Climate-Smart Villages and Agriculture by climatekos

with financial & material support from

KAKAWE-CCAM Project

Guidebook

Development of Bottom-Up, Community-Driven Climate-Smart Villages and Agriculture Action and Best-Practice in Uganda Climatekos

Advanced (online) publication July 2022

Table of contents 1

Introduction to the guidebook ........................................................ 4 1.1 1.2

Motivation and aim of the guidebook ......................................................................... 4 Structure of the guidebook .......................................................................................... 6

Concepts of Climate-Smart Villages and Agriculture .............................. 7 2.1 Definitions of key terms and underlying concepts ...................................................... 7 2.2 Possible activities and their implementation ............................................................. 10 2.3 Adaptation & mitigation measures ............................................................................ 14 2.3.1 Basic principles & underlying approaches ........................................................ 14 2.3.2 Climate action programmes: project and market mechanisms .......................... 16

3 Module 1 (Communities): Development of community-based climate-smart action ......................................................................................... 21 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 22 3.2 Stages in the planning, identification & monitoring of activities ............................. 23 3.2.1 Stage 1: Participatory planning, site assessment & analysis.............................. 23 3.2.2 Stage 2: Identification of Activities ................................................................... 27 3.2.3 Stage 3: Site monitoring & feedback into implementation ................................ 34 3.2.4 Stage 4: Financing the development and implementation of climate action ..... 38 4 Module 2 (Facilitators & Extensionists): Facilitation of the development of community-based climate-smart action ................................................ 41 4.1 Underlying principles of transactions & role of transaction managers ..................... 42 4.2 Participatory planning ............................................................................................... 44 4.3 Identification of suitable activities and development of projects .............................. 45 4.3.1 Technicalities and requirements (pre-planning/feasibility considerations) ....... 45 4.3.2 Steps in the quantification mitigation & adaptation benefits ............................. 49 4.4 Implementation, monitoring, validation and certification ......................................... 55 4.4.1 Monitoring plan, methodology, and protocols ................................................... 55 4.4.2 Validation & certification .................................................................................. 56 5 Module 3: Financing and further support to the development of communitybased climate-smart action ............................................................... 59 5.1 Phase 1: Financing the early stage ........................................................................... 62 5.1.1 Steps in early-stage planning, structuring & initial finance raising ................... 62 5.1.2 Finding partners, closing gaps & adding components ....................................... 64 5.2 Phase 2: Development stage – raising finance & structuring projects ...................... 65 5.2.1 Steps in finance raising & structuring ................................................................ 67 5.2.2 Important considerations during the finance raising & structuring process ...... 69 5.3 Excurse: Collaborating with private sector actors & leveraging further finance ...... 71 5.3.1 Basic, underlying prerequisites & success factors ............................................. 71 5.3.2 Upstream & downstream involvement potential ............................................... 72 5.3.3 Enabling framework conditions ......................................................................... 73 5.3.4 A phased approach to private sector involvement & finance ............................ 77

Annexes .................................................................................. 80 6.1 Financial sector involvement in the development of CSV/CSA projects in Uganda and other potential national and international doners .......................................................... 80 6.2 Quantification of emission reductions from CSA practices ...................................... 82 6.2.1 Simplified methodology for the quantification from manure handling ............. 82 6.2.2 Methodology to quantify mitigation benefits through improved cookstoves .... 85 6.2.3 Methodology to quantify mitigation benefits from improved cookstoves (deforestation angle) ......................................................................................................... 87 6.2.4 Methodology to quantify mitigation benefits from the use of solar PV panels . 89

1 Introduction to the guidebook 1.1 Motivation and aim of the guidebook Around the globe, agricultural production systems and food security are increasingly threatened by climate and weather risks. The creation of resilient food production systems requires maintaining agricultural production and at the same time minimizing the impacts of climate shocks. Concepts such as climate-smart villages and climate-smart agriculture have been developed to help farmers cope with the impacts of climate change and changing growth conditions under increasing weather variability, at the same time contributing to climate change mitigation. However, there is a lack of practical guidance for community-driven climate action in the rural areas: “What practical steps can smallholder farmers take to adapt their agricultural practices? What can be done to decrease greenhouse gas emissions or increase carbon sequestration at the same time? And which potential funding sources exist for this type of activities, how can they be accessed?” This guidebook seeks to answer these questions by providing practical and concise step-by-step guidelines for communities and practitioners, such as facilitators and extensionists, to design and implement climate-smart agriculture activities with and for smallholders/at community level. In order to develop and implement viable, long-term projects or programmes1 beyond the usual donor funding cycles, it is crucial to also take into account the increasingly complex landscape of climate finance sources and mechanisms and their related technicalities. In addition to project development guidelines, the guidebook thus contains a section to clarify how adaptation and climate change projects can be planned, structured, and developed in terms of financing. Emphasis should be placed on ensuring that these are integrated into the rural development activities of local development organizations while working towards improving livelihoods at the farm and community level. The idea is to match adaptation and mitigation needs with community supply and the financing offered by donors and other non-governmental and private actors, creating entry points for the latter. The manual helps the stakeholders understand what and why they develop and implement climate-smart actions as well as how to do this in a way to secure long term support and extend the lifetime of related projects beyond the usual lifetime of climate projects (i.e., up to 10 years?).

The guidebook is basically designed to drive the step-by-step implementation of successful climate-smart projects. Based on success, such projects can later be transformed into programmes of larger scale and with a long-term perspective. Many of the aspects addressed in this guide also apply to such programmes. However, for the sake of simplicity, mostly projects will be referred to in the following which does not exclude later conversions into programmes. Reference is only made to programs when the aspects addressed explicitly allude to a long-term perspective. © Climatekos 2022 Page 4 of 91

The guidance and background provided here are presented as briefly as possible while ensuring the required depth. It does so by visualizing complex key aspects in a user-friendly way, incorporating participatory planning, and linking to further information and data platforms for those who want to know more.

Climate Action Adaptation & Mitigation at village/community level

Climate-Smart Villages

Low emission development Village development plans Gender and social integration Climate information services Climate-smart technologies and agricultural practices Participatory diagnosis of climate change risks

Community vision for adaptation & mitigation

Climate Smart Agriculture Soil management Crop production Water management Livestock management Forestry and agroforestry Fisheries and aquaculture Energy management

Capacity building for farmers and climate-resilient technologies

Figure 1: Building climate-resilient rural communities through climate-smart villages

1.2 Structure of the guidebook The main body of the guidebook is structured into three modules distinguishing between the knowledge needs, actions, and support measures by 1. Communities, or their selected representatives as main actors in designing and developing climate-smart activities; 2. Practitioners, such as facilitators and extensionists, who accompany such community-based efforts, enabling the planning and implementation of extension of activities beyond the initial (pilot) areas;2 and 3. Local development organizations, that plan, structure, and develop such projects in terms of financing. While the initial focus is on public sources of funding, an additional digression on the involvement of private sector actors and funding is provided. The individual modules are cross-referenced among each other to account for the necessary interlinkages and complementarities between these stakeholder groups (see Figure 2).

Climate-Smart Information Service Who? Farmers Meteorological agencies/bureau ICT companies Researchers

Climate-Smart Knowledge and System Who? Farmer groups Local government Researchers Practitioners Farmer-field schools

Climate-Smart Technology Who? Researchers Buyers Farmer groups

Climate-Smart Village Development Plans Who? Insurance companies Community leaders Local government

Figure 2 : The role of different actors within climate-smart villages (adapted from Papusoi/Al Faraby, 2013)

The guidebook adopts a step-by-step approach, with to-the-point guidance formulated in easy language, still ensuring the necessary depth and background information. Links and references are provided for further detailed information (see for example boxes with practical examples and hyperlinks to web-based information), particularly for the community and the practitioners’ modules. 2

These include local development organisations (e.g., local NGOs such as Caritas Kampala in Uganda). In addition, other supporting organisations and experts can be subsumed in this category. This group of individuals and organizations is referred to throughout the Guidebook as facilitators, experts, extensionists or consultants. © Climatekos 2022 Page 6 of 91

This manual is a living document that is regularly updated to include lessons learned or new modules. The guidebook and further updates are available online to provide guidance for further practitioners, facilitators, and implementers.

2 Concepts of climate-smart villages and agriculture Chapter Outline First Part •

Brief overview of the key concepts and terms used throughout the guidebook. • The concepts of climate-smart Agriculture and climate-smart Villages are explained and put in context to the overarching approaches of climate-smart rural development and climate-smart communities. • Key definitions are summarized in boxes, and relationships illustrated in figures. Second Part • Connecting the presented key concepts to practice showing what type of activities can be implemented. • The choice of activities is always context-specific and depends on local priorities. Third Part • Presentation of basic principles and underlying approaches of adaptation and mitigation measures as well as project and market mechanisms for adaptation and mitigation. • Explanation of the baseline scenario.

Climate-Smart Agriculture consists of agricultural practices that sustainably increase productivity and system resilience while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, where possible. Climate-Smart Villages are sites where local communities work with researchers, policymakers, scientists, and NGOs to develop a strategic approach to sustainable agriculture through climatesmart agriculture practices and technologies.

Within Uganda, the following activities are prioritized at the national level: agroforestry, water harvesting, conservation agriculture, or silvopastoralism. Such a prioritization may look different at the local level. The main users of CSA practices in Uganda are small-scale farmers whose primary goal is to increase crop productivity. The baseline describes the adaptation and mitigation conditions at the onset. To establish a baseline a situation analysis and the identification of indicators are necessary.

2.1 Definitions of key terms and underlying concepts What is climate-smart agriculture? Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is a combined policy, technology, and financing approach to reorient agricultural development in response to climate change. The idea is to achieve resilient agricultural systems with sustainable yields. CSA builds on existing development paths but provides alternative options for improvement through an adaptive, holistic, and participatory approach.

Definition: Climate-smart agriculture aims to sustainably increase productivity and income, build resilience to climate change, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance achievement of national food security and development goals. CGIAR 2013

With this, CSA has the potential to create triple-win results: improved productivity, enhanced resilience, and reduced emissions (Figure 3). However, in real life, it might be difficult to achieve all three outcomes to the same degree, as trade-offs arise between them. Whereas the main objective of CSA is the contribution to food security and development; productivity, adaptation, and mitigation are the three interlinked pillars necessary to reach this goal (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Pillars of climate-smart agriculture (adapted from Papusoi/ Al Faraby, 2013)

Productivity relies mainly on the sustainable increase of agricultural productivity and incomes, without negative impacts on the environment. This results in increased food and nutritional security. Strengthened resilience of farmers and agricultural systems means reducing the exposure of farmers to short-term risks while strengthening their capacities to adapt to climate shocks and longer-term stresses. The focus of this adaptation element is on protecting the ecosystem services which are essential for agricultural productivity. The mitigation element should be included wherever possible, resulting in the reduction or removal of greenhouse gas emissions. Examples include avoiding forest conversion for agriculture; or managing soils and trees in ways that maximize their carbon uptake and retention.

Climate-smart agriculture refers to system-wide approaches to water, energy and resource management. Here, CSA system approaches by definition encompass several levels, from the national or regional level down to the village or household level. What are climate-smart villages (CSV)? While CSA operates more at a conceptional and planning level, the term ‘climatesmart villages’ refers to the practical application of CSA at the community level. Activities can be targeted either at individual households or at entire villages. Such community-based approaches are participatory in nature, meaning they are sensitive to gender and vulnerable groups. They are characterized by adaptive learning, which means continuous improvements over time in response to experiences made and lessons learned.

Definition: Climate-smart villages are sites where researchers, local partners, and farmers collaborate to evaluate and maximize synergies across a portfolio of climate-smart agricultural interventions. CGIAR, 2013

The implementation of climate-smart agriculture at village level is supported by additional components that help to optimize the system (Figure 4). These include climate information services, such as tailored weather forecasts to better plan planting and harvesting, but also local knowledge and local institutions with valuable long-term experience. In addition, participatory planning and implementation processes at village level are crucial.

Figure 4: Key components of climate-smart villages (adapted from CGIAR, 2013)

Climate-Smart Villages

Figure 5: Integration of climate-smart approaches at a village scale (adapted from CGIAR, 2013)

However, activities at the village scale are often too small to allow for effective management, as communities in Africa can be widespread (CCAFS, 2015). Therefore, they are often integrated into broader CSA activities at the landscape level, thus combining several villages in a larger management approach. In general, management approaches can cover different levels and scales, depending on the needs and local conditions, including: • • • • •

Landscape management Soils management Energy management Genetic resources management Value-chains management

2.2 Possible activities and their implementation Which CSA activities are useful to implement is context-specific and depends on local priorities. The main users of CSA practices in Uganda are small-scale farmers whose primary goal is to increase crop productivity (CIAT; BFS/USAID 2017). In that sense the approach is not new; it is more a set of indigenous solutions developed over time by smallholders to maximize crop production in the face of changing climatic or soil conditions and detrimental challenges such as pests and diseases. Figure 6 provides examples of concrete agricultural activities that benefit food

security and the climate in general, to create a better understanding of the types of activities and projects that can be implemented at farm and village level. In Uganda, system-level CSA practices such as agroforestry, water harvesting, conservation agriculture, or silvo-pastoralism have the potential to increase productivity, while at the same time improving livelihoods and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Figure 6: Examples of CSA practices for crop production and livestock management with the goal of food security & climate benefits (adapted from CIAT; BFS/USAID, 2017)

Figure 7 presents key crops produced in Uganda and lists CSA activities that are already partly implemented in the country. It can be seen that agroforestry systems for coffee and crop rotation in maize systems have the highest adoption rates.

Figure 7: Selected CSA practices for key production systems in Uganda (Source: CIAT; BFS/USAID, 2017)

Finally, Figure 8 presents a structured overview of CSA/CSV activities per pillar, to illustrate how specific activities contribute to adaptation, mitigation, and food security/productivity.

Pillar

Climate Information Services

Water Management

Crop/seed Management

Forestry/Agroforestry and Soil Management

Energy Smart Activities Network Smart Activities Future Smart Activities

Livestock Management

Adaptation

Mitigation

Productivity / Food security

Weather forecast Telephonic weather Alerts and services

Install weather station for data capture Climate analogues

ICT-agro-advisory Participatory climate services

Rainwater harvesting Community water management

Solar pumps Irrigations strategies

Raised bed planting Watershed management Reduce crop water stress

Adaptive crops (drought tolerant) Community seed banks Crop breeding

Carbon sequestration Perennial crops

Community rotation Higher yields potential Microdosing

Agroforestry Shelter breaks and windbreaks with intercropping system Reduce tillage

Precision fertilizers Legume cropping Reforestation

Land use Livestock systems Integrated soil fertility management

Biofuels Fuel-efficient engines Renewable energies

Biofuels Food-energy-crops Energy management

Knowledge sharing Integrated foodenergy systems

Market information Value chain management

Index-based insurance Climate and crop modeling

Livelihood diversification Risks monitoring

Off-farm risk management

Optimize grazing systems Livestock insurance instruments

Grazing, feed, and manure management Cross-Breeding cattle

Residue management Biofuels Reduce reliance on fossil fuels Early warning systems ICT systems

Grazing management

Figure 8: Overview of CSA/CSV activities per pillar (Adaptation, Mitigation & productivity/food security)

2.3 Adaptation & mitigation measures 2.3.1 Basic principles & underlying approaches Climate action projects such as the KAKAWE typically contain adaptation and mitigation components, which have several basic characteristics. These need to be addressed in the design and implementation of the activities. 1. First of all, climate components contribute to reducing emissions or sequestering carbon (for mitigation activities) or reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience (in the case of adaptation activities). In the description of project activities and objectives, it is important to clearly state climate goals, and identify the climate-related components and the expected impacts. Identifying a GHG reduction project (component) In order to identify a GHG reduction project, the following criteria should be assessed: Does the project reduce a GHG? Does the project support sustainable development? How many emission reductions does the project result in?

Identifying an adaptation project (component) In order to identify an adaptation project, the following criteria should be assessed: Does the project reduce vulnerability to climatic shocks? Does the project help to increase adaptive capacity of affected communities? Does the activity address future climate risk, prioritizing and coordinating action?

2. To assess the success of a climate component, it is important to establish a reference scenario, the so-called baseline, which describes the adaptation and mitigation conditions at the onset. Baselines can be developed at: •

programme scale (e.g., the implementation status of CSA activities across Uganda as reference point for a regional/national programme) or

•

project/activity scale (i.e., local conditions before CSA adoption, to later quantify local adaptation/mitigation outcomes achieved).

To establish the baseline, the boundaries and scope of the CSA project must first be defined. If the planned project is very complex, the baseline data should be divided into subgroups, for example, regions, villages, or crop types, and baselines should be established for each of these groups. In order to establish a baseline a situation analysis might be helpful, which provides a first general picture of the situation. The collected information can be used as baseline information later. However, because the situation analysis is usually conducted before a project is planned and the objectives and indicators have been developed, a more focused baseline is often needed following the situation analysis. The baseline helps to capture the current status of (CSA) initiatives, vulnerabilities and threats (for adaptation), and/or opportunities (for mitigation). Moreover, it should identify the enabling environment across sectors and at multiple levels (see Box for more details). The content of analysis is usually based on existing national, regional and, if available, local data © Climatekos 2022 Page 14 of 91

sources, as well as expert input and surveys. Ideally, farmers and technical experts are included as well. Baseline A baseline scenario provides a point of reference to allow an assumption of future developments under business-as-usual. A climate-sensitive baseline accounts for impacts of climate uncertainty and volatility on agricultural outputs and incomes, which are not considered in conventional agricultural development strategies. Therefore, the baseline scenario for a country-wide / regional CSA programme involves gathering extensive data on potential climate-induced volatility; in addition to data and assumptions regarding: The agricultural, political, social, environmental, and economic contexts in which the CSA approach is developed Structural shifts in the economy (e.g., relative growth of agricultural, industrial, and services sectors) Planned investments and existing policies in individual sectors (e.g., agriculture development strategies) Evolution of technologies and practices, including adoption rates of new technologies (e.g., share of farms with improved practices; average agricultural output at regional/national level). 3. A project scenario should be established that represents the adaptation and mitigation conditions after the activity is implemented (Figures 9 and 10). Thus, climate impacts can be determined by comparing baseline and project scenarios. For this purpose, clear, measurable, and time-specific indicators need to be established to quantify the impacts of all CSA activities. Sometimes it can be difficult to quantify climate benefits, especially benefits that cannot be measured, such as increased resilience or adaptive capacity. For mitigation outcomes, this is easier, such as measuring the carbon stored in woody biomass or the emissions saved by switching from conventional firewood to solar cookstoves.

Figure 9: Emissions with and without the project: mitigation baseline and project scenario (adapted from IIED, 2014)

Figure 10: Number of people at risk of climate change with and without the project: adaptation baseline versus project scenario (adapted from IIED, 2014)

2.3.2 Climate action programmes: project and market mechanisms The principles and characteristics described in 2.3.1 need to be adhered to when developing a climate change mitigation or adaptation activity under one of the socalled transaction mechanisms linked to international carbon markets. Whereas most options exist for mitigation activities, some approaches to adaptation are listed in Table 1 as well.

Carbon credit mechanisms Depending on the scale of the project, the amount of carbon credits generated may be large enough to cover part of the investment costs. Projects that involve the pre-sale of carbon credits (i.e., at project start, before the emission reductions are actually achieved) can thus generate seed capital for project development and implementation. However, as the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2020, a follow-up mechanism under the Paris Agreement is currently being negotiated as part of Article 6 of the Agreement. As of yet, no details have been agreed on the scope or functioning of the new mechanism, nor has it been decided whether and how existing CDM projects can be transferred to the new framework. Whereas the above refers mostly to mitigation activities, funding mechanisms for adaptation activities are less well established. In general, mitigation projects provide a well-established (commercial) framework that adaptation projects can also use or piggyback on, in form of co-benefits and sustainable development impacts. In addition, there are a few dedicated funds for adaptation, which have emerged from the UNFCCC.

Climate action programmes Paris Agreement Article 6 (successor of Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation)

Project-based carbon credit mechanisms

Article 6 includes 3 relevant mechanisms in total. Articles 6.2 and 6.4 refer to market mechanisms, 6.2 focusing on government action and 6.4 focusing on corporate action. Article 6.8 represents a non-market mechanism. In general, these mechanisms are based on the establishment of Carbon Credits through quantifiable emission reductions (=mitigation projects) which can be traded on international carbon markets; Geographical Scope: Annex-I countries Voluntary Carbon Market Voluntary mitigation projects often attempt to generate development or environmental co-benefits, which enables them to sell their carbon credits at premium prices. An example is the Gold Standard, which sets strict requirements and asks for the generation of positive social and environmental impact.

NAMAS

Voluntary emission reduction activities in countries that are not subject to reduction commitments. Objective: developed countries promise technical and financial support, whereas developing Nationally countries are requested to develop appropriate and implement mitigation actions. mitigation actions ‘Supported’ or ‘credited NAMAs’: funding support by developed countries or private entities. ‘Unilateral NAMAs’: independently funded and carried out (exclusively) by developing countries. Bilateral Credit Allow for cost-effective mitigation Bilateral Offsetting Mechanism options abroad, trying to avoid the mechanisms (BCOM) by Japan complexities and technicalities of the CDM. Adaption Fund under the Help developing countries build UNFCCC resilience and adapt to climate change. The Fund is partly financed by the government and private Adaption Fund donors. In addition, two percent of the proceeds from carbon credits issued under CDM projects are used as a financing source. The Green Climate Fund Assist developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change. The GCF’s mandate is to invest in developing The Green countries efforts to adapt to the Climate Fund effects of climate change, aiming to achieve a 50:50 balance between mitigation and adaptation allocations in the future. Table 1: Climate Action Programmes: project and market mechanisms for mitigation and adaptation

Background information for further reading Videos

FAO (2015): Understanding Climate-Smart Agriculture CGIAR Webinar (2016): Climate-Smart Agriculture: Tools for Action (Webinar) GCRF (2021): Implementing Climate-Smart Agriculture: Innovation, Inclusivity & Capacity-Building FAO (2014): CSA Options for Practices and Systems (part 1) Farming First (2016): Climate-Smart Agriculture in Action World Bank (2016): Brewing Prosperity in Uganda: Coffee Farmers Turn to Climate-Smart Agriculture FAO (2018-2020): E-learning Academy for Climate-Smart Agriculture UNCC Learn: Building Climate Resilience in Agriculture FAO (2016): Gender in Climate-Smart Agriculture FAO (2018): Climate-Smart Agriculture for policy makers COP26, SIWI (2021): Salinity and climate smart agriculture COP26, FAO (2021): Climate Smart Agriculture Practices, Farmer Field Schools & Indigenous Chakra Systems Aid and International Development Forum (2018): Improving Adoption of Climate-Smart Agriculture Innovations in Africa (Webinar) CGIAR (2021): Scaling Climate-Smart Agriculture in Eastern & Southern Africa for Resilient Food Systems

Online Resources

CGIAR: Global Case Studies on Climate-Smart Agriculture CGIAR: Tools for CSA CGIAR: CCAFS baseline survey data and materials CCAFS (Uganda): Climate Smart Villages and National Adaptation Planning FAO (Online Sourcebook): Enabling Frameworks for CSA FAO GACSA: Global Case Studies on CSA World Bank: Climate-Smart Agriculture

CSA Guide: What is Climate-Smart Agriculture? GIZ: Climate-Smart Agriculture CSA Booster: Innovation Hub Papusoi/ Al Faraby: Climate-Smart Agriculture CGIAR (2013): Climate-Smart Villages

Further readings

FAO (2013): Climate-Smart Agriculture Sourcebook • Exec. Summary: defining the concept, • Sect A, Module 1: describes rationale, • Sect. A, Module 2: describes landscape approach FAO: Methods and Assessments of CSA FAO: Practices of CSA Frontiers in sustainable food systems Uganda CSA Agriculture Programme • pg. 22: Uganda’s vision and definition of CSA • pg. 24: New technologies, resilient crops, irrigation schemes, food storage, training etc. CIAT, BFS/USAID (2017): Climate-Smart Agriculture in Uganda World Bank Group (2018): Realigning Agricultural Support to Promote Climate-Smart Agriculture GACSA: Compendium, Policy Brief and Practices of CSA FAO: Climate-Smart Agriculture EU: Climate-Smart Agriculture

3 Module 1 (Communities): Development of communitybased climate-smart action Chapter Outline Outline of climate project development from a community perspective, with input from facilitators and experts as appropriate. Focus on the planning and implementation cycle, which helps to develop participatory climate actions with the communities. Detailed overview of the single steps in the planning, implementation, and monitoring of activities.

Stage 1: Participatory planning, site assessment & analysis A baseline is established during site assessment, which may include • Resources, • Primary livelihood activities, • Income per household, • Climatic conditions and, • Current influences (i.e., directly and indirectly affecting the site). Stage 2: Identification of Activities • Evaluation of the baseline activities and which improvements should be in place given current climate/environmental/economic risks of the village. • Consideration where the village would like to be in the future, including given projected climate change. • Creating a list of potential climate-smart activities, in comparison to the current baseline list of activities (narrow them down and prioritize) Stage 3: Site monitoring & feedback on implementation • Farmers have a specific role in gathering information and recording successes and failures of their activities, which will be fed back to facilitators, to improve future practices. • Each activity that is chosen should have an “indicator” or measurement to monitor the success of the activity/technology. • Information gathered needs to be consistent, complete, accurate, and transparent. Stage 4: Financing the development and implementation of climate action • Assessment of the current village/household budget and estimation of the costs of implementing the activities. • The remaining budget gap and options to close this gap should be considered for each project (e.g., Microfinance, Government support, Climate Action Funds, etc.)

3.1 Introduction The aforementioned planning and implementation cycle (Fig. 10) is shown below, where communities are enabled to: •

conduct planning activities: i.e., assess their farm and village sites, assess their needs, and design activities to fit their requirements;

•

identify activities: i.e., assess current baseline activities and necessary changes to enhance adaptation and mitigation to climate change;

•

implement and monitor activities (to ensure progress, continuous improvement, and adaptive planning); and

•

finance the development and implementation of the activities.

Figure 11: Planning and implementation cycle

Eventual adjustment over time Figure 12: Project cycle

3.2 Stages in the planning, identification & monitoring of activities

Figure 13: CSV project steps at community level & with farmers

3.2.1 Stage 1: Participatory planning, site assessment & analysis When planning and assessing the site for climate-smart activities, it is essential to evaluate: 1. the scale of necessary activities, 2. the current priority activities and 3. which resources are available and essential in the village. A baseline is established during site assessment, which may include: -

resources,

primary livelihood activities

income per house,

climatic conditions and

current influences (i.e., directly and indirectly affecting the site).

During site analysis, the potential climatic influences that (will) affect current resources and activities are analyzed. The focus is on how resources change over time (e.g., season, year) and space (e.g., slopes and natural barriers to solar exposure or rainfall, and corridors for transit of cattle or resources). This can be done through the use of village mapping, participatory activities, questionnaires, and workshops. Furthermore, other socio-economic and policy impacts affecting the site need to be taken into consideration, including at the district and national levels. During site design, necessary activities are mapped with a view to maximizing cobenefits (environmental, social, economic), and minimizing potentially detrimental effects of climate change on the environment.

Site monitoring and feedback is an essential element of the planning and implementation stage. During planning, indicators/tracking mechanisms are decided upon, that will be used to assess whether the activities have been valuable. Guidance from facilitators is often necessary in this stage, as well as in the implementation, data gathering (monitoring and reporting), and eventually the assessment of results. Feedback structures and information-sharing arrangements should be discussed to facilitate adaptive planning.

Facilitators can play a key role in guiding community members in identifying their key activities and resources and providing questionnaires and workshops for knowledge sharing. The following image shows the planning cycle during this stage.

Figure 14: Site assessment-analysis-design-monitoring cycle (Source: Mottram et al., 2017)

It is important to consider the impacts of scale on the planning process, from assessing and evaluating sites, to choosing activities and monitoring them. This element should be considered at each point in the planning cycle, as current and potential activities and influences will differ on the household, farm, and village scale, as well as on a landscape scale (see Figure 15).

Figure 15: Landscape approach integrating agriculture – covering different scale levels from garden to watershed level (Source: CTCN, 2017 & Mottram et al., 2017)

Step 1 – Map village baseline Mapping village baselines is essential to determine the villages’ current activities, resources, and influences so that needs can be identified in the next step. Through participatory activities and questionnaires, the village baseline can be established, including among others.

Step 2 – Evaluate/assess baseline Village baselines need to be assessed with the assistance of facilitators and extensionists who are able to provide guidance on collecting relevant information, as well as complimenting information with data collected from local and national levels. This national level data should be related to projected climatic changes as well as to relevant policies, strategies, and programmes. The following elements should be included in the evaluation of the baseline: •

Current available resources of the farm/village/household level. Questions to consider include: o

Which activities/resources are currently in place?

Which activities are currently working effectively, and which are not?

Which resources are in decent supply, and which resources are scarce or at risk of becoming scarce seasonally?

•

Current energy/water access zones of the farm/village/household level: creating a birds-eye view of the corridors and barriers to energy/water supply is an efficient means of assessing energy/water accessibility and can be done as a hand-drawn map by community members. Questions to consider include: o

What are the major sources of energy/water on the farm?

Where is most energy/water needed and for which activities?

What are the barriers/corridors in place to access such points of energy/water and are there more efficient means of access?

Influences of environmental factors on the farm/village/household level: mapping the influences of key natural resources will enable effective farm planning. Questions to consider include: o

What elements, i.e., sunlight, wind, slopes, water, boundaries, land use, drainage, etc. are key influencers on various resources?

How does this change over seasons, hours of the day, years, etc.?

Are there high-risk areas where there is too much or too little exposure to one or more elements?

The slopes and land around the farm/village/household level: analyzing the slopes and land formation around the farm will enable an assessment of where efficient co-benefits can be maximized and risks mitigated. Questions to consider include: o

Where are natural transportation corridors on the farm, enabling downhill flows of nutrients, water flows, fertilizers, etc. or blockages in drainage that may hinder this or cause structural damage to built elements?

What is in place now and what could be improved?

Consideration of economic, social, and gender elements in the village: social, economic, and gender dynamics of the village will determine the division of labor, access to resources, risk and vulnerability and sources of income. Aspects such as income, livelihood activities per household, and gender division are taken into account. It is important to consider such elements on a case-by-case basis before assessing future needs of the village.

Figure 16 provides an overview of how a village/farm can be mapped, while Figure 17 shows an example matrix for resources and influences that could address the questions posed above.

Figure 16: Mapping resources for site analysis to determine baseline and future objectives (Source: Mottram et al., 2017)

Figure 17: Examples of resource and influence information collection table, climate risks calendar & livelihood calendar (Source: Mottram et al., 2017)

3.2.2 Stage 2: Identification of Activities Based on the established main livelihood activities and the related influences (baseline), a list of key activities can be prepared for evaluation,. Then, in participation with the local community members, spokesmen, and facilitators, the activities can be narrowed and evaluated according to priority benefits, risks and costs – taking into account the identified (positive and negative) influences and impacts affecting future developments.. This should be done in the following steps, by: •

Evaluating the baseline activities (previous section) and which improvements should be in place given current climate/environmental/economic risks of the village (step 3).

•

Considering where the village would like to be in the future, given projected climate changes (step 4).

•

Creating a list of potential climate-smart activities, in comparison to the current baseline list of activities. Create a criteria scorecard and use it to narrow down and prioritise up to three activities based on plans with the villagers and the set-up of the village (step 5).

Step 3– Map primary livelihood activities and consider future climate and economic risks Establish the primary livelihood activities (see below questionnaire) in conjunction with the influences map (see Section 3.1) by using a community questionnaire, based on the previous section. Dominant and supplementary activities should be listed, taking into account potential climate influences, in terms of temporal and spatial dimensions. In addition, a breakdown of activities by gender and social group should be provided. This is important to establish priority activities based on different social and gender statuses. Gulu, Uganda Rank

Highlands

Lowlands

Men

Women

Men

Women

Improved livestock breeds

Seed selection

Row planting

Timely planting

Agroforestry

Timely harvesting

Improved varieties

Crop rotation

Pesticides application

Correct spacing

Timely planning

Seed selection

Minimum tillage

Improved varieties

Mulching

Intercropping

Seed selection

Row planting

Intercropping

Row planting

Figure 18: Example of a ranking of practices and prioritization process outcome (adapted from CIAT & BFS/USAID, 2017)

Step 4 – Where do villagers want to go Uganda’s climate change prospects should be considered in relation to the current activities. In this regard facilitators, who can provide communities with information on climatic predictions and related strategies, policies, and programmes at the

national/local level could be helpful. This should also take into account the potential seasonal influences on current activities, crops, markets, and economies. Pin-point and list high climate-risk activities as this will be useful for the preparation of funding documents later.

Figure 19: GHG emission per sector and per subcategory in the agriculture sector in Uganda (Source: CIAT & BFS/USAID, 2017)

Step 5 – Evaluate and choose best activities This step aims to choose approximately three climate-smart activities that can be implemented on the village, farm, or household scale (depending on the needs of the village). While this can be done in several ways, villagers should always focus on each activity individually and how it is related to climate action and the priorities of the villagers. Villagers then select priority criteria to sort and rank best options for CSA activities. Facilitators are encouraged to include other analyses in the decision-making, such as well-being analysis, community and gender need to consider different genders and social groups in the village activities.

Some options for choosing best activities are: •

Option 1: CSA-based approach: identify and list potential CSA activities in the village, ranking their “climate-smartness” against one another, based on the following criteria: o Adaptive potential o Mitigatory potential o Productive potential

•

Option 2: Risk-based approach (sectoral approach): Discuss with villagers the priority risk sectors for current activities based on the previous steps and baseline. Focus on one or two sectors that should be developed in the village and consider technologies and practices that fulfill criteria that promote resilience as well as social, economic, and gender needs.

•

Option 3: Synergy-based approach: Create a board of different potential activities alongside current activities. Assess how new activities fit into village priorities and how they are CSA relevant. This is based on the previous village mapping technique and focusses on building resilience of current activities. Criteria can focus on synergies and co-benefits between activities that could cut costs or improve efficiency.

Hybridizing the above approaches in various ways is also possible. The following section shows examples of different scoring techniques: Option 1: CSA-based approach: Key question: What are potential CSA activities and how smart are they? Consider which activities are better for productivity, adaptation, and/or mitigation? By listing potential activities to choose from CSA technology and practice options can be narrowed down. The focus is on opportunities that address climate change challenges, those that present opportunities for economic growth and development of the agricultural sector, and those that address food security. An example rating scale regarding selected CSA practices and technologies relevant to the Ugandan situation was provided in Chapter 2.2 Figure 7. Option 2: Risk-based approach (sectoral approach) Key question: what sectors/practices and technologies are high-risk and how do we improve this with climate-smart activities? Criteria for this section are based on village-specific priorities. Focus on listing activities in one or more sectors that would be ideal to develop/improve in order to address climate change challenges, as well as economic growth and development of the agricultural sector.

Villagers may also find the following elements important to consider when evaluating potential activities in sectors/sub-sectors: •

Scale of implementable activities (e.g., village/farm/household)

•

Co-benefits (e.g., resilience to forecasted climate change, mitigatory affects, synergies with existing activities)

•

Resources available (e.g., water, energy, current crops)

•

Budget/costs (e.g., on a household and village scale)

•

Productivity

Subsector Subcategory

Crop

Climate-smart practices and technologies

Rain water harvesting and storage

Rain water harvesting and storage structures; chololo pits

Irrigation

Drip/trickle irrigation; System of rice intensification; Irrigation canal lining

Soil and water conservation

Ridging, Tie-ridging; Water Retaining/ Harvesting Pits

Terraces

Fanya juu, Fanya chini terraces, Bench terraces, Stone terraces

Agroforestry

Tree in crop land; Rotational woodlot; improved fallow; Fodder bank; Tree planting/ afforestation

Conservation agriculture

Cover cropping; Mulching; Crop rotation, Intercropping, Minimum/ zero tillage; Crop residue management

Soil fertility management Manuring (farm yard and compost manure); Efficient use of fertilizer (micro dosing); Integrated soil fertility management

Livestock

Crop management

Adapted crops and crop varieties (improved seeds, high yielding, fast maturing, drought tolerant salinity tolerant, flood tolerant); Integrated pest and diseases management; Timely/ early planting,

Crop Insurance

Introduction of Safety Net Programmes

Improved livestock breeds Adapted livestock

Improved feeding

Traditional in-situ fodder conservation system; Ngitili; Olelii; Alternative source of water for livestock; zero-grazing; Pasture management

Manure management On-farm biogras production

On farm biogras production

Pond aquaculture/ fish ponds Mariculture Fishing

Integrated aquaculture and cage culture

Integrated culture; cage culture

Sustainable fishing

Seaweed farming

Bee-keeping

Other practices

Climate Information Services Improved Cooking Stoves Improved Post-Harvest

Table 2: CSA practices & technologies per subsector and -category (adapted from FAO, 2017)

Option 3: Synergy-based approach Key question: how do these activities fit into and complement existing activities and how can they be improved? Another option is the creation of a board showing different activities and how they fit into village priorities. For activities on the household/village scale, this is useful as some villagers may choose different options that fit their household better than others. It should be set up in a central area and updated by facilitators systematically. An example score-card is shown below using the CSA- criteria of adaptation, mitigation, and productivity for various crops.

Figure 20: Smartness assessment for top ongoing CSA practices by production systems in Uganda (adapted from CIAT & BFS/USAID, 2017)

3.2.3 Stage 3: Site monitoring & feedback into implementation Monitoring the progress of activities is essential. One of the key principles of adaptive planning is that successes and failures can be recorded and improved upon so that forums for learning and improving village-specific practices can develop. The following things should be communicated to farmers:

What is MRV for farmers? Farmers have a specific role in gathering information and recording successes and failures of their activities, to improve future practices. Farmers should be provided with community forums (e.g., regular/annual workshops or knowledge-sharing sessions to compare results and provide feedback) Farmers may not be expected to complete the entire MRV system by themselves and should in certain cases be supported by third-party experts, in particular, if they are part of a larger project or programme.

What activities should be measured and how? Each activity that is chosen should have an “indicator” or measurement to monitor the success of the activity/technology. There are different types of measurement for any activity: •

the output/yield of a crop,

•

the hours of energy supplied by a solar panel, or

•

the input: output ratio of an activity based on their costs/profit.

The methods used to measure the activities need to be consistent across all farms and need to be collected at a similar time and place. The information could be recorded in a community center, and/or another central depository, where members

or local supervisors can monitor gaps and follow-up on any worrisome trends over time.

Step 6 – Develop monitoring plan (incl. indicators) The major consideration when developing a monitoring plan is how to ensure that the information gathered is consistent, complete, accurate and, transparent (see the scorecard below with examples).

Figure 21: MRV credibility criteria in the context of CSA (adapted from FAO, 2015)

A method of dealing with this is to assign certain farmers specific roles in gathering the data, as well as supervisors to ensure that the information is collected and recorded at a certain time and presented in a community center which is easy to access by all farmers. This will need to be assessed according to village specificities and dynamics, with methods for anonymity in place if necessary, to reduce the risk of false records being logged.

Step 7 – Implement & monitor progress Each CSA activity should have one or more indicators to measure progress. For example, the “success” of adding mulch to cassava crops could be measured by: •

Identifying a specific area that will have mulch and a similar area nearby that will not have mulch (paying attention to the slopes, influences, and resources as per the baseline maps). It is recommended to have at least 3 sites like this for comparison.

•

Decide upon relevant indicators, i.e., the yield of cassava/season/site (indicator 1) and the costs of production/season/site (indicator 2)

•

Recording the indicator 1 and indicator 2 of cassava crops without applying mulch (deciding on a specific area of sampling, specific location, and specific time for repetition)

•

Recording the indicator 1 and indicator 2 of the cassava crops after the mulch is applied (deciding on a specific area of sampling, specific location, and specific time for repetition)

Keep records in a transparent manner and submit them to a local facilitator or present them to the community. An example of technical indicators used by the World Bank is given below. A monitoring checklist is also provided as an example of how farmers may track activities on their sites. This will enable a better comparison of results after several seasons. It is important to note site differences which might potentially explain unexpected differences between sites that may occur over time.

Figure 22: Identification of what and how to measure (adapted from CIAT & BFS/USAID, 2017)

Figure 23: Example of measuring a specific indicator to measure progress

Figure 24: Monitoring checklist example (Source: CIAT & BFS/USAID, 2017)

Step 8 – Verify & report A centralized area for reporting should be decided upon, which will allow for transparency and for facilitators to assess the success of the activities as well as external verifiers that may (need to) verify results in the case donors or investors require such practice. In many cases, there will be highly variable results, which is why it is important to gather data at a village level to compare the average productivity of a new activity compared to the old activity.

Note that in some cases data can be collected by farmers, and in some cases, technical experts may need to be employed. The roles and responsibilities of NGOs, farmers, experts, supervisors, and other individuals in this process should be decided upon during planning. While village-level supervisors may be in place to ensure data collection continues and address any issues by relaying to the facilitators, the actual verification of the results should be out-sourced to a third party. This will lend credibility to the village members which will be useful or even required when applying for funding to scale-up activities.

Questions considered by the local authority/data advisor when verifying and assessing data presented by villagers:

3.2.4 Stage 4: Financing the development and implementation of climate action Initially, it is important to assess the current village/household budget and estimate the costs of implementing the activities. The remaining budget gap should be considered for each project. Different options for closing the gap might include: •

Microfinance (i.e., through Wekembe in our case or village insurance schemes)

•

Using village/group savings-village/group level savings

•

Government support (e.g, via large climate action programmes, such as NAMAs, or pay as you go facilities)

•

Seed finance from private companies (e.g., solar worx rents solar panels)

•

International/NGO-funded or philanthropic climate/developmental action funds that are available to farmers in the region for projects of smaller sizes.

•

Bank/government schemes that might provide finance, guarantees, or (soft) loans to farmers for specific activities, with repayment schemes and lowinterest rates

For mitigation projects, the following examples of finance sources have been used before, although this is often specific to the village:

Figure 25: Different sources of CSA mitigation finance & MRV precision (adapted from PwC, 2012)

In many cases, finance per se may not be the only value added from these finance sources. Many players can provide technical assistance, capacity building, or information resources that might enable the farmer to save or access finance elsewhere. With the assistance and know-how of facilitators or other (environmental finance) experts, a map of current potential activities for savings, investment, and financing potential actions can be made at the village level. A strategy can then be developed in collaboration with the villagers to target the best options.

Figure 26: Adaptation behaviours observed among private actors in semi-arid lands (Source: Gannon et al. 2018)

Background information for further reading Videos

Mercy Corps (2017): Resilience Design in Smallholder Farming Systems Approach UNFCCC (2018): Financial obstacles to CSA Eldis: Climate-Smart Agriculture World Bank (2016): HRNS Uganda coffee World Bank (2016): Green Economy in Ethiopia FAO (2020): Climate Smart Agriculture: What Role for Rural Advisory Services?

Online Resources

Adaptation Consortium (2016): Resilience Assessment Toolkit

Further readings

Mottram et al. (2017): Resilience Design in Smallholder Farming Systems: A Practical Approach to Strengthening Farmer Resilience to Shocks and Stresses FAO (2017): Climate-Smart Agriculture Guideline for the United Republic of Tanzania FAO (2015): Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) for an AFOLU NAMA Gannon et al. (2018): Supporting private adaptation to climate change CIAT; BFS/USAID (2017): Climate-Smart Agriculture in Uganda. CSA Country Profiles for Africa Series Mwongera et al. (2017): Climate smart agriculture rapid appraisal (CSA-RA): A tool for prioritizing context-specific climate smart agriculture technologies Climate Technology Centre and Network (2017): CSA activities are better for productivity, adaptation, and/or mitigation? ClimateSmart Agriculture Manual for Zimbabwe Gregório Cunha (2018): Ugandan Farmer example for adopting CSA practices PwC (2012): Measuring the mitigation benefits of smallholder climate-smart agriculture FAO (2012): Identifying opportunities for climate-smart agriculture investments in Africa Climate Care & Oxfam (2021): Climate-Smart Agriculture: Community of Practice Guide SLE (2017): Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA): Climate Smart Agroforestry

4 Module 2 (Facilitators & Extensionists): Facilitation of the development of community-based climate-smart action Chapter Outline Outline of facilitation of community-based climate-smart action, with a focus on facilitators and extentionists First and Second Part • Focus on transactions and transaction managers • Importance of participatory methods to involve the community in the various stages of project development

Importance of participatory planning: harmonize the decision-making process among all participants, avoid conflicts and build local capacity.

Third Part • Outline of the single steps in the preplanning phase of a CSA/CSV project

Step 1: Project scoping Identification of stakeholders and situation analysis Step 2: Establishment of initial project team Step 3: Review existing project-specific information Including the first baseline and assessment of available data. Step 4: Development of initial project design First solution statement with related key activities. → Identification and solution of constraints, including a comprehensive mainstreaming analysis and a problem statement.

•

Outline of the single steps in the planning phase of a CSA/CSV project

Fourth Part • Explanation of the implementation and monitoring as well as validation and certification of the mitigation benefits of projects.

Step 1: Consideration of factors for successful implementation Factors include the regulatory framework, financial costs as well as supply and demand; information will be necessary to identify the complete project activities. Step 2: Quantification of climate adaptation/ mitigation benefits Quantification of mitigation benefits = expressed in terms of avoided/reduced emissions from the planned project. Quantification of adaption benefits = more challenging (activities are wide-ranging + no common unit to express the benefits). Monitoring and evaluation: learn from past experience, improve service delivery, planning, allocating resources, and proper accountability Step 1: Designing a monitoring methodology (monitoring/ evaluation plan) Step 2: Project validation Step 3: Project registration Step 4: Project monitoring and verification

4.1 Underlying principles of transactions & role of transaction managers

Figure 27: Exchange of goods, services, and money in environmental services projects

Project design Screening and scoping Comparison of alternatives

Mitigation & adaptation Adaptation Mitigation

Project developer

Implementation & Monitoring

Mitigation projects under Article 6.4

Project documentation Develop PDD Monitoring & Verification Protocol Stakeholder consultation

Validation

Implementation & Monitoring

Certification

Implementation & Monitoring

Recurrent verification

Issuance of credits

Corresponding adjustments Were emissions saved or sold?

Figure 28: Climate action project cycle

4.2 Participatory planning Allowing stakeholders as well as local communities to be actively involved in different stages of the project through various participatory methods is a good way to harmonize the decision-making process among all participants, avoid conflicts and build local capacity. For this purpose, the following steps are helpful: •

In-service trainings in national and international climate change policies and approaches for the organizational staff

•

Community mobilization and sensitization sessions for local leaders and technical staff involving different governmental offices (district level, sub-counties, and villages level)

•

Different local governmental officials were engaged during the project inception meetings starting with the district offices where all officers were briefed about the project goals, objectives, project implementation plan, and project indicators

•

followed by a meeting with all lower local government officials (subcounties and village councils)

•

Use of village model approach to introduce climate adaptation and mitigation measures involving local communities in the pre-planning phase is very helpful to ▪

establish the baseline survey, the village boundaries, and resource mapping (see Figure 29) or

▪

for a deeper analysis to determine the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT analysis) of each village.

Figure 29: Mapping village resources and boundaries

Page 44 of 91

In order to apply participatory methods, the NGO IDEAS toolbox might be helpful. It includes for example the Participatory Wellbeing Ranking (PWR) tool, the Situation Analysis and Group Establishment (SAGE) tool, and the Performance Appraisal of the Groups (PAG) tool. 4.3 Identification of suitable activities and development of projects 4.3.1 Technicalities and requirements (pre-planning/feasibility considerations) Identifying, designing, and implementing a climate action project (adaptation/ mitigation) Identifying and pre-planning a CSA/CSV project requires the definition of the project scope, the establishment of an initial team, and the reviewing of existing projectspecific information. This will lead to an initial project design that will be deepened, amended, and more detailed later on in the project development process. Figure 30 illustrates what the individual steps entail in detail.

Figure 30: The different steps to go through for the design of climate action projects

Organization and prioritization of results areas and results activities & identification and resolving missing elements After the pre-planning and initial identification phase the identification and resolution of (potential) data constraints follows. A complete mainstreaming analysis, the creation of a first problem statement as well as the establishment of the baseline, including a review of relevant CSA&CSV projects and existing practices and initiatives will be developed. Again, figure 31 illustrates what the individual steps entail in detail.

Page 45 of 91

Figure 31: The different steps to go through to further increase the effectiveness of a project

Addressing constraints in terms of human and financial resources As part of the initial project design, a review of the available human and financial resources is conducted to see whether they can be integrated into the project, or if they are not relevant to the intervention at hand. Most units, teams, or departments will be hampered by the lack of financial resources. Human capacities may be constrained by: •

capacities to coordinate an entire project (in particular regarding larger and/or cross-sectoral projects),

•

lack of assigned roles,

•

means to support beneficiaries in adding value to their products or

•

issues related to engaging and partnering with communities or the private sector

Additional important constraints may include a low supply of feed and hay in dry season, as well as limited incentives of local farmer communities to participate in the formal sector. Considering other factors for successfully developing and implementing CSA/CSV projects There are further factors to be considered with a view to developing feasible and viable CSA/CSV projects. The institutional framework and legal aspects are important to consider as well as project financing, transaction, operation and management costs. Market considerations will include: -

identification of supply and demand

identificationof related market(s),

assessment of the operational capacity and

the creation of networks to access market(s).

Page 46 of 91

Last but not least, the quantification, valuation, monitoring, validation/certification, if and as applicable, should be looked into.

and

Further initial project design consideration The initiated project design will be deepened with regard to the identification of the complete project activities and the related CSA/CSV benefits that are provided. The identification of existing or evolving (trading) schemes, standards and labels to comply with will be part of these considerations as well as other environmental services as applicable. Furthermore, related finance mechanisms – combining innovative environmental finance with more conventional finance solutions – should be considered for investment propositions. Designing bankable projects may or will include bundling of smaller activities to reach a critical mass making a (more) compelling business case. Institutional framework and legal/regulatory aspects The abovementioned trading and environmental services schemes, standards, and financial solutions lead to the institutional framework including actors such as technical and financial service providers, auditors, regulatory bodies, registries, financial intermediaries and buyers. The different actors and their specific tasks can be found in Figure 32. The necessity and availability of these actors at the national, regional, or international level must be explored. In addition, any legal requirements to comply with and opportunities in the form of financial or other incentive mechanisms offered by the regulatory framework should be considered. Entity

Tasks

Supplier

Provision of environmental services

Project developer

Project design

Technical/ Financial support service provider

Project documentation and technical work Procurement/supply of seed capital Liaison between project developer and investor Review development

External auditor

Validation of project design

Regulatory body

Approval

External auditor

Verification of delivery services

Registry

Registration of transaction

Financial intermediary

Brokerage

Buyer

Purchase of environmental services

Figure 32: Roles and tasks of entities participating in ES projects

Page 47 of 91

Project financing as well as transaction, operation, and management costs The question of financing the project, including operating and management costs, will need to be answered by financial modelling. Here, the amounts and the mix of climate finance options in the form of grant funding, equity, debt and innovative carbon or environmental finance should be included. The latter may or will create transaction costs to create a saleable carbon (or environmental) service, most prominently in the form of tradeable emission reductions (carbon credits). In addition, many projects will require a certain amount if not a complete injection of seed funding to develop the concept and design the project in the first place.

Identification of supply, demand, and related market(s) The project activities, costs, and financial considerations, in particular the expected revenues, can be used to determine which kinds of services and products are actually being provided to which markets (e.g., cash crops through increased yields from drought-resistant crops as well as environmental services such as carbon sequestration). A risk analysis that looks into insurance, standards, legal rights, registers, etc. will lead to risk mitigation. This – provides confidence to the market(s) and its actors with regard to ownership, risk, and financial values. Linking buyers and sellers requires efficient mechanisms, retail markets for related products, trading via exchanges, or over-thecounter in the context of environmental services (e.g., carbon trading). Last but not least, the market and potential buyers need to be understood: -

Are individuals, businesses, and public players the potential buyers?

Are integrated products being sold (e.g., coffee with fairtrade carbon credits) and

What are the marketing and communication strategies to attract these buyers, eventually?

Figure 33: Necessary steps to identify the market(s) for ES and potential buyers (Source: Jenkins et al., 2004)

Page 48 of 91

Operational capacity and creation of networks to access market(s) The supply, demand, and market considerations are linked to questions of further framework conditions and networks for accessing the market(s) including: •

Programmes and plans regarding the implementation of the UNFCCC and related national climate policies and strategies

•

related donors, intergovernmental organizations, and stakeholder platforms

•

utilization of relevant institutions and mechanisms for the provision of data

•

private sector support and

•

indigenous knowledge

Quantification, valuation, monitoring, and validation/certification Last but not least, the quantification of CSA/CSV benefits and their economic valuation needs to be looked into, which is related to financing, standards, and external auditing in the context of relevant validations, verifications and certifications.

4.3.2 Steps in the quantification mitigation & adaptation benefits Unless the project is deemed not feasible the detailed quantification of the (measurable) benefits of the CSA/CSV project needs to be tackled which means applying the appropriate valuation methods and techniques using the available data, whilst distinguishing between mitigation and adaptation and the related methodological differences. Parts of the baseline are needed or, if the relevant calculations have not yet been made, a quantifiable baseline needs to be established, including the determination of baseline and project (scenario) boundaries. This may involve stratification of data, separating data into subgroups, depending on the complexity of the planned intervention. The actual quantification will determine or calculate the net CSA/CSV benefits. Methodological (accounting) approach(es) need to be selected to ensure a solid foundation of the results based on sound science and methods. Sensitivity and risk analyses will be developed and lead to risk mitigation strategies to account and adjust for uncertainty and risk.

Page 49 of 91

Figure 34: Steps in the quantification of mitigation & adaptation benefits

Step 1 – Determine project and baseline scenarios Identify the beneficiaries and potential objectives of the project. In order to determine which CSA activities should take place to achieve these goals, we must establish i)

the current growth path of the agricultural system and

ii)

the projected change over time if no CSA activity is implemented (i.e., the “business as usual” (BAU) or Baseline Scenario).

This is an in-depth process that requires expert consultation, review of existing studies, available data, and data gaps. Several methodologies exist to estimate baselines and often multiple baseline scenarios are used due to different emissions or adaptation scenarios, policy environments, and technological/economic changes. A climate-smart baseline scenario involves gathering extensive data on potential climate-induced volatility that could affect the development path: •

Macroeconomic and demographic projections (e.g., population and GDP growth)

•

Structural shifts in the economy (e.g., relative growth of agricultural, industrial, and services sectors)

•

Planned investments and existing policies in individual sectors (e.g., power supply plans)

•

Evolution of technologies and practices, including saturation effects, fuel switching, and adoption rates of new technologies (e.g., share of household with refrigerators; use of combined heat and power in the steel industry).

Page 50 of 91

Step 2 – Determine climate (relevant) activities List relevant climate-smart activities that could contribute to the project objectives and influence the baseline scenario through a review of: •

prior assessments,

•

literature,

•

stakeholder consultations,

•

interviews and

•

investigation into currently active projects.

Step 3 – Determine project and baseline boundaries Establish the criteria of your project and carefully define your project boundaries over time and space, including parameters and assumptions of the project over: •

The economic, geographic, social, political, and environmental sectors that will influence the project

•

Relevant actors, stakeholders, communities, and value chains

•

The time horizon (select a baseline year for comparison) and a short, medium, or long-term time horizon: Short term (5 years); Medium-term (1020 years); Long-term (30-50 years+).

Step 4 – Quantify climate actions Develop a set of clear, measurable, and time-specific indicators that measure the impact of all CSA activities on the baseline scenario. It is often difficult to measure adaptive benefits. Adaptation indicators vary according to the system, but examples include: -

increasing livelihoods (dollar/pp/day) or

access to electricity (number of households given power/year)

Mitigation indicators usually measure the reduction in projected carbon emissions of the system by referring to the: -

Global Warming Potential (GWP) (location-specific) (Mt CO2 equivalent per year) or

ton of CO2 equivalent reduced.

These indicators are projected over time to provide a quantitative estimate of the (gross) benefits. Often benefits are quantified monetarily to estimate their cost/benefit ratio.

Page 51 of 91

Step 5 – Select methodological (accounting) approaches/mechanisms Multiple accounting approaches exist to compare the benefits of adaptation/mitigation activities. The approaches must be tailored to the activity andlocation as variables differ accordingly. Box X below provides links to several methodologies for the accounting of mitigation benefits.

Examples of accounting approaches for mitigation benefits: Clean Development Mechanism: https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/index.html IPCC: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html Plan Vivo: https://www.planvivo.org/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=8b8d521d6828-4bad-b553-6c81dfcbce38 Step 6 - Calculate net climate mitigation & adaptation benefits For climate action projects it is important to quantify the environmental benefits from both mitigation and adaptation practices. Scenarios of implementing such practices are then projected alongside the baseline scenario (Boxes 1 and 2 below provide examples to quantify benefits from CSA practices). The quantification of mitigation benefits is usually expressed in terms of avoided emissions from the planned activities. Figure 35 below provides an overview of the different steps to quantify mitigation benefits. A detailed methodology on how to calculate the mitigation benefits from manure management for one household and the upscaling to 3 400 over a 4-year period can be found in Annex 1.

Page 52 of 91

❶ Determine the project/activity boundaries Geographical scope, physical scope, temporal boundaries

❷ Determine the baseline emissions Calculate the GHG emissions for the business-as-usual scenario (BE). Default values can be used if local data is not available

❸ Determine the project/planned activity emissions Calculate the GHG emissions for the project scenario (PE). Default values can be used if local data is not available

❹ Account for (possible) leakage emissions Calculate the GHG emissions for the possible leakage sources (LE)

❺ Determine the emissions reduction Based on the previous steps determine the emissions reduction (ER): ER= BE-PE-LE

Figure 35: Steps for the quantification of mitigation benefits (avoided GHG emissions)

Box 1: Approach to quantify mitigation benefits in terms of GHGs emissions savings through improved cooking stoves: Switching to more efficient cooking stoves offers a huge potential for GHGs emission reduction. The Gold Standard, Technologies and Practices to displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption (TPDDTEC) methodology, for example, can in this case be used to quantify the mitigation potential. It is a three-step approach based on a formula involving different parameters. The parameters include the firewood emission factor (CO2 and non-CO2), the amount of firewood used per year, the firewood carbon content, and finally the firewood net calorific value. In the first step, the emissions for the baseline scenario need to be determined followed by an estimate of the emissions for the new scenario (improved cooking stoves) to finally determine the emissions reduction resulting from the new scenario.

Page 53 of 91

The quantification of climate benefits from adaptation activities can be more challenging than mitigation activities. As a matter of fact, adaptation activities are wide-ranging and unlike mitigation activities (where benefits can be expressed in GHG emissions, CO2eq) there is no common unit to express the benefits of adaptation activities. Furthermore, the scope of adaptation activities can also extend to ecosystem services, thereby making it even more difficult to capture and quantify the benefits. Figure 36 below provides an overview of the different steps to quantify adaptation benefits. ❶ Determine the project/activity boundaries Geographical scope, physical scope, temporal boundaries

❷ Determine/quantify the baseline/BAU situation for the chosen variables Based on the adaptation activity & the accounting approach, the chosen variables/parameters need to be quantified in a measurable unit under the BAU scenario

❸ Determine/quantify the project scenario for the chosen variables The chosen variables/parameters need to be quantified/expressed in a measurable unit under the project scenario values can be used if local data is not available

❹ Determine/quantify the adaptation benefits Based on the results of step 2 and 3 the adaptation benefits of the chosen adaptation activity can be quantified for the chosen variables/parameters Figure 36: Steps for the quantification of adaptation benefits

Box 2: Approach to quantify adaptation benefits from CSA practices: Adaptation benefits of CSA include, among others, sustainable increases in productivity and incomes, through better agricultural management practices. They can therefore be quantified in terms of yield, resources saved, and incomes from agricultural activities. For example, using drought resistance crops in agricultural lands affected by frequent climate change-induced droughts should lead to increasing yields in the long term. A simple method to quantify the benefits of this practice would be to compare the yield generated each year to the baseline scenario yield. To capture further benefits (such as decrease in water and fertilizers consumption), a Cost-Benefit Analysis can be conducted for a more detailed approach.

Page 54 of 91

Step 7 – Adjust for uncertainty and risk 4.4 Implementation, monitoring, validation and certification 4.4.1 Monitoring plan, methodology, and protocols Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of climate development activities provides programme managers, implementers, government officials, civil society organizations, and development partners with better means for learning from past experience, improving service delivery, planning, allocating resources, and proper accountability M&E allows for a more effective and transparent way of working due to a stronger focus on the results produced by interventions.

Designing a monitoring methodology & a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) Plan The M&E methodology will establish the project boundaries, determine what kind of monitoring experts or organizations are needed and who will be the dedicated monitoring teams to conduct ground surveys and collect data (incl. farmer associations, local/district governments, NGOs, the private sector or other expert organizations). An overall monitoring system and monitoring protocols are needed: -

The monitoring system will determine the exact roles and functions of those involved in the monitoring,

The protocols include specific methodologies for environmental, socioeconomic or other impacts as well as measurement and data processing guidelines and guidance on presentation and reporting.

The monitoring plan can encompass different monitoring approaches and tools. They can include: -

Logical framework (Log-frame) approaches,

participatory monitoring and evaluation approaches

result-oriented approaches and

feedback approaches (linking both the log frame and participatory approaches)

A set of monitoring and evaluation tools including, questionnaires, toolkits, observation guides and checklists combined with previously cited approaches can be applied.

Page 55 of 91

CSA-Results indicators can be categorized as follows (examples): I. Indicators measuring the direct outputs of a CSA intervention: • Beneficiaries: Number of farmers who adopted CSA practices promoted by the project • Land area: Land area where CSA practices have been adopted • Livestock: Number of animal pasture sites II. Indicators measuring the CSA enabling environment • Access to financial services: Number of agricultural actors using financial services of formal/informal banking institutes (gender disaggregated) • Access to information and communication technology: Number of agricultural actors who use information and communication technology (ICT) services for obtaining information on CSA practices (gender disaggregated) III. Indicators measuring the medium to long-term consequences of CSA intervention: • Resources: Land area affected by medium to very strong/severe soil erosion in the project area • Emission: Amount of GHG emissions saved through clean cooking technologies • Yield: Crop yield in kg per hectare and year as result of the project’s CSA intervention • Benefits: Number of beneficiaries who consider themselves better off now than before the intervention The following monitoring framework includes a range of themes/sub-themes and examples of indicators to capture the achievements of CSA projects. This is a resultoriented approach that provides an understanding about the short-term to mediumterm results of a CSA intervention. Aside from the establishment of a central databank or depository, evaluation timelines including independent evaluations are established. Such evaluations, in addition or complementary to validations and verifications (see below), will build on the monitoring that reviews progress and achieving milestones with a view to identify opportunities and challenges as part of the learning within the project and to identify areas for scaling up or expanding.

4.4.2 Validation & certification In the context of an implementation of mitigation projects it is assumed that the process to turn emission reductions into transferable units will most likely be build on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. The procedure is as follows: Page 56 of 91

the project proponents design a mitigation activity,

the host party has to authorize it

then, the activity can be implemented,

afterwards, the mitigation activity can be validated, and,

following a positive validation outcome, the project can be registered,

then, the projects owners need to quantify and report the reduced emissions resulting from the registered mitigation activity for a chosen period of time

finally, the reported emissions are verified and certified by a third party.

Project Validation To ensure that all information included in the PDD is trustworthy and accurate a designated body (usually a third party), must assess the project and its documentation, referred to as validation. This validation helps to ensure that the projects meet minimum criteria of quality and that the calculations presented to compute the GHG emission reductions as well as other design features are accurate and according to international standards. Such validation is a common and frequently required step to ensure the environmental integrity of mitigation activities that are registered and seek to generate credits. Project registration If the project is successfully validated, it may be registered by an official organization to demonstrate its compliance with a certain set of rules. If the project is implemented under a voluntary scheme, standards such as the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard or the Gold Standard as well as the Climate Action Reserve (CAR) and the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) may be used to ensure compliance with certain environmental and social criteria. Project monitoring and verification A project will typically last several years, NAMAs and larger programmes listed under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, would even last decades. In order to ensure that the conditions set out in the PDD are accurate throughout the lifetime of the project, the project must be verified on a regular basis. This prevents the project developer from attempting to transfer or claim emission reductions, which did not actually occur because the project was not implemented or maintained, accordingly. As for validation an independent designated third party, should verify the project.

Page 57 of 91

Background information for further reading Online Resources

NGO IDEAS: Impact Toolbox GIZ (2016): CSA Manual Ethopia World Bank (2015): Developing indicators for Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA)

Further readings

Newell, P. et al. (2019): Climate Smart Agriculture? Governing the Sustainable Development Goals in Sub-Saharan Africa Ministry of Mahaweli, Agriculture, Irrigation and Rural Development (2019): Training Manual for ClimateSmart Agriculture in Sri Lanka Jenkins et al. (2004): Markets for Biodiversity Services

Page 58 of 91

5 Module 3: Financing and further support to the development of community-based climate-smart action Chapter Outline Description of how to plan, structure, and develop adaptation and mitigation projects regarding financing. The focus is initially on public funding sources, but an additional excurse on how to involve private sector actors is provided as well First Part: Early Stage During the early stage, funding is usually sought to fully develop the CSA/CSV project idea

Second Part: Development Stage During the development stage, a full-blown project is developed

Step 1: Development of a concept note Step 2: Elaboration of a full proposal The focus is on identifying gaps and challenges within the planned project and related activities as well as identifying actors that can bridge such gaps (e.g, technical, financial, technological capacity, or knowledge gaps). The focus is on raising finance and structuring the project. • Different sources of finance and financial instruments may be sought after. • Thus, it will be a reiterative process at multiple levels. Consideration if private sector involvement is feasible; Enabling framework conditions for private sector involvement: • Generation of cash flows via profitmaking activities • Supportive regulatory environment and governance framework • Active knowledge dissemination on the ground • Financing mechanisms and insurance • Effective input supply chains • Markets for outputs

Phase 1: Early stage During the early stage, funding is usually sought to fully develop the CSA/CSV project idea. The early phase is a two–step application procedure that includes the development of a concept note followed by the elaboration of a full proposal. Whether a climate/environmental finance expert needs to be engaged at this stage depends on the in-house expertise of the developer and its potential partners:

Page 59 of 91

If a developer can build on an existing project infrastructure, he will most likely be able to move to the development stage (Phase 2) immediately, assuming a viable project idea can be developed to a concept stage in-house and with existing resources.

If this is not the case, the promoter may apply for (grant) funding from a national or international source to further advance or fully develop the concept. In addition, financial institutions may offer a range of instruments and provide finance with no payback necessary (e.g., grants and subsidies), seed funding, and venture debt or venture capital/equity investments aimed at small stakeholders.

Phase 2: The development stage At this stage, a full-blow project is required. Often, and in the case of larger interventions, different sources of finance and financial instruments may be considered and sought after (grants, debt, innovative/carbon finance, etc.). In that case, several funding rounds or applications in parallel or subsequently are required as well as structuring the project accordingly. Certain activities will only qualify for a certain type of financial instruments. Whatever the onset situation, the process of structuring a project can be divided into several phases or steps as illustrated in Figure 37 below.

Page 60 of 91

Phase ❶ Early stage

Decide on initial financial sources for the CSV/CSA project Decide if climate finance expert is needed

Application for a project development (grant) funding Assessment: Screening, concept and full proposal checklists

Application: Concept note template Full proposal template Application for a project development (grant) funding

Phase ❷ Development stage Decide on what type of finance mechanism(s)/source(s) can be used for which project component Decide if climate finance expert for project structuring is needed

Application for project implementation funding

Application: Concept note template Full proposal template

Sufficient funding to commence implementation phase

Assessment: Screening, concept and full proposal checklists

YES

Phase ❸ Implementation stage

Figure 37: General overview of developing concepts and proposals & accessing funding

Page 61 of 91

5.1 Phase 1: Financing the early stage 5.1.1 Steps in early-stage planning, structuring & initial finance raising In the early phase, the focus is on identifying gaps and challenges within the planned project and related activities as well as identifying actors that can bridge such gaps. These can include technical, financial, technological capacity or knowledge gaps. Whether or not it is necessary to locate partners to support the process of identifying potential key gaps and related needs depends on the developers’ capacities and funding situation. Figure 38 along with the explanatory notes below provides guidance on the funding aspects that need to be considered during the initial stage for publicly funded projects.

Phase ❶ Early stage Scenario A - Early stage project without infrastructure and seed funding

Scenario C - Early stage project with infrastructure & with seed funding

YES Identify partner with track record & expertise

Scenario B - Early stage project with infrastructure and without seed funding

YES

Application for 1st project development grant (funding) from national/international sources

Initial development steps completed Possibility of integrating a commercial component or avoid economic losses?

Possibilty of private sector involvment

Phase ❷ Development stage Figure 38: Structuring and funding applications in the early stage of project development

Page 62 of 91

Scenario A: The project cannot cover the early-stage planning by itself and doesn’t have the required infrastructure in place. Before moving to the next step (scenario B), the project developer must assemble the different project components and bring partners and experts on board. Identifying and partnering with experienced technology providers is also advisable. Technical assistance will also be needed when working with and bringing many smallholders, rural farmers, and communities under one umbrella.

Scenario B: The project cannot cover the early stage planning by itself, but has the required infrastructure in place (i.e., all the necessary components to further develop the measure). The next step would be to apply for (grant) funding from respective, known international and/or national sources for the further development of the concept idea.

Scenario C: The project has established the required infrastructure, including all the components and partners so that it can cover the early-stage planning by itself. The initial development steps are completed; the project developer should check the possibility of private sector involvement. Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Starting point

No technical project infrastructure & no seed funding

Existing technical project infrastructure & no seed funding

Existing technical project infrastructure & seed funding available/not needed

What to do?

Seek partner with track record and expertise

Apply for project development grant

Project can complete the development stage on its own

Table 3: Different scenarios on how to proceed in the initial phase

Possibility of private sector involvement Once the early development stage is completed the developer may check whether commercial components may be integrated with a view to leverage more funding . In the case of CSV/CSA projects, one may consider the potential for reducing or avoiding (economic) losses in supply chains as agri-food companies start to consider and fund countermeasures: -

Potential collaboration with a relevant local association, such as the Private Sector Foundation (PSF) in Uganda to raise awareness of the profitable components of the project amongst the private sector

Engagement of private sector organizations in the development and implementation of pilot activities at the beginning of the project (see below).

Page 63 of 91

The private sector may be more likely to mobilize finance given evidence of a profitable component, which may open doors to public-private partnerships or collaborations. Some emerging public-private partnerships are supported by MNCs operating in Uganda (e.g., Leonardo Dicaprio Foundation, Hassad Food (Qatar), Schneider Electric). As part of the preparation process, it is crucial to determine whether the planned project involves mitigation or adaptation components (or both), and in which sector/subsector the interventions will be made. ➔ This helps to narrow down a) the list of funds/programmes to approach for technical assistance to further develop the project, and b) the list of potential national or international public, private and/or nonfor-profit partners needed to develop a bankable project. For example: a seed bank project in the agriculture sector driven by a government organization, involving further local partner organizations, could approach the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) for a TA grant. Publicprivate partnerships may also be an option to look into, considering recent pledges by several multinational corporations to address climate impacts in their supply chains. 5.1.2 Finding partners, closing gaps & adding components Making use of facilitation platforms Whereas various means exist to position oneself to commence a project or acquire funding, it is important to make use of national and international networks and platforms to match the projects with the Uganda-wide platforms and type of (financial) assistance needed. Such partnership facilitation platforms serve as a basis for connecting project developers with those who would The Uganda Innovation Village, for provide technical assistance or financing to example, is a platform that acts as a launchpad for innovators, to bring develop activities further. Knowledgetogether partners, startups, sharing or project databases, such as investors and researchers. UNDP’s WeAdapt or the UNFCCC’s NAMA Registry can be helpful. Similarly, The Uganda National Alliance on dedicated (financial) matchmaking Clean Cooking which not only platforms and related networks, including provides funding, but also access to national ones such as the Uganda networks of international and domestic expertise that may be used Innovation Village or the Uganda National to leverage technical support for Alliance on Clean Cooking can be finance. beneficial.

Page 64 of 91

Partnering for closing gaps Fenix International, for example, is a renewable energy provider that has been active in promoting off-grid solutions in rural communities of Uganda. The KAKAWECCAM Project and its consortium is an example of partnering for closing gaps: -

experience from locally rooted development organizations in form of nationwide operating organizations such as Caritas

financial services provided by Wekembe Microfinance

local knowledge from organizations operating in certain regions and districts only (e.g., ANA or SCIDO)

This shows an example of collaboration to combine complementary skills and capacities. 5.2 Phase 2: Development stage – raising finance & structuring projects If several funding sources are approached to reach financial closure, it can be a reiterative process. In particular, larger projects and programmes may need to use different funding sources and financial mechanisms to leverage more finance through such a process. The procedure described in Figure 39 is an idealized process model, where seeking funding from national/local level sources comes first, followed by the application for international funding. The different steps illustrated in Figure 39, are explained below.

Page 65 of 91

Application for public funding/support at national/local level

Scenario A - Sufficient funding to commence project implementation phase

YES Scenario C - Seek further funding to cover initial key operational/implementation needs

YES

Scenario C: Preparation of application for public funding at international level

Seek contact to donor where an established relationship already exists Engage climate finance expert for project structuring

Possibilty of private sector involvment YES

Seek to establish contact and/or identify relevant funds/funding programmes

YES

Decide on what kind of finance mechanism(s) can be used for which project component

YES

Split project into component and match with relevant financial instruments & sources of finance

Scenario D - Prepare several funding proposals (potentially sequenced) for different sources

Scenario F- Prepare one funding proposal (mostly grant funding) for once source Application for public funding at international level

Sufficient funding for a full-scale project implementation YES

Phase ❸ Implementation stage Figure 39: Accessing funding in the development stage of project development Page 66 of 91

5.2.1 Steps in finance raising & structuring When initial development steps have been taken, either because a project development grant has been received and/or a new component is piggybacked on an existing project infrastructure the next steps will include: -

In most cases, applying for an international funding source comes first, when ideally founding should start in the local/national context. Although more national climate or environmental funds have been established in recent years, this is still a slow and emerging process. In reality, there is often little funding available for the development phase, so further funding must be sought.

Investigation of first application(s) for public funding/support at the local or national level, which may include technical assistance and/or in-kind support – using existing business relations and networks. o Mostly grant funding through public climate finance flows provided by Uganda’s national budget, such as through the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED), the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries (MAAIF) or MEMD, as well as through off-budget projects. o Debt instruments generally provided by Banks such as Ugandan Development Bank, Centenary Bank, or Pride Microfinance also provide climate finance opportunities.

•

Scenario A: If there is sufficient funding from a national/local source to commence the implementation phase, the project developer may begin to establish initial key operational elements and start implementing pilot measures. The project developer is now better positioned to apply for funding from international public sources, since initial funding from local/national sources is available and the existence of a co-funding possibility increases the chances during the application procedure.

•

Scenario B: If sufficient initial funding is not available, the project developer may seek such funding via (int.) non-governmental, philanthropic or multilateral/bilateral players active in the country. In doing so, existing business relations and networks should be leveraged (see below):3 •

Private int. not-for-profits operating in Uganda may contribute financing and support for green, climate-resilient, and sustainable development projects.

Public agencies such as the National Agriculture Advisory Services (NAADS) provide these services as well, of course. For example, Hima Cement (a subsidiary of the international company Lafarge) is one such example of an institution supporting agroforestry practices among farmers to boost the supply of alternative biomass fuels for its operations. 3

Page 67 of 91

•

Foreign and local for-profit companies may use such investments for marketing purposes, or to comply with sustainable development/ CSR objectives ▪

For example, a seed or fertiliser company might provide free goods or services to farmers, CSOs, or NGOs so that they can secure future involvement.

The preparation of applications for public funding from multilateral and bilateral sources may require a cooperation with national public bodies facilitating access to these sources. This step entails approaching donors where an established relationship exists, best based on prior, successful experiences and projects (e.g., MoWE, FAO, BMZ in the case of the KAKAWE-CCAM Project), and inquire about funding opportunities based on matching of funding priorities with project objectives and activities. •

Scenario C: If there are no such established contacts at all, then relevant funds/programmes/initiatives need to be identified and contacted. Examples of international donor organizations with long term and existing relationships with Uganda are the European Commission (EC), the Development Agencies of Ireland (Irish Aid), England (UKAid), France (AFD), Germany (GIZ & KfW), Norway (NORAD) and Denmark as well as UNCDF, UNDP and the World Bank. Again, in certain cases, non-governmental actors may not be able to directly access these sources without government involvement. Approaching funders: larger project and programme proposals vs. small projects In the case of larger project/programme proposals blending of different sources of finance and financial instruments requires technically savvy experts with skills and expertise in project/programme financing, structuring and financial matchmaking: ➔ Splitting the project/programme into components may be needed to tap into different funding sources & instruments (e.g., capacity building/education/awareness vs demonstration of technology/management solutions vs large(r) scale deployment of technology/management solutions) Smaller projects or in the case the focus is on a very particular sector/field the project may stick to one key (donor) funding source/instrument (e.g., grant) and may only need to comply with limited co-funding requirements.

The decisions about what kinds of sources of finance and financial instruments can be used for which components of the project may require climate finance expertise. During this process, assessing if private sector involvement is feasible should be

Page 68 of 91

considered. There are two options depending on whether the project can be split into different components or not: •

Scenario D: The project can be split into different components, thus the project developer may prepare several funding proposals for different sources and financial instruments, also called blending or

•

Scenario F: The project cannot be split into different components or components suitable for different financial instruments and/or requires only one funding source due to size. These are projects that will mostly apply for grant funding from one source.

This may be an iterative process and may be gone through a few times in the case the question of whether sufficient funding for full-scale implementation is available is answered with ‘no’. In the case of initiatives that plan to apply a programmatic approach, this may become a planned and reiterative process taking place every few years. 5.2.2 Important considerations during the finance raising & structuring process The following aspects should be considered:

•

What kind of intervention will be (mainly) pursued (Technical Assistance (TA) & demonstrations vs investment) & how can funding levers be strengthened? o TAs and demonstration projects may use more conventional development finance, i.e., grants ▪

e.g., the KAKAWE-CCAM Project receives seed funding from BMZ & some of the KAKAWE-CCAM project partners participated in a TA on climate change in the agriculture sector funded by FAO

▪

additionally the KAKAWE-CCAM Project is funded by multiple domestic and international sources.

o Larger (investment) programmes will need to be developed and implemented over time and will probably require a more sophisticated finance strategy, looking into finance beyond grant funding (see above) ▪

e.g., a CSA/CSV programme with a more long-term and growth perspective by local development organizations such as the KAKAWE-CCAM consortium would link up with Uganda’s national CSA Program. This will be financed by (development) finance institutions next to a variety of other sources and is governed by the Ugandan government, here MAAIF.

Page 69 of 91

▪

•

Funding may come from this source and via the government, but other sources can and will feed the CSA/CSV programme of the local development partners as well.

How to integrate with and benefit from large funding programmes, going beyond grant funding? o large international funds such as the Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP) may provide co-financing and grants for programmes valued at 1-10 million USD alongside and integrated into IFAD’s loan instruments ▪

(e.g., Programme for the Restoration of Livelihoods in Northern Uganda, 2015-2022: total cost: US$71m, approved IFAD loan: US$50.2m, ASAP grant: US$10m with the reaming contributions from the Uganda government and the beneficiaries).

▪

IFAD’s ASAP is another example where collaboration with the government at the national and local levels would be required for accessing related funding

o Such large initiatives do obviously rely on locally rooted development partners for implementation, such as those in the KAKAWE-CCAM Project. ▪

•

If it comes to the use of debt instruments, for instance, local, domestic micro-lending institutions such as Wekembe Microfinance are a suitable partner due to their experience in dealing with smaller ventures in the agricultural or rural sectors.

What kind of ownership structure is foreseen? o Certain funds or funding programmes will only finance public or private undertakings, others focus on non-profit initiatives or public-private partnerships. This means new structures may need to be created to be able to access certain sources and instruments, in particular non-grant instruments, via Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV), for instance.

•

Where and in what sector will the project be implemented with a view to who may provide finance? o In the case of international finance, some funds invest globally, others only in certain regions or specific countries. Therefore, a matchmaking exercise helps to identify those national and international funding sources which are available for specific purposes or sectors in Uganda. o Some relevant international sources are mentioned above, for example: Page 70 of 91

▪

the Ugandan Centenary Bank tailors a variety of financial tools towards financing small businesses, produce farmers, livestock producers, processors, wholesalers, commercial and small-scale farmers, equipment purchases or to aid in savings.

▪

The Uganda National Alliance on Clean Cooking, provides grants tailored to the clean cookstoves and fuels sector, focusing on research, capacity building, training, entrepreneur support, incountry, alliances, and other initiatives.

5.3 Excurse: Collaborating with private sector actors4 & leveraging further finance The likelihood of private sector involvement depends on several factors, e.g.: •

the project profitability or

•

the possibility to raise seed funding using public sources).

Figure 40 below summarizes the relationship between the different factors and the likelihood of private sector involvement. Leveraging further finance or showing cofinance sources as well as presenting bankable projects is equally important when applying for funding from climate finance sources beyond a small, on-off grant. 5.3.1 Basic, underlying prerequisites & success factors A good foundation for approaching and working with private sector entities is to embed the planned project within a larger organization or umbrella group. This usually allows for the provision of general backup support, technical know-how, and expertise as well as some financial backing. There are two scenarios: A) The project is already fully profitable and looks for expansion only or the business plan of the planned measure shows clear profitability. B) A part of the planned project is profitable, for example, by generating products for the market (e.g., coffee). Then, there are two options to further the opportunity for private sector involvement and finance that can obviously be combined with each other: 1) If the planned project may provide significant socio-economic cobenefits (job creation, income generation, etc.) as well as environmental services, such as carbon sequestration (e.g., via introducing shade-grown coffee). Int. private foundations, social enterprises, and companies fulfilling CSR missions and targets can be approached and may be interested in investing in the project.

Private sector also includes the informal sector aside from impact or social investors, private companies or multinational corporations. Page 71 of 91

2) MNCs in the agro-food business, may also offer entry points supporting new, sustainable endeavors with local partners in their supply chains.

Figure 40: Contributing factors to private sector involvement in financing projects

5.3.2 Upstream & downstream involvement potential A CSA/CSV Project is holistic in nature and will create a whole stream of new activities, which will have important consequences for private sector activities: 1. Additional income will firstly be generated at the local level as productivity is foreseen to improve. 2. Such increase in income from primary CSA activities should result in a whole stream of private sector involvement upstream and downstream: ▪

Upstream: the production will be made possible from new inputs, including but not limited to equipment for production and irrigation, the production of seedlings and the establishment of nurseries, animal health, and artificial insemination services for livestock farming, and the production of fertilizers.

▪

Downstream: new production will require additional storage facilities, the collection, and transportation of agri-food products, putting in place the basic logistical requirements to trade/export and efficiently commercialise new products.

Page 72 of 91

5.3.3 Enabling framework conditions For the efficient involvement of the private sector, a number of elements need to be in place. These elements and what they may mean in the actual case of Uganda are detailed below (see also Figure 41). In the context of CSA/CSV activities in Uganda, rural communities and smallholders are also seen as private sector next to business organizations and companies, if the requirements for private sector involvement listed below are fulfilled. Additionally, the information provided below is also relevant and beneficial for non-for-profit development organizations developing CSA/CSV climate development projects that wish to collaborate with the private sector. 1 Profit making activities 2 Regulatory and government framework in place

6 Market for outputs

5 Effective input supply chains

Potential for private sector involvement

3 Active knowledge disseminatio n on the ground

4 Finance and insurance

Figure 41: Enabling framework conditions for private sector involvement and finance for CSA/CSV projects

1. Generation of cash flows via profit-making activities The most essential precondition to involvement of the private sector is profitmaking. The more profitable the activity will be, the more interest from the private sector is generated. However, this profitability may be enhanced via subsidies and other incentives. A CSA Project may foresee substantial achievements, i.e., increasing the production/yield by a certain percentage over a given period, whilst applying sustainable practices and improved technologies. Given an expected increase of income with agriculture through crop production, livestock production, fish farming and further agricultural practices (e.g., agroforestry, farm- and community forestry) can represent substantial and sustainable agricultural, rural energy, and forestry market developments. These translate into monetary values, therefore opening the door for private sector involvement. Page 73 of 91

2. Supportive regulatory environment and governance framework An overall legal foundation through a Climate Change Law or an amended Environment Law is essential for the establishment of irrevocable mandates for the relevant government institutions, defining roles and functions in the overarching governance structure as well as ensuring the necessary financial and human resources are allocated. The CCD of the MoWE initiated the process of drafting a bill in 2017, which came into force in January 2022. To engage the private sector and other stakeholder groups in climate action funding and related projects, an enabling environment that minimises any real or perceived risks is most supportive. The following should be investigated with a view to how climate action projects are supported: •

Policies and programmes that use public funds to leverage investments from the private sector;

•

Sound institutional processes and investor promotion activities that can play a role in successfully attracting funding;

•

Sectoral regulations (i.e., sector laws or bylaws), policies, rules, guidelines, and procedures, with a view to economic incentives and related policies or programmes for the private sector and other stakeholders.

Economic development incentives created by or related to streamlined regulations should stimulate investments, addressing adapted agriculture, energy conservation, forestry, biofuels, health, socio-economic factors, etc. Examples of such incentive mechanisms and policies are •

direct capital grants,

•

equity/ownership positions (by the government),

•

operating cost subsidies,

•

tax measures,

•

debt financing, or

•

bonus and malus schemes.

Tax and other incentive systems may be put in place to stimulate investments by companies and individuals in particular. Previous experience has shown that taxes can work as a disincentive for the aggregation of timber businesses. 5 A set of financial incentives may need to be put in place to convince informal businesses to become involved in climate action. For example, experience shows that subsidised soft loans with favourable interest rates and payback terms have an impact on the uptake of climate-friendly activities by this group.

Interviews with private sector actors, Kampala, April 2017. Page 74 of 91

Project developers should investigate where the GoU stands to provide a supporting investment environment to develop and implement bankable climate actions and allow for the use of local and/or international debt and equity finance. This includes supporting related processes via advocacy and lobbying measures, proposing concrete regulatory improvements and economic incentive mechanisms as well as putting pressure on the government.

3. Active knowledge dissemination on the ground – involving the local informal sector as well as relevant private businesses and industry Effective dissemination and CSA/CSV capacity building to increase expertise at the farmer’s level is decisive. This will most likely be done by an appropriate combination of external experts (incl. international experts) and local CSOs/NGOs as done as part of the KAKAWE-CCAM project and its follow-on programme. This can be done by private/expert organizations, including the training of extensionists and facilitators as well as involving relevant companies and businesses from the agrofood industry to promote and foster collaborations and prepare for engagement in the project. Knowledge transfer is a crucial but difficult step as this is often linked to foreign expertise on the ground. Understanding of cultural differences of local issues and a broader understanding of local farming perspectives are essential for productive training that can only be provided by local organizations. For this purpose, a solution may be for foreign experts to provide training to local experts and extensionists (incl. from local NGOs, CSOs, and further expert organizations) who will in turn provide training to local farmers.

4. Financing mechanisms & insurance An efficient replication of a profitable concept or successful pilot project under a CSA/CSV Programme must be fueled by financing mechanisms that involve a combination of grants, subsidies, potentially subsidized loans, and conventional loans. The stages at which these financial means can be used are further described below. Insurance (i.e., farming production insurance) is also an important financial component, which is often overlooked in developing countries, especially within sectors of the CSA. However, holder’s insurance is particularly important for the farming activities of vulnerable small-holder farmers. One of the KAKAWE-CCAM Project partners(Wekembe) has started to look into developing and piloting such an insurance scheme.

Page 75 of 91

5. Effective input supply chains New activities under a CSA Programme will require various farming inputs, such as seedlings, fertilizers, irrigation equipment, young cattle, etc. The mode of supply of such items will depend on the scale and the number of the projects.

6. Markets for outputs Similarly, for a project to be successful, output markets for products (agricultural, fishery, and forestry products) have to be found. Outputs will also need to be transported, stored, and traded. A CSA Programme may also foresee that “postharvest losses along staple food crops (maize, rice, cassava, beans), livestock and fish value chains will be reduced from XX% to XX% by the year XXXX”. The creation of storage facilities for improved adaptation to climate change and resilience is investigated by the KAKAWE-CCAM Project consortium, for example. Finance & Insurance

Initial Pilot Projects Supply chain of inputs to projects

Projects

Markets for output products

Multiple project replications

Active knowledge dissemination on the ground

Profit making activities

Regulatory and government framework Figure 42: Development steps and facilitation towards private sector involvement and finance

However, equally important (or even more important) than putting the appropriate overall framework in place as described above, is that the private sector can only be successfully involved at scale if individuals have an entrepreneurial spirit. Such spirit is very difficult to create and may be particularly present within the Uganda informal sector, which therefore holds a substantial potential in this regard next to the involvement of other corporate players.

Page 76 of 91

5.3.4 A phased approach to private sector involvement & finance The combination of the above elements is necessary to let bundled projects effectively evolve at scale and in sufficient numbers under a CSA/CSV Programme umbrella. However, these elements need to be deployed in progressive steps for effective replication. Three stages are proposed for implementation and are described below in Table X, describing the individual steps as well as the relevant finance source, how to scale up project activities, and the role of returns on investments for each of the steps. Again, the ‘private sector’ is understood or covers both the local farming level in the communities as well as private sector companies and businesses from the agro-food industry, for example.

Page 77 of 91

Description of stages

Finance sources

Scaling up of project activities

Return on investments

1. Initial pilots: Pilot projects are developed in selected locations, i.e., on farms and with farmers where the projects are more likely to be successful (1st level engagement based on relevant criteria). Subsidies and grants are necessary to make the projects financially attractive to the private sector.

Mostly international donors and (local) development banks

Centralized decision of locations with assistance from local NGOs/CSOs where projects are more likely to be successful.

Return may not be there and need subsidies to convince private sector to be involved.

2. Organized project replication: Successful pilots are replicated, but under the guidance of experts and in additional locations, on farms and with farmers where the projects are likely to be successful (2nd level engagement based on relevant criteria). Subsidies and grants are still necessary to make the projects financially attractive to the private sector, but local financial institutions play an increasing role.

Local financial institutions become increasingly involved (e.g., Centenary bank) although some form of grant or subsidy may still be necessary.

Local NGOs/CSOs have a more important role in further replication of initial pilot projects.

Return on investment is progressively improving as economy of scale and experience on initial pilot projects make things more efficient. This is to distinguish from social or environmental returns that play a role for social investors, for example.

3. Project self-replication: Sufficient pilot projects have been developed as showcases for the private sector to develop new projects with limited or no outside intervention. Only local institutions are involved, insurance should start to play a role in risk management.

Mostly local financial institutions and microfinance institutions are involved.

Project replication should snowball as feasibility and profitability have been demonstrated.

Returns on investment should be convincing for private sector without subsidies or grants.

Table 4: Stages in private sector involvement and finance

Page 78 of 91

Background information for further reading Project Databases & Knowledge Platforms

We Adapt Uganda National Alliance on Clean Cooking NAMA Registry Climate Finance Lab

Further readings

Sadler,M. (2016): Making climate finance work in agriculture CASA & UKAID (2021): Private finance investment opportunities in climate-smart agriculture technologies EcoAgriculture (2012): Coordinating Finance for Climate-Smart Agriculture Climate Policy Initiative & IFAD (2020): Examining the Climate Finance Gap for Small-Scale Agriculture

Small-scale and other CSA/CSV relevant funding & technology providers

Fenix International: Renewable energy provider promoting offgrid solutions in rural communities of Uganda

Partnerships with the private sector (MNCs)

Nestle: Helping coffee farmers in East Africa tackle climate change

ASAP by IFAD Centenary Bank

Private Sector Foundation

Page 79 of 91

6 Annexes 6.1 Financial sector involvement in the development of CSV/CSA projects in Uganda and other potential national and international doners Private sector funding: (levels of) involvement, conditions & potential A CSA/CSV project in various districts across the country is an ambitious undertaking, which will have sizeable implications for vital sectors of the economy, such as agriculture, rural energy, and forestry. Successful implementation means a deep outreach must occur within these three sectors, which will benefit a lot through substantial participation of the private sector/partners (incl. private sector6) on the ground. A number of financial institutions exist for private sector finance, including the Centenary Bank, Pride Microfinance, Uganda Development Bank, Finance Trust, and East African Development Bank. •

The Centenary Bank is among the most promising domestic private sources of finance. It is currently considered one of the pioneer financial institutions to integrate climate adaptation lending and climate risk management in its agriculture and energy portfolio. Corporate development bank investors such as the Ugandan Development Bank (UDB) and the East Africa Development Bank (EADB) are also potential sources of finance. They can both provide direct funding for projects. They are both considering taking equity stakes in companies (e.g., SPVs) in exchange for finance, which can then be of interest for a larger CSA/CSV project or programme in the case such a SPV for the overall management and coordination is established.

•

Micro-finance and insurance schemes may also be an option for some parts of the project, based on how these are set up in practice. In some cases, these are sourced from international organizations, for example, the French Development Agency (AFD) has channeled funds through five Ugandan banks, namely Centenary Bank, Post Bank, FINCA, Pride Microfinance, and Opportunity Bank, for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects that could be applied to small-scale solar and energy-efficient cookstoves in CSA/CSV projects.

Private sector also includes the informal sector aside from impact or social investors, private companies or multinational corporations. Page 80 of 91

Project Focus

Most suitable finance sources & mechanisms

Potential international financers

Potential national financers

Climate-Smart Agriculture

•

National international

•

ASAP

•

MoFPED/MAAIF

•

SCCF

•

Centenary Bank

In-kind contributions

•

UDB

Financial contributions

•

EADB

•

National budget

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

•

Private sector (insurance, microfinance)

•

Grant and debt finance (i.e., concessional loans)

•

National international

•

ASAP

•

MoFPED/MAAIF

•

SCCF

•

Centenary Bank

In-kind contributions

•

Pride Microfinance

Financial contributions

•

UDB

•

National budget

•

Finance Trust

•

Grant finance

•

National and international

•

In-kind contributions

•

Financial contributions

Climate-Smart Livestock

Climate-Smart Households: energy efficiency and solar panels

Climate-Smart Households: Water and sanitation

Climate-Smart Landscapes, including land, soil, and natural resources management

and

•

Grant and debt finance

•

National international

•

Financial contributions

•

Private contributions (farmers)

•

Grant finance (e.g., JWESSP)

•

National international

•

In-kind and financial contributions

•

Grant and finance

and

debt

•

GCF

•

MoFPED/MEMD

•

ICCF

•

UK ICF

Uganda National Alliance on Clean Cooking

•

NAMA Facility

•

UECCC

•

GCF

•

MoFPED/MAAIF

•

JWESSP

•

Centenary Bank

•

SCCF

•

UDB

•

EADB

•

ASAP or SEFA

•

MoFPED/MAAIF

•

SCCF

•

Centenary Bank

•

Pride Microfinance

•

NAMA Facility

Table 5: CSA/CSV project activities and corresponding potential national and international funding sources.1

Page 81 of 91

6.2 Quantification of emission reductions from CSA practices 7 6.2.1 Simplified methodology for the quantification from manure handling The decomposition of animal manure in the open causes significant environmental hazards including the production of methane, a GHG with a very high global warming potential. Good management practices of animal manure through the production of biogas are a good way to reduce GHG emissions from manure and provide a renewable alternative energy source for cooking or lighting. Additionally, the use of biogas for cooking can reduce emissions from deforestation for firewood production, the main fuel used by Ugandan households for cooking. Assumptions The emissions considered in this exercise are only coming from cow manure, the following methodology can also be applied to other types of animal manure (sheep, pigs, poultry…). Due to the lack of local data IPCC default values were chosen for some parameters, if possible and available, local values should be used (specific lab values for the chosen type of manure). Finally, for this exercise, it is assumed that on average every household owns 3 cows. Box: Further information on the methodology can be found under the following link: https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/JQHRMGL23TWZ081T6G7G1RZ63GM1BZ

Step 1: Quantification of baseline emissions for one household (BAU scenario, the manure is left to decay in open-air )

The exercises mentioned in this chapter were developed to introduce and train local development organizations on GHG quantification as part of the initial capacity building exercises. 7

Page 82 of 91

BEy

Baseline emissions from manure handling during the year y in tCO2e

GWPCH4

Global Warming Potential of methane

DCH4

CH4 density

UFb

Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties (0.94)

Index for all types of livestock

Index for animal manure management system

MCFj8

Annual methane conversion factor (MCF) for the baseline manure management system j

BO,L,T

Maximum methane producing capacity for manure produced by livestock category LT in m3 CH4/kg dm

NL,T,y9

Annual average number of animals of type LT in year y (numbers)

VSL,T,y10

Daily volatile solid excreted for livestock category LT in kg/day

MS%BI,j

Fraction of manure handled in the baseline animal manure management system j

Step 2: Quantification of the project emissions due to physical leakage of biogas PEy = BEy *LF

Project emissions due to physical leakage of biogas in year y in tCO2e

BEy

Baseline emissions from manure handling during the year y in tCO2e

Physical leakage of biogas, where a default factor of 0.05m3 per 1m3 of produced biogas

MCF IPCC default values can be found in Table 10.17 nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf; the average temperatures and manure management practices. 9 IPCC default values can be found in Table 10.A 4,7 & 9 nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf 10 IPCC default values can be found in Table 10.A 4,7 & 9 nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf

under: https://www.ipccvalues vary according to under:

https://www.ipcc-

under:

https://www.ipcc-

Page 83 of 91

Step 3: Quantification of emission reductions ERy = BEy - PEy

ERy

Emission reduction of households operating manure-fed systems in tCO2e

BEy

Baseline emissions from manure handling during the year y in tCO2e

Step 4: Upscaling to 3400 households over a 4-year period In this part the yearly emissions reduction and the cumulated emissions reduction will be determined based on the results of the previous part and using the following assumptions: • • • • •

Each household has 3 cows In the first year 300 households will have access to manure handling systems In the second year 1000 additional households will have access to manure handling systems In the third year 1000 additional households will have access to manure handling systems In the last year all households will have access to manure handling systems

The number of cows per household might change over the 4-year period (increase or decrease), this aspect should be considered for more accurate results.

Page 84 of 91

6.2.2 Methodology to quantify mitigation benefits through improved cookstoves This document provides a step-by-step methodology to quantify the mitigation potential of energy-saving cookstoves over a 10-year period. This approach is based on the Gold Standard, Technologies and Practices to displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption (TPDDTEC) methodology. Parameters used in the (TPDDTEC) methodology11: Bp,y

Amount of firewood used per year (ton/y)

fNRB,y12

Fraction of non-renewable biomass (%)

NCVb,fuel

Firewood net calorific value (TJ/ton)

EFb,fuel,CO2

Firewood CO2 emission factor (tCO2/TJ)

Efb,fuel,nonCO2

Firewood CH4 and N2O emission factor converted into CO2e (tCO2e/TJ)

Up,y

Improved cooking stoves usage rate assumed to be 80%

Part 1: Quantification of the mitigation potential of a single improved cooking stove over a 1-year period The purpose of this part is to quantify the mitigation benefits (measured in avoided GHGs emissions) of one improved cooking stove using the following method and the provided excel sheet. Step 1: Determine the baseline scenario and quantify the emissions In this step the baseline scenario should be determined, i.e., what is the current method used for cooking and the respective values for the parameters mentioned about should be gathered. The emissions for the baseline scenario can be calculated as follows:

Step 2: Describe the mitigation technology and quantify the emissions In this step, the proposed technology and its mitigation potential need to be described. For example, how this new technology will improve energy and resources savings? Like the previous step, the emissions for the new scenario can be calculated using the following formula, while taking into account the changes caused by the 11

The full methodology can be found under: https://globalgoals.goldstandard.org/2166/ Country specific values can be found under: https://cdm.unfccc.int/DNA/fNRB/index.html For other parameters refer to IPCC default values given in the excel sheet, unless you have country-specific data at hand. 12

Page 85 of 91

proposed, new technology (e.g., reduction of consumed firewood…). In this case, a reduction of 40 % of wood consumption is assumed.

Step 3: Quantify emissions reduction from the proposed technology compared to the baseline scenario Finally, the emissions reduction for one improved cooking stove can be quantified using the formula above while taking into account the usage rate (Up,y parameter).

Part 2: Quantification of the mitigation potential of improved cooking stoves for 3400 households over a 4-year period In this part, the yearly emissions reduction and the cumulated emissions reduction will be determined based on the results of the previous part and using the following assumptions and the provided excel sheet. Assumptions • • • • •

Each household will get one improved cooking stove In the first year 300 households will have access to the improved cooking stoves In the second year 1000 additional households will have access to the improved cooking stoves In the third year 1000 additional households will have access to the improved cooking stoves In the last year all households will have access to the improved cooking stoves

Page 86 of 91

6.2.3 Methodology to quantify mitigation benefits from improved cookstoves (deforestation angle) Step 1: Estimation of the baseline deforestation emissions of a household using a conventional cookstove The purpose of this step is to estimate the level of greenhouse gas emissions that would occur if the project intervention (the use of improved cookstoves) would not take place. Under the BAU scenario, each household consumes 7 tons of firewood per year. To estimate how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere from deforestation under the BAU conditions the following formula can be used: 𝑩𝑬 = 𝑴𝒃 ∗ 𝑪𝒇 ∗ 𝟑. 𝟔 • • •

Cf: The amount of carbon fraction in the tree biomass (default value: 50 %) Mb: Amount of firewood used per year under the baseline scenario (ton/year) 3.6: Conversion factor (from Carbon to CO2)

Step 2: Estimation of the deforestation emissions with the project/planned activities The purpose of this step is to estimate the emissions likely to take place over the intervention/project period. It is necessary to determine what the new deforestation rate/firewood consumption would be. Under the project activities, the new firewood consumption per household will decrease to 4.2 tons/year. The project emissions can be calculated as follows: 𝑷𝑬 = 𝑴𝒑 ∗ 𝑪𝒇 ∗ 𝟑. 𝟔 • • •

Cf: The amount of carbon fraction in the tree biomass (default value: 50 %) Mp: Amount of firewood used per year under the project scenario (ton/year) 3.6: Conversion factor (from Carbon to CO2)

Step 3: Estimation of the expected emissions reduction The purpose of this step is to estimate the overall benefits over the project/planned activities period in terms of reduced CO2 emissions. The net emissions reduction is calculated by subtracting the baseline emission from the project scenario emissions: 𝐸𝑅 = 𝐵𝐸 − 𝑃𝐸

Page 87 of 91

Assumptions • • • • •

Page 88 of 91

6.2.4 Methodology to quantify mitigation benefits from the use of solar PV panels Out of 2200 households in Uganda, 75% are using firewood for cooking and lighting, followed by 38% for charcoal and 26% for electricity. Switching to solar PV panels for cooking and lighting can reduce GHG emissions from deforestation, charcoal burning, and the use of fossil fuels (kerosene, diesel, and gas).

Step 1: Quantification of baseline emissions for a household using conventional fuels for energy generation over a 1-year period To quantify the baseline emission, the emission factor of the type of fuel used by each household needs to be determined using the table below as well as the annual energy generation per household. The baseline emissions can be calculated using the following formula: 𝑩𝑬 = 𝑬𝑮 ∗ 𝑬𝑭 BE: Baseline emissions in tCO2eq EG: Estimated annual energy consumption per household in MWh/year EF: Emission factor tCO2e/MWh

Type of fuel Gas oil, kerosene

Emission (tCO2e/MWh)

factors

diesel, 0.267

Wood13

0 – 0.403

Hard coal

0.354

Fossil gas

0.2

Step 2: Quantification of the projected emissions from energy generation using solar PV panels The amount of solar energy generated by the PV system is a zero-emissions source of energy since the emission factor for solar PV equals zero when the energy is locally produced. PE = 0

Lower value if wood is harvested in a sustainable manner, higher if harvesting is unsustainable Page 89 of 91

Step 3: Quantification of emission reductions per household over a 1-year period 𝑬𝑹 = 𝑩𝑬 − 𝑷𝑬

Emission reduction of households generating electricity using solar PV panels in tCO2e

Baseline emissions from generating electricity using conventional fuels in tCO2e

Zero for Solar PV panels

The estimated annual energy consumption per household doesn’t change over the 4 years (0.3 MW/year) In the first year 300 households will have access to solar PV panels In the second year 1000 additional households will have access to solar PV panels In the third year 1000 additional households will have access to Solar PV panels In the last year all households will have access to Solar PV panels The energy consumption per household might change over the 4-year period (increase or decrease), this aspect can be included in the calculation for more accurate results.

Page 90 of 91

Climatekos gGmbH Winsstrasse 57 10405 Berlin Page 91 of 91

Climate-Smart Villages and Agriculture

Articles inside

6.2.2 Methodology to quantify mitigation benefits through improved cookstoves

6.2.4 Methodology to quantify mitigation benefits from the use of solar PV panels

deforestation angle