funding), Ethiopia (alongside Norway funding) and Vietnam (in final stages of DFID approval and will
be alongside Australia funding). Benefits to these CICs from the global network and this business case have
been calculated as a higher success rate for CIC-supported companies in those countries, due to the additional
benefits being in a network brings.
36
18
Appraisal Case
A. What are the feasible options that address the need set out in the Strategic case?
There are four feasible options available:
0. Do nothing – counterfactual
1. Provide funding for individual Climate Innovation Centres that meet critical criteria, on a
country-by-country basis
2. Provide funding for individual Climate Innovation Centres that meet critical criteria, as well as
provide support to a global platform to support coordination and networking between Centres
(preferred option)
3. Provide funding for the global coordination and networking platform only
Option 0: Do nothing (counterfactual)
This would involve no funding from DFID-London to the Climate Technology Programme or
potentially to new Climate Innovation Centres. However, staff time could be required to provide
internal coordination and lesson sharing amongst DFID staff in countries where a CIC is established
(e.g. at this stage, Kenya and Ethiopia). It is estimated that this would be equivalent of 0.05 FTE
A2(L) Climate and Environment Adviser time.
Internal coordination will be limited to countries with DFID offices that are supporting the
implementation of a national CIC. Given the limited reach, there is a risk that DFID-supported CICs
are not effectively linked into a wider network, or to other programmes within the region and
internationally. Without central coordination that includes all CICs, their own individual effectiveness
may be limited, as regional and international networking and lesson learning events will not be
supported. There will be missed opportunities for lesson learning and collaborations across different
countries, including South-South and South-North. There is a legitimate opportunity cost that the
Centres will not be more than the sum of their parts.
In addition, global data collection and analysis on the trends from the different CICs, risks not
including the full portfolio, as DFID will analyse DFID-supported Centres only, while other Centres
may or may not be analysed via alternative sources. This could result in inconsistent and inadequate
evidence, leading to ineffective policy and investment decisions being made. The DFID-supported
independent evaluation would also not go ahead, limiting the ability to learn and share lessons to a
global audience from the programme.
The following three options refer to alternative approaches for the UK to channel support to the
Climate Technology Programme, run by infoDev.
The Climate Technology Programme (CTP) was established in 2009 with £685,000 support from
DFID. The initial aim was to pilot the concept of Climate Innovation Centres in a number of
developing countries, beginning with India and Kenya (chosen for their ability to meet set criteria
described in the Strategic Case), through an in-country stakeholder-led process. infoDev established
a new dedicated multidonor Trust Fund – the Climate Innovation Trust Fund – as a channel to
support the increasing demand for CIC work. Technical oversight, project management and
monitoring and evaluation for the CTP is conducted by infoDev, which in addition to working with
external and local partners, coordinates activities with relevant local World Bank and International
Finance Corporation (IFC) offices to draw on in-country knowledge and link with complementary
projects and investments where appropriate.
To date, the following work has been undertaken on individual CICs:
 Kenya launched in September 2012, operational and running major programmes, 200
applications, 54 companies under contract.
19








Ethiopia launching in November/December 2013, Proof of Concept competition on-going, 183
applications received.
India undergone scoping work and meets key criteria, including securing funding from
Government of India of £2m. The CTP is now looking to draw in additional public/donor
finance. India is likely to be the first recipient of funding from the CTP Trust Fund.
Vietnam undergone scoping work and meets key criteria, competitive selection of CIC host/s
in September 2013, finalising public/donor support (DFID-Vietnam is exploring options to fund
the first three years through a partnership with AusAID), aim to launch in May 2014.
Ghana feasibility and business planning in progress, full business plan due January 2014.
Caribbean to begin operations in July, launch in late 2013.
Morocco under development, soft launch in early 2014 with funding from the World Bank.
South Africa began operations in late 2012, no further finance required to implement, soft
launch with support from RSA government.
Tanzania, Rwanda, Nepal, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Pakistan have all registered interest in
undertaking scoping work in their own countries, but are struggling to finance this work.
DFID’s funding for the CTP global program will largely benefit DFID and ICF priority countries –
guided by DFID’s participation in the CTP Steering Committee. For CIC design, implementation and
networking activities, the CTP, in collaboration with DFID, will implement guidelines and criteria for
the selection of countries for support and funding. This will ensure countries benefiting from CTP
activities will be aligned with the mutual goals and priorities of the CTP and DFID. Such countries will
likely include fragile focus countries such as Nepal, Rwanda, Nigeria and Bangladesh, and other
DFID focus countries such as Tanzania, Ghana, Pakistan and India.
Having a variety of developing country CICs represented in the global CIC network will add significant
value in terms of South-South learning, knowledge spill-overs, and technology co-operation and
transfer. Middle-income economies will have relevant lessons for low-income economies, which can
be shared via the global platform. Middle-income countries will generally require less support from
infoDev, as they will likely raise more diversified funding from local partners, notably government, and
private sector partners. As such, DFID leverage from funding these activities will be higher than in
lower-income countries, where diversified funding sources will be limited and donor support is more
critical.
Given India’s importance as a regional hub for human talent, bottom-of-the-pyramid technology
expertise, low-cost manufacturing and entrepreneurial capacity, CTP activities, including the
establishment of a CIC, will have important knowledge transfer and spill-over effects for innovation
and entrepreneurial activities in the region and across the wider network. As a result, it is anticipated
that no more than £5m may be allocated to the establishment of the Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Unit in India – this has been reduced from an original proposed contribution of £8.5m. More details of
the estimated value of an Indian CIC to the wider network is available at Annex 4.
Other middle income countries may also be beneficiaries of CTP support (under £500,000 or 3% of
DFID funding) given their emerging skills and innovation in technologies relevant to low income
countries, such as solar power. However, middle-income countries will generally require less support
from infoDev, as they will likely raise more diversified funding from local partners, notably
government, and private sector partners. Therefore, funding to MICs would represent only a small
portion of the CTP’s portfolio of activities and would only target countries where significant learning
and benefit would be achieved for the broader CIC network and where criteria are met, including
development needs. It is anticipated, that a vast majority of the funding (90% +) will benefit countries
that are both priorities for DFID and ICF and these will be approved by CTP Steering Committee,
which includes DFID representative.
The CTP’s activities and on-going workplan include :
20
1. Scoping and implementation of new Climate Innovation Centres with local partners where
a Centre is determined to add value and meets all the necessary criteria. Funding will be used
to both establish and run the individual CICs for the first five years, as well as support CIC
activities:

Financing: R&D grants to test innovative ideas, design and prototype new
technologies; and returnable loans for more promising/advanced ideas that need extra
support to develop and deploy the innovative product (e.g. funding for project
development and human capital). The loan funds will return to the CIC to help support
its long-term sustainability.

Training and mentoring: business training, mentoring, access to professional services;
technical training and skills development; education, seminars and events.

Links to government/policy: research on sector policy trends and best practice;
engagement with government on SME policy issues; policy dialogues, roundtables and
events.

Market intelligence research: access to databases on technologies, standards and
suppliers; information on markets, competitors, potential partners; and research,
reports and analytics on sector trends.

Provision of technological and office facilities: office space and services for
entrepreneurs and start-ups; and access to technical facilities to test and demonstrate
products (e.g. university laboratories).
2. Coordination and management the growing CIC network to enhance the effectiveness of
individual CICs and global public good research and analytical outputs. The programme will
do this through three global-focused workstreams:

Evidence-based analysis: on the state of green technology innovation in developing
countries, pulling together lessons learned from the individual CICs and providing
toolkits for CICs to improve their services

Connecting markets: facilitating connections between individual CICs and the
entrepreneurs they support, including through the establishment of regional networks
in, for example, East Africa, North Africa, and the Caribbean

Measuring results and monitoring impact: for the CIC network as a whole, and support
CICs to do this in a streamlined manner, building on lessons learnt from across the
network
Option 1: Provide funding for individual Climate Innovation Centres on a country-by-country
basis
Under this option, DFID would provide around £12m to fund the implementation of up to 9 individual
CICs (i.e. only activity 1 in the list above) on a case-by-case basis if they meet the criteria described
in the Strategic Case. This would require DFID staff to draft and seek approval for individual business
cases for each CIC, as and when they are ready to fund. Additional support from other donors, MDBs
or investors would need to be secured by infoDev in order to undertake the global aspects of the
programme and if successful these benefits will not be attributed to DFID.
Option 2: Provide funding for individual Climate Innovation Centres and the global platform to
support coordination and networking between Centres
Under this option, DFID would provide £18m to fund the implementation of up to 9 individual CICs (if
they meet the criteria), as well as support the coordination of the growing CIC network through other
CTP activities (i.e. both activities 1 and 2 above). Funding would be covered by this one business
case, with CICs being funded based on their ability to meet the key criteria. Under this option,
21
network and coordination support would be provided to 3 existing CICs in addition to the 9 new
Centres. This enhanced network capacity would help increase the success of each individual CIC and
therefore result in better performance of CIC-supported entrepreneurs and technologies (resulting in
improved outcomes for the program). DFID would be represented on the CTP Steering Committee
and would take part in annual committee meetings to monitor performance and costs. Additional
funding would need to be secured by others in order to optimise the outputs and outcomes from the
programme. It is anticipated that two other anchor donors will join the UK in this programme.
Option 3: Provide funding for the global coordination and networking platform only
Under this option, DFID would provide around £5.5m to fund the networking elements of the global
programme only (i.e. only activity 2). This option assumes that other donors and investors will fund
the implementation of CICs. However, other donors are unlikely to be willing to fund all 9 CICs without
a DFID contribution, so we have assumed that only 4 CICs receive funding under this option,
diminishing the value add of the global coordination and networking platform and associated
activities.
Other options considered and not appraised
Initially, we explored options including DFID running the entire programme itself, or single-sourcing
alternative organisations to run parts of the programme. On the whole, a lack of capacity and
expertise, and higher risks associated with alternative options and delivery partners led to these not
being included in the appraisal analysis, particularly given the risks associated with meeting the
programme’s intended impact and timeframe.
B. Assessing the strength of the evidence base for each feasible option including delivery
routes
The table below rates the quality of evidence on whether each of the option would meet their intended
impact.
Option
1
Evidence rating
Medium – the CIC concept is new and needs to be tailor-made for each country, with
two having successfully securing funding for implementation thus far. Early analysis
from Kenya illustrates a high level of demand for CIC services in-country. In addition,
infoDev has a strong track record in other sectors in establishing
innovation/incubation hubs for SMEs in developing countries.
2
Medium – while the CIC concept is new, it is generally accepted in innovation theory
that well connected and linked ‘centres of excellence’ can boost spill-over effects,
knowledge sharing and collaborations. infoDev has a strong track record of building
and maintaining networks across innovation centres in developing countries.
3
Limited – it is unclear whether other donors would support many individual CICs
without DFID’s demonstrative support and leadership in the programme (i.e. if DFID
were to restrict the total funding and only fund network activities).
C. For each feasible option, what is the assessment of local capacity? Is the intervention likely
to strengthen capacity in a durable manner?
Options 1 and 2 are strongly expected to strengthen local capacity, as this is the core mission of the
national Climate Innovation Centres. The initial CIC scoping work is essentially, an assessment on
local capacity – both of entrepreneurs needing support, and of the array of organisations that could
potentially run and manage a CIC. In some cases, capacity will be so weak that the establishment of
a CIC is unlikely to result in a positive net benefit in the medium term (i.e. in 10 years). In other cases
where capacity exists but needs to be supported or arranged effectively, the CIC business plan will be
built with local stakeholders to achieve this goal.
The ability to directly strengthen local capacity is weakened under Option 3, as this relies on there
22
being a global CIC network (beyond the two centres already established).
D. 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
0
1
2
3
Climate change and environment risks Climate
change
and
environment
and impacts, Category (A, B, C, D)
opportunities, Category (A, B, C, D)
B
C
B
A
B
A
B
B
On the basis of the evidence provided in this business case, it can be assumed that none of the
options proposed would generate any unmanageable risks associated with the environmental impact
of the programme, or its effects on global climate.
Option 0 (the counterfactual – do nothing option) would generate medium risks to the environment or
climate change as it would lead to no additional funding to support context-specific innovation in
green technologies. This represents a missed opportunity for the development and deployment of
green technologies that support people’s ability to cope with changing environmental conditions.
People will continue to use older technologies, such as kerosene for lighting, resulting in indoor air
pollution, CO2 emissions, and respiratory problems. This option would also result in low opportunities
to support environmental management or mitigate/adapt to climate change.
Opportunities
There are strong positive opportunities associated with options 1 and 2, in particular, as these options
are focused on supporting innovative technologies and business models that support mitigation,
adaptation and natural resource management – supporting countries to leapfrog old, dirty
technologies and fuels for cleaner, safer and more resilient alternatives. An essential criterion that
projects will be assessed on is how effectively they address local climate and environment problems.
Unlike option 1, option 2 leverages strong coordination, M&E, and dissemination abilities of the World
Bank reducing the transaction/administration costs of these elements for individual Centres. This
enables individual CICs to spend more resources on supporting the innovative technologies and
businesses, rather than build their own M&E systems and attempt to disseminate and share lessons
with other Centres. These opportunities are strengthened most by the combination of the individual
CICs and the global network.
Option 3 is associated with medium opportunities, as funding will not go directly to supporting
entrepreneurs and technologies, but to the ‘networking’ element of the programme.
Risks
There are some risks associated with options 1 and 2 and the projects they support which could have
direct or indirect impacts on the environment and/or future climate. For example, the development of
a new way of storing household energy through batteries may have negative impacts for other
resources (e.g. water). As such, all projects supported should undergo an appropriate environmental
impact assessment identifying activities to mitigate, manage and monitor negative impacts and boost
positive impacts. Projects will need to adhere by World Bank and ICF environmental safeguards and
standards as a minimum.
Risks to the environment and climate change have been categorised as medium, given the potential
need for international travel for workshops and events, and to produce outputs (research reports,
market analysis, etc. - both soft and hard copies). The programme should intend to use, where
23
possible, in-country experts and delivery agents to limit the need for international flights.
Recommendations to minimise operational impacts of the programme include:



Reducing the need to travel by using locally based staff, coordinating regional events in
central locations for participants, and using teleconference / videoconference facilities for
national/international meetings, where appropriate.
If flights are required, ensure individuals travel in economy class and consider offsetting flights
with through a verifiable carbon offset project40. Business class travel will also have a negative
impact on the value for money of the programme.
Reduce the carbon footprint of the outputs through, for example, use of online
communications, recycled paper, and minimising printing and printing waste.
E. If any, what are the likely major impacts on social development?
There is significant potential for impact on social development, notably gender, youth empowerment,
health, education and security, both directly through targeted projects, as well as indirectly through
the technologies and business models supported under the programme.
Most directly, the programme (notably through national CICs) will have direct positive impacts on
gender and youth through targeted projects that support these groups. infoDev have strong skills in
this area, with a dedicated international programme for women entrepreneurs. In addition, many of
the participants of infoDev’s ICT hubs across developing countries are young innovators. Data on
jobs created as a result of the programme will be collected and disaggregated by gender and age.
In addition, the programme will indirectly support social development through the technologies and
innovations it supports, such as clean energy alternatives and water purification. Evidence suggests
that women and girls are often responsible for the energy and water needs of the household, and
therefore access to cleaner alternatives can result in health and economic empowerment
improvements – e. g. decreased smoke inhalation from cooking on open fires and kerosene lamps,
and the time spent collecting water and fuelwood. In addition, access to reliable energy can support
education outcomes – as children are able to study beyond daylight hours with a clean alternative to
kerosene lamps. Decentralised energy may also have impacts on safety and violence against women
and girls (VAWG), with energy available for street lighting and less need to travel away from the
home to collect fuel. Specific research under this programme, drawing on some of the large data sets
being collected by partners, will be supported to identify and monitor their impacts on social
development. Research that uses these data sets will be required to adhere to data protection and
ethical guidance.
As the implementation agency, infoDev strictly follows World Bank procurement guidelines and
procedures and therefore is supported by robust risk mitigation procedures and safeguards. All
contracting and grant processes following procurement and financial management assessments to
minimise risk of corruption and unanticipated negative impacts. In the case of large contracts and
grants, recipients will be subject to safeguard triggers which include assessments of the following:
 Natural habitats
 Involuntary resettlement
 Forests
 Safety of dams
 Pest management
 International waterways
 Physical cultural resources
 Disputed areas
 Indigenous peoples
 Child labour
40
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
F. For fragile and conflict affected countries, what are the likely major impacts on conflict and
fragility, if any?
Some DFID priority fragile and conflict affected countries have already expressed interest with
infoDev in the opportunities for establishing their own CIC – including Nigeria and Pakistan. These
will be assessed by the necessary criteria, described in the Strategic Case, alongside other countries.
Even where a CIC does not exist in a fragile or conflict affected country, entrepreneurs from these
countries may benefit from the toolkits, market data and analysis, and connection and networking
opportunities available through the programme. In addition, some of the technologies and solutions
supported could be tested and/or well suited to use in fragile or conflict states (e.g. radios,
communication, lighting, etc. for displaced people). These could reduce vulnerability in these
circumstances (e.g. reducing risks for women and girls linked to collecting fuelwood in
dangerous/conflict environments) and help to further enable the private sector to act as the scaling
delivery agents in fragile states. The networking element of the programme will play a valuable in the
sharing of these lessons and providing opportunities for collaborations.
G. What are the costs and benefits of each feasible option? Identify the preferred option.
Below is an excerpt from the full economic appraisal, attached as Annex 1. The appraisal draws on
the findings from infoDev modelling suggesting the likely revenue impacts of the CTP. It follows the
DFID recommended outline for economic appraisal reporting and the draft economic appraisal
guidance for interventions with a climate impact, and uses cost benefit analysis to assess the net
benefits. Sensitivity analysis was also undertaken to test the robustness of the results derived.
Impact Modelling
infoDev’s Climate Technology Programme (CTP) has used the analytical models of the Climate
Innovation Centres (CICs) in Kenya, Ethiopia, India, South Africa and Vietnam to determine the
expected revenue impacts of expanding the global CIC network over ten years. The expected
revenue impact model follows a logical rationale.
Around 60% of DFID’s support will be deployed alongside other donors and contributors (e.g. local
government, private sector) to ‘seed’ fund the feasibility, design and development of 9 new CICs.
Funding will be used both to establish and run the CIC itself for the first five years, as well as support
the CIC activities (award proof of concept grants and seed investment loans to entrepreneurs, provide
business and technical assistance, collate and disseminate local market data, etc.).
The remaining DFID funding will support broader CIC collaboration including building the networking
capacity for 3 existing CICs (Kenya, Ethiopia and Vietnam) and establishing a global platform,
including workstreams focused on connecting the full 12 CICs to each other and to other partners
(e.g. global private investors), and streamlining, monitoring and reporting on the CIC M&E results.
For the purpose of this economic appraisal, only revenues from those projects that receive seed
investments/returnable loans has been monetised and analysed. The appraisal does not take credit
for those entrepreneurs or SMEs that receive R&D grants – given the relative small size (1%) and
riskiness associated with these grants. To account for the value in ‘networking’ amongst the CICsupported entrepreneurs, the model assumes different levels of success for companies depending on
whether the CICs are part of a global network (see Table 1 below). However, it is likely that this does
not account fully for the benefits of the global platform, as the outputs associated with this are likely to
have global public good properties (e.g. evidence on what works and what doesn’t in supporting
green innovation in developing countries). These have been described in the relevant section below,
and will be reviewed at annual reviews and evaluations to help build evidence on the economic
benefits of such activities.
Table 1: Company success probabilities depending on whether the CICs are globally coordinated
Company success probabilities
Option 1: CICs without
25
Option 2: CICs with
global platform
global platform
Fail
25%
20%
Low Growth
25%
20%
Modest Growth
20%
20%
Medium Growth
15%
15%
High growth
10%
15%
Very High Growth
5%
10%
100%
100%
Totals
Under Option 1 the analysis assumes lower company success probabilities, with 50% of firms
predicted to fail at proof of concept phase, whilst Option 2 assumes only 40% of firms will have failed.
This assumption has been made to recognise the value add of being part of a coordinated network –
i.e. the sharing of lessons across Centres and the entrepreneurs they support, such that
entrepreneurs can learn from the successes and failures of others in the network (even those in
different countries) and reduce their own chances of failure by incorporating those lessons into their
business plan.
The model assumes that 90% of supported companies (and cumulative revenues) will be in energy
related sectors, with the remaining 10% equally split between agriculture and water.
The “low” scenario run for the options assumes no technology cost reductions over the period of the
programme. Whilst the “high” case draws on Moore’s Law of Solar 41 which has experienced an
average 7% decrease in technology costs per year for 30 years. This figure is used as a proxy for the
decrease in costs for climate technologies as a whole and it is assumed directly impacts firms’
revenues (in reality, the impact of firms’ revenues will also depend on the elasticity of supply and
demand). A “central” case has been calculated as the middle ground between no technology cost
reductions and cost reductions as seen in solar technologies (i.e. Moore’s Law).
Benefits attributed to DFID are assumed to correspond to the proportion of DFID’s share of total costs
as presented in Table 5. The benefits for Option 3 are considered as the difference between Options
1 and 2. It is assumed that appropriate funding for a globally coordinated network does not occur
without DFID, therefore 100% of benefits are attributed to DFID. However, because of the risk that
projects do not go ahead without DFID’s lead in funding the individual CICs, it is assumed that only
50% of the projects proceed under this scenario.
Costs
The cost differences across the options are associated with the different aspects of delivering the
programme. Estimates of the costs to DFID associated with each of the individual elements of the
programme are presented in tables below. As this is a Trust Fund, actual costs are unlikely to be
exactly as laid out here, as priorities or requirements evolve during the lifetime of the programme. All
options include the required infoDev management fee (7%) and World Bank administration fees (2%)
which applies to the total DFID spend.
Naam, R (2011) “The Moore’s Law of solar energy”, Scientific American guest blog, 16 March
2011. Available at: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/smaller-cheaper-faster-doesmoores-2011-03-15.
41
26
Table 2: Estimated costs for Option 1 (CIC implementation only)
GBP 000s
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
ACTIVITY
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
CIC Design & Launch
1,050
4,600
3,920
800
800
TOTALS
%
11,170
92%
CIC Global Network
0%
infoDev administration
74
322
274
56
56
782
6%
World Bank fee
21
92
78
16
16
223
2%
1,145
5,014
4,273
872
872
£12,175
100%
Total
Table 3: Estimated costs for Option 2 (CIC implementation & global coordination)
GBP 000s
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
ACTIVITY
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
%
CIC Design & Launch
1,050
4,600
3,920
800
800
11,170
62%
CIC Global Network
2,315
236
1,000
392
955
341
450
88
500
91
5,220
1,147
29%
infoDev administration
World Bank fee
Total
*
TOTALS
6%
67
112
98
25
26
328
2%
3,668
6,104
5,314
1,363
1,417
£17,865*
100%
An additional £1m of funding will be managed by DFID to support an independent evaluation of the programme.
Table 4: Estimated costs for Option 3 (global coordination only)
GBP 000s
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
ACTIVITY
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTALS
CIC Design & Launch
CIC Global Network
infoDev administration
World Bank Fee
Total
%
0%
2,315
162
1,000
70
955
67
450
32
500
35
5,220
365
95%
6%
46
20
19
9
10
104
2%
2,523
1,090
1,041
491
545
£5,690
100%
Undiscounted total costs for the three scenarios are presented in Table 5 below. It is assumed that
the total donor funding does not vary across options (i.e. other donor’s contributions are constant)42.
The DFID share of costs is used to calculate the share of benefits that can be attributed to DFID.
Table 5: DFID contributions and share of total CTP inputs over 5 years for the 4 options
DFID funding
DFID share
Option 0
0
0
Option 1
£12,175,000
33%
Option 2
£17,865,000
36%
Option 3
£5,477,000
30%43
Unquantified costs
There are additional costs to DFID associated with Option 1, notably the need to prepare individual
business cases and funding arrangements for each individual country CICs. At a minimum it is
expected that this would need 30 days of DFID staff time (270 days in total, assuming 9 CIC
projects44). The value of this time is the opportunity cost associated with staff not having time or
42
It is possible that if DFID were to contribute more or less funding then described here, other donors may
increase/reduce their own contributions, however this is difficult to assess at this early stage.
43 Under option 1 and 2 DFID make up 70% of the total funds for CIC design and launch. Therefore it is
assumed that without support only 30% of CIC projects will be gain funding.
44 If this was undertaken by consultants at a daily rate of £1,000 then this would be a cost of £270,000.
27
resources to undertake work for other DFID programmes, and could be considered inefficient, given
the knowledge that the process could be eliminated through a contribution to the global Trust Fund
(however, this would remove the full control over where the funding is disbursed).
Benefits
The appraisal quantifies three main impacts:
- Emissions reductions in the energy sector
- Energy saving benefits in the energy sector
- Co-benefits associated with the productivity gain in the water and agriculture sectors
This will give a conservative estimate of the benefits because it does not seek to value a number of
qualitative benefits (see later section).
Emissions reductions in the energy sector
Off-grid power generation is determined by looking at the predicted revenues in the energy sector and
converting this into the kWh produced based on evidence on the average cost per kWh of clean
energy across Kenya, Ethiopia, Vietnam, South Africa and India. An estimate is made of the
proportion of kWh’s that will be new energy access – assumed to be relatively low at 20% (as it is
assumed that most people have some form of energy already). In addition, there will be a certain
level of rebound or take-back associated with replacing dirty fuels with clean energy, as it is assumed
that people’s consumption was previously constrained, and so demand will increase as energy
availability increases. In the UK, a rebound effect of 30% is assumed (this is used as the “central”
assumption). However, international evidence suggests that the rebound effect will be greater in
developing countries as their energy use tends to be restricted. Therefore, a sensitivity of a 50%
rebound effect is considered.
As the energy produced is likely to be off-grid (entrepreneurs supported are likely to be small local
companies focusing on off-grid, rural applications), a suggested counterfactual mix of coal and oil
(including diesel) is used. The IEA suggests that 79% of energy is from coal and oil in non-OECD
countries45. IEA (2010/11) suggests a carbon intensity of coal/peat for non-OECD countries of 0.913
kg/kWh and oil carbon intensity for non-OECD at 0.715 kg/kWh. The energy mix of these sources of
fuel for non-OECD is standardised to 100% to remove ‘other fuels’ (including hydro, nuclear,
renewables). Based on this weighed average, the emissions intensity for coal and oil is 0.82
tonnes/MWh. A sensitivity is considered for a lower carbon intensity of 0.4 tonnes/MWh.
The emissions factor is used to determine the level of CO2 emissions. The estimated carbon
emissions are then monetised using DECC’s central carbon price. These benefits are discounted at
3.5%. The UK discount rate is used because carbon is seen as a global public good.
Energy saving benefits in the energy sector
If the new energy produced does not displace ‘dirty fuels’ reducing carbon emissions, there will be
additional energy access created. The additional energy supply provides a welfare benefit to
consumers of this energy. For the purpose of this appraisal, it is assumed that 20% of new power
supply plus the rebound effect (total 44%) will be additional to existing capacity, rather than displacing
current energy sources. The welfare benefit of energy consumed is valued at the retail price of
electricity, as a demonstration of the willingness to pay for electricity. These benefits are then
discounted at a 10% developing country discount rate.
Co-benefits for water and agriculture
The co-benefits for the water and agriculture sectors have been monetised as the revenue gained by
the successful companies, as this is a demonstration of their impact on improving productivity.
45
http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf
28
Unquantified benefits
Jobs
infoDev has detailed modelling on the number of jobs created and their growth based on the degree
of success/failure of each investment and the probabilities of success of the investments. The
modelling assumes: 3 jobs per proof of concept grant, 10 jobs per seed investment and 5 jobs per
other investment. There is a 1:4 ratio of direct to indirect job creation. This is based on comparative
data of growth technology sectors in the country sample. From these inputs, it is possible to plot the
jobs created per year due to the new investments made, as well as the additional jobs created by
seeded companies in succeeding years.
Private and public sector leverage
The programme will bring-in additional public and private sector funding. Private sector leverage is
calculated as the total amount of anticipated follow-on investments that the CIC clients will attract
over 10 years. This is been estimated as 5.1 times DFID’s initial investment or £98m after 10 years.
Public sector leverage is a calculation of all anticipated funding raised to implement CICs (both other
donors as well as national government contributions). This has been estimated as 5.05 times DFID’s
initial investment or £90m after 10 years.
Health, education, security, gender
The programme will indirectly support benefits to health, education, security, and gender objectives
as the technologies and innovations to be supported have significant co-benefits, described in
Section E above. The programme will attempt to gather quantitative evidence on the impact of these
technologies on social development as part of annual reviews and the evaluation.
Knowledge exchange and spill-over effects
This appraisal does not look quantitatively at the benefits of knowledge exchange, increase in trust in
the business community, increase in the number of role models in the sector, improved networks
within the sectors and between stakeholders, business collaborations and cross border technologies.
However, these are included in the logframe to ensure they are measured and will be explored in
detail during the programme, particularly at annual reviews, and most significantly as part of final
evaluation of the programme. This will contribute to the currently weak evidence base on the value of
these benefits, particularly in developing country contexts.
Balance of costs and benefits
The quantified costs and benefits reported above have been combined to assess the net benefits of
the three options, and discounted46 to assess the present value of the net benefits.
Table 6 below sets out the net present value of the options, as well as the benefit-cost ratio. From
this, it can be seen that Option 2 has the highest net benefit at £40.5m for the central scenario, but
for the high case (i.e. assuming the 7% Moore’s Law for reduction in technology costs over time)
Option 2 is significantly higher than the other options with an NPV of £54.3m. Option 2 also has a
significantly greater impact on carbon savings, with over 200 ktCO2 saved.
46
Discounted using 10% discount rate for both costs and benefits, which is standard in economic
appraisals of interventions in developing countries. Carbon emissions are discounted at 3.5% as this
is the rate used in the UK and carbon is viewed as a global public good.
29
Table 6: Results for the central scenario for all options relative to the do nothing option
Option 1
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
Central
High
£12.4
2.30
£20.0
3.10
£27.6
3.90
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
115,410
146,269
tCO2 saved
tCO2 saved
£/tCO2 saved
£/MWh of
clean fuel
Option 2
Low
84,550
£112.73
£88.95
£65.16
£117.65
£92.83
£68.01
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
Option 3
Low
Central
High
£26.8
£40.5
£54.3
2.89
3.86
4.83
155,510
210,779
266,047
£91.20
£72.25
£53.31
£95.17
£75.40
£55.63
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
Low
Central
High
£6.9
2.48
£10.5
3.26
£14.1
4.04
42,382
56,600
70,818
£109.72
£87.69
£65.67
£114.51
£91.52
£68.53
Uncertainty and risk
The uncertainty involved in this appraisal cannot be overstated. In order to undertake a cost-benefit
analysis of this kind, a number of significant simplifying assumptions are required to be able to arrive
at monetary values for the benefits assessed. Sensitivity analysis has been a key feature of this
appraisal, with different assumptions used for each benefit assessed to test the robustness of the
results (available in the detailed appraisal at Annex 1). Table 7 below illustrates the assumptions
tested in the sensitivity analysis. Details and associated analysis is available in the full economic
appraisal document at Annex 1.
Table 7: Assumptions varied as part of the sensitivity analysis
Assumptions Tested
Low
Central
High
Carbon price
Rebound effect
% energy supported companies
low
0%
50%
middle
30%
90%
high
50%
30%
50%
0.82
$0.287
$0.40
% of CIC projects that will go through without
UK support for funding
CO2 emissions factors
Renewable energy retail tariff used
0.4
$0.19
The strongest situation is under the high rebound effect or a low renewable energy retail tariff
assumption. However, if the rebound effect is low, the proportion of energy projects is low, or the
counterfactual emissions factors are low, then all three options become less attractive. All options
retain a positive net benefit across all sensitivities, demonstrating the robustness of the policy. Details
of sensitivity outputs can be found in annex 1.
H. Theory of Change for Preferred Option
The programme aims to build a global community of practice of entrepreneurs and innovators
providing clean, safe, reliable and sustainable access to energy, water and other natural resources to
poor communities in developing countries. The programme will support the development and
deployment of green, locally-relevant technologies and services by local players, creating jobs and
sustainable businesses, and contributing to livelihoods and wealth creation. It will do this through two
workstreams:
1. Scope and implement new Climate Innovation Centres with local partners where a Centre
is determined to add value and meets all the necessary criteria. Funding will be used to both
establish and run the individual CICs for the first five years, as well as support CIC activities:

Financing: R&D grants to test innovative ideas, design and prototype new
technologies; and returnable loans for more promising/advanced ideas that need extra
support to develop and deploy the innovative product (e.g. funding for project
development and human capital). The loan funds will return to the CIC to help support
its long-term sustainability.
30

Training and mentoring: business training, mentoring, access to professional services;
technical training and skills development; education, seminars and events.

Links to government/policy: research on sector policy trends and best practice;
engagement with government on SME policy issues; policy dialogues, roundtables and
events.

Market intelligence research: access to databases on technologies, standards and
suppliers; information on markets, competitors, potential partners; and research,
reports and analytics on sector trends.

Provision of technological and office facilities: office space and services for
entrepreneurs and start-ups; and access to technical facilities to test and demonstrate
products (e.g. university laboratories).
2. Coordinate and manage the growing CIC network to enhance the effectiveness of
individual CICs and global public good research and analytical outputs. The programme will
do this through three global-focused workstreams:

Evidence-based analysis: on the state of green technology innovation in developing
countries, pulling together lessons learned from the individual CICs and providing
toolkits for CICs to improve their services

Connecting markets: facilitating connections between individual CICs and the
entrepreneurs they support, including through the establishment of regional networks
in, for example, East Africa, North Africa, and the Caribbean

Measuring results and monitoring impact: for the CIC network as a whole, and support
CICs to do this in a streamlined manner, building on lessons learnt from across the
network
Figure 3 below illustrates the range of activities, outputs and outcomes that are anticipated to lead to
the impact of the programme, including some key assumptions of this theory of change.
31
Figure 3: Theory of Change
32
I. What measures can be used to monitor Value for Money for the intervention?
The following metrics will be used to monitor value for money of the programme:
 Tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) saved/avoided
 £ per tonne of CO2 saved/avoided
 £ per Megawatt hour (MWh) of clean energy supported
The value for money will also be assessed in relation to the programme’s ability to:
 Provide people with improved access to modern energy services
 Raise additional private and public sector funding
 Create sustainable jobs and businesses, including jobs for women and youth
E. Summary Value for Money Statement for the preferred option
The programme will maximise value for money by using the three E’s approach: effectiveness,
efficiency and economy. Option 2 will ensure greater economy, efficiency and ultimately
effectiveness.
Economy
This project will establish 9 new CICs and create an international knowledge and innovation network
for small and medium businesses and start-ups. As £11m of this DFID’s funds will support the
establishment of new CICs, this is an average of £1.2m per CIC, without considering the greater
impact created by the global network.
Efficiency
It is estimated that the creation of an additional 9 CICs and the global network will help to foster
almost 600 successful businesses over the ten year period. This should potentially create up to
14,000 gross jobs, at least 4,000 of these will be for women.
In addition, there will be over 150 demand-led reports, market summaries, smart lessons and relevant
content produced to measure, disseminate and benchmark CIC activities, and over 120 domestic,
regional and international events, exchanges, training sessions, networking activities and policy
dialogues to support CIC coordination and facilitate improved south-south climate technology
collaboration, business linkages and market access.
Effectiveness
The programme will aim to create new access to 200 GWh of renewable energy, which is equivalent
to over 180,000 people with new access to energy. The cost per MWh of new energy access is
estimated to be £75/MWh, whilst the cost per MWh of clean energy produced (including the electricity
replacing existing ‘dirty’ energy demand) is £33/MWh.
Over 200 ktCO2 will be saved as a result of the programme at a cost of £72/tCO2 saved and up to 1.6
million people with improved access to clean water.
DFID annual reviews and an independent evaluation to be commissioned towards the end of the
programme will assess the value for money and make recommendations for any future investment in
this area.
33
Commercial Case
Direct procurement
A. Clearly state the procurement/commercial requirements for intervention
Direct procurement
DFID will directly procure infoDev to manage this programme through the established Climate
Innovation Trust Fund (CITF), and as documented in an Administrative Agreement (the governing
document for the programme). This does not involve the establishment of a new Trust Fund, as the
CITF is already established with various donors (including DFID Kenya and DFID Ethiopia)
contributing to it.
In addition, DFID will directly procure an independent evaluation team to undertake an evaluation of
the programme. This will be procured through an open, competitive procurement process.
Indirect procurement
Each CIC will be managed and run by a competitively chosen organisation or consortium, adhering
strictly to stringent World Bank competitive selection and due diligence requirements. An organisation
or consortium is selected based on its capabilities and capacity to deliver all aspects of the CIC
establishment and operations including securing appropriate facilities; identifying a strong
management team; providing the services and programmes described in the business plan; ensuring
effective monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of programmes; reporting to infoDev; and assisting the
long-term sustainability of the CIC. infoDev has successfully managed this process already for the
Kenyan and Ethiopian CICs.
B. How do we expect the market place will respond to this opportunity?
The programme will provide a vast array of opportunities for the market, both through the individual
CICs (e.g. the opportunities for funding and technical assistance to entrepreneurs and small-medium
enterprises, as well as to local research institutions to conduct context specific research and
analysis), and opportunities to help deliver the broader aims of the CTP (e.g. opportunities to conduct
analysis on the amalgamated CIC data, and take-part in regional networking even for those
entrepreneurs without a national CIC). The UK’s Carbon Trust has harnessed one such opportunity
having successfully secured a contract to conduct a study to identify and highlight the types of
opportunities that exist for Small and Medium Sized businesses in clean technology industries in
developing countries.
Market response to run and manage the individual CICs in Kenya and Ethiopia has been strong. CIC
requests for Expressions of Interest for both these Centres combined attracted the attention of
approximately 80 bidders and 20 consortia, with up to 30 countries represented in each bidding
process. This will likely increase as awareness for the programme grows at both country and global
levels.
Similarly, experience to date shows excellent local market response once the individual CICs are
established. Since the opening of the Kenyan CIC in September 2012 to the time of writing this
business case (August 2013), over 200 proposals had been received from local entrepreneurs with
54 being accepted to receive support.
C. How does the intervention design use competition to drive commercial advantage for
DFID?
As per strict World Bank guidelines, the programme will deploy competitive tender processes when
procuring research and analysis, the construction of streamlined M&E tools and other externally
sourced programme requirements.
Organisations or consortium whose services are procured must adhere to all World Bank fiduciary
34
and environmental and social safeguards and this is actively managed by infoDev. By competitively
selecting the partners, infoDev ensures and emphasises value for money and that, when procuring
for the CIC implementing partners, funding is leveraged from both in cash and in-kind (staff, facilities)
to drive the most effective and efficient cost and use of donor funds. Support provided by the CICs to
local firms will also be awarded via competitive processes – for example through prizes, challenge
funds, competitive R&D calls.
D. What are the key cost elements that affect overall price? How is value added and how will
we measure and improve this?
Administration costs (overheads, salaries for managing process) and programme costs (costs of
research, design of CICs, procurement of CIC organisation) are the key costs drivers for this
programme.
For programme costs, grants and contracts are all conducted on a competitive basis with technical
and financial components of each bid being weighted to ensure value for money. Here, value is
added through the robustness of World Bank processes adopted by infoDev – notably competitive
procurement, safeguards against corruption and fiduciary risks, environmental and social safeguards.
Through procurement in particularly, competing organisations are challenged to minimise costs.
Administration costs are shared across all infoDev’s Trust Funds and donors, to reduce the
administrative burden on individual Trust Funds and their donors. Furthermore, staffing for
supervision of CICs is increasingly decentralised and being pursued at the local level with CTP staff
in Addis Ababa, Nairobi and another currently under recruitment in Hanoi. These staff are hired at
local rates producing further cost efficiencies.
Value is added through the networking of CICs internationally. While it may be more costly to extract
lessons and share knowledge across an increasing number of CICs, the cost per CIC decreases
since the systems are in place and crucial lessons are likely to have been learnt from the early CICs.
Overall, the networking element of the programme helps to ensure more effective operation of the
individual CICs, leading to a higher success rate for the entrepreneurs and projects being supported.
This is accounted for in the economic appraisal.
Costs will be monitored throughout programme implementation and reported on a six-monthly basis,
including at the annual CTP Steering Committee meeting. Efforts will be made to reduce these costs
wherever possible. It is anticipated that scope for reducing these costs significantly will be limited.
35
E. How will the contract be structured and how will contract & supplier performance be
managed through the life of the intervention?
An Administration Arrangement between infoDev and the UK will be the contracting mechanism. This
has been already deployed by DFID country offices directly funding national CICs (e.g. DFID Kenya
and DFID Ethiopia). The Administration Agreement requires infoDev to report on use of funds
annually to the Steering Committee. In addition, infoDev will provide six-monthly progress reports.
This will ensure DFID has a thorough overview of where funds are being spent, allow DFID to push
on value for money and outcomes aligned with DFID’s objectives.
The programme will be managed through on-going phone calls (minimum every two months)
between infoDev’s Programme Coordinator and DFID’s programme officer (A2L Climate Innovation
Adviser in the Climate and Environment Department). These will be more frequent when required
(e.g. prior to Steering Committee meetings and other events such as CIC openings to ensure
appropriate preparation and UK presentation). Standing items for these discussions will include:
progress towards anticipated milestones and results (e.g. logframe, ICF KPIs); and reviewing the
programme’s risk status.
The UK will be represented on the Steering Committee (likely to be represented by DFID’s A1 Low
Carbon Development Team Leader). The Steering Committee will have annual in-person meetings in
varying locations, to review progress towards the programme’s impacts, milestones and the
overarching results framework; risk status and on-going mitigation strategy; project plan for the next
12 months; and other crucial issues. Expected results, with measurable indicators, are set out in the
logical framework, which will form the basis for monitoring the performance of the programme. The
risk management strategy will also include ‘triggers’ that detect a risk before it becomes an issue.
These will be monitored through the frequent working-level phone calls between infoDev and DFID,
but will also be reviewed at the Steering Committee meetings.
DFID’s Annual Review process will also monitor performance against anticipated results and
progress annually through the life of the intervention. The Annual Review will ensure appropriate
recommendations are agreed amongst DFID and infoDev and set a deadline for recommendations to
be actioned (and by whom), if targets are not being met. The ICF KPIs will be measured and
monitored twice a year (October and April) and will also provide an opportunity to identify issues.
36
Indirect procurement
A. Why is the proposed funding mechanism/form of arrangement the right one for this
intervention, with this development partner?
As a World Bank Group programme, infoDev has well-established, rigorously audited spending and
procurement mechanisms in place. Funding will take the form of an annual contribution to the
multidonor Climate Innovation Trust Fund (CITF), drawn down from two Promissory Notes (each for
£9m – one before December 2013, then following before March 2015).
Given the current gap in funding to implement already designed CICs (trying to secure additional
funding to launch), as well as the need to offer the coordinating and networking activities to the CICs
coming online in the next 12 months, we are confident the initial tranche of money will be deployed
within 2-3 months. As such, a Promissory Note provides an opportunity for infoDev to pull down on
this funding to respond to developing country demand.
B. What assurance has been obtained on capability and capacity to deliver?
We have assessed infoDev’s financial management policies and procedures to be strong, drawing on
World Bank Group’s operational, procurement and financial management specialists to ensure
proper execution of Trust Fund activities, appropriate fiduciary responsibility and value for money.
The Climate Technology Programme team at infoDev have sufficient professional experience in all
areas required by this programme: climate/environment, early-stage financing, developing country
contexts, and working with varied stakeholder groups, including: other MDBs, donors, private sector
(large and small), researchers, and fund managers. In addition, infoDev have demonstrated their
knowledge and expertise in similar programmes over their ten year history in ICT and agriculture
innovation hubs in developing countries. The CTP is deemed to have adequate staff processes and
assets to ensure delivery. Overall the risk of project resources not being used for the intended
purpose is assessed as low.
Furthermore, infoDev undertakes its own due diligence of potential implementation partners and
prospective grant recipients prior to working with them, as required through its procurement
procedures. Delivery risks are deemed to be low, with time delays as a result of robust, but time
consuming processes, envisaged being the only significant risk.
C. Is there an opportunity to negotiate on anticipated costs?
We have worked closely with infoDev to understand the resources required to deliver the
programme. Costs are assessed as reasonable and comparable to other large DFID-supported
innovative funds. In addition, the management and administration fees (total 9%) have been
accepted by other contributors to the programme (including at least two DFID country offices). There
is no scope to adjust these without having detrimental impacts to the Trust Fund activities already
underway (including the DFID supported Kenyan and Ethiopian CICs). DFID will continue to
challenge infoDev to ensure these costs are kept to a reasonable minimum, alongside DFID’s policy
on World Bank Trust Fund fees. The CTP Steering Committee will provide an opportunity to continue
to push infoDev on costs and DFID will work with other donors and Steering Committee members to
strengthen this position. We will also challenge infoDev on transparency and benchmarking of
administration costs.
37
Financial Case
A. Who are the recipients of all proposed payments?
DFID’s £18m contribution will be transferred to the multidonor Trust Fund (an additional £1m will be
managed by DFID and will support an independent evaluation of the programme). infoDev will
disburse these funds to competitively procured implementing partners undertaking core pieces of
work to support the programme’s objectives (including the initial implementation of the CICs and
disbursing finance and support to SMEs) – referred to as ‘recipient-executed’ activities, illustrated in
the table below. In addition, around 50% of the funds will support work associated with activities
infoDev and other Bank organisations conduct as part of the programme (e.g. hiring of local
consultants to undertake CIC scoping, global analytical work, coordination and dissemination of
lesson learning to global audiences, etc.) – referred to as ‘bank-executed’ activities.
B. What are the costs to be incurred directly by DFID?
Over the five year programme, costs incurred by DFID are:
1. £11.17m for scoping and implementation of new Climate Innovation Centres with local
partners where a Centre is determined to add value and meets all the necessary criteria.
Funding will be used to both establish and run the individual CICs for the first five years, as
well as support CIC activities:

Financing: R&D grants to test innovative ideas, design and prototype new
technologies; and returnable loans for more promising/advanced ideas that need extra
support to develop and deploy the innovative product (e.g. funding for project
development and human capital). The loan funds will return to the CIC to help support
its long-term sustainability.

Training and mentoring: business training, mentoring, access to professional services;
technical training and skills development; education, seminars and events.

Links to government/policy: research on sector policy trends and best practice;
engagement with government on SME policy issues; policy dialogues, roundtables
and events.

Market intelligence research: access to databases on technologies, standards and
suppliers; information on markets, competitors, potential partners; and research,
reports and analytics on sector trends.

Provision of technological and office facilities: office space and services for
entrepreneurs and start-ups; and access to technical facilities to test and demonstrate
products (e.g. university laboratories).
2. £5.22m for coordination and management the growing CIC network to enhance the
effectiveness of individual CICs and global public good research and analytical outputs. The
programme will do this through three global-focused workstreams:

Evidence-based analysis: on the state of green technology innovation in developing
countries, pulling together lessons learned from the individual CICs and providing
toolkits for CICs to improve their services

Connecting markets: facilitating connections between individual CICs and the
entrepreneurs they support, including through the establishment of regional networks
in, for example, East Africa, North Africa, and the Caribbean

Measuring results and monitoring impact: for the CIC network as a whole, and support
CICs to do this in a streamlined manner, building on lessons learnt from across the
38
network
3. £1m for an independent evaluation of the programme, managed and commissioned by
DFID. This funding will not be part of the Trust Fund agreement. This is in-line with DFID
guidance on evaluation costs in relation to programme costs (particularly for a new and
innovative programme such as this).
4. £1.61m for administration/management fees associated with the programme - £1.26m of
this will go to infoDev to cover the management of the programme and £350,000.
C. What are the costs to be incurred by third party organisations?
Third party costs anticipated to be incurred are the 9% administration/management fee for the
programme. The 9% is applied on the total DFID contribution. The 2% WB fee is standard across all
World Bank Trust Funds under US$100m and goes to the World Bank to house, handle and
administer the Trust Fund finances. The 7% is for infoDev’s programme management of the Trust
Fund and the programme activities. That includes supporting all central activities from legal,
procurement, financial management, resource management, to the CTP programme manager etc.
The fees compare well to other large DFID-supported programmes supporting innovative ideas and
technologies, such as the £355m Girls Education Challenge (GEC) with administration/management
fees just above 10%.
D. Does the project involve financial aid to governments? If so, please define the
arrangements in detail.
Not applicable.
E. Is the required funding available through current resource allocation or via a bid from
contingency? Will it be funded through capital/programme/admin?
DFID’s funding will come from the existing Climate and Environment Department’s programme
budget and will contribute towards the International Climate Fund (ICF) and Overseas Development
Assistance (ODA). There are adequate financial resources to meet the cost of this intervention. This
will be RDEL funds from DFID’s Low Carbon Development team in Policy Division, given the
Technical Assistance nature of the financing (i.e. for start-ups and R&D into new technologies).
F. What is the profile of estimated costs? How will you work to ensure accurate forecasting?
DFID will provide up to £18 million to support the programme over five years from November 2013
(financial year 13/14) to March 2018 (financial year 17/18), through two Promissory Notes for £9m
each (one before December 2013, then following before March 2015). It is anticipated that this will be
matched by at least two other like-minded donors (e.g. Norway and Denmark, who are both
supporting individual CICs in-country alongside DFID country offices). £1m will be put aside in DFID’s
budget to commission an independent evaluation at the end of the programme. The DFID-relevant
budget is broken down below.
Table 8: Total programme costs for DFID
GBP 000s
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
ACTIVITY
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTALS
%
CIC Design & Launch
1,050
4,600
3,920
800
800
11,170
59%
CIC Global Network
2,315
236
1,000
392
955
341
450
88
500
91
5,220
1,147
27%
67
112
98
25
26
328
2%
1,000
1,000
5%
£18,865
100%
infoDev administration
World Bank fee
DFID managed evaluation
Total
3,668
6,104
5,314
1,363
2,417
6%
The overall size of the Trust Fund is anticipated to be roughly £50m. As such, DFID’s core funding to
39
the Trust Fund of £18m is equivalent to around 33% of the anticipated core funds in the Trust Fund.
Monitoring and evaluation of costs and performance will be undertaken through the mechanisms
outlined in the Management Case below and will feed into DFID’s Annual Review process each year.
Updated spending forecasts will be presented to the annual Steering Committee meeting. In addition,
the DFID programme manager will be charged with confirming forecasted spend with infoDev exactly
two months prior to the payment.
It is expected that the UK contribution will be fully disbursed by infoDev during the term of the
Arrangement (from 2013/14 – 2017/18). If UK funds remain after this period, written consent will be
required from DFID to extend the period that funds can be used by infoDev for the programme. This
is likely to reflect infoDev’s performance at meeting project milestones and impact targets, as well as
changes to UK’s development priorities.
G. What is the assessment of financial risk and fraud?
The financial, corruption and fraud risks have been assessed as low as the programme will adhere to
standard World Bank guidelines on procurement and financial management. DFID and infoDev will
also discuss fiduciary risk at Annual Reviews, and ensure this is a standing item for review and
reflection at the annual Steering Committee meetings.
H. How will expenditure be monitored, reported, and accounted for?
The Agreement Arrangement (essentially the contract between DFID and infoDev) will contain a
detailed description of the activities and expenditures that will be covered by the programme and
DFID’s funding. It will set out activities that are either Bank-Executed (undertaken by World Bank
staff internally) or Recipient-Executed (undertaken by external, competitively sourced
organisations/individuals).
During the course of the programme, infoDev will provide six-monthly progress statements, including
financial updates. This will account for contributions received, actual spend and updated forecast of
spend in subsequent months. Statements will be combined with quarterly narrative reporting on the
programme’s progress towards achieving the expected results.
DFID’s programme manager will be responsible for: managing the finances with infoDev; ensuring
reports submitted to DFID provide a sound account of spend; and that accurate forecasts are
maintained. During the lifetime of the programme, the programme manager will work with infoDev to
understand changes to activities and ensure the budget is managed accordingly.
I. Are there any accounting considerations arising from the project?
No.
40
Management Case
A. What are the Management Arrangements for implementing the intervention?
The CTP has a three-tiered governance structure illustrated in the diagram below and consisting of:
1) Climate Innovation Trust Fund Steering Committee (SC)
2) infoDev Project Management & Implementation Team (PMIT)
3) Recipient-Executed Partnerships (REPs) including the Climate Innovation Centres (CICs) and
their host institutions
Figure 4: Proposed management arrangements
The Steering Committee (SC) will meet at least once a year and will be responsible for: (i) providing
overall strategic direction to the programme; (ii) endorsing the Annual Work Plan, budget and results
framework; and (iii) periodically reviewing overall progress of activities, results and financial spend
associated with the programme. The SC will include representatives from the key donor and key
recipients (akin to the joint representation on the World Bank Climate Investment Funds).
41
The infoDev Programme Management and Implementation Team (PMIT) will provide day-to-day
management and implementation of the programme and include experienced operational,
administrative and financial management staff. The team will be led by infoDev’s Programme
Manager. The PMIT will also include technical specialists, programme analysts, knowledge
management specialists and in-country coordinators.
The Recipient Executed Partnerships (REPs) opportunities will be delivered through Grant
Agreements under the CTP. These Grant Agreements will be executed by institutions that are
selected via a competitive procurement process (a similar process followed for CIC implementation).
Each implementation partner must be staffed with the appropriate fiduciary capacity to implement
WBG projects and follow appropriate procurement guidelines. The PMIT will give its no-objection to
major decisions, including funding delivered by implementation partners. The monitoring and
evaluation of the REPs will be conducted by the PMIT and will follow World Bank’s policies and
procedures however in addition, will include an independent review at the conclusion of each
agreement.
DFID Management responsibilities will be split as follows:
 The lead adviser will be the London-based Climate and Environment Department’s adviser
leading on innovation. The adviser will have overall responsibility for ensuring delivery of the
project. This will include: leading discussions with infoDev on implementation; ensuring
coordination of activities with DFID and other donors’ SME support; sharing of lessons and
progress within DFID/HMG and externally; leading engagement with DFID country posts;
leading the DFID annual and project completion reports; and managing the project evaluation.
 The Low Carbon Development Team’s project officer will be responsible for programme
management. This will include: ensuring compliance with corporate processes for establishing
the project; leading on financial management of the project; ensuring that DFID funds are
used for the correct proposes; ensuring that progress and financial reports are submitted by
infoDev as set out in this business case; and supporting the lead adviser on project related
communications.
B. What are the risks and how these will be managed?
The overall risk rating is Medium, given the programme is focused on supporting new, potential high
risk but potential high return projects. The four highest risks of the programme as a whole have been
described below. Additional risks are split between risks associated with the growth and success of
the network (Annex 2), and risks associated with the individual CICs themselves (Annex 3). The
infoDev PMIT will be responsible for monitoring and proactively managing risk over the life of the
programme, reporting regularly to both the DFID programme manager and to the Steering
Committee.
Risk
1. Technologies and business
models supported are
unsuccessful and therefore
do not generate sufficient
market demand to meet
outcome indicator targets.
2. Additional funding for the
Mitigating action
CICs will adopt staged, milestone
approach to dispersing seed funds to
entrepreneurs, ensuring the project
performance is closely monitored,
limiting the disbursement of funds to
innovations that do not show strong
initial uptake by consumers.
However, the nature of innovation is to
test different options with some failures
and some successes, therefore, to fully
mitigate this risk would be against the
purpose of this programme.
infoDev will work to build and facilitate
42
Risk rating
Impact
M
M
M
L
global network is not
secured, such that the
opportunities for spill-overs,
collaborations and cross
learning are not realised.
3. Diversified funding to
implement and launch
individual CICs is not
secured and implementation
is delayed or terminated.
4. Market uptake (both from
end-user uptake as well as
investor interest) of
promising ideas is slower
than anticipated.
partnerships, where possible, by
encouraging each CIC to utilise their
own budgets and resources to connect
with other Centres in the network. Lower
cost forms of collaboration will be
leveraged using appropriate online
collaborative tools that will allow the
network to grow, albeit slower than what
could be achieved with direct funding for
the global platform. infoDev will package
lessons learned from the CIC network to
the extent possible, however with less
resources, cross-learning and
dissemination of results will remain
limited.
infoDev is working to integrate the CICs
into World Bank and IFC country
operations and linking Centres with new
or on-going lending, technical
assistance and/or investment projects.
The team is also actively seeking
partnerships with the Climate
Investments Funds, regional MDBs,
other donors, country governments and
private sector partners to ensure a
range of resourcing options for future
Centres’ implementation. Where
resources are not fully available, a
Centre will be reduced in size and scope
to operate virtually, or rely on the
capacity of other CICs operating within
the region to supplement their
operations.
Leveraging both infoDev and DFID
networks and convening power, we will
pursue a variety of outreach activities,
including print media, journal articles,
specific outreach to other leading
industry stakeholders (e.g. roundtables
and dedicated events).
L
M
L
M
C. What conditions apply (for financial aid only)?
Not applicable.
D. How will progress and results be monitored, measured and evaluated?
A core element of the programme is directly targeted at monitoring and evaluation (the Measurement
Tools workstream). The programme will provide each CIC with appropriate tools, software, systems
and training to help them manage their activities, track results and better share learnings with the
global network. This will include standardised application templates, cloud file-sharing services and
online Monitoring and Evaluation tools and tracking systems. In addition to providing appropriate
software and tools, the M&E workstream will offer exchanges and training to build CIC capacity, and
help host governments learn from CIC successes and best practice globally. Data generated and
captured will also assist in addressing an evidence gap as identified in the in ICF M&E framework,
regarding developing country climate technology innovation.
The programme will be monitored through monthly update calls between DFID’s lead adviser and
infoDev’s programme lead. DFID will also be represented on the Steering Committee and participate
in SC meetings least once a year. Finally, DFID will conduct an Annual Review once a year to
measure results and spend against the logframe milestones. This will draw heavily on the M&E
43
systems designed and implemented by infoDev as part of this programme.
This programme will also contribute to the UK’s ICF Low Carbon Development objectives. Data will
therefore contribute to overall monitoring of the ICF Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The
indicators which are relevant are outlined in the table below and details are incorporated into the
logframe.
ICF KPI
2. Number of people with improved access to clean energy as a result
of ICF programmes (also a DFID Results Framework indicator)
5. Number of direct jobs created as a result of ICF support
6. Change in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as a result of ICF
support
8. Number of hectares where deforestation and degradation have been
avoided through ICF support
9. Number of low carbon technologies supported (units installed)
through ICF support
10. Value of ecosystem services generated or protected as a result of
ICF support
11. Volume of public finance mobilised for climate change purposes as
a result of ICF funding
12. Volume of private finance mobilised for climate change purposes as
a result of ICF funding
15. Extent to which ICF intervention is likely to have a transformational
impact
Units
Number of people
Number of people
tCO2e
Hectares
Absolute units
(not number of
technologies)
NA
£ legally
committed in the
12 month period
£ legally
committed in the
12 month period
Score 1 to 4
Evaluation
An independent impact evaluation will be commissioned and managed by DFID towards the end of
the programme. £1m has been set aside in DFID’s budget for this. The chosen evaluator will be
mutually agreed between infoDev and DFID, following a competitive call which covers requirements
for both organisations. DFID’s programme lead and an evaluation adviser will work with infoDev to
design the evaluation and ensure it meets DFID’s three main criteria for external evaluation –
independence, robust methodology and transparency.
The evaluation aims to test the underlying theory of change and associated assumptions. It will
attempt to quantify some of the anticipated, but unquantified benefits of the programme such as: the
benefits of knowledge exchange; increase in trust in the business community; increase in the number
of role models in the sector; improved networks within the sectors and between stakeholders; and
business collaborations and cross border technologies.
Lograme
Quest No of logframe for this intervention: 4185934
The logframe will be further refined at the project kick-off meeting with infoDev.
44
Annex 1: Results tables for Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity 2: Low carbon price
Option 1
Low
Central
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/tCO2 saved
£/MWh of
clean fuel
£11.8
2.23
84,550
£112.73
£19.2
3.01
115,410
£88.95
£26.6
3.79
146,269
£65.16
£117.65
£92.83
£68.01
Sensitivity 3: High Carbon Price
Option 1
Low
Central
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/tCO2 saved
£/MWh of
clean fuel
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/tCO2 saved
£/MWh of
clean fuel
£20.6
3.16
115,410
£88.95
£28.4
3.98
146,269
£65.16
£117.65
£92.83
£68.01
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/tCO2 saved
£/MWh of
clean fuel
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
£6.2
1.65
164,871
£62.26
£10.3
2.08
208,956
£45.61
£258.83
£204.22
£149.62
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
£29.2
4.06
82,436
£124.53
£39.2
5.11
104,478
£91.23
£86.28
£68.07
£49.87
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
Sensitivity 6: 50% of supported companies are energy companies
Option 1
Low
Central
High
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/tCO2 saved
£/MWh of
clean fuel
£2.6
1.28
46,972
£202.92
£6.9
1.72
64,117
£160.11
£11.1
2.16
81,261
£117.30
£211.77
£167.09
£122.41
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
Sensitivity 7: 50% of projects go ahead without direct DFID funding
Option 1
Low
Central
High
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/tCO2 saved
£/MWh of
clean fuel
£12.4
2.30
84,550
£112.73
£20.0
3.10
115,410
£88.95
£27.6
3.90
146,269
£65.16
£117.65
£92.83
£68.01
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
Sensitivity 8: lower carbon factor for the counterfactual fuels
Option 1
Low
Central
High
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/tCO2 saved
£/MWh of
clean fuel
£1.1
1.12
41,244
£231.10
£4.9
1.51
56,297
£182.34
£8.6
1.90
71,351
£133.59
£117.65
£92.83
£68.01
£52.9
4.70
268,056
£53.31
£95.18
£75.41
£55.64
£42.0
3.94
212,370
£72.25
£56.3
4.94
268,056
£53.31
£95.18
£75.41
£55.64
£15.0
2.05
303,386
£50.58
£22.4
2.57
382,938
£37.32
£209.40
£165.90
£122.40
£58.1
5.07
151,693
£101.16
£76.3
6.34
191,469
£74.63
£69.80
£55.30
£40.80
£16.3
2.14
117,984
£130.06
£24.1
2.68
148,920
£95.96
£171.33
£135.73
£100.14
£40.9
3.86
212,370
£72.25
£54.7
4.83
268,056
£53.31
£95.18
£75.41
£55.64
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
£12.6
1.88
103,595
£148.12
£19.4
2.36
130,759
£109.28
£95.18
£75.41
£55.64
45
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
£110.28
£88.14
£66.00
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
£11.0
3.46
56,600
£84.45
£14.7
4.28
70,818
£63.24
£110.28
£88.14
£66.00
£3.5
1.78
80,857
£59.12
£5.4
2.21
101,168
£44.27
£242.62
£193.91
£145.20
High
£10.7
3.40
30,273
£147.94
£15.5
4.46
40,428
£118.24
£20.2
5.52
50,584
£88.54
£80.87
£64.64
£48.40
High
£1.9
1.43
23,546
£190.21
£4.0
1.88
31,444
£152.02
£6.0
2.33
39,343
£113.83
£198.51
£158.65
£118.80
High
£14.8
4.30
70,637
£63.40
£20.8
5.65
94,333
£50.67
£26.8
6.99
118,029
£37.94
£66.17
£52.88
£39.60
Option 3
Low
Central
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
High
£1.6
1.35
60,546
£73.97
Option 3
Low
Central
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
High
£7.3
2.63
42,382
£105.67
Option 3
Low
Central
High
£5.8
1.41
76,431
£186.96
£13.8
4.09
70,818
£63.24
Option 3
Low
Central
High
£27.0
2.89
156,684
£91.20
Option 2
Low
Central
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
High
£8.6
1.60
87,047
£164.16
£10.3
3.30
56,600
£84.45
Option 3
Low
Central
High
£39.9
3.79
111,917
£127.68
Option 2
Low
Central
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
High
£6.8
2.52
42,382
£105.67
Option 3
Low
Central
High
£7.5
1.53
223,835
£63.84
Option 2
Low
Central
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
High
£27.8
2.95
156,684
£91.20
Option 2
Low
Central
High
£19.2
3.01
60,393
£157.82
£39.4
3.76
212,370
£72.25
Option 2
Low
Central
Option 3
Low
Central
High
£25.9
2.81
156,684
£91.20
Option 2
Low
Central
High
£2.1
1.22
120,786
£78.91
Sensitivity 5: High Rebound effect
Option 1
Low
Central
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
High
£12.8
2.35
84,550
£112.73
Sensitivity 4: Low Rebound effect
Option 1
Low
Central
Option 2
Low
Central
High
High
£1.2
1.26
20,674
£216.62
£2.9
1.65
27,610
£173.13
£4.7
2.05
34,545
£129.64
£110.28
£88.14
£66.00
Sensitivity 9: Low assumptions for all but rebound effect
Option 1
Low
Central
High
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/tCO2 saved
£/MWh of
clean fuel
-£3.6
0.62
22,913
£415.98
-£1.5
0.84
31,276
£328.22
£0.5
1.06
39,639
£240.46
£211.77
£167.09
£122.41
Option 2
Low
Central
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
Sensitivity 10: Low Retail price for renewable energy
Option 1
Low
Central
High
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/tCO2 saved
£/MWh of
clean fuel
£23.5
3.47
127,715
£74.63
£35.0
4.68
174,330
£58.89
£46.6
5.88
220,944
£43.14
£77.89
£61.45
£45.02
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
Sensitivity 11: High Retail price for renewable energy
Option 1
Low
Central
High
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/tCO2 saved
£/MWh of
clean fuel
£6.2
1.65
60,665
£157.12
£11.6
2.22
82,807
£123.97
£17.1
2.79
104,948
£90.82
£163.97
£129.38
£94.78
-£3.1
0.78
42,462
£336.53
£0.7
1.05
57,553
£266.62
£4.4
1.31
72,644
£196.71
£171.33
£135.73
£100.14
Option 2
Low
Central
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
£69.0
5.83
320,791
£47.83
£90.0
7.30
404,906
£35.29
£63.01
£49.92
£36.83
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
£25.3
2.77
152,376
£100.70
£35.2
3.47
192,330
£74.30
£132.66
£105.10
£77.54
-£0.4
0.92
15,339
£311.64
£0.6
1.14
19,192
£233.36
£198.51
£158.65
£118.80
High
£13.0
3.90
64,019
£69.96
£18.4
5.12
85,495
£55.91
£23.9
6.34
106,972
£41.87
£73.01
£58.35
£43.69
Option 3
Low
Central
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
High
-£1.3
0.70
11,486
£389.92
Option 3
Low
Central
High
£15.3
2.07
112,421
£127.11
46
Cost Benefit
(NPV £m 2013)
CB ratio
tCO2 saved
£/CO2 saved
£/MWh of clean
fuel
High
£48.0
4.36
236,676
£60.38
Option 2
Low
Central
Option 3
Low
Central
High
High
£3.8
1.85
30,409
£147.28
£6.4
2.43
40,610
£117.71
£9.0
3.01
50,812
£88.14
£153.70
£122.84
£91.99
Annex 2: Risks for the CTP overall
Operational Risks
Risk Category
1
2
3
4
Stakeholder support
Management team
and staff /
organisational
capacity and
governance
Performance (e.g. the
wrong technologies
/companies
supported; and/or
results produced by
each investment does
not meet anticipated
milestones)
CTP financing/donor
support
Risk
Rating
Risk Description
Proposed Mitigation Measures
M
 Stakeholders including
beneficiaries, partners,
government and private
sector want to focus on
country CICs at the
expense of the global
activities
 infoDev staff will maintain relationships
with key stakeholders to illustrate and
emphasise the impact of the global
CTP business lines
 Linkages and support from the global
activities are included in the individual
CIC business plans and impact
projections
 infoDev will monitor implementation to
ensure added value of global activities
L
 Turnover, unavailability
or lack of capacity
among infoDev and CTP
staff affects programme
continuity
 Staff performance risks
i.e. PMIT lacks
adequate staffing,
processes and/or
systems sufficient to
allow for successful
achievement of the
results envisaged by the
project
 CTP staffing, training/development and
project management plan will be
regularly reviewed by infoDev in order
to assess current and future
programme needs
 Selection of management and staff will
follow WBG procurement guidelines
and competitive selection procedures
 Performance metrics and targets will be
clearly communicated and monitored
M
 CTP does not achieve
adequate performance
results as specified in
the grant agreement(s)
 Global financing
investments do not
generate required
returns to achieve
sustainability objectives
L-M
 Risks that full initial
financing for global
activities’
implementation is not
secured on time / in full
 Budget outlined in
business plan is
insufficient to execute
current model
 Additional risk of
47
 infoDev will monitor the operations of
the CICs and global activities to ensure
grant agreement milestones are being
met. Not only will CTP establish a
thorough M&E framework
(ClimateTRACK) but results will be
openly reported (ImpactExchange).
 In coordination with Steering
Committee, infoDev will retain the
flexibility to reallocate budgets based
on the performance of specific global
activities. Grant agreements can be
canceled and reissued if milestones in
the M&E framework are not achieved
 Expectations for ROI will only be used
as long-term evaluation criteria, and will
be monitored regularly to evaluate
progress and determine future funding
requirements
 On-going discussions with a number of
donors & investors; active expansion
and increased engagement of CTP and
infoDev donor community
 Scenario planning determines various
lower levels at which global
programmes are still viable, although it
is not ideal as impact and value for
money is compromised
 Financial sustainability and revenue
financing beyond 2018
not being secured
generation is an explicit long-term goal
of the CICs, which can supplement the
global activities
 Close monitoring by infoDev of
financing decisions including flexibility
in reallocating programme budgets as
needed
Risk Description
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Market Environment Risks
Risk Category
1
2
3
Political and social
appetite for climate
issues
Market demand
Competition
Risk
Rating
L
 Political support for the
CTP weakens and/or
political opposition
arises
 Introduction of perverse
subsidies and/or
decrease of conducive
policies to support
climate technologies
L
 Poor demand for global
services
 Lack of quality deal-flow
for CTP’s investments
L-M
 Overlap with other
initiatives
 Other
donor/development
programme/company
plans to replicate the
CTP
48
 CICs have been designed in close
coordination with multiple agencies of
the national governments, who are also
given minority roles on the CIC boards
 CTP will not be contingent on
government funding (e.g. leverage from
private sector)
 CTP investments will not be made
based on speculative or short-term
policy measures
 CIC’s ImpactXchange business line will
conduct active outreach about the
programme to policymakers at global
fora and conferences
 Countries that do not qualify for CIC
Launch on their own will be directed to
global business lines, particularly for
financing
 IGNITE Facility provides multiple
channels and flexible funding
instruments to match a range of SME
needs/characteristics
 Programme continually adapts to
market gaps and reallocates budgets
as necessary
 Emphasis on customer feedback,
quality control and M&E
 Close coordination with existing
initiatives and focus on Centre visibility
 Demonstrable, established support
from in-country stakeholders gives CTP
a distinct competitive advantage/ability
to deliver
Annex 3: Risks for individual CICs
49
Annex 4: Tackling Resource Scarcity: an Innovation and Entrepreneurship Unit for
India (MoS submission)
Available on QUEST: 4185951
50