1. How to use this document
This document, the 3-D Client Value Assessment Report Template, aims to support the presentation of findings and recommendations in the context of a 3-D Analysis of Client Value for agricultural index-based insurance products.
This template is meant to be customized and expanded, depending on products reviewed and assessments conducted.
Examples provided in the guide are fictional and do not reflect any previous finding or expected result.
More information on how to conduct a 3-D Analysis of client value can be found in the 3-D Technical Guide.

2. Client Value ASSESSMENT of [Product]
Results of an assessment using the 3-D Client Value Assessment Tool for Index Insurance
Date
Author

3. Contents Background 3 The product 4 Information consulted 5
[Insert picture]
Background 3
The product 4
Information consulted 5
Overall score 6
Explanation of scoring on each of the 14 indicators 7
Recommendations 21

4. Background
The Global Action Network and Value Assessment Supported by USAID, the Global Action Network (GAN) is a community of agriculture insurance experts managed by the International Labour Office’s Impact Insurance Facility and the BASIS/I4 Index Insurance Innovation Initiative at the University of California Davis. It was formed in 2013, with the objective of addressing gaps that hinder the responsible scaling of agriculture insurance, including consumer education, bundling insurance with other services, reinsurance, and the role of governments. The tool described in this report is an output of the GAN’s working group on client value in index insurance. The Case for Measuring Value There is strong evidence that the informal tools that smallholder farmers use to manage risk are costly and insufficient, and great potential value from insurance products covering agricultural risks. A good insurance product can mitigate the welfare impacts in bad years, and can also create incentives for farmers to pursue riskier but more profitable activities. Index insurance in particular has great potential value, as this type of coverage can be cost-effective and feasible when other types of insurance protection are not, creating greater access to risk mitigation among smallholder farmers. However, poorly designed index insurance can create more risks than it mitigates, for a wide variety of reasons. As a result, assessing an index insurance product’s value requires a holistic understanding of the product, service, and context. A Tool to Measure Value The 3-D Tool used in this assessment takes a broad view of an index insurance product’s value proposition, considering three dimensions of value: Design, Distribution, and Delivery.

5. [Product Presentation]
[Insert information on product history, value proposition, key stakeholders, etc]
[Insert supporting picture, graph or figure]

6. [Methodology]
[Insert information on work done, scope of assessment, sources of information, limitations…]

7. Overall assessment score: [Poor / Average / Strong]
Indicators receiving a
"Poor" score
Indicators receiving an "Average" score
Indicators receiving a "Strong" score
[List indicators receiving a poor score]
[List indicators receiving an average score]
 [List indicators receiving a strong score]
The following pages explain scoring for each indicator in turn

8. #1: Reliability of index
Indicator
Score
Explanation
1. Index reliably predicts farmers’ experience
Strong
[Replace by appro- priate color and score]

9. #2: Appropriate activities
Indicator
Score
Explanation
2. Covers appropriate activities
Poor
[Replace by appro- priate color and score]

10. [Replace by appro- priate color and score]
#3: Appropriate risks
Indicator
Score
Explanation
3. Covers appropriate risks
Average
[Replace by appro- priate color and score]

11. #4: Enables investment decision-making
Indicator
Score
Explanation
4. Enables productive investment decision- making

12. #5: Minimizes gaps in coverage
Indicator
Score
Explanation
5. Minimizes gaps in coverage

13. #6: Information Indicator Score Explanation
6. Covered farmers are adequately informed of product details .

14. #7: Staff capacities Indicator Score Explanation
7. Staff and/or sales agents are adequately trained, incentivized, and supervised to inform clients and sell responsibly

15. #8: Premium payment Indicator Score Explanation
8. Premium payment processes minimize liquidity constraints .

16. #9: Inclusiveness
Indicator
Score
Explanation
9. Product is inclusive

17. #10: Coverage for price paid
Indicator
Score
Explanation
10. Product delivers adequate coverage for money

18. #11: Timeliness Indicator Score Explanation
11. Benefits are delivered in a timely manner

19. #12: Clarity and reliability of delivery processes
Indicator
Score
Explanation
12. Procedure to deliver the benefits is reliability and understood

20. #13: Questions, problems, and complaints
Indicator
Score
Explanation
13. Provider is responsive and proactive about questions, problems, and complaints

21. #14: Evidence of coverage
Indicator
Score
Explanation
14. Covered farmers receive evidence of coverage

22. Recommendations for improving product value
The following changes (some of which are already anticipated) will improve product value and could improve the program’s assessment results from [ Score obtained ] to [ Objective ]
Recommendation 1
Recommendation 2
…….

23. Appendix – Example: #2: Appropriate activities
Indicator
Score
Explanation
2. Covers appropriate activities
Strong
The covered crop is highly relevant to farmers’ livelihood in the region. It is one of their most important sources of income and requires costly inputs.
The covered crop is essential to the country’s agricultural sector. In 2014, 60% of farmers cultivated this crop at national level, and it represented 35% of total agricultural income [source]. The area where the insurance product is distributed is known to be specialized in the covered crop cultivation.
Interviews with the management indicated that thorough investigations had been conducted to assess the relevance of this crop against alternatives. This investigation, conducted between 2012 and 2015, built on previous studies done by the government and multilateral organizations. All these studies indicated that the covered crop was highly relevant to the livelihood of smallholder farmers and required costly inputs. The final report, which we obtained, revealed that in the past, smallholder farmers had to use costly coping mechanisms after severe droughts destroyed their crop.
Interviews with farmers confirmed that the covered crop represented an important part of their income. 94% of farmers surveyed indicated that it was one of their sources of income, and 71% indicate that it was their main source of revenue. 53% indicated that the investments required for this crop are higher than for other activities.