Donor Mapping: Climate Change and Agriculture Activities

Donor Mapping: Climate Change and

Agriculture Activities

November 2013

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | November 2013 Page 1 of 48

Acknowledgements

Meridian Institute gratefully acknowledges the support of the Rockefeller Foundation and the

participation of the organizations and individuals who took part in the interview process.

About Meridian Institute

Meridian Institute is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to help people solve problems,

make informed decisions, and find solutions to some of society’s most complex and

controversial issues. Meridian’s mission is accomplished through applying collaborative

problem-solving approaches including facilitation, mediation, and other strategic consultation

services. Meridian works at the local, national, and international levels and focuses on a wide

range of issues related to natural resources and environment, energy, and climate change,

agriculture and food security, sustainability, global stability, and health. For more information,

please visit www.merid.org.

About The Rockefeller Foundation

The Rockefeller Foundation supports work that expands opportunity and strengthens resilience

to social, economic, health and environmental challenges—affirming its pioneering

philanthropic mission since 1913 to promote the well-being of humanity.

The Foundation operates both within the United States and around the world. The Foundation's

efforts are overseen by an independent Board of Trustees and managed by its president through

a leadership team drawn from scholarly, scientific, and professional disciplines. For more

information, please visit www.rockefellerfoundation.org.

http://www.merid.org/

http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/


Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 3

Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

Donor Profiles ............................................................................................................................................. 5

African Development Bank (AfDB) ............................................................................................ 6

Climate and Land Use Alliance (CLUA) ................................................................................... 8

Climate & Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) ....................................................... 10

David and Lucile Packard Foundation .................................................................................... 12

Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development Canada (DFATD) .............................................. 14

Department for International Development of the United Kingdom (DFID) .................... 16

Ford Foundation ......................................................................................................................... 18

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation ...................................................................................... 20

Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) ............................................................................... 21

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) ................................................... 23

McKnight Foundation ................................................................................................................ 25

The Rockefeller Foundation ...................................................................................................... 27

Skoll Foundation ......................................................................................................................... 29

Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture ................................................................. 31

United States Agency for International Development (USAID) .......................................... 33

World Bank Agriculture and Environmental Services .......................................................... 35

World Bank BioCarbon Fund .................................................................................................... 37

Donor-Identified Trends ......................................................................................................................... 39

Meridian Observations ............................................................................................................................ 42

Possible Areas for Future Exploration .................................................................................................. 47

Report Authors and Contact Information ............................................................................................ 48


Executive Summary

During the summer of 2013 Meridian Institute interviewed seventeen donors funding climate

change and agriculture activities, including multilateral, bilateral, and philanthropic funders.

This effort was supported by The Rockefeller Foundation and was intended to provide a

landscape overview of the nature of the activities being supported by the range of donors

interviewed. Meridian used the information provided in these interviews to assemble two-page

donor profiles that have been reviewed, edited, and approved by the interviewees. These

profiles describe donor activities along four categories:

Climate change and agriculture activities,

Financing for climate change and agriculture,

Geographic emphasis, and

Donor evolution over time.

The donors provided significant additional information that was not captured in these profiles,

which was broken into donor-identified substantive and funding trends. Donor-identified

substantive trends included: climate change mainstreaming across existing donor programs;

elevation of gender issues; growing interest in landscape-scale, integrated approaches; and

increased availability of and access to high quality data.

Donor-identified funding trends include: bilateral donors collaborating to engage multilateral

implementation partners; increasing activity by small philanthropies alone and in collaboration

with others; public-private partnerships that combine grantmaking with investments of money

and technology; shifting relationship between traditional development assistance and results-

based payments; and growing private sector interest in long-term supply chain sustainability.

Following the donor profiles and donor-identified trends, Meridian drew conclusions about the

available information through multiple lenses of analysis, including:

The significance of donors using shared terms, often with different definitions, in

describing activities,

Different donor entry points into the climate change and agriculture arena, and

The varying definitions and views of partnerships.

The assessment concludes with a collection of possible areas for future exploration, including:

A more complete characterization of donors and investors in the climate change and

agriculture space,

A more detailed examination of the meta-funding trends, and

Better accounting of the range and categorization of climate change co-benefits.1

1 Co-benefits are positive outcomes associated with a particular undertaking that occur in addition to the

planned benefit. For example, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or improved resilience to weather

disturbances achieved through implementation of on-farm practices intended to improve water quality.


Overview

This assessment was motivated by a sense that there is a growing body of investment and

donor experience in agriculture and climate change, and that increased awareness of these

investments and experience could assist current and prospective donors better understand each

other’s work. For example, at the conclusion of a Meridian-convened Learning from Early

Experiences and Interventions Workshop in Rome, Italy in November 2012 participants, donors,

and implementers alike indicated that a lack of collective knowledge about what is being

funded and what lessons could be drawn from that funding is resulting in missed opportunities

for innovation and collaboration. They suggested that an improved, even rudimentary,

understanding of donor substantive and geographic emphases and identification of some

trends in financial support for climate change and agriculture activities could benefit many who

are active in this arena.

The project team conducted structured one-hour interviews with bilateral, multilateral, and

philanthropic donors; donor alliances; and other funders during the summer of 2013. The

interviews were organized to allow for maximum interaction and dialogue. Five overarching

questions guided the interviews:

This project was designed as an exploratory effort that focused on a cross-section of funders.

This assessment does not include the complete set of all donors engaged in climate change and

agriculture. In this regard the interviews confirmed that there is a broadening and increasingly

diverse community of donors and actors supporting climate change and agriculture work,

including the private sector, new and evolving public-private partnerships, small

philanthropies, emerging economy aid agencies, and impact investors.2

Many of those interviewed suggested that any potential further work should consider: 1)

including an even more diverse range of entities engaged in climate change and agriculture

2 Impact investing is a form of socially responsible investing in which investors channel funds into

companies or organizations to generate measurable social and environmental impact in addition to

financial returns.

1. What are the areas of emphasis of your organization’s climate change and agriculture

funding?

2. How long has your organization been funding climate change and agriculture

activities? How and why was it initiated?

3. Are there particular substantive or geographic areas of focus? Have these changed

over time?

4. What is the relative percentage of funding allocated to each of your organization’s

focus areas? Has this changed over time? Might it change?

5. Do you have any funding partners on these efforts?

http://climate-agriculture.org/LEEI.aspx

http://climate-agriculture.org/LEEI.aspx


funding and finance and 2) exploring emerging substantive and funding trends in greater

detail.

Donor Profiles

Meridian Institute conducted interviews with seventeen bilateral, multilateral, philanthropic

donors and donor alliances. The following profiles are designed to present a snapshot of the

work each donor supports across four categories:

The donor profiles, including all figures and percentages, were reviewed by the relevant donor.

Since many donors integrate their climate change and agriculture funding with other

priorities many funding numbers included in this assessment are approximations.

On the maps included in each profile, dots represent countries, stars represent regions where

projects are underway, and ellipses represent a global focus.

The donors profiled include:

o African Development Bank

o Climate and Land Use Alliance

o Climate Development Knowledge Network

o David and Lucile Packard Foundation

o Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and

Development (Canada)

o Department for International

Development (United Kingdom)

o Ford Foundation

o Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

o Inter-American Development Bank

o International Foundation for Agricultural

Development

o McKnight Foundation

o The Rockefeller Foundation

o Skoll Foundation

o Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable

Agriculture

o United States Agency for International

Development

o World Bank Agriculture and

Environmental Services

o Word Bank BioCarbon Fund

Climate Change and Agriculture Activities

Financing for Climate Change and Agriculture

Geographic Emphasis

Donor Evolution

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | African Development Bank • November 2013 Page 6 of 48

African Development Bank (AfDB)

The African Development Bank (AfDB) is charged

with promoting sustainable economic development

and social progress in its 53 regional member

countries. AfDB’s objectives are aligned with the

United Nations Millennium Development Goals.

http://www.afdb.org/en/


AfDB advances climate adaptation and resilience

through investments in sustainable development

including sustainable agriculture, water resources,

development, health, and climate risk reduction.

There are a number of points of intersection between

the AfDB’s work on agriculture and adaptation to

climate change:

Climate Change Action Plan: This plan spans

from 2011-2015, and rests on three pillars:

o low-carbon development;

o climate change adaptation; and

o a climate change funding platform that is

implementable through a variety of

financing options.

The plan operationalizes the AfDB’s Climate Risk Mitigation and Adaptation Strategy focused

on funding initiatives that promote and facilitate adaptation to climate change across multiple

sectors. This Strategy includes mitigating the economic costs of climate change on the African

agricultural sector. The Climate Change Action Plan includes measures to “climate-proof”

agricultural projects by screening for climate risks and improving climate resilience. The plan

also aims to develop carbon accounting to quantify and offset emissions related to agricultural

practices and seeks to build adaptive capacity throughout the African continent.


AfDB provided $381.7 million to agriculture and food security programming in 2012. Since

AfDB’s funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation is mainstreamed across all

sectors, AfDB does not track how much of its agricultural programming includes climate

change mitigation and adaptation measures.

Quick Facts

Donor Type: Multilateral

Founded: 1964

Composition: 53 African countries

(regional members), 24 non-African

countries (non-regional members)

Time Funding Climate Change and

Agriculture: Climate Change, 8 years;

Agriculture, 49 years

Total Annual Funding: $4.25 billion

(in 2012)

Percentage of Funding for Climate

Change and Agriculture: N/A (does

not track climate and agriculture

designated funding)

Term(s) Used to Describe Climate

Change and Agriculture Activities:

Mitigation

Adaptation

Climate-resilient agriculture

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

http://www.afdb.org/en/

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | African Development Bank • November 2013 Page 7 of 48

Geographic Emphasis

African Continent (53 countries):

Infrastructure development in energy,

agriculture and environment, water,

and sanitation

Donor Evolution

AfDB has been funding initiatives

related to crop irrigation, livestock

development, forestry and plantation agriculture since its founding in 1964. The creation (2008)

and operationalization (2011) of the Climate Risk Mitigation and Adaptation strategy represents

a concerted shift toward implementing a focus on climate in investments for agricultural

development, among other initiatives.

AfDB recently launched a Ten Year Strategy for 2013-2022 which includes two objectives:

o inclusive growth and

o transition to green growth.

Agriculture and food security is one of three areas of special emphasis within this strategy. To

implement the Ten Year Strategy, AfDB will continue its work to leverage funding streams to

meet the financing demands for low-carbon and climate-resilient development in Africa,

including in the agricultural sector.

The star represents the region in which this donor supports climate

change and agriculture activities.

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | CLUA • November 2013 Page 8 of 48

Climate and Land Use Alliance (CLUA)

The Climate and Land Use Alliance (CLUA) is a

collaborative initiative of the ClimateWorks

Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation,

Ford Foundation, and Gordon and Betty Moore

Foundation that seeks to catalyze the potential of

forested and agricultural landscapes to mitigate

climate change, benefit people, and protect the

environment. The bulk of CLUA’s programming is

related to reducing emissions from deforestation and

forest degradation in developing countries, including

the role of conservation, sustainable management of

forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks

(REDD+).3

http://www.climateandlandusealliance.org/


From its inception 3.5 years ago CLUA has been

funding agriculture and climate change in two areas:

Agriculture as a driver of deforestation: Funding

focuses on both supply and demand for palm oil,

paper, and pulp in Indonesia, and soy and

livestock in Brazil. Demand side funding

emphasizes the introduction of sustainability into

supply chains and the avoidance of sourcing key

commodities from areas with high rates of

deforestation. On the supply side, CLUA funds in-country action to improve sustainability

for several key commodities.

Agriculture emissions (separate from forests): Several members of CLUA (primarily the

Packard Foundation) invest in US-based measures to encourage offsets for greenhouse gas

emissions and change on-farm practices.

3 REDD+ was introduced at the 13th Conference of Parties in 2007 as part of the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations in Bali, Indonesia. REDD+ a mechanism to

develop policies to curb emissions from deforestation and forest degrading activities and to enhance

forests’ capacity to remove greenhouse gases through afforestation and reforestation in developing

countries. More information about REDD+ is available at: http://www.un-redd.org.

Quick Facts

Donor Type: Alliance of philanthropic

foundations

Founded: 2010

Composition: Alliance between:

David & Lucile Packard

Foundation

Ford Foundation

Gordon and Betty Moore

Foundation

ClimateWorks Foundation

Time Funding in Climate Change

and Agriculture: 3.5 years

Total Annual Funding: ~$50 million


Change and Agriculture: ~25%



Agriculture as a driver of

deforestation

Greenhouse gas mitigation

Biofuels development

http://www.climateandlandusealliance.org/

http://www.un-redd.org/

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | CLUA • November 2013 Page 9 of 48


Approximately 25% of CLUA’s funding profile is

related to agriculture and climate change. This is equally

split between drivers of deforestation, agricultural

emissions, and biofuels.

Geographic Emphasis

Brazil: Agriculture as a driver of deforestation for soy

and livestock production; biofuels (supply-side)

Indonesia: Agriculture as a driver of deforestation for

palm oil; biofuels (supply-side)

United States: Mitigating greenhouse gas

emissions by incorporating conservation

measures into US agricultural producers’

practices; biofuels (both supply & demand

sides)

Global: Climate and land use, including

eliminating forest and peat land conversion

and degradation, and REDD+

Donor Evolution

Historically, CLUA has primarily concentrated funding efforts related to REDD+. A recent

external review of CLUA’s programs identified agriculture as a “missing piece” of the

Alliance’s overall grant making portfolio. As a result, several CLUA members have shifted

resources more specifically to agricultural practices in addition to forested landscapes, a trend

that will continue in the coming years. For example, the Packard Foundation has shifted

resources to invest $10 million per year to work on greenhouse gas emissions mitigation from

agriculture, and the Moore Foundation is shifting its historical approach of biodiversity to

drivers of deforestation, taking a commodity-based approach. CLUA is also investing in an

effort to identify existing opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.

Climate

and Ag

25%

Other

Initiatives

75%

The dots represent countries in which this donor supports climate change

and agriculture activities. The ellipse represents a global focus.

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | CDKN • November 2013 Page 10 of 48

Climate & Development Knowledge Network (CDKN)

The Climate & Development Knowledge Network

(CDKN) is an alliance of organizations with a hub in

London and implementing partners in Latin America

and the Caribbean, Asia, and Africa. CDKN is funded

by the United Kingdom Department for International

Development (DFID) and the Netherlands

Directorate-General for International Development

(DGIS). CDKN supports decision-makers design and

deliver climate compatible development by

combining research, advisory services, and

knowledge management on four strategic themes: 1)

climate compatible development strategies and plans;

2) improving developing countries’ access to climate

finance; 3) strengthening resilience through climate-

related disaster risk management; and 4) supporting

climate negotiators from least developed and most

vulnerable countries. CDKN works in partnership

with decision-makers in the public, private, and non-

profit sectors nationally, regionally and globally.

http://cdkn.org/


Agriculture and food security are cross-cutting

themes spanning 35 of CDKN’s projects focused on

climate compatible development. Twenty-six of these

are research projects implemented by partnerships

between research institutions, ministries, universities,

and non-governmental organizations. Nine are

technical assistance projects administered through

government channels. The projects on climate

compatible development through an agriculture lens

span several categories:

Climate-smart agriculture: Three projects apply

the triple-win of adaptation, mitigation, and

economic benefits and social development.

Ground-level adaptation: Fourteen projects explore how to adapt to climate change in the

agriculture sector, particularly at the community and local levels. For example, how to

bridge and appreciate commonalities between indigenous and scientific knowledge.

Quick Facts

Donor Type: Alliance of

organizations

Founded: 2010

Composition: Funding partnership

between:

United Kingdom Department

for International Development

Netherlands Directorate-

General for International

Development (DGIS)

Alliance managed between several

implementing partners:

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

(PwC)

Fundación Futuro

Latinoamericano

INTRAC

LEAD International

Overseas Development

Institute (ODI)

SouthSouthNorth


Agriculture: 3 years

Total Funding: £72 million over 5

years (2010 – 2015)





Climate-smart agriculture

http://cdkn.org/

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | CDKN • November 2013 Page 11 of 48

Adaptive capacity: Thirteen projects directly or indirectly investigate the conditions

necessary to improve adaptive capacity at community, sub-national and/or national level to

achieve food and water security and ecosystem service improvement.

Biodiversity, ecosystem services, and food and water security: Eight projects examine the

link between water, food, energy, and climate security; measure changes in resilience to

climate impacts on those factors; and explore innovative mechanisms to promote improved

land management.

Poverty alleviation: Eight projects center directly on delivering adaptation and poverty

alleviation in some of the world’s most vulnerable countries through improved agricultural

practices and encouraging land use and land management strategies that enhance carbon

storage.


CDKN is jointly funded by the UK Department for International

Development (DFID) and the Netherlands Directorate-General

for International Cooperation (DGIS). CDKN has disbursed £4

million to date for projects related to climate change and

agriculture.

Geographic

Emphasis

CDKN’s work on

climate compatible

development tied to agriculture is based in

eastern Africa. A number of projects are also in

Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as

South and South-East Asia.

Donor Evolution

CDKN is a five-year program initiated in 2010 and scheduled to conclude in 2015. The theme of

agriculture and food security emerged during the second year of CDKN’s operations and

continues to evolve based on project developments. CDKN draws from lessons generated from

ongoing and past projects to develop its portfolio of work. An important element of CDKN’s

strategic approach to informing decision-making is knowledge management. CDKN clearly

communicates about ongoing work by publishing stories, policy briefs, and blogs with up-to-

date information and analysis. Continual knowledge management helps CDKN draw lessons

from work and present those lessons for external review and use. This is a primary tenet in

CDKN’s belief that key messages, research, policy-making, and communications are mutually

beneficial.

Other

Activities

~85%

Climate

and Ag

~5%

The stars represent regions in which this donor supports climate change

and agriculture activities.

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | Packard Foundation • November 2013 Page 12 of 48

David and Lucile Packard Foundation

The Packard Foundation uses the lens of science to

support work to improve the human condition and to

restore the planet’s health. The Foundation works

primarily on issues related to improving the lives of

children, enabling the creative pursuit of science,

advancing reproductive health, and conserving and

restoring the earth’s natural systems.

http://www.packard.org/


The Foundation’s agriculture strategy was one

component of a 2008 commitment to provide $500

million over seven years to support work on climate

change mitigation. Approximately $100 million of that

commitment is dedicated to land use mitigation

opportunities. The Foundation’s work on agriculture

and climate includes three core activities:

Biofuels Policy and Markets: The Foundation’s work supports the creation of a global set of

biofuels sustainability standards, encouraging government and industry to implement those

standards, and reforming policies incentivizing the development of unsustainable biofuels.

These efforts were designed to ensure that the growing interest in biofuels does not result in

increased GHG emissions and does not have other negative impacts on the environment

and food security.

Climate Policy and Practice: The Foundation provides funds to develop protocols for

measuring reductions in agriculture emissions and incorporating agricultural offsets in

GHG compliance markets. This work is focused on the California cap-and-trade program.

Food and Farm Policy and Practice: This work includes research and advocacy to maintain

and increase funding for conservation programs included in the US Farm Bill, to support the

inclusion of emissions mitigation as a component of conservation, and to promote reform of

policies resulting in increases greenhouse gas emissions.

Quick Facts

Donor Type: Philanthropic

Foundation

Founded: 1964

Time Granting in Climate Change

and Agriculture: 5 years

Total Annual Funding: $252 million

(grants awarded in 2012)


Change and Agriculture: ~4% ($10

million USD annually)



Emissions mitigation

http://www.packard.org/

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | Packard Foundation • November 2013 Page 13 of 48


The Foundation’s annual budget of approximately $10 million to

fund its agriculture work is evenly divided between biofuels,

climate policy, and U.S. food and farm policy.

Geographic Emphasis

Global: Biofuels

United States: Climate Policy and Practice

& Food and Farm Policy and Practice

Donor Evolution

To date, the Foundation’s support for climate change and agriculture has had the goals of

reducing the greenhouse gas emissions and nitrogen pollution caused by agricultural practices

in the United States and by biofuels production globally. The Foundation has resources allotted

for agriculture and climate programming through the end of 2014 when its seven-year

commitment to support climate change mitigation initiatives will conclude. The work on

biofuels and climate policy will remain largely the same during this time period, while the

United States federal farm policy work is likely to be scaled back.

In the future, the Foundation will reallocate some of the resources previously directed toward

federal farm policy work in two new areas: 1)support for supply chain approaches to

agricultural emissions reductions from agriculture and 2) increased support for international

efforts to reduce emissions from agricultural practices. This international approach will include

close coordination with Packard’s partners in the CLUA (see above) and may involve greater

attention to palm oil production in Indonesia and exploration of other opportunities to reduce

emissions from agriculture. The Foundation’s funding for climate and agriculture beyond 2014

is yet to be determined.

Other

Initiatives

96%

Climate

and Ag

4%

The dot represents a country in which this donor supports climate change

and agriculture activities. The ellipse represents a global focus.

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | DFATD • November 2013 Page 14 of 48

Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development Canada (DFATD, formerly Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA)

In 2013, Canada established the Department of

Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD)

merging the former Canadian International

Development Agency (CIDA) with the Department of

Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT).

DFATD is charged with directing and implementing

Canada’s international development and

humanitarian assistance programs in addition to its

foreign affairs and international trade functions.

Canada applies three cross-cutting themes to its

development programming: increasing environmental

sustainability, advancing equality between women

and men, and helping to strengthen governance

institutions and practices. The first of these themes is

the one most directly related to funding for the issue of climate change and agriculture.

http://www.international.gc.ca/international/index.aspx?lang=eng


The information below details historic CIDA funding activities given the transition taking place

during the writing of this report. Historically there have been several specific channels through

which Canadian development assistance has sought to impact climate change and agriculture.

This has primarily included adaptation and productivity with little emphasis on mitigation:

DFATD’s Food Security Strategy: This work is focused on meeting sustainable agricultural

development targets smallholder farmers in developing countries, and includes climate

change considerations. Programming includes adaptation for smallholder agriculture,

climate-smart agriculture, and climate finance, among other topics.

Fast Start Financing Initiatives: In 2009, Canada pledged C$1.2 billion over 3 years (2010-

2012) to fund fast-start climate change programming initiatives deployed through a range of

partners. Approximately 26% of the fast start funds (or C$312 million) have been dedicated

specifically to adaptation, forestry, and agriculture-related projects.


CIDA allocated climate funds through bilateral, multilateral, and partnership program

channels. CIDA’s bilateral approach related to food security has traditionally been responsive to

grantees’ interest and need. CIDA’s multilateral climate funding has largely been channeled

through large climate change funds administered by multilateral institutions.

Quick Facts

Donor Type: Bilateral

Founded: 1968 (CIDA); 2013 (DFATD)


and Agriculture: >10 years

Total Annual Funding: C$3.2 billion

(for 2012)




designated funding)

http://www.international.gc.ca/international/index.aspx?lang=eng

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | DFATD • November 2013 Page 15 of 48

In 2012/13, 21% of CIDA’s annual budget of C$3.2 billion was channeled into food security

programming. In the past 4 years (2009-2014), an average of about C$320 million (or 40% of all

food security disbursements) has been annually allocated to sustainable agricultural

development, which includes a climate change lens.

Geographic Emphasis

Sustainable Agricultural Development:

Sub-Saharan Africa, Central America,

Southeast Asia

Fast Start Financing Initiatives: Latin

America/Caribbean, Sub-Saharan

Africa, South Asia, East Asia/Pacific

Donor Evolution

CIDA adopted an environmental sustainability policy in 1992 and managed the Canada Climate

Change Development Fund from 2000 to 2005 with a budget of C$100 million over 5 years. The

Department recently adopted the new OECD climate change adaptation policy marker to better

examine climate change spending under different programs including food security and

agriculture-related initiatives.



Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | DFID • November 2013 Page 16 of 48

Department for International Development of the United Kingdom (DFID)

The charge of the Department for International

Development of the United Kingdom (DFID) is to

promote sustainable development and eliminate

world poverty. DFID funds education, health, social

services, water supply and sanitation, government

and civil society, economic activities, environmental

protection, research, and humanitarian assistance.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/depar

tment-for-international-development


DFID’s work on climate change and agriculture is

directed through several mechanisms:

International Climate Fund (ICF): This is the UK’s

fund designed to provide climate finance. Up to

50% of the ICF is targeted at helping the world’s

poorest populations adapt to climate change,

including through CDKN (see above). The balance

of the ICF is used to support investments in low

carbon development (30%) and forestry (20%).

Many of the activities funding adaptation are

related to agriculture and food security.

Evaluation and Indicators: DFID partnered with several other organizations4 to jointly

develop a Food Security Learning Framework. DFID aims to undertake similar work to

demonstrate useful thematic indicators on agriculture. DFID is building on this to develop

thematic indicators on adaptation and agriculture for the International Climate Fund. These

will be used for impact and strategic evaluations.

Research funding: DFID supports the Consultative Group on International Agricultural

Research (CGIAR) including a research program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food

Security. DFID also supports bilateral programs that include research on climate change and

agriculture. One example is a joint program with the International Development Research

Centre on the Collaborative Adaptation Research Initiative in Africa and Asia. DFID also

4 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), International Fund for Agricultural Development

(IFAD), Millennium Challenge Corporation, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD), US Agency for International Development (USAID), World Bank, and World Food Programme.

Quick Facts


Founded: 1997 (formerly it was the

Overseas Development Administration)


and Agriculture: 20 + years (early

1990’s)

Total Annual Funding: £6.7 billion

(overall) and £1.4 billion (capital) in

2011-2012




designated funding)



Climate-smart and climate-

resilient agriculture

Adaptation with a focus on co-

benefits

Sustainable intensification

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-international-development

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-international-development

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | DFID • November 2013 Page 17 of 48

supports research into the sustainable intensification of agriculture including the

development of the new agriculture technology, products and knowledge needed to combat

future threats to the global food system including climate change. This includes work on the

development of metrics and research on the trade-offs involved in sustainable

intensification, support to transformative approaches such as support to C4 rice and water

efficient maize for Africa.

Country programs: DFID has a devolved structure, and under its country programmes

supports projects at a national level that incude support to climate change, food and

nutrition security.


The ICF was designed to provide £2.9 billion for climate-related issues between 2011 and 2015.

Agriculture comprises a significant component of the 50% of ICF funds targeted at helping the

world’s poorest populations adapt to climate change. DFID’s flagship investment is £150

million to IFAD’s Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Program (ASAP). DFID also supports

the role of private sector in development through public-private partnerships focused on

improving farmers’ access to markets and

developing agricultural value chains.

Geographic Emphasis

Global: Focus on Africa and South Asia through

multi-lateral investments.

Climate-smart and Climate Resilient Agriculture:

Southern Africa, South Asia, and Brazil

Donor Evolution

DFID has been funding work related to climate

variability and research programs through the

CGIAR and other institutions for several decades. DFID established a natural resource research

program 1992, which included an implicit understanding of the connection between climate

variability and agriculture. DFID began explicitly financing agriculture projects through a

climate change lens in the 2000’s, including supporting the founding the CGIAR research

program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security in 2010. Also in 2010, DFID began

to work specifically on climate change in the context of agriculture and forestry through the use

of climate financing. DFID will continue to develop metrics and performance indicators for the

ICF to track the results and impact of investment. DFID is also developing the “Future Fit

Initiative” to determine what strategic shifts in key sectors, including food, are needed to

respond to the challenges of climate change and resource scarcity in achieving development

objectives.

The stars represent regions and the dot represents a country in which this

donor supports climate change and agriculture activities. The oval

represents a global focus.

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | Ford Foundation • November 2013 Page 18 of 48

Ford Foundation

The Ford Foundation works toward four goals

through its programming: strengthen democratic

values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote

international cooperation, and advance human

achievement.

http://www.fordfoundation.org/


The primary focus of Ford’s climate work is on

REDD+. Ford organizes all its funding around

initiatives. Three of these initiatives relate to

agriculture, including climate change:

Expanding Community Rights Over Natural

Resources: Improves natural resource policies and

programs to provide poor and marginalized

groups with access and ownership over natural

resources, including land-use planning and

development

Climate Change Responses that Strengthen Rural Communities: Addresses flawed policies

in order to better promote sustainable land and resource management to help mitigate

climate change (note: funding allocated through this initiative is almost entirely channeled

through CLUA, and is largely related to REDD+ policies)

Expanding Livelihood Opportunities for Poor Households: Centers on developing value

chains and improving delivery systems.


These three initiatives together, which comprise all of Ford’s grant making

related to climate change and agriculture, comprise roughly 6% of Ford’s

annual $478 million in grants.

Quick Facts


Foundation

Founded: 1936

History of Granting in Climate

Change and Agriculture: 3 years


(in FY 2012)





Biofuels development

Land use, tenure, and rights

Resource management

Climate

and Ag

6%

Other

Initiatives

94%

http://www.fordfoundation.org/

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | Ford Foundation • November 2013 Page 19 of 48

Geographic Emphasis

Expanding Community Rights Initiative: Mexico and Central America, Brazil, East Africa, India,

Indonesia, China

Climate Change Responses Initiative: Indonesia

Expanding Livelihood Opportunities Initiative: Mexico and Central America, West Africa, East

Africa, Southern Africa, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Indonesia

Donor Evolution

Ford Foundation has been involved

in international agriculture since the

early 1960’s when Ford partnered

with the The Rockefeller Foundation

in supporting preparatory activities

leading to the founding of the

CGIAR in 1971 and other initiatives

during the Green Revolution. Ford’s

efforts shifted to agricultural systems

in the 1970’s to take into account

more diverse and resource-poor areas. Ford began supporting work on forestry and related

issues in the early 1980’s. Until Ford’s current initiatives were created in 2010 the foundation

did not have any specific programmatic emphasis on climate change.

Joining CLUA (see above) allowed the Foundation to enter the climate change granting space

through aligned grant making. This allowed Ford to incrementally grow their climate change

funding over time. Funding to address climate change and food security concerns may continue

in the coming years.

The stars represent regions and the dots represent countries in which this

donor supports climate change and agriculture activities.

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | Moore Foundation • November 2013 Page 20 of 48

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation seeks to

advance environmental conservation, scientific

research, and patient care, both globally and in the

San Francisco Bay Area. The Foundation’s

combination of programs and initiatives are guided

by a set of core values including impact, integrity,

disciplined approach, and collaboration.

http://www.moore.org/


The Moore Foundation does not currently have any

initiatives specifically on climate change and

agriculture. The Foundation’s work on conservation

practices has positive climate change outcomes, but

not with an explicit agricultural lens. Many efforts are focused on mitigating impacts from

drivers of deforestation. The Foundation’s Environmental Conservation program includes

conserving biodiversity and climate function in the Amazon Basin and fostering

environmentally sound land use practices. The Foundation is a member of CLUA (see above)

and therefore specific strategies related to land use change, specifically drivers of deforestation

in Brazil, are aligned with CLUA’s strategy.

Geographic Emphasis

Andes/Amazon Region: Maintaining

biodiversity

Donor Evolution

As part of its work in alignment with

CLUA, the Moore Foundation

provided short-term funding to

support early capacity-building work

on REDD+ in preparation for the

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in

Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009.

The Foundation is currently looking into developing a program on sustainable agriculture,

specifically on beef and soy production in South America. This program will include work to

minimize the habitat impacts of producing these commodities.

Quick Facts


Foundation

Founded: 2000


and Agriculture: N/A





designated funding as work is not

currently organized as such)

The star represents a region in which this donor supports climate change


http://www.moore.org/

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | IDB • November 2013 Page 21 of 48

Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)

The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) is the

leading source of development financing for Latin

America and the Caribbean. IBD has a strong

commitment to achieve measurable results, increased

integrity, transparency, and accountability. IDB

supports economic development by lending to central

governments, provinces, municipalities, private firms,

and non-governmental organizations through a wide

range of programs and topics.

http://www.iadb.org/


IDB’s primary goal for agriculture projects is to

accelerate growth of agricultural output in Latin

America and the Caribbean and to promote

sustainable management of natural resources. IDB has

financed projects addressing aspects of climate change

for decades. The 2010 Ninth General Capital Increase

for IDB included a Bank-wide mandate to dedicate

25% of funding to support the region’s adaptation to

and mitigation of climate change by 2015. This emphasis applies IDB’s three primary

instruments for administering agriculture-related funding:

Specific Investment Loans: As IDB’s primary financing mechanisms, these loans support

operations with large, interdependent components. These include climate change

considerations early in project design, like factoring potential emissions mitigation

opportunities in planning irrigation drainage projects.

Policy-Based Loans: These loans focus on catalyzing reform or institutional changes, rather

than directly financing on-the-ground initiatives.

Technical Cooperation: These loans finance institutional strengthening activities that

provide tools and training to translate lessons learned in one area or region to others. One

example is translating techniques for low-emissions production of commodities in Brazil for

European organic food markets to other countries, like Paraguay.


IDB’s lending for Agriculture and Rural Development is cyclical and shifts from year to year.

For example, in 2011 IDB approved $623 million for agriculture projects and in 2012 approved

$134 million. While many of these projects had direct or indirect links to climate change, IDB

does not catalogue financing specifically related to climate change and agriculture.

Quick Facts


Founded: 1959

Composition: 48 member countries

(including 26 borrowing members)


and Agriculture: ~5 years


(lending and grants in 2012)




designated funding)

Terms Used to Describe Climate


Adaptation to climate change

Mitigation of emissions

http://www.iadb.org/

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | IDB • November 2013 Page 22 of 48

Geographic Emphasis

IDB’s funding is channeled to its 26

borrowing members throughout

Latin America and the Caribbean.

Donor Evolution

IDB has been funding activities that

indirectly address climate change for

decades. IDB has responded to the

growing global concern about climate change by explicitly committing to fund climate-related

activities across programs, including agriculture. Climate factors are being mainstreamed into

many IDB-funded projects, both by adopting measures to adapt to changing climate patterns

and by scaling techniques to mitigate emissions. IDB has supported projects with climate

change mainstreamed into the project design in Argentina and Uruguay, and several others are

under development. The Bank will continue to fulfill its mandate for 25% of funding for

adaptation and mitigation by 2015, and will place particular emphasis on mitigation,

adaptation, and sustainable practices.

The star represents a region in which this donor supports climate change


Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | IFAD • November 2013 Page 23 of 48

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

The International Fund for Agricultural

Development (IFAD) is a specialized agency

of the United Nations that combats rural

hunger and poverty in developing countries

through a combination of low-interest loans

and direct assistance.

http://www.ifad.org/


IFAD addresses a wide range of rural policy

issues from gender to community-driven

development and has established one primary

program to fund climate change and

agriculture.

Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture

Programme (ASAP): This program was

launched by IFAD in 2012. It channels

climate and environmental finance to

smallholder farmers to bolster resilience to

climate risks. ASAP is a multi-year and

multi-donor program with the objective of improving the resilience and adaptive capacity of

at least 8 million smallholder farmers in the face of rapidly changing environmental

conditions. The program is a new source of grant co-financing for existing IFAD agricultural

projects, adding activities related to climate risk management. Through ASAP, IFAD is

driving a major scaling-up of successful “multiple-benefit” approaches to smallholder

agriculture, seeking to improve production while simultaneously reducing and diversifying

climate-related risks.


ASAP has mobilized $330 million since the program’s establishment in

2012. This represents approximately 12.5% of IFAD’s annual lending and

granting budget of $1 billion. As of 30 September 2013, US$ 102 million

have been programmed for ASAP-supported initiatives at country level.

Quick Facts


Founded: 1977

Composition: 172 member states (a full list is

available at

http://www.ifad.org/governance/ifad/ms.htm)

Time Granting in Climate Change and

Agriculture: 2 years

Total Annual Funding: ~ $1 billion

Percentage of Funding for Climate Change

and Agriculture: ~12.5%

Term(s) Used to Describe Climate Change

and Agriculture Activities:

Climate-resilient agriculture

Multiple-benefit adaptation approaches

Climate-smart agriculture for

smallholders

Other

Initiatives

87.5%

Climate

and Ag

12.5%

http://www.ifad.org/

http://www.ifad.org/governance/ifad/ms.htm

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | IFAD • November 2013 Page 24 of 48

Geographic Emphasis

The program is focused on the world’s poorest

and most vulnerable countries. Mozambique

was the first project approved by the IFAD

Executive Board in September 2012; 25 new

ASAP investments are in an early or advanced

stage of design, including countries from

Asia (Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia,

Nepal), West and Central Africa (Mali,

Nigeria, Chad, Ghana, Niger, Gambia, DR Congo, Cote d’ Ivoire), East and Southern Africa

(Tanzania, Madagascar, Uganda, Lesotho, Rwanda, Kenya, Malawi), Latin America (Bolivia,

Nicaragua), Near East/North Africa (Djibouti, Yemen, Sudan) and Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan).

Donor Evolution

IFAD’s funding has historically centered on poverty alleviation with agricultural development

as an important component. IFAD began considering how to include climate change six years

ago and developed a specific strategy relating to the impacts of a changing climate on

smallholder production. IFAD developed a specific environmental strategy four years ago and

subsequently developed a climate-specific strategy that was implemented and operationalized

two years ago. Since the IFAD Climate Change Strategy was adopted in 2010, the organization

has developed a number of processes and tools to integrate climate risk management and

adaptation more systematically in its country strategies and operations.

It is working with representatives from interested partner countries to incorporate sustainable

agricultural intensification, land and water management and environmental stewardship into

its programming. ASAP is an instrument to scale up resilient practices while facilitating the

exchange of knowledge and experiences between countries over the long term.

The solid dot represents a country in which this donor supports climate

change and agriculture activities. The hollow dots represent projects in

development.

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | McKnight Foundation • November 2013 Page 25 of 48

McKnight Foundation

The McKnight Foundation aims to improve quality of

life for present and future generations and funds

initiatives supporting children and youth, the

Midwest region and communities, the environment,

the arts, neuroscience research, and international

efforts. McKnight’s primary geographic focus is the

state of Minnesota, United States.

http://www.mcknight.org/


One of McKnight’s programs employs an explicit

agricultural approach and has climate co-benefits.

Another program concentrates on water quality and

has indirect impacts on both climate and agriculture.

Collaborative Crop Research Program (CCRP):

McKnight funds collaborative research with

developing country agriculture research center

scientists, university-based scientists, scientists

from CGIAR centers, farmers, and development practitioners in 12 countries through a

community of practice model.5 The program focuses on agro-ecological intensification

encompassing approaches to agricultural and food systems that bolster farmers’ resilience to

climate change impacts and mitigate agricultural emissions through ecological production

systems.

Mississippi River Program: This program is intended to restore the water quality and

resilience of the Mississippi River including mitigating nitrogen and phosphorous runoff

from agricultural states on the northern part of the river. Many of the practices encouraged

through this strategy have climate mitigation co-benefits but the program does not directly

account for these impacts.

5 McKnight defines communities of practice as sets of regional grantees that collectively work to support

a specific goal or outcome.

Quick Facts


Foundation

Founded: 1953


Agriculture: ~ 10 years through an

explicit agriculture focus


(in 2012)


Change and Agriculture: ~7.3%



Agro-ecological intensification for

Collaborative Crop Research

Program (CCRP)

http://www.mcknight.org/

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | McKnight Foundation • November 2013 Page 26 of 48


McKnight’s funding for CCRP specifically supporting agro-

ecological intensification included $6.2 million for direct grants in

2012. This funding was jointly provided by the Bill & Melinda

Gates Foundation and the McKnight Foundation, and accounted

for approximately 7.3% of the Foundation’s total grant payout of

$85 million in 2012. This funding did not apply to the Mississippi

River Program.

Geographic Emphasis

Collaborative Crop Research Program:

Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, Tanzania,

Mozambique, Malawi, Mali, Burkina Faso,

Niger, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia

Mississippi River Program: Midwest

United States (this program is not

specifically related to agriculture and

climate change, but has indirect benefits)

Donor Evolution

McKnight initiated a food security program in 1983 that has evolved with McKnight’s learning

approach. In the early 2000’s the Foundation established a clear focus on sustainable

agricultural systems. In 2009 McKnight formalized the CCRP emphasis on agro-ecological

intensification. Additionally, the Foundation recently established a new Midwest Climate and

Energy program to work on clean energy policy, communities, and a resilient economy. The full

scope of the Midwest Climate and Energy program including any work on agricultural systems

is still in development.

Other

Initiatives

~92.7%

Climate

and Ag

~7.3%



Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | The Rockefeller Foundation • November 2013 Page 27 of 48

The Rockefeller Foundation

The Rockefeller Foundation seeks to achieve its vision

through work aimed at meeting four goals: Revalue

Ecosystems, Advance Health, Secure Livelihoods, and

Transform Cities.



Historically, the Rockefeller Foundation has been

heavily involved in projects related to agriculture and

climate change through projects like the Alliance for a

Green Revolution in Africa and the Building Climate

Change Resilience Initiative. Recently, Rockefeller has

expanded its focus from working on climate smart

agriculture to the broader aim of resilience.


(2007-2012)

Since 2007 the Rockefeller Foundation has given approximately $6.5

million per year or 5% of annual giving to climate change and

agriculture-related projects. Future funding levels for this work will

be determined through strategic planning processes in 2013-14.

Geographic Emphasis (2007-2015)

East Africa (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia, and Rwanda): Outreach

from smallholder farmers and national agricultural research entities.

West Africa (Ghana): Carbon mapping

Donor Evolution

The Rockefeller Foundation has

funded agriculture in different forms

throughout the foundation’s 100-year

existence. In 2007 the foundation

established dedicated funding for

climate change and agriculture as a

part of its Building Climate Change

Resilience Initiative. This initiative

funded work related to integrating

Quick Facts


Foundation

Founded: 1913


and Agriculture: 5 years (2007 – 2012)


(in 2010)






Other

Initiatives

95%

Climate

and Ag 5%




Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | The Rockefeller Foundation • November 2013 Page 28 of 48

climate change considerations into agricultural research, examining how carbon markets might

apply capital and technical expertise to drive climate-smart agriculture, and implementing

practices that included both adaptation to climate change and mitigation of emissions by

demonstrating low carbon intensity and sequestering carbon. This stream of funding was

consolidated in 2012.

The Rockefeller Foundation will continue to fund several legacy projects with ties to climate

change and agriculture through grant term completion. While the scope of some future projects

may include climate change and agriculture, climate change is likely to be mainstreamed into

Rockefeller’s work on Resilience and Revaluing Ecosystems.

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | Skoll Foundation • November 2013 Page 29 of 48

Skoll Foundation

The Skoll Foundation was created to drive large scale

change by investing in, connecting, and celebrating

social entrepreneurs and the innovators who help

solve the world’s most pressing problems. The

Foundation defines social entrepreneurs as society’s

change agents, creators of innovations that disrupt the

status quo and transform the world for the better. The

Foundation identifies organizations and programs

that are already bringing positive change to the world

and empowers them to extend their reach and deepen

their impact.

http://www.skollfoundation.org/


The Skoll Foundation does not have a program that

focuses explicitly on agriculture and climate change.

However, the foundation’s areas of emphasis have

many ties to climate change adaptation, emissions

mitigation, improved land tenure, and other practices

through the Foundation’s emphasis on fostering social entrepreneurship. The Skoll

Foundation’s work includes conducting independent analysis to inform grant making in some

areas with high relevance to the intersection of climate change and agriculture. For example, the

Foundation recently commissioned a study about catalyzing smallholder investment finance to

identify strategies to increase production and encourage sustainable management of natural

resources. Several examples of areas where the Foundation provides resources that indirectly

result in agriculture and climate change-related changes include:

Addressing drivers of deforestation in the Amazon: Identifying and enabling creative

solutions for farming and ranching to improve land stewardship that also result in

emissions mitigation.

Sustainable municipal management: Facilitating robust, transparent land use planning for

cattle and soy production and enabling small-scale producers to obtain land titles with

indirect emission mitigation benefits.

Sustainable value chains and market development: Working with small farmers to finance

beneficial practices and develop access to markets. This includes providing finance for small

farmers in Africa and Latin America to implement climate-resilient practices with a long-

term supply chain lens.

Quick Facts


Foundation

Founded: 1999


and Agriculture: 14 years (indirectly)


(Grants awarded in 2012)




designated funding)



N/A (focuses on investing in social

entrepreneurship)

http://www.skollfoundation.org/

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | Skoll Foundation • November 2013 Page 30 of 48

Reducing extreme poverty for smallholder farmers: Implementing low-cost technologies to

improve agricultural production for smallholders with an indirect emissions mitigation co-

benefit such as mitigating emissions from diesel-powered irrigation systems through drip

irrigation systems.


The Skoll Foundation provides funding through Skoll Awards for Social Entrepreneurship. These

are typically grants of $1 million over a three year period. The Foundation has dispersed over

$115 million through this program since 1999 and more than $403 million overall including

through Program Related Investments. Several Skoll awards may be concentrated in a

particular area among organizations working on similar issues (e.g., drivers of deforestation in

the Amazon). This funding is not typically targeted to a particular issue or effort, but rather

provides core support to help grantees build systems and maximize impact.

Geographic Emphasis

Latin America: Addressing drivers of

deforestation, sustainable municipal

management, sustainable value chains

Africa: Sustainable value chains and

reducing extreme poverty for

smallholders

South Asia: Reducing extreme poverty

for smallholders

Donor Evolution

The Skoll Foundation will continue to invest in organizations working to create innovative

solutions to some of the world’s most intractable problems that can be applied at a broader

scale. The Foundation will continue to seek strategies to maximize impact and improve

sustainability through empowerment. Several of the projects the Skoll Foundation supports

demonstrate the indirect benefits this approach can have for climate change and agriculture

outcomes (e.g., reduced greenhouse gas emissions achieved through support to sustainable

municipal land management, or improved resilience to climate change factors achieved through

support to market and value chain development).



Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | Syngenta Foundation • November 2013 Page 31 of 48

Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture

Syngenta Foundation’s mission is to create value for

resource-poor small farmers in developing countries

through innovation in sustainable agriculture and the

activation of value chains. The Foundation works

with partners in developing countries and emerging

markets to help small farmers become more

professional growers, focusing on areas with potential

for significant agricultural expansion.

www.syngentafoundation.org


Syngenta Foundation acts as an incubator of scalable

solutions for sub-commercial smallholder farmers6 by

building partnerships and facilitating knowledge

transfer. Climate change considerations are implicit in

many of the projects the Foundation supports. The

Foundation prioritizes work based on farmers’

business needs using the frame of sustainable

intensification to guide three types of investments:

Knowledge: Focusing on agricultural services and

transfer of knowledge, including developing

improved extension programs.

Tools: Supporting progress in agricultural research and development by improving

technology and product development.

Opportunities: Promoting policy change, financial mechanisms, market development, and

thought leadership to improve the institutional environment in which farmers operate.

Syngenta Foundation explicitly supports climate change and agriculture by investing in the

World Bank BioCarbon Fund to direct more of the Fund’s resources toward agriculture.

Syngenta Foundation’s funding structure is highly partnership-based. Some examples of

successful partnerships include:

Partnership with the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and

Syngenta Corporation to develop drought tolerant maize varieties for small farms in South

6 Sub-commercial smallholder farmers are not actively engaged in selling their goods in a marketplace.

Quick Facts

Donor Type: Corporate Foundation

Founded: 2001




(2013 budget)




designated funding)



N/A (The Foundation considers the need

to empower farmers to adapt to and help

mitigate the effects of climate change as

central to any strategy of agricultural and

rural development. A key element of this

is ‘payment for environmental services’

which in turn calls for conducive policies

and project design).

http://www.syngentafoundation.org/

http://www.cimmyt.org/en/

http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/en/Pages/home.aspx

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | Syngenta Foundation • November 2013 Page 32 of 48

Asia. This project leverages CIMMYT’s phenotyping capacity and Syngenta’s genotyping

capacity to generate mutual gains from different organizational strengths.

Ag Partner XChange, a partnership with the GATD Foundation, which works to improve

global capacity for public-private partnerships that engage small-scale farmers.


Syngenta Foundation deploys funding to sustainably improve productivity in primary

production and help small farmers earn income from their crops. The Foundation emphasizes

bringing emerging technologies to a scalable point and to broadly disseminate key knowledge

useful to farmers. Public-private partnerships are a primary mechanism for Syngenta

Foundation to conduct this work. These partnerships combine the resources and capabilities

needed to address farmers' problems including those resulting from climate change. The

Foundation’s budget for 2013 is $17 million.

Geographic Emphasis

Syngenta Foundation provides funds

to develop knowledge, tools, and

opportunities for smallholders in

India, Bangladesh, Vietnam,

Indonesia, Kenya, Ethiopia, Mali,

Honduras, Brazil, and Peru.

Donor Evolution

Until recently, Syngenta Foundation

was working to develop a portfolio of proven innovations and is now moving to scale these

approaches by incubating businesses. Syngenta Foundation will continue to pursue maximizing

impacts, building capacity, and applying a business innovation lens. The Foundation’s activities

will have climate-relevant impacts by promoting technological advances to adapt to climate

change effects in specific geographies.

The Foundation will continue to invest in the BioCarbon Fund in order to identify new markets

for smallholders participating in carbon credit generation and continue to promote technologies

like no- or low-till agriculture, improved nutrient use efficiency, and seed development. The

Foundation will seek to scale its investments beyond pilot projects and pursue opportunities

like making agricultural carbon a main-stream source of regular farmer income.



http://www.apxc.org/#!home/mainPage

http://www.gatd.org/

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | USAID • November 2013 Page 33 of 48

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

United States Agency for International Development

(USAID) is the United States federal agency

responsible for administering foreign aid to support

economic, humanitarian, and development assistance.

USAID has programs across many sectors including:

agriculture and food security; democracy; human

rights; governance; economic growth and trade;

education; environment and global climate change;

gender equality and women’s empowerment; global

health science, technology and innovation; water and

sanitation; and crises and conflict resolution.

http://www.usaid.gov/


USAID administers several programs with links to

food and climate within the Bureau for Democracy,

Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, the Bureau for

Food Security, and the Bureau for Economic Growth,

Education and Environment. USAID leads two

government-wide presidential development initiatives that have a more explicit link between

climate change and agriculture.

Feed the Future: Feed the Future, the U.S. Government’s global hunger and food security

initiative, helps partner countries develop their agriculture sectors in order to spur

economic growth and trade to increase incomes and reduce hunger, poverty, and under-

nutrition. Led by USAID, Feed the Future is a whole-of-government initiative that

capitalizes on the resources and expertise of ten federal agencies. Feed the Future efforts

promote agriculture sector growth, improved nutrition, and climate-smart development.

Some Feed the Future programs include adaptation and mitigating emissions that

contribute to global climate change.

Global Climate Change Initiative: USAID is also a leader in the U.S. Government’s Global

Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) which focuses on three areas: clean energy; sustainable

landscapes; and adaptation. GCCI prioritizes agriculture work that builds resilience to the

impacts of climate change and promotes farming systems which reduce greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions and sequester carbon.

Quick Facts


Founded: 1961


and Agriculture: ~ 13 years

Total Annual USAID Funding: $21.8

billion (Total funding for USAID

managed and partially managed

accounts in FY 2012)

Percentage of USAID Funding for

Climate Change and Agriculture: 6%

in FY 2012




Sustainable intensification

http://www.usaid.gov/

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | USAID • November 2013 Page 34 of 48

Financing for Each Activity

Combined funding for Feed the Future in FY 2012 totaled $972.7 million. USAID funding for

GCCI in FY 2012 totaled $348 million.

Geographic Emphasis

Feed the Future: Bangladesh, Cambodia,

Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti,

Honduras, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali,

Mozambique, Nepal, Rwanda, Senegal,

Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia

Global Climate Change Initiative:

The Global Climate Change Initiative’s

funding focus is aligned with USAID’s

target aid regions, including Latin America, the Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa, and South and Southeast

Asia. The Initiative allocates funding for specific countries based in three focus areas: Clean Energy

programs in countries projected to significantly increase GHG emissions; Sustainable Landscapes

programs in countries with globally important forests; and Adaptation programs in least developed

countries, small island developing states, and glacier-dependent countries.

Donor Evolution

Since its founding, USAID has played a major role in combatting global hunger through food

assistance as well as agricultural development programs primarily on research and technology,

capacity building, markets and credit access. At the 2009 G8 Summit in L'Aquila, Italy,

President Obama laid the foundation for Feed the Future when he pledged to invest at least $3.5

billion over three years to enhance global agriculture and food security with several cross-

cutting areas, including gender integration and climate-smart development. This initial U.S.

commitment helped to leverage more than $18 billion from other donors. In 2012, the G8, in

partnership with African governments, established the New Alliance for Food Security and

Nutrition, which places a special emphasis on nutrition, private sector investment and policy

improvements in Sub-Saharan African countries. The U.S. contributes to the New Alliance in

part through its Feed the Future activities.

USAID first established a global climate change team in 1990 that supported a range of

agriculture-related activities including modeling and capacity building. In recent years, USAID

has renewed its focus on climate change, food security, and resilience, including the Global

Climate Change Initiative. USAID leads ongoing discussions as part of a Climate-smart

agriculture (CSA) working group, which helps design CSA capacity for USAID staff and

implementing partners. USAID also leads the U.S. government’s participation in Tropical Forest

Alliance 2020, a public-private partnership to reduce the tropical deforestation associated with

commodities such as palm oil, soy, beef, and paper and pulp.

The stars represent regions and the dots represent countries in which this

donor supports climate change and agriculture activities.

http://www.usaid.gov/climate/tfa2020

http://www.usaid.gov/climate/tfa2020

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | World Bank • November 2013 Page 35 of 48

World Bank Agriculture and Environmental Services

The World Bank provides financial and technical

assistance to developing countries. The Bank is

focused on reducing global poverty by providing

policy advice, research and analysis, and supporting

capacity development across sectors.

http://www.worldbank.org/


The World Bank supports hundreds of projects with

climate and agriculture components all over the globe.

The Bank is in the process of cataloguing activities

within the realm of crop and livestock agriculture,

forestry, and grassland management to identify which

of the three principles of climate-smart agriculture

each project delivers: 1) productivity; 2) resilience;

and 3) mitigation.

This effort will help fill existing information gaps and

assist in determining how best to structure and

operationalize ventures that capitalize on

opportunities to combine and manage tradeoffs

between these principles.


The Bank provides low-interest loans, interest-free credits, and grants

to developing countries. The Bank also facilitates financing through

trust fund partnerships with bilateral and multilateral donors that

address needs across a wide range of sectors and developing regions.

In 2012, the World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and

Development and International Development Association) lent $7.1

billion for mitigation measures and $4.6 billion for adaptation across

all sectors (e.g., energy and mining, finance, transportation). $852

million or 12% of the mitigation lending was channeled specifically to

the agriculture, fishing, and forestry sectors. $1.33 billion or 29% of

adaptation lending supported those sectors. This combined $2.2

billion of lending to support mitigation and adaptation activities for

agriculture, fishing, and forestry accounted for approximately 6.2% of

the Bank’s overall lending portfolio of $35.3 billion.

Quick Facts


Founded: 1944 (IBRD); 1960 (IDA)

Composition: The World Bank is

composed of two institutions:

The International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development

(IBRD), with 188 member

countries; and

The International Development

Association (IDA), with 172

member countries


and Agriculture: Directly, ~5 years;

indirectly since founding


(in 2012)






Other

Initiatives

93.8%

Ag and

climate

6.2%

http://www.worldbank.org/

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | World Bank • November 2013 Page 36 of 48

Geographic Emphasis

The World Bank has a global lending

portfolio for its climate and

agriculture-related activities.

Donor Evolution

The publication of the 2008 World

Development Report on Agriculture

for Development led to an explicit

Bank-wide emphasis on food security, landscapes, and policy mechanisms, including the

interplay between climate change and agricultural production.

One of the pillars of the Bank’s plan to catalyze climate action is supporting climate-smart

agriculture (CSA). The Bank plans to help build an Action Alliance that promotes the triple win

of CSA: increasing yields and income; making farms more resilient to climate change; and

reducing emissions from agricultural practices. The Bank will publish a Climate Action Plan in

early to mid-2014 that will establish an overall strategy for addressing climate change through

World Bank programming. Each sector will produce operational guidelines to align with this

strategy. The guidelines for climate and agriculture activities will be informed by the ongoing

cataloguing effort to better identify projects related to the three principles of climate-smart

agriculture.

The ellipse represents a global focus.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTWDRS/0,,contentMDK:23062293~pagePK:478093~piPK:477627~theSitePK:477624,00.html



Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | World Bank BioCarbon Fund • November 2013 Page 37 of 48

World Bank BioCarbon Fund

The World Bank BioCarbon Fund was the first carbon

fund established to focus specifically on land use. It is

a public-private sector initiative designed to mobilize

financing to help develop and implement projects that

sequester carbon in forest and agro-ecosystems. The

BioCarbon Fund pays for land-based carbon

emissions reductions mostly from projects

implemented on degraded lands in developing

countries. Its funding throughout the last decade has

helped develop infrastructure needed to pilot

transactions in a growing land-use carbon market.

https://wbcarbonfinance.org/BioCF


The BioCarbon Fund supports activities focused on

restoring degraded lands and sequestering carbon in

fuel wood production, timber production, assisted

natural regeneration, plantation installations, forest

restoration, and conserving forests through REDD+. A small portion of the BioCarbon Fund

supports agricultural activities specifically. Some afforestation and reforestation projects have

also included agriculture although the carbon crediting has been for the forest component.

Sustainable Agricultural Land Management: BioCarbon Fund supports projects that

promote the adoption of sustainable land management techniques to revive or increase the

productivity of agricultural systems. These techniques include cover cropping, crop

rotation, mulching, compost management, agroforestry, and use of organic fertilizers. The

use of these practices has increased crop yields and increased resilience to climate change on

degraded lands. The BioCarbon Fund developed the first-ever carbon accounting

methodology for Sustainable Agricultural Land Management practices.


Since its creation in 2004, the BioCarbon Fund has allocated

approximately $90 million to various land-use projects. 1.8% of this

funding has supported sustainable agricultural land management

and .6% has supported agroforestry initiatives. Agricultural-related

funding with a mitigation component comprises 2.4% of the

BioCarbon Fund’s portfolio.

There are currently six governments and public entities and 11

private companies investing in the BioCarbon Fund although not all

Quick Facts


Founded: 2004



Total Funding: $90 million over 16

years (2004-2020)





Sustainable agricultural land

management

Resilience

Mitigation

Other

Initiatives

97.6%

Ag and

Climate

2.4%

https://wbcarbonfinance.org/BioCF

Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture | World Bank BioCarbon Fund • November 2013 Page 38 of 48

of these partners have contributed to the portion of those funds that are deployed for

agricultural projects.

Geographic Emphasis

Sustainable Agricultural Land

Management: Kenya

Agroforestry: Costa Rica, Democratic

Republic of Congo

Donor Evolution

The BioCarbon Fund is building on its past successes by establishing a new tranche to

incentivize better land management at the landscape level, combining

afforestation/reforestation, REDD+, agriculture, and biomass energy activities into an integrated

approach to mitigate climate change, enhance food security, and increase the resilience of local

communities and environments at a much larger scale.

The BioCarbon Fund will continue working through its model of results-based payments using

emission reductions as a basis. The next tranche of BioCarbon Fund resources is currently being

assembled. It is expected that the share of funding devoted to supporting sustainable

agricultural land use activities will increase.



Donor Mapping | Climate Change and Agriculture • November 2013 Page 39 of 48

Donor-Identified Trends

In addition to providing insight into their own organization’s portfolios supporting climate

change and agriculture interventions, many interviewees identified emerging substantive and

funding trends they felt might be useful to share with others.

Substantive Trends

Climate Change Mainstreaming: Many donors are mainstreaming climate change across their

existing programs. By factoring climate change into project design from the outset these donors

build climate response measures into all planned interventions. Donors indicated that when

applied to agriculture projects, this mainstreaming approach fosters a better understanding of

how climate change impacts agricultural productivity and how agricultural activities contribute

to greenhouse gas emissions.

Gender Considerations: Several donors observed that gender and women’s issues are gaining

increased attention in the climate change and agriculture arena. There is growing recognition

among donors that climate change disproportionately affects women and their families and that

women are critical to implementing solutions to address climate challenges in the agricultural

sector and at the farm level. Empowering women in the agricultural sector to address the

challenges created by a changing climate is of growing interest for many donors.

Landscape and Integrated Approaches: Historically agriculture, forests, and land use changes

have been viewed, managed, and funded separately. Many of those interviewed noted an

unfolding interest in landscape scale interventions by governments, policy makers, the private

sector, donors, and other stakeholders. They observed that on-the-ground realities demand

more integrated approaches to ensure more complete implementation and to account for

successful land-use activities that currently fall through the cracks of existing policy,

management, and financing mechanisms. Interviewees indicated that there may be

opportunities to re-shape some of the rules about land-based carbon accounting, which could

facilitate the development of greater diversity in land-use projects.

High Quality Data and Access: Several donors pointed out that improved farmer access to

credible, useful, and timely agricultural and climate data could have a potentially

transformative effect on livelihoods and production. Providing smallholders with access to

weather data, basic mapping, market information, and other tools may help these farmers

mitigate risks and become more climate-friendly. Many, including private sector companies, are

generating this type of data and exploring how to make it freely or inexpensively available to

smallholder farmers and others through a variety of means including mobile and smartphone

technology.


Funding Trends

Bilateral Donors Collaborating with Multilateral Donors for Implementation: Several of those

interviewed suggested a trend of bilateral donors increasingly using multilateral donors as a

complementary implementation mechanism to directly funding climate change and agriculture

through their own programs. The rationale behind this consolidation differs across donors. For

example, some indicated that this approach provides greater opportunities for scalability while

others noted that it helps to mitigate some of the risk associated with undertaking significant,

large scale new projects.

Proliferation of New, Smaller Donors: In a parallel trend, there appears to be a growing

number of smaller donors in the climate change and agriculture funding space. Their

interventions range from acting alone to working in concert with other smaller donors, with

social venture companies, or as part of larger public-private partnerships. Some of the small

funders have been supporting innovative pilot projects that might be perceived as too small-

scale or too risky to attract funding from larger traditional donors. Some of these funders

provide startup funds to incubate projects and help connect and leverage the strengths of other

organizations working in a particular arena. There is an opportunity for these donors’ activities

to complement and inform those of larger bilateral donors and multilateral donors.

Traditional Development Assistance and Results-Based Payments: Several of those

interviewed indicated that there is an evolving understanding, appreciation, and, at times,

complimentary utilization of traditional development assistance and results-based payments.

Traditional development assistance in this context means financial aid in the form of grants

intended to support the economic, social, environmental, and political development through

specific projects or activities (i.e. programmatic funding). Results-based payments link donor

disbursements to the recipient’s achievement of mutually agreed upon and sometimes

independently verifiable results. Donors interviewed emphasized that although these are

sometimes framed as contrasting approaches, in practice there is often overlap between them

and they do not necessarily need to be conceptualized as a dichotomy. Donors frequently

employ both approaches to achieve positive changes in agriculture, forestry, land-use, and

development. Results-based payments do not always focus exclusively on the final outcome

(e.g., greenhouse gas emissions reduction). Instead, many donors are increasingly supporting

results-based financing for activities that range from institutional capacity-building to

intermediate outputs (e.g., number of trainings conducted or new technologies implemented in

a certain time period). Results-based approaches have yet to be used in the land use/agriculture

space to the extent they have been drawn upon in the other sectors (e.g., health, education,

transportation) but are attracting greater attention.


The Evolving Carbon Market: The carbon market system was initially developed by the private

sector to access carbon credits through the UNFCCC climate finance mechanism.7 These credits

were initially limited to reforestation by market rules. Deforestation, forest degradation, and

agriculture were viewed as uncertain and having limited policy, political, or technical support.

Consequently, most early work on land-based carbon was initiated in the form of pilot projects.

A few donors suggested that in the future the private sector may engage more actively as land

use accounting and policy rules are re-shaped and there may eventually be an expanded role

for carbon credits from agriculture.

Private Sector Supply Chain: National and global companies, including large commodity, food,

agriculture, and consumer goods firms that drive demand for raw materials, have begun to

review the environmental and social implications and long-term viability of their supply chains.

In some cases agricultural activities in the supply chain are drivers of deforestation. A growing

number of companies are reviewing current land practices that increase climate vulnerability of

natural and human systems associated with sourcing commodities and other inputs to their

products. Companies’ pursuit of predictable supplies that also meet policy standards and public

goals may encourage innovation in sourcing materials and the use of best practices. These

activities may complement and perhaps redirect future donor investments in this space

7 For more information about UNFCCC climate financing, see

https://unfccc.int/cooperation_support/financial_mechanism/finance_portal/items/5824.php.

https://unfccc.int/cooperation_support/financial_mechanism/finance_portal/items/5824.php


Meridian Observations

Many of the details included in the donor profiles (above) represent a shortened, but vetted,

summary using the individual donors’ own written information or a validation of Meridian’s

description based upon the interview conducted. This information has been reviewed and

revised by each donor and the reader should have confidence in its accuracy.

The following section comprises Meridian Institute’s analysis of the information shared during

interviews. It does not represent the view of any particular donor.

Donor Descriptions of Activities

Donors use a number of concepts and terms to describe the activities they support related to

climate change and agriculture (e.g., adaptation, sustainable intensification, mitigation,

resilience). Some donors do not explicitly define what particular terms or concepts mean to

them in the context of their funding strategies. This is not unusual given the interplay and

interdependencies of the complex set of issues inherent in the climate change and agriculture

space and range of scales–from the farm to policy levels. However, this lack of consistent use of

concepts can pose a challenge in matching particular terms or concepts with particular

outcomes or funding levels across donors.

For example, it appears that in some cases donors use different terms (e.g., adaptation and

resilience) interchangeably while others make a distinction between what appear to be similar,

related, or overlapping concepts. Some donors may also interpret the same term to embody a

range of diverse or differing principles or practices based on each donor’s history or

perspective. Several donors characterize the term resilience differently based on contextual

factors that are not always clearly defined (e.g., resilience in the context of sustainability at the

farmer level or resilience of an entire agricultural system to the impacts of climate change), for

example.

This different use of concepts and terms creates a challenge in understanding and conveying

each donor’s funding activities in juxtaposition with others. In addition to communication

challenges, the lack of consistent language and interpretation of concepts should cause readers

of this report should use caution when drawing comparative conclusions.

Donor Entry Points

Funders support work with implications for climate change and agriculture at international,

national, regional, community, and farm-level scales. These activities range from on-the-ground

projects to policy-level interventions across multiple sectors, spanning a variety of scopes,

focuses, and entry points.

Based on the interviews conducted, there appear to be four broad categories that characterize

different entry points donors use to fund climate change and agriculture activities. These entry


points affect the relative ease or challenge of isolating the amount of funding each donor is

committing to agriculture and climate change activities.

Direct Agriculture Support with Climate Change “Add-on”: Many donors have long-

standing programming explicitly focused on agricultural development. Some of these

donors are adding a climate change component to existing agricultural programs and

projects. In some cases the climate change “add on” is explicit and donors can easily

point to the relative increment of agricultural development support dedicated to climate.

Direct Agriculture Support with Climate Change Integrated: Other donors who have

historically funded agricultural development have integrated climate co-benefits into

existing programs and projects without explicitly accounting for the added funding

level.

Direct Climate Change and Agriculture Support: Some donors have established explicit

funding streams to support activities directly relating to climate change and agriculture.

In some cases these are new, standalone programs with independent budgets.

Indirect Climate Change and Agriculture Support: Some donors have named priorities

that are neither climate change nor agriculture (e.g., social entrepreneurship, water

quality, energy efficiency). However, some of the activities these donors support either

directly or indirectly result in positive climate change and agriculture impacts.


Donor Entry Points: The figure below demonstrates the effects of applying a climate change and agriculture lens to several examples

of funding streams with direct and indirect focus on climate and agriculture. Using this frame can improve understanding of how a

range of donor activities can result in contributions to climate change and agriculture from indirect entry points.


Geographic Areas of Focus

Each dot in the figure below corresponds to a specific country in which donors support efforts related to climate change and

agriculture. Hollow dots correspond to planned efforts. Each star corresponds to a general region where work is underway. These

regions include Central America, Caribbean, North America, South Asia, Southeast Asia/Oceania, East Asia, East, West, Southern

Africa, and, where indicated by donors, the entire African continent.

This map does not represent every project that each donor is funding, but provides an overview of the general regions where

each donor’s activities are focused, and some specific countries where indicated by donors.

AfDB

BioCF

CDKN

CLUA

DFATD

DFID

Ford

IDB

IFAD

McKnight

Moore

Packard

Rockefeller

USAID

Skoll

Syngenta

World Bank

Donors with globally -

oriented strategies


View of Partnerships

During the course of the project the team discovered that many of the donors interviewed use

the term partners in very different ways. Some refer to grantees or country recipients of

sustained funding as partners, while others use the term primarily to describe co-funders (e.g.,

other philanthropies and other bi-laterals) who can amplify the effects of investments. Some

donors (e.g., CLUA) utilize formal coordinated grant making strategies to align funding, while

others form ad hoc alliances to address specific needs.

The growing prevalence of public-private partnerships, impact investing,8 and other multi-

institutional funding approaches will further the diversification and evolution of donor

partnerships. The formation of targeted alliances that leverage the individual strengths of

donors in concert with others may increase donor flexibility and help improve positive impacts

of funding for climate change and agriculture.

Throughout the interviews several donors pointed to existing networks and alliances of donors

that are emerging in the climate change and agriculture space. This list, while not exhaustive,

may serve as a reference point for others interested in learning more about information sharing

and coordinated approaches to grantmaking.

Existing Donor Networks

Sustainable Agriculture & Food Systems Funders (SAFSF): SAFSF is an international network of

84 donors that works to foster communication, shared learning, and information exchange

about issues connected to sustainable agriculture and food systems.

Climate and Energy Funders (part of Consultative Group on Biological Diversity): The Mission

of the Climate and Energy Funders Group is to expand the field of climate and energy

philanthropy, and to promote collaborative, strategic grant making among its members.

European Environmental Funders Group (EEFG): The EEFG is a network of European

foundations active in the fields of environment, sustainable development and climate change. It

provides a platform for learning, networking and the identification of synergies with a view to

developing common activities.

Global Donor Platform for Rural Development: The Global Donor Platform for Rural

Development is a network of 34 bilateral and multilateral donors, international financing

institutions, intergovernmental organizations and development agencies. Members share a

common vision that agriculture and rural development is central to poverty reduction, and a

conviction that sustainable and efficient development requires a coordinated global approach.

8 See footnote 2 above.

http://www.safsf.org/

https://cgbd.org/about/our-programs/climate-and-energy-funders-group

http://www.efc.be/programmes_services/thematic-networks/environment/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.donorplatform.org/


Possible Areas for Future Exploration

Over the course of this effort, many interviewees suggested that further mapping could be

useful since so much of the relevant donor landscape remains unexplored. They cited the

potential benefits of better understanding what other donors are doing to calibrate their own

strategies and to identify opportunities for greater impact through potential coordination or

collaboration. While the donor profiles included in this report provide an overview of some

donors’ activities, funding levels, geographic focus, and evolution over time, a further

assessment could delve more deeply into the complexities of these donors’ and others’

approaches.

Several areas of possible further exploration were identified:

A more complete characterization of donors and investors in the climate change and

agriculture space:

o Broader group of donors and donor types: In the last decade, the climate change

and agriculture donor arena has diversified and now increasingly includes: aid

from emerging-economies; public-private partnerships; social ventures in

research; and impact-investors. Donors and implementers would benefit from a

more comprehensive understanding of these new actors to inform their activities

and identify potential traditional and non-traditional partners. Additionally, a

more comprehensive donor mapping effort could include a larger group of

“traditional” donors—bilateral donors, multilateral donors, and philanthropies.

o Deeper analysis of donor activities: Donors and implementers would benefit

from a more in-depth analysis of donor activities. This could include the

application of more rigorous quantitative and qualitative methodologies to

inform a more sophisticated and complete overview as well as an analysis

pinpointing critical gaps.

Meta-funding trends:

o Complementarity between consolidation collaboration of bilateral donors &

proliferation of smaller donors: Further assessment could explore the nature and

impacts of the parallel funding trends of bilateral donors increasingly pooling

their funds into larger multilateral institutions for implementation and smaller

donors supporting the development and pilot testing of innovative agriculture

practices often coinciding with innovative funding and investment approaches.

Exploring these trends in more depth could help identify how these groups of

donors might complement and build on each other’s work and bring new

information to bear on addressing climate change and agriculture as well as

mechanisms to pilot activities and take them to scale.

o Movement toward landscape approaches: A diverse set of donors is increasingly

considering integrated or landscape approaches in their funding and investment

activities related to agriculture, deforestation, and land use change. Improved


understanding of this trend could yield valuable insights about how to pursue

this approach in the policy context and on the ground.

Better understanding of co-benefits: During the interview process, the Meridian team

learned that while some donors focus the entry point of their programming on a

particular concept (e.g., adaptation) it may be possible to integrate co-benefits (e.g.

mitigation, livelihood improvements, increased resilience) into overall project design

and accounting. Since climate change benefits and activities are often interrelated there

may be opportunities to understand and measure co-benefits that result from donor

funding even if these benefits are not overtly referenced. Identifying strategies to

catalogue these relationships could prove helpful as donors continue to mainstream

climate change factors into their overall funding portfolios and apply integrated,

multisectoral lens to their grant-making strategies.

This project was undertaken and supported with the understanding that as a first effort, this

assessment is by definition an incomplete overview landscape of donors supporting agriculture

and climate change activities around the world. The purpose of this assessment was to uncover

useful trends, provide enough information to motivate further investigation, and offer even

modest insight into the status of the current funding landscape that might inform further

inquiry. This report: described the primary substantive and funding trends of seventeen donors;

summarized how each donor described their activities, emphases, and approach to funding

climate change and agriculture activities; and identified key trends and information gaps

associated with this funding space. We hope this report helps the participating donors and

implementing partners learn about approaches others are taking, elicits questions about these

approaches, provides insight into the evolution of donor’s approaches, and motivates others to

engage in this critical area of work.

Report Authors and Contact Information

Meridian Institute would like to once again thank the donors who participated in this

assessment and The Rockefeller Foundation for its support of this undertaking.

With any questions regarding this assessment, please contact:

Michael Lesnick, Ph.D. Kristy Buckley Robyn Paulekas Selena Elmer

Senior Partner Senior Mediator Mediator Project Associate

Meridian Institute & Program Manager & Program Associate & Fellow

+1-202-256-5900 Meridian Institute Meridian Institute Meridian Institute

[email protected] +1-202-701-0956 +1-970-513-8340 x 235 +1-202-354-6445

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




Donor Mapping: Climate Change and Agriculture Activities

Documents