Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP ... · Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments IFAD Technical Report Keyword: Evaluation, Economic
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments
The opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent
those of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The designations employed
and the presentation of material in this article do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of IFAD concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or
of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
This publication or any part thereof may be reproduced without prior permission from IFAD,
provided that the publication or extract therefrom reproduced is attributed to IFAD and the title of
this publication is stated in any publication and that a copy thereof is sent to IFAD.
1 OpenEconomics - Independent Consultant- corresponding author [email protected] 2 IFAD - Economic and Financial Analysis Specialist 3 Stockholm Environment Institute (Associate) - Junior Researcher
Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments
- 1 -
Abbreviations
ASAP Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme
BCR Benefit-cost ratio
BT Benefit Transfer
CC Climate Change
CV Contingent Valuation
DfID Department for International Development
ECD Environment and Climate Change Division
EFA Economic and Financial Analysis
EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return
EV Environmental Valuation
GDP Gross Domestic Product
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
NPV Net Present Value
ODI Overseas Development Institute
PDR Project Design Report
PTA Policy and Technical Advisory Division
VfM Value for Money
Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments
- 2 -
Abstract
In the process of gathering numerical evidences about the economic, social and environmental
benefits induced by the Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP), this work
proposes a technical and empirical review of 32 approved projects under the ASAP. Results are
integrated in the light of data gaps emerged from the original database, especially regarding the
assessment of environmental benefits.
ASAP financing guarantees an average return of $1.77 per dollar invested. Supporting evidences
came also from the analysis of the Economic Internal Rates of Return (EIRR), which reveals that
mean EIRR in each of the IFAD regions ranges between 15% and 35%. At global level, the analysis
suggests that climate change adaptation strategies contribute to GDP growth for about 22% of the
GDP total value that translates in a yearly growth by 1.2%. Expected outcomes vis-à-vis pre-
identified risks and climate variability measured running a Monte Carlo simulations are proved to
remain positive in most of the countries, with few exceptions were climate variability has bigger
effect on final results.
The conclusive part of this study suggests an extension in the scope of the analysis through minor
investments in primary data collection to validate and consolidate technical and empirical reviews.
Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments
- 3 -
Introduction
Since the inception of the Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP) in
September 2012, a total of 36 ASAP-supported projects were approved by the IFAD Executive
Board, committing 100% of its approved finance on supporting the adaptation of poor smallholder
farmers to climate change4 (CC). Currently 15 of these projects have been implemented, disbursing
their first batches of financing and delivering intermediate results5.
An external Progress Review by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI)6 to evaluate the status
of ASAP found that ASAP’s impact has been strong in two areas. Firstly, the internal policy and
project design process within IFAD raised awareness and provided the basis for thorough
mainstreaming of climate change and a more structured approach to integrate the concept of
'resilience' in IFAD investment designs. Secondly, ASAP has created a strong internationally-
recognised brand on climate adaptation for rural smallholder farmers, combining IFAD’s existing
credibility on agriculture with strategic partnerships involving international institutions leading on
climate change in this field.
IFAD and DfID in the UK are now interested to gathering numerical evidences about the economic,
social and environmental benefits leveraged via ASAP projects. While data and partial assessments
are already available in individual project Economic and Financial Analysis (EFA), there seems to
be a lack in reporting expected returns per US dollar spent from the ASAP while providing an
overview of the benefits at country and regional level.
This work proposes, therefore, a review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported
investments. This study makes use of the larger sample of ASAP-supported projects, so as to gather
evidences about the quantifiable economic returns and the value for money of the ASAP
programme at a broader global scale. The study also attempts to shed lights on the net incremental
benefits generated at farm/household level, so as on the indirect benefits imputable to ASAP at
different scales (job creation, impact on GDP, second-tier effects). Final results will be then tested
via sensitivity and risk analysis, in order to account for the long-term global outlook on CC.
The approach can be described in five steps as follows:
4 Norman (2015) Food and livelihoods in a changing climate: the role of climate finance for agriculture. 5 Laganda (2016) ASAP Quarterly Newsletter - April 2016. 6 ODI (2015) Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP) - Progress Review.
Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments
- 4 -
I. Formalisation of theoretical concepts. The team identifies and, subsequently, categorises the
socio-economic and environmental benefits pertaining the study database. The screening
criteria to filter the starting sample into smaller samples of ASAP projects are described in
the next chapter.
II. Preliminary review of benefits and costs. Using project design reports and EFA annexes, the
team will extract necessary context information and data to encode (i.e. to collect and store)
costs and benefit details for the initial study sample of the ASAP projects so far approved
into a comprehensive database. A preliminary analysis of those benefits and costs will
measure: i) the value for money of ASAP investments; ii) economic returns on 1 USD dollar
spent on ASAP; iii) macroeconomic impacts and indirect effects of climate change
adaptation strategies; iv) expected outcomes vis-à-vis pre-identified risks and climate
variability.
III. Integrated benefits appraisal. In order to integrate likely data gaps - especially on the
monetary evaluation of environmental benefits - the team will apply Benefit Transfer
technique for a selected number of ASAP project (sample II);
IV. Comprehensive and reviewed benefits appraisal. A mini-Systematic review is performed to
complement benefits data gaps using the most appropriate techniques and values to be
applied for such evaluation.
Figure 1: Diagram of the study
Formalisation of theoretical
concepts
Main Database
(sample I) Preliminary
data analysis
Systematic review
Data collection (EFA documents)
Sub-sample
(sample II)
Reviewed
expected benefits
analysis
Initial expected
benefits appraisal
Zero draft
VS.
I
II
Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments
- 5 -
This report will collect and present all the findings developed throughout the above-depicted
activities, describing the review exercise undertaken and presenting the economic and livelihood
benefits achieved through ASAP-supported investments in the considered samples.
Chapter 1: Formalisation of theoretical concepts
Prior to collecting data and the analysis of this work, it is necessary to clarify some of the
terminology and the methodology that is going to be used in this work.
Firstly, we need to explain what do we mean by “socio-economic” and “environmental” benefits.
The former consists in the impacts that a rural development project has on community, social and
economic well-being, which can be expressed not only in quantitative7 but also qualitative terms8.
The latter consists of positive or mitigating consequences that result from the implementation of
activities within each component of the IFAD projects. Similarly to socio-economic benefits, also
environmental benefits can be usually observed at design stage but are seldom reported or
quantified in monetary terms.
To this purpose, this work will attempt to provide a more accurate estimation of the benefits
deriving from ASAP-supported investment, integrating the existing data gap on socio-economic and
environmental benefits emerged after a preliminary review of projects implemented with an ASAP
component. The focus is specifically on the quantification of environmental benefits sometimes re-
assessed using the most appropriate techniques and tools, so as to provide an economic value to
environmental amenities also called Environmental Valuation9.
Finally, it is worth noting that the information collected to undertake the review of ASAP-supported
projects was gathered by analysing the Project Design Documents (PDRs) in their final version, as
well as annexes, Working Papers and EFA calculation spreadsheets of each programme. In case of
discrepancies and heterogeneous values across different versions of documents, preference has been
given to the latest version of the PDR that has been approved for implementation.
7 Edwards (2000) provides as examples changes in community demographics, housing, employment and income,
market effects, public services, and aesthetic qualities of the community. Other examples in Zeppel (2006), Feldmann
(2005), IFAD (2012). 8 In the documentation that we consulted for this work, also the words ‘quantifiable’ and ‘unquantifiable’ are also used
to indicate these two concepts. 9 Environmental Evaluation of a programme or a project corresponds to the process of estimating and evaluating short-
term and long-term impacts at a significant scale on the environment where the project is implemented. This differs
from the concept of Environmental Valuation used in this work which is the process of allocating on environmental
goods and services a monetary value due to a lack of easily observable market prices (Dixon, 2008).
Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments
- 6 -
Description of samples
Sample I
The starting sample (Sample I) is formed by ASAP-supported projects that have been approved
and/or implemented within the last six years (2010-2015). The lack of data for four ASAP-
supported projects have reduced the initial sample size of 36 projects to 3210. Using PDRs and EFA
annexes, the team extracted necessary context information and data to encode (i.e. to collect and
store) into a comprehensive database that constitutes Sample I. This database collects socio-
economic and environmental benefits assessed at the design stage on a yearly basis and per
component discounted to the 2015 USD value; both for the project and for the ASAP financed part
of the project.
As per its mandate, IFAD operates in the rural areas of low-income countries, engaging with
farmers living in very different environmental, socioeconomic and cultural contexts. Jointly with
the ASAP, IFAD has intervened in the following regions: Asia and the Pacific (APR), East and
Southern Africa (ESA), Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), Near East and North Africa
(NEN), and West Central Africa (WCA). In the stratification of the projects sample used for this
work, we preserved this geographical diversity also to allow any conclusion to not being distorted
by possible regional peculiarities (countries in green - Figure 2).
Figure 2: Geographical distribution of projects and programmes approved with ASAP component
10 See Annex I for the full list of projects with title, as well as country and region of the intervention.
Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments
- 7 -
Despite on average each region is represented equally, Table 1 and Figure 3 show that the highest
number of projects are implemented in the ESA and WCA region (25%), while NEN region follows
with 19% and finally APR and LAC region (16%)11.
Figure 3: Percentage of the geographic distribution of the IFAD/ASAP-supported investments
included in sample I
Similarly, the distribution of ASAP financial allocation in projects reviewed ranges from $32.1
million (13%) of the LAC region to the $63.9 million (26%) of the WCA region, as shown in the
table below.
Table 1: Financial contribution by region (2010 - 2015) - Sample I
Region Total contribution of projects with
ASAP component (2015 USD)
ASAP financial allocation in projects
reviewed (2015 USD)
APR $189,958,728 $52,016,121
ESA $632,346,000 $61,831,425
NEN $327,781,783 $34,999,520
WCA $615,990,900 $63,943,750
LAC $175,503,341 $32,128,823
Total $1,941,580,752 $244,919,639
We have also collected information regarding the number of smallholders directly impacted by
projects activities that have an ASAP component, and number of people who directly benefit of
project activities. ASAP-supported investments have benefitted more than 8.5 million people, with
11 The exact figures are WCA and ESA 25.0%, NEN 18.8% and 15.6% for LAC and APR regions. Rounding of values
explains the slight discrepancy in percentages of Figure 3.
Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments
- 8 -
almost three million beneficiaries in the WCA region, and more than 1.4 million in the ESA, APR
and NEN regions; while about six per cent of the direct beneficiaries in the LAC region (Table 2).
Table 2: Beneficiaries by region (2010 - 2015) - Sample I
Region Smallholders directly impacted
by project activities Direct beneficiaries of projects
APR 468 695 1 600 300
ESA 376 450 1 987 834
NEN 271 400 1 486 900
WCA 496 007 2 980 962
LAC 120 300 477 200
Total 1 732 852 8 533 194
In terms of projects’ implementation, it is interesting to note that 91 % of them have an
implementation period between five to seven years. As many as 41 % have a seven years
implementation period and no one is above nine years. The total life period considered in projects’
EFAs is usually ten or twenty years. In our samples 78% has a 20-year term, while 13% of only ten
years. Only three per cent of the projects is analysed with a time horizon of 30 years.
Sample II
As explained in the introductory chapter, for a selected number of ASAP projects (Sample II) the
team undertook an Environmental Valuation exercise in order to assess missing benefits. In
reviewing the calculation of benefits sourced in the final design reports and EFA annexes, we have
identified a pool of potential candidates to constitute Sample II. Based on project selection criteria,
a total of ten projects are filtered out to form Sample II. Similarly to Sample I, the geographical
representation is equally distributed across IFAD regions. Two countries per each working region
have been selected to be part of the sample. The full list of these projects is available in Annex II.
Table 3: Financial contribution by region (2010 - 2015) - Sample II
Region Total contribution of projects with
ASAP component (2015 USD)
ASAP financial allocation in projects
reviewed (2015 USD)
APR $56,496,200 $19,999,000
ESA $181,000,000 $16,000,000
NEN $52,839,444 $15,995,520
WCA $174,900,000 $16,994,750
LAC $82,678,000 $18,000,108
Total $547,913,444 $86,989,378
Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments
- 9 -
Table 4: Beneficiaries by region (2010 - 2015) - Sample II
Region Smallholders directly impacted
by project activities
Direct beneficiaries of projects
APR 157 700 630 000
ESA 157 000 942 000
NEN 110 300 755 300
WCA 149 000 783 000
LAC 72 000 344 000
Total 644 000 3 454 300
Chapter 2: Preliminary review of benefits and costs
The results of the analysis conducted using Sample I database are presented in the following
sections. Firstly, we comment on the Value for Money (VfM) of the ASAP-supported investments
through the appraisal of benefit-cost ratios (BCR), Net Present Values (NPV) and Economic
Internal Rate of Return (EIRR). It follows an investigation about the macroeconomic impacts and
indirect effects of climate change adaptation strategies. A sensitivity analysis on expected outcomes
vis-à-vis pre-identified risks and climate variability concludes the preliminary review.
2.1. Value for money on ASAP-supported investments
Four elements can define the VfM of an investment: Economy, Efficiency, Effectiveness and
Equity. Economy implicates that inputs are at sufficient quality and appropriate cost. ‘How well’
inputs are converted into outputs is the efficiency; while effectiveness relates to ‘how well’ outputs
achieve a desired outcome (Barr and Christie, 2015; Jayasuriya, 2013). Many development agencies
and organisation include some or all of these elements in their definition in applying the VfM
concept to their work. Under this work, the DfID approach to VfM is adopted. Based on the first
three Es, but with the need to include Equity considerations throughout, VfM is “about maximising
the impact of each £ spent to improve poor people’s lives” (DfID, 2011 - pp. 2).
2.1.1. Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR)
A first method identified to evaluate VfM of ASAP contribution, applying DfID definition, is the
BCR of ASAP-supported investments. BCR is a synthetic evaluation criterion of the acceptability
Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments
- 10 -
and - under specific and limited circumstances - preferability of a project12. The indicator is
calculated as the ratio of project benefits over project costs13. According to this criterion, a project is
worth the investment when BCR is greater than one.
This ratio owns some operational advantages and disadvantages to be taken into consideration.
Indeed, its application has a relevant inconvenience due to the high sensitivity of results to the cost
and benefit values included in the assessment of the ratio and it cannot be used as for the ranking of
projects. On a brighter note though, it would provide an initial idea about project feasibility and a
robust proxy measure of the returns generated by each dollar invested in the project. Hence, this
indicator is used so as to determine value contribution of ASAP component to the overall project
value.
Results of the BCR analysis are presented in Figure 4. As shown in the leftward box-plot, for a
dollar spent in a project or programme that has an ASAP component, expected benefits will be
$1.59 and on average equals to $2.06; with a minimum BCR of $ 1.05, and maximum of $ 6.53 and
$ 6.49. Therefore, for every dollar invested in IFAD programmes, a net worth of $ 0.59 to $ 1.06
on average is generated and redistributed to project beneficiaries. Two of the ratios above 6.0
dollars – respectively calculated in the Bolivia14 and Nicaragua15 project - were considered outlier
and therefore excluded by the box plot16. On the right side of the graph, the BCR for each ASAP
component are represented as single entries as well as grouped in the box plot.
For ASAP alone, the median and average values are equal to $ 1.76 and $ 2.26 respectively, with
minimum value being $ 1.05 and maximum $ 7.21. The latter – as in the previous case – has been
considered as extreme value. The BCR review of the 32 ASAP-supported investments suggests
that investments are worth the costs and ASAP components slightly outperform the overall
investment in terms of worth generation and redistribution capacity.
12 See Hanley (1993) for more information. 13 This indicator should be calculated using the present values of both benefits and costs, discounted at an appropriate
discount rate. This indicator should be used jointly with others as, when used alone, it may give incorrect ranking
among independent projects and cannot be used for choosing among mutually exclusive alternatives. 14 ACCESSOS programme 15 Adapting to Markets and Climate Change Programme 16 Standard Deviation = 1.28; Variance = 1.64; Standard Error = 0.23.
Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments
- 11 -
Figure 4: BCR for Sample I17
As already partially emerged in the description of results, the aggregation of BCR does not come
without bias, such as the geographical distribution and the nature of values considered for the
analysis. Indeed, the assessment of benefits, especially the environmental ones, does not apply a
standardised methodology across the several programmes hence the comparison across
programmes, countries and regions could not be considered as technically valid. This is partially the
explanation of the existence of extreme values, which can also be explained with the challenge in
monetising those ASAP-related impacts such as capacity building, inclusion of climate change
adaptation strategies in the local and national institutions where the projects and programmes are
implemented, the increased awareness of climate change impacts on local communities, etc.
However, this exercise allowed us to conclude that ASAP components are expected to provide
benefits up to seven times the amount of costs, with the majority of those (first to third quartile)
ranging from $1.44 to $2.63 with an average BCR of $2.26. For every dollar spent in ASAP
actions, the net worth redistributed to each project beneficiary ranges from $ 0.44 to $ 1.63.
Figure 5: BCR for ASAP components (yellow) and BCR for overall programmes (green)
17 Distribution of all points is shown on the left, while right hand scatter plot does not include extreme points.
Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments
- 12 -
A regional representation of results, such as in Figure 6, provides a more detailed overview of the
VfM that each area of intervention can offer. Using as reference the ratios presented in the previous
figure, this chart denotes the same results
but with a regional view.
The LAC region in green shows values
that span from a BCR of $1.45 in the
Ecuador ASAP component to the $7.21 in
Nicaragua. The region in blue (NEN)
collects ratios between the $1.32 of
Djibouti to the Morocco’s project $2.27.
In the bottom left of the chart, the WCA
regional ratios are collected with figures
stretching from the Ivory Coast $1.25 to
the $4.14 of Liberia. The APR region is
represented in the bottom centre of the
chart with the BCR of the analysed countries scoping from $1.47 in Nepal to the $4.59 observed in
Cambodia. Finally, in the right-corner Rwanda $1.05 and Tanzanian $3.68 tidemark the BCRs of
the ESA region.
2.1.2. Net Present Value
Another key indicator for the assessment of the VfM of the ASAP-supported investments consists
of the Net Present Value (NPV) of socio-economic and environmental benefits, net of the project or
programme economic costs. The NPV is a profitability indicator, which synthesizes the net project
worth generated once all operating inputs and production factors have been repaid. The project
would be worth the investment when the NPV is greater than zero.
Similarly to the previous section, Figure 7 shows in a box-plot the range of values that characterises
the sample of 32 projects that include an ASAP component.
Figure 6: BCR for ASAP components divided by regions
Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments
- 13 -
Figure 7: Box plot with NPV of ASAP benefits and costs in 2015 USD18
The average NPV of the benefits in the sample is of $ 12.7 million with first and third quartile equal
to $ 5.7 million and $ 16.1 million. These values are higher than what shown on the right side box
plot collecting the NPV of ASAP component’s costs that averages to $ 5.9 million, with first and
third quartile being equal to $ 3.3 and $ 6.2 million respectively. In other words, ASAP components
completely offset their costs and still contribute to value generation for about $ 6.8 million on
average.
2.2. Economic returns on ASAP-supported investments
Another profitability indicator used to measure project worth is the Economic Internal Rate of
Return (EIRR). Typically the internal rate of return is the interest rate (or opportunity cost of
capital) that would reduce to zero the net cash flows of the project. A project is worth the
investment when its EIRR is greater than the cost of capital.
Figure 8 shows the results in terms of EIRR re-calculated in our sample I. These results are based
on a new elaboration of original EFA using a standard base year (2015) for all projects. In 25% of
the cases the EIRR is three times greater than the discount rate. These results also depend on the
inclusion in the ASAP activities of all, or most, project beneficiaries.
18 Distribution of all points is shown on the left, while right hand scatter plot does not include extreme points.
Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments
- 14 -
Figure 8: EIRR for countries with ASAP component against the average discount rate (10%)19
Aggregating projects by the main five regions where IFAD operates, the EIRR values obtained are
always higher than the average value of the discount rate equals to 10%20 (Figure 9).
Figure 9: EIRR average values by region
19 Benin not included. 20 Discount rates used in the analysis ranged between 4.3% and 12.7%
Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments
- 15 -
ESA and APR regions present the best average results, having EIRR values greater than 30%. The
lowest aggregate result is observed in the NEN region; however this remains well above the
discount rate threshold.
2.3. Macroeconomic impacts and indirect effects of climate change adaptation strategies
To measure programmes impacts on a larger scale, and to frame their effects within the
macroeconomic context of the several countries under analysis, we have also analysed the ratio
between costs and benefits in relation to the changes in the GDP of the area of intervention
following the implementation of such ASAP-supported actions. The rationale of such assessment
stands in the fact that countries with ASAP-supported interventions are enlisted in the second half
of the World ranking in terms of GDP per-capita; with eight out of the thirty-two countries21
actually positioned in the last percentile of the GDP ranking22. In particular, Ecuador can be
considered as the wealthiest country within the sample in terms of per-capita GDP ranking 101th,
while Malawi is positioned at the bottom (ranked 190th).
The value of GDP in the programme area has been estimated as the per-capita GDP23 multiplied by
the number of direct beneficiaries for the project. This value is compared against project economic
costs actualised to 2015 USD amounts, ASAP economic costs and the socio-economic benefits
(further split into Socio-economic benefits, ASAP socio-economic benefits and Total Benefits).
Only eight projects out of the entire sample have included environmental benefits in the analysis
and those few have been attributed to ASAP programme.
Figure 10 depicts the contribution of each cost/benefit category to the regional GDP. The latter has
been computed taking into consideration rural livelihoods and poverty aspects of IFAD’s target
groups. Final results represent aggregate figures to be considered over the lifetime of the investment
(i.e. 15-20 years).
The assessment proves IFAD programme to induce changes at macroeconomic level, therefore
contributing to GDP growth in all five regions. Total effects tend to be more pronounced in the
WCA region where yet a larger envelope has been invested over the last five years. Less
pronounced effects – yet positive – are witness in the APR region where total investments costs
have been reasonably lower than elsewhere. Nonetheless, investment net contribution to GDP
growth ranges between 25% and 48%, reaching up a net yearly contribution of 1.2% - 2.4%. As for
the impacts attributable to ASAP, the APR region shows a higher leverage capacity with respect to
Ivory Coast WCA Projet d'Appui à la Production Agricole et à la commercialisation (PROPACOM) +
PROPACOM Extension Ouest
Implementation
Kenya ESA Climate Resilient Agricultural Livelihoods Programme (KCEP-CRAL) -> KCALP Implementation
Kyrgyzstan NEN Livestock and Market Development Programme II Implementation
Laos APR Adaptation to Climate Change in Southern Laos (ACCSL) Implementation
Lesotho ESA Wool and Mohair Production Project (WAMPP) Implementation
Liberia WCA Tree Crop Extension Project (TCEP) Approved
Madagascar ESA Project to Support Development in the Menabe and Melaky Regions - AD2M-Phase II Implementation
Malawi ESA Programme for Rural Irrigation Development (PRIDE) Approved
Morocco NEN Programme de Developpement Rural des Zones de Montagne (PDRZM) Implementation
Mozambique ESA Pro-Poor Value Chain Development Project in the Maputo and Limpopo Corridors (PROSUL)
Implementation
Nepal APR Adaptation for Smallholders in the Hilly Areas (ASHA) Implementation
Nicaragua LAC Adapting to changing markets and the effects of climate change Implementation
Niger WCA Programme de Promotion de l'Agriculture Familiale dans les régions de Maradi,
Tahoua et Zinder (PRODAF)
Implementation
Nigeria WCA Climate Change Adaptation and Agribusiness Support Programme (CASP) Implementation
30 As of December 2015
Review of economic and livelihood benefits for ASAP-supported investments
- 37 -
Paraguay LAC Project for Family and Indigenous Production Approved
Rwanda ESA Post-harvest and Agribusiness Support Project (PASP)
Implementation
Sudan NEN Livestock Marketing and Resilience Programme Implementation
Tajikistan NEN Livestock and Pasture Development II (LPDP II) Approved
Tanzania ESA Bagamoyo Sugar Outgrower and Community Development Programme (BSIASCDP) Approved
Uganda ESA Programme for the Restoration of Livelihoods in the Northern Region (PRELNOR) Implementation
Viet Nam APR Adaptation to Climate Change in the Mekong River Delta Region (AMD) Implementation
Annex II: ASAP-supported investments for Sample II
The following 10 countries were selected for Sample II
Country Region Environmental benefits estimated
Bolivia LAC (i) Implementation of activities specifically related to CC adaptation such as soil conservation / water
savings that improve agricultural production locally. (ii) Harvest loss reduction of loss due to climatic natural disasters through EWS (iii) reduction in the fuelwood consumption by households
Djibouti NEN Preservation of biodiversity especially marine species
Ghana WCA Economic value of more efficient water use in water management schemes, also in commercial value
chains
Ivory Coast WCA (i) Reforestation; (ii) Adapting cultivation techniques to soil degradation levels
Kenya ESA Environmental protection due to soil, water and environment conservation technologies
Kyrgyzstan NEN (i) Increased area of land saved and land reclaimed; (ii) Increased value of nutrient recovery in the soil;
and (iii) increased moisture availability, water infiltration and improved water quality in pastures through
water supply and water harvesting structures.
Laos APR Introducing updated methods and technologies (mainly water management and irrigation) that will
upgrade the basis for environmental-friendly and climate-oriented production.
Madagascar ESA Water savings from the irrigation schemes: (i) realize new potential areas in irrigated areas, (ii)
rehabilitation of existing schemes to restore or improve and expand the water control, and (iii) develop perimeters spate (PEC: Périmètre d'épandage de crues)
Nepal APR (i) Watershed development to agricultural development (ii) intensification of terrace risers and bunds with forage plantations minimize surface runoff and soil erosion; (iii) Collection of animal manure urine and its
utilization for crop production and in the preparation of bio-pesticides will minimize GHG emissions
Nicaragua LAC Environmental impact in economic terms of using sustainable agricultural techniques, such as the use of