MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005

June 2006 The cover photo features a credit union member sitting among the clay pots she and her family have made to sell at city markets. Each member of her pottery-making family belongs to Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito San Jose de Punata, a credit union assisted by the World Council of Credit Unions, Inc. (WOCCU) program to serve the vast numbers of rural Bolivians without access to financial services.

PHOTO COURTESY OF CHRIS ZARCONI

C2 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005

June 2006

ACRONYMS

ACCION Americans for Community Cooperation in Other Nations ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperation and Assistance DA Development Assistance DCA Development Credit Authority CGAP Consultative Group to Assist the Poor CSH/HIV Child Survival and Health/Human Immunodeficiency Virus ED Enterprise Development ESF Economic Support Funds FIELD-Support Financial Integration, Economic Leveraging, Broad-Based Dissemination and Support Program FINCA Foundation for International Community Assistance FS Financial Services FSA Freedom Support Act FVP Funds that Benefit the Very Poor IGP Implementation Grant Program LAC Latin America and the Caribbean Region (USAID) LWA Leader with Associates MD USAID/Washington Microenterprise Development office MED Microenterprise Development MF Microfinance MFI Microfinance Institution MRR Microenterprise Results Reporting NGO Nongovernmental Organization PVO Private Voluntary Organization USAID/W United States Agency for International Development/Washington WOCCU World Council of Credit Unions

INTRODUCTION

his report fulfills the pro­ ment support in response to vision in Section 258(a) the reporting requirements Tof PL 108-484, the included in PL 108-484. It Microenterprise Results and was compiled by Microenter­ Accountability Act of 2004, prise Results Reporting that each year, “the Admini­ (MRR), USAID's official sys­ strator of the Agency, acting tem for tracking its microen­ through the Director of the terprise investments. office, shall submit to the USAID focuses its assistance appropriate congressional com­ to the microenterprise sector mittees a report that contains a strategically, in three areas: detailed description of the CEDONIA financial services, enterprise implementation of this title for development, and enabling TISANS/MA the previous fiscal year.” 1 AR O

environment. Financial serv­ T ices and enterprise support are

Through three decades of for­ OF AID

eign assistance, the United critical for poor households TESY

States Agency for International and businesses, enabling them COUR O to respond to new economic T

Development has refined its PHO support strategies to the opportunities, build house­ Client of Aid to Artisans Macedonia microenterprise/microfinance hold assets, or cope with emer­ sector while increasing its levels gencies and crises. kets from which they have been of funding. This report presents Improvements to the enabling excluded, increase their earnings some aspects of USAID’s FY environment allow microentre­ and realize the benefits of inter­ 2005 microenterprise develop­ preneurs to participate in mar- national trade.

1 Microfinance refers to the provision of financial services adapted to the needs of low-income people, especially the pro­ vision of small loans, the acceptance of small savings deposits and simple payments services needed by microentrepreneurs and other poor people. Enterprise development services refers to the many interventions that help microenterprises start, survive and grow, including those that help them acquire skills and knowledge, gain access to financing and other inputs, and develop the com­ mercial relationships with other firms (both micro-scale and larger firms) required to integrate into higher-value markets. Enabling environment refers to activities that promote appropriate laws, policies, regulations and supervisory and administrative practices that expand access to diverse financial services for low-income people or improve entrepreneurial opportunities and the business environment in which microenterprises operate.

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 1 Although this is the first annual to Congress. Many of those This report is structured to give report required under Public same reporting requirements are readers a clear sense of USAID’s Law 108-484, the Microenter­ the subject of Congressional activities to implement the prise Results and Accountability inquiries the Agency receives. Microenterprise Results and Act of 2004, some of the These reporting needs are met Accountability Act of 2004. reporting requirements con­ through annual data collection The following chart provides a tained in that Act have been and analysis carried out through guide to the reporting require­ instated by previous microen­ USAID’s Microenterprise ments and the pages of the terprise legislation and reported Results Reporting (MRR) report on which they are on in previous Annual Reports system. addressed: reporting require­ ment item # (of 12) language in the law page 1 The number of grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, statistical annex A contributions, or other form of assistance provided under p.34 section 252 [the section of the law authorizing USAID to provide microenterprise assistance], with a listing of: (A) the amount of each grant, cooperative agreement, statistical annex A contract, or other form of assistance; (B) the name of each recipient and each developing statistical annex A country with respect to which projects or activities under the grant, cooperative agreement, contract, contribution, or other form of assistance were carried out; and (C) a listing of the number of countries receiving statistical annex A assistance authorized by section 252. p. 34 2 The amount of assistance provided under section 252 statistical annex B through central mechanisms. p. 39 3 The name of each country that receives assistance under Table 2 (p. 8) section 256 [the section of the law pertaining to the Development Credit Authority and credit instruments] and the amount of such assistance. 4 The level of funding provided through contracts, the level funding through of funding provided through grants, contracts, and contracts, Table 3, cooperative agreements that is estimated to be subgranted p. 9; estimate of sub- or subcontracted, as the case may be, to direct service obligated funds, providers, and an analysis of the comparative cost- p.11-14; comparative effectiveness and sustainability of projects carried out cost-effectiveness under these mechanisms. and sustainability of projects carried out under various mech­ anisms, p. 10-12 5I t is the sense of Congress that USAID should include in p. 14 the report required by section 258 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (as added by section 6 of this Act) a description of all matching assistance (as described in paragraph (1)) provided for the prior year by recipients of microenterprise development assistance under such title.

2 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 reporting require­ ment item # (of 12) language in the law page 6 The percentage of assistance furnished under section 252 p. 14-16 that was allocated to the very poor based on the data collected using the certified methods required by section 254. 7 The estimated number of the very poor reached with p. 14-16 assistance provided under section 252. 8I nformation on the efforts of the Agency to ensure that p. 16 recipients of United States microenterprise and microfinance development assistance work closely with nongovernmental organizations and foreign governments to identify and assist victims or potential victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons and women who are victims of or susceptible to other forms of exploitation and violence. 9 An estimate of the percentage of beneficiaries of assistance p. 16-17 under this title in countries where a strong relationship between poverty and race or ethnicity has been demonstrated. 10 The process of developing and applying poverty assessment p. 17-18 procedures required under section 254 [the section of the law outlining the requirement for USAID to develop client poverty assessment tools and require their use by awardees by October 2006]. 11 The results of the monitoring system required under p. 18-20 section 253 [see A-D below]. (A) The monitoring system shall include performance goals for p. 19 the assistance and expresses such goals in an objective and quantifiable form, to the extent feasible. (B) The monitoring system shall include performance indicators p. 19 to be used in measuring or assessing the achievement of the performance goals described in paragraph (1) and the objective of the assistance authorized under section 252. (C) The monitoring system provides a basis for recommendations p. 20 for adjustments to the assistance to enhance the sustainability and the impact of the assistance, particularly the impact of such assistance on the very poor, particularly poor women. (D) The monitoring system adopts the widespread use of proven p. 20 and effective poverty assessment tools to successfully identify the very poor and ensure that they receive adequate access to microenterprise loans, savings, and assistance. 12 Any additional information relating to the provision of additional informa­ assistance authorized by this title, including the use of poverty tion on efforts to measurement tools required by section 254, or additional implement PL 108­ information on assistance provided by the United States to 487, p. 20-22; infor­ support microenterprise development under this title or any mation on the other provision of law. poverty measure­ ment tools, p. 17-18

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

his report fulfills 12 reporting requirements Tincluded in PL 108-484, the Microenterprise Results and Accountability Act of 2004. Key findings from USAID's implementation of these 12 requirements include:

1) In FY 2005, USAID funded 218 new and existing agree­ ments in the form of grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts in 69 countries.

2) In FY 2005, microenterprise

development central pro­ PHOTO COURTESY OF CHEMONICS, BEN FRASER, 2006 gramming totaled $21.9 mil­ Members of the Kabara Women’s Association weave baskets in Timbuktu, Mali. lion or 10 percent of total The USAID-funded Mali Finance project has trained association members in business management, which has helped them increase revenues and open a funds. This programming, group bank account. from all funding accounts, complemented regional fund­ ing to Africa ($37.1million 3) Through the use of credit of total microenterprise sup­ or 18 percent), Asia and guarantees, $6.361 million port. This figure does not Near East ($74.8 million or in USAID funding has include the substantial sub- leveraged $224 million in obligations that for-profit 35 percent), Europe and credit from the private sector managing entities of umbrel­ Eurasia ($35.3 million or 17 for institutions serving la programs make to non- percent), and Latin America microfinance clients. profits. USAID is refining its and the Caribbean ($42.3 ability to capture sub-obliga­ million or 20 percent). The 4) In FY 2005, the amount of tions data. The Agency's Agency total for microenter­ funds obligated directly to all recent study of microfinance prise funding in FY 2005 was non-profits was approximate­ umbrella mechanisms found $211.4 million. ly 37 percent ($78.2 million)

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 5 that, for microfinance newly developed poverty except that for the percent umbrella programs, or for measurement tools in FY of funds benefiting the very other USAID programs, nei­ 2006, the Agency expects to poor. Performance was par­ ther the profit/non-profit sta­ be able to provide a more ticularly strong in the num­ tus of the recipient, nor the reliable estimate of the num­ ber of clients served (44 per­ type of award, is a factor in ber of very poor clients it cent above the target of 4.5 determining sustainability. reaches through microenter­ million) and the financial prise support. strength and sustainability of 5) In FY 2005, $27.6 million of microfinance implementing USAID funds were matched 8) $15 million of USAID's partners. by an additional $9.2 million microenterprise funding in from other sources, such as FY 2005 (7 percent) assisted 12)USAID has developed new private donations, multilater­ victims of trafficking in per­ activities, systems and per­ al funding, commercial and sons and women who are formance analysis measures concessional borrowing, sav­ particularly vulnerable to to ensure thorough compli­ ings, and program income. other forms of exploitation ance with the law and its and violence. new requirements. For 6) USAID can state with confi­ example, to direct funding dence that, in FY 2005, 37 9) From USAID's FY 2005 to PVOs, the Agency estab­ percent of financial services microenterprise portfolio, 38 lished a microenterprise funding ($38.4 million), and percent of credit clients, 44 Leader with Associates 18 percent of enterprise percent of savings clients, mechanism with a funding development funding ($19.4 and 10 percent of enterprise ceiling of $350 million over million), benefited the very development clients are from five years, expanding mis­ poor2. USAID assumes that a countries where a relation­ sion access to the microfi­ significantly larger share of ship between poverty and nance and microenterprise microenterprise funding ben­ race or ethnicity has been development expertise of the efited very poor clients but demonstrated. non-profit community. cannot validate that assump­ Funds can be obligated tion due to the poor fit 10)USAID facilitated the devel­ through the new LWA (up between the mandated pover­ opment of two poverty to the $350 million ceiling) ty loan proxy and the services measurement tools that will to the extent that missions that enterprise development be available to implementing and other operating units institutions deliver to their partners by the congression­ choose to use this mecha­ clients. ally mandated deadline of nism to implement activi­ October 1, 2006. 7) The constraints associated ties. As with other umbrella with the mandated proxy of 11)USAID established and arrangements, the LWA also poverty loan size limit measured quantifiable per­ allows for sub-obligations to USAID's ability to estimate formance indicators in FY host country microfinance accurately its outreach to 2005, substantially meeting and microenterprise devel­ very poor clients. By using or exceeding all targets opment institutions.

2“Very poor” as defined in the Microenterprise Results and Accountability Act of 2004 as people living on less than $1/day (purchasing power parity) or in the bottom 50% of those living below their country’s poverty line.

6 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 In FY 2005, USAID provided Reporting Reporting $211.4 million from all Requirement 2 Requirement 3 accounts to microenterprise development programs world- Central Mechanisms Development Credit wide (See Table 1). Authority The amount of funding provid­ Using USAID's Development ed through central mechanisms Credit Authority (DCA), Reporting in FY 2005 totaled $21.9 mil­ USAID missions have been able Requirement 1 A-C lion, as shown below. to expand the capital base for microfinance by providing par­ Funding tial guarantees rather than In FY 2005, USAID funded CENTRAL US$ Millions grants. Such guarantees have 218 new and existing agree­ Microenterprise been used by microfinance ments in the form of grants, Development office $16.9 institutions (MFIs) to finance cooperative agreements, and their growing portfolios and to contracts in 69 countries. Private Voluntary encourage mainstream financial Statistical Annex A contains Cooperation Office $ 5.0 institutions, such as local com­ further details including a list­ mercial banks, to make loans to ing of countries receiving assis- To tal CENTRAL $21.9 MFIs. tance, the amount of each award and the institutional Table 2 presents the countries recipient. that have benefited through FY

TABLE 1. SOURCES OF USAID FUNDS FOR MICROENTERPRISE BY APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT (US$ MILLIONS), FY 1996-2005

Fiscal Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 DA1 72.9 83.3 79.9 74.1 88.3 85.3 80.7 89.9 119.8 131.8 ESF2 16.1 24.5 33.9 33.0 25.2 27.9 48.1 28.4 17.7 37.3 FSA3 5.4 20.6 14.3 12.8 30.3 19.6 33.4 41.0 35.1 21.0 SEED/SAI4 4.7 24.8 4.6 13.0 9.2 7.6 6.7 14.5 13.9 14.2 CACEDRF5 3.2 8.0 CSH/HIV6 0.8 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.4 Local Currency 12.2 11.8 12.4 17.3 8.8 13.7 18.6 4.8 10.0 6.7 To tal 111.4 165.0 145.1 153.4 170.6 154.6 188.0 179.6 197.1 211.4

1 Development Assistance funds include the Development Fund for Africa. In 2005, DA also includes $14.5 million in funds appropriated under the Andean Counternarcotics Initiative (ACI) and International Narcotics Control (INC) in Colombia and Peru as well as $28.9 appropriated in Iraq through the Iraq Reconstruction and Relief Fund (IRRF). 2 Economic Support Fund 3 FREEDOM Support Act 4 Funds appropriated under the Support for Eastern European Democracy (SEED) Act, under Special Assistance Initiatives (SAI), or for Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltics. 5 Central America and Caribbean Emergency Disaster Recovery Fund 6 Child Survival and Health/HIV.While shown here, these funds have not been counted toward USAID’s target of $200 mil­ lion, because they count toward another Congressional earmark.

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 7 TABLE 2. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT AUTHORITY approximately 37 percent of total MICROFINANCE-RELATED GUARANTEES (US$ microenterprise support, which MILLIONS), FY 2001-2005 included funds to U.S.-based PVOs (16 percent), local NGOs Guarantee Loan (16 percent), cooperatives (2 per­ Region Countries Subsidy Facility cent), credit unions (2 percent) Africa East Africa $0.095 $ 2.0 and research and educational Kenya $0.630 $ 9.2 institutions (1 percent). Uganda $1.964 $48.3 The amount obligated to con- South Africa $0.076 $ 8.3 sulting firms was 51 percent of Asia/Near East Morocco $0.489 $27.0 total funds, an increase from 38 Philippines $0.007 $ 0.8 percent in FY 2004. This Latin America/ increase is due largely to the Caribbean Ecuador $1.230 $17.4 initiation of large umbrella pro- Guatemala $0.116 $ 5.0 grams in some countries where Honduras $0.025 $ 1.0 local capacity is limited, and comprehensive, multi-level Jamaica $0.244 $ 8.5 interventions are required for Mexico1 $0.067 $ 3.5 program success. Nicaragua $0.158 $ 5.0 Peru $1.132 $28.0 Missions sometimes implement Global Worldwide $0.128 $60.0 microenterprise and microfi­ nance activities through large Total $6.361 $224.0 umbrella programs in which a 1 The term on these guarantees expired in FY 2004. single awardee (either a consult­ ing firm or a PVO/NGO) car­ ries out a broad range of activi­ 2005 from the credit assistance of funding provided through ties to boost economic opportu­ made available under the contracts, the level of funding nities for microenterprises or Development Credit Authority. provided through grants, con­ expand financial services for the The amounts shown under tracts, and cooperative agree­ poor. While managed by a sin­ “Loan Facility” are the funds ments that is estimated to be gle entity, the umbrella program available for lending to the subgranted or subcontracted, as in most cases is carried out by a microfinance or microenterprise the case may be, to direct serv­ consortium of partners that sector as a result of partial guar­ ice providers, and an analysis of bring distinct expertise, given antees provided by USAID. the comparative cost-effective­ the breadth of skills required by ness and sustainability of proj­ the program. Typically, a por­ ects carried out under these tion of funds obligated to the Reporting mechanisms.” lead implementer or “prime” Requirement 4 recipient is then sub-contracted Table 3 presents a summary of or sub-granted to other consor­ Obligations and how FY 2005 funds were obli­ tium members to carry out Sub-obligations gated to institutions by type of activities within their area of The Microenterprise Results institution. In FY 2005, the expertise. In addition, USAID and Accountability Act directs amount of funds obligated often designates a substantial USAID to report on “The level directly to all non-profits was share of the overall funding for

8 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 TABLE 3. USAID FUNDING FOR MICROENTERPRISE OBLIGATION RECIPIENTS, FY 20051

Obligation Amount2 Percent of Amounts for Contracts3 Institution Type (US$ millions) Total (%) (US$ millions)

Bank $5.3 2.5% 0 Business Association $0.6 0.3% 0 Consulting Firm $106.7 50.5% $88.7 Cooperative $4.2 2.0% $1.0 Credit Union $5.2 2.5% $2.1 Finance Company $0.3 0.1% 0 For-Profit $2.6 1.2% $2.2 Government Agency $1.8 0.9% 0 NGO $33.5 15.8% $7.4 Non Bank Financial Institution $3.7 1.8% 0 Other $2.2 1.0% $0.5 PVO $34.6 16.4% $16.9 Research/Educational $1.5 0.7% $0.9 USAID4 $9.2 4.3% $1.9 To tal $211.4 100.0% $121.6

NGO, PVO, COOP, CU $77.5 36.7% $27.4 Consulting Firms $106.7 50.5% $88.7 Other For Profits $11.9 5.6% $2.2 To tal All Other Entities $15.3 7.2% $3.3 Total $211.4 100.00% $121.6

1 Please refer to pp. 12-14 for a discussion on what portion of the obligations here was sub-obligated to for-profit and non­ profit partners. 2 Column shows obligations made to primary recipients, including umbrellas and apex organizations. Apex institutions are wholesale microfinance institutions that channel funds to retail lenders. 3 This does not include the amounts provided through cooperative agreements, grants and other mechanisms. It also does not include amounts that were sub-contracted or sub-granted through these contracts. 4 Obligations to USAID include those funds that were used for microenterprise project management and those for which specific implementing institutions had not yet been specified. the program for sub-grants and specialized “apex organizations,” A microfinance umbrella pro- sub-contracts to microfinance created specifically to channel gram might provide targeted institutions, enterprise support technical and financial support capacity-building support to organizations or other local to direct service providers, to many smaller financial institu­ service providers. In microfi- strengthen the microfinance tions, initiate a credit informa­ nance, USAID sometimes funds sector. tion bureau, and work to

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 9 change laws and regulations improved availability of inputs, Cost-effectiveness, that impede profitable delivery micro-irrigation and production Sustainability and of financial services to the poor. technology. While consulting Sub-obligations An enterprise development firms are more likely to have USAID uses a range of methods umbrella program might work the requisite project manage­ to implement its microenter­ at all levels of a value chain that ment and technical capacity to prise support, including grants are critical to the earnings and coordinate complex umbrella for a wide variety of purposes, livelihoods of poorer house­ programs with diverse interven­ partial credit guarantees holds; an agribusiness umbrella tions, non-profits often play key through the Development program, for example, might roles in umbrella programs, in Credit Authority, and Global work to improve policies that some cases as the overall Development Alliance3 agree­ impede the sector's competitive­ umbrella manager and in others ments. Moreover, USAID ness while facilitating new mar­ as providers of specialized engages with a large number ket linkages, support services “niche” services such as organi­ and wide variety of partners, for producers, formation of zation of credit unions or vil­ including international PVOs smallholder associations, and lage banking services. (see Table 4), local NGOs, busi-

TABLE 4. FUNDING TO PVO NETWORKS, FY 1997-2005

Total USAID Awards Average Annual Award PVO Network (US$ Thousands) (US$ Thousands)

ACCION International $19,785 $2,198

ACDI/VOCA $64,434 $7,159

Aid to Artisans $21,769 $2,419

CARE International $19,113 $2,124

Catholic Relief Services $37,211 $4,135

Cooperative Housing Foundation $38,965 $4,329

Enterprise Works Worldwide $22,291 $2,477

FINCA International $54,806 $6,090

Mercy Corps $17,368 $1,930

National Cooperative Business Association $25,476 $2,831

Opportunity International $36,649 $4,072

Save the Children Federation $32,213 $3,579

TechnoServe $48,485 $5,387

WOCCU $40,395 $4,488

World Vision Relief and Development $14,113 $1,568

TOTAL Funding $493,073 $54,786

3 The Global Development Alliance (GDA) forges public-private alliances to stimulate economic growth, develop business and workforces, address health and environmental issues and expand access to education and technology.

10 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 ness and trade associations, TABLE 5. REPORTED SUB-OBLIGATIONS, FY 2005 credit unions and cooperatives, consulting firms, governments, Amounts for sub-grants and commercial banks, rural banks, Institution Type sub-contracts1 (US$ millions) finance companies, non-bank Consulting Firm $10.1 financial institutions and Cooperative $0.5 research or educational institu- Credit Union $0.5 tions, among others. For-Profit $0.3 The diversity of USAID's part­ NGO $2.8 ners reflects its comprehensive Non Bank Financial Institution $0.1 strategy of working to strength­ PVO $3.2 en institutions, the financial To t a l $ 17.5 sectors and markets in which they compete, and the policy 1 Column shows sub-grants or sub-contracts for technical assistance, purchase environments that circumscribe of commodities, loans, grants or guarantees. their potential. By drawing on a diverse pool of partners with a wide range of skills, working still in draft, and was recently between organizations and proj­ across the micro-, meso4- and reviewed by the advisory group, ects across countries, and virtu­ macroeconomic levels, and tai­ comprised of non-profit and ally impossible to draw broad, loring its assistance to specific for-profit practitioners, other general conclusions about rela­ local conditions, USAID donors, researchers, etc. Release tive cost-effectiveness. ensures that it can implement to the general public is expected As shown in Figure 1, the comprehensive programs effi­ this summer.) The study's find­ ciently and cost-effectively. ings indicate that USAID-fund­ amount of USAID support ed microfinance programs have specifically for microfinance Whether an umbrella or single- been implemented successfully that flowed through umbrella purpose type of program design as both umbrella projects and as agreements between FY 1997 is more cost-effective depends single-purpose projects by both and FY 2005 was less then 30 on many factors, including the for-profits and not-for-profits. percent of new USAID obliga­ desired results, the maturity of Detailed analysis of the cost tions for microfinance, indicat­ the market and the capacity of structures of not-for-profits and ing that most USAID support the implementing partners. for-profits offers no evidence for microfinance is still distrib­ USAID’s recent study of micro- that these programs have been uted through single-purpose finance umbrella programs implemented inefficiently. programs, which are generally focused (among other things) Likewise, there is little evidence grants directly to not-for-prof­ on their relative cost-effective­ that either for-profits or not- its. The share of microfinance ness. Many of the findings for-profits are more cost effec­ funding programmed through apply to umbrellas but also tive in achieving project results. umbrella programs during this more broadly to other agree­ This study found that it is period seems to have peaked at ments with for-profit and non­ extremely difficult to directly 37 percent of total USAID profit partners. (This study is compare cost-effectiveness funding for microfinance in FY

4 “Meso economic level” refers to the supporting infrastructure that the financial sector requires for growth and stabilization. In microfinance, this includes information technology service providers, credit bureaus, rating agencies, professional net­ works and associations, as well as access to technical assistance and training.

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 11 FIGURE 1: USAID FUNDING FOR MICROFINANCE at creating a financial system BY MECHANISM (US$ THOUSANDS) that permits greater and more (SEPT. 1, 1997 – SEPT. 31, 2005) sustainable access to financial services. Ultimately, the nature $140,000 of the procurement mechanism $120,000 — contract or grant/cooperative $100,000 agreement — has no influence $80,000 on the level of program $60,000 sustainability. $40,000 $20,000 Sub-obligations $0 Recent refinements to USAID's 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 MRR reporting system allow All MF Umbrellas All USAID Obligations for MF umbrella institutions to include Linear (All MF Umbrellas) Linear (All USAID Obligations for MF) more details on the various forms of assistance that may be transferred to local organiza­ 2002, while just 10 percent of ed public investments. USAID tions via the umbrella institu­ FY 2005 funding was obligated staff has more control over the tion. In particular, MRR through umbrella programs. direction of programs imple­ requested umbrella institutions mented under a contract. to report on the U.S. dollar Sustainability of Various Microfinance umbrella projects equivalent of assistance (includ­ Assistance Mechanisms generally aim to reduce depend­ ing technical assistance, loans, USAID's recent study of micro- ence on donor funding and grants, guarantees, or equip­ finance umbrella mechanisms subsidized technical assistance ment) disbursed in 2005. The found that, for microfinance by addressing the market-level data obtained for FY 2005 is umbrella programs, or for other constraints to mainstreaming reported in Table 5. USAID programs, the instru­ microfinance for the poor. Analysis of the database of ment is not a factor in deter­ These constraints often take the microfinance umbrellas com­ mining sustainability. USAID form of lack of services on uses contracts to procure goods which MFIs rely. Umbrellas piled for the study indicates or services to implement its address these constraints by that since 1997, nearly 47 per­ own program, and cooperative building locally available sup­ cent of total funding for micro- agreements or grants to support porting services, and strength­ finance umbrellas was sub-obli­ or stimulate the recipient's pro­ ening the policy, regulatory, or gated; most of these sub-obliga­ gram. The sustainability of the legal framework for microfi­ tions go to not-for-profits and program is the result of sound nance. For the cases studied, their local affiliates. In addition, analysis that ensures that bene­ nearly all of the institutions although for-profits served as fits continue well beyond pro­ assisted experienced increased primes for the majority of the gram subsidies. Umbrella pro­ financial sustainability and umbrella programs, not-for­ grams are usually implemented growth. The study of umbrella profits and their affiliates under contracts rather than mechanisms found that pro­ received much of the in-kind grants, as USAID perceives the grams focused at the level of a technical assistance and train­ need to exercise greater control single institution cannot be as ing, as well as funding, associat­ over these large and complicat­ effective as umbrella programs ed with these programs.

12 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 Additional detail on the sub­ on their sub-recipients that was • The MRR reporting request contracts and sub-grants will provided by direct recipients of came too soon after the end eventually aid in providing a USAID funding. As noted earli­ of the fiscal year for many more comprehensive picture of er, the amount of detail provided sub-agreements to have been the allocation of USAID funds. by the direct recipients consider­ finalized. That is, substantial For FY 2005, the majority of ably understates the amounts funding amounts are some­ umbrella awardees with agree­ that will benefit local organiza­ times obligated near the end ments signed late in the fiscal tions. The data on funding flows of the fiscal year and the data year showed much of their between for-profits (primarily request thus may come funding still in hand at the time consulting firms) and non-prof­ before the new activities ­ 5 of reporting ; most of these its (primarily PVOs and NGOs) including sub-granted and funds will eventually be chan­ is also likely to be incomplete. sub-contracted activities - are neled to local organizations, but operational, making it diffi­ are not reflected in Table 5. This is the first year for which cult or impossible for the MRR has attempted to collect MRR reporter to specify the Sub-obligations, such as sub­ data on sub-obligations for tech­ ultimate recipients; contracts and sub-grants, are nical assistance as well as direct often a central component of •Direct recipients were obligations. The data collection microenterprise umbrella pro­ requested to report the “cost exercise and analysis proved far grams. Many different types of of assistance to local institu­ more difficult than anticipated. USAID award agreements tions,” but if the assistance Reasons that the data is incom­ involve subsequent sub-obliga­ (funding, equipment, com­ plete include the following: tion of funds and delivery of modities, technical services) services, commodities, etc. by • The terms “facilitator” (for had not yet been provided, the direct recipient to other enterprise development the costs were not yet known organizations that thus benefit umbrellas) and “apex” or at the time of reporting; fur­ from USAID support without “wholesaler” (for microfi­ thermore, the full costs of receiving obligations directly. nance umbrellas) may not such assistance (when it does Because umbrella programs have been interpreted by not involve cash transfers) managed by for-profits typically reporting institutions to may be difficult to estimate; involve sub-obligations to non- apply to the full range and • The direct costs of funding profits, accurate data on the full kinds of agreements MRR provided to local organiza­ amount of USAID microenter­ intended to capture, particu­ tions, while easier to deter­ prise funding to each type of larly non-apex umbrellas that mine and report, may not institution has remained elusive. involve cash/service transfers include the full indirect costs For the current reporting year, to direct service providers of providing the sub-award; MRR requested additional infor­ (e.g., a large private sector • The value of technical assis­ mation on the amounts allocated development program with a tance in particular is very dif­ to local institutions through component that aims to ficult to capture. umbrella agreements, apexes or strengthen business service other types of wholesale institu­ providers to microenterprises The impact of these limitations tions. Table 5 contains the data and micro-scale producers); on the quality of the sub-obliga­

5 This is the case in several countries: in Egypt, where $5.8 million of a $6.0 million agreement is unallocated; in Barbados, where $3.5 million of a $4.1 million is unallocated; and in the Philippines and Uganda, where $2.7 million and $2.5 million, respectively, are unallocated. While these agreements were all with consulting firms, not all umbrella contractors are con­ sulting firms; some are led by NGOs.

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 13 tions data is illustrated by and funding and other services sources, including the institution USAID's support for microfi­ “passed through” to local institu­ itself. In FY 2005, $27.6 million nance in Iraq through an tions, for the FY 2006 report to of USAID funds were matched umbrella agreement with Louis Congress, USAID plans to refine by an additional $9.2 million Berger, Inc. This agreement is and improve the survey instru­ from other sources. Matching part of a $35 million multi-year ment and perform additional funds from these sources may program that includes $29 mil­ checks on data completeness and include funding from non-U.S. lion in sub-grants to a combina­ accuracy. In particular, those Government sources, including tion of PVOs, indigenous Iraqi receiving USAID obligations private donations, multilateral microfinance institutions directly will be instructed to pro­ funding, commercial and con­ (MFIs), an Iraqi loan guarantee vide complete detail on all cessional borrowing, savings and company, and the World Bank- planned sub-agreements known program income. based Consultative Group to at the time of reporting. In addi­ Assist the Poor (CGAP). Because tion, a more specific definition Reporting of “umbrella program” agree­ these funds were not disbursed Requirements 6-7 in FY 2005, they were not cap­ ments will be provided; esti­ tured in the MRR system and mates of indirect costs will be Funds for Very Poor Clients are not presented in Table 5. requested; and respondents will Because the Microenterprise The planned distribution of be asked to report the value of Results and Accountability Act sub-contracts and sub-grants, the these funds is as follows: $8 mil­ of 2004 extended the deadline value of technical assistance they lion to ACDI/VOCA, $3 mil­ for implementing new poverty provide, and the value of com­ lion to the Community Housing assessment measures to October modities, equipment and in- Fund, $5.8 million to Relief 1, 2006, MRR has used the International, and $2.7 million kind assistance they provide, measures established under the to a group of indigenous MFIs indicating the share of each that Microenterprise for Self that are being established in col­ goes to direct service providers Reliance Act of 2000 to deter­ laboration with the U.S. mili­ (the questionnaire will provide mine the amount of FY 2005 tary. The Iraqi Company for the definition of this term). funds directed to very poor Bank Guarantees Ltd., a non­ While improvements to the sys­ clients. The 2000 Act mandated bank financial institution, is tem for FY 2006 are expected to that at least one-half of all being established with $8.7 mil­ provide some additional detail, it USAID funding support for lion, in part to enhance access to is doubtful that umbrellas will microenterprise development credit from private banks for be able to provide a complete directly benefit the very poor, MFIs; and CGAP will receive report on recently obligated and established a “poverty loan” $750,000 for short-term training funds unless sufficient time has proxy for estimating the poverty of MFI staff and long-term elapsed from the signing of the status of clients. Poverty loan training of trainers. Beyond this funding agreement. thresholds were set (in 1995 $29 million, additional mission US$) at: funds will go to training Iraqi Reporting • $300 in Asia, the Near East, bank and MFI staff, strengthen­ and Africa ing a banking association, and Requirement 5 facilitating legal and policy • $400 in Latin America and Matching Assistance reform. the Caribbean USAID frequently requires that In order to provide a more com­ its funds for a particular purpose • $1,000 in Europe and plete picture of sub-contracts be matched by funds from other Eurasia

14 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 For microfinance institutions, $400 and $1000, established by established by Congress USAID the Funds Benefiting the Very the 2000 Act in 1995 dollars, does not meet the target of 50 Poor (FVP) is equal to the per­ would be equivalent to $384, percent of total microenterprise centage of the total loan portfo­ $513, and $1,282 in 2005. development funds directly lio held in poverty loans. For Because most institutions report­ benefiting very poor clients. For enterprise development institu­ ing data in 2005 reported on the obligations to support financial tions, the FVP is equal to the 1995 poverty loan amount services, the estimated funds for percentage of clients estimated rather than the 2005 poverty the very poor is 37 percent; for to hold outstanding poverty loan amount, it likely con­ enterprise development obliga­ loans from any source. Table 6 tributes to an understating of the tions, the estimated FVP is 18 shows the FVP for microfinance numbers of poverty loans and percent. The combined total for and enterprise development associated amounts of portfolio all FY 05 USAID obligations is institutions in FY 2005. held by USAID-supported MFIs. 23 percent. Because policy institutions do Table 6, which refers only to However, as has been discussed not report client data, they are those institutions receiving FY in prior annual reports, there is excluded from Table 6.6 2005 obligations, presents the an important factor that under­ Figure 2 compares the values set results of the calculation of mines confidence in this con­ for poverty loan sizes in 2005 funds for poverty lending using clusion. That is, when applied dollars with 1995 dollars.7 The the proxy of poverty loan size. to enterprise development pro­ poverty loan amounts of $300, Using the poverty loan measure grams, the poverty loan proxy is

TABLE 6. PERCENTAGE OF FUNDS BENEFITTING THE VERY POOR, FY 2005

To tal Percent of Financial Percent of Enterprise Percent of Total Microenterprise Funding For Development Funding Funding Benefiting Bureau Funding (US$ millions) Poverty Lending For Poverty Loan Clients the Very Poor Africa Bureau $32.0 78% 11% 20% Asia/Near East Bureau $71.6 36% 13% 21% Europe/Eurasia Bureau $26.8 16% 5% 9% Latin America/ Caribbean Bureau $38.9 35% 35% 35% Central Bureaus $11.8 35% 22% 26% Total all Bureaus1 $181.1 37% 18% 23%

1 The total of $181.1 million excludes funds for policy, USAID management support, pending agreements and activities for which there is no client data that can be used to determine whether the beneficiaries were ‘very poor’.

6 The Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act was amended in 2003 to define the very poor as either (1) those living in the bottom 50 percent of people below the official national poverty line or (2) those living on the equivalent of less than $1 per day (adjusted for 1993 purchasing power parity). In compliance with the amended 2000 Act, USAID currently sup­ ports research to develop, test and certify tools for assessing the poverty levels of current or prospective microenterprise development clients. Beginning no later than October 1, 2006, USAID will require that institutions applying for microenter­ prise assistance document their service to very poor clients using one of the certified poverty assessment tools. In the meantime, the loan size thresholds specified in the Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act of 2000 remain the operational proxy used to estimate the poverty status of clients of USAID-assisted microenterprise institutions. 7 The amounts shown for 2005 represent the value of U.S. dollars adjusted for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index.

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 15 a poor fit and yields data of “very poor” at the time they mation from field missions on questionable accuracy. In many receive USAID funding. As their efforts to ensure that cases, enterprise development funding in this region increases, recipients of USAID microen­ $1,500 institutions have been unable1995 to it has a direct bearing on lower­ terprise and microfinance devel­ $1,282 comply with the request2005 to ing the overall percentage of opment assistance work closely report $1,200the number of poverty microenterprise funds that ben­ with NGOs and foreign gov­ loans held by their clients. efit very poor$1,000 people. ernments to identify and assist Despite $900the fact that the vast victims of potential or severe The Microenterprise for Self- majority of clients of USAID- forms of trafficking in persons Reliance Act of 2004 directs supported enterprise develop­ and women who are victims of $600 USAID$513 to report on the esti­ ment activities are from poor, $400 or susceptible to other forms of $384 mated number of very poor rural areas, the mandated$300 meas­ exploitation and violence. Table $300 clients as well. The poverty loan ure effectively excludes many of 7 shows, by region, microenter­ proxy currently in use is the them because the institutions prise funding obligated to $0 measure of funds benefiting the serving them do not know microenterprise institutions Asia/Near East Latin America/very poor (perEur theope/ M icroenter­ whether they have poverty loans specifically engaged in serving & Africa Caribbeanprise for Self-REurasiaeliance Act of from a third party source. Many these groups. enterprise development 2000). Until that proxy is awardees decline to respond to replaced with the poverty meas­ One mission in Latin this portion of the MRR survey urement tools, beginning America/Caribbean and several rather than report data they October 1, 2006, USAID is missions in each of the other consider highly unreliable. constrained in reporting on the regions reported funding MRR does not know whether number of very poor clients. microenterprise institutions for these microentrepreneurs have This is because MFIs do not activities that specifically serve access to financial services. keep records of numbers of very these groups. They include poor clients - they keep records Benin, Democratic Republic of A second factor that influences of numbers and dollar amounts Congo and Liberia in Africa; the proportion of total USAID of what USAID designates as India, Mongolia, Nepal, Paki­ funds for the very poor is the poverty loans. There is no way stan and the Philippines in Asia low incidence of extreme pover­ to reliably translate numbers of and the Near East; Armenia and ty in the Europe and Eurasia poverty loans to numbers of Ukraine in Europe and Eurasia; region. In Kazakhstan8, for very poor clients. and Guyana in Latin America/ example, only 9.9 percent of Caribbean. the population is considered very poor, based on a nationally Reporting established poverty line. As has Requirement 8 Reporting been noted before, USAID is Requirement 9 working with a wide range of Funds to Assist Victims of institutional types in the region, Trafficking and Exploitation Poverty and Race/Ethnicity few of which work exclusively As mandated under PL 108­ As mandated by PL 108-484, or primarily with those who 484, for the first time USAID USAID is now required to meet the legislated definition of has requested additional infor­ report “[a]n estimate of the per­

8 For more detail, see research undertaken by the IRIS Center, at the University of Maryland,“Developing and Testing Poverty Assessment Tools: Results from Accuracy Tests in Kazakhstan,” United States Agency for International Development, November 2005. This paper is available at www.povertytools.org.

16 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 TABLE 7. USAID MICROENTERPRISE FUNDING TO ASSIST VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING AND EXPLOITATION, FY 2005 (US$ MILLIONS)

Financial Services & Enterprise Development Enabling Environment & Enabling Environment Total Region (US$ Millions) (US$ Millions) (US$ Millions) Africa $0.656 $0.106 $0.762 Asia/Near East $4.300 $8.030 $12.330 Europe/Eurasia - $1.812 $1.812 Latin America/Caribbean $0.115 $0.185 $0.300 To tal $5.071 $10.133 $15.204

centage of beneficiaries of assis­ The Microenterprise for Self- academic advisors and practi­ tance under this title in coun­ Reliance Act of 2000, as tioners has completed the devel­ tries where a strong relationship amended, mandated that half of opment, testing and certifica­ between poverty and race or eth­ all USAID microenterprise tion of two tools that can be nicity has been demonstrated.” funds benefit very poor people, implemented by partners begin­ In relation to this requirement, defined as those living on less ning October 1, 2006. While MRR requested information than $1 a day (adjusted for pur­ USAID and its partners had from USAID field missions in chasing power parity), or those hoped that these two tools that the FY 2005 survey. Table 8 living in the bottom 50 percent have been developed and certi­ reports on the number of of people below their country's fied for use at a regional or microenterprise clients where poverty line. The lack of widely international level would pre­ missions report that a relation­ applicable, low-cost tools for dict client poverty status with ship between poverty and race or poverty assessment has made it acceptable accuracy, this has not ethnicity has been demonstrated. difficult for USAID to deter­ proven to be the case. The test­ mine whether it is meeting ing process stipulated in the Act these mandated targets. has yielded results that indicate Reporting Therefore, the 2000 Act also that tools tailored to specific Requirement 10 requires USAID to develop and country (and even sub-national) certify at least two tools for characteristics will achieve sig­ Poverty Assessment Tools assessing the poverty level of its nificantly better accuracy. The 2004 Act also requires this microenterprise clients. report to address: Practitioner organizations The Microenterprise for Self- selected on a competitive basis •“The process of developing Reliance Act set October 2005 have received funding to field- and applying poverty assess­ as the deadline for USAID- test country-level tools to ment procedures required assisted microenterprise institu­ ensure that these instruments under section 254 [the sec­ tions to begin implementing meet the law's practicality stan­ tion of the law outlining the the tools; subsequently, the dard, i.e., that the diverse range requirement for USAID to Microenterprise Results and of practitioners with which develop client poverty assess­ Accountability Act of 2004 USAID works can comply at ment tools and require their extended that deadline to reasonable cost. use by awardees by October October 1, 2006. A rigorous 2006].” effort involving methodologists,

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 17 TABLE 8. ESTIMATE OF CLIENTS IN COUNTRIES WHERE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POVERTY AND RACE OR ETHNICITY HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED1

Enterprise Region Country1 Borrowers2 Savings Clients2 Development Clients Africa Mali 137,664 246,542 117 South Africa 195,774 1,050 200 Sudan 2,733 2,733 0 Asia Nepal 62,710 58,381 38,259 Tibet 0 0 34 Europe/Eurasia Albania 0 0 316 Serbia 2,758 2,758 6,335 Latin America Bolivia 114,509 37,273 0 Brazil 9,368 0 2,320 Colombia 12,875 321,595 14,563 Ecuador 659,714 414,979 0 Guatemala 8,366 8,063 7,909 Mexico 992,631 1,353,201 0 Panama 0 0 859 Peru 50,560 335,564 1,376 Total 2,249,662 2,782,139 72,288 As Percent of Total MED Clients Worldwide 38% 44% 10%

1 USAID mission staff reported that a relationship is known to exist in these countries. There may be other countries where such a relationship exists but has not been reported to MRR. 2 Borrowers and Savings Clients may refer to the same individuals in the case of some institutions that offer both services.

By October 1, 2006, country- and certifying the tools, go to goals for the assistance and specific tools will be available or www.povertytools.org. express such goals in an in development for many coun­ objective and quantifiable tries, including those with the form, to the extent feasible.” Reporting largest microenterprise develop­ Requirement 11 (2) “The monitoring system ment programs. USAID will shall include performance continue to work in partnership Performance Monitoring indicators to be used in with researchers and the practi­ System measuring or assessing the tioner community to develop Several provisions of the 2004 achievement of the perform­ and/or certify country-specific Act address performance moni­ ance goals described in para­ tools for all other countries in toring. These provisions read as graph (1) and the objective which USAID operates of the assistance authorized follows: microenterprise programs. For under section 252 [of the more information about the (1) “The monitoring system Foreign Assistance Act of process of developing, testing shall include performance 1961, as amended].”

18 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 (3) “The monitoring system The count for microfinance toward targets will be deter­ provides a basis for recom­ clients is restricted to loan mined through use of improved mendations for adjustments clients, as adding in clients for client poverty assessment tools to the assistance to enhance other financial services (savings, currently under development by the sustainability and the insurance, remittances) may USAID. The loan size proxy impact of the assistance, par­ result in double counting. has proven increasingly prob­ ticularly the impact of such lematic in estimating service to On a worldwide basis, USAID assistance on the very poor, very poor microenterprise and and its implementing partners particularly poor women.” microfinance clients. Even for substantially met or exceeded all microfinance clients, many are targets except that for the per­ (4) “The monitoring system gaining access to financial serv­ cent of funds benefiting the adopts the widespread use of ices other than loans, such as very poor as measured by the proven and effective poverty savings, insurance and afford­ loan size proxy. Performance assessment tools to success­ able remittance services, limit­ was particularly strong in the fully identify the very poor ing the relevance and utility of number of clients served (44 and ensure that they receive a metric based solely on loans. percent above the target of 4.5 adequate access to microen­ For those benefiting from million) and financial strength terprise loans, savings, and diverse enterprise support, such of microfinance implementing assistance.” as access to better markets and partners. As a basis for the new perform­ improved technologies, the loan ance monitoring system, FY 2005 is the last year for size proxy is clearly not relevant, as they may not receive poverty USAID set the outreach per­ which the regionally-adjusted loans from any source, or if formance goals and indicators loan size proxy serves as the yardstick for measuring the they do, this fact may not be for FY 2005 that appear in extent of service to very poor known to the enterprise devel­ Table 9. clients.9 Beginning with the FY opment facilitator/service 2006 MRR report, progress provider. This contributes to

TABLE 9. PERFORMANCE GOALS AND RESULTS, FY 2005

Total # of Women Rural Funds Benefiting Financially Sustainable Microfinance Clients Clients % Clients % Very Poor Clients % MFIs % FY 05 goal 3.8 million 60 40 50 50 FY 05 actual 5.8 million 61 45 37 58 Enterprise Development FY 05 goal 700,000 30 80 50 FY 05 actual 694,649 29 95 18 All clients FY 05 goal 4.5 million 50 FY 05 actual 6.5 million 23

The count for microfinance clients is restricted to loan clients, as adding in clients for other financial services (savings, insur­ ance, remittances) may result in double counting.

9 See the section on “Funds for the Very Poor” which begins on p. 15.

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 19 the enterprise development fig­ agency working groups are financial services and support to ures shown in Table 9. As the identifying, testing and dissemi­ tens of thousands of smallholder share of funding for enterprise nating interventions that work producers and rural families that development activities has for specific client segments that have extremely little access to grown, this bias has in turn have a higher incidence of finance and are likely to be poor­ lowered the overall estimate of poverty, such as youth (includ­ er than those benefiting from funds benefiting very poor ing but not limited to orphans other USAID programs on the clients, a marked trend noted and vulnerable children), ground. over the past several years. refugees and internally dis­ placed persons, and residents of Another factor that affects the conflict-affected zones, remote Reporting estimate of the extent to which rural communities, and areas Requirement 12 USAID and its partners serve with high HIV-AIDS incidence. very poor clients is the geo­ Additional Information graphic composition of In addition to these programs, Since Congress passed the microenterprise funding world­ USAID is continuing intensive Microenterprise Results and wide. As noted, the share of the work with field missions on Accountability Act of 2004 (PL population that meets the statu­ designing, implementing and 108-484), USAID has devel­ tory definition is very small in assessing programs that apply the oped new activities, systems and some countries that have large knowledge of how best to serve performance analysis measures microenterprise development the very poor that is emerging to ensure thorough compliance programs, such as Ukraine. from this focused experimenta­ with the law and its new tion and applied research. In requirements. With the phase-in of the pover­ FY05, the MD office system­ ty measurement tools, USAID atized a process of reviewing, As directed by the 2004 Act, expects to have a better basis on commenting on and concurring USAID’s Microenterprise which to determine the extent with mission strategic plans. Development office funded at of service to very poor clients These activities complement the $16.9 million in FY2005, initi­ for the full range of microenter­ function of the poverty measure­ ated new programs, including prise development activities. ment tools, which can provide central programs designed This in turn will provide a missions' partner institutions specifically to strengthen its better basis for identifying with a sense of their overall out­ relationship with PVO partners opportunities to prescribe reach to very poor clients. These and link them to missions. specific actions to improve findings can contribute to this performance. consultative process between New Funding Programs USAID is already taking steps missions and the MD office. The new programs USAID has to increase the extent of service Through collaboration, USAID’s established include competitive to very poor clients. For exam­ technical experts in microenter­ grants through the two rounds ple, competitive grant programs prise development can help mis­ of the Implementation Grant are focused specifically on iden­ sions apply best practices to their Program (IGP). The first, tifying and supporting program microenterprise programming. “Access to Financial Services for models that promise to improve For example, extensive technical the Very Poor,” will fund inno­ both the extent of service and assistance to the Afghanistan vative approaches to increase the impact of that service on mission resulted in a major new access to financial services for very poor microfinance and rural finance program that will the very poor, approaches that microenterprise clients. Intra- extend credit, savings, and other generate replicable processes,

20 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 tools and methodologies for use emphasis on eligible imple­ nism to implement activities. As by the global microfinance menting partners. with other umbrella arrange­ industry. The second IGP com­ ments, the LWA also allows for In FY 2005, USAID also creat­ petition, “Linking Economic sub-obligations to host country ed a new microenterprise Growth to Poor Households,” microfinance and microenter­ Leader with Associates (LWA) focuses on approaches that fos­ prise development institutions. mechanism to achieve the poli­ ter the competitiveness of The LWA provides a stream­ cy goals reflected in the law, by industries in which large num­ lined procurement mechanism enhancing USAID's access to bers of very small firms partici­ for missions to partner with the microfinance and microen­ pate, by improving microentre­ NGOs and PVOs to meet terprise development expertise preneurs' access to the finance, growth and poverty alleviation of the non-profit community business services and knowledge goals, as an attractive alternative and offering USAID missions a they need to compete in grow­ to working with contracts and new and cost-effective option ing markets, while ensuring that for-profit firms. for carrying out work in this the poor who operate these very field. The activity, entitled Its primary objectives include: small firms benefit from partici­ Financial Integration, 1. Strengthening the economic pating in growing markets. The Economic Leveraging, Broad- status and security of poor combined funding for these Based Dissemination and households; worldwide grant competitions is Support Program, or FIELD- $10 million, to be awarded to Support, establishes a mecha­ 2. Promoting economic growth the top-ranking applicants. nism by which a non-profit or that benefits poorer house­ USAID also conducted addi­ consortium of partners can pro­ holds and communities by tional small grant competitions vide services directly to USAID supporting the access of that supported innovation and missions as well as other offices micro and small enterprises funded training and dissemina­ and operating units within (MSEs) to market tion of best practices for micro- USAID/Washington through opportunities; Associate awards. finance and microenterprise 3. Promoting the development networks. The Agency provided The FIELD-Support LWA was of financial systems that are additional funding to the Small awarded at the end of FY 2005. accessible to all and meet the Enterprise Education and The Agency provided $2 mil­ diverse needs of MSEs and Promotion (SEEP) Network for lion in start-up funds for the poor households; and its competitive Practitioner base “leader” agreement for 4Improving the national, Learning Program, which pro­ activities that address these regional, or local enabling vides grants and technical assis­ objectives. In addition, USAID environment to boost the tance to PVOs and NGOs for Missions and USAID/W offices productivity, earnings, and innovative microfinance and and operating units are able to competitiveness of MSEs. enterprise development activi­ enter into “associate” coopera­ ties, while also convening them tive agreements, up to the FIELD-Support is off to a in a learning network to capture LWA’s ceiling of $350 million strong start, with initial mission knowledge for participants and over the five-year period. Funds associate awards in the pipeline. for the broader industry as well. can be obligated through the Design and implementation of Taken together, these new grant new LWA (up to the $350 mil­ the LWA is one of a number of competitions respond to the lion ceiling) to the extent that steps USAID has taken to provisions in the law concern­ missions and other operating ensure that it has access to the ing central programs and units choose to use this mecha­ best possible combination of

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 21 partners with which to imple­ to conduct thorough reviews of Pakistan, Indonesia, Mexico, ment its microenterprise proposed strategies and activi­ Haiti, Brazil, Albania, the programs. ties. The office’s staff has been Central Asian Republics, proactive as well in meeting the Azerbaijan, Serbia, Morocco, To comply with the new statu­ related provision in the law, i.e., Egypt, Jordan, India, Sri Lanka, tory requirement that the that the office provide support Sudan, Liberia, Uganda, Microenterprise Development and technical assistance to mis­ Tanzania and South Africa. The office concur in strategies of sions in developing new strategy USAID missions and bureaus elements and components. In staff has also provided extensive that include microenterprise the past year, for example, the virtual technical support in and microfinance components, microenterprise staff has provid­ both strategy and activity MD staff has engaged with ed on-site assistance to missions design for diverse missions, regional bureaus and missions including Afghanistan, including Iraq.

22 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 Annex A: Institutions with Amounts of FY 2005 Funding by Bureau

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 23 52 95 350 193 871 300 385 589 744 271 106 300 300 200 860 602 207 $95 1,186 1,483 3,946 $350 $871 $744 $800 $437 $271 $106 TION $5,622 $1,191 $2,553 AMOUNT OBLIGA a o y ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ola aso n eau e gascar Bur FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE otal Benin otal K otal Ghana otal Ang T otal Liberia otal Guinea T T T FUNCTION T otal Ethiopia T T otal DR Cong T otal Mada T otal Burkina F T otal AFRICA T a a a a ia y y y y ica Afr e/Ghana G/Ken ./Ethiopia kina Faso v A Ltd./Ken A/Ethiopia CRS/Benin BDS/Ken Inc ./Madagascar a ywhere/Benin Vision/Angola y SO Agency/Ken OC national/Ghana Inc ld G er r elopment/Liber A Ken o INSTITUTION echnoSer ogether/DR Congo eau T SO CDI/V Relief Agency/Ghana national, ving Institute/Ethiopia s Inter A elopment national, WV W vices-USCCB/Bur entist Acting Bur KBL K-Rep Bank, TNS/G T EcoLogic Finance/East s y tner al Resources Management/Guinea or Education Dev ar P a Credit and Sa y f . Chemonics Inter ialization Center e League of the United States/Angola A K-Rep Dev ADRA Adv Assistance and Relief Ev Inc KD Chemonics Inter ativ , or Amhar CT e f Academ A P CSI ativ A AED tunities Industr CRS/BF Catholic Relief Ser ma Expanded Natur 2005 Funding b CLUSA Cooper Enr ARE Cooper C OICI Oppor Amounts of FY a ia y Benin Ken Ghana Liber Angola Guinea Ethiopia kina Faso A Bureau DR Congo MISSION Madagascar Bur AFRIC Institutions with A: U UREA Annex (US$'000s) AFRICA B

24 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 50 50 50 50 38 50 50 500 161 625 345 345 600 260 848 480 250 626 600 670 162 660 600 1,335 2,000 $500 TION $2,851 $2,535 $2,671 $2,848 AMOUNT OBLIGA wi ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED eria FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE otal Mali T otal Mala otal Nig FUNCTION otal Senegal T T T otal Mozambique FINANCIAL POLICY T t t a i wi wi wi wi wi wi wi ./Mali ending ./Mala ./Mala ./Mala ./Mala ./Mala Inc wi/Mala wi/Mala Inc Inc Inc Inc Inc ise Suppor ise Suppor pr pr es, es, ./Mozambique F/Mozambique ica/Mozambique national, Inc , ARE/Mozambique icare/Mozambique nativ AW INSTITUTION e national, national, national, Vision/Mozambique FEMA/Mozambique Agreement P C v vices Project/Niger ADRA/Mozambique national/Mozambique Afr ld Amer r icroenter Alter o M Microenter Land O'Lak Associations/Mozambique W the Children/Mozambique y Inter e A Mozambique/Mozambique v Association of Mala echnoSer T national Bank of Mala s' Sa AP II OC Chemonics Inter D elopment national Resources Group/Senegal ed MSME Ser v mer Chemonics Inter Chemonics Inter Chemonics Inter The Hungr CDI/V s Far icare Mozambique A AI Dev tunity Inter D ation of Business IRG Inter Afr eder A Conf e League of the United States OIBM Oppor CT ativ PRISMS Promoting Impro AM National Smallholder FHI/Mozambique Food For NASF CLUSA Cooper ia wi Mali Mala Niger Senegal MISSION Mozambique U UREA B

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 25 50 68 90 178 200 600 156 301 127 163 400 146 220 121 500 172 530 178 1,399 1,628 2,000 1,154 2,500 $600 $500 $127 TION $2,000 $2,441 $6,857 $37,148 AMOUNT OBLIGA e D E ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED Africa anzania FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE ra Leone otal Sudan T otal Zambia FUNCTION otal Uganda otal AFRICA otal T T T T T otal Zimbabw T otal South otal Sier T FINANCIAL POLICY T t e ica Afr ending Leone anzania anzania ./Sudan Finance a r ./T Inc es/Uganda r Managing am/Zambia ise Suppor Ltd./Uganda Ltd./Uganda o Inc pr ust/Zimbabw n Reg./Uganda r es, ys Bank/Uganda national/Zambia T Progr al SPEED/Uganda elopment/Uganda Nile Bank/Uganda A/REAP II/Uganda national, INSTITUTION ester Agreement P nativ Alliance/South ise Creation/T inance Union/Uganda Barcla estment f Land O'Lak OC v pr es Inter al Dev Microenter wth Alter Chemonics/APEP/Uganda elopment echnology Chemonics/SCOPE/Uganda nativ CDI/V y Rur A or Enter tered Bank Uganda, and T vironment/W Alter or Dev Stanbic Bank Uganda, elopment Chemonics Inter e Resources In ican Refugee Committee/Sier Centenar the En r Economic Gro AI Dev UMU Uganda Microf o e League of the USA - Production, al SPEED Chemonics/Rur elopment Amer D echnologies f s f Assistance f T ativ Rur Standard Char iate ARC AI Dev D olunteer V Appropr OFIT Co-oper aging Economic VEGA er AI/PRIME/WEST Productiv D ApproTEC ust Lev r CLUSA-PR T LEAD e ica Afr Sudan Leone anzania Zambia Uganda a T r MISSION Zimbabw South Sier U UREA B

26 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 8 12 39 74 30 86 1 420 330 300 317 700 875 288 250 825 500 ,400 2,107 7,500 2,500 6,000 1 $643 $374 28,886 TION $2,527 $6,000 $2,100 $12,927 $28,886 AMOUNT OBLIGA D D ED ED ED ED ED ED ED E ED E ypt dan r o Timor CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT POLICY otal Iraq FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE otal India T otal Eg T otal J T MED POLICY MED POLICY T FUNCTION otal Indonesia T otal East otal Bangladesh T T FINANCIAL POLICY FINANCIAL FINANCIAL POLICY es es aq ending A/India am/Jordan am/Jordan y Initiativ y Initiativ OC enture/Ir AERI/Egypt A/Indonesia V national/India AI/East Timor AI/East Timor ade/Indonesia r D D iendl iendl T land/Bangladesh y CDI/V Alliance/Indonesia A INSTITUTION Agreement P Danamon/Indonesia et-Fr et-Fr unity Hu/Bangladesh And unity Hu./Bangladesh ./SENAD k k Association/Indonesia Association/Indonesia wth Inc Allen Hamilton/Indonesia d Fish Center/Bangladesh Asia Foundation/Indonesia es rl Comm Aquatic Ecosystem through Aquatic Ecosystem through sity of Mar and Results Progr and Results Progr Comm estment er vices Group Joint v Wo The nativ e Business e Business AH Booz ement of Mar ement of Mar ativ ativ B national Resources Group/Bangladesh r Economic Gro o e Housing Foundation Inter Achiev Achiev s f ativ IRIS/JOBS Univ wth through In am am elopment Alter IRG Inter ger Group/The Ser olunteer Dev V national Management of national (Management of A National Cooper A National Cooper CHF Cooper AMIR Progr AMIR Progr VEGA NCB NCB T/Nathan MSI Gro Winrock Inter Winrock Inter GIA CH LBG/TSG JV Louis Ber CH) WI MA WI (MA aq Ir India Egypt Jordan Indonesia MISSION East Timor Bangladesh U UREA ANE B

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 27 7 60 81 938 144 800 262 500 500 400 136 100 100 982 200 317 1,800 4,950 3,000 2,730 1,500 1,250 2,750 1,000 $ $207 7,700 TION $4,500 $1,644 $1,200 $2,282 $4,540 $1,800 $74,803 AMOUNT OBLIGA ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED olia occo akistan FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE otal ANE T otal Nepal Bank/Gaza T otal RDM/A otal Albania tal Mor FUNCTION otal P T T otal Armenia otal Mong T T est To T otal Philippines T FINANCIAL POLICY FINANCIAL POLICY otal W T menia menia ending akistan akistan akistan ./Albania ./Ar ises/Nepal ./Mongolia Fund/Tibet ated/Nepal Inc ./Philippines pr Inc Inc vices/P national/Tibet , ./Credit Union Inc es, national/Nepal por est Bank /Gaza est Bank /Gaza idge es, ation/Philippines CT Inc Ser Br y A elopment/Ar nativ Inter INSTITUTION por Agreement P vironment/Morocco AI/W nativ D national, the Children US/Nepal Alter Alleviation Fund/P KB Khushalibank/P e Alter v Advisor TBF The ps and P ty Winrock Inter ana Cor r elopment Enter inance Oued Srou/Morocco Sa e ment & Strengthen/Philippines v r Car o i Shqiptar ne Mikrokredi/Albania WI Winrock e ld Education Incor sity of Rhode Island/ASIA Region r w elopment uction and Dev er o elopment tner the Children USA/W New Business En r W e a v Chemonics Inter Empo akistan P national Dev AI Dev WE Winrock STC SAS Shorebank AI Dev D D SC Sa AF P ld Council of Credit Union, r or Reconstr PSHM P PP o e-Phase II Mercy Cor IDE Inter W Association de Microf AMOS sity of Rhode Island Univ Gobi Initiativ er Univ EBRD European Bank f OCCU/CUES-Phils. W menia Nepal akistan Albania RDM/A P Ar Morocco Mongolia MISSION Philippines est Bank /Gaza W U UREA E & E B

28 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 7 0 3 42 2 98 7 92 38 4 40 10 210 397 300 306 119 154 195 445 931 126 261 212 342 501 1,368 3,407 $154 $146 $300 TION $2,221 $3,506 $3,407 AMOUNT OBLIGA o v ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED so oatia o yzstan CREDIT FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE otal CAR yrg T otal K MED POLICY MED POLICY MED POLICY otal Belarus MED POLICY MED POLICY MED POLICY otal Cr FUNCTION T T T otal K otal Kazakhstan T T FINANCIAL POLICY FINANCIAL POLICY o us us us v gyzstan gyzstan gyzstan gyzstan gyzstan gyzstan gyzstan gyzstan gyzstan gyzstan gyzstan gyzstan gyzstan ./Croatia t/Koso yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr yr y Project, y Project, A)/Belar Inc ./K ./K ./K ./K ./K ./K ./Kazakhstan A/EE Region A/EE Region A/EE Region p p p/Kazakhstan p/Kazakhstan Inc Inc Inc Inc es, Inc LARC/K AMF AMF AMF elopment/Belar s (CNF gyzstan/K national/K nativ r INSTITUTION Ard, oint, oint, oint, oint, y et Econom et Econom elopment/Kazakhstan k k A C A C A C Association/K agma Cor agma Cor agma Cor agma Cor Affair ingP ingP ingP asia Foundation/Belar ingP Alter ARD/Checchi/K ARD/Checchi/K Pr Pr lic Pr Pr OC OC OC Small Business/Kazakhstan y y Bear Bear Bear Bear elopment Center/K EF Eur le Pub CDI/V CDI/V CDI/V b uction and Dev A A A a or Foreign elopment T er Dev k f uction and Dev Cluster and Business Suppor ucture For a Mar ucture For a Mar tiliz or o v AI Dev implemented b implemented b m/KG Chemonics Inter astr astr D or or Reconstr or Reconstr ens Netw national Fer estment Round v KCBS Koso Land Ref T In us Citiz IR USAID Legal Infr USAID Legal Infr IFDC Inter A/Belar us European Bank f MSFF EBRD Micro and Small Finance Facility K CNF EBRD/Belar EBRD/KSBP European Bank f o us v AR ) gyzstan Belar Croatia Koso r MISSION Ky Kazakhstan lics (C Asian Repub al Centr U UREA B

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 29 90 25 45 64 46 720 101 100 183 573 245 340 500 291 937 460 600 800 471 451 1,225 1,025 2,350 1,141 1,080 $818 $800 $500 TION $1,106 $2,400 $7,149 $1,090 AMOUNT OBLIGA o va ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ajikistan FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE otal Russia otal Serbia T MED POLICY MED POLICY MED POLICY T FUNCTION otal Moldo otal Romania otal T T T T otal Macedonia T otal Montenegr T FINANCIAL POLICY FINANCIAL POLICY FINANCIAL POLICY va va va va va va ./Russia ./Russia ajikistan ajikistan ajikistan ajikistan ajikistan A/Russia A/Serbia A/Serbia ./Moldo ./Moldo ./Moldo ./T ./T Inc Inc s/Moldo p/T ./Macedonia OC A/EE Region Inc Inc Inc Inc Inc es, es, national/Serbia ./CRD Inc Affair es, es, Hamilton/Serbia A CDRA/Serbia national/Romania AMF Inc oint, oint, nativ nativ INSTITUTION CDI/V elopment/T OC A nativ nativ agma Cor national, ingP ingP A C ps Inter FinCom Bank/Moldo Alter Alter Pr asia Foundation/Moldo Alter Alter OC ARD/CHECCHI/T Bear Bear CDI/V CHF Inter elopment IRD/Montenegro Booz Allen A elopment, k of Foreign Eur elopment Foundation/Serbia or CDI/V elopment elopment A uction and Dev elopment elopment e Housing Foundation/CRD ica's Dev MCI Mercy Cor ativ AI Dev AI Dev ens Netw e Housing Foundation CHF/Montenegro va Chemonics Inter D D va Dev va Dev Amer ld Council of Credit Unions, ativ r o or Reconstr A Citiz W ADF national Relief and Dev national Relief and Dev Cooper CNF O-Moldo O-Moldo CHF Cooper CCU Inter O BIZPR BIZPR W Chemonics/Moldo IRD Inter EBRD European Bank f va Russia Serbia ajikistan Moldo T Romania Macedonia MISSION Montenegro U UREA B

30 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 4 78 22 54 50 47 30 9 74 54 110 305 533 533 946 500 588 600 569 580 168 116 675 290 765 290 390 390 $ 1,275 2,261 1,003 1,290 2,022 TION $6,744 $35,261 AMOUNT OBLIGA D D D ED E ED E ED ED E ED ED ED FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE otal E&E T MED POLICY MED POLICY MED POLICY MED POLICY MED POLICY MED POLICY MED POLICY FUNCTION otal Ukraine urkmenistan T otal Uzbekistan T otal T FINANCIAL POLICY FINANCIAL POLICY FINANCIAL POLICY FINANCIAL POLICY FINANCIAL POLICY T . . . wi azil Inc Inc Inc aine aine aine aine aine aine aine aine aine aine aine aine ./USA ./USA ./Br es, es, es, ldwide ending ending ldwide ./Mala Inc Inc or or ./Ukr ./Ukr Inc e/Ukr e/Ukr kmenistan es/Ukr AI/Ukr tisans/USA Inc nativ nativ nativ Inc Inc ./Uzbekistan ./Uzbekistan ur es, A/EE Region A/W Inc Inc am/W O-D Alter Alter Alter to Ar O'Lak agma/Uzbekistan nativ AMF national, national, OC INSTITUTION ets Group/Ukr ation/T Pr national, oint, Foundation/Ukr Agreement P Agreement P k national, national, m Education/Ukr A C BIZPR Alter Associates Inc/Ukr por A Aid Titling Initiativ or ingP CDI/V opular mexicana/Mexico asia Chemonics-LED/Ukr Chemonics-LED/Ukr AT OC A elopment elopment elopment Abt Eur Bear ging Mar ets Inter ets Inter k k al Land Assistance Progr CDI/V elopment agma Cor ainian Ref LOL AMP-Land A AI Dev AI Dev AI Dev Chemonics Inter Chemonics Inter Pr D D D Chemonics Inter CPM Caja P CLC Emer AI Dev or Ukr ation/Access to Credit Initiativ D elopment por ld Council of Credit Unions, r o FMI Financial Mar FMI Financial Mar W ets Dev k Chemonics Urban/Rur agma Cor OCCU W ging Mar TCI Pr A CURE/UREP Center f AP Emer EMD MD aine Ukr menistan Uzbekistan rk MISSION Tu U UREA B

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 31 50 75 860 244 250 475 200 191 166 256 227 452 183 593 500 334 399 448 750 100 176 710 225 1,486 1,150 2,291 3,780 1,056 5000 TION $1,504 $16,929 $21,929 AMOUNT OBLIGA ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED POLICY otal MD FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE otal PVC T T otal Bolivia MED MED POLICY T FUNCTION tal CENTRAL To FINANCIAL POLICY FINANCIAL POLICY FINANCIAL POLICY FINANCIAL POLICY FINANCIAL POLICY FINANCIAL POLICY FINANCIAL POLICY ica ica Afr Afr ldwide ldwide ldwide ldwide ldwide ldwide ldwide ldwide ldwide ldwide ldwide ldwide ldwide ldwide ldwide ldwide ldwide ldwide akistan erbaijan or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or or C Region ./W k/W k/W e/W A/W s)/W v ets/W or or ises/W Soc/W k LLC/W . Association/USA , Relief/W vices/South pr OC INSTITUTION erbaijan/Az Associates/P AI PREMIER/Bolivia national/W ld r elopment/W elopment/W e Housing Foundation o Associates/W ganization/South mal Sector/W echnoSer CDI/V AI D ging Mar T or ativ A Or D SEEP Netw SEEP Netw e Business Freedom from Hunger/USA eidemann Assoc elopment ise Dev Plan Inter WR W ust national/Az Emer r ativ pr W aterhouseCooper elopment Enter elopment Foundation/LA The QED Group The Mountain Institute/W iple T ld Council Of Credit Unions/Bolivia r iceW A Leader with ps Inter Tr o m and the Inf CHF Cooper TMI ld Council of Credit Unions/W Pr W r or LW y l Vision Relief and Dev ican Dev Wo ld mer Assoc of Coops/Mutual Insur IBM Business Consulting Ser national Dev r o OCCU Mercy Cor ice of Microenter Amer cas i W A National Cooper W an IBM (For WV IDE Inter Amer NCB MD Off A Mennonite Economic Dev ADF P or Institutional Ref P C/MIS MED AA IRIS Center f PVC Bolivia MISSION U C UREA CENTRAL LA B

32 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 15 50 65 120 100 100 451 547 346 204 371 514 517 186 185 532 120 200 500 755 100 1,000 1,000 1,800 1,850 2,000 1,053 6,000 1,530 $389 $100 $300 $905 TION $1,000 $3,184 $1,297 $13,506 AMOUNT OBLIGA ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ED ana FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE FINANCE otal Haiti otal Brazil T T MED POLICY MED POLICY otal Guy FUNCTION otal Ecuador tal Colombia T T otal Honduras To T otal Guatemala otal El Salvador T T FINANCIAL POLICY as azil azil azil ana ana ana ana ending ending A/Haiti vice/Br ated/Br ated/Br tisans/Haiti inance and ial/Ecuador A Colombia FINC AI/HAP/Haiti ation/Guy ation/Guy ation/Guy ation/Guy por por k Project/Haiti D Order/Ecuador ation/Colombia ation/Colombia tisans/Colombia to Ar OC OCCU/Ecuador or por por por por ONT/Guatemala national/Colombia INSTITUTION W ask Agreement P Agreement P on Kole Zepol/Haiti a Ecuator Aid to Ar es Incor es Incor CDI/V A EXPR T A Agronegocios/Hondur G The Children/Guatemala ana Cor ana Cor ana Cor ana Cor A ice of Migr ice of Migr A e nativ nativ v Access to Microf vices Netw A Aid alization T Car Car Car Car e Fondasy AT Alter Alter elopment Foundation/Colombia elopment Foundation/Colombia oz e Housing Foundation/Colombia e Housing Foundation/Colombia rollo de CRS Catholic Relief Ser Liber STC Sa Chemonics Inter ativ ativ Fonk national Off national Off ican Dev ican Dev elopment elopment AI Strengthen O/D T IOM Inter IOM Inter anamer anamer AI Dev AI Dev CHF Cooper CHF Cooper D D ./Centro de Desar SAL AI/FINNET Financial Ser D Inc , ADF P ADF P Banco Procredit Sociedad Financier P P ac Fintr as azil ana Haiti Br Jamaica Guy Ecuador Colombia Hondur Guatemala El Salvador MISSION U UREA B

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 33 OBLIGATION BUREAU MISSION INSTITUTION FUNCTION AMOUNT

34 CARANA Corporation/Barbados FINANCE 4,150 DAI/Jamaica ED 5,830 NCB National Commercial Bank, Ltd./Jamaica FINANCE 214 Total Jamaica $11,724 Mexico Microenterprise Support 427 CPM Caja Popular Mexicana/Mexico FINANCE 400 MICR CRS/Mexico FINANCE 421

OENTERPRISE RESUL Proyecto AFIRMA Acceso al Financimiento Rural para la Microempresa FINANCE 1,040 (AFIRMA), Development Al/Mexico Proyecto AFIRMA Acceso al Financimiento Rural para la Microempresa FINANCIAL POLICY 260 (AFIRMA), Development Al/Mexico Total Mexico $2,548 Nicaragua ADRA/Nicaragua FINANCE 200

TS REPOR CRS Catholic Relief Services/Nicaragua FINANCE 500 PCI Project Concern International/Nicaragua FINANCE 205 To tal Nicaragua $905

TING: Panama ACDI/VOCA/Panama ED 1,066 AED Academy for Educational Development/Panama ED 500 ANNU Total Panama $1,566 Peru CARITAS Juli FINANCE 1,500 AL REPOR Chemonics/Peru ED 1,020 CMAC Piura/Peru FINANCE 201 CMAC Sullana/Peru FINANCE 208 T T

O COPEME Consorcio de organizaciones privadas de promocion a la ED 280

CONGRESS pequenha y micro em/Peru EDPYME CONFIANZA EDPYME CONFIANZA S.A./Peru FINANCE 92 Nathan Associates, Inc./Peru MED POLICY 100 Total Peru 3,401

FISC Total LAC $42,329

AL Grand Total $211,470 YEAR 2005

Total Number of Awards 218 Total Number of Countries 69

* MED POLICY = Enterprise Development Policy *Central Bureau awards fund activities worldwide * Total number of awards equals the number of new and existing agreements funded in FY 2005 Annex B: Microenterprise Funding by Bureau, FY 2005 (US$ '000s)

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 35 $0 $0 $0 $95 AL $178 $600 $350 $744 $106 $500 $127 $437 $271 $871 $800 $500 $643 T $6,857 $2,441 $2,535 $2,848 $2,671 $5,622 $1,191 $2,851 $2,000 $2,553 O $37,148 T $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200 $200 ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT POLICY $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $178 $600 $350 $569 $106 $127 $871 $500 $500 $2,711 $2,441 $2,335 $2,848 $2,671 $5,622 $1,191 $2,000 $1,186 $26,237 ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT 0 0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $491 $146 $345 POLICY FINANCIAL 0 0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $95 $74 $744 $506 $500 $437 $271 $300 $4,000 $1,367 $2,000 $10,220 FINANCE a e ia ia y wi ica Mali itrea Benin Ken Sudan Ghana Er Liber Mala Angola Leone Guinea Niger anzania Senegal Zambia Uganda Ethiopia a T Namibia A Bureau r kina Faso Zimbabw DR Congo Bangladesh Afghanistan MISSION Madagascar South Afr Bur Sier Mozambique otal AFRICA AFRIC T U UREA B AFRICA ANE

36 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 AL $374 T $146 $500 $154 $300 $207 $317 $6,000 $2,100 O $3,505 $1,644 $1,200 $7,700 $4,500 $3,407 $2,221 $2,282 $2,527 $1,800 $4,540 $1,090 $12,927 $28,886 $74,803 T $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $905 $748 $451 $342 $905 ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT POLICY $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $48 $81 $86 $548 $938 $261 $300 $1,247 $1,644 $2,750 $3,407 $2,282 $2,107 $1,800 $6,000 $2,817 $1,400 $19,892 ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $46 $134 $560 $2,015 $1,455 POLICY FINANCIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $98 $45 $500 $262 $154 $420 $236 $207 $288 $700 $1,376 $4,950 $4,500 $1,618 $3,980 $7,750 $28,886 $51,991 FINANCE o ia us va aq v gia lics Ir India Tibet Egypt menia Nepal Jordan akistan gyzstan Belar Croatia Albania Koso Bulgar erbaijan RDM/A P Geor r Ar Moldo Morocco Mongolia Indonesia otal ANE EE Bureau Philippines Ky Az East Timor Kazakhstan Macedonia T MISSION est Bank /Gaza Asian Repub W al U AR Centr C UREA B E&E

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 37 $0 AL $54 T $100 $905 $389 $300 $818 $800 $905 O $2,022 $1,000 $6,744 $2,548 $1,297 $1,106 $1,504 $3,184 $7,149 $2,400 $11,724 $13,506 $35,260 T $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $78 $100 $191 $120 $4,126 $5,936 ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT POLICY $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $74 $64 $54 $65 $389 $755 $667 $818 $1,000 $7,360 $1,097 $7,149 $11,407 $17,649 ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100 $345 $100 $720 $1,521 $1,056 $2,521 POLICY FINANCIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50 $15 $905 $100 $751 $448 $800 $1,870 $4,364 $2,203 $2,099 $1,297 $2,517 $1,680 $9,154 FINANCE as azil ana aine agua Haiti Br Russia Serbia Bolivia Jamaica Mexico Guy ajikistan Ukr Ecuador T Romania menistan otal E&E C Bureau Colombia Hondur Nicar T Guatemala Uzbekistan El Salvador rk MISSION LA Montenegro Tu U REA BU C LA

38 MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 AL T O $1,566 $5,000 $3,401 $16,929 $42,329 $21,929 T $211,469 $0 $320 $100 $6,071 $6,071 $13,432 ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT POLICY $1,566 $3,629 $2,303 $1,300 $5,932 $94,219 $24,509 ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT $0 $0 $3,993 $1,501 $3,993 $10,521 POLICY FINANCIAL $0 $2,697 $3,236 $2,001 $5,933 $93,297 $15,999 FINANCE ice ice Off bean C ru ib AL ation MD PVC Pe T O anama P elopment Off otal LA T MISSION Cooper asia y elopment Mission/Asia ise Dev otal CENTRAL GRAND T T ica and the Car pr oluntar Amer U ivate V Pr Microenter Regional Dev Europe and Eur Latin Asia and Near East UREA B C CENTRAL ANE E&E LA MD PVC RDM/A

MICROENTERPRISE RESULTS REPORTING: ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FISCAL YEAR 2005 39

U.S.Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523 Tel: (202) 712-0000 Fax: (202) 216-3524 www.usaid.gov