International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) (UN Agency)
The Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP) channels climate finance to smallholder farmers so they can access the information tools and technologies that help build their resilience to climate change.
The programming of ASAP funds follows the IFAD project design cycle and is fully aligned with regular IFAD procedures and safeguards.
USD 30-40 billion up to 2030
in 2012, ASAP has become the largest global financing source dedicated to supporting the adaptation of poor smallholder farmers to climate change, with committed funding of US$301.5 million. IFAD’s Adaptation to Smallholder Agriculture Programme was launched in September 2012 and has mobilised US$ 366 million as of May 2015.
IFAD. In each of IFAD’s partner countries, projects and programmes are implemented through government ministries, usually through a Project Implementation Unit established in the relevant government ministry.
Grants have to be approved by the IFAD Executive Board. Disbursal rates as per July 2015 are at 6% of total approved funding (USD 13.25 million out of USD 219 million approved).
The programming of ASAP funds follows the IFAD project design cycle and is fully aligned with regular IFAD procedures and safeguards. Therefore ASAP does not employ specific application procedures like other funds (such as issuing calls for proposals) that can be accessed by NGOs or CSOs directly. Results-Based Country Strategic Opportunities Papers (RB-COSOPs) are a typical point of departure for an ASAP investment, highlighting climate change adaptation as a strategic decision for IFAD operations in a specific country.
ASAP applies the same procedures as regular IFAD investments, following the typical IFAD design cycle:
1. Project concept: Project concepts are created as part of the COSOP or through consultation between IFAD, governments and national stakeholders. They are reviewed by an Operational Strategy and Policy Guidance Committee (OSC);
2. Detailed project design and quality enhancement: A Project Design Report (PDR) is created and improved through a Quality Enhancement (QE) process, which involves field missions and interactions with local partners and stakeholders. The QE process involves a final review by a QE panel involving IFAD's Environment and Climate Division and Policy & Technical Advisory Division;
3. External Quality Assurance review: After the final field mission has been concluded, the PDR is reviewed by an independent Quality Assurance (QA) panel consisting of external experts;
4. Executive Board review: Every ASAP investment design is subject to review and clearance by the IFAD Executive Board, which meets 3 times per year;
5. Negotiation and approval: After the IFAD Executive Board has approved the financing, negotiations conclude between IFAD and the other parties involved in the project financing and a financing agreement is signed;
6. Implementation: Once the specific conditions above set by IFAD are met, the grant is declared effective and implementation begins with an inception phase that establishes the institutional and staffing structures necessary to execute project funded activities.
7. ASAP provides a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework which summarizes relevant adaptation results, indicators and corresponding investment options. Project design teams which are working with ASAP financing apply this M&E framework during the project design phase and select a subset of relevant indicators and targets (in alignment with the programming context) for integration with the results framework of the underlying IFAD investment.
The Governing Council is IFAD's highest decision-making authority. Each Member State is represented in the Governing Council by Governors, Alternate Governors and any other designated advisers. The Executive Board is responsible for overseeing the general operations of IFAD and for approving its programme of work. Membership on the Executive Board is determined by the Governing Council and is presently distributed as follows: List A: eight Members and eight Alternate Members (primarily countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development); List B: four Members and four Alternate Members (primarily countries in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries); and List C: six Members and six Alternate Members; two each in the three regional sub-divisions of List C Member States (developing countries).
ASAP provides a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework which summarizes relevant adaptation results, indicators and corresponding investment options. Project design teams which are working with ASAP financing apply this M&E framework during the project design phase and select a subset of relevant indicators and targets (in alignment with the programming context) for integration with the results framework of the underlying IFAD investment.
The Size depends on the amount of co-finance. ASAP funds will co-finance projects using clear selection criteria and applying a results framework which contains 10 specific and measurable indicators of achievement. An important element of ASAP will be a knowledge management programme that will develop and share climate adaptation lessons and tools across IFAD‘s programmes and with key external partners. Based on a thorough monitoring and evaluation system, this is expected to demonstrate the value of investing climate finance in smallholders to the Green Climate Fund and other climate initiatives.
Quantitative ex ante estimates of potential project contributions towards the ten key indicators of ASAP Results Framework will provide the main criteria for project selection, including projections of: (1) The number of poor smallholder household members whose climate resilience has been increased because of ASAP, disaggregated by sex (2) The size of the overall resulting investment (3) The project leverage ratio of ASAP versus non-ASAP financing (4) The tonnes of GHG emissions (CO2e) avoided and/or sequestered (5) The increase in number of non-invasive on-farm plant species per smallholder farm supported (6) The increase in hectares of land managed under climate-resilient practices (7) The percentage change in water use efficiency by men and women (8) The number of community groups including women‘s groups involved in ENRM and/or DRR formed or strengthened (9) The value of new or existing rural infrastructure made climate-resilient (10) The number of international and country dialogues to which the project would make an active contribution
Climate Change Adaptation Specialist
Environment and Climate Division (ECD)
Tel. +39 06 5459 2142
Margarita Astralaga, Director
Environment and Climate Division (ECD)
Tel: +39 06 5459 2151 - E-mail: email@example.com