Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP)

Details on our Data
  • Latest confirmation received from Fund Managers: May 2017

Basic Description

Name of Fund Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP)
Official Fund Website http://www.ifad.org/climate/asap/
Date Created Date fund proposed: 2011

Date fund made operational: 2012

Proposed Life of Fund Multi-year – Undetermined.
Administrating Organisation  The fund is administered by IFAD.
Objectives To channel climate and environmental finance to smallholder farmers, scale up climate change adaptation in rural development programmes and mainstream climate adaptation into IFAD’s work.
Activities Supported Activities supported include:

  • Improving land management and climate resilient agricultural practices and technologies;
  • Increasing availability of water and efficiency of water use for smallholder agriculture production and processing;
  • Increasing human capacity to manage short- and long-term climate risks and reduce losses from weather-related disasters;
  • Making rural infrastructure climate-resilient; and
  • Improving the documentation and dissemination of Climate Smart Smallholder Agriculture knowledge.
Conditions and Eligibility Requirements Country eligibility is established by the IFAD Programme Management Department. The selection criteria include:
Qualitative ex-ante criteria:

  • The ‘additionality’ of the ASAP funding to the project that it is co-financing (for example, whether the grant will provide genuine added value to a project and is not simply displacing other forms of public or private finance/activities);
  • Whether the ASAP-supported project is given strong support from the beneficiary Government, the relevant IFAD Regional Division country team and communities of smallholders including women and marginalized groups; and
  • Whether the ASAP financing can reach a critical number of rural smallholders in countries with high climate-related vulnerabilities and the basic implementation and portfolio capacities to deliver climate finance.
Quantitative ex-ante assessments against the ASAP Results Framework:
  • The number of poor smallholder whose climate resilience can be increased;
  • The size of the overall resulting investment;
  • The project leverage ratio of ASAP versus non-ASAP financing;
  • The tonnes of GHG emissions that can potentially be avoided and/or sequestered;
  • The extent of land and ecosystem degradation that can be avoided or reduced through the intervention;
  • The increase in hectares of land managed under climate-resilient practices;
  • The number of households, production and processing facilities with increased water availability;
  • The number of individuals, community groups and institutions engaged in climate risk management, environmental and natural resource management and/or disaster risk reduction;
  • The value of new or existing rural infrastructure that can be made climate-resilient; and
  • The number of international and country dialogues on climate issues to which the project can make an active contribution.
Accessing the Fund ASAP operates slightly differently to other funds as ASAP grants are joined with IFAD baseline investments which are implemented by government entities. 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:

  • Project concept: Projects 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);
  • 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;
  • Executive Board review: Every ASAP investment design is subject to review and clearance by the IFAD Executive Board, which meets 3 times per year;
  • 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; and
  • Implementation: Once the specific conditions above set by IFAD are met, the grant is declared effective and implementation begins.
Monitoring and Evaluation  Framework ASAP provides a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework which summarises relevant adaptation results, indicators and corresponding investment options. Project design teams who 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.

Over the course of 2013, a number of critical adaptation indicators have been included in IFAD’s Results and Impact Management System (RIMS), ensuring that ASAP-related M&E is a subset of IFAD’s M&E systems.

Fund Governance