Page History
Expandexcerpt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expand | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expand | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
N° | Activity | Description | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Provide an inventory of funders | Identify prospective investors in SHand work with them towards establishing an international funding mechanism. (Identification of potential financing streams) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Indicate high impact areas | Identify the 50 project sites with the highest possible impact on global climate change mitigation. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Agree on M&E standards | Build consensus on criteria and indicators for the monitoring and evaluating projects on SHand carbon sequestration with the help of the STC. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Provide a collaborative platform | Provide access to an electronic multi-stakeholder platform to support joint project development among network partners with different experience levels. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Coaching of applicants | Support landowners, land users, and local experts in all phases of project development in developing countries. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Promote 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Promote project funding schemes | Collaborate with funding bodies to develop funding schemes for projects, including micro-projects (simple local outcome-oriented actions with high collective impact). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expand | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Problem Statement | Description | Consequences | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expand | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
N° | Cause | Description | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Inappropriate application procedures | Many 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Funds do not match potential | Available 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Low demand | Landowners (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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Lack 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Short project duration | SH improvement and carbon sequestration exceed the timeframe of standard project funds. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Low perception of benefits | The perception of economic benefits is lacking. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | High transaction cost | Costs for program and project management increase as the average project volume decreases. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Exclusion | Due 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | Lack of coordination | The lack of exchange and coordination between various investors/donors, governments, and landowners with exciting propositions often leads to fragmented investments. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Absence of a reference framework | A 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expand | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
N° | Critical Success Factor | Description | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Funding | Sufficient 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 SHfrom 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Agreed 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | Accompaniment | Accompany projects from the idea to the feasibility study with expertise and knowledge of the funders' procedures. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | Simplicity | The simplicity of procedures supports local initiatives in their application and ensures that change agents get support. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
English (US) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Context A2 - Project DevelopmentProblem A2 - Project Development
Causes A2 - Project Development
Implementation strategy A2 - Project DevelopmentActivities A2 - Project Development
Critical Success Factors (CSFs) A2 - Project Development
Barriers A2 - Project Development
|
French | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Contexte A2 - Le développement de projetsProblème A2 - Le développement de projets
Causes A2 - Le développement de projets
Stratégie de mise en œuvre A2 - Le développement de projetsActivités A2 - Le développement de projets
Facteurs critiques de succès (FCS) A2 - Le développement de projets
Barrières A2 - Le développement de projets
|
Spanish | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Contexto A2 - Desarrollo de proyectosProblema A2 - Desarrollo de proyectos
Causas A2 - Desarrollo de proyectos
Estrategia de aplicación A2 - Desarrollo de proyectosActividades A2 - Desarrollo de proyectos
Factores críticos de éxito (CSF) A2 - Desarrollo de proyectos
Barreras A2 - Desarrollo de proyectos
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expand | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Barriers
|