Objective A2 - Project Development

LabelTitleDescription
Project DevelopmentSupport the development and implementation of numerous innovative projects on Soil Health (SH) and Soil Organic Carbon (SOC)Innovative on-the-ground projects, which focus on SH and SOC and are consistent with the "4 per 1000" vision as well as with the set of criteria and indicators for formative project evaluation developed by the STC, are encouraged, facilitated, and funded.

Targets A2 - Project Development

Baseline 2020Target 2030Target 2050

A call for projects was introduced.

5 to 10 high-quality projects were evaluated as being in line with the "4 per 1000" vision and the STC's set of criteria and indicators.

International mechanisms which fund projects focusing on SH and climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration (including local and small-scale projects) are established and operate based on a harmonized system for project development, monitoring, and evaluation.

The "4 per 1000" call-for-projects and the scientific-technical advice support at least 30 projects a year in the acquisition of funding and the alignment with the Initiative's vision, based on the "4 per 1000" reference criteria and indicators for formative project assessment.

All partner countries and organizations of the "4 per 1000" initiative implement projects on the ground that contribute to the realization of the "4 per 1000" vision and the reference criteria and indicators of the international mechanism established in 2030.

Context A2 - Project Development

Problem A2 - Project Development

Problem StatementDescriptionConsequences

There are few national and international mechanisms supporting the emergence of innovative projects that focus on SH and carbon sequestration. The impacts of the few ground projects implemented are not well documented or communicated.

Farmers and grassroots movements do not have enough options to develop and submit project proposals to improve SH and carbon sequestration at local, farm, and field scales. The funds currently available are for large organizations or experienced governments. The decision to fund projects is related to political and economic conditions in a country and not to a project's potential contribution to global climate change mitigation.Due to the lack of funds, there is no standardized procedure to apply global reference criteria for developing and monitoring SH and carbon sequestration projects to local conditions. Small grassroots projects, implemented at the local level are poorly monitored. Their real-life data do neither feed into research nor further project development. Practitioners implementing similar projects worldwide do not have sufficient opportunities to share their experiences and validate results under standard criteria. Their impact on global climate change mitigation and SH efforts remain low. Thus, catalyzed agriculture, forestry, and land use that prioritizes SH and carbon sequestration are not achieved.

Causes A2 - Project Development

CauseDescription
1Inappropriate application proceduresMany project application procedures are too complicated and time-consuming for farmers and grassroots movements. Although there is a real need for strict standards and criteria to demonstrate results, the amount of information needed and the required level of meticulousness in methodology, paperwork, and more are often too much for small projects.
2Funds do not match potentialAvailable funds and their allocation do not match potential. The problems and necessities of countries will differ because of their development. Thus, to reach the "4 per 1000" objectives should achieve a balance between developed and developing countries.
3Low demandLandowners (potential beneficiaries) do not recognize the benefits of investing in projects to improve SH and SOC. If every landowner was trying to get involved in the "4 per 1000" goal, identification and support of the projects could be facilitated more easily.
4Lack of consensus on standards

There is still disagreement and confusion on measuring (quantifying) the impact of projects. Coordination requires agreement on standards and a consensus on the criteria and indicators to measure impact.

5Short project duration

SH improvement and carbon sequestration exceed the timeframe of standard project funds.

6Low perception of benefitsThe perception of economic benefits is lacking.

7

High transaction costCosts for program and project management increase as the average project volume decreases.
8ExclusionDue to awareness, accessibility, and eligibility, calls are not open to everybody. Without a network through which these calls can reach potential applicants, it isn't easy to compete.
9Lack of coordinationThe lack of exchange and coordination between various investors/donors, governments, and landowners with exciting propositions often leads to fragmented investments.
10Absence of a reference frameworkA global frame of reference for better targeting investments and charting progress is lacking. As an international community, we are failing at separating the promising projects from the myriad others, and hence attention and resources are not channeled well.

Implementation strategy A2 - Project Development

Activities A2 - Project Development

ActivityDescription
1

Agree on M&E standards

Build consensus on criteria and indicators for monitoring and evaluating projects on SHand carbon sequestration with the help of the STC.

2

Coaching of applicants

Support landowners, land users, and local experts in all phases of project development in developing countries.

3

Indicate high-impact areas

Identify the 50 project sites with the highest possible impact on global climate change mitigation.
4Promote project funding schemesCollaborate with funding bodies to develop funding schemes for projects, including micro-projects (simple local outcome-oriented actions with high collective impact).
5Promote the emergence of seed money initiatives

Lobby funders to allocate seed money to projects positively assessed by the "4 per 1000" to facilitate a feasibility study.

6

Provide a collaborative platform

Provide access to an electronic multi-stakeholder platform to support joint project development among network partners with different experience levels.
7

Provide an inventory of funders

Identify prospective investors in SH and work with them toward establishing an international funding mechanism. (Identification of potential financing streams)

Critical Success Factors (CSFs) A2 - Project Development

Critical Success FactorDescription
1FundingSufficient financial and technical resources and political support are available to develop and implement projects.
2

Skills

Project owners and on-site experts trained in integrative project development.
3

Commitment

There is a solid commitment to implementing projects on SH from organizations and individuals with knowledge and skills around soil science and administration and organization.

4

Transaction costs

Cost-effective national, regional, and local MRV systems are in place.

SH projects' cost & social effectiveness include innovations from the science field on SOC measuring and modeling.

5

Multidisciplinary & Integration

Multidisciplinary and integrative research is promoted via competitive public calls.

6

Local conditions

Projects should be applicable at a farm scale.

7

Collaboration

Joint project development among network partners with different experience levels is facilitated through electronic platforms.

Networking advanced institutions with less advanced ones through electronic platforms can help develop a sound project that addresses global problems such as soil health. It helps in teaming-up different experiences.

8Agreed metrics

Achieved consensus on the time frame, criteria, and indicators to measure impact.

Developing a consensus on scientifically sound soil-health indicators is a prerequisite for implementing high-quality projects.

9

Publicity

Communication of results and highlighting of successful projects. (Excitement, Media, Loudness).

Lots of press. The projects must be loud and sexy; with role models that have high visibility: famous actors, radical youth leaders, models, musicians

10

Land tenure sensitivity

Address differences in land tenure. Determine clear and public titles to lands involved in the project for general agreement and reinforce ownership by the people involved. Projects on community lands must communicate to participants that the land belongs to them collectively. Projects on farmers' private land must respect both traditional and legal ownership.
11AccompanimentAccompany projects from the idea to the feasibility study with expertise and knowledge of the funders' procedures.
12SimplicityThe simplicity of procedures supports local initiatives in their application and ensures that change agents get support.

Barriers A2 - Project Development

BarriersDescription
1

COVID 19

Stricter sanitation regulations due to the COVID-19 pandemic while conducting projects. At this point in history, must wear masks and social distance during all activities. One must sterilize all materials. This reality makes work difficult and slow. It also prohibits consultation at the site with university and agency experts.
2

No overview

An overview of all ongoing projects is not available. There are so many projects worldwide, even those that actively promote themselves, that picking winning projects takes a lot of analysis: time, effort, money...
3

Limited access

Project target areas are difficult to access. Poor or impassable roads make it difficult to carry out project activities in the field, making it difficult for many of the populations in need to suffer. This state of the roads accentuates their precariousness.
4Lack of seeds moneyThere is no means for project holders to initiate their project and give birth to a bankable project. Funders have no seed money for such a purpose but should have.
5Little micro-project fundingLack of funding instruments for small local initiatives that need little money but are highly efficient.

  • No labels