Page History
Table of Contents | ||
---|---|---|
|
Background
The "4 per 1000 Initiative: Soils for Food Security and Climate" is part of the Global Climate Action Plan. The initiative promotes the development of an international, science-based action plan to increase Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) sequestration to improve food security and mitigate and adapt to climate change. The overarching goal of the initiative is to support partner countries and organizations in developing evidence-based projects, policies, and programs that promote actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by protecting and increasing SOC stocks. Increasing SOC by 4/1000 (0.4%) per year is an ambitious and inspiring goal.
To this end, the initiative's Scientific and Technical Committee (STC) provides a service for the Formative Assessment of Soil Projects (FASP). FASP aims to increase the positive impact and visibility of proposed, planned, and ongoing projects and thus make them more attractive to investors. The centers on a set of reference criteria, indicators, methods, and metrics developed by the STC, referred to as the "Reference Criteria and Indicators". They are used to check whether a project complies with the principles and objectives of the initiative and the relevant United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a particular focus on SDG 2 "Zero Hunger", SDG 13 "Climate Action" and SDG 15 "Land Conservation and Restoration".
Overview of Criteria and their links to the SDGs
Table 1 shows the list of 13 reference criteria and their mains links with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Table 1: Assessment steps, reference criteria types, criteria and their links with the SDGs
Step | Criteria | Criterion | Main links with SDGs (#) |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Safeguards | 1.1 Human rights | 1 Poverty, 5 Gender equality & 16 Justice |
1.2 Land tenure rights | 1 Poverty & 16 Justice | ||
1.3 Poverty alleviation | 1 Poverty | ||
2 | Direct | 2.1 Soil conservation/improvement and land restoration | 15 Life on land |
2.2 Soil organic carbon stock increase or maintenance | 15 Life on land | ||
2.3 Climate change mitigation | 13 Climate change | ||
2.4 Climate change adaptation | 13 Climate change | ||
2.5 Food security | 2 Zero hunger | ||
3 | Indirect | 3.1 Biodiversity | 15 Life on land |
3.2 Water resources | 6 Clean water and sanitation | ||
3.3 Welfare and well being | 3 Good health and quality of life, 8 Decent work and economic growth & 12 Responsible consumption and production | ||
4 | Cross-cutting | 4.1 Inclusive and participatory approach | 12 Responsible consumption and production & 17 Partnerships for the goals |
4.2 Training and capacity building | 4 Quality education & 17 Partnerships for the goals |
The FASP Procedure
The FASP comprises four consecutive steps. Each step deals with a specific category of reference criteria. The assessment continues with the next step only if the criteria of the previous step are met. If step 1 is successful, step 2 is completed, and if this is successful, the assessment continues with the third and fourth steps.
If the assessment is interrupted, the project owner will be informed of the reasons. Depending on the amount of technical information provided and the expertise available in the STC, technical advice will be given to the project owner to improve the project.
Step 1-Safeguards: It assesses if the project does not restrict human rights or affect land rights and poverty reduction. If the project does not meet all the safeguard criteria, the STC interrupts the assessment and informs the project owner about the reasons.
Step 2-Direct: It assess the direct impact of projects on the following areas:
i) SOC stocks and land degradation neutrality (SDG 15 Life on land),
ii) Adaptation to climate change and
iii) climate change mitigation (SDG 13 Climate change) and
iv) Food security (SDG 2 Zero hunger).
A project must improve Soil Organic Carbon (SOC), i.e. increase SOC or reduce SOC loss compared to "business as usual". It should also work towards a positive impact on the other direct reference criteria. Otherwise, the STC interrupts the formative assessment and advises on how the proposal can be improved to achieve a positive impact on all direct reference criteria.
Step 3-Indirect criteria: It assess the indirect effects of projects on a range of other economic, social, and environmental dimensions, including welfare and well-being (SDG 12 Responsible consumption and production), biodiversity and ecosystem services (15 Life on land), water and nutrient cycles (SDG 6 Clean water and sanitation), etc. If, compared to a business-as-usual baseline, the project is likely to have a strong negative impact on social, economic, or environmental dimensions, it will be negatively evaluated on the corresponding criteria.
Step 4-Cross-cutting: It assesses the extent to which the project takes into account participatory and socially inclusive approaches and contributes to capacity building.
Projects that have undergone the full assessment for the four steps will also receive recommendations for further improvement. A short description of the projects that are assessed as conforming with the objectives of the 4 per 1000 Initiative will be included on the 4 per 1000 website (1).
Criteria, Indicators and Methods
Safeguard Criteria
Anchor | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Safeguard criteria are used to identify proposed SOC projects that have the potential to negatively affect human rights, land rights and poverty alleviation, in Step 1 of a SOC project assessment.
The assessment is bound by the Unified Declaration of Intent of the 4 per 1000 Initiative which ‘recalls the necessity of protecting existing legitimate land rights, including informal rights, and their holders, in coherence with the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (CFS 2012) and the Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems (CFS 2014)’. Major aspects of Safeguard Criteria to be assessed for SOC projects include:
Safeguard criterion | Major aspects to be covered | Default indicator | Default method |
---|---|---|---|
1.1 Human rights |
|
|
|
1.2 Land tenure |
| ||
1.1 Poverty |
|
The following resources and references may be used to develop project indicators and methods for the Safeguard Criteria:
Human rights (UN):
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
- ILO Convention 169 relative to Indigenous and Tribal People, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
Local tenure rights:
- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), art. 2.1;
- Committee on World Food Security Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure.
- Land use:
- Free Prior and Informed Consent principles, UN REDD guidelines.
Soils and the SDGs:
- Keesstra SD, Bouma J, Wallinga J, Tittonell P, Smith P, Cerdà A, Montanarella L, Quinton JN, Pachepsky Y, Van Der Putten WH, Bardgett RD. (2016). The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Soil 2(2):111-28.
Direct Criteria
Direct criteria are used to assess the direct effects of projects on I) soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks and land degradation neutrality (SDG 15), II) climate change adaptation and, III) climate change mitigation (SDG 13), and IV) food security (SDG 2) in Step 2 of a project assessment.
Major aspects of Direct Criteria to be assessed for SOC projects include:
Direct criterion | Major aspects to be covered | Default indicator | Default method |
---|---|---|---|
2.1 Soil conservation/improvement; land restoration |
|
|
|
2.2 Soil organic carbon stock increased/maintained |
|
|
|
2.3 Climate change mitigation |
|
|
|
2.4 Climate change adaptation |
|
|
|
2.5 Food security |
|
|
|
The following resources and references may be considered in developing project indicators and methods for direct criteria:
- FAO. 2020. A protocol for measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification of soil organic carbon in agricultural landscapes – GSOC-MRV Protocol. Rome.
- FAO. 2019. Measuring and modelling soil carbon stocks and stock changes in livestock production systems – A scoping analysis for the LEAP work stream on soil carbon stock changes. Rome. 84 pp. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
- Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management. ITPS, Global Soil Partnership and FAO, Rome 2017.
- IPCC (2006). IPCC Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- IPCC (2019). 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
- Mohr, A., Beuchelt, T., Schneider, R., & Virchow, D. (2016). Food security criteria for voluntary biomass sustainability standards and certifications. Biomass and Bioenergy, 89, 133-145.
- FAO IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO (2020) The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets.
Indirect Criteria
Indirect criteria are used to assess indirect effects of SOC projects on a range of economic, social and environmental dimensions in Step 3 of a SOC project assessment. Major aspects of Indirect Criteria to be assessed for SOC projects include:
Indirect criterion | Major aspects to be covered | Default indicator | Default method |
---|---|---|---|
3.1 Biodiversity |
|
|
|
3.2 Water resources |
|
|
|
3.3 Welfare, livelihoods and well-being |
|
|
|
The following resources and references may be considered in developing project indicators and methods for indirect criteria:
- Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2020) Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Montreal.
- Biodiversity criteria for evaluating development assistance projects. World Resources Institute; (accessed online, Nov. 2, 2017)Hashimoto, T., Stedinger, J. R., & Loucks, D. P. (1982). Reliability, resiliency, and vulnerability criteria for water resource system performance evaluation. Water resources research, 18(1), 14-20.
- Guidelines Poverty and Livelihoods Analysis for Targeting in IFAD-supported Projects (2008) (https://www.ifad.org/.../b7fc45f9-a4a8-49e3-a12a-00db4b7921f1; accessed online, Nov. 2, 2017)
- HLPE (2015). Water for food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome 2015.
Cross-Cutting Criteria
Crosscutting criteria for SOC projects include training and capacity building, participatory and socially inclusive approaches. The project holder should describe the effects of the project activities on these criteria for assessment in Step 4, noting that for the long-term sustainability of a project cross social, economic and environmental aspects both cross-cutting criteria are important.
Major aspects of Cross-cutting Criteria to be assessed for SOC projects include:
Cross-Cutting Criterion | Major aspects to be covered | Default indicator | Default method |
---|---|---|---|
4.1 Inclusive and participatory approach |
|
|
|
4.2 Training and capacity building |
|
|
|
The following resources and references may be considered in developing project indicators and methods for cross-cuting criteria:
- A framework for an inclusive local development policy. Background information.
- UNDP, 2009, Supporting capacity development: the UNDP approach.
- World Economic Forum, 2018. The Inclusive Development Index. System Initiative on the Future of Economic Progress
Download
|