CASE STUDY | JUNE 2018

PROMOTING CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE IN NEPAL Building Climate Change Resilient Communities through Private Sector Participation Table of contents

COUNTRY AND REGION Nepal, South Asia In Brief 4 PROJECT TOTAL COST1 Executive summary 5 CIF-PPCR: 2,000,000 USD Introduction 7 IFC: 290,000 USD CCCP: 200,000 USD Context 8 PROJECT DURATION Tracing the implementation process 11 2013–2019 PROJECT DATA ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT Contributions and limits of the restructuring 22 PARTNER ORGANIZATION • Enhanced food security through farmers and agri- Lessons learned 24 International Finance Corporation supply chain members adopting climate resilient ORGANIZATION TYPE agriculture Annex A: Project implementation timeline 26 International organization • Reduced vulnerability of farmers to impacts of Annex B: People interviewed for case study 27 DELIVERY CHALLENGES climate change i) Using a standardized approach for diverse • Increased availability of finance to farmers and Annex C: Stakeholders’ map 28 commodities agri-supply chain members Annex D: References and bibliography 29 ii) Lack of well-defined support, in terms of knowledge and inputs CONTACT iii) Non-optimal solutions in some work streams CASE AUTHOR DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE Jon GARCIA, Groupe-conseil Baastel Climate change resilience and increased agricultural PROJECT EXPERTS (IFC) productivity through private sector participation Harsh VIVEK, Akira DHAKWA This case study was financed by the Climate Investment Funds (CIF), and prepared by Jon Garcia from Baastel. A number of people contributed to the preparation of this case study. The author is grateful to Harsh Vivek and Akira Dhakwa and their respective teams for sharing their knowledge and experience coordinating this project. The author is also grateful 1 This funding amount covers all three projects of the Building Climate Change Resilient Communities through Private for the valuable contributions provided by Emmanuel Kouadio, Sandra Romboli and Rocio Sanz Cortes from the CIF. Sector Participation Program, which focuses on agriculture, infrastructure (hydropower stations), and housing. This case Support from the World Bank’s Science of Delivery team was essential to ensure the final quality of the case study and study focuses on the agriculture project: Promoting Climate Resilient Agriculture Project. prepare it for publication. In particular, Jacob Bathanti provided extensive input and guidance on the case study Cover Photo: ©CIF Photo: Cover PROMOTING CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE IN NEPAL

Himalayan foothills. The project focuses on three Executive crops: sugarcane, maize, and rice.

summary DELIVERY CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS The project faced several challenges, including expectations set in the SPCR itself, and during project delivery with respect to: i) Using a standardized approach for diverse commodities, ii) Nepal is one of the world’s most climate vulnerable lack of well-defined support, in terms of knowledge countries due to its harsh geography, largely poor and inputs, and iii) non-optimal solutions in some and resource-dependent population, and weak work streams. A study of these challenges and institutional capacity to manage challenges. Its how they were addressed can help improve future agriculture sector, which employs over two-thirds project and program design and implementation. of the labor force and contributes to roughly one- third of the country’s GDP, is particularly vulnerable, While some of these challenges were addressed

©CIF affecting both farmers and agribusinesses. Nepal in 2015, a more substantive restructuring of the In Brief aims to expand agricultural adaptation measures project was carried out from 2016 to 2017. This to manage current climate change and prepare included i) introducing additional crops to seasonal for future impacts, but significant barriers prevent crop rotation and having a more crop-specific focus, private investment, including a lack of information, ii) adopting a more comprehensive approach to knowledge, and inputs (water, seeds, fertilizers, support provided, iii) finding more suitable solutions DEVELOPMENT SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE machinery, and finance) and weak commercialization in certain workstreams. Nepal is one of the world’s most climate To address these challenges, the “Promoting (storage, processing and transportation). vulnerable countries due to its harsh Climate Resilient Agriculture Project” aims The restructuring was a complex process that took two geography, largely poor and resource- at “enhancing agricultural productivity To address this and other climate change years to complete. IFC leadership adopted a flexible dependent population, and weak institutional contributing to food security through capacity vulnerabilities, Nepal developed a Strategic Program and forward-thinking approach to ensure identified capacity to manage challenges. Climate building of farmers and agricultural supply for Climate Resilience (SPCR) under the Pilot delivery challenges were addressed and emerging change is a defining challenge, with impacts to chain members and facilitating better access Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR), a dedicated opportunities were considered, such as channeling agriculture being especially acute. Nepal aims to finance”. Expected outcomes include i) program of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF). investment resources through an equity fund. to expand agricultural adaptation measures to enhanced food security through adoption Nepal’s strategic program features four key areas prepare for future climate change impacts, but of climate resilient agriculture by farmers of intervention, including a three-pronged program The restructuring introduced changes to the significant barriers prevent private investment, and agri-supply chain members, ii) reduced on Building Climate Change Resilient Communities project that improved its ability to deliver results. including a lack of information, knowledge, and vulnerability of farmers to impacts of climate through Private Sector Participation. This case For example, new demonstration plots increased inputs (water, seeds, fertilizers, machinery, and change, and iii) increased availability of finance study focuses on one of those three projects: The demand for training and adoption of climate- finance) and weak commercialization (storage, to farmers and agri-supply chain members. The Promoting Climate Resilient Agriculture Project. smart farming practices, therefore contributing processing and transportation). project seeks to increase long-term, on-farm to the climate resilience of smallholder farmers. productivity by 20 percent against baseline Originally conceived with an advisory and In sugarcane, mechanization showed excellent levels and increase farm-based revenue of investment component, the project is being results, and in maize, crop rotation with soybeans 9,000 farmers by 20 percent by the end of the implemented by the International Finance allowed for more continuous private firm and project. Corporation (IFC) from September 2013 to June farmer engagement and interaction. These changes 2019 on the plains of Terai, a region south of the contributed to strengthening the links between

4 5 PROMOTING CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE IN NEPAL CASE STUDY 2018

private firms and farmers to improve farming output all commodity supply chains was not the most to impacts of climate change, and iii) increased resilience, as originally sought. suitable option for the project. Also, the project availability of finance to farmers and agri-supply implementation highlighted the importance Introduction chain members. The project seeks to increase long- While restructuring afforded more time, financial of adaptive management, as it faced delivery term, on-farm productivity by 20 percent against resources, and flexibility to the project, these were challenges. Project design should promote baseline levels and increase farm-based revenue all limited as the project could not deviate from the more systemic (comprehensive and integrated) of 9,000 farmers by 20 percent by the end of the original approved design and the broader SPCR. approaches, focus on feasible activities, and project.  promote longer time frames to allow for unforeseen Climate change is a defining challenge of the 21st LESSONS LEARNED events. Phasing would support this. Stakeholder Century, with impacts to the world’s agriculture Several lessons can be drawn from project roles, including government involvement, must be especially acute. Linking private sector firms and implementation. A standardized approach for clearly defined.  farmers can build climate resilience in agriculture, but the barriers are many. To address this and other climate change vulnerabilities, Nepal developed a Strategic Program for Climate Resilience (SPCR) under the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR), a dedicated program of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF). Nepal’s strategic program features four key investments, including a program on Building Climate Change Resilient Communities through Private Sector Participation. Its three projects address agriculture, infrastructure (mainly hydropower), and housing.

This case study focuses on the agriculture project: The Promoting Climate Resilient Agriculture Project. It is being implemented by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) from September 2013 to June 2019 in the districts of Bara, Parsa, Morang, Sunsari, and Rautahat in Terai, a region south of the Himalayan foothills.

The project aims at “enhancing agricultural productivity contributing to food security through capacity building of farmers and agricultural supply chain members and facilitating better access to finance”2. Expected outcomes include i) enhanced food security through adoption of climate resilient agriculture by farmers and agri-supply chain members, ii) reduced vulnerability of farmers

2 Program approval request, p. 5.

6 ©CIF 7 PROMOTING CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE IN NEPAL CASE STUDY 2018

Barriers that prevent Nepali farmers from making BOX 1 PROJECT DESIGN AND DELIVERY MODEL Context significant progress on climate change adaptation include limited access to knowledge. Farmers have limited access to weather and climate information A and early warning systems, which could help them P anticipate weather events and better manage their

crops. Moreover, farmers typically have limited Provides TA and DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES knowledge of climate-smart agriculture practices, Line of Credit E The project aims to address several development such as soil fertility, disease-resistant crop care, challenges. Nepal has experienced significant and irrigation practices, due to weak extension Provides Finance changes in temperature and precipitation, which services. Research indicates that the coverage of have affected the country in significant ways. government-provided extension is meagre and Provides extension services German Watch’s Global Climate Risk Index 2018 the extension services of agro-processors and & rents equipment ranked Nepal 26th in the global list of most aggregators are few in numbers and inadequately L 4 vulnerable countries to climate change between trained . Provides technical Raw material supply 1997 and 2016. Under various climate change assistance & finance scenarios, mean annual temperatures are projected In addition, most of the Nepalese farmers have Distribution channel to increase 1.3-3.8°C by 2060 and 1.8-5.8°C by limited access to high quality inputs. These include 2090, while annual precipitation is projected to improved (more climate resilient and high yielding) decrease 10 to 20 percent nationwide. These climate seed varieties and fertilizers, modern machinery, changes, compounded by non-climatic stressors finance5, and markets, as links with agribusinesses Sells equipment, inputs like earthquake risk3, compromise Nepal’s ability tend to be rare and weak in most crops. These to further increase human development, reduce barriers prevent significant private investment in Source: IFC project team poverty, and address people’s basic needs. adaptation within Nepal’s agriculture sector, despite the enormous potential that private actors—large Climate change affects Nepal’s agriculture sector, farmers, processors, and input suppliers—could INTERVENTION AND KEY DELIVERY The investment component was designed to work which employs over two-thirds of the labor force unleash6. CHALLENGES through intermediary banks to facilitate access to and contributes to roughly one-third of the The Promoting Climate Resilient Agriculture Project finance across the agricultural supply chain to meet country’s GDP. Impacts are felt by both farmers was designed to address these barriers through two investment requirements for adaptive capacity. and agribusinesses. Farmers produce less and the components: advisory and investment. The advisory quality of their yields suffers due to increased component was envisioned to i) build capacity Nearing the end of its implementation at the time 4 PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd (PwC) and the Centre for temperatures (and thus evaporation), decreased and Environmental and Agricultural Policy Research, Extension and of farmers to adopt improved seeds and climate of this writing, the project aims to reach farmers more uncertain rainfall, and increased presence of Development (CEAPRED) (2012): Scoping Study on Climate adaptive practices and technologies, ii) facilitate through agribusiness firms, positioning agribusiness pests and diseases as a result of climate change. Resilient Agriculture and Food Security, PPCR-Nepal. PwC, London, awareness and adoption of efficient and improved firms to directly help farmers adapt to climate United Kingdom. With low supply, agribusinesses run their plants irrigation technologies for efficient water usage, iii) change. It involves three types of stakeholders: 5 PWC and CEAPRED (2012) revealed that only 20 percent of farm below capacity and risk being unable to meet households surveyed receive loans from formal financial institutions. develop ICT-based products to disseminate climate i) private companies, namely lead agribusiness market demand. Despite progress at the national High transaction costs to reach farming households and limited information specific to farming operations through firms and commercial banks; ii) farmers; and iii) level, Nepal still faces food security issues. awareness among farmers about financial products constrain growth a Short Message Services (SMS)-based pilot project, government officials, particularly from the Nepal in delivery of financial services to farmers. and iv) develop innovative financial products Agriculture Research Council (NARC) and the 6 Trabacchi and Stadelmann (2013: i) note that “private sector 3 Nepal is ranked as the eleventh most earthquake-prone country decisions and behaviours… have the potential to lock countries for farmers and other agricultural supply chain District Agriculture Development Office (DADO), in the world (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction into vulnerability profiles for a long time, or to set them on a more members in association with commercial banks. who are invited frequently to observe and monitor (UNISDR): Global Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015) resilient path”.

8 9 PROMOTING CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE IN NEPAL CASE STUDY 2018

trainings and demonstration plots. Suggestions 3. Non-optimal solutions in some work streams and feedback from each stakeholder group on Tracing the PROJECT DESIGN further localizing the practices has been carefully The following sections detail the genesis and The governing bodies of the CIF established PPCR incorporated. Implementation also involves characteristics of these delivery challenges, how implementation in 2008 and invited an initial group of eligible a technical service provider, Practical Action they were managed, in terms of agreeing on and countries and regions, including Nepal, to pilot the Consulting (PAC); a monitoring and evaluation executing adjustments and the extent to which process program. In May 2009 the Government of Nepal (M&E) services provider, Solutions Consulting, and a these changes allowed the project to overcome the (GoN) formally expressed interest in joining PPCR. knowledge partner, Climate Change Agriculture and challenges and move forward toward achieving its The first phase of the PPCR process involves a Food Security7. Project design and delivery model objectives. country developing a SPCR to mainstream climate illustration is available in Box 1 considerations into development planning and This analysis is based on a desk review of available prioritize climate resilience investments. Nepal The project has faced three key delivery challenges: project documents, field visits and interviews As illustrated in Diagram 1, the design of the undertook this work with support from the World conducted with a range of stakeholders involved Promoting Climate Resilient Agriculture Project took Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB), two of 1. Using a standardized approach for diverse in the project design and implementation. Annex D shape as Nepal developed its SPCR under the PPCR the multilateral development banks (MDBs) that commodities contains a complete bibliography and Annex B lists beginning in 2009. Project implementation began implement PPCR funding. It involved three scoping 2. Lack of well-defined support, in terms of all interview participants.  in 2013 and is expected to end in 2019. Annex A missions between September 2009 and November knowledge and inputs contains a more detailed project timeline, complete 2010 and a consultation workshop in November with stakeholder roles. 2010, which gathered input from a wide range of stakeholders, including the private sector. 7 Annex C provides a stakeholder map.

DIAGRAM 1 IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE OF THE PROMOTING CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE PROJECT

N S N O T S

M M A A GN P R N E PPCR A

200 2011 201 201 201 201

2008 2010 2012 201 201 2018

Project design Project implementation

N M A S P E S I PPCR

Source: Figure by author, based on information provided by interviewees and desk review

10 11 ©CIF CASE STUDY 2018

DIAGRAM 2 FOUR INTERLINKING AREAS OF INTERVENTION UNDER NEPAL’S SPCR The study assessed six locations representing respective producers. The study categorized the different types of terrain in Nepal: mountain, hill, analyzed crops in three categories of climate and plain or terai10. The study also considered nine vulnerability: highly vulnerable (maize, vegetables, crops and two livestock products11. These sectors sugarcane, and rice), vulnerable (mustard and C E were selected based on their contribution to the wheat) and less vulnerable (lentil). It also assessed Nepal’s GDP. Crop simulation models were used to the crops’ importance to Nepal’s economy in terms

C ascertain the crops’ vulnerability to climate change. of both food security (rice and maize) and industrial A value chain analysis was undertaken to identify raw materials (sugarcane and maize). critical gaps in tackling the effects of climate C C D change. The study also surveyed value chain actors, Based on this scoping study, IFC refined the results such as farm input suppliers/agrovets, irrigation framework and developed a full project document C C S equipment suppliers, feed suppliers, and traders. in the second half of 2012. Project activities focused C A on i) preparing and distributing Climate-Smart S On the basis of the original SPCR and in the light Agronomic Packages of Practices (PoPs) for farmer S C C of the findings of the study, which considered trainings tailored to the region’s conditions (one PoP recently approved national climate change planning per crop); ii) conducting training for trainers to build frameworks12, five districts in the Terai region, capacity of project staff and lead firm extension Nepal’s agricultural hub, were selected as the focus teams; iii) developing climates smart demonstration of the project13. In terms of crops, sugarcane, maize, plots (one for each lead firm and 60 lead farmers— and rice were selected based on a weighted average early adopters of the new techniques), including In June 2011, the governing bodies of the CIF under which the Promoting Climate Resilient score of critical factors, such as vulnerability to support to mechanization; and iv) providing follow- endorsed Nepal’s SPCR, which included four key Agriculture Project falls. climate change, contribution to food security, up training and in situ mentoring and farmer- areas of intervention: i) watershed management in importance to the economy, farmer involvement friendly guidebooks for climate resilient farming mountain eco-regions; ii) climate-related hazards, To prepare this project following the approval (estimated reach to number of farmers), growth (training 15,000 farmers or 5,000 famers per crop). mainly related to climate information services; iii) of Nepal’s SPCR, in May 2012, IFC hired potential, level of commercialization, level of mainstreaming climate change risk management in PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd (PwC) and the interest among private sector actors to undertake The full project document was approved by IFC in development; and iv) private sector participation8. Centre for Environmental and Agricultural Policy support services, and ease of partnership with March 2013 and funding was in place. In late 2012 Importantly, the areas were interlinked, as shown in Research, Extension and Development (CEAPRED) the PPCR had approved a USD 8.7 million grant and Diagram 2. In particular, the fourth area on private to conduct a scoping study on climate resilient the IFC had set aside USD 70 million in concessional 10 In particular, the selected districts were Dolakha, representing sector engagement was to receive inputs from the agriculture and food security in Nepal. This study financing to support the private sector projects mountain and high hill; Ramechhap, Lamjung, and Dailekha, second on weather and climate information and, sought to provide a “diagnostic review of the representing mid-hills; and Chitwan and Saptari, representing terai. under Nepal’s SPCR, including the Promoting

in turn, provide inputs to the third on lessons that agriculture sector to identify opportunities for 11 The crops were rice, maize and wheat in cereal, tomato, potato, Climate Resilient Agriculture Project. could be mainstreamed into managing development private sector investment in climate resilient and cole crops (cabbage and cauliflower) in the vegetables, rapeseed program and/or projects. agriculture practices and finalization of a project in oilseed and lentil in legume. The livestock products were dairy and IFC started to look for private firms in Nepal to poultry. design document for further implementation”9. In join the project. Interviews with implementers and 12 In 2010, Nepal approved its National Adaptation Programme of IFC oversees and implements the Building particular, it was meant to inform the selection of Action (NAPA) to Climate Change, focusing on the most urgent and technical advisors suggest that this process was Climate Change Resilient Communities the project’s target area and crops. immediate needs of adaptation. Following this, in 2011, it approved not easy and involved a great deal of negotiation. through Private Sector Participation Program its Climate Change Policy. In parallel, Nepal was adopting a National In some sectors, such as sugarcane, the number of Framework on Local Adaptation Plans for Action (LAPA) to ensure integration of adaptation and resilience into local to national planning private companies is limited. Other sectors, such as processes. rice, have many active private companies, but very 8 The fifth component on endangered species, as noted in a SPCR 9 See page 12, PwC and CEAPRED, 2012: Scoping Study on Climate 13 More specifically, the project selected the districts of Bara, Parsa, few large enough to meet the project requirement presentation by the GoN in March 2012, was later dropped. Resilient Agriculture and Food Security, PPCR-Nepal. Morang, Sunsari and Rautahat. of training 5,000 farmers. Companies had to go

12 13 PROMOTING CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE IN NEPAL CASE STUDY 2018

TABLE 1 DELIVERY CHALLENGES OF THE PROMOTING CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE PROJECT source from farmers and thus had reasons to build better off and typically sell their harvest. There are their extension teams for farmer training and six maize mills in the target region, each building capacity building. The project was useful to collect their supply chain with maize from India. While robust evidence from the field that private-sector the project found it would have a less substantive Delivery challenge Key issues led extension efforts to promote climate resilience impact on poverty reduction and food security, it 1 Using a standardized Selection of crops did not consistently support private sector development amongst smallholders would work well in shorter could contribute to private sector development by approach for diverse commodities Seasonal crop cycles interrupted project activities commodity value-chains. This is a lesson learned, structuring the value chain and helping mills get which may be used for developing downstream more quality inputs from farmers. 2 Lack of well defined support, Support provided was not comprehensive enough, with knowledge and input barriers engagements. Also, the fact that this approach in terms of knowledge and not fully addressed, affecting continuity and impact of farmer training and private sector of private-sector led extension worked for the Sugarcane presents a third dynamic. It is a cash inputs collaboration sugarcane supply chain, showed that there is merit crop that has been produced for years in the target

3 Non-optimal solutions in some ICT-based early-warning system products did not meet demand and IFC was supposed to in engaging with the private sector for reaching out region, and it has an extremely tight supply chain. work streams develop them. to smallholders in their value-chain, and there are Weight and transport costs are considerable, which Access to finance component of project compromised by Nepali banks’ reluctance to take business benefits thereof. means mills cannot import from abroad and rely on credit guarantees, provide any kind of concessionality, or lend to individual farmers close-by producers 14. There is only one sugarcane Limited government ownership hindered coordination Rice is the most widely grown staple crop of Nepal, mill in the target region15. A mill typically buys from and was a required commodity from the project the same farmers, who typically sell to the same design. According to interviews with the rice firm, mill. The producers and the buyers, the farmers implementers, and technical advisors, most farmers and the mills share the same objective, and work (70 percent), but especially the poor, grow local together for long periods of time. Despite recurring, through the IFC due diligence process, further farmers of all commodities, when the nature varieties of rice in very small plots for personal including some recent issues with payments, reducing the number of eligible candidates. For of supply chain varies widely and affects the consumption, as a strategy for poverty reduction there is relatively high trust and loyalty. Moreover, example, sugarcane companies that produce alcohol nature of delivery on the ground. The selection of and food security. They only sell when they need sugarcane mills have extension services in place. were deemed ineligible. Moreover, Nepal’s private crops did not consistently support private sector cash, and then, to no particular buyer. The value sector was not fully aware of and concerned by development. Each crop supply chain has particular chain is loose, with many producers and many small Furthermore, the different cropping cycles made climate change. IFC managed to convince one firm specificities, offering different degrees of private to medium-sized mills (about 100 in the target it challenging to use the same approach. While for each crop to take on the challenge and project sector development potential, which should have region) and no continuous link between farmers sugarcane is a year-long crop, rice and maize are activities started officially in July 2013. been taken into account in the project design. and private companies. Firms are not certain which one season crops (the rice season is from May to farmers will sell to them and farmers are not certain October and the maize season is from December KEY DELIVERY CHALLENGES The standardized approach used for all three- which firms will buy from them. The project found to April). Interviews revealed this represented a As implementation began, three key challenges commodity value-chains (sugarcane, maize and it could increase rice production, reduce poverty, challenge as project activities were interrupted emerged, as illustrated in Table 1. rice) focused on “private-sector extension efforts and increase food security, but the challenge it off-season for rice and maize. This compromised for transferring information and knowledge to encountered was that it was difficult to benefit the coordination, farmer training, and the link between First delivery challenge “Using a smallholders and related capacity building”. This participating private firm. The project could not farmers and companies, which sought to be a single standardized approach for diverse standardized approach was more suitable for some guarantee increased quality inputs from farmers, as point for farmers throughout the year. commodities” commodities than for others. For example, in the they could easily sell increased production to any The first delivery challenge focuses more rice supply chain, there is no direct contact between other buyer. specifically on the Promoting Climate Resilient processing firms and farmers, so the firms did not Agriculture Project, particularly its advisory have much interest to invest resources in building up While a staple crop in the hills, maize is a new cash component. The project used a standardized an extension network. In commodities with shorter crop in the plains, where the project is working. 14 Interviews with implementers, services providers and private approach for promoting climate resilience amongst supply-chains, such as sugarcane, the firms directly In comparison to rice farmers, maize farmers are firms in April 2018. 15 Interviews with private firms in April 2018.

14 15 PROMOTING CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE IN NEPAL CASE STUDY 2018

Second delivery challenge “Lack of well was the cornerstone of the project. PAC’s work was mechanization, irrigation, transportation17, storage, systems was non-existent in Nepal, and a number of defined support, in terms of knowledge a complement to the extension efforts of private recovery18, and finance. A comprehensive and farmer oriented ICT tools have failed. and inputs” sector firms, since most of the private sector firms integrated approach, working simultaneously in The second delivery challenge focuses on the fact did not have adequate extension workers, or the several aspects, was also important for maize19. Also, the project planned to support small and that the project did not clearly define the support quality they provided was not sufficient, and thus medium enterprises (SMEs) through a commercial to be provided. As such, support services did not the external manpower was necessary. Third delivery challenge “Non-optimal bank, but here too, implementation proved difficult, comprehensively address the barriers that prevent solutions in some workstreams” if not impossible. According to those interviewed, Nepali farmers from making significant progress on Moreover, the roles of IFC, the lead sugarcane, rice, The third delivery challenge focuses on the limited banks in Nepal are often reluctant to take credit climate change adaptation. These barriers to make and maize firms, and the technical service provider adequacy of some solutions addressed by the guarantees or provide any kind of concessionality. progress on climate change adaptation are limited in the field (PAC) were not clear. According to a project work streams. They are not willing to lend to individual farmers, access to knowledge and to high quality inputs. technical advisor, the field person at each lead preferring to base their lending on assets, which firm did not always have the authority, technical In the original project design, IFC was responsible in the agricultural sector is limited to agricultural Regarding knowledge barriers, the project initially knowledge, and/or time to provide support. Lead for developing an ICT platform and apps linked inputs, sugar mills, or transportation (few of which focused on providing a short, three-day theoretical firms were to provide agriculture inputs, but they to climate resilience to smallholders. However, it the farmers who participated in the PPCR project training session to a high number of people (i.e., were not aware of this. PAC’s contract focused on was evident that IFC was not the right institution had)20. IFC was able to sign a memorandum of 15,000 farmers). Lead farmers, who can pass the farm level, but the project also specified support to develop an ICT platform and apps. Instead, understanding with one Nepalese commercial bank on knowledge to their communities, were not to lead firms. PAC’s role was minimal on this. IFC’s role should be to find good talent in ICT to support SMEs, but it did not come to fruition. clearly informed about why they should work to entrepreneurs and solutions and help to scale them Interviews also revealed that SMEs struggled with disseminate information and knowledge to other Furthermore, interviews with technical advisors up commercially. this aspect of the project, worrying that they could smallholders in their communities. The project reveal that it was difficult to provide training, lose collateral if loans were not repaid. also did not use demonstration plots to showcase as village development committees would not An additional challenge was that there was results as it had intended or employ continuous authorize it without written approval from the no effort made to actually understand what These challenges were compounded by a tight extension services to ensure proper adoption of the government, in particular, the District Agriculture the demand for ICT and related services by project timeframe. The project implementation practices and technologies being taught. Training Development Office (DADO), which, in turn, is smallholders was. The project proposal presumed was delayed by the fact that it was difficult to also involved three modules: land preparation, dependent on the Ministry of Agriculture. IFC’s that there was a demand for ICT services by find people with the required skills to implement crop management, and harvesting. According to only contact in the government was the Ministry of farmers for becoming more climate resilient, but the project, which was testing new approaches. a crop manager in the field, different people from Environment. Despite the clear technical expertise this was not proven. Procuring some inputs, especially maize seeds, the same family would come to different modules, of the Ministry of Agriculture, IFC had no link with was also a lengthy process. Overall, the project compromising training continuity and impact. In this it, apart from the participation of some government Indeed, during the implementation, it was evident was ambitious, seeking to change long-engrained sense, the project was ambitious in terms of the staff in training, which had its own challenges16. that the demand from farmers for the type of farming practices. The timeframe was too short to number of farmers to train, but not ambitious in the information on climate change and early warning test practices, demonstrate successful approaches, changes it was trying to promote. Moreover, in the early phases of project and implement them. implementation, services were not provided Knowledge-sharing challenges emerged in to improve access to inputs, such as agro- 17 In maize, smallholder farmers dominate with a very small production with respect to the volume maize companies need. There sugarcane as mechanisms are already in place to meteorological information, improved seeds, are high transaction costs. Aggregation models are needed so that provide extension services. Interviews highlight that groups can gather at least 16 tonnes of maize, the load of a truck. 20 In the case of sugarcane, mills can back up farmers (all the money goes through them) and buy everything that farmers produce. For there was appetite for the global experiences and 18 In sugarcane, this is the amount of sugar that is produced per instance, they could buy a machine and the lease it out to other 16 Daily subsistence allowance (DSA) in the government and the amount of sugarcane. Currently the mills in Nepal get 9 kg of sugar practices that the project sought to provide through farmers. The enabling environment is more fruitful in 2018. The private sector are different. If you there is a workshop involving both, out of 100 kg of sugarcane. Studies indicate that this should be at government has a subsidized interest rate for registered farmers and the technical support provider, PAC. The additional each one would receive a different amount, which is complicated least 12 kg. This would increase the productivity of the firm and the banks must allocate, by law, a percentage of their loans to agriculture. to manage. For this reason, at some point the program had to hold payment for farmers. manpower from PAC was provided to the lead However, some banks still prefer to pay the penalty than invest in separate meetings, which is counter-productive: a key value of 19 This included post-harvesting given that between 18 and 25 per agriculture. The mill that worked with the IFC project gained access firms to complement their extension efforts as an trainings resides not on the content of the presentations, but on the cent of maize harvest is lost after harvesting in Nepal to a USD 1.5 million loan in 2018 for farmers. incentive since private sector-led extension support exchange and networking among participants. .

16 17 PROMOTING CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE IN NEPAL CASE STUDY 2018

Delivery was also affected by external factors. the WBG and not directly through IFC, with implied TABLE 2 SOLUTIONS TO DELIVERY CHALLENGES OF THE PROMOTING CLIMATE RESILIENT On April 25, 2015 the country experienced a additional transaction costs. AGRICULTURE PROJECT devastating 7.6 magnitude earthquake, causing 9,000 casualties, over 22,000 injuries, and Interviews also point out a significant amount of Delivery Key issues Solutions widespread infrastructure damage. Project project funds had already been spent, and new challenge activities stopped for a month or more. funding was needed to restructure the project 1 Using a Selection of crops did not consistently support private (eventually mobilized from the Canada Climate standardized sector development SOLUTIONS TO KEY DELIVERY Change Program). As a result of this complexity, the approach for diverse Different cropping cycles compromised continuity and Additional crops were introduced to CHALLENGES negotiation process took about two years, from 2015 commodities long-term engagement with seasonal crop farmers. seasonal crop rotation. Soy introduced to Seasonal crop cycles interrupted project activities complement maize growing cycle By 2014, the project was working to address to 2017, with the new activities beginning in early delivery challenges, with PAC taking a lead on 201722. 2 Lack of well Support provided was not comprehensive enough, Demonstration plots introduced, along with defined support, with knowledge and input barriers not fully addressed, more flexibility in farmer training schedule improving the comprehensiveness of technical in terms of affecting continuity and impact of farmer training and support to farmers and lead firms. A more Table 2 lists the solutions that early intervention knowledge and private sector collaboration Needs assessment conducted to expand inputs service and inputs provision across wider substantive restructuring was carried out in by PAC and full project restructuring introduced to portion of the sugarcane and maize value 2016/2017 to overcome challenges still impeding resolve the key delivery challenges of the project, chains project objectives. It was informed by a study followed by a more detailed explanation. Communication and collaboration conducted by PAC in 2014, informal requests strengthened with sugarcane firm’s extension workers from the lead firms, and the analysis and 1. Designing crop-specific approaches experience of IFC staff. Interviews indicate that To overcome the obstacles of using a 3 Non-optimal of ICT-based early-warning system products did not meet Survey was conducted to understand solutions in some demand and IFC was supposed to develop them. demand. project monitoring documents, such as the crop- standardized approach for all commodity work streams IFC partnered with entrepreneurs to specific mid-line reports delivered by Solutions supply chains , the project team identified develop ICT platforms and apps Consulting in January 2016, did not significantly solutions specifically targeted for each crop and Access to finance component of the project Financial products channelled through inform restructuring. its particular characteristics. Sugarcane is a compromised by Nepali banks’ reluctance to take an equity fund to increase SME access to credit guarantees, provide any kind of concessionality, concessional funding perennial crop, while rice and maize are seasonal. or lend to individual farmers The negotiation of the project restructuring was In order to avoid the off-season interruption complex. IFC oversaw the effort with a high level for rice and maize, and also to increase the of vision and forward thinking to solve problems, duration of engagement with farmers, the project assess opportunities, and convince other players. introduced soy as a rotation crop in maize Interviews indicate that the three levels of project farming. Including soy as a rotation crop with smallholders, introduction of soy as a rotation 2. Re-thinking the support-provision management participated actively21. Lead firms also maize would also strengthen farmer livelihoods crop to maize allowed the extension teams to strategy participated in changes related to their specific all year round (maize is a winter crop, planted for deepen their engagement with farmers and build Aware of the lack of comprehensiveness of the crop. The World Bank Group was involved, as, given a period of 3 to 4 months, and soy is a summer relationships. Actually, learning for developing support provided, in 2014, PAC carried out an the value of the project, the contract was through crop). Also, maize and soy are both required as round the year engagement between extension in-depth participatory market system analysis, raw materials by the poultry-feed industry, thus workers and farmers came from IFC’s work in mapping all relevant stakeholders along the value allowing the same set of farmers to develop year sugarcane in Nepal and other countries. The chains of the three crops in the target area, with 21 In terms of management, the project is governed at three levels: i) the PPCR Sub-Committee , composed of six recipient countries long engagement with poultry feed mills for project also prepared a new climate resilient the active participation of the lead firms. According and six contributor countries that approve PPCR funding; ii) the supply of raw materials. Furthermore, given that agronomy guidebook for soy cultivation in Nepal. to interviews, mapping included seed providers, Steering Committee, composed only of IFC members, involving the focus of the project was to develop business Overall, adding soy as a rotation crop to maize machinery companies, financial institutions, sub- the country, regional program managers, and the strategic climate change team at IFC headquarters in Washington D. C.; and iii) models for private-sector engagement with would help achieve a greater footprint with traders and traders, and storage facilities. The exercise three executive committees, one for each of the three target crops, farmers, resulting in greater trust building by was finalized in December 2014. Based on this study, given their uniqueness. IFC, the corresponding lead firm, and the technical manager (PAC) participate in these crop-based executive supporting farmers to adopt climate resilient in 2016, the project expanded support to seeds, 22 PAC’s new contract was ready in January 2017. committees. practices. machinery, insurance, and financial aspects in maize.

18 19 PROMOTING CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE IN NEPAL CASE STUDY 2018

In 2015, adjustments were made to improve across wider portion of the sugarcane and maize potential to scale-up in Nepal. This resulted in in contrast with bank financing based on current communication and collaboration between PAC value chains. the partnership with the firms Midas and mPower assets, an equity fund’s lending decisions are based and the sugarcane lead firm’s extension team. from Bangladesh. on the vision, performance record, and business Working with the firm’s management, trust and Moreover, the project introduced a more • The demand for ICT services for smallholders potential of an initiative. This allows a greater understanding was built. The role of the project comprehensive approach to the value chain, was assessed through diagnostic assessments number and variety of SMEs to access capital and and PAC in strengthening the firm’s extension team increasing access to much-needed inputs. In conducted by the firms Midas and mPower and collateral is not at risk should an initiative fail.  was better explained and the firm’s team was given sugarcane, mechanization was introduced in 2017. In stakeholder consultations conducted by IFC. project targets to encourage their participation maize, the project promoted an aggregation model in project activities. Regular meetings were also that called on farmers to combine their harvests In addition, the project modified the access to held between the firm and PAC. Firm extension for transport to the lead maize firm for processing. finance component, with resources channelled workers also started to realize the benefits of PAC’s To that end, the project organized a workshop through an equity fund rather than Nepali banks. technical support. Overall, communication and that brought together lead farmers interested in In particular, the project invested USD 3.6 million collaboration was strengthened with sugarcane becoming aggregators with logistics representatives in SME Ventures, a fund in which IFC had already firm’s extension workers. (for transport, firm procurement, taxes, and finance) invested USD 7 million. Fund manager Business to build capacity and networks. Training on post- Oxygen (BO2) was also brought on board in July To overcome the lack of continuity on training, harvest practices informed farmers on how much 2017 to transfer funds to SMEs. Project restructuring PAC and the sugarcane lead firm strengthened and what quality of maize would be accepted at also provided capacity building for BO2. This was the awareness about this issue. To facilitate what price23. indeed an innovation that the project brought, as continuity in training, the number of modules there are very few private-equity funds operating was reduced from three to two to make it easier As mentioned above, the project also introduced in Nepal that focus on climate-resilient equity for farmers to attend all sessions. Also, continuity soybeans as a complement to maize to ensure investments in SMEs24. IFC and other organizations in training was supported through capacity a continuous relationship between the firm and had already tried to work with financial institutions building of the extension staff and management farmers throughout the year. Farmer training on such as banks in a number of projects. However, team of the lead firms. In some cases, as the climate-smart practices in maize was extended to working with a private-equity in Nepal to promote project neared its completion date, the lead soybean. SME access to risk capital for expanding businesses firms hired the trainers from PAC to continue that are climate-smart and climate-resilient was new with the training efforts. This was considered an 3. Finding more suitable solutions in some to Nepal, and thus more exciting and challenging for innovative approach, as the project was one of work streams the project team. the pioneers in Nepal that focused on building To overcome the non-optimal solutions in some private-sector led extension for capacity building work streams, several changes were introduced. According to interviews, this innovative approach of farmers. IFC addressed the constraints related to the marked the first time IFC had used an equity fund development of ICT climate-smart solutions by for climate financing. Results were uncertain, but Full project restructuring introduced a more taking the following initiatives: the restructuring was backed by solid arguments. comprehensive approach to addressing the The equity fund allowed the project to circumvent knowledge barrier. Demonstration plots were • IFC decided to not develop an ICT platform the barriers posed by banks’ reluctance to lend to planted to showcase and demonstrate the added and apps on its own, but rather to partner with farmers, while following the principles of the original value of climate-smart farming techniques and young entrepreneurs and developers operating plan. As it shares SMEs’ risks, an equity fund can be increase the demand for farmer training. According in this space in Nepal (or elsewhere) and support considered concessional financing to SMEs. Moreover, to interviews, PAC provided training any time solutions that have been tried and have a farmers arranged a group of 25 people. Also, the 24 In order to enhance the understanding of climate resilience of project introduced a needs assessment, which was fund managers, the project built the fund managers’ capacity on climate resilience through a training program in Oxford, UK conducted to expand service and input provision 23 Interviews in April 2018.

20 21 PROMOTING CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE IN NEPAL CASE STUDY 2018

both parties realized a mutually beneficial funding firms to import maize from India and Latin America meteorological information (covering DHM’s lack Contributions arrangement could be arranged25. given the price differential, rather than buying of delivery) have not yet been delivered27. SME locally grown. Although these limitations are outside Ventures has had a positive impact on channelling and limits of the Interviews also indicate that the introduction of the project scope, the project showed that concessional financing to SMEs, but overall impact of soybean also refers largely to exploiting an whenever the price of imported maize was at par is limited on private sector development in the restructuring opportunity. Maize works well with other crops, with locally grown maize, lead firms sourced from agriculture sector. While a greater amount of allowing for intercropping. Maize farmers had local Nepali farmers. Considering that this was the funds has been mobilized in a more sustainable nothing to lose (and income to gain) in trying to first time that the private-sector led extension tried way, SME Ventures does not have a direct link raise soybeans, and the company recognized a to engage with farmers in a systematic way, this was with the targeted crops or their value chains or, business opportunity. It could buy two crops from an encouraging beginning. more broadly, agribusinesses. The climate change the same farmer and build a relationship rather than component is still to be refined. The project restructuring helped overcome some purchase from another unknown grower. The ability to introduce a more systemic approach to of the delivery challenges. Interviews suggest that value chain inputs also has been limited. To reduce Furthermore, interviews suggest that the more comprehensive approaches to overcoming the The capacity to fix project delivery challenges post-harvest losses in maize, the project was able to restructuring created tension between the knowledge barrier and increasing access to inputs was constrained. A great deal of time and project introduce training. contract managers and implementers in the field. along the value chain has greatly improved delivery. budget had already been expended by the time the While the latter understood the practical need to According to technical advisors, demonstration restructuring was carried out. Although the project In sugarcane, the project has introduced make changes, the former was concerned about plots have increased demand for training. Arguably, end was extended and new financial resources mechanization, in particular automatic harvesters, management and the increased expenditure that they also have increased adoption of climate-smart mobilized, the time and resources left were limited. but it has not been able to address comprehensively the changes entailed. Looking ahead, sustainability agricultural practices, thereby contributing to Restructuring injected some flexibility, but the the underlying barriers for mechanization, such of some project components may be an issue when building the climate resilience of smallholder farmers. project still had to stick to the original approved as identifying machine providers, models, and the it ends. For example, it is unclear if the firms will design and the broader SPCR. Many items, such as business plans to make them available to farmers. In continue with efforts piloted through the project for In maize, the introduction of soybeans has allowed the crops selected for inclusion in the project, could sugarcane, the project introduced another sugar mill rice or maize. Nevertheless, sugar mills will and are for more continuous project involvement of farmers not be changed. to replicate the efforts. Timing was a critical factor. continuing with the efforts promoted by the project, and the lead firm. Project changes in maize and PAC’s new contract was ready in January 2017, and as the business rationale for sugar mills to engage sugarcane have improved the link between private On rice, the restructuring process determined although a feasibility study of new interventions with farmers is clearer as compared to maize and firms and farmers, thereby improving farming changes were not possible, so project activities made sense, it would have taken six to eight months rice. In fact, IFC is in discussions with five to six output resilience. Changes to ICT tasks and the were not extended any further than what was to complete it. With the project set to close in March sugar mills for a follow-on advisory project related investment component have unblocked action, and planned in the project design, given the lack of time 2018, it left little time to implement recommendations to power co-generation with sugarcane bagasse. adjustments in stakeholder and service provider and resources to pursue other feasible options. of such a study. Timing was also an issue for soybeans. roles have improved management. The time Given that the project had already met the original Interviews point out that official procurement of The government has not been deeply involved in extension has allowed these improvements to be felt targets, the other crops were prioritized. high-quality soybean seeds for commercial farming is project activities, and work remains to create a and has supported delivery. lengthy, leaving little time for implementation26. more private sector-friendly enabling environment In maize, despite all efforts, including the addition in agriculture to sustain gains made by this project. It is worth noting that some of the changes of soybeans, there were some limitations to achieve Results have been mixed on project changes to introduced by the restructuring not only addressed success, such as the favourable conditions of some streamline development of ICT-based products and Also, the project end date was extended from delivery challenges, but also exploited opportunities. to improve access to finance along the agricultural February 2017 to December 2017 for rice and to According to one stakeholder, the response to the supply chain. E-learning packages and agro- June 2018 for maize and sugarcane. The results 25 SME Ventures was based on a USD 14 million fund. IFC had delivery challenge of unfeasible banking was also the invested USD 7 million and the fund manager had to raise another framework was revised and the targets adjusted.  result of a happy accident. Managers of the PPCR USD 7 million. These office mates determined PPCR could provide the money to SME Ventures, and SME Ventures could serve as the and SME Ventures happened to share an office for vehicle for PPCR. Without SME Venture, the project may not have 26 Orders have to be placed in the four government-owned nurseries a period of time at IFC Nepal. Through conversation been able to overcome the challenge it was facing and vice versa. at least four months before the season begins. 27 By the time this report goes to print.

22 23 PROMOTING CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE IN NEPAL CASE STUDY 2018

Project design also should promote more systemic flexibility to seize unexpected opportunities, such DESIGN ADEQUATE ROLES FOR Lessons learned (comprehensive and integrated) approaches. Project as channelling climate change resources through an STAKEHOLDERS AND SERVICE design should consider the entire agricultural equity fund. PROVIDERS value chain. By the same token, it should address The implementation of the project also the different barriers to agricultural development, IFC’s own experience proves this. IFC is demonstrates the importance of clearly defining the including knowledge barriers and limited access to implementing a similar PPCR project in Bangladesh, roles of stakeholders, including those in the field. The following lessons can be drawn from the inputs, such as agro-meteorological information, which started after the Nepal project. Learning from Moreover, if a project focuses on the private sector, implementation of the Promoting Climate Resilient improved seeds, water, machinery, storage, finance, Nepal, the design of the Bangladesh project favors it should link with the government, including the Agriculture Project in Nepal. and insurance and markets. a phased approach, with Phase 1 (2015-2017) testing official climate change focal point (e.g., Ministry of several aspects and Phase 2 (2018-2020) drawing on Environment) and the relevant line ministries (e.g., REFINE THE PROJECT SCOPE Furthermore, project activities also should be Phase 1 lessons to scale up successful approaches. Ministry of Agriculture) at the national, regional, This case study highlights the importance of feasible, integrated, and share a clear focus. If Given that a phased approach was envisioned from and local levels. Bringing the government more understanding the barriers and drivers for private sector firms have an internal mechanism to the beginning, the Bangladesh project anticipated on board would facilitate not only implementation different objectives—such as climate resilience, provide extension services, it is better to strengthen restructuring and was able to respond with more but also sustainability, as it has a role to play in increased productivity and gender equality—and and supervise this than to create a parallel agility and more project time and budget intact than creating an enabling environment for private sector the complementarities and trade-offs between the structure. the Nepal project28. development.  strategies to address them. Climate resilience is still evolving and there is not many a wide array of USE REALISTIC AND STRATEGIC 28 Bangladesh is a more dynamic market, with many firms bidding, pre-determined solutions to all issues, unlike climate TIMEFRAMES which makes it easier to find firms. This also made the restructuring change mitigation. Thus, it seems reasonable to The project highlights the importance of promoting easier in Bangladesh. avoid having too many objectives (such as climate adaptive management to allow for unexpected resilience, poverty, gender, food security, private circumstances. In Nepal, an earthquake caused sector investments etc.) in a pilot project that delays, but it could have been an extreme weather is dealing with an evolving body of knowledge. event, the frequency and intensity of which are Focusing on one or two key objectives in greater predicted to increase. A phased approach to project depth would be more suitable for this type of design and implementation could reduce the impact project. of the unexpected. First, the design itself should be phased, with a more general concept note This project shows the importance of understanding and a more detailed project document analysing the specificities of different value chains. The specific sectors in specific geographical areas. This design is unique, as it is the first time that a project contributes to understanding trade-offs and refining focuses on offering a strong business case for the the result framework. It also reduces the risk of private sector to engage in climate resilience in locking the project into non- or low strategic targets, Nepal. One of the solutions offered is to accommodate given that results frameworks are always difficult to more crops in the cultivation rotation. Soybeans change once a project is approved. Second, project were introduced into the project to accompany design should promote phased implementation maize, but the lead firm for maize works with approaches when embarking on new innovations, protein crops, including maize, rice, and beans, such as linking climate-smart agriculture and among others. It may be better to select the firm private sector development. Phased implementation first, then determine the focus crops. allows for testing and learning and makes it easier to restructure program or projects. It also provides

24 25 ©CIF PROMOTING CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE IN NEPAL

ANNEX A ANNEX B Project implementation timeline People interviewed for case study

Date Implementation event Stakeholder(s) Name Position Institution Type of Date Location stakeholder 2008 Establishment of PPCR CIF Akira Dhakwa Programme Manager IFC Nepal Implementer Multiple Online and May-2009 Formal interest of GoN to participate in PPCR GoN exchanges Kathmandu

Sept 2009 – Nov 2010 Three scoping missions ADB, IFC, WB, GoN Harsh Vivek Programme Manager IFC South Asia Online

Nov-2010 Stakeholder consultations of component concept notes ADB, IFC, WB, GoN, and a series Ernest Bethe Principal Operations IFC 13/04/2018 Online of stakeholders, including private Officer sector Deep Karki Operations Office IFC / 13/04/2018 Kathmandu Jun 2011 Endorsement of private sector programme in PPCR GoN, PPCR Board SME Ventures Fund

May 2012 Scoping of regions and crops Consultancy firm (PWC) Ritu Malla Senior Investment IFC / 13/04/2018 Kathmandu Manager Business Oxygen Sep 2012 Approval USD 8,7 million for the private sector component of IFC, PPCR sub-committee the SPCR, including the Promoting Climate Resilient Agriculture Moushumi PSD Advisor Practical Action Technical advisor 09/04/2018 Kathmandu Project Shrestha Consulting (PAC)

Dec 2012 Set aside USD 70 million in concessional funds for private sector IFC, PPCR Milan Kumar Joshi Program Manager 10/04/2018 Kathmandu projects Ashish Shrestha Director Solutions Consulting 10/04/2018 Kathmandu Mar 2013 Approval “Promoting Resilient Agriculture” project IFC Hitesh Golchha Chief Director Golchha Group Client - Private 10/04/2018 Kathmandu July 2013 Official start of activities IFC sector firm Suresh Mehta Cane Manager (sugarcane) 11/04/2018 Biratnagar - Terai Aug 2014 Stocktaking of the project and decision to restructure the IFC region (project area) project: field activities; ICT component; investment component

2014 In depth participatory market system analysis Consultancy firm (PAC) Anand Bagaria Managing Director Probiotech Industries Client - Private 12/04/2018 Kathmandu Pvt. Ltd. - Nimbus sector firm April – May 2015 Nepal Earthquake – field activities stopped Nischit Aryal Technical person (maize) 13/04/2018 Kathmandu Nov - Dec 2015 Trade embargo (economic blockade) – no movement at all Pradeep Sharda Director Nutri Food Pvt. Ltd., Client - Private 11/04/2018 Biratnagar - Terai Dec 2015 Request for extension to complete project activities (initial IFC Sharda Group sector firm (rice) region (project area) estimated end date was 28 Feb 2017) Archana Shrestha Senior Divisional Department of Government 12/04/2018 Kathmandu Jan 2016 Mid-line reports Consultancy firm (Solutions Meteorologist Hydrology and (in charge of a consulting) Meteorology complementary component) 2016 Project restructuring IFC, PPCR Board

Dec 2017 Finalization of activities on rice

June 2018 Estimated end date IFC PPCR

26 PROMOTING CLIMATE RESILIENT AGRICULTURE IN NEPAL CASE STUDY 2018

ANNEX D Adaptation a Private Sector Business: Insights from the ANNEX C Pilot Program for Climate Resilience in Nepal. San Giorgio References and Group Case Study. Climate Policy Initiative, London, United Stakeholders’ map bibliography Kingdom. United Nations Development Programme (2016): Human Development Report 2016. Human development for S E everyone. UNDP, New York, USA. C

Verisk Maplecroft (2011). Climate Change Vulnerability D AC Climate Investment Funds (CIF) (2016): Private Sector Index. Verisk Maplecroft, Bath. United Kingdom. Investment in Climate Adaptation in Developing Countries. C Landscape, Lessons Learned and Future Opportunities. CIF, http://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/Index D Washington, United States of America (USA).

E Integrated Development Society (IDS) Nepal, Practical Action Consulting (PAC) and Global Climate Adaptation Partnership (GCAP) (2014): Economic Impact Assessment D of Climate Change in Key Sectors in Nepal. IDS-Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. IFC Climate Business (2012): Stories of Impact. IFC Advisory S Helps Farmers Adapt to Climate Change. Pilot Program for Climate Resilience. IFC, Washington, USA. S German Watch (2017): Global Climate Risk Index 2018. S German Watch, Berlin, Germany.

Government of Nepal (2016): Intended Nationally Source: Figure by author, based on information provided by interviewees and desk review Determined Contribution.

Practical Action Consulting (no date): Climate resilient agriculture in Nepal. PAC, Kathmandu, Nepal.

PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd (PwC) and the Centre for Environmental and Agricultural Policy Research, Extension and Development (CEAPRED) (2012): Scoping Study on Climate Resilient Agriculture and Food Security, PPCR- Nepal. PwC, London, United Kingdom.

Trabacchi, Chiara and Martin Stadelmann (2013): Making

28 29 The Climate Investment Funds (CIF) accelerates climate action by empowering transformations in clean technology, energy access, climate resilience, and sustainable forests in developing and middle-income countries. The CIF’s large-scale, low-cost, long-term financing lowers the risk and cost of climate financing. It tests new business models, builds track records in unproven markets, and boosts investor confidence to unlock additional sources of finance.

©2018 CIF The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of CIF, its governing bodies, or the governments they represent. CIF does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of CIF concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. www.climateinvestmentfunds.org

This Case Study is part of