[November 2018]
This evaluation was made possible by the support of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Sweden 
through the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), the Foreign Ministry of the Kingdom of the 
Netherlands (FMA-NL), and the South African Department of Science and Technology (DST). The contents of this evaluation 
are the sole responsibility of David Hemson, Ken Caplan, Stephanie Monschein and Nohemi Voglozin and Dexis Consulting 
Group and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SWFF partners.
Final Performance Evaluation of Securing Water for Food 
Grand Challenge for Development
1 
FINAL PERFORMANCE 
EVALUATION OF 
SECURING WATER FOR 
FOOD GRAND 
CHALLENGE FOR 
DEVELOPMENT 
David Hemson, Ken Caplan, Stephanie Monschein and Nohemi Voglozin, 
Dexis Consulting Group
2 
Table of Contents
Acronyms..................................................................................................................................................... 4 
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................... 5 
Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions........................................................................................ 9 
Project Background..................................................................................................................................13 
Evaluation Methodology and Limitations ..............................................................................................14 
Risks and Limitations of the Evaluation Design ....................................................................................19 
Findings......................................................................................................................................................21 
Section 1: Relevance ................................................................................................................................21 
Section 2: Effectiveness.............................................................................................................................26 
Section 3: Efficiency..................................................................................................................................39 
Section 4 Impact........................................................................................................................................44 
Section 5: Sustainability ...........................................................................................................................60 
Table of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations.......................................................................66 
Findings.................................................................................................................................................. 66 
Recommendations................................................................................................................................. 66 
All Annexes are in a separate file ............................................................................................................69 
List of Tables 
Table 1. The Sample: Current Status .................................................................................................... 16 
Table 2. The Sample: Rounds ............................................................................................................... 16 
Table 3. The Selected Sample: Country and Innovations ..................................................................... 16 
Table 4. Surveys of Beneficiaries by Innovation and Country ............................................................. 18 
Table 5. Locality of innovations supported, Rounds ............................................................................ 22 
Table 6. Profit or Non-profit Innovations, Rounds ............................................................................... 23 
Table 7. TAF Comparative Efficiency.................................................................................................. 39 
Table 8. Results vs. Resources.............................................................................................................. 39 
Table 9. Fund Management Costs for Sida’s Global Challenge Funds ................................................ 42 
Table 10. Financial Reporting ................................................................................................................. 43 
Table 11. M&E Requirements................................................................................................................ 43 
Table 12. Application Process................................................................................................................. 43 
Table 13. Stage of Development: Plans for Scaling Up.......................................................................... 45 
Table 14. Stage of Development: Status, Meeting Targets..................................................................... 45
3 
Table 15. Status of Innovator Partnerships ............................................................................................. 45 
Table 16. Innovation Programmatic Emphasis ....................................................................................... 46 
Table 17. Innovations, Resilience to Climate Change ............................................................................ 46 
Table 18. Beneficiary Impact Responses................................................................................................ 47 
Table 19. Beneficiary Responses, Water and Agriculture ...................................................................... 48 
Table 20. SWFF Contribution ................................................................................................................. 49 
Table 21. Outcomes and Targets in Water Efficiency and Access......................................................... 49 
Table 22. Reported Improvement in Agricultural Productivity .............................................................. 51 
Table 23. Agricultural productivity Outcomes and Targets .................................................................... 52 
Table 24. Agricultural Productivity Targets ........................................................................................... 52 
Table 25. SWFF Innovation Effect on Inputs ......................................................................................... 53 
Table 26. Private Sector Investment. N=23 ............................................................................................ 56 
Table 27. Perceived Fairness and Value of Targets................................................................................ 58 
Table 28. Milestones, Targets, and Reporting System ............................................................................ 58 
Table 29. Innovator Perception of SWFF Targets, Milestones, Support, and Rounds ........................... 59 
Table 30. Status of innovation by Round ................................................................................................ 61 
Table 31. Women’s participation as customers, managers and owners.................................................. 63
4 
Acronyms 
AST Adaptive Symbiotic Technologies 
CEO Company Executive Officer 
DST South African Department of Science and Technology 
EQ Evaluation Question 
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization 
FGD Focus Group Discussion 
FP Founding Partners 
GCD Grand Challenge Development 
IIAC Innovation Investment Advisory Committee 
KII Key Informant Interview 
LOE Level of Effort
MTR Mid Term Report
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation 
OECD Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development
OECD/DAC OECD Development Assistance Committee
MFA-NL Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands 
QCA Qualitative Comparative Analysis
Sida Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency 
SOW Statement of Work
TAF Technical Assistance Facility 
SOW Statement of Work
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USG United States Government 
WWW World Water Week
5 
Executive Summary
As an innovation and acceleration initiative, the goal of Securing Water for Food (SWFF) is 
to source, incubate and accelerate high-potential technical solutions and/or business models that 
find new and sustain existing water supplies as well as lower overall water demands in the food 
value chain to reduce water scarcity and poverty. SWFF innovators scale innovations designed to 
support the program’s overall goal. The focus areas of SWFF include: 
• water efficiency and reuse, especially targeted at the food value chain; 
• water capture and storage, in particular in regions where rain occurs at limited times; 
and 
• saltwater intrusion, especially in coastal aquifers or deltas and estuaries. 
The SWFF Founding Partners (United State Agency for International Development (USAID),
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of 
the Kingdom of the Netherlands (MFA-NL), and the South African Department of Science and 
Technology (DST)) share the common goal of advancing international development through 
improved access to sustainable water sources for agricultural applications. Values that are common 
to the Founding Partners include sustainability, efficiency, sourcing of market-based solutions, 
gender inclusion, climate adaptation and mitigation, benefit to poor people, and a commitment to 
avoid negative effects (particularly with regard to water-related services). 
The purpose of this evaluation has been to determine the extent to which SWFF contributed to the 
expected program outcomes and results achieved by innovators across the portfolio during project 
implementation. The primary focus areas have been around whether SWFF innovations have led 
to the production of more food using less water, thus ensuring greater food security and raising 
incomes particularly of poor farmers. The evaluation team has sought to 1) validate the results 
already reported by SWFF and answer the questions on why and how the outcomes were achieved 
by innovators, 2) identify the contributing factors particularly as regards to SWFF programming, 
and 3) uncover the unintended positive and negative consequences that arose as innovators 
implemented their models.
The performance evaluation concurrently examined SWFF/TAF program efficiency and impact 
through the lens of the program delivery, the risks taken, and the technical assistance provided. 
Data collected regarding SWFF operations has been used to assess the results and, within time 
constraints and as feasible, to compare SWFF’s operational efficiency and effectiveness with 
similar grand challenge funds. 
The sources of data for the evaluation have included SWFF annual monitoring data; program 
documentation; site visits, surveys and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with a selected 21 SWFF 
innovators, 18 of which were able to be visited; and a series of Key Informant Interviews across 
non-visited innovators, SWFF’s programmatic implementation team, the Founding Partners, and 
members of the Innovation Investment Advisory Committee (IIAC). 
A second phase will seek to update the analysis of Round 4 SWFF Innovators and further follow￾up the analysis of Rounds 1-3 innovator results. 
6 
The present evaluation fully incorporates the Grand Challenge Development (GCD) Results 
frameworks and has made assessments at three levels: 1) the meta-level, 2) the SWFF program￾level, and 3) the awardee-level. These levels roughly correlate to the OECD evaluation categories 
with Impact and Sustainability linked to the meta-level, and relevance, effectiveness and efficiency 
generally linked to the program and awardee levels.
The questions from the original Statement of Work (Section C) are presented with evidence and 
findings on SWFF’s Relevance (V.a, A1a), Effectiveness (A1b, B3, B5, B7), Efficiency (B1, B2, 
B4, B6), Impact (A1c, A1d, A1e, A1h, A2, A3) and Sustainability (A1f, A1g). 
A representative sample of 21 of the 40 SWFF innovations in 7 countries was determined on the 
basis of geographic region, round, status, focus type and number of innovations in a country. This 
included Bangladesh (Lal Teer, Practical Action); Egypt (ICBA); Ghana, (Ignitia, Skyfox); India 
(EDR, Adaptive Symbiotic Tech, MyRain, SWAR, Naireeta, WASTE Stichting, NewSil); Kenya 
(IRK Sunculture, CSDES M-FODDER, ITIKI CUT, Hydroponics Africa); South Africa 
(Ecorangers, Reel Gardening, CUT); Uganda (Aquaponics Farming, Green Heat). Of the 21 
innovations, two were unresponsive and there was insufficient time for one other. Finally, 18 were 
interviewed in field visits. Surveys were made of beneficiaries in site visits; in 14 surveys 221 
questionnaires with impact modules relating to the benefit planned from innovations in 
infrastructure, service/information technology or products were concluded. 
Key Informant Interviews were undertaken with Founding Partners, TAF, innovators and 
importantly the IIAC. Through participation at World Water Week there were 39 KII concluded 
adding other current innovations, alumni and graduates not in the sample. The research team 
gained a comprehensive overview of the entire SWFF Program as well as detailed observation at 
critical innovations at the site level. The qualitative data was captured and coded in an electronic 
template and auto-coded in Nvivo; the survey data analyzed in SPSS. 
It was found that the Program has great relevance in contributing to improving agricultural 
productivity in the south. There is widespread local need in the south for the innovations and 
potential for local ownership. The challenge is the ability of the intended beneficiaries (poor, very 
poor and women) to pay. Innovators have the challenge of helping generate effective demand as 
well as meeting existing demand from better off farmers for their infrastructure, products or 
services. Effective demand for the products and services of innovations often depends on locally 
available micro-finance at low interest rates for poor or very poor farmers. It is recommended that 
there should be greater southern participation in SWFF. SWFF should consider the most effective 
ways of managing micro-finance that extends credit to farmers in such a way as not to over-burden 
either the farmer with debt or the innovator with bureaucracy. This will help build a stronger base 
of innovations and impact in areas of greatest need. 
The Program was found to be effectively run, ensuring close attention to detail, and with a hands￾on approach with the awardees. The flow of reliable and authoritative information enables 
innovators and SWFF to “pivot” as new information becomes available. It also helps make difficult 
decisions where necessary. Although innovators reported good support, a variety of operational 
obstacles were reported by innovators. It is recommended that SWFF should foster more exchange 
of information on the barriers which innovators are encountering particularly in the critical first 
7 
year and efforts to overcome them. Initiating wider links with related embassy and other programs 
would further enhance SWFF’s effectiveness. 
The Founding Partner interaction provides effective oversight and direction. They bring 
complementary agendas to the SWFF partnership, which meets the various needs and capacities 
of each agency. USAID’s effective management of the GC is highly regarded. Greater emphasis 
should be given to broadening the southern membership base of the Founding Partners in the new 
initiative and linking these partners effectively to the Program. Such partners could help locate and 
mentor suitable innovators particularly from the South. 
Innovators strongly appreciate the dedicated support of the TA Facility and feel it is efficiently set 
up, organized, and managed, and provides the right kind of support at the right time from the right 
people. Some 74% of innovators cite the TAF as being decisive in its contributions towards their 
success and outcomes. Compared to other programs, SWFF is regarded as adding “tremendous” 
value, specifically in terms of monitoring and evaluation and other reporting capabilities. It is 
recommended that future SWFF-like programs should further reinforce innovator 
sustainability/viability, and programmatic (or innovator) learning and adaptive management as 
well as continuing the reporting on the achievement of primary outcomes. Efficiency would best 
be served by focusing on strengthening the enterprise in Year 1 (microfinance), moving to scale 
in Year 2 (additional investment), and consolidating the business plan in Year 3 (viability). 
The critical aspect of SWFF is its impact on the water efficiency and agricultural productivity of 
beneficiary farmers. During field visits, 14 surveys were undertaken of beneficiaries in South 
Africa, Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, Egypt and Bangladesh. The results indicate that SWFF strongly 
contributed to outcomes: analysis of surveys find (90%) of beneficiaries have improved access to 
water and (95%) water efficiency directly due to SWFF’s innovations. While the inclusion of the 
vulnerable depends on the business model, very poor groups and women are impacted by 
innovations. Farmers reported an increase in agricultural productivity through increased yields, a 
greater number of growing seasons or a diversification of the crops grown, and more efficient use 
of inputs (labor, time, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.). Resilience to extreme weather conditions is less 
evident but can be inferred: better adaptation to extremes by increased water access and a reduction 
in reliance on rainfed farming, targeted and improved irrigation, and better control over adverse 
climate conditions and pests. Measured impact is crucial to each innovator’s credibility. As such, 
surveys should be undertaken at modest expense in the new initiative to ensure baseline and impact 
in particular in relation to inclusion (women, poor and very poor), income, and climate resilience. 
Resilience to weather extremes in agriculture should be included in the design of future 
innovations as this will certainly increase their impact. Since climate conditions impacting on 
agriculture are becoming pronounced, express criteria on climate resilience should be included in 
applications to WE4F. 
Sustainability was assessed at a meta, program and innovation level. A critical aspect of 
innovation is use of the data to learn from failure. Round by round innovations are succeeding to 
meet the needs of the poor or very poor over the years and are gaining in viability, but more could 
be learned from success and failure. Gender integration is identified as a key social component of 
sustainability, without growing participation by women in the markets for innovation and in the 
management and ownership, innovations will be constrained in impact and hampered in 
8 
sustainability. SWFF should continue the drive for gender integration accentuating economic and 
organizational advantages as well as the human rights perspective. It is recommended that, as well 
as celebrating and learning from success, SWFF should improve its systematic and intentional 
learning from failure and make this more widely available. SWFF should systematically record 
and analyze the reasons for failure, in institutional stability, finance, technology, and other 
dimensions. In relation to environmental sustainability, many innovators expressed strong 
commitment to green technologies, organic pesticide-free agriculture, and improved soil quality. 
In addition, a number of products (such as NewSil) contribute to reducing or eliminating fertilizers 
and pesticides. There is a keen interest among innovators to achieve organic farming through the 
technologies they promote. Since more governments now are increasingly interested in declaring 
agricultural zones or entire states as organic, SWFF should consider such a target in selection 
criteria.
9 
Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions 
EVALUATION PURPOSE
The primary purpose of this evaluation is to determine the extent to which the Securing Water for 
Food (SWFF) Grand Challenge for Development (GCD) program contributed to the expected 
SWFF program outcomes and results achieved by innovators during project implementation and 
post project implementation. The primary focus areas have been whether SWFF innovations have 
led to the production of more food using less water, thus ensuring greater food security and raising 
incomes particularly of poor farmers. The evaluation team has sought to validate the results already 
reported by SWFF and answer the questions on why and how the outcomes were achieved by 
innovators, identify the contributing factors particularly as regards to SWFF programming, and 
uncover the unintended positive and negative consequences that arose as innovators implemented 
their models. The performance evaluation concurrently examined SWFF/Technical Assistance 
Facility (TAF) program efficiency and impact through the lens of the program delivery, the risks 
taken, and the technical assistance provided. Data collected regarding the operations as well as the 
financial and human resources spent on the SWFF/TAF has been used to assess the results and, 
within time constraints and as feasible, to compare SWFF’s operational efficiency and 
effectiveness with similar grand challenge funds. 
The sources of data from which the evaluation report have been compiled include: 
• SWFF TAF annual monitoring data via DevResults and the SWFF awardee database; 
• SWFF TAF program documentation; 
• Site visits with 17 SWFF innovators; 
• For innovators visited, surveys and Focus Group Discussions (FGD) with users/customers of 
the innovation; 
• For innovators visited, FGDs with non-users where appropriate and feasible;
• Applicant survey already conducted by SWFF of three rounds of awardees, finalists, and non￾finalists.
• All rounds of innovators that have received two or more years of funding; innovators with one 
year of funding; and SWFF non-innovators; 
• Additional survey data from rejected SWFF proposal applications and finalists to increase 
sample size of counterfactual;
• Qualitative information gathered from interviews with current SWFF portfolio innovators that 
the team were not able to visit, non-recipients of SWFF funds, founding partners, TAF staff, 
members of the Innovation Investment Advisory Committee (IIAC). 
A follow-up phase to be conducted by SWFF Dexis Evaluation Team will seek to update the 
analysis of Round 4 SWFF Innovators and further follow-up analysis of Rounds 1-3 innovator 
results.
10
The Evaluation Design includes the initial criteria and indicators for assessing the efficiency and 
impact of SWFF, which were refined in later discussions with the SWFF Founding Partners, and 
a proposal for the methodology and sample selection. 
KEY ISSUES TO BE EVALUATED 
The summary of the SWFF program below sets out the key outcomes anticipated from SWFF and 
Awardee activities to be evaluated; it is anticipated that these activities will lead to at least 40 
projects in 30 eligible countries. The expected outcomes of SWFF were that: 
1. At least eight proposals/innovations that improve water availability and efficiency in the 
food chain have been adopted, brought to scale and/or commercialized by businesses in at 
least eight developing and low-to-middle income countries (see p 58 of partners PAD); 
2. Demand for and availability of these innovations have increased. 
3. More food has been produced with less water or more water has been made available for 
food production in the eligible countries (NL aim in line with NL policy is 25% resource 
efficiency improvement by the program innovations as compared to standard practice in 
the implementation countries; Sida aims for 20% resource efficiency improvement by the 
program innovations as compared to standard practice in the implementation countries). 
4. This program will also contribute to increased water-related resilience to climate change 
(climate change adaptation).
5. Impact indicators include (see SWFF PMEP for specific program indicators and indicator 
targets): 
a. Percentage of food productivity / volume water increase
b. Volume of water usage reductions through efficiency-increasing innovations in the 
food value chain 
c. Volume of water captured and stored for food production 
d. Percentage increase in agricultural yields/farmed area due to SWFF innovations 
e. Number of direct customers/end-users of the program (disaggregated by gender) 
f. Number of innovations adopted, brought to scale, and/or commercialized 
g. Number of poor people reached (in some cases, individual SWFF awardees had 
expected outcomes regarding poverty). 
In line with the GCD Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) operational plan, the present evaluation 
fully incorporates the GCD Results frameworks and will evaluate on indicators at three levels: 1) 
the meta-level (enabling analysis across GCDs); 2) the program-level (SWFF level); and 3) the 
awardee-level. These levels roughly correlate to the OECD evaluation categories with Impact and 
Sustainability linked to the meta-level, and relevance, effectiveness and efficiency generally linked 
to the program and awardee levels.
11
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
This final program evaluation should determine whether or not the SWFF program as a whole led 
to the production of more food using less water based on the performance of the innovations that 
SWFF funded. During this evaluation, the evaluator will examine evidence provided to SWFF by 
SWFF innovators in order to determine the impact of the program around the following questions:
A. SWFF Innovator’s Impact
1. To what extent has SWFF contributed to the outcomes and results outlined by the indicators 
in the SWFF PMEP during project implementation and post project implementation? In 
answering this question, the evaluator should take into consideration the following: 
a. Is there demand and local ownership for the SWFF innovations (individually and 
across all innovations)? 
b. Does the SWFF TA overcome organizational capacity barriers for innovators? 
Were there additional barriers that were not addressed?
c. Have vulnerable groups (the poor, women, ethnic minorities) been positively and/or 
negatively impacted (through income, employment, water/environmental benefit or 
harm) from SWFF supported innovations? Specifically, has SWFF reduced the 
number of people in poverty as a result of supporting SWFF-supported innovations 
and has SWFF increased the number of women benefitting from SWFF-supported 
innovations. 
d. Did SWFF-supported projects increase water efficiency/make water more 
accessible? Did SWFF projects meet their water efficiency/availability targets? 
Overall, across all innovators, did the program meet the water 
efficiency/availability targets?
e. Did SWFF-supported projects lead to more agricultural productivity and resilience 
to climate change? Did SWFF projects meet their agricultural productivity targets? 
Overall, across all innovators, did the program meet the agricultural productivity 
targets?
f. Were SWFF-supported projects environmentally sustainable (i.e., did they provide 
positive environmental benefit, or did they do more environmental harm than 
good)? 
g. Were SWFF-supported projects likely to be financially and socially sustainable by 
the organizations supporting the innovation? 
h. What is the balance between public/social engagement and private/public 
engagement? To what extent have private funds been generated that contribute to 
the developmental objectives of the program both during and following SWFF 
awards.
2. How much of the measured change (outcome or result indicator) in the SWFF program can 
in fact be attributed to the SWFF-supported projects? That is, what portion of the result is 
not explained by the projects examined by the evaluation? (SWFF recognizes that this is a 
difficult question to answer, but wants the evaluator to make the best effort to answer this 
question). 
3. To what extent are there differences between the planned SWFF-supported projects and 
what was actually delivered in Year 1 and then Years 2-3 of the projects? 
12
B. SWFF Program’s Impact and Efficiency
1. To what extent were the SWFF results to date in balance with the level of effort and 
resources (funds, human resources including by the FPs, TAF, interns, consultants)? 
2. To what extent is the level of effort and resources spent by applicants/innovators in balance 
with the added value SWFF brings? 
3. How effectively have investment risks been managed by the program? (number of failed 
projects, timeliness of reaction on problems observed etc.) 
4. To what extent was the TA Facility efficiently set up, organized and managed? 
5. To what extent did the SWFF TA Facility provide SWFF innovators with technical 
assistance that led to an immediate success (a support engagement is defined as an 
immediate success if deliverables formally agreed to by the awardee in the work plan were 
delivered as the awardee expected) and long term success (a support engagement is defined 
as a long-term success if the product or advice delivered is actually adopted by the 
innovator and results in recognized value, such as a shift in strategy, an effective 
partnership, additional funding, new financial forecasting capabilities, or an improved 
manufacturing approach or product design)? To what extent did the SWFF TA Facility 
provide SWFF innovators the technical assistance that innovators deemed useful? Did 
SWFF enable certain (new) (combinations of) expertise to be deployed that would 
otherwise likely not have been deployed/used (by the individual partners)? 
6. To what extent are the administrative costs for managing SWFF above, below, or on par 
with the cost of similar Challenge funds? (Special Consideration should be made for funds 
that provide technical assistance to their innovators.) 
7. How well did founding partners interact within SWFF and what lessons should be taken 
from their interactions?
Following the Evaluation Design, in preparing the data collection instruments, the evaluation 
questions were gathered under the following section headings for ease of use. These section 
headings have been applied in structuring the report as follows. 
SOW EQ Report EQ question organization 
Section C-V.a, A1a Section 1 - SWFF Program Relevance
A1b, B3, B5, B7 Section 2 - SWFF Program Effectiveness
B1, B2, B4, B6 Section 3 - SWFF Program Efficiency
A1c, A1d, A1e, A1h, A2, A3 Section 4 - SWFF Impact
A1f, A1g Section 5 - SWFF and Sustainability
13
Project Background
As an innovation and acceleration initiative, the goal of Securing Water for Food (SWFF) is to source, 
incubate and accelerate high-potential technical solutions and/or business models that find new and sustain 
existing water supplies as well as lower overall water demands in the food value chain to reduce water 
scarcity and poverty. SWFF innovators scale innovations designed to support the program’s overall goal. 
The focus areas of SWFF include: 
• water efficiency and reuse, especially targeted at the food value chain; 
• water capture and storage, in particular in regions where rain occurs at limited times; and 
• saltwater intrusion, especially in coastal aquifers or deltas and estuaries. 
 
The SWFF Founding Partners (United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the 
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the 
Kingdom of the Netherlands (MFA-NL), and the South African Department of Science and Technology 
(DST)) share the common goal of advancing international development through improved access to 
sustainable water sources for agricultural applications. Values that are common to the Founding Partners 
include sustainability, efficiency, sourcing of market-based solutions, gender inclusion, climate adaptation 
and mitigation, benefit to poor people, and a commitment to avoid negative effects (particularly with 
regard to water-related services). 
 
The SWFF Founding Partners recognize that often 100 investments are made in the private sector to get 
one successful innovation to wide-scale adoption. SWFF aims to have at least 10-20% of the innovations 
it supports reach some level of wider-scale adoption (greater than 10,000 customers/end-users). In support 
of these aims, USAID (the lead program implementer) has contracted the SWFF Technical Assistance 
(TA) Facility to provide and/or facilitate TA services and assist USAID in the implementation of the 
program to help innovators accelerate their progress to reach wider-scale adoption. The Innovation 
Investment Advisory Committee (IIAC) provides advice on selection of innovators, assessment of 
progress and determination of benchmarks to make sure that the Founding Partners support those 
innovations that most likely will achieve success. To date, four calls for proposals have been announced 
and selection of innovators completed. 
 
Through SWFF, the Founding Partners hope to source and accelerate high potential solutions that will 
have multiplier effects at various levels of a country’s economy. The following three hypotheses are both 
meaningful and practical measurements of SWFF’s development impact potential: 
 
1. By investing in science and technology innovations at the water and agricultural nexus, the pace of 
development in both sectors will be substantially faster than if we relied on “traditional” development 
programming alone.
2. By sourcing technologies and business model innovations that have already demonstrated potential at 
the pilot stage, Tier 2 SWFF-supported innovators have greater likelihood of being brought to scale 
(reaching at least 1 million people) and Tier 1 SWFF-supported innovators have a greater likelihood 
of reaching wider scale adoption (reaching more than 10,000 customers/end-users). 
Source, incubate and accelerate high-potential technical solutions and/or business m
odels that find new and sustain existing water supplies as well as lower overall water
demands in the food value chain to reduce water scarcity and poverty 
so 1 
DEFINE 
Data & Evidence 
Used to Define Specific 
Barriers to Development 
SO 2 
M OBILIZE 
Partners and Solvers 
Mobilized 
IR2.1 
P artn ersh ip s B u ilt to A d va n ce
Program 
IR 2 .2 
In n o v atio n s Sourced from
D iverse Solvers 
SO 3 
SC A LE 
Viable Science and 
Technology Innovations 
Scaled 
IR 3.1 
S o lv er C ap a city to Sca le Up
Im p ro ved 
IR 3.2 
H igh Pote ntia l S olutions A re
A dop ted 
S01-S04: 31 indicators are maintained by TAF/SWFF 
IR1 
IR2 
IR3 
IR4 
IR5 
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE & SCALING, 10 Indicators 
GRANTS & FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, 6 Indicators 
MONITORING AND EVALUATION, 6 Indicators 
COMMUNICATION AND PARTNERSHIPS, 5 Indicators 
TA FACILITY ADMINISTRATION, 4 Indicators 
IR4.1, 4.2 & 4.3: 28 indicators are maintained by Awardees with 
assistance from TAF/SWFF 
SO 4 
IMPLEMENT 
Solvers Help to Overcome 
Critical Barriers to 
Development 
IR 4.1 
Increa sed a cce ss/a v a ila b ility to
and m ore efficien t, safe use of
w a te r fo r su sta in a b le food
pro ducers o f all scales th ro u g h o u t
th e su p p ly chain in low and
m id d lein com e coun tries 
IR 4.2 
Im p ro ved R esilie nce and w ater
a v ailab ility due to clim a tic and
sea so n a l varia bility 
IR 4.3 
R edu ced risks fro m salinity
due to te ch n o lo gical ad va n ces 
14
3. By investing in acceleration-oriented technical assistance and facilitating partnerships, we will 
substantially increase the likelihood that innovators will have the knowledge, tools, and resources to 
bring their innovations to scale. 
The SWFF program has aimed at supporting at least 40 projects in 30 eligible OECD/DAC 1-4 countries. 
Evaluation Methodology and Limitations 
The original Results Framework sets out a single Objective and four Sub-Objectives as shown in the 
graphic below and sets of related Intermediate Results. The strategic objectives Define, Mobilize, Scale 
and Implement describe the key activities within SWFF and the related indicators and milestones of 
progress. 
Figure: SWFF Results Framework
This is primarily a performance evaluation which focuses on and measures these results or outcomes and 
impacts at two levels: firstly, that of the strengthening of innovations through support from SWFF/TAF 
and secondly, by these scaled up innovations achieving measurable water efficiency and increasing food 
production. 
Dexis has been encouraged to work collaboratively with the Triple Line evaluation which is running 
concurrently and notes the Innovations interviewed, provisional findings and recommendation. This 
strengthens the counterfactual to SWFF in other GCDs and provides access to comparative data. 
15
There are a number of levels at which attribution for outcomes and impact is possible: firstly, that of 
SWFF/TAF in giving resources and providing support for innovations/awardees, secondly by the 
innovations themselves, and thirdly by support from partnerships and government and other agencies. 
These distinctions demonstrate the complexities of attribution which is considered not separately but in 
combination as contributions in achieving competence in the management of innovations and impact from 
the application of the technology embodied in the innovation. The Outcomes Harvesting approach which 
does not start from work plans or from a theory of change is open to retrospectively identifying the full 
range of drivers after identifying and validating outcomes.
The familiarization with these procedures, full access to this data and the evaluation methodology itself 
has been discussed with SWFF. The focus of Outcomes Harvesting is on the substantiation of Outcomes 
and this is found, in part, through the validation of data. 
Outcome Harvesting Approach
The methodology suggested in the SOW is that of Outcome Harvesting, which is an approach in which 
evaluators identify, formulate, verify, analyze, and interpret 'outcomes' (in summary, substantiate 
outcomes) in programming contexts where relations of cause and effect are not fully understood. This is 
particularly suitable for this evaluation where activities, responsibilities, and outcomes tend to overlap 
between SWFF and Awardees in the specific details of each innovation. 
The primary source of information will be through the KII with TAF, FP, IIAC and Innovators followed 
by sources which provide other perspectives on Outcomes which provide triangulation such as a) the 
disparate views as captured in the KII and b) the beneficiaries (in FGD and surveys) who provide a 
perspective from below. The analysis of this data is set out in the Data Analysis Plan. 
Selection of Innovations and Sites
The selection of innovations was undertaken with key criteria (including sites not previously visited) 
agreed with the client. The sampling frame for most of the data collection and analysis, in particular the 
meticulous review of performance monitoring data, existing and proposed survey data, interviews, and 
desk review will consist of the entire universe of innovators. 
The team developed a sampling universe in Excel in which all innovations from the SWFF program, 
including alumni and graduates, are listed. Across the columns the site selection criteria were found and 
entered. The team then ranked the innovators using a sort with multiple levels of criteria in order of 
importance, e.g. if geographic region was the most critical data cut, followed by country, focus area, round, 
visit status and then other available data on criteria. 
The tables below indicate the “demographics” of the sample; although the SOW required eight site visits 
the multiple sorting identified the following 20 innovations as the sample, to which Egypt was added as it 
had not previously been visited. The tables below provide the characteristics of the sample. In terms of 
the current status of projects, 13 of the sample are current, five are Alumni and another three are Graduates. 
The Alumni are somewhat over-represented in selection which partly compensates for under￾representation in responses to the Post Awardee Survey. 
16
Table 1. The Sample: Current Status
Project Status Selected Others Grand 
Total 
Alumni 5 9 14 
Current 13 2 15 
Graduate 3 8 11 
Grand Total 21 19 40 
The sample also provides effective representative of the three levels of Rounds undertaken in SWFF. 
Table 2. The Sample: Rounds
Rounds Selected Others 16 
Rd. 1&2 10 8 18 
Rd. 3 9 3 12 
Rd. 4 3 7 10 
Grand Total 21 19 40 
Although 21 Innovations were selected, the budget provided for 8 sites to be visited; but rigorous field 
visit planning resulted in 17 innovations being visited and surveys conducted on 14 sites. The sample 
amounts to 21 out of the 40 Innovations1 on the Awardee Database, a reasonably representative selection 
from the continents and focus areas.
Table 3. The Selected Sample: Country and Innovations
Country and Innovation Country total and status 
Bangladesh 2 
Lal Teer Visited, survey conducted 
Practical Action Visited, FGD
Egypt 1 
ICBA Visited at a distance2
, survey 
conducted 
Ghana 2 
Ignitia Visited, survey conducted 
Skyfox Visited, survey conducted 
India 7 
EDR Not visited
Adaptive Symbiotic 
Tech Not sufficient time to visit
 
1 One of the innovations, CUT is based in South Africa but has a subsidiary in Kenya.
2 The visit to the sites was undertaken, on advice, by the local consultant.
17
Country and Innovation Country total and status 
MyRain Not responsive 
SWAR Visited, survey conducted 
Naireeta Visited, survey conducted 
WASTE Stichting Visited, survey conducted 
NewSil Visited, survey conducted 
Kenya 4 
IRK Sunculture Visited
CSDES M-FODDER Not responsive 
ITIKI CUT Visited, survey conducted 
Hydroponics Africa Visited, survey conducted 
South Africa 3 
Ecorangers Visited, survey conducted 
Reel Gardening KII, recent evaluation
CUT Visited, survey conducted 
Uganda 2 
Aquaponics Farming Visited, survey conducted 
Green Heat Visited, survey conducted 
Grand Total 17 out of 21 sites visited 
Data Collection: Qualitative, KII
There were initially 24 proposed Key Informant Interviews with persons selected on the following criteria: 
leading FPs, DST, IIAC from South, most experienced IIAC (generally participating in three rounds) and 
gender dimensions. Fortunately, participation in World Water Week (August 23-31, 2018) supported by 
SWFF offered an opportunity to undertake considerably more KII than initially planned and a total of 39 
were completed (See Annex 6 Data Collection Instruments).
A well developed and appropriately structured instrument aligned to Nvivo was prepared. This provided 
the instrument for data capture during the KII and FGDs and, in Nvivo, led on to auto-coding from a set 
of pre-codes prepared for all major questions. 
FGD and KII Preparation and Data Capture 
A facilitator fully familiar with the language of beneficiaries moderated the FGD sessions together with 
the team member. Each session was recorded and the Consultant indexed discussions to identify key 
sections of an interview for full transcription for potential reporting to give concrete expression to new 
insights, key trends and common assumptions. 
Data Analysis Plan 
18
In undertaking Data Analysis, the team has given priority to the computation of respondent-assessed 
outcomes, thematic outputs from KII, the ranking of issues and innovation priorities, and findings made 
from the analysis and structuring of the qualitative data. The two processes of qualitative and quantitative 
analysis have been drawn on simultaneously and interactively. 
Qualitative Analysis
Qualitative data sources include the KII which provide a range of expert opinion from the TAF itself, in 
the FPs, the IIAC and the Innovators. The KII instrument was designed to incorporate the Outcome 
Harvesting approach to elicit responses on the identification and self-definition of outcomes, of 
retrospective causation for these outcomes and substantiation of both these Outcomes and Drivers within 
and beyond the SWFF framework.
The KII instrument was designed and formatted in Word to provide for the selection of pre-coded 
attributes and auto-coding in Nvivo to lead to rapid data capture and analysis. The question guide was 
developed into a Nvivo aligned instrument, tested, reviewed and improved. While the use of Nvivo was 
initially more time consuming it did enable rapid data capture and auto-coding is leading to and more 
rigorous analysis and quicker reporting. 
Quantitative Analysis 
With data provided from innovators the team planned the field visits to identify the universe of 
beneficiaries/customers/end users from which to draw a sample for surveys, focus group discussions, 
observations/site visits, and interviews. This provided a purposive sample stratified by region, site, and 
gender and further stratified by availability. 
Analysis was initially made in Excel to establish the frequencies, etc., and the metadata compiled (such 
as number of responses by project status, open-ended responses requiring coding, etc.). Data quality in 
the wider sense is central to the evaluation and metadata files have been assembled. The Dexis Agricultural 
Expert reviewed the drafts of KII and questionnaires were customized to each innovation to ensure that 
no gaps remained on agricultural aspects. She gave particular attention to measures of agricultural 
production and to the types and forms of interventions. She examined the types of crops and their 
significance to households; for instance: whether crops are subsistence or cash crops and whether the 
intended intervention is for a partial or greater aspect of agricultural production. 
The details of the surveys of beneficiaries are presented below: 
Table 4. Surveys of Beneficiaries by Innovation and Country
# Innovation Country Respondents Male Percentage Female Percentage
1 Aquaponics s(WGI), Rd 3 Uganda 10 3 30% 7 70% 
2 CUT ITIKI, Rd 4 Kenya 4 2 50% 2 50% 
3 CUT, Rd 4 South 
Africa 23 5 22% 18 78% 
4 Ecorangers, Rd 1 South 
Africa 27 21 78% 6 22% 
5 Green Heat, Rd 3 Uganda 8 4 50% 4 50% 
19
# Innovation Country Respondents Male Percentage Female Percentage
6 Hydroponics Africa, Rd 3 Kenya 13 2 15% 11 85% 
7 ICBA, Rd 1 (note below)3 Egypt 24 24 100% 0 0% 
8 Ignitia, Rd 3 Ghana 14 8 57% 6 43% 
9 Lal Teer, Rd 3 Bangladesh 25 20 80% 5 20% 
10 Naireeta, Rd 3 India 25 1 4% 24 96% 
11 NewSil, Rd 3 India 10 8 80% 2 20% 
12 Skyfox, Rd 4 Ghana 10 8 80% 2 20% 
13 SWAR, Rd 3 India 6 6 100% 0 0% 
14 WASTE, Rd 4 India 22 5 23% 17 77% 
Total 221 112 95 
Average 16 9.3 57% 7.9 43% 
Despite a compressed time period for field visits to seven countries, South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, India, 
Egypt and Bangladesh 14 surveys were undertaken which included 221 respondents. The surveys have, on average, 
16 respondents and (as designed) were reasonably gender balanced with women constituting 43% of the total 
sample.
Risks and Limitations of the Evaluation Design 
The evaluation team has been conscious of the risks and limitations associated with delivering an 
evaluation of the quality expected by the Founding Partners and the wider SWFF community. To 
overcome these risks and limitations, the team has drawn on the considerable strengths of the team 
members with two having significant experience in the water sector and one as a well-qualified 
agricultural expert. Team members have brought significant experience in a number of SWFF portfolio 
countries including Kenya, South Africa, Ghana, Bangladesh and India. One member of the team has had 
extensive experience with SWFF itself in the MTR. All have had solid experience with multi-country and 
multi-level evaluations. 
The team has brought considerable experience in the compilation of datasets and data analysis using Excel 
extensions and experience in qualitative data capturing and analysis using Nvivo software. 
The team recognizes the following risks and limitations that may have affected our ability to draw 
conclusions with high levels of confidence on some aspects of the program: 
Risks and Mitigation Measures
Risks Mitigation Measures Taken
Insufficient face-to-face time 
with innovators in country due to 
scheduling challenges. 
While the time frames were relatively tight in terms of innovator visits, efforts 
were made to connect with innovators by Skype/phone and email in instances 
where follow-on questions could not be addressed due to time limitations for 
face-to-face meetings in country. Stockholm World Water Week (26-30 
September) also allowed a significant further opportunity to meet with most 
 
3 Note: In relation to ICBA, a focus group discussion was held with 3 women in Cairo.
20
Risks Mitigation Measures Taken
of the innovators that had been visited (with the exception of Egypt). 
Stockholm also allowed for an opportunity to attend SWFF sessions and to 
organize key informant interviews with all remaining innovators as well as 
with the Founding Partners and members of the IIAC and the TAF. 
Insufficient access to customers 
and non-customers to understand 
the success factors for the 
innovations. 
Efforts were made to plan as far in advance with the innovators to impress 
upon them the need to meet with as many customers and non-customers as 
feasible within the allotted time. Time and logistical limitations did prove 
challenging, although the team did meet the target set of speaking directly 
with 200+ customers of SWFF innovations and well over 50 non-customers.
Ultimately there were three 
different team members 
travelling to visit innovators 
potentially resulting in slightly 
different approaches and 
different interpretations of the 
data presented.
The team was careful to produce the survey protocols in advance in such a 
way as to ensure that it suited as many innovators as possible. Contact among 
the team between rounds of visits was also critical to cross-reference and 
ensure that the team’s approach was as consistent as possible. The Key 
Informant Interview protocol was based on the questions noted in Section C 
with clear indications of those questions that were for innovators and 
customers as well as for TAF, IIAC and FP interviews. Well-rehearsed 
methodologies were shared for Focus Group Discussion and surveys. A 
matrix was designed for uniformly capturing information from the desk 
review.
Conducting the visits in two rounds (3 countries each) allowed for an interim 
period to compare notes and further refine the approach. 
While every effort was made to harmonize the approach in advance, some 
differences in interpretation have only become apparent since the visits have 
been completed and comparisons and cross-checks have been made. The 
team was able to spend some time in Stockholm and subsequently clarifying 
these points. 
Data collection methods needed 
to be consistent across visits.
The team had not fully anticipated the challenge of working through Fulcrum 
to collect data in the field and needed to shift to ODK and then to Kobo (which 
is fully compatible with ODK). Although challenging while in the field, the 
team was able to consolidate the approach with the support from local 
consultants. 
Agriculture expertise may not 
have been consistently applied 
across all visits. 
The team has made a concerted effort to engage the agriculture specialist both 
at the macro level to review the surveys and KII protocols but then also to 
review the findings through a metadata analysis of the ODK/Kobo reports. 
Efforts were also made by each travelling team member to enlist the guidance 
of the agriculture specialist to prepare for his or her visit. This involved 
sharing marked-up SWFF documents in advance to clarify aspects around 
agriculture to be reviewed while the team member was in country. Local 
consultants were also brought in with specific expertise in and familiarity with 
the agriculture sector in country. 
Limitations and Mitigation Measures
Limitations Mitigation Measures
The challenge of ensuring that 
sampling is sufficiently 
representative of the portfolio. 
Efforts had been made to ensure that the information being collected during 
visits has been sufficiently diverse to cover as many different kinds of 
interventions across as many geographies within the portfolio as possible 
given the time and funding constraints. While the team met the target of 200 
customers of SWFF innovations, indeed in some instances, the sample size 
21
Limitations Mitigation Measures
was more limited. The team member then needed to approach the task in the 
sense of confirming that the SWFF data makes logical sense based on the 
information collected in country rather than validating through a significant 
sample size. (It should be noted that in some instances, like with Ignitia, a 
significant sample size would range in hundreds to thousands.) 
The comparability of data across 
a diverse group of innovators
This remains a generic challenge for SWFF. The team has been mindful of 
this at all stages of the analysis. The careful coding of the KII protocol and 
the design of the surveys has been critical to ensuring as much comparability 
as possible. 
Clarity on contribution / 
attribution with regard to 
SWFF’s acceleration support. 
The team will work to triangulate from multiple sources in assessing 
contributions and proportional contributions from many points of support. 
The comparability across 
different Challenge Funds in 
terms of costings will prove 
challenging as they each operate 
in different ways and offer 
different support. Finding the 
right comparators may not be 
straightforward. 
SWFF recognizes that this will have been a challenge and the team has liaised 
with TripleLine to help clarify approaches to this issue and sought advice 
from policy makers who have experience in a number of Challenge Funds. 
Findings 
 
Section 1: Relevance 
Question 1: Technically, what types of innovations have been supported? How many innovations 
have been awarded funding? What are the basic demographics/ descriptors of innovators? (H2) 
SWFF has the objective of helping farmers around the world to grow more food with less water through 
enhanced water storage and more effective irrigation practices, improved soil quality, and the use of saline 
water. SWFF does this by ensuring that entrepreneurs and scientists behind groundbreaking new 
approaches are getting the support they need to apply and expand their solutions around the world. 
In analyzing the evidence from SWFF data and from key informant interviews, we have explored the 
business goals and social objectives of the innovations, their types in terms of outputs, locality as an 
innovation and the demographics of management. These include an analysis of SWFF’s portfolio by 
sectors, outputs, social engagement, locality, in for-profit and non-profit; all with a view to understanding 
how SWFF spreads risk and ensures potential social and agricultural returns. 
The overwhelming preponderance of innovations has been in Water Efficiency and Reuse followed by 
Water Capture and Storage. The lack of applications for support from innovations having the objective of 
agricultural production in saline conditions led to the special call with 2 winners in Round 2 to make up 
this deficit. The number of innovations accepted into the program in each Round has gradually declined 
from 16 in Round 1, 12 in Round 3 and 10 in Round 4. Although there has been a downward trend, the 
locality and orientation of innovations has changed in favor of the south and with more of an emphasis on 
meeting the needs of poor or the poorest farmers and particularly those of women farmers. 
22
There are significant differences technically between innovations; some are capital intensive with outputs 
such as a standalone water infiltration infrastructure, others provide a readily sellable product such as 
treated seeds, and others provide a service, usually an information service. Among the 23 innovators 
interviewed, 7 were infrastructure based, 8 were product based and a further 8 provided a service. The 
character of output logically affects the ability of farmers to invest and thereby innovators to scale up; 
those with expensive infrastructure being slower than those with relatively inexpensive additional units 
with information technology customers. 
SWFF prioritizes interventions in the south where there is the greatest need and potentially the greatest 
demand for the innovations it supports. Northern innovations have been encouraged to explore markets 
and establish subsidiaries in the south and local innovations (those based in the country or continent) are 
prioritized. This strategy has been implemented Round by Round as the number of local innovations 
indicates.
Table 5. Locality of innovations supported, Rounds
Rounds Local
Non￾local
Grand 
Total
1 4 12 16
2 0 2 2 
3 6 6 12
4 7 3 10
Grand Total 17 23 40
Source: Awardee Results database
In Round 1, most of the innovations supported were non-local to the south with 12 compared to 4 local 
innovations. By Round 3, this had been adjusted to 6 local and 6 non-local innovations, and by Round 4, 
the 7 local innovations were in a majority compared to the 3 non-local innovations. With one exception, 
all innovations in Africa are now local. 
This strategy is strongly supported by the Founding Partners particularly in support of local innovations. 
There is a clear shift to companies registered in the south. Any American or Swedish company can 
be registered in the south, but Sida is keen to see more indigenous companies particularly with 
women in leadership positions. 
A number of northern innovations have risen to the challenge with the encouragement of SWFF to develop 
local partnerships to explore and expand these markets. One of the Round 1 Graduate mentioned they 
have a local partner with extensive contacts to help treat and market their product. 
While there has been extensive discussion and policy taken on gender integration, most of the existing 
innovations are male led. Among 21 key informant interviews, the SWFF portfolio is represented by 15 
male led innovations with 4 women led innovations and 2 institutions which are led by women and men. 
The SWFF leadership is well aware of this setting and from initially nudging innovations is now 
intervening actively to encourage the necessary shifts in gender balance at all levels in the enterprise. 
23
Gender training and assessments are also helping innovators to recognize the business benefits of 
considering gender more effectively in their business model and approach to their market. 
The social character of the innovation could be a determinant of its commitment to poverty alleviation 
and the inclusion of women, vulnerable ethnic groups and the very poor. From the 21 interviewees were 
represented 13 innovations which were businesses ventures from inception and the remaining 8 described 
their innovations as dominantly focused at least initially on social engagement with a non-profit 
orientation. 
Another measure of social or business orientation is recorded by awardees. Of the 40 innovations a similar 
proportion to that reported in the KIIs is found; a larger group of 25 for-profit and a smaller group of 15 
non-profit innovations. 
Table 6. Profit or Non-profit Innovations, Rounds
Rounds Non-profit Profit
Grand 
Total
1 5 11 16
2 2 0 2 
3 5 7 12
4 3 7 10
Grand Total 15 25 40
The character of innovations has gradually changed over the Rounds. In Round 1 just under 69% were 
for-profit innovations; in Round 3 just over 53% and in Round 4 70% are for-profit innovations. Generally, 
some two-thirds of innovations are initiated as companies while a third of successful awardees maintain a 
non-profit orientation even while searching for markets and funding to scale up. Such analysis does, 
however, not include changes over time such as the migration of innovations from non-profit to for-profit 
enterprises such as in the case of CUT, CSA-MNP, World Hope and other innovations. 
The innovations actually include a wide range of character. One innovation reports it is “quite heavily 
supported by a national government” and not open to the private sector. Another was pioneered by an 
analytical chemist who received other funding before that from SWFF. Yet another was founded by an 
economist who created four innovations in a variety of fields. And a further innovation was founded by 
an educationalist who has lectured in Britain and America and has eight innovations to his name. Finally, 
in the illustration of variety in founders and innovations is a former trade unionist who is dedicated to 
eliminating poverty throughout his country and the world. 
Unlike other Grand Challenge Funds, SWFF has a relatively modest number of current and graduate 
innovations attaining the status of Tier 2s; these include Reel Gardening (R1), Skyfox (R4) and Ignitia 
(R4). The additional funding attached to Tier 2 status is dependent on an innovation being structured for 
market growth (with the probability of being brought to scale to reach at least 1 million people) with a 
team, financing, and partnerships to facilitate that growth. A clear financial model is needed to provide 
evidence that non-grant money is being received in the form of debt/equity financing. All Tier 2 
innovations should be financially sustainable without SWFF funding. The Tiered system enables more 
24
funding to Tier 2 innovations and this group is certainly benefiting financially more than the Tier 1s. This 
does not appear to be “crowding out” other innovations (although there is a smaller number of innovations 
in Round 4). 
FINDING: SWFF has successfully transitioned to having a majority of local innovations. The balance 
between male and female led though remains heavily in favor of male-led enterprises. 
RECOMMENDATION: Going forward, SWFF should continue to encourage women led innovations 
to apply and make the proportion of women in management a criterion for selection to provide additional 
points in the selection process. 
Question 2. Is there demand and local ownership for the SWFF innovations (individually and 
across all innovations)? (H2) 
As noted in other parts of this report, the portfolio of innovations is too diverse to draw sweeping findings 
around some aspects. With regard to local ownership and local demand, as noted above, of the 40 
awardees, 17 are local innovations established by country nationals, i.e. locally registered, locally owned, 
and locally staffed. The narrative below seeks to unpack the different aspects of being “local” for SWFF.
SWFF has moved from predominantly more Northern applicants and awardees in the initial Rounds to a 
more balanced Northern-Southern applicant and awardee pool (as noted above). That said, there was a 
sense from some interviewees that the program is not yet grounded in the South – i.e. that there is 
insufficient Southern participation across the board. Efforts to redress this have been made in terms of 
the composition of the IIAC, seeking more active engagement from South Africa’s Department of Science 
and Technology as a Founding Partner, and efforts by the TAF and others to find channels of advertising 
SWFF to more southern audiences. 
It is recognized that identifying Southern innovators who can apply for this kind of funding is not always 
straightforward due to language constraints, a lack of familiarity with or ability to navigate the application 
process, an inability to muster the arguments in sufficient detail to pass the initial screening stages, and 
other related challenges. These are all acknowledged by SWFF and efforts have been made to try to 
overcome them while recognizing the limitations of a small SWFF/TAF team with not a lot of spare 
resources. That said, this challenge further suggests the need to engage Southern governments, reach out 
to Founding Partner and other interested embassies, identify NGOs operating in this space, and identify 
other channels to expand the pool of applicants from the South even farther. 
In terms of “TA support providers”, there has been a move towards more local provision, often on the 
basis of cost considerations. Innovators also seem to appreciate technical assistance from TA support 
providers who, where possible, are sufficiently familiar with the local context and thereby can make more 
tailored recommendations. 
In most countries, there needs to be local registration and even some designated share of local ownership
for foreign enterprises. Whether this translates into genuine local ownership and whether local 
shareholders have any influence on the direction of the company has been difficult to gauge for “northern” 
awardees.
25
For some innovators, finding skilled local staff has been challenging (either because the skillsets are not 
readily available or because people with the right skillsets are already working for large companies). 
SWFF TAF has provided support in some instances (Ignitia, for example) to sharpen their approach to 
hiring local staff. That said, it was noted in numerous conversations and in the sessions at the recent 
SWFF un-conference that the awardees remain very small firms for the moment and there is not a lot of 
spare cash and scope for expanding the employee base. The competition is fierce in many SWFF local 
economies for talented staff who can manage accounts, effectively reach out to farmers and engage with 
other types of stakeholders, or help advance the business in other ways. Indeed, for most of these 
organizations, individual staff members need to fulfill a wide variety of roles. Interestingly, innovators 
noted in the recent un-conference in Stockholm that in many instances applicants for positions are looking 
for clear and unequivocal job descriptions with defined targets and roles. The mindset of many applicants 
is generally not that of wanting to make a contribution to the enterprise across a wide range of functions 
in a small organization. (Several also noted the challenge of the transition period as the company grows 
and requires more specialized skills and staffing.) All that said, a number of innovators have a stated goal 
to ensure a greater percentage of local staff in senior positions, like that of Project Alba to “reach 75 
percent Cambodians on the senior management team”. 
In terms of local production, for some innovators like WASTE, construction inputs using locally sourced 
raw materials required further innovations to ensure sufficient quality and viability of the product. A 
number of northern innovations (such as AST and NewSil) are locating production facilities in the 
countries in which there are expanding markets.
With regard to local demand, for the innovation by farmers, this is reliant on a range of factors that 
revolve primarily around level of risk and price. Poor farmers are less able to take significant risks 
particularly for innovations that involve major investment in land or infrastructure. There was some 
suggestion that local demand could have been fostered further through connections to other related 
programs from embassies or by working with governments. For most innovators, there appears to have 
been limited or no contact between them and Founding Partner embassies / ministries. Connections to 
NGOs who also work with farming communities (or even tapping into synergies between innovators in 
the same country like SkyFox’s work with fishponds and farmers and Ignitia’s weather messaging service) 
could also make for meaningful partnerships. There is thus a perception that engaging more at this level 
would help innovators to overcome certain barriers or to gain greater uptake more quickly. 
Ultimately as a multi-donor fund, the connection to SWFF has helped to extend innovators’ credibility at 
the local level. In some contexts, this has also proved challenging as the expectation is that the innovator 
was there to provide more traditional development support at no or low cost (i.e. “people didn’t understand 
why we would sell something while having support from USAID”). 
FINDING: There is widespread local need in the south for the innovations and potential for local 
ownership. The challenge is the ability to pay. Innovators are generating effective demand as well as 
meeting existing demand from better off farmers for their infrastructure, products or services. The ability 
to pay in the local context often includes the availability of micro-finance for poor or very poor farmers. 
RECOMMENDATION: SWFF should consider the most effective ways of ensuring effective demand 
for innovations by improving the availability of locally available micro-finance at low interest rates for 
poor or very poor farmers. There should be greater southern participation in SWFF. 
26
Section 2: Effectiveness
Question 7. To what extent did the SWFF TA Facility provide SWFF innovators with timely and 
appropriate technical assistance that led to the creation or enhancing of a viable business centered 
around an innovation that saved water / generated more agricultural product?
Alongside financing, the SWFF design essentially is to provide carefully selected innovations with targets 
and milestones to stretch their capacity, provide the backup support necessary and encourage success at a 
higher scale. The question is whether the Program achieved sufficient effectiveness to achieve this 
objective. The data from interviewees analyzed here relates to questions on whether the target and 
reporting system created a viable business, how the accelerator or TA support provider support worked, 
whether it was effective, and responses on field visits. 
The TAF support to innovations is strongly appreciated. The overwhelming majority of innovators 
reported that the TAF support was timely and appropriate with very few reporting that it was not. This 
minority was concerned about support not always available when needed or TA support providers not 
being the best to their purpose, an issue which is further explored below. With this exception the 
interviewees give high approval of TAF support, either because it was comprehensive from the beginning 
or helped an innovation overcome particular obstacles. 
They helped us with market research, a marketing and branding strategy, environmental impact 
assessment, and some work on our business model for turning this into a viable business instead 
of a social enterprise. The support has been incredibly helpful. 
Other innovators went beyond identifying support from TAF alone to finding that SWFF support opened 
up an environment in which free-ranging relationships of high value could be developed either within the 
SWFF network or beyond. 
We’ve learned so much from SWFF… the exchange with all the other innovators has been huge 
and hugely valuable for somebody who is coming new into this space, and learning how to run a 
business that is socially minded. 
SWFF support systems are favorably compared to others that innovators have encountered. 
Despite its demands on innovators’ time, the targeting and reporting system is found to support a viable 
business. A strong majority felt that the SWFF system helped (a few: or somewhat helped) them to create 
a viable business; only a small minority felt this unhelpful. Reservations appeared to arise from the 
complexity of demanding reporting or to be linked to the appointment and management of TA support 
providers. The majority view is well represented by the following:
Right from proposal framing to setting targets, budget preparation, HR modules and other such 
things, we got very good support.
 
SWFF has an extraordinarily rigorous approach to funding innovations and appears (according to a 
number of interviewees) to be the only agency providing close technical support to awardees throughout 
the funding period. Such support accompanies a demanding monitoring and reporting system to measure 
27
progress, ensure the effectiveness of the innovations and the overall program. This makes for a complex 
system which has costs according to a founding partner. 
Although from reports from innovators this appears effective, I’m not sure that the intense target 
setting with milestones is the best approach.
This individual regarded some of the depth of monitoring and evaluation as a deadweight on innovators. 
A few innovators had an ambiguous attitude to reporting; while acknowledging the long-term value of 
reporting on targets and finances also finding that these activities are burdensome. 
Site visits are warmly welcomed and increase reciprocal interaction. The site visits help personalize 
interaction and clear misunderstandings. SWFF is an unusual program in combining well developed 
reporting systems with personal exchanges and relations between the administration and innovations and 
among innovators themselves. The site visits are an important activity combining personal exchanges as 
well as ensuring the priorities of clear understanding of the detail of targets, monitoring data collection 
and data validation. These visits enable close attention to overcoming crucial obstacles as well as 
establishing close rapport with innovators. The Founding Partners regard the direct exchanges with 
farmers over water and productivity as confirming results and providing “hands-on” credibility to the 
Program.
Equally the innovations value these exchanges: 
We learnt a lot …and based on their suggestions, we shaped our activity and style and we are 
grateful to the team for their support. Things changed a lot after their visit … We had lost precious 
time before their visit. 
From TAF’s perspective these visits enable them to help innovators have the right pitch to funders and 
other agencies:
SWFF gave them the chance to bring an innovation to light that wouldn’t have been; [by providing 
opportunities for] storytelling and projecting themselves. 
The interaction with TAF is also credited with opening links with other SWFF innovators and learning 
from their experience:
We have regarded ourselves as an NGO and didn’t know anything about being an enterprise…what 
I have learned from other innovators has been hugely valuable, and especially important for 
somebody who is coming new into this space, and learning how to run a business that is socially 
minded. So that has been huge. 
A number of innovators in India, South Africa, Egypt and other countries mention government, at a 
number of levels, as their preferred or natural partner. In so doing they are looking to establish viability 
through winning awards and contracts and considerably bigger markets. 
We are planning to document our work and write to ministry of water and sanitation at Delhi, 
where we have good rapport. If we make good presentation to them, they may try to adopt it at All 
28
India level. At state level we will meet minister rural development and persuade them to take this 
up. As we are working with Town panchayat, it is very easy to lobby and upscale the model with 
the support of the government. 
In terms of government relations and potential contracts, it seems that SWFF is advisedly not active in 
opening relationships although this may be possible through USAID which has formal relationships with 
government in the development field. 
FINDING: SWFF reporting system is understood by innovations as helping them advance towards 
viability and the support system is widely acknowledged as critical to innovation viability. The constraints 
of working in a tight system of planning, targeting and reporting are less than the expansion of horizons 
and capacity development. The country visits are highly appreciated and can lead to the clarification of 
key aspects of targeting and reporting. 
RECOMMENDATION: None 
Question 7a. Does the SWFF TA support help the awardee to overcome organizational capacity 
barriers? (These could include strategy development, financial forecasting capabilities, improved 
manufacturing approaches or product design, barriers to accessing funding, etc.).
SWFF offers packages of support ranging from immediate advice from TAF itself, to training and 
consultancy support through approved TA support providers which is intended to be tailored to the 
innovation. The voucher system has been developed to widen the range of choice by providing innovators 
with a schedule of TA support providers they can interview and decide to use. 
In this question on effectiveness of these interventions, responses towards SWFF support are relatively 
diffuse. Among the interviewees, most sought acceleration support to (by rank) strengthen organization, 
strategy, and business plans; followed specific mention of strategic planning; business plans; and product 
design. One or two innovators noted that their needs e.g. specific technology design advice was not met 
by the TA support providers and they would have preferred financial support being under their direction. 
The latter point was made most emphatically by northern innovators but also by those in the south. The 
majority, however, were satisfied with the range of support and specifically with the results from TA 
support providers from the South. 
There was a wide range of opinion about the extent to which the innovators themselves were able to drive 
the process leading up to engaging TA support providers. Most interviewees felt that the acceleration 
support was driven by SWFF, the next group noted that this was jointly decided, and a minority that the 
innovators themselves drove the process. 
The SWFF contribution to the support of innovators is widely reported as leading to the resolution of 
obstacles to innovators development. Some reported immediate removal of obstacles and forward- looking 
perspectives, others reported advice taking longer than anticipated with repeated iterations, and some 
reported that the obstacles were intrinsic to their working environment and could not be readily resolved. 
Some innovators specifically mentioned how they had been involved in deciding on a TA support provider
and it had led rapidly on to a solution. 
29
We were looking at black water recycling as a business model; they had expertise and looked at it 
as a business proposition. We had to provide them data, surveys and they clarified our profit and 
loss and supported the establishment of our business model. 
Others mention a difficult stage of interaction with TA support providers, particularly due to their lack of 
familiarity with local conditions and because of very different time zones.
SWFF is very efficient and perhaps too efficient, the initial challenge I had is they put out a tender. 
It seems from the nature of the tender that the company will almost always be in America with a 
time gap of some 24 hours. Although they had worked in Africa, you could tell there are a lot of 
gaps in fact, we went back and forth over my financial model but eventually we understood each 
other. Maybe it is difficult for them to get consultants from here although they could be very 
efficient.
In this case eventually it worked well but not in a straight line but rather through extensive reiteration is 
needed, a feature with many consultants in an innovatory environment. 
The truth is that SWFF works very well but one thing they couldn’t do for us is to get us a tailor 
made consultant. We needed a resolution of an IT problem; they provided us with software ready 
to use and so we couldn’t use it. But they showed them modifications and eventually redid it and 
it was great. 
Some innovators found that strategies advised by SWFF did not work in their local context. 
We did try to use volunteers and interns, but it was not successful; there were high expectations; 
our country context is different to that of USA. 
One innovator found there were obstacles to their development which were intrinsic to their development 
but not readily solved even with the focused resources of SWFF. The same innovator did, however, value 
the specific advice from a TA support provider which led to growing professionalism in their work: 
We are currently having help with marketing and through the SWFF team with branding, they 
understand my business so well and I have seen them help other innovators to do branding so I 
decided to go for it. 
The innovators and SWFF are understood to be working in an environment in which the innovations 
themselves have to transform by rising to new challenges in defined targets or fail. 
The key question is not only new ideas, it is about taking ideas out into the market specifically the 
transfer of technologies. SWFF wants to see things start and end in the communities, with a market. 
This is your one chance to get it right, you will be culled. 
FINDING: SWFF support is focused on helping innovations to scale up and meet targets; the vending 
system has been considerably improved to meet innovators needs but some innovators would like to 
explore further the engagement of TA support providers to be more flexible and useful. 
30
RECOMMENDATION: More TA support providers from the south should be listed and other aspects 
of choice explored such as contributions from innovators themselves to match funds to engage TA support 
providers. 
Question 7b. Did SWFF TAF enable certain (new) (combinations of) expertise to be deployed that 
would otherwise likely not have been deployed/used (by the individual partners)? 
SWFF aims to bring together the necessary expertise through a variety of means; through TAF itself, the 
TA support providers, SWFF network of innovators and by new partnerships. There is a wide range in 
responses to the question with most mentioning SWFF activities resulting in combination of such expertise 
through new partnerships although a sizable minority does not. A number also felt uncertain whether 
SWFF itself rather than their own initiative was instrumental to these new partnerships.
The direct support of SWFF is highly appreciated but many innovators show as great appreciation for 
SWFF enabling contact between the innovators both within and without the SWFF network. This has been 
the source for many strategic partnerships. 
In relation to direct support, a number of innovators reported that TA support providers had helped 
innovations to break out of the pilot stage: 
We were just starting up as a pilot until SWFF extended support. Without SWFF, we wouldn’t 
have been a viable innovation…the idea never would have arrived. 
Others felt that the open SWFF forums, even more than direct intervention, were a way of making new 
partnerships. 
SWFF Conferences-led to us being able to call on different people in that network and we do that 
frequently. We’ve partnered with SWFF awardees to improve our product and with international 
companies and agencies; all through SWFF. 
For this innovator SWFF conferences opened opportunities to increasing the agricultural productivity 
from their product as well as getting advice about their institutional status as a social enterprise with an 
international organization. 
Another innovation wanting to attract investment to open interventions in two African countries reported 
SWFF opening contacts which led to funding this initiative as well as for attracting additional Netherlands 
social impact funding for the provision of microfinance loans to customers. SWFF “helped a lot” in giving 
credibility to this innovation, in identifying partners and in using its international links to secure 
investment. 
While innovators acknowledged SWFF enabled new combinations of expertise, they were also keen to 
show their own initiative particularly in relation to partnership with government, possibly a sensitive area 
for direct SWFF intervention. 
One innovation stated, “We have made our own links such as with the South African Weather Services 
because we can’t give forecasts without their knowledge.” 
31
On balance SWFF wants to provide support in expanding combinations of expertise but also has the 
expectation that innovators need to take the initiative such as in SWFF conferences and beyond to explore 
expanding these relationships. 
FINDING: Finding the appropriate combination of expertise in support of an innovation is intrinsically 
difficult; while most feel SWFF has helped decisively some innovators want to further explore ways of 
prioritizing their needs.
RECOMMENDATION: Further experimentation with the vendor system in matching funds or another 
funding mechanism would be rewarded. 
Question 7c. Were there additional barriers that were not addressed by the SWFF TAF?
The term “additional barriers” is understood as those barriers outside of the SWFF framework which the 
innovators encounter and work to surmount. While most interviewees felt there were such unresolved 
barriers, a large number were uncertain, and a sizeable group felt additional barriers were not addressed. 
Not all innovators felt that the additional barriers could be successfully addressed by SWFF as these 
sometimes were part of a national or even international social environment far greater than the Program. 
It is a challenging to find the right person with the right commitment and inclination to work in 
the field. Getting someone to work at the office is very easy. This kind of work (as a rural 
development professional), is not known to a lot of people in India. People in India are looking for 
a blue-collar job and this work does not fit in that criteria. 
Other interviewees gave somewhat contradictory responses, either reporting barriers but not receiving 
support but also appreciating advice on their business model. 
No such support was received. There were areas in which we were struggling. Though there are 
several problems that we are facing, we were asked to give the data. We did appreciate the support 
however, on our business model. 
Some barriers were identified by an innovator as very challenging but were not directly identified as being 
within the SWFF field of work. An unusual information technology challenge was encountered very 
challenging to overcome; it took some time to identify just how this would be solved. No response from 
SWFF was reported but through iterative work with a TA support provider to reach the solution. 
A few innovators felt they had barriers which were specifically technical and possibly unique. This point 
is returned to below. 
FINDING: Additional barriers are reported by innovations but not all expected a resolution from SWFF 
itself. Some barriers need longer time and iterative work to overcome. 
RECOMMENDATION: Possibly SWFF should further engage with innovators to list the barriers 
experienced and undertake online exchanges on the most common. 
Question 7d. Were there positive or negative unintended consequences of the support?
32
Every intervention has unintended consequences of one kind or the other. Predominantly interviewees 
reported positive consequences, others positive and negative and a single respondent reported only 
negative unintended consequences. 
Among those that had positive unintended consequences is an innovator who reported that their award led 
to an unexpected access to “different grants with other funders like with FAO”. Improving internal systems 
could also lead on to having the capacity to write better proposals. 
Upgrading software and reporting requirements helped us to understand the business better 
including targeting of funding…ensuring that requests for funds were mapped clearly against 
activities on the ground, etc. 
The institutional and personal contacts between TAF and innovators have had some positive consequences 
which were not entirely planned. 
Little by little the innovator listened more and more while previously he just was not open to the 
support. With space and time…he realized the business was going to collapse and he slowly 
changed. This led to starting a company and taking charge as CEO.
Some of these positive consequences have gone beyond the innovation itself into a much wider social 
field with unintended results, in this case greater consciousness on the extent of climate change and the 
conservation of water. 
We ensured that the farmers are sensitized on the utilization of water, which is a scarce resource. 
We could also ensure that farmers realize the impact of climate change on availability of water. 
They have learnt the hard way and are now using micro irrigation systems. 
Amongst those who had experienced both positive and negative unintended consequences, some were 
aware of changes within themselves.
We now think in a business way which may not be a negative per se but the sales training we had 
in the end took us away from the focus on our intended beneficiaries. 
Others found, for themselves, the loss of funding was a devastating negative consequence to themselves. 
We were sure that we would get the support of SWFF for the next year. But we came to know that 
the support has not been extended. This was the unexpected consequence of the project. 
FINDING: There are mostly positive unintended consequences directly for the innovations or in a wider 
social context. There may be come concern about negative consequences of shrinking rather than 
expanding markets. 
RECOMMENDATIONS: None. 
Question 7e. To what extent did the SWFF TA Facility provide SWFF innovators with technical 
assistance that innovators deemed useful? 
33
Most interviewees were very satisfied or satisfied with TAF support while a small group was either unsure, 
“somewhat” or “not satisfied”. The overwhelming impression in interviews is appreciation of the advice 
communicated either on regular calls or online and, particularly, of field visits. The views of the minorities 
were not uniform, expressing disappointment in some dimension with a suggested partner or a lack of 
specific technological advice or with delayed response. 
Most interviewees felt that the assistance they had received from TAF led to immediate success, or success 
over the longer term; these constituted the overwhelming majority the remainder were unsure or felt 
assistance was not successful.
As mentioned, the majority were highly satisfied with TAF support and many felt this was exemplary and 
led to immediate success.
We are very satisfied with the support; we have worked with other agencies and regard SWFF as 
in the first rank. All of the market research and business model support translated directly to an 
improvement in our model or in our service. They helped us to be an actual viable business entity 
and not just a not-for-profit handing out to beneficiaries. 
The responsiveness of TAF personnel and introduction to the various tools available is appreciated. 
We were very satisfied with the support received from SWFF/TAF. The team is very responsive 
and helpful. Some of the tools around marketing, data collection, and analyzing and using the data 
for M&E and other purposes has been very helpful. 
Special mention is made of gender training and support which was very helpful and scored highly by 
innovators and gave them confidence in dealing with a challenging issue. The training during the South 
Africa conference was effective and helped to elevate that aspect well. 
Some of this majority did have reservations in relation which related to the following: 
• The time taken for TAF or TA support providers to understand the particular technology and 
context of an innovation. 
• The innovation did not or could not take up SWFF advice e.g. “we are working hard to expand our 
program to reach more farmers though perhaps not necessarily through a private sector model”. 
• At times the advice changed unexpectedly, “Communications were not always easy and there were 
a few areas where SWFF changed their focus without clearly explaining why”.
• Lack of access to field reports. Some innovators had not received field reports following visits by 
TAF.
• Lack of specific forms of technical advice, “We have not received any support on the technical 
aspects. We are making them understand that this is a process-oriented product and not over the 
counter product. It is customized to the needs of people.” 
• Difficulties in concluding a satisfactory product from TA support providers, “We tried to work 
with a vendor and it was not a great experience, the vendor felt the work was delivered but it was 
not. The vending scheme has now changed to mitigate these problems”. 
34
There were two issues which are useful to discuss further, firstly the idea mentioned by some innovators 
of greater freedom to adopt vendors of their choice and access to specific scientific or technical support. 
A well-established innovator who was very satisfied with TAF support suggested that the innovation 
wanted to select a TA support provider who he felt was better than those on the SWFF schedule. Others 
who are similarly satisfied have, at times, suggested that their innovations have not able to get the specific 
technical information they needed through TAF. 
These two issues were discussed with TAF and SWFF personnel. SWFF and TAF specifically work within 
United States Government rules which “sometimes prevent us from giving them the things they ask for, 
some are illegal and we are constrained by US law.” USG funding, for instance, cannot be used to support 
media that directly influences a government. 
Procurement rules also restrict innovators or TAF from contracting experts the innovators may want to 
work with. The innovators have to work through the voucher system, get their selection vetted to 
demonstrate they are better and cheaper than competition. 
One of the key attributes for innovations to make the best from assistance is “coachability”, the ability to 
drop defensive reactions and learn fast. A mom and pop innovation may succeed but tends to have fewer 
tools and need more partners. Seasoned advice may be available but it may take time and responsiveness 
for advice to be adopted. This makes the personal qualities and communication abilities of TAF sometimes 
critical to success.
An example was provided of an innovator who was savvy and a “genius for selecting partners”. “She 
recognizes the skills or tools she doesn’t have rather than trying to do everything herself. She finds it with 
other groups. Other innovators have a hard time learning that lesson.” All Founding Partners agree that 
Technical Assistance is both an integral feature of SWFF and a critical reason for the progress of 
innovators. 
FINDING: Technical Assistance is a key feature of the SWFF design and is highly appreciated and many 
innovators consider it more important than the actual funding. Possibly because of its importance there is 
some concern to expand its parameters where possible.
RECOMMENDATION: Technical Assistance and training should be made available in the new 
initiative. 
Question 8. How effectively have investment risks been managed by the program? (number of failed 
projects, timeliness of reaction on problems observed etc.) (H3) Has the milestones-based tiered 
grant structure led SWFF to continue funding only the most promising innovations over time? (H3)
Since SWFF has elevated goals but finite resources, the rewards for risks undertaken is a measure of its 
management. In its design SWFF has risk management policy and procedures to serve two main purposes: 
to identify, reduce or prevent undesirable outcomes and to review past incidents and implement changes 
to prevent or reduce future unfavorable outcomes. The procedures used in application by innovators, the 
applicant survey and the processes involving the adjudication by the IIAC all are evidence of due diligence 
before SWFF funding is advanced. The annual and semi-annual reviews focus attention on measures to 
35
adjust to positive or negative developments. SWFF visits to the innovators are a further channel for 
understanding progress and mitigating risk. 
Evidence on these issues is led largely from key informant interviews the overwhelming of whom regard 
portfolio risks as either “excellently managed” or “well managed”. A few interviewees assessed risks as 
adequately managed or “not well managed”. Most again (among a smaller group that responded) feel that 
the portfolio is balanced with one or two individuals assessed SWFF strategy as “somewhat” or “too 
conservative” and one felt was “overly risk taking”. 
SWFF has a considerably higher risk profile than conventional funding programs; although it also has 
pronounced features of risk mitigation through rigorous selection of innovations and support provided to 
projects which are, by self-definition, not working conventionally. The risk at the innovation level is not 
only of failure to have significant impact but also at the Program level in possibly having no or lower 
returns for funds allocated. 
If the definition of risk rewarded is the return of investors' capital4
, then the Program has a level of risk 
well beyond that of a commercial venture. The social objectives of SWFF, the targeting of the poor and 
very poor, the prioritization of greater agricultural productivity simultaneously with greater water 
efficiency, however, considerably narrow the field and indicate that the Program provides the necessary 
feedstock of financial support which will be used to progress towards these objectives. While there is no 
expectation of direct return of capital, the investment of resources is targeted to realize social returns. The 
risk for SWFF resides, in innovations taking considerable time and resources to start realizing these social 
returns. 
Program failure could be found if a debilitating environment of bad news and crisis management resulted 
from a high level of innovation failure. Various interviewees assess the Program risk in various ways, in 
terms of the complexity of the program, the moderation of risk through careful selection of innovations, 
and by other means.
Risk is always based on how complex the model or business model is. When the current 
(institutional) order is displaced, there are going to be losers and then the potential for a dangerous 
blow back. 
Market failures such as could be experienced by shrinking markets rather than a widening of markets 
could lead to innovation failure and institutional conflicts. 
The failure of a proportion of projects, however, does not necessarily reflect on the Program as no failure 
might indicate the risk taking to achieve high social returns is not taking place. A portfolio of different 
types of innovation and risks is needed for disproportional results to outweigh inevitable failures. It does, 
however, remain for SWFF to demonstrate conclusively the achievement of high social returns. An IIAC 
participant argues SWFF is succeeding in creating such a portfolio.
 
4 This is the standard definition of success according to Shikhar Ghosh, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School and 
three-quarters of venture-backed firms in the U.S. don't achieve this. 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443720204578004980476429190
36
It seems that SWFF is quite balanced given the spectrum of projects it covers. Not many projects 
are found at a higher stage as these tend already to be big commercial activities. SWFF comes in 
to fund the “valley of death” gap, where innovators struggle to scale up in terms of investment and 
customer base-revenue.
SWFF actively works to reduce risks by diligent review of innovations, careful selection and close 
oversight. 
Compared to Sida’s traditional approach, SWFF is much more controlling with a stepwise 
approach that helps to mitigate risk across the board. There has been a lot of discussion about the 
level of risk but in the end, I think the balance has been right, particularly as SWFF is paid for by 
taxpayers. A failure could easily be picked up by newspapers or the on the internet, so protecting 
the reputation has been the right approach. 
Some innovators feel that necessary micromanagement by TAF has radically reduced risk taking. 
Responsiveness: regular review, modern communications, availability of key personnel, prepared to be in 
the field, capacity to provide assistance, reallocation of targets if the best strategy or of funds. Some 
members of the IIAC feel that more could be done although this is not universally held. 
There is more pointing out the problem rather than going in and actually getting your hands dirty, 
making it a connection. 
The IIAC have a critically important role in managing risk while the Founding Partners may have 
contrasting views. There have been pleasant surprises and TAF has been good at turning some of the more 
risky innovators around. The IIAC experts provide an invaluable and much appreciated component of 
SWFF through their multi-disciplinary assessment of risks and rewards across innovations. It is generally 
acknowledged that a key challenge in assessing the innovators is that the IIAC will likely not really know 
the markets in which the innovators are operating. 
The program helps to unlock the reward through the seed money and reduce the risk through the 
requirements and reporting responsibilities placed on the innovators. An IIAC member acknowledges that 
the latter criteria may be choking and that their expert opinion may, in some instances, be overridden by 
the Founding Partners. Some analysis of the success rate of these Founding Partner “overrides" or the 
further work required of SWFF/TAF to ensure the success of these innovators not recommended by the 
IIAC but still brought into the program may be instructive. 
Founding Partners are more open to risk than the IIAC who apply their discipline. It is hard to tell 
how correct the IIAC predictions or initial judgments were – it would be an interesting exercise to 
review the results. There are very few conservative innovators in the program. 
There is a sense that there is a lot of directing and I wonder if there is a loss of innovation…we 
need a balance of creativity in responding to opportunity and as well as following a structure.
As explained, SWFF prioritizes the funding of selected innovators as Tier 2 awardees and their additional 
funding does not appear to have crowded out the Tier 1 awardees but further research is needed to made 
a definitive finding.
37
FINDING: The Program is effectively run, ensures close attention to detail, and has a hands-on approach 
with the awardees. The flow of reliable and authoritative information enables innovators and SWFF to 
“pivot” as new information becomes available and to take difficult decisions where necessary.
RECOMMENDATION: SWFF should foster more exchange of information on the barriers that 
innovators are facing and efforts to overcome them. Initiating wider links with related embassy and other 
programs would further enhance SWFF’s effectiveness.
Question 9. How well did founding partners interact within SWFF and what lessons should be taken 
from their interactions? 
By all accounts, SWFF has been a labor-intensive effort for all involved. Founding partners have had to 
stretch to meet the requirements (not in some ways unlike the innovators themselves) particularly in terms 
of time to dedicate to the program. SWFF has been run with a higher degree of intensity than most other 
challenge funds (as also noted by the TripleLine review for Sida) with more regular meetings 
and high expectations of partners to review lengthy applications and provide input to decision-making 
particularly as to whether innovators should be advanced to subsequent stages in the program. 
SWFF has a productive division of labor. The appearance is that with shrinking in-house capacity, other 
founding partners have had to run to keep up with USAID, who installed a dedicated staff member to 
oversee the day-to-day functioning of the fund. With this, a high level of trust has grown out of an 
appreciation for the dedication and commitment as well as the attention to detail shown by the USAID 
manager. Regular meetings and consistent reporting have served to keep partners up to date (even as 
partner representatives changed) both on the progress of the innovators but also of SWFF as a whole. As 
a result, there is a high level of familiarity with the inner workings of SWFF by founding partner 
representatives, including the processes used to select, support, and graduate the innovators, as well as 
many of the innovations and their contexts. 
Founding partners make important policy as well as funding contributions. There has also been an 
appreciation for the diverse but generally complementary agendas of the different partners. With time, 
partners have come to anticipate the particular themes and kinds of questions that each has brought to the 
table about the program overall and with regard to innovator selection and support. A clear example is 
the Sida emphasis on gender for which Sida put forward guidance, offered some analysis and leveled clear 
expectations as to how it expected SWFF to incorporate gender into the program. Gender did not become 
a measured indicator but there was a clear expectation that innovators would recognize and seek to 
optimize their impact in this area. This became more embedded in the selection criteria in later rounds. 
Thus there was a sense from interviewees that founding partners could influence the design and shape of 
the program, although less on the day-to-day which was run by USAID rules.
IIAC members also noted that founding partners had veto power that in some instances reinstated the 
application of an innovator that they had rejected. Although recognizing the “political” nature of these 
kinds of programs, some IIAC members questioned why they as a diverse group could take considerable 
time to review and reject an application based on their professional judgment that was then still brought 
into the program. 
38
USAID is highly visible while most founding partners have low visibility in SWFF. The general sense 
from innovators is that the founding partners were not very visible throughout the process. 
Obviously working with USAID on a weekly and monthly basis in what was often described as an intense 
but supportive relationship left the other partners a bit in the background. That 
said, numerous interviewees noted that there were missed opportunities to tap into complementary support 
that could perhaps have been provided by embassies and related programs. Although nothing was to stop 
innovators from making these connections, it seems that SWFF itself was not forging these links. This ties 
in to other aspects of the review, which notes that, due largely to resource constraints, efforts to address 
bottlenecks in the wider enabling environment were not really embedded in SWFF. 
SWFF has an uncertain influence on other donor funding programs. It is difficult to note with any certainty 
how influential SWFF has been on other donor programming. Informal conversations with colleagues 
from related offices seemed aware of but not very familiar with SWFF. It was suggested that efforts by 
USAID to reach out to DGIS and Sida in a wider vein would have helped to spread the word more 
effectively and keep SWFF “on the front burner”. While interviewees suggested that SWFF had a positive 
influence on other programming, little actual evidence was put forward for the team to review of how 
other programs had been shaped in SWFF’s image or adapted elements of SWFF’s approach. That 
said, interviewees were doubtful that with limited human resources that SWFF could be replicated in any 
meaningful way in-house as implemented by USAID. Although there was an appreciation for the results 
and the contribution of the lean TAF and its efforts to ensure value for money, funders were less familiar 
with the actual running costs for SWFF and the staffing and other costs being absorbed by USAID beyond 
the $35m budget. So there remains a question of how much it actually costs to run a program of this nature 
and design. 
The founding partners include key northern funding agencies and, despite the participation of South 
Africa, there is a deficit of participation from southern governments and institutions. Interviewees also 
mentioned that the frequent reference back to the northern founding partners and their way of working left 
the program a bit skewed in terms of not necessarily being grounded in how businesses take off in different 
contexts. Ideally South Africa as a late-comer fourth partner would have played a more prominent role to 
redress the balance somewhat. It was suggested that future such arrangements should ensure more 
southern representation at an earlier stage. This has been expressed by a founding partner: 
It was obvious that SWFF needed a more southern perspective and we helped push for more 
southern partners to join. 
There are not many southern countries which had the necessary depth of knowledge and of scientific 
community to make a significant contribution to the IIAC and in other dimensions. 
The challenge is to ensure that the quality of representation is appropriate in the quality of 
representation – South Africa has academic strength, knowledge of how things work, network and 
connections. 
The Founding Partners combine complementary interests with individual priorities and recognize these 
synergies make the SWFF approach stronger. Ultimately, although the relationships among the founding 
partners has been noted as very healthy and productive, (a “healthy competition” even), some interviews 
39
reflect that an element of connectedness appears to be missing. Some of this is down to time constraints 
of busy staff, but in interviews there sometimes appears to be a facilitation gap that is mindful or aware 
of more than the nuts and bolts of the program. 
Such a gap could be closed if, for example, the criteria of investors to guide the program could be used 
from the first instance, the links between innovators and other programs in country could be made , the 
bottlenecks in the enabling environment could be broadly reviewed and the connection to other challenge 
funds to learn from their successes and failures could be made methodically and systematically. 
FINDING: The founding partners bring complementary agendas to the SWFF partnership, which meets 
the various needs and capacities of each agency. USAID’s effective management of the GC is highly 
regarded. 
RECOMMENDATION: Greater emphasis should be given to broadening the southern membership base 
of the Founding Partners in a new initiative and linking these partners more effectively to the Program. 
Such partners could help locate and support suitable innovators particularly from the South. 
Section 3: Efficiency 
Question 10. To what extent were the SWFF results to date in balance with the level of effort and 
resources (funds, human resources including by the FPs, TAF, interns, consultants)? 
As outlined below in Table 7 Comparative Efficiency, 66% of KII respondents stated that SWFF is above 
“par” (“highly efficient”); 1 respondent felt SWFF operates below; and 15% are uncertain due to a lack 
of data on LOE and resources spent. The solitary respondent on “not efficient” felt that the overarching 
system was too complex to be efficient. 
Table 7. TAF Comparative Efficiency 
TAF Efficiency (N=27) N % 
Above 1 4% 
Highly efficient 18 66% 
Not efficient 1 4% 
Sufficiently efficient for purpose 3 11% 
Uncertain 4 15% 
However, Table 8 on SWFF results vs resources demonstrates clearly that the majority of innovators (67%; 
n=21) were unclear on the SWFF budget; two innovators had limited sight; and only three (16%) had 
clarity around the budget. That being said, subjectively 67% of respondents stated that SWFF has high 
value for money; 33% are uncertain; no one stated that SWFF does not provide value for money. 
Table 8. Results vs. Resources
Knowledge of SWFF Budget (N=19) N % 
Clarity around budget 3 16% 
Limited sight of budget 2 10% 
Uncertain around budget 14 74% 
40
Value for Money (N=21) N % 
High value for money 14 67% 
Uncertain re value for money 7 33% 
The responses captured in this table also support the notion that innovators and other key respondents 
from founding partners and the IIAC feel that financial reporting, M&E requirements, and the application 
process are at value or exceed the value in comparison to the SWFF support received. 
74% of respondents across all respondent types were unclear on the specific overall costs associated with 
SWFF, but did note that while they felt SWFF’s costs were higher than other GC funds due to a variety 
of factors (from parent contract type, labor rates, G&A and OH percentages, etc), SWFF has high value 
for money. According to USAID interviews, SWFF also exceeds efficiency in cost per beneficiary, which 
helps to balance out slightly higher administrative costs. The issue is further explored in the next question.
The majority of innovators and other key stakeholders (IIAC, FPs) did not provide concrete answers to 
this question in a way that it can be aggregated across all respondents. Respondents from FPs, innovators, 
and IIACs have a sense of their own effort and resources involved. However, apart from USAID, they do 
not have a clear idea of the resources (LOE, funds) employed by SWFF. This makes it difficult to assess 
the balance. Despite this, there is unanimous agreement that the SWFF results to date (either individually 
or as a whole-of-program) are in balance with the level of effort and resources spent. Stated alternatively, 
innovators feel that efforts in engaging in SWFF are subjectively worth the effort compared to the 
outcomes achieved because of SWFF technical assistance, exposure, and the push to scale (as discussed 
in 10c. below as well). 
One of the founding partners, while acknowledging that they do not know the real costs of running SWFF 
compared to more traditional ways of working, hypothesizes that SWFF has “very good value for money,” 
especially in regards to the leverage figures being reported. Similarly, an innovator noted s/he would be 
surprised to see “a randomized control trial that didn’t show that SWFF does 10 times better than other 
development programs.” 
Innovators and FPs across the board acknowledge the high level of effort needed by innovators to stay in 
and excel at the SWFF program over the years of funding. Reporting is demanding, check-ins take time 
and resources, and field visits require planning and manpower. However, those same innovators attribute 
their success on some level to the support SWFF has provided; the resources, technical assistance, and 
network available; and the targets and milestones, which have all contributed to their growth as an 
organization, regardless of how sustainable, profitable, or successful they are at that moment in time. 
Question 10a. To what extent was the TA Facility efficiently set up, organized and managed? 
Based on KIIs with innovators, FPs, IIAC, and the TAF, the majority of innovators overwhelming 
appreciate the dedicated support of the TA Facility and feel it is efficiently set up, organized, and managed, 
providing the right kind of support, at the right time, from the right people. This is not to say that it has 
addressed all innovator needs or been able to respond to all requests for support – but the TAF facility is 
cited by 66% innovators as being “highly efficient” in its contributions towards their success and 
outcomes. The TAF and its staff members are responsive, and care deeply about the outcomes of SWFF 
41
and its innovations; this is clear in the level of effort, caliber of work, and positive responses of everyone 
involved in SWFF: from USAID and FPs to innovators. 
Question 10b. To what extent are the administrative costs for managing SWFF above, below, or on 
par with the cost of similar challenge funds? (Special consideration should be made for funds that 
provide technical assistance to their innovators.) 
The primary data available here is limited to KIIs with FPs and IIAC members, paired with secondary 
research on existing and similar Grand Challenges (GCs), of which there aren’t many for which data on 
administrative costs is readily and publicly available. The number of GCs focused on agriculture is even 
smaller. The team is currently working to review and integrate findings from the Sida Grand Challenges 
evaluation and once those are final and the team has had time to coordinate with the Triple Line team, the 
comparative data collected by that team will be more deeply analyzed and integrated into this evaluation. 
However, based on the available evidence during Phase 1, the team finds that SWFF is below the 
administrative costs for similar Challenge Funds. 
Comparatively to other USAID Challenge Funds (to be explored more extensively during Phase 2), SWFF 
operates below administrative costs (factors include using support primarily from regional expertise 
instead of more expensive European or American companies, thereby also supporting regional capacity; 
a “lean and mean” TAF according to one innovator’s response; and a vigilant COR who is incredibly 
intentional about the money spent under the SWFF program. 
Table 9 is taken from the Sida Challenge Fund evaluation and provides data across 10 Sida managed CFs, 
including SWFF. During Phase 2, the SWFF external evaluation team will expand this table to include 
other USAID CFs and integrate data on cost per beneficiary (the start of which is discussed above). 
Challenge Fund 
Currency
unit 
Total value
of donor
commitments 
Total value
of grants 
Total Cost of
Admin / FM 
Admin. /
FM as % of
total budget 
Admin. /
FM as % of
grant value
Source 
SWFF millions USD 34.91 19.51 15.39 44.1% 78.9% 
SWFF Budget Narrative Y4 
Update 
PAEGC millions USD 49.09 24.47 18.78 38.3% 76.7% 
PAEGC Annual Report 
Financial Year 2017 
Demo Environment thousands SEK 58,800 45,651 13,149 22.4% 28.8% 
Demo Environment III - 
Annual Report (2015-16) 
AECF REACT SSA thousands SEK 400,000 - - 30.0% - Sida Appraisal for REACT 
SSA + AECF interview 
IAP1 thousands SEK 50,990 25,500 25,490 50.0% 100.0% 
2011-004499 Annex 4, 
Fees and cost schedule 
IAP2 millions EUR 7.40 4.12 3.28 44.3% 79.6% IAP2 - 1st Progress Report 
GIF millions USD 178.00 - - 24.1% - Progress Report 2016
MAVC-EMU 
MAVC millions GBP 24.86 11.67 7.17 28.8% 61.4% Final Evaluation Report
Amplify Change millions Euro 94.42 81.83 12.59 13.3% 15.4% 
AC Annual Report 2016 -
Section A: Technical 
Sustainability & 
Resilience
thousands SEK 57,000 54,000 2,811 4.9% 5.2% Activity Report 2017 
42
Table 9. Fund5
 Management Costs for Sida’s Global Challenge Funds 
Source: Sida Grand Challenges Evaluation Annex K
However, though the evaluation team does find SWFF support to be of high quality, this comparison does 
not take into account quality of service, individual impact on each beneficiary, or other quality-related 
factors. The team will explore these topics more during Phase 2. Without comparison to other GCs, the 
SWFF administrative side is managed very well with an eye towards cost effectiveness and value for 
money at every juncture. 
Question 10c. To what extent is the level of effort and resources spent by applicants/innovators in 
balance with the added value SWFF brings? 
According to the innovators, specifically those that have other donor experience (or even other USAID 
experience), SWFF adds value compared to the resources spent, specifically in terms of M&E and other 
reporting requirements. 66% of respondents stated that resources spent on financial reporting were at or 
exceeded the value provided by SWFF in return; 69% of KII respondents replied the same in regards to 
M&E reporting requirements. One and two respondents respectively felt the time spent was below value; 
5 Ibid
43
24% and 17% respectively did not have enough comparative experience with other donors or programs 
with which to make a determination. 
Table 10. Financial Reporting
Financial Reporting (N =21) N % 
Financial reporting~ exceeds value 7 33% 
Financial reporting~ At value 7 33% 
Financial reporting~ below value 2 10% 
Financial reporting~ uncertain (limited or no other experience) 5 24% 
Table 11. M&E Requirements
M&E Requirements (N= 23) N %
M&E requirements~ exceeds value 6 26% 
M&E requirements~ At value 10 43% 
M&E requirements~ below value 1 4% 
M&E requirements~ uncertain (limited or no other experience) 4 17% 
A handful of innovators - some stronger organizations and those that are from the “North” - did not see 
the value as strongly as those in the South and those still solidifying their innovation and approach. The 
majority of innovators in one breath complain about the milestones and indicators, at times cursing their 
existence, yet in the following breath attribute much of the success in scaling and expansion to these same 
milestones, paired with the support of the TAF to do so intentionally and effectively. As one innovator 
notes (but many agree), SWFF has a “much higher level of reporting and admin compared to other 
programs but a very high rate of return on the investment based on the number of farmers reached and 
seed produced.” 
The area in which all innovators agree there could be improvements in efficiency and a reduction in time 
spent is in the application process. According to Table 12, 67% of respondents felt that the time spent on 
the application was worth the effort (43%) or exceeded the value gained (24%), but anecdotally innovators 
and even FPs understood the burden the application can place on an innovator. According to USAID KIIs, 
applicants during the first round spent approximately 40 hours on the application. Support to complete is 
provided past a certain stage, but much of the early effort is spent on “deciphering AID-speak” and trying 
to understand exactly what is expected of them in the application. If the desire is to uncover new and 
potentially outcome changing southern-based innovations, then the questions in the application process 
need to reflect the inability of some of these lesser-known yet potentially successful innovators to 
understand development speak (also important if the goal is to balance social engagement with private 
sector profitability).
Table 12. Application Process
Application Process (N =21) N %
Making application~ exceeds value 5 24% 
Making application~ At value 9 43% 
Making application~ below value 1 5% 
Making application~ uncertain (limited or no other experience) 6 28% 
44
FINDING: Program efficiency: Innovators strongly appreciate the dedicated support of the TA Facility 
and feel it is efficiently set up, organized, and managed, provides the right kind of support at the right 
time, from the right people. 74% of innovators cite the TAF as being decisive in its contributions towards 
their success and outcomes.
Compared to other programs, SWFF is regarded as adding “tremendous” value, specifically in terms of 
M&E and other reporting capabilities. 
RECOMMENDATION: Reinforce innovator sustainability/viability, and programmatic (or innovator) 
learning and adaptive management as well as continuing the reporting on the achievement of primary 
outcomes. 
Efficiency would best be served by focusing on strengthening the enterprise in Year 1 (microfinance), 
moving to scale in Year 2 (additional investment), and consolidating the business plan in Year 3 (viability). 
Section 4 Impact
The following section provides an overview of SWFF’s impact at both the innovator and program level. 
These findings and conclusions are largely based on the site visits to and KIIs with innovators and local 
partners in six countries; key informant interviews with innovators, IIAC, and Founding Partners at 
Stockholm World Water Week (WWW); focus group discussions with beneficiaries; and secondary M&E 
data.
Question 3. Were solutions sourced through SWFF adopted and utilized at scale?
As shown in Table 136 below, of those interviewed at WWW or in country during field visits, most (86%) 
of the SWFF innovators have at least a plan to scale in place, at an early or matured phase, and are meeting 
or exceeding some targets (except for one innovation). These categories are comparable but differ slightly 
to those of the TAF Innovation Stages in Portfolio Review, and add value from the perspective of the 
innovator. 77% (16) of innovator interviewees are meeting or exceeding at least some of their targets in 
scaling up. For some, the evidence to scale is largely anecdotal (n= 5, 24%), while for others there is a 
replication and expansion plan in place with clear evidence to scale (n= 3, 14%). Innovations entered into 
the SWFF program at various levels of maturity: for some SWFF was the way to take an idea or a pilot to 
fruition and have used SWFF for everything from technical assistance to organizational capacity building, 
while for others SWFF presented stop-gap funding for an innovation both tested and already effective, 
inside of an organization and well-established in some spheres. 
 
6 This data came from confirmed assessments of innovations undertaken during field visits and is validated/verified by 
existing TAF data on scaling maturation.
45
Table 13. Stage of Development: Plans for Scaling Up
Innovations: plans for scaling up (N=21) N % 
No plan to scale up in place 0 0% 
Initial plan in place but evidence largely anecdotal 5 24% 
Early plan in place with quantitative evidence collected 9 43% 
Matured plan in place for scale 4 19% 
Replication and expansion in place with clear evidence 3 14% 
Source: Data from surveys & KII interviews.
Table 14. Stage of Development: Status, Meeting Targets 
 Innovations, status on targets (N=21) N % 
Not meeting targets 1 5% 
Early stage, i.e. pre-scaling up stage 4 19% 
Meeting some targets in scaling up 8 38% 
Meeting all targets in scaling up 6 29% 
Exceeding scaling targets 2 10% 
Source: Targets Met, data from surveys & KII interviews)
As shown in Table 14 above, 39% of innovations are meeting (29%) or exceeding their targets (10%) in 
scaling, while 57% are at an early stage are meeting some targets. Only 5% (n=1) of innovations are not 
meeting any targets in scale. 
SWFF has helped to established new and strengthen existing partnerships for 89% of innovations, which 
has spurred the way for expansion and growth in the districts in which the innovation currently works as 
well as into new regions and even countries. 
Table 15. Status of Innovator Partnerships 
Status of Innovator Partnerships (N=18) N % 
Innovator was able to establish new partnerships as a result of 
SWFF support 
14 78% 
Innovator was able to strengthen existing partnerships as a result 
of SWFF support 
2 11% 
SWFF did not impact on innovator partnerships 2 11% 
Source: KIIs: site visits and WWW
Scaling up is closely linked to innovations developing partnerships to add capacity to make qualitative 
change. In working to meet demanding targets and milestones, the innovators are finding it critically 
important to establish new partnerships or to strengthen existing partnerships. 
Question 4. To what extent has SWFF contributed to the outcomes and results outlined by the 
indicators in the SWFF PMEP during project implementation and post project implementation? 
Attribution in the clearest sense of the word is not possible in a performance evaluation of this nature. 
Without clear baselines on a well-defined set of indicators that carefully track SWFF’s support and hold 
46
constant support (financial and technical) from all other donors, as well as the absence of a robust 
counterfactual, the evaluation team focuses its attention of SWFF’s contribution – both from the 
perception of the evaluation team and the innovators – to the results and outcomes achieved by each 
innovation. 
To mitigate issues with attribution, the team surveyed beneficiaries and interviewed innovators (as well 
as other key stakeholders) to help ascertain the level of SWFF contribution to outcomes and results along 
a set of clearly-defined impact indicators: from improvements in income, level of perceived benefit, level 
of satisfaction, improvements in access to water and water efficiency, and contribution towards 
improvements in agricultural yields. Not only does the data the farmer is using to determine the benefit 
vary in rigor, so does the question of subjectivity vs. objectivity in perceived benefit. 
Table 16 on SWFF’s Innovations’ Programmatic Emphasis breaks down the emphasis of innovations on 
the key SWFF objectives of productivity increases, pro-poor focus, and water efficiency (innovations can 
have more than one focus across the three so the ns will not add to 25). As shown, nearly all innovations 
that formed part of the KIIs had a clear agricultural productivity increase (80%) and clear water efficiency 
gains (76%); 64% have a clear pro-poor focus. 
Table 16. Innovation Programmatic Emphasis
SWFF Programmatic Emphasis (N=25) # of Innovations 
Clear agricultural productivity increases 20 
Clear pro-poor focus 16 
Clear water efficiency (and access) gains 19 
Source: KIIs: site visits and WWW. Note that more than one focus is possible per innovation. 
In Table 17 below 82% of the innovators indicate that this their contributions in these areas of emphasis 
were increasing the resilience to climate change.
Table 17. Innovations, Resilience to Climate Change 
Assessment (N=22) N % 
Innovation clearly helps increase resilience to climate change 18 82% 
Innovation makes negligible contribution to resilience to 
climate change
1 5% 
Innovation somewhat or peripherally increases resilience to 
climate change
3 13.5% 
Source: KIIs: site visits and WWW. 
During phase 2, the team will survey additional beneficiaries and conduct further focus groups to bolster 
the level of responses. 
The beneficiary responses to SWFF innovations were gathered through site visit impact surveys and focus 
group discussions in six countries for 14 innovations across six key indicators. Table 18 below outlines 
beneficiary responses to perceived benefits, improvements in income, and level of overall satisfaction 
with the innovation across 14 innovations visited in person by the evaluation team. This data comes 
primarily from one-on-one survey data collected during site visits or after focus group discussions. 
47
Larger “Ns” for innovations were captured with targeted question to all participants during focus group 
discussions to capture a larger percentage of beneficiaries along a more focused set of indicators. The 
latter limited our ability to capture and stratify by demographic data, but allowed for a large sample 
universe in countries. Data is not verified via observation the same way it can be during site visits, but we 
have triangulated this data with data already collected by SWFF.
All innovations visited in country had at least 75% of beneficiaries citing a perceived benefit (50% of 
innovations have a 100% beneficiary benefit level). 93% (n=231) of all beneficiaries surveyed perceive a 
strong tangible benefit or improvement to their quality of life since using the innovation. 82% of 
beneficiaries have seen an increase in income since buying or using the innovation; and 96.5% of all 
beneficiaries are satisfied overall with the beneficiary: both paying and non-paying customers. 
Table 18. Beneficiary Impact Responses 
INNOVATION NAME % BENEFITED % IMPROVED 
INCOME 
% 
SATISFACTION 
Innovation 1 CUT SA 100% (23) 65% (15) 71% (107 ) 
Innovation 2 WGI 80% (17) 83% (15) 100% (24) 
Innovation 3 Green Heat 100% (8) 100% (8) 100% (8) 
Innovation 4 CUT Kenya 100% (37) 100% (4) 100% (4) 
Innovation 5 MNP 74% (20) 93% (25) 96% (26) 
Innovation 6 Ignitia 100% (14) N/A 100% (14) 
Innovation 7 SkyFox 100% (10) 100% (10) 100% (10) 
Innovation 8 Bhungroo Too early Too early Too early
Innovation 9 NewSil 100% (10) 90% (9) 100% (10) 
Innovation 10 SWAR 100% (4) 50% (2) 100% (4) 
Innovation 11 WASTE 86% (19) 46% (10) 94% (17) 
Innovation 12 Hydroponics 
Africa
100% (13) 100% (6) 100% (13) 
Innovation 13 Lal Teer Seed 100% (20) 100% (20) 100% (20) 
Innovation 14 Practical Action 76% (32) 76% (32) N/A
Innovation 15. ICBA 100% (25) 100% (25) 96% (23) 
OVERALL 93% (231) 82% (152) 96% (153) 
N/A= Not Available 
 
7 Since CUT has yet to implement, the figures indicate anticipation of benefit from being able to access forecasts from CUT 
on their mobiles.
48
Table 19 below. has been constructed to illustrate key common indicators across the 14 beneficiary 
surveys beneficiaries8
; considerable more data is available on the degree of benefit, of improvement of 
income, improved access to water, improved water efficiency, and improved agricultural productivity as 
a result of SWFF innovations. 90% of beneficiaries surveyed stated that they had improved access to water 
due to SWFF’s innovation, 96% of beneficiaries reported improvements in water efficiency, and 76% of 
beneficiaries surveyed reported improved agricultural productivity as resulting from the SWFF 
innovation. 
Phase 2 of the evaluation will incorporate more beneficiary collected data, using local consultants to reach 
beneficiaries that during Phase 1 did not have a harvest or hadn’t yet benefited from the innovation (largely 
due to newness or seasonal factors). 
Table 19. Beneficiary Responses, Water and Agriculture
% IMPROVED 
WATER ACCESS
YES
% REPORT 
IMPROVED 
WATER 
EFFICIENCY YES
% REPORT 
IMPROVED 
AGRICULTURAL 
PRODUCTIVITY
YES
Innovation 1 CUT SA N/A 61% (14) 17% (4) 
Innovation 2 WGI N/A 100% (10) 100% (10) 
Innovation 3 Green 
Heat
100% (6) 100% (6) 100% (6) 
Innovation 4 CUT 
Kenya
N/A 100% (37) 75% (28) 
Innovation 5 MNP N/A N/A 78% (21) 
Innovation 6 Ignitia N/A 93% (13) 93% (13) 
Innovation 7 SkyFox 90% (9) 88% (7) 90% (9) 
Innovation 8 
Bhungroo 
Too early Too early Too early
Innovation 9 NewSil N/A 100% (10) N/A
Innovation 10 SWAR N/A 100% (4) N/A
Innovation 11 WASTE 68% (15) N/A 91% (10) too early: 7 
Innovation 12 
Hydroponics Africa 
100% (13) 100% (13) 100% (6); too early: 7 
Innovation 13 Lal Teer N/A 100% (20) 100% (20) 
Innovation 14. 
Practical Action 
N/A 100% (91) 82% (75) 
Innovation 15. ICBA N/A 96% (23) 67% (16) 
OVERALL 90% (43) 96% (248)9 76% (218) 
 
8 Not all beneficiaries answered each question and surveys varied slightly by innovation to capture nuances in technical focus 
and innovation type.
9 Please note that the number of respondents exceeds the total of beneficiaries surveyed (221) as the additional farmer 
respondents were included in a focus group discussion.
49
In the key informant interviews 100% of innovator respondents (n=21) clearly stated that SWFF 
contributed to the outcomes and results achieved writ large as they reported to the SWFF PMEP. 74% 
(14) identified the support by SWFF as being decisive contribution throughout, while 42% (n=8) identified 
the contribution as decisive at certain points. 32% (n=6) felt the SWFF contribution to outcomes was 
tangential. 91% of respondents (n=20) identified SWFF’s financial contribution as being clearly linked to 
outcomes and results, and 40% (n=8) linked SWFF’s support for organizational strengthening as critical 
to the achievements of outcomes. 
 
Table 20. SWFF Contribution
Extent of SWFF Contribution N=28
Decisive contribution at certain points 8 
Decisive contribution throughout 14 
Tangential contribution from SWFF to outcomes and results 6 
Type of SWFF contribution (innovators can select multiple responses) N=21
SWFF contribution to organizational strengthening is clearly linked to outcomes 
and results 
8 
SWFF financial contribution is clearly linked to outcomes and results 21 
SWFF contribution to technical aspects is clearly linked to outcomes and results 4 
Source: KIIs – site visits and WWW. 
Question 4a. Did SWFF-supported projects increase water efficiency/make water more accessible? 
Did SWFF projects meet their water efficiency/availability targets? Overall, across all innovators, 
did the program meet the water efficiency/availability targets?
Based on key informant interviews with innovators, surveys and focus group discussions with 
beneficiaries, as well as data validation of existing performance indicator data, there is strong evidence 
that SWFF-supported projects contribute to increased water efficiency and make water more accessible to 
customers and beneficiaries. The level of contribution and attribution of SWFF varies by innovator based 
on the extent of other donor funding and technical support as well as the innovator’s perception of the 
value. 
Table 21 below is based on KII respondents during country site visits and WWW; not all innovators are 
working in water accessibility and efficiency and within that subset not all innovators answered all related 
questions, thereby bringing down the Ns in the table on Outcomes and Targets in water efficiency and 
access below. 12 innovations showed very significant water savings and water efficiency due to SWFF 
supported innovations; 4 innovations (36%) did not have verifiable data. 
Table 21. Outcomes and Targets in Water Efficiency and Access 
Water accessibility outcomes N=11
Changes to water accessibility not significant 1 
Changes to water accessibility not verifiable 4 
Changes to water accessibility significant 3 
Changes to water accessibility significant not verifiable 1 
Changes to water accessibility very significant 2 
50
Water savings targets N= 15
Targets regarding water savings realistic 13 
Targets regarding water savings unrealistic 2 
Water efficiency/savings outcomes N=20
Water efficiency – not verifiable 710
Water efficiency – water savings significant 1 
Water efficiency – water savings very significant 12 
Water efficiency data N=21
Water efficiency data is based on actuals 9 
water efficiency data is based on logical estimates 7 
Water efficiency data is based on very rough estimates 5 
Source: KII
Question 4b. Did SWFF-supported projects lead to more agricultural productivity and resilience to 
climate change? Did SWFF projects meet their agricultural productivity targets? Overall, across 
all innovators, did the program meet the agricultural productivity targets?
Assessment of the impact of innovations on agricultural productivity was done by asking respondents 
questions about the types of crops grown using the innovation, changes in the number and kind of crops 
grown before and after the start of the use of innovations, the changes in yields from one growing season 
to another, the number of growing seasons with the use of innovations compared to without, the changes 
in inputs and resources allocated to agricultural activities with and without the use of innovations, the 
level of food security for each household and the community since the use of innovations, the changes in 
the family income, and the different ways the innovations have helped in the practice of the farmers’ 
agricultural activities. 
The innovations have been used on a wide range of crops, whether mainly cash crops (reportedly mostly 
grown by men) or subsistence crops (reportedly mostly grown by women), or both in some cases. They 
are also used to grow crops that are deemed staple11 for the various countries in which the innovations are 
 
10 For innovations in seed treatment, water efficiency is harder to calculate than for improved irrigation systems e.g. ICU 
where figures are readily available and self-calculated 11 Subsistence crops are crops grown for consumption; staple crops are those deemed the most dominant part of a 
population’s diet
Note: The source for the various categories employed above comes from the questions, codes and analysis of the KII. The 
responses of key informants to questions have a) been appraised by the interviewer against the evidence of site observation 
b) checked, where possible, against the innovation reports and c) reinforced, again checked, where possible, against survey 
data. Significant, here means evidently and incontestably materially changed, not significant evidently and incontestably 
not materially changed, verifiable here means that data was available to authenticate the judgment, realistic, here means 
that a target was judged by the innovation as within range and not realistic that a target was not within range. Since all 
targets are the product of joint consultation, not realistic, may indicate a change in conditions or over-confidence in making 
the target.
51
present. Innovations are also used by farmers at different stages of farming activities, such as soil 
preparation, sowing, weeding, irrigation, fertilizer application, and harvesting. 
Overall, the innovations have shown to have an impact on the increase of the agricultural productivity by 
influencing different factors, depending on the innovation. In Table 22 Reported Improvement in 
Agricultural Productivity, 76% of beneficiaries observed an improvement of their agricultural production, 
specifically related to the quantity and quality of their harvest, due to the use of the diverse innovations 
supported by SWFF. This impact can be seen in terms of increase of the harvest for the same amount of 
inputs, or as a significant saving of resources (human, time, water, money, etc.) or as a more effective use 
of inputs (water, fertilizers, labor, pesticides, etc.) for a similar yield as in previous growing seasons. 
Innovations that are focused specifically on water capture and storage or water re-use allow farmers to 
increase the number of growing seasons per year, thus increasing the agricultural productivity and 
strengthening the resilience of agricultural systems to the effects of climate variability and change.
Table 22. Reported Improvement in Agricultural Productivity
% REPORT IMPROVED 
AGRICULTURAL 
PRODUCTIVITY YES
Innovation 1 CUT SA 17% (4) 
Innovation 2 WGI 100% (10) 
Innovation 3 Green Heat 100% (6) 
Innovation 4 CUT Kenya 75% (28) 
Innovation 5 MNP 78% (21) 
Innovation 6 Ignitia 93% (13) 
Innovation 7 SkyFox 90% (9) 
Innovation 8 Bhungroo Too early
Innovation 9 NewSil 100% (10) 
Innovation 10 SWAR 50% (2) 
Innovation 11 WASTE 91% (10) too early: 7 
Innovation 12 Hydroponics 
Africa
100% (6); too early: 7 
Innovation 13 Lal Teer 100% (20) 
Innovation 14. Practical Action 82% (75) 
Innovation 15. ICBA 67% (16) 
OVERALL 76% (218) 
Source: Surveys of beneficiaries.
The data collected shows that specifically, in some cases, agricultural productivity was reported to have 
been increased by providing improved irrigation systems, or by providing high production seeds and 
resistance to soil salinity in addition to a low consumption of water. This agricultural productivity is 
measured by comparing the previous productivity of the crop with its current productivity in the same 
space and same land. However, this estimation of the agricultural productivity is not uniform across
innovations. 
52
Table 23. Agricultural productivity Outcomes and Targets
Productivity outcomes (N=23) N %
Productivity data is based on logical estimates 8 35% 
Productivity estimates are based on very rough estimates 3 13% 
Productivity increases are based on actuals 12 52% 
Productivity increases (N=23) N %
Productivity increases not verifiable 5 22% 
Productivity increases significant 6 26% 
Productivity increases very significant 12 52% 
Source: KIIs – site visits and WWW. 
According to Table 24 below on outcomes and targets in productivity, for some innovations, productivity 
data is based on actual measurements and in others it is based on extrapolations from the limited available 
data and/or rough estimates and approximations. 87% of innovators interviewed felt their targets were 
realistic; 9% felt they were unrealistic.
Table 24. Agricultural Productivity Targets
Productivity Targets (N=23) N %
Targets realistic 20 87% 
Targets realistic but not achieved 1 4% 
Targets unrealistic 2 9% 
Source: KIIs – site visits and WWW. 
The estimation of agricultural productivity has many challenges. For example, in the case of ICBA in 
Egypt, farmers and the researchers all suggested that agricultural production has increased with the use of 
the salt-tolerant seeds. The productivity increases are seen as very significant as they are largely turning 
non-arable land into productive land. The agricultural productivity is based on actuals as the numbers are 
derived from the volume of crops that are brought to the station for processing. However, with this 
innovation, a key problem arises. As for most genetically modified or enhanced seeds, farmers must go 
back to the initiator to purchase the seeds for each growing season. Thus, they cannot practice the ancient 
tradition that is to save the seeds from the previous season for planting during the next season. 
The agricultural productivity can also be evaluated in the more precise use of inputs: resources saved 
whether it is on time spent irrigating, value of pesticides effectively used, cost of labor spared, etc. For 
Note: The source for the various categories employed above comes from the questions, codes and analysis of the KII. The 
responses of key informants to questions have a) been appraised by the interviewer against the evidence of site observation b) 
checked, where possible, against the innovation reports and c) again checked, where possible, against survey data. Significant, 
here means evidently and incontestably materially changed, very significant here means evidently and incontestably changed 
to a considerable degree, not verifiable here means that data was not available to authenticate a judgment. 
Note: Since all targets are the product of joint consultation, “unrealistic” may indicate a change in conditions or over￾confidence in making the target.
53
example, with Ignitia in Ghana, it is difficult to measure the increased productivity with any degree of 
certainty, but the forecasts provided by the innovation are used by farmers to know when to plant, to make 
a more effective use of pesticides to ensure rainfall is not diluting or washing the spray off the plant, or to 
make an informed decision on when to harvest so high levels of rainfall will not spoil the crop. Climate 
change is making weather patterns9 less predictable and so the forecast helps farmers to know when to 
plant to save as many resources as possible and be as efficient as possible.
Table 25. SWFF Innovation Effect on Inputs 
Effect on use of inputs (N=22) N %
Innovation results in more effective use of inputs~ fertilizer and water 1 4.5% 
Innovation results in more effective use of inputs~ labor ~ fertilizer ~ 
water
1 4.5% 
Innovation results in more effective use of inputs~ labor ~ fertilizer ~ 
water ~ pesticides
12 55% 
Innovation results in more effective use of inputs~ labor ~ water 2 9% 
Innovation results in more effective use of inputs~ water 6 27% 
For other innovations such as Practical Action, the agricultural productivity and the achievement of targets 
are more evident: “Where there used to be barren land, farmers can now be productive”. The productivity 
increases are 100% in most cases because the baseline was zero. Although the pumpkin growing activities 
are more labor intensive and most of the farmers didn’t use to grow pumpkins, the innovation allows for 
crops to be grown in a space where during half of the year farmers couldn’t plant anything and therefore 
make no money. Most beneficiaries see increases in productivity and income if they follow recommended 
agricultural procedures and take care of their crops. Another example of evident value added of the 
innovation is the case of WGI Aquaponics in Uganda. There is evidence of yield increases because farmers 
are not only growing more vegetables than they were prior to having the unit (because additional seeds 
come with the unit), but also, they are involved in pisciculture or fish farming to eat (or sell). The recycled 
water with the nutrients is a great fertilizer for the plants and increases yields. The innovation also helps 
with food security and resilience to climate change because it reduces the reliance on fish in lakes, which 
is depleting, and it also provides the farmers with a more condensed and efficient way to grow vegetables 
and fish, providing them with a complete meal. 
However, overall, little evidence has been demonstrated to adaptation to climate change or consideration 
of climate change when designing or implementing the innovations. This could be explained by the fact 
that “addressing climate change was not a direct objective but rather a contextual factor for SWFF”, as a 
innovator stated. 
Innovations that tackle more or less the challenges of climate change are mostly the ones that allow a 
forecast of the weather (i.e. Ignitia in Ghana) or of the potential stress areas on farmers’ land (Future Water 
in Mozambique), so they can address preemptively possible problems. Other innovations whose results 
Note: None of the respondents mentioned less effective use of inputs, but was not asked explicitly; this will be explored 
more in phase 2
54
lead to an increased resilience to climate change are Practical Action in Bangladesh because it improves 
the agricultural productivity on otherwise barren land, and Skyfox in Ghana because it facilitates water 
storage, which is a key response to enhancing resilience to climate change and allowing farmers to 
continue farming regardless of changing weather patterns.
A recommendation to include the resilience to climate change as a key objective of future programs would 
be to integrate Climate Smart Agriculture in the design and implementation of the supported innovations. 
Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is an approach that helps to guide actions needed to transform and 
reorient agricultural systems to effectively support development and ensure food security in a changing 
climate. 
Farmers face risks related to price, customer demand, yield, resources, and climate that make income 
unstable from year to year. A critical question is access to credit, insurance and inputs; the issue of credit 
in African countries being associated with high interest rates. If farmers are impeded by credit constraints, 
they will not be able to take advantage of the different technologies that are presented to them even when 
these technologies are available to produce more or better. 
Question 4c. Have vulnerable groups (the poor, women, ethnic minorities) been positively and/or 
negatively impacted (through income, employment, water/environmental) from SWFF supported 
innovations? Specifically, has SWFF reduced the number of people in poverty as a result of 
supporting SWFF-supported innovations and has SWFF increased the number of women 
benefitting from SWFF-supported innovations?12
Across the SWFF support innovations, the impacts on vulnerable groups (poor, women, ethnic minorities) 
has been overwhelmingly positive in terms of benefits to them, but their targeting depends both on the 
business model and the initial focus of the innovator (for profit vs. social engagement). 
The majority of innovations target women as a primary or secondary beneficiary, a byproduct of the small￾holder farming culture in Africa, Asia, and Latin America where women comprise a majority of this group. 
However, gender relations in Africa and Asia are complex; for many of the innovations there is a male 
designated as the “owner” of the innovation, but in a majority of those cases it is the wife who is 
responsible for the day to day management and upkeep (e.g. WGI, Hydroponics Africa). In many 
countries, women participate heavily in farming activities, but not as the owner of land, and therefore is 
the immediate beneficiary of non-income based impacts, such as time saved. For example, every 
Hydroponics Africa beneficiary (majority women) without prompting cited time savings as the primary 
benefit, even those without a harvest season completed (and therefore no income increases). Since women 
are the primary small-scale farmers (for both cash and subsistence) in Africa and Asia, it is they and their 
children that bear the burden of watering, fertilizing, harvesting, and planting. Therefore, it is they that 
are most impacted by the vast time savings that comes with hydroponic farming, leaving time for more 
income-generating activities, education, or family. Complementarily, innovations like Green Heat 
Uganda’s biogas water recycler, even when owned or managed by men (though not all are) affect female 
cooking time, also freeing them for other activities in addition to improving health by reducing smoke in 
the house. 
 
12 This section relates gender in relation to access to the innovations and female-specific impacts; in Question 11 gender 
issues are explored in relation to women’s access as customers and to participation in management and ownership of 
innovations.
55
Innovations such as Bhungroo and WASTE attenuate gender differences by bringing in women into the 
management of saving groups or of a marketing company to rebalance unequal gender relations. 
Innovations like Water Governance’s Aquaponics Farming that are also owned by women directly benefit 
female income in poor and underserved areas in the cities and border areas. 65% (16) of innovations have 
a clear pro-poor focus. That being said, this question is different from the one that deals with whether 
SWFF’s emphasis on the poor, women, ethnic minorities has been appropriate and/or strong enough in 
the context of both innovation and development. Or whether it has a positive or negative impact on the 
existence of a sustainable/financially viable business model. Additional research on gender dynamics will 
be completed in Phase 2. 
At times, given SWFF’s emphasis on innovation and private sector enterprise but USAID’s writ large goal 
of development and an emphasis on poor, there is a disconnect between having a viable, profitable, and 
sustainable entity, and one which serves the populations USAID cares more about. For those that focus 
on the very poor/poor, how successful have they been at also integrating a sustainable private sector 
enterprise model into their business plan? This is discussed from another perspective in Question 11 in 
the context of the tension between commercial viability and the target market of traditional development 
assistance.
 
At times SWFF can be seen to have two potentially competing objectives that need to be carefully 
considered, balanced, and intentionally targeted. As we discuss below in Question 11, the business model 
needs to be intentionally designed to incorporate subsidies from the wealthier customers or the 
government to incorporate poorer farmers, while not losing profitability and sustained market presence. 
During discussions with innovators and other key stakeholders, it’s clear that both profitability and 
sustainability as well as a target market of vulnerable populations are equally important, but it’s not clear 
that consistent technical support and guidance is given to 1) for-profit firms that don’t have experience in 
social entrepreneurship and 2) non-profits that have never had a profitability mandate or clause directly in 
a donor-funded contract. These are not findings nor recommendations at the moment, but considerations 
for exploration during Phase 2 to determine how to approach this delicate balance and provide assistance 
to each variation of innovator that allows them to achieve both goals simultaneously and without 
sacrificing quality or performance. 
Complementarily to the dilemma we outline above to balance the business model side of the equation, 
there’s the issue with targeting poorer farmers in a for-profit model who are more risk averse, with less 
access to cash, and generally apprehensive about adopting new technology. Perhaps a staggered payment 
plan or loan model will alleviate concerns, but innovators’ beneficiaries cited high cost, risk aversion, 
apprehension to adopt untested technology, and cultural preference for traditional methods as reasons for 
their initially not adopting, not wanting to pay, or as reasons their neighbors haven’t yet joined the model. 
Question 4d. What is the balance between public/social engagement and private/public 
engagement? To what extent have private funds been generated that contribute to the 
developmental objectives of the program both during and following SWFF awards?
A little less than half (n=11) of innovations in the SWFF portfolio self-identify as social engagement 
dominant; 13 of 24 (54%) interviewed identify as a business venture from the start. However, the issue of 
56
private sector funding/investment or lack thereof has not been adequately addressed. Those that are 
predominantly social engagement focused need support becoming more investment friendly and profit 
driven, while those on the business venture side need a mix of technical assistance to push them towards 
financial sustainability and investor interest and investor matching. 
The existence of private sector funding for SWFF-supported innovations has been low and, in many cases, 
non-existent. However, the majority of innovations (n=13) are not yet ready for private investment, which 
could explain why the majority of innovators also have no access to private investment (n=11) or no 
interest from private investors (n=8). Most of the innovators who are leveraging or sourcing additional 
funds are doing so through other public, government, or social engagement entities (host country or 
international donor), while actual private investment levels have been low. Table 26 shows the level of 
investment readiness, investor interest, and access, as perceived by the innovator during interviews, but 
also as assessed by the evaluation team based on existing data and site visit observations. 
Table 26. Private Sector Investment. N=23
Level of readiness N 
Investor not ready for private investment 13 
Investor ready 9 
Level of investor interest N 
Significant interest from private investors 5 
Limited interest from private investors 6 
No interest from private investors 8 
Level of investor access N 
No access to private investment 11 
Some access to private investment 4 
Extensive access to private investment 4 
SWFF contribution to interest N 
Private investors interested based on opportunities through SWFF 7 
Source: KIIs – site visits and WWW. 
According to one innovator: 
Many angel investors have approached us. But most of them are focused on profit only. But we 
would like to work with farmers. We are looking for impact investors instead of venture capital. 
We are waiting for people with right values and ethics to work with us on the venture capital side.
This quote exemplifies the disconnect at times between a for-profit and sustainable enterprise and one 
which is pro-poor and social engagement driven. Investors are looking to profit, and the majority of 
innovators (even those with a matured plan to scale and sustainable future) are looking to break even and 
have enough funds to sustain the enterprise, but not to ‘get rich.’ Because the typical investor may not be 
Note: private investment here refers to all funds not ascribed to SWFF itself or from government and includes an 
innovators own capital, grants from foundations or scientific bodies, loans, and financial costing of human resource or 
other support from other agencies.
57
well suited for the type of innovators SWFF has supported (however successful), this is an area that key 
respondents agree needs a closer look and more well-defined plan. 
There are challenges in matching innovations to investors. According to one respondent, “the program 
forces innovators to seek additional funding which is a must as it allows a level of validation. SWFF has 
a thorough evaluation and determination of the innovators but there is not a funding strategy discussion 
or how to understand the market provided to the innovators. Not sure we have done enough analysis to 
understand what is the matching funding that innovators are bringing.” This also helps demonstrate that 
while securing private sector funding is a core SWFF objective for innovators, little is currently done in 
an intentional and systematic way to help innovators identify the right funding stream or understand the 
financial markets in which they are operating, nor to understand what types of funds the innovators are 
currently bringing in to match SWFF funding and to help them determine whether those are the best fit 
(perspective of the FPs and IIAC) 
However, key stakeholders both in the IIAC and FPs as well as innovators identify private investment (be 
it providing technical assistance to build the capacity or actively working with innovators to find 
investment opportunities) as a major weakness of the SWFF program. It is an area that has lacked in 
performance against expectations. Those citing the weakness do so with the understanding that this is a 
complex and multifaceted topic:
• some innovators are not yet ready for private investment 
• there’s a finite amount of resources and many other SWFF priorities – like just working with 
innovators to get their innovation ready for market and sold on some level of scale. 
SWFF does force its innovators to seek additional/outside funding, but the source of that funding seems 
to largely be public sector or cost-sharing with the innovator’s other projects. While cost efficient for 
SWFF in terms of accountability, it does not necessarily adhere to the principles of innovation in a private
sector, for-profit context. If SWFF intends for its innovations to be sustainable, financially viable, for￾profit entities, then the capacity of organizations to reach the level of maturity at which they’re able to 
secure private sector funding at fair rates is a critical component of M&E and performance targets, 
technical assistance, and one’s general trajectory down the innovation runway. 
Question 5. How much of the measured change (outcome or result indicator) in the SWFF program 
can in fact be attributed to the SWFF-supported projects? That is, what portion of the result is not 
explained by the projects examined by the evaluation?
As quoted in a previous table 85% innovations cited SWFF as the major contributor to their success and 
outcomes. Either all outcomes are dependent on SWFF support or critical transitions are made possible 
by SWFF support. A few respondents stated that “major outcomes [were] not linked to SWFF support”, 
and 1 cited a relatively minor contribution. Others felt that SWFF accelerated their progress towards their 
objectives, from whatever stage they had started. 18 innovations reported that SWFF raised either or both 
their international and national profile, leading to strengthened or new partnerships, investment, additional
donor funds, or an expansion of market access. 
The extent to which outcomes and results are not explained by SWFF is more difficult to assess. The data 
from which the evaluation team presents its findings on this question is based on the perceptions of 
58
innovators and partly also on the judgment of the consultant. More work in Phase 2 can be done to integrate 
cost and benefit data stratified by level of other donor engagement and funding, additional technical 
assistance, location on the innovation runway (e.g. pilot vs. more established innovation) to determine a 
truer level of SWFF attribution. Based on the data the team has, the majority of the measured and reported 
change, can be contributed to the SWFF supported projects. 
Question 6. To what extent are there differences between the planned SWFF-supported projects 
and what was actually delivered in Year 1 and then Years 2-3 of the projects?
As shown in the Table 28, row 4 below, the majority of innovators felt that targets set in year 1 (59%) and 
years 2 and 3 (66%) were fair, even those that weren’t met. 61% of innovators highly valued the targets 
and milestones in general; while 22% somewhat valued them; 17% did not value them and over the three 
years an average of 20% felt that the targets were unrealistic. 
Table 27. Perceived Fairness and Value of Targets
Perceived fairness of targets for Years 2 (N=18) N %
Targets for years 2 and 3 fair 12 66% 
Targets for years 2 and 3 modest 3 17% 
Targets for years 2 and 3 unrealistic 3 17% 
Perceived fairness of Year 1 targets (N=17) N %
Year 1 targets fair 10 59% 
Year 1 targets modest 3 18% 
Year 1 targets unrealistic 4 23% 
Value of targets and milestones (N=18) N %
Innovator did not value targets and milestones 3 17% 
Innovator highly valued the targets and milestones 11 61% 
Innovator somewhat valued targets and milestones 4 22% 
Source: KIIs – site visits and WWW. 
Although in Table 5 below innovators suggested modifications to the M&E system and complained about 
reporting requirements, 83% (15) of innovators said that the targets and reporting system were helpful in 
creating a viable business and therefore that SWFF support helped them in meeting those targets. One 
innovator very clearly stated that they hated the milestones, but in the end it was the milestones that pushed 
them to reach their potential, expand market access, and improve their business model. Another 
innovator’s targets and SWFF TA contributed to the redesign of the innovation, reducing input costs and 
time to construct, allowing production and sales to match the speed with which marketers were able to 
find new clients. 
Table 28. Milestones, Targets, and Reporting System 
Milestones, Targets, and Reporting System (N=18) N %
Targets and reporting system helpful in creating a viable business 15 83% 
Some targets and aspects of reporting seen as somewhat helpful 1 6% 
Targets and reporting system seen as unhelpful 2 11% 
Source: KIIs – site visits and WWW. 
59
Without the targets pushing the innovators towards a specific and time-bound goal, there is the potential 
that the innovations would have stalled. Overall, based on KIIs, innovators tend to find the targets to be a 
heavy yoke but understand the advantages of a) improved credibility and b) better internal practices 
leading to viability.
As shown in Table 30 below, 58% of innovators felt that the SWFF rounds were treated differently, and 
44% felt that SWFF requirements were perceived to change over time. 
Table 29. Innovator Perception of SWFF Targets, Milestones, Support, and Rounds 
Awareness of Support (N=18) N %
Innovators greater awareness of available support 12 67% 
Innovators unclear about available support 6 33% 
SWFF Rounds (N=12) N %
Rounds treated consistently 5 28% 
Rounds treated differently 7 58% 
SWFF requirements clear? (N=16) N %
Same TAF pressure on targets year-to-year but better understood and responded 
to
1 6% 
SWFF requirements (gender and poverty, for example) clear from the start 8 50% 
SWFF requirements perceived to change over time 7 44% 
FINDING: SWFF strongly contributed to outcomes and results; analysis of surveys find (90%) of 
beneficiaries have improved access to water and water efficiency (95%) directly due to SWFF’s 
innovations. While the targeting and inclusion of the vulnerable depends both on the business model and 
social engagement, very poor groups and women are included and impacted by innovations. 
Beneficiaries report an increase in agricultural productivity in terms of an increase in yields, an increase 
in the number of growing seasons or a diversification of the crops grown with the innovation, and a more 
efficient use of inputs (labor, time, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.)
Impact of innovations on resilience to climate change is less evident but can be inferred: better adaptation 
to climate change due to a greater availability of water and a non-dependence to rainfall agriculture, 
targeted irrigations, better control over climate and pests. 
RECOMMENDATION: Measured impact is crucial to each innovators’ credibility; surveys should be 
undertaken at modest expense to establish baseline and impact in particular in relation to inclusion 
(women, poor and very poor) and income and climate resilience. 
Climate smart agriculture should be included in the design of future innovations. Since climate conditions 
impacting on agriculture are becoming pronounced express criteria on climate resilience should be 
included in applications to SWFF. 
60
Section 5: Sustainability 
Question 11. What is the likelihood that SWFF-supported innovations will have a sustained 
market presence (i.e. financially and socially sustainable)? 
Given the stage at which most of the awardees are at in terms of business development, ultimately 
predicting the sustained market presence of the innovators involved in SWFF with any degree of certainty 
is not possible at this time. Their character and progress or failure is, however, analyzed here and particular 
consideration is given to the gender dimension in social sustainability. 
A wide range of internal and external variables will ultimately determine if SWFF-supported innovations 
will have a sustained market presence. Regulation could work in favor or against certain innovations. 
Government policy on imports could have an impact, as would the creation of a more regional markets 
and the infrastructure to support this. Finance could be more or less easy to procure. Growth may be more 
or less well managed. Competitors may appear on the market or the market may change with more 
mechanized or larger scale operations buying out smallholders who then become laborers. The uptake of 
the innovation may be reliant on a pass-through organization (like the Mobile Telecom Provider for 
Ignitia’s messaging service) or government certification for the land (like SkyFox’s fish ponds). These 
are all aspects that innovators mentioned in interviews.
An interviewee, for instance, saw expanding markets for their product although this is not an unqualified
benefit: 
The prospects are good. The market for perishables is getting stronger with, at times, gluts in 
production seeing the markets respond across the region. Foreign owned grocery stores and major 
restaurants are also starting to buy more locally rather than importing from South Africa or 
elsewhere.
While markets may be available and expanding, there are also the challenges to sustainability of rising 
competition cutting into an innovation’s markets. 
The general sense from the interviews is optimistic, that “more innovators will be successful than 
originally expected across the portfolio” and that several more are already “in the black”. These innovators 
no longer need grants and other financial assistance. In number of the interviews it was mentioned that, in 
practical terms, it takes ten years for such innovations to overcome initial obstacles, start to take off and 
eventually become truly embedded in the economy. In the compressed three-year time frame of SWFF it 
may not be possible to make final judgment on sustainability. 
For many of the innovations, there is a tension between commercial viability and the target market they 
are trying to reach. In these instances, the business model may need to be deliberately designed in such a 
way where wealthier consumers or government cross-subsidize poorer farmers. This is particularly true 
of the more investment-heavy infrastructure-based innovations (like Aqysta’s water pumps or SkyFox’s 
fishponds), where an investor would be welcomed but which may see government as the primary buyer 
or interlocutor in some countries. Investors would otherwise need to wait several years before recovering 
their investment. Product-based innovations may struggle with how best to ramp up production, which 
61
may also require significant investment while service-based information technology innovations may 
quickly attract customers and become viable.
There is a keen awareness among even socially oriented innovations of the need to become economically 
viable even as they as target the very poor. As an innovator stated: 
We have reached the Break Even point from 2015 onwards. Though we are not making huge 
profits, we have enough work to do for the next 10 years. Socially it is challenging, however, we 
are giving priority to organizations that are keen to work with women. 
We are working to survive in an economic climate in which competitors are keenly aware of the 
potential profit of our technological innovation. 
Some people want to grab our idea by slightly changing our name and approaching rich farmers. 
Making a social program sustainable is very difficult in this country at this point of time. 
For some innovations, farmers will logically gauge their risk only after two or three growing seasons (as 
was mentioned in the ICBA/DRC program in Egypt, for example). For farmers who are used to receiving 
free inputs and services, there may be a lag until they are willing to cover the full market price of the 
innovation or the government is willing to allow innovators to charge. Without this track record with 
paying farmers, investors may also not be willing to take the risk. As noted by one IIAC member, “for the 
kinds of nascent ideas that are involved in SWFF, it may be hard to find investment capital.” 
The second stage of the SWFF impact evaluation will likely have more to say on this aspect of the 
program. What might result is that the innovation itself may not the be moneymaker but rather the 
complementary products and services are what will generate the income for the enterprise. This is likely 
to be the case with the salt-tolerant seed varieties in Egypt, whereby the crop processing stations might in 
fact be what brings in the money. 
The sustainability of innovations is tied into the stages of development of the innovation itself, the finance 
it attracts, and its market presence. The viability of the innovations within their three years of support (and 
beyond) is set out in Table 30 which indicates the status of innovations by the Rounds in which they 
entered as awardees of SWFF. Among Round 1 there are there are 9 graduates (those who completed the 
three years of funding) and 7 alumni (those who entered but did not complete the three years). All but 
oneof the alumni were terminated after the first year. Round 2 awardees had a single grant and are not 
similar to other rounds. In Round 3 there are those innovations still active (7) as well as alumni (5) while 
in Round 4 there are 8 active and 2 alumni. 
Over the whole, as yet incomplete, period 25 innovations constitute a group of succeeding or successful 
(current or graduate) innovations which make up 63% of the entire 40 innovations. The proportion of 
succeeding innovations has tended to rise over the rounds; in Round 1 56% were graduate innovations, in 
Round 3 this dipped to 50% and in Round 4 the succeeding innovations has risen to 80%. 
Table 30. Status of innovation by Round
Round Active Alumni Graduated Grand Total 
1 0 8 8 16 
2 0 1 1 2 
62
Round Active Alumni Graduated Grand Total 
3 0 5 7 12 
4 813 2 0 10 
Grand Total 8 16 16 40 
Source: Awardee Results database
During this period SWFF has been actively learning and developing the apparatus for monitoring, 
supporting and intervening to ensure progress by each innovation or to terminate support. The Innovation 
Investment Advisory Committee (IIAC) brings multi-disciplinary expert opinion into decisions on 
successful applicants and, where necessary, not to repeat an award; to terminate support for an innovation.
It seems that lack of progress towards targets is evident early in an award, of the 15 alumni, 13 did not 
receive support after their first year after the IIAC determined they were not progressing in milestones 
and targets. This early termination is possibly more decisive than in the experience of venture capital start￾ups and probably reflects concern over the responsible use of public funds. Some interviewees, however, 
who feel that a 10-year period might be more appropriate measure of an innovation. However, SWFF does 
not have such resources. Since decisions are based on rigorous examination by the IIAC of each innovation 
on the evidence of performance, there is some detachment of TAF itself and the Founding Partners from 
these decisions. While SWFF support is terminated this does not mean that innovations are failures and 
die; many continue with other support or, on a smaller scale, keep the idea of the innovation alive. The 
alumni continue in the SWFF fold and are invited to conferences and often retain and engage the country 
and international networks they had built as awardees. 
SWFF does not rush to judgment in cases where targets are not met; TAF and the IIAC give close attention 
to the obstacles which can cause a lack of performance which have been found to include a compressed 
period for implementation before an agricultural season, complications in receipt of funds, adverse 
weather conditions, misunderstandings about timelines and the definition of beneficiary, delays 
occasioned by an environmental assessment, and legal disputes over ownership of a patent. From the 
evidence of visits, it is difficult to develop a typology of these obstacles although some interviewees are 
vocal in mentioning the disparity between the northern financial year (September-October) and the 
agricultural seasons in the south (in India roughly July-June) which, it is implied, operates to the 
disadvantage of southern innovations. 
Recognition of these obstacles has led to changing practices such as making no-cost extensions and other 
measures to keep innovations from joining the alumni group. At times the advice of the expert IIAC is 
heard but heeded as in the case of no cost extensions. 
The social sustainability of an innovation in its gender dimensions is evaluated; in markets, in 
participation, and in the management and ownership of innovations. Using the same KII data source, every 
innovation records SWFF clear contribution to their incorporating gender relations into their planning, 
reporting and activities. The supporting rationale for undertaking gender is presented both as a
conjunctural imperative and as a strategic advantage.
 
13 One Rd. 4 awardee has been given a no-cost extension until they have verifiable impact data.
63
Reaching the untapped markets of women smallholder farmers in emerging economies with yield 
increasing or labor-saving technology is an idea whose time has come. By tackling low 
productivity barriers that prevent women from being empowered on the farm, you can help unleash 
the potential of farming to be a leading driver of economic growth and food security, with women 
at the center of it all.14
SWFF also messages the advantages that gender integration in innovations provides in mixed teams being 
more innovative, in opening new segments through marketing and making for better performance and 
productivity gains.15 There is opportunity as well as the challenge of broadening the base of the market 
for products and services. 
The KII with innovations all accord high recognition of SWFF’s prioritization of gender integration and 
a growing awareness of the need to achieve more equitable gender relations. At the same time while there 
is growing awareness there is evidence of a considerable lag in the innovation’s responses to what has 
been termed the “hidden market” of latent or pent up demand from women farmers. This lag results in a 
loss in net social welfare through the ineffective market allocation of goods and services. 
The responses in interviews reflect considerable unevenness. Most integration (achieving the highest 
levels of women participation) occurs at the customer level, there is considerable improvement in 
participation in management but a very uneven participation in ownership. This polarization is evident in 
the uneven spread at the high level and low level of participation, particularly in management and 
ownership. 
In Table 31, 38% of innovators record women participating as customers at a high level and equally 38% 
report a low level of customers as women. There appears to be either market segmentation or undue 
attention being paid to the male customer. 
Table 31. Women’s participation as customers, managers and owners
Women’s participation, customers (N=24) N % 
Women participating as customers, high level 9 38% 
Women participating as customers, improving 6 25% 
Women participating as customers, low level 9 38% 
Women’s participation, management (N=24) N %
Women participating at management level; achieved/high level 7 29% 
Women participating at management level; improving 11 46% 
Women participating in business; none, low level, unsure 6 25% 
Women’s participation, business ownership (N=24) N %
Women participating in business, highly integrated 9 38% 
Women participating in business, improving 7 29% 
Women participating in business, low level 8 33% 
 
14 SWFF. August 2016. Gender report.
15 Sida. 2015. Gender workshop presentation.
64
Source: Analysis of coding from KII 
Analysis of responses on management and ownership show a somewhat similar dichotomy between high 
and low levels of participation but with two important differences. The first is that greatest improvement 
in women's participation appears in management (46%) and a significant proportion of innovations (38%) 
have achieved a high level of integration in ownership. This may indicate greater women’s participation 
than in comparable GCF but the 33% of innovations with “low level ownership” and the 29% of 
“improving” indicate the remaining challenge. The analysis indicates that most of the innovations still 
have considerable challenges in achieving gender integration particularly in management and ownership. 
Clearly SWFF has substantial material arising on the obstacles and other issues which cause an innovation 
not to perform according to expectations. This is an invaluable stock of well documented knowledge and 
despite difficulties of disclosure and of complexity, should be mined as a record or manual of successful 
and unsuccessful engagement with obstacles. Encountering failure is a sign of the risk that SWFF has been 
prepared to face and a lack of failure would indicate both low expectations and a conservative approach. 
While venture capitalists shun discussion of failure16, in a public body diagnosis and strategic thinking 
about failure is invaluable to necessary learning. A key recommendation to come out of the interviews is 
for SWFF to document failure more clearly and explicitly so that others may learn from what might have 
gone wrong.
With more information available in the second phase of the evaluation, further efforts will be placed on 
unpacking the future prospects of the innovators. This can be based on the diversity of their customer 
base, their access to finance, some analysis of the favorability of the enabling environment and other 
factors (such as the social aspects and specifically gender integration) noted above. 
FINDING: Round by round more innovations are succeeding to meet the needs of the poor or very poor 
over the years and are gaining in viability but more could be learned of the reasons for success and failure. 
SWFF is engaged in learning from success and, in part, from failure. A critical aspect of innovation is the 
recording of, and learning from, failure. 
RECOMMENDATION: As well as celebrating success, SWFF should find more ways to gain further
learning from the evidence of failure. SWFF should find ways of systematically recording and analyzing 
the reasons for failure, in the dimensions of institutional stability, finance, technology and other 
dimensions. 
FINDING: Without growing participation by women in the markets for innovations and in their 
management and ownership, innovations will be constrained in impact and hampered in sustainability. 
RECOMMENDATION: SWFF should continue the drive for gender integration accentuating economic 
and organizational advantages as well as the human rights perspective.
 
16 Venture capitalists "bury their dead very quietly," Mr. Ghosh says. "They emphasize the successes but they don't talk about 
the failures at all." The Venture Capital Secret: 3 Out of 4 Start-Ups Fail – WSJ 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443720204578004980476429190 
Note: Due to rounding off, the addition of all percentages may not equal 100%.
65
Question 12. Are SWFF-supported projects environmentally sustainable (i.e., did they provide 
positive environmental benefit, or did they do more environmental harm than good)? 
The SWFF portfolio encompasses a wide variety of innovations and contexts. For the vast majority of 
interviewees, no significant environmental considerations were noted and several are actively improving 
the environment. In support of the agricultural gains for farmers, many innovations introduce more 
environmentally-friendly farming practices. One interviewee stated that, “Many of the innovators already 
have an ecosystem-environmental consciousness and [SWFF] further emphasizes this.” As a result, in 
some instances, the innovators appear to have become conduits for environmental advocacy and wider 
environmental awareness. Amongst others, environmental benefits include: 
• More efficient use of water, 
• Reduced reliance on groundwater, 
• Reuse of greywater and other soil conditioners, 
• Changes in crops to less water-reliant varieties, 
• Reduced contamination of drinking water, 
• Reduced desertification, and 
• Reduced or at least more targeted use of pesticides and chemical fertilisers alongside training on 
pest management and improving biodiversity. 
Agricultural policy in many countries, regions and localities is tending towards establishing organic 
agricultural practices. In India, nine states—Karnataka, Mizoram, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal 
Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Gujarat—have adopted organic farming policy 
or law. These policies reduce or terminate the subsidy or supply of fertilizers and pesticides to farmers. A 
number of innovations are engaged in the establishment of organic farming by promoting their innovation 
to reduce fertilizers and pesticides. These innovators are committed particularly to maintaining 
biodiversity, improving soil fertility and encouraging ecological pest management. 
Some innovations make a direct contribution to an improved environment. Take the case of WASTE 
which processes both fecal sludge and organic solid waste with co-composting and sells this fertilizer to 
local farmers. This facility has provided the “honeysuckers” which had previously spewed the sludge into 
the forests at night with a ready alternative considerably improving the natural environment and water 
quality. 
For many innovators, there may also be particular deforestation considerations due to more land being 
under cultivation. This brings resource use and resource management aspects more into view. Thus, 
overall water abstraction for farming may in fact have increased even while significant water efficiencies 
result directly from the introduction of the innovation or related support to farmers around more efficient 
irrigation technologies and practices. 
There is significant confidence in USAID’s scrutiny around environmental conditions and several 
innovators noted that USAID had supported them in conducting an environmental impact assessment. 
Ultimately the environmental focus of the IIAC and USAID’s own restrictions and on-the-ground checks 
(also with the help of a USAID/LAB Environment Officer) have helped to flag potential environmental 
issues. [Recommendations: The evaluation team suspects that these could be captured more clearly in an 
66
overview analysis of the SWFF portfolio’s wider environmental impacts. For some innovators, such as 
those employing sensors, there may be a need for Life Cycle Analysis assessments for the products to also 
understand end of life / disposal issues.
FINDING: Among many innovators there is a commitment to green technologies, organic pesticide-free 
agriculture, and improved soil quality. As well as this commitment, a number of products (such as NewSil) 
contribute to reducing or eliminating fertilizers and pesticides. There is a keen interest among innovators 
to achieve organic farming through the technologies they promote. 
RECOMMENDATION: Governments are increasingly interested in declaring agricultural zones or 
entire states as organic. SWFF should consider such a target in selection criteria. 
Table of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations 
Findings Recommendations 
Section 1 - Program Relevance,
Questions V.a, A1a 
There is widespread local need in the south for 
the innovations and potential for local 
ownership. The challenge is the ability of the 
intended beneficiaries (poor, very poor and 
women) to pay. Innovators have the challenge 
of helping generate effective demand as well 
as meeting existing demand from better off 
farmers for their infrastructure, products or 
services. Effective demand in the local context 
often includes the availability of micro-finance 
for poor or very poor farmers. 
Effective demand in the local context often 
includes the availability of low interest rate 
micro-finance for poor or very poor farmers. 
 
It is recommended that there should be greater 
southern participation in SWFF. 
SWFF should consider the most effective ways 
of managing locally available micro-finance at 
low interest rates as a form of poor farmers 
credit without over-burdening the innovations. 
This will help build a stronger base of 
innovations and impact in areas of greatest 
need.
Section 2 - Program Effectiveness
Questions A1b, B3, B5, B7 
The Program is effectively run, ensures close 
attention to detail, and has a hands-on 
approach with the awardees. The flow of 
reliable and authoritative information enables 
innovators and SWFF to “pivot” as new 
information becomes available and to take 
difficult decisions where necessary.
Although innovators reported good support, a 
variety of obstacles were reported by 
innovators. It is recommended that SWFF 
should foster more exchange of information on 
the barriers which innovators are encountering 
particularly in the critical first year and efforts 
to overcome them. Initiating wider links with 
67
Findings Recommendations 
The founding partners bring complementary 
agendas to the SWFF partnership, which meets 
the various needs and capacities of each 
agency. USAID’s effective management of the 
GC is highly regarded. 
related embassy and other programs would 
further enhance SWFF’s effectiveness. 
Greater emphasis should be given to 
broadening the southern membership base of 
the Founding Partners in a new initiative and 
linking these partners more effectively to the 
Program. Such partners could help locate and 
support suitable innovators particularly from 
the South. 
Section 3 - Program Efficiency
Questions B1, B2, B4, B6 
Innovators strongly appreciate the dedicated 
support of the TA Facility and feel it is 
efficiently set up, organized, and managed, 
provides the right kind of support at the right 
time, from the right people. 74% of innovators 
cite the TAF as being decisive in its 
contributions towards their success and 
outcomes. 
Compared to other programs, SWFF is 
regarded as adding “tremendous” value, 
specifically in terms of M&E and other 
reporting capabilities.
In future SWFF-like programs, further 
reinforce innovator sustainability/viability, 
and programmatic (or innovator) learning from 
failure and adaptive management as well as 
continuing the reporting on the achievement of 
primary outcomes. 
Efficiency would best be served by focusing 
on strengthening the enterprise in Year 1 (low￾interest farmer financing schemes), moving to 
scale in Year 2 (additional investment), and 
consolidating the business plan in Year 3 
(viability).
Section 4 - Impact
A1c, A1d, A1e, A1h, A2, A3 
SWFF strongly contributed to outcomes: 
analysis of surveys find (90%) of beneficiaries 
have improved access to water and (95%) 
water efficiency directly due to SWFF’s 
innovations. 
While the inclusion of the vulnerable depends 
on the business model, very poor groups and 
women are impacted by innovations. 
Beneficiaries report an increase in agricultural 
productivity in increased yields, increased 
number of growing seasons or a diversification 
of the crops grown, and a more efficient use of 
inputs (labor, time, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.)
Measured impact is crucial to each innovators’ 
credibility; surveys should be undertaken at 
modest expense to establish baseline and 
impact in particular in relation to inclusion 
(women, poor and very poor), income, and 
climate resilience.
Resilience to weather extremes in agriculture 
should be included in the design of future 
innovations as this will certainly increase their 
impact. Since climate conditions impacting on 
agriculture are becoming pronounced, express 
criteria on climate resilience should be 
included in applications to SWFF. 
68
Findings Recommendations 
Climate change resilience is less evident but 
can be inferred: better adaptation to climate 
change by increased water access and a 
reduction in reliance on rainfall; targeted 
irrigations; and better control over climate and 
pests.
Section 5 - Sustainability
A1f, A1g
A critical aspect of innovation is use of the data 
to learn from failure. Round by round, 
innovations are succeeding to meet the needs 
of the poor or very poor over the years and are 
gaining in viability, but more could be learned 
from success and failure. It is recommended 
that SWFF should deepen its systematic and 
intentional learning from failure. 
Without growing participation by women in 
the markets for innovation and in the 
management and ownership, innovations will 
be constrained in impact and hampered in 
sustainability.
In relation to environmental sustainability 
many innovators expressed strong 
commitment to green technologies, organic 
pesticide-free agriculture, and improved soil 
quality. In addition, a number of products 
(such as NewSil) contribute to reducing or 
eliminating fertilizers and pesticides. There is 
a keen interest among innovators to achieve 
organic farming through the technologies they 
promote. 
As well as celebrating success, SWFF should 
improve its systematic and intentional learning 
from failure. SWFF should systematically 
record and analyze the reasons for failure, in 
institutional stability, finance, technology, and 
other dimensions. 
SWFF should continue the drive for gender 
integration accentuating economic and 
organizational advantages as well as the 
human rights perspective. 
vcSince more governments now are 
increasingly interested in declaring 
agricultural zones or entire states as organic, 
SWFF should consider such a target in 
selection criteria.
69
All Annexes are in a separate file