The “4 per 1000 Initiative

The “4 per 1000 Initiative: Soils for Food security and Climate”, part of the Global Climate Action Plan and called «Initiative» hereinafter, proposes an international research and scientific cooperation program and an action plan aimed at increasing soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration, in order to increase food security, mitigate and adapt to climate change. Its overarching goal is to assist contributing countries and non-state organizations to develop evidence-based projects, actions and programs, referred to as «projects» hereafter, to promote and encourage actions towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions through protecting and increasing SOC stocks, the target rate of a 4/1000 (0.4%) per year being an aspirational goal.

The Scientific and Technical Committee (STC) of the Initiative was established at the first meeting of the Consortium members during COP22 in Marrakech, aiming at providing scientific and technical support to Consortium members. Following the terms defined by the Consortium, the principal mandate of the STC is to propose a set of reference criteria, hereafter referred to as “4/1000 reference criteria”, for the formative assessment of projects to meet the principles and goals of the Initiative as defined in the Unified Declaration of Intent and the relevant UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as set out in Table 1, with particular focus on SDG 2 on zero hunger, SDG 13 on climate action and SDG 15 on land conservation and restoration.

A project on soil organic carbon submitted to the STC for expert advice, hereafter referred to as “a SOC project”, should include a set of well-defined actions, hereafter defined as “SOC project actions”, that are expected to result in quantifiable increase in SOC stocks (or, at a minimum, reduction in losses of SOC) as a primary goal while balancing complementary impacts relating to the SDGs. Each project action should have clearly defined temporal and spatial scales. The SOC project actions should be aimed primarily at increasing SOC or reducing losses, following changes in land management and/or land use management options. The project proposers will be asked to assess the anticipated co-benefits, possible trade-offs and community benefits of the project based on the 4/1000 Reference Criteria.

Formative Assessment of Soil Projects (FASP)

An ensemble of criteria, indicators, methods and metrics, has been developed by the STC to provide guidance to project proposers and provide formative assessment of projects. For projects that satisfy the first set of criteria that ensure project actions do not restrict human rights or negatively affect land rights and poverty alleviation, the formative assessment will provide guidance for actions, and recommend improvements. This guidance will help to ensure that the projects are consistent with the aims of the Initiative, and that, with appropriate funding and project management, methods would be in place to monitor progress during project implementation. The assessment will provide narrative advice aimed at improving the quality of the project before it is implemented and during implementation. The post project stage, including funding opportunities, will not be included in project assessments. The depth and quality of the advice will depend on the quality of the information provided about the project.

FOUR STEPS FOR SOC PROJECT ASSESSMENT

The proposed SOC project assessment approach comprises four sequential steps, with each step being defined by a distinct category of reference criteria that include socio-economic and soil science dimensions. Assessment will proceed to the next step only if the criteria are met for the previous step. If not, the project proposer will be informed of the reasons why the project is not assessed fully. Then, depending on the level of technical information provided, and on the expertise available within the STC, technical advice will be provided to the proposer to improve the project. If Step 1 is successful, Step 2 will be completed and if successful, the SOC project assessment will enter in the third and fourth final steps of assessment.

Step 1: Safeguard Criteria will be used to ensure that actions to increase SOC do not restrict human rights, or negatively affect land rights and poverty alleviation. If a SOC project, or a SOC project activity, does not satisfy all safeguard criteria the STC will stop the assessment of the project, or the corresponding project activity, and the project holders will be informed.

Step 2: Direct Reference Criteria will be used to assess the direct effects of projects on i) SOC stocks and land degradation neutrality (SDG 15), ii) climate change adaptation and iii) climate change mitigation (SDG13), and iv) food security (SDG 2). A project or activity needs to contribute at least a positive impact to soil organic carbon (i.e. increase SOC or, at a minimum reduce SOC loss, compared to business as usual), and should actively aim for positive impacts on the other direct reference criteria. Otherwise, the project may not be considered further by the STC and where possible, advice will be provided on how the proposal can be improved to achieve positive impacts for all direct reference criteria.

Step 3: Indirect Reference Criteria will be used to assess indirect effects of projects on a range of other economic, social and environmental dimensions, including welfare and well-being (SDG 12), biodiversity and ecosystem services (SDG 15), water and nutrient cycles (SDG 6), etc. If, compared to a business-as-usual baseline, the project is likely to result in strong negative impacts on social, economic or environmental dimensions, it will be negatively evaluated on the corresponding criteria.

Step 4: Cross-cutting Dimensions of projects will be reviewed using cross-cutting criteria, including training and capacity building, participatory and socially inclusive approaches.

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).

There is no commitment from the “4 per 1000” Initiative to ensure funding for the projects.

(1) The Executive Secretariat of the 4 per 1000 Initiative will ask project holders whose projects are in line with the objectives of the Initiative if they give permission for their projects to be published in the media.

Reference Criteria and their links to the SDGs

Table 1 shows the list of 13 reference criteria to be used for the four steps of SOC projects assessments and their mains links with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Table 1: Assessment steps, reference criteria types, criteria and their links with the SDGs

Safeguard Criteria

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:

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:

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:

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:

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