Interview with IFAD’s Asia-Pacific Regional Director, Reehana Rifat Raza

Speaking to UN News during her visit to India, Reehana Rifat Raza, Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific at the International Fund for Agricultural Development, IFAD, discussed food security, fertilizer market disruptions, climate resilience, and the growing relevance of India’s rural development models for countries across Asia and the Global South.

Q) What is the purpose of your visit to India, and what have been your key takeaways?

A) India is a very important partner for IFAD — the International Fund for Agricultural Development — and has been a member since IFAD’s foundation in 1977.

At present, IFAD has a combined investment of $1.2 billion in India, including $420 million through IFAD’s own and third-party funds. India has historically been important not only as a recipient of funds, but also as a contributor to IFAD’s mandate and replenishment.

Our relationship with India is constantly evolving. India is now an important global player, and the real opportunity during this visit was to engage with the Government of India, look closely at Indian models of agricultural development, and understand how approaches used in IFAD-supported projects here can be learned from, scaled, and adapted for other countries in the region.

We also had the opportunity to sign a Letter of Intent with NABARD, which will be an important partnership for us going forward.

Q) You are visiting India at a time of growing uncertainty in global food, energy and fertilizer markets. Are tensions in the Middle East affecting farmers in Asia and the Pacific in particular?

A) As Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, this is a major concern for me. Around 80 percent of the fertilizer absorbed by the region comes through the Strait of Hormuz, so the potential impact is huge. To call it significant would almost understate the scale of the challenge.

Disruptions in the region can increase fuel costs, affect supply chains, and push up fertilizer prices. All of this directly undermines farmer livelihoods across Asia and the Pacific. Some countries are more affected than others, but for smallholder farmers — who are central to IFAD’s mandate — the impact can be especially severe.

There is also considerable regional variation. I have just come from the Pacific, and one interesting lesson from some of our projects there is that work on agroecology has helped farmers reduce their dependence on external inputs. In some cases, farmers have been encouraged to use local bio-cultures and bio-sensitive fertilizers, which has helped them better manage the pressures created by the crisis.

Of course, this varies from country to country. The situation in the Pacific is very different from a country like Cambodia, Vietnam, or others in the region, where the dependence on imported fertilizer and exposure to global supply disruptions may be much higher.

Q) The Strait of Hormuz crisis is affecting fertilizer supplies, with concerns that this could affect harvests later in 2026 and into 2027. How vulnerable are small farmers in Asia and the Pacific, and what is IFAD doing to help prevent this?

A) IFAD is essentially a financial institution, and we work with governments mainly through loans. In an emergency like this, our role is to make sure that governments can deploy the funds they have borrowed as quickly and flexibly as possible for urgent needs.

For example, we may already be investing in ongoing projects, but the cost structure of everything committed this year has risen sharply. We are very aware that farmers have a very small window for planting, which will then affect harvesting later in the year. So the immediate question is: how can we make it easier for farmers to access support through existing loans?

One way we do this is by restructuring existing loans, so governments have more flexibility to access and deploy those resources quickly.

More broadly, this is the third major crisis we have faced in the last five years. We are learning that the way we work has to change, because we are living in a world of increasing complexity and global uncertainty. We have to design our programmes differently.

Through our projects, we are also trying to strengthen farmers’ capacity to respond to such crises. That includes promoting different agricultural practices, reducing dependence on certain fertilizers, and helping farmers build more resilient systems.

In terms of immediate steps, we have emergency response mechanisms within projects — the exact technical name is [unclear in transcript] — which allow us to move money quickly when there is an emergency or a climate shock. In previous crises, IFAD has also created dedicated funds that could be deployed quickly to support governments.

This time, that broader mechanism is still being worked on. For now, we are using existing lending already in the pipeline and making it more easily available to governments, so they can respond quickly and support farmers on the ground.

Q) As you said, there is only a small window for fertilizer to reach farmers at the right time. If it does not, crops and harvests could be affected. What immediate steps has IFAD taken to address this?

A) As you said, timing is critical. Fertilizer has to reach farmers within a very specific window, otherwise planting and later harvests can be affected.

What we are asking our country teams to do is to engage proactively with governments and state governments, and ask: what is the immediate need, what support is required, and how can we restructure what we already have in place to get those resources to you quickly?

Often, the challenge is not only financial resources, but also the actual availability of fertilizer. That is the bigger challenge in some cases. IFAD cannot directly source fertilizer and deliver it, but what we can do is help ensure that governments have access to the financial resources they need, where supplies are available.

So our immediate response is to be proactive with governments. We are looking at the funds already available within existing IFAD-supported projects — often projects worth around $30 million to $40 million — and asking how those resources can be made accessible more quickly, so governments can deploy them where they are most urgently needed.

Beyond the immediate shock, the larger goal is also to help farmers and governments become more resilient to these kinds of disruptions in the future.

Q) How is IFAD helping rural communities build stronger and more resilient food systems for the future?

A) This is at the core of IFAD’s work. Around 45 percent of our funds go towards climate adaptation, because smallholder farmers are on the frontlines of climate change.

In that sense, all our projects look at climate adaptation in some form, especially in relation to smallholder farmers. This includes providing farmers with climate-smart technologies, knowledge, and support, while also investing in climate-adaptive infrastructure where governments are willing to make those investments.

We also combine this with financing, technology, and other forms of support, so that farmers have the adaptive capacity they need to respond to climate change and future shocks.

Essentially, building stronger and more resilient food systems is what IFAD tries to do across all its projects.

Q) At the recent Rome event, there was strong global interest in India’s development models. What are some examples that can be replicated and shared with the Global South and the Asia-Pacific region?

A) Today’s discussion was very interesting because there was a lot of focus on how India is moving from cooperatives to Farmer Producer Organizations. I think this is a demand we are seeing across the region.

For example, in Cambodia, there is strong interest in this model. The government is working on a project with a similar approach, looking at how existing cooperatives can be converted into Farmer Producer Organizations. That is definitely one example that other countries can learn from.

Another important area is public digital infrastructure. From what I understood today, the ability to create an ecosystem and a coordinated response in agriculture depends heavily on digital platforms and infrastructure. Governments around the world are looking at this and want to learn from India’s model.

At the centre of the discussion was also the importance of community-led institutions, and how they can be connected to digital platforms and integrated investments — from technology to basic infrastructure and market access.

There was also discussion around Meghalaya and its hub-and-spoke model of delivery, especially in connecting individual farmers to markets that are far away.

So there are many lessons here that can be shared and adapted. The technology aspect is especially important, particularly as we try to provide timely information to smallholder farmers in the face of climate change. That is a major way to strengthen information-sharing and support farmers more effectively.

Q) Looking ahead, what message can India and the Asia-Pacific region offer the world about the future of food security — not only in terms of producing more food, but also investing in rural people, women, youth, and local communities? What kind of lessons can be shared?

A) I think that is very interesting. What we know about women and women-led households, at least from a development perspective, is that when women have control over and access to resources, they tend to prioritise food, family, and household well-being.

This is especially important in South Asia, where household dynamics, women’s vulnerability, and inequality within households remain real challenges. So, in our projects, when we work to strengthen women’s voice, autonomy, access to markets, and access to resources, we are also helping them become more self-sufficient and earn a decent income. That, in turn, helps secure food at the household level.

I think there is also a lot to learn from cooperatives and how they function. These institutions can play an important role, including during food crises. As I said, we are living through a very difficult period globally, and these shocks seem to be becoming more frequent.

So, looking at local institutions — how they have delivered, where they have not delivered, and how they can be strengthened — is very important. The key lesson is that community-led institutions need to be able to focus on communities first, especially in times of crisis. That will be central to building stronger and more resilient food security systems for the future.

***