 welcome all. We are going to divide the session in two. First, we are going to have main presentations of our cases and then we will like to open a space of discussion with our panelists. So I would like to introduce you to Harry Clements. Harry Clements is a program officer of Carbon Finance in EVOS, the Humanist Institute of Development Cooperation. Harry? Okay. So I'll start then. Maybe you can start the slides here. So I will talk about, well, I will give one presentation on one of the cases about the relationship between agriculture and climate change with also incorporating climate finance. That's the case of the bioslurry. Bioslurry, which is used as fertilizer in connection with biocasts, domestic biocasts. So the next, the first slide here. So here you can see the basic design of a bio-digester. We have programs of biocasts and bioslurry in several countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. And the basic, it's at a household level. So these are small digesters. And the basic design is a fixed dome design of, yeah, in between four cubic and 13 cubic meter. And so you can see on the picture that on the left side, there's the wet organic waste, that's the inflow. So usually it's livestock manure and also human excrete. So you need to put the manure at the left side. It flows into the digester. There is the process of the digesting. So after, yeah, after some 20 to 30 days, it starts producing the cast. The cast goes up and by the cast pressure, the digester slurry gets under pressure and will be put out to the right. So the effluent, that is the bioslurry that will automatically go out. And that's the fertilizer that we will be talking about. So the design is that we manage usually in the HEFOS and SNV programs. It's the fixed dome design. So it's underground. You have other models, but this is a model that is quite solid. So it has usually a lifetime of 20 years or longer. So, but the investment cost is not so low, but it varies between countries in general. Asia is much cheaper than Africa and also then Latin America. Now, so the construction cost would be in between $350 and $800 in Asia and between $601,000 in Africa and also in Latin America. So it has basically two products. No, the biocast for cooking and lighting and also the bioslurry is organic fertilizer. So the next slide, please. Yeah, so here you can see, well, the two products are the biocast and the bioslurry, but there are multiple benefits. So the programs, they create local employment. No, the cast, which is a clean cooking fuel. So it has, yeah, the cooking, which is convenient, fast, healthy. And there's also the lighting option or, well, better to say, the aggregate for those households that don't have electricity. The lighting is also a nice benefit. And then there's the fertilizer. So next slide, please. So the bioslurry, there is, yeah, as I mentioned, the supreme fertilizer. It can be applied in three different forms. No, it can be applied directly in a liquid form. That has, yeah, the digestive slurry is beneficial because it's readily available, the nutrients. So the liquid form can be absorbed and used by the plant directly. The disadvantage is that, yeah, it's heavy and it's not so convenient to transport. So when the farmer uses it for longer distances, they often dry it. And then the third alternative is to compost it. And that would be the best form. But, well, that depends on the needs. So for the most common or the most popular model is 6 cubic meter. And that is, yeah, sufficient for one, fertilizing one hectare on average. And if you compost it with organic waste, you can, yeah, you can use a product, you have fertilizer for about three hectares. Of course, all is variable. It depends on the crop and the specific needs. And that also is for the revenues and the yield increases. So actually we have made a document with all the, yeah, the different results in practice, how yields are increasing in different crops. So I brought some copies of that. And that will be at the SNV booth here in the, yeah, in one of those booths. So there you can see in more detail the benefits of the slurry. But on average, it's 25% crop revenue increase compared to the raw manure. So next slide, please. Okay. So those programs that we have are in, as I said, in Africa and Asia and Latin America. Well, in Africa, there's the African Biocast Partnership Program. That's in five countries. We have in Indonesia and Cambodia. So now we have carbon projects registered for biocast in four countries and in validation for the other countries. We will focus now on the Kenya and Indonesia because that's where we are working also on the bioclurry part. On the energy part, hence it is already registered in Kenya and Indonesia, Kenya case by the CDM as a renewable energy project. So there, what you quantify is the replacement of firewood. Now, and also, but that's more in Indonesia and Cambodia. There's also the manure management because there's no methane emissions in the raw manure. So Indonesia domestic biocast project is registered in the voluntary cold standard in 2013. And on average, we are all variable, but on average, it's four ton CO2 per household. So there's four carbon credits per household. That's for the energy part. So that is the part that is fitting into the current cold standard and CDM approved methodologies. But it does not recognize the part for the bioclurry. So now we are working with the cold standard. As the cold standard launched, maybe you have seen it launched this week, the cold standard agriculture standard. It was on a last Wednesday. And so now we can work on the methodologies to be approved to quantify the impact on carbon sequestration and fertilizer replacement by the bioclurry. And we are working on that. It depends on where you use it, many different crops and how you use it in liquid form or in the dried form or in the composted form. So that makes different situations. Yeah, maybe the next slide then. Yeah, okay. So we are working there with the Soylent More, that's a specialized company. So they have produced a methodology white paper. So an initial methodology for the measurement of the carbon impact of bioclurry. We have done bioclurry user surveys in Kenya and Indonesia. And we have now also the feasibility study for Indonesia based on that user surveys. So we have made a baseline scenario project, basic scenario, probably plus scenario. And that's basically because it's so different in the different types of applications. So most people now use it in the liquid or dried form and only small percentage in the composted form. So the initial calculations is that with the basic scenario, with that mix of applications, it's 2.4 ton per hectare. But if up to 70% of the users would make composted, then it would go up to 5.3 ton per hectare. And then well, on average, the farmers, they have 0.6 hectares, those that are in the survey. So that's more or less the case description. There's still one more slide. Okay. Yeah, so it's kind of a landscape plus, I would say, because it has the bioclurry in combination. It really has all three elements of the landscape. The reduced deforestation now because of the substitute, the replacement of the firewood. It has the improved agriculture. And it is also reinforcing the integrated livestock and crops system. And it has the energy system. And so, and besides that, it also is, let's say, the plus because it's about livelihoods. It's about food security. There's a very strong health benefit. There's the time savings because, and especially important for the women, because they in many places are who collect the wood. And there's the income generation, both by the users and by the constructors. So maybe, yeah, I've not mentioned yet that it's a market-based approach. We train construct emissions. They form small enterprises. And so that's also the local employment economy part. So that's, yeah, that's a landscape plus. Thank you. I kindly ask you all to maintain your questions to the end. And I want to introduce now to Francisco Fonseca, a senior researcher and advisor of SEDECO. Yes, it works. Well, I work for SEDECO, which is an NGO based in Costa Rica. We work in some other countries in Latin America. SEDECO is an NGO that has worked for about 30 years in sustainable agriculture. And we also have developed a methodology named Cambiodos, which is proper for measuring carbon sequestration from sustainable practice in sustainable farming. I'm going to present you some of the results we already have after somehow like one and a half years working together with the gold standard. This is one of the six projects selected to implement agriculture methodologies that may be used for the new standard of the gold standard. This whole process is being sponsored by Hibos from the Netherlands. Next one. So Pascafe is the name of the project. It stands for Sustainable Agriculture and Coffee Plantation in Nicaragua, in Spanish, of course. We are working with a quite important organization, a cooperative, second-level cooperative named Puerto de Cop. This cooperative covers around 38 different cobs. And we picked two cooperatives from two different departments in the northern part of Nicaragua, where most of the high-quality coffee comes from Nicaragua. One cooperative was conventional plus for trade, and the other cooperative implement organic practice certified as well, plus for trade. From them, we picked 45 farms to implement the Cambiodos methodology in the field. Some key aspects to be reminded from these cooperatives are that they are agroforestry systems. That means that they have already established four trees into the coffee plantations for shading. And another aspect to be reminded, important, is that they apply almost nothing, very low to nothing fertilizer, so they have very low yields. And because of the undernourished condition of the plants, they are affected severely for the coffee leaf rust and other diseases, so that's something that we want to tackle. Next one, please. So in an eventual project with carbon crates certified by the gold standard, we would expect to be these carbon crates to be invested in a composting facility to improve yields and to have a better way to manage the sanitary aspects of the plants. And we already said that there are ideal trees in the systems, so the carbon will come from the aerial biomass that they said leaves and parts of the trees that falls into the ground and adds carbon to the soil. And soil carbon, biomass, and avoided emissions that come from the substitution from chemical fertilizers and now using compost or organic fertilizers. So in a 20 years period, these crates will be added from the trees and from adding, applying composting in the field that will add carbon to the soil and will avoid emissions to the air, to the atmosphere. Next one. So this one projection we have made is a model with Broadsea model. We have done this projection calculating to satisfy the 60% of nitrogen for the coffee plants for them to increase yields by something that they cannot achieve currently. And so this is the forecast, an example of the forecast accumulation rate per year per hectare in 20 years that will be used for the carbon crates estimation in the future. The next one. Here we have two variables. One is yield, suspected yields and emissions. So we have organic on the top and bottom and the bottom conventional farmers. On the top we see with the purple bars, there's the situation where there is no project. So in the organic farms, yields will remain about the same. You can see in the red line that emissions will be about the same, emissions of greenhouse gases. But having the project, we may expect these yields to increase by year six to almost double. But we can see in the blue line that emissions will go up as well. I'm going to that later in another slide. For conventional farmers, the expectations will be that we can see again in the purple bars, they will have more similar yields. It depends on coffee price and the cost of fertilizers, but we can see that there would be parallel to increments of the carbon emissions due to the chemical fertilizers. With the project, we would expect the day to increase quite a lot the yield we can see in the green bars. But we see in the blue line that the emissions will be reduced because of the substitution of chemical fertilizers with compost. Next one, please. So what I say about the emissions from the compost application. So we have estimated that the compost will cause emissions but they will also add carbon into the soil. And in the organic farming systems, the accumulation of carbon will be six times higher than the emissions caused because of the composting. So we don't need to worry about that. It's about the same case in the conventional one. The next one, please. Next one, please. Okay. As I said before, they have agroforestry systems where there are banana crops and trees that are useful also for the bees, they produce honey, so it's important. And there are the trees covering the coffee plants. And the expectation is in a capture rate for CO2 assets in conventional 2.33 and in the organic a little bit lower because they have more trees in the conventional ones. So it's important to be in mind because of the next slide, please. Next one. Yeah. So one of the importance of this project is that because of the coffee-lea rust, especially the conventional farmers are tempted to switch from the varieties they already have to more resistant varieties to the coffee-lea rust. And the problem is that these, there are two problems with this. These plants need more light, so they will cut the trees that are already there. And this coffee, the quality of this coffee is not that good. And the problem is that this organization, Prodicop, is well positioned in the market because of the quality of the coffee. So they will lose market and they won't get the fair trade price they already have. Next one, please. So this is what we expect to happen with the project. It's another representation. We already have measured the baseline. We have already measured what is the increase in carbon sequestration because the shift from conventional systems, including organic farming. But by implementing a composting facility, we would expect this carbon rate sequestration to speed up, to be boosted. And then this is what would be the additionality of the project that would be offered in the market and the carbon markets. Next one, please. So again, the composting facility will go to the coffee plantations. We expect this to increase yields and to increase also carbon in soil. And we get for the carbon price that will be used for paying back the investment in the composting facility. Next one, please. Sorry. Some other benefits. Sorry. Are to increase the yields, to have a better control of the diseases, especially the coffee leaf rust. And there's something we already have found that by using organic fertilizer to improve the nutrition of the plant, we get better taste. We have a higher qualification of the coffee. They have a better taste so they can claim for a higher price. And we have seen also, we have measured, for example, from reduction from 20 to 5% reductions in the defective coffee beans. So this is very important for them in terms of the yields and the quantities they can sell into the quality markets. Next one, please. So we expect from this project to increase the income from having higher yields to improve the quality of the coffee, to reduce the losses because of the coffee beans. And of course, because reducing also the losses due to the diseases to improve the livelihoods. We believe that stronger farmer organizations is a key issue in order to promote the creation of farming and no farming jobs in the communities to demand services and to promote a more dynamic economy in their own landscapes. Next one. So thanks for your attention and I hope your questions later. Thank you Francisco. Yeah, now I want to introduce you to Roberto Ugas. Roberto Ugas is member of the Board of IFOM, but he's also a researcher in the University of La Molina here in Peru, Roberto Ugas. Good morning. I will report about the household survey that we conducted a few months ago in the Peruvian Andes and we try to understand the relationship between agroecology, livelihoods, and food security. This was part of a research project funded by Canadian development agencies in which we had collaboration with Peruvian and Canadian organizations and our main partner in the field was the National Association of Ecological Farmers. When we speak of ecological farmers in the context of this report, we don't mean third party certified farmers but non-certified organic farmers and they are involved in other types of guarantee systems for organic farming like participatory guarantee systems. The fact is that in spite of the very strong economic growth of the last two decades in Peru, the situation in the Peruvian Andes remains more or less similar and the differences between urban and rural population remains more or less the same. This is the map, the official Peruvian map of the vulnerability to food insecurity and as you can see the red color are the districts with the highest vulnerability to food insecurity. It follows almost exactly the Andean Highlands. To the east you have the Amazon, to the west you have the coast where almost 70% of the population lives. So in spite of this economic growth and all the public discourse about the importance of traditional cultures, indigenous people and biodiversity, the fact is that when it comes to poverty and food insecurity, particularly in the high Andes, the situation is more or less the same. So we, I cannot read, I'm sorry, I have to turn around. What we wanted was to characterize small landholders according to their agroecological practices to analyze the relationship between rural livelihoods with emphasis on natural, financial, physical, human and social capitals and agroecological practices and to explain food security as an effect of agroecological practices and selected indicators of rural livelihoods. So we developed the research, first of all, trying to understand the context in terms of social demographics, environmental profile and agroecological production. We tried to understand and through a household survey we made several questions about natural, physical, financial and human and social capitals and in the end we tried to analyze the effects on food security. We divided the population in two main groups. Agroecological farmers were at least 70 percent of the farms were under agroecological practice. They had not used chemical inputs for the last three years and they were implemented at least one of the following, one practice in each of the following category, using organic manures, soil and water conservation, crop diversification and ecological pest control. On the other hand, the conventional farmers were living in the same communities as the research group or the agroecological group with similar characteristics, have not been exposed to the agroecological perspective or did not know about them and implemented conventional practices at least one of the following, using chemical fertilizers, chemical insecticide, fungicide or plant growth or mones. This is the size of the sample that we implemented. We worked in three regions, the northern Andes, Cajamarca, the central Andes, Juan Nuko and the southern part of the Andes, Cusco and the total number of farmers were 221 agroecological, 230 conventional, with a total sample of 451 households. This is the first time that this type of comparison is done in Peru and what we wanted to gather, of course, concrete facts about the effect of the agroecological implementation besides the ideological discourse. And this is the type of farmers we got information from. They could have been like in the left, it's very small tomato grower in the northern Andes, then a woman growing vegetables for the local markets in Cusco and their plastic tunnels or very traditional farmers growing native potatoes above 4,000 meters sea level. What all of them have in common is that they practice agroecology and they belong to the National Association of Ecological Farmers or were linked to such organizations. The results were very different. When it comes to the social demographic profile, we found statistical differences, for example, in the educational level achieved by the mother and in general, there was a high statistical significant differences and the agroecological households tended to speak more Spanish than the conventional farmers. This has something to do, of course, with their access to the formal educational systems, which is basically all done in Spanish. When it comes to the farming system profile, 99, almost 100 percent of the agroecological households could distinguish an agroecological practice with only one third in the conventional. Almost 80 percent of the conventional households did not have any external support compared to only 54 percent in the agroecological households. The agroecological households used more external labor, 61 compared to 40 percent, and they were also highly more interested in growing new crops and diversifying their production. The sources of seeds was statistically significant with significant differences produced by themselves or exchanged with other farmers with comparison to the conventional, which were more reliant on the modern market. When it comes to the agroecological practices, the use of organic manure, soil and water conservation and crop diversification, we asked what was the situation five years ago and what was the situation today. As you can see, the agroecological farmers five years ago, 80 percent implemented these agroecological practices and five years later, this climbed up to almost 100 percent. While in the conventional group, it changed from 42 to 57 in five years, so not a large increase over there. When it comes to soil and water management practices five years ago, in the agroecological group, there was an increase from 75 to 99 percent in five years, while in the conventional group, it remained more or less the same, where with regards to the crop and diversification systems in the agroecological group, the increase was similar from 82 to almost 100, while in the conventional group, it moved from 50 to 67. When we characterized natural capital, there were very interesting differences there. The conventional group with significant differences expressed that their soils were exhausted and also in 40 percent of the cases that the erosion has increased. The agroecological households practiced pressurized irrigation systems three times more than the conventional. They have planted trees, you see 85 percent versus 65 percent in the conventional, and they considered that water to be contaminant free, 75 versus 60 percent. When it comes to financial capitals, the agroecological had a clear, stronger connection with markets and to credit sources, so they usually were selling their products in the local farmers market, municipal markets, while in the conventional, there were other types of market connections, which is very important. In these years in Peru, the percentage of families participating in government social programs was higher in the agroecological group as compared to the conventional, and there were also significant differences in access to credit. When it comes to physical capital, there were significant differences, sorry? One minute, okay, I will run a little. There were not many important differences when it comes to physical capital. When it comes to the perception of family income, you can see in the top, the agroecological responded that their income has barely improved or has improved substantially, while the conventional mentioned that their income remained the same. With regard to social capital, there were, of course, enormous differences basically because most of the agroecological farmers belong to farmers association, and when required to answer why they belong to this organization, 66% mentioned to access new markets. When we decide with the start of the growing season, when food reserves have already been finished, and there were some differences there between agroecological and conventional. So our preliminary conclusions are that we had a solid sampling allowing the detection of differences between agroecological and conventional. However, this is the first study of its kind. Agroecological households showed a better performance in the five dimensions of food security. There are normally four dimensions of food security, but we have really found that institutions should be added at one of the dimensions. With regards to natural and social capital, there were clear differences, not so much with human and physical. Women had a higher participation, and this is relevant for what we are discussing today, that very often agroecological households tend to be located in similar micro watersheds and are organized, increasing the relevance of key indicators related to climate change where they performed better. There are many other conclusions that we are deriving right now, but one very important is in general the institutional context in which these households operate is weak or very weak, and there is a really strong need for a stronger government presence of good quality. Thank you. Thank you, Roberto. We have one to two minutes to clarification questions. If there's some in the audience, no? Okay. Well, thank you, Harry, Francisco and Roberto. Ah, yeah. You have one. Could you please come in front? Thank you. Okay. So our current situation is that, you know, Our current system or current programs are with the small holders in rural areas, so these household biocast digesters, they are based on using the manure from the cows, the cow dung mainly, or sometimes the pigs. Perfectly you can mix it with other inputs, organic waste, but in general we do not recommend it because then there is a risk that people don't know which are the materials that could be damaging the process. So the program is just based on the cow dung, the pig dung and human excreta for the first phase. So in future when people are more accustomed to the system we might change that. But of course here for the waste management it's also in urban areas very beneficial, but we focus for the moment on the rural areas and I think there was another part in your question that I don't remember. I want to hold your questions because we want to move to the panel and I want to introduce the panel and then we can interact within the panel. I said at the beginning that we will divide this session in two. We already have seen three excellent cases in Africa, Kenya and Indonesia presented by Harry, also Nicaragua presented by Francisco and Peru presented by Roberto. And now we want to also welcome to the floor Peter Balmidevaud, he is director of business development and land use of the Gold Standard Foundation. Christian Daneker, he is director of land use and carbon of South Pole, Sergio, Celaya, he is a special advisor of global issues in UNCCD, Richie Huye, he is regional director of Asia for the Environmental Defense Fund and well I didn't introduce myself, I'm Paolo Solis and program officer of EFOS also for the region of the Andes. So this panel, we want to make it as interactive as possible and we want to start with innovation. I will show the first question and then we can continue from that point. And maybe Harry, you can explain, you have already explained the scale but could you or someone in the table can say something about what is innovative of these approaches and then we come to your question. Oh, so yeah well one thing is the innovativeness and the and the scale yeah so it's really a such biocasystems already have existed for a long time but the programs they bring in a market-based approach where people get access, so we work on the demand side, we work with the MFIs and also on the supply side with the local machines, the constructors and yeah that's a system so it's and it's the scale well I don't know if that was part of the question but we are in Indonesia, we have now 13,000 households with biocas digesters and in Kenya there are 12,000. Do you have a question? Okay yeah could you yeah maybe you can repeat the question because I don't know. It is to the expert from Peru, I'm Shailat from National Council for Sustainable Development India, we have exhibition upstairs. My question is to the expert from Peru that analysis which was showed about agroecological practices whether it is pure organic farming or it is organic farming or organic manure mixed with chemical fertilizer because we have found in our experience okay we have found in our experience with large number of farmers small farmers if you directly take up only organic farming it's not viable because if it is not based on soil health analysis right so if you just put organic and soil health analysis requires different nutrients then your farming is not viable so I just want to find out from the expert from Peru what was their situation and if I can add something maybe you can address a little bit of what innovative approaches you had you have seen in the experience we made a clear sampling and the difference was put from the beginning the agroecological group about 250 farmers were using were implementing different agroecological practices and have not used any chemical input for the last three years on the other hand the conventional farmers were practicing agriculture in a similar agroecosystem but were using at least one chemical inputs and our results show and the practice shows in Peru that there is a very high viability for ecological farmers in certain conditions this is specifically related to the high Andes and what is innovative about this approach I think the strongest innovation Juan Pablo in what I reported was the close interaction between farmers organization sometimes powerful farmers organization and development agencies many many times local NGOs or other groups even groups of restaurants teaming together to buy produce from them so I would say the most relevant innovation in this context belongs to social capital thanks you Roberto and this brings me to the next question to Francisco what is the role of other players you present a case on coffee what is the role of private sector in that well can you listen yeah okay actually one of the approaches we are pursuing is to convince roasters buyers of coffee for them to understand what is the problem behind low productivity and high risk for climate change of these coffee farmers so we believe they can play a great role by contributing in in these investments initial investments for scaling up these kind of alternatives for the farmers to increase use and to become more better adapted to the climate change to manage better their the diseases and to also we also pursue the investments goes to diversification of the system so they can not only depend on coffee so they can also get income from other sources so I believe these players need these increasing yields they need the farmers to be in the field producing because it's their own business they need to continue their own business so actually it's a win-win relationship they would expect by supporting these kind of activities and of course the financial institutions together with the private sector may join and support these initiatives and to become more resilient to the climate change thanks Francisco pita a question for you do you see enough room for for this type of innovation in your sector in the carbon sector okay good morning everyone the I think that we're talking actually about a lot of different things here we're talking about certification we're talking about organic agriculture practices we're talking about carbon markets what Francisco presented is actually a case how you can increase the production of farming systems and also find solutions to find things like coffee rust one of the say proxies that he gets out of there is is the mitigation potential that is related to it which is I would say great news that that that that you can combine these things there might be other situations where the mitigation potential is not so large but where you still can achieve this increase in production with with adapting new practices so better composting or increasing increasing your soil fertility I was just getting a figure that in 2013 24 billion tons of soil has been lost again and a lot of these initiatives actually look at how can we recover these soils and make them more productive again if carbon markets can help with that I think that is that's great we need any kind of finance that helps with that whether this finance will maybe rather come to low carbon supply change that is actually a concept in which I believe more where we see we will see a lot of movement as the coffee roasters and the coffee supply chains themselves have an interest in still being in business in in 10 or 20 years from now so you see in this sector is an ever-increasing willingness to invest in supply chains and increase the production sustainably at source when it when it really comes to the carbon components I think there should be some concerns expressed as well the negotiations during the week and also next week and next year in in Paris are making are making process I think there's a lot of new thinking going on and a more decentralization of contributions but also the question is going to be who is going to pay for all these actions that we want to see on the ground and we're always talking about leveraging private capital but in fact there's not too much private capital in the rooms here and not in the negotiation rooms either so these are examples where it can actually work and where I think the certification for example also leads to other side effects than than than just these effects but I do have a concern more about about the financing part of say the overall green transition but we'll definitely talk about that more here and I definitely think that a finance requires innovative mechanism on incentives maybe Richie you can give us a little bit of background about market innovations that you have seen in the field that can bring this to scale for instance ICTs can you all hear me oh great so my name is Richie Ahuja with the Environmental Defense Fund and terrific presentations from Harry Francisco and Roberto and we're doing something similar on the ground in India and so I'm going to draw up on that well of experience as well where we're working with about 70-80,000 households for biogas units about 100,000 households for cook stoves and 20-30,000 farmers it is a landscape approach and I'm loving the fact that everybody here is talking about landscape approaches and one thing I would caution on is sort of on the finance pieces that don't do this for the carbon finance what you do this for is because it makes economic sense for the farmer so it has to start from that place and if it so happens that in the process because we're doing all the things right you're going to get some benefits which are carbon benefits it is then up to the aggregator or the government in play or whoever to figure out if you want to monetize that asset and if you see value in monetizing that asset to drive or catalyze more transformation on the ground so the jury is still out but it is certainly I'm glad that more and more people are exploring this avenue it's not a done deal yet there's also some issues around permanence so we need to think through on that as well but I think the rigor that needs to be done this I think we need more and more rigor more and more data points to show that what's being done is real that the development effects are really what we say they are that transaction costs are manageable on finance there's various sources of finance we have leveraged some monies from you know there's ODA and philanthropic funds to build institutional capacity to test things out but there's huge amounts of money that governments like my government in India for example spends on development that's their business they spend on agriculture so there's budgetary line items we should think about how they can be leveraged and use better and made more efficient there's money from credit agencies where a lot of the small farmers don't have credit so can we figure out ways to get debt to them which is low cost debt there's social impact investments and then there's also the whole carbon deal so the idea is to figure out ways to blend all this together and come up with a solution that works for that particular place and context coffee farmers sent or into cash crops so they may perhaps have more availability in terms of credit credit worthiness and if they have tenure on the line etc you've talking about small-scale farmer in upland or dry land agriculture in central India tenure issues are there a little bit there's issues around credit worthiness and availability of banking etc but all this is changing so there's places you talk about ICT you know phone banking is coming into play in Africa phone banking is happening in India now just right off the phone phone systems credit is being made more available to the farmers GIS systems are being brought into play to ensure that farm ownership is clearly defined and all this is very very exciting because it's going to open up the space for the farmer to again access the funds that the farmer needs to optimize land use and also all this information system is going to be very valuable for the farmer in the end also to take the right decisions in the end where I come from on all this is that the farmer is really the best optimizer of resources on the ground they're not in the business of wasting resources but what they do best is you know if they have the right amount of information they'll take the right decisions the challenge is getting them the information thank you and moving from innovation to livelihoods resilient livelihoods Cristian maybe you can explain us how this approaches us from the landscape perspective builds on a resilient livelihoods a project there you go thank you thanks for the question and actually we did start a while ago what Richie said you shouldn't do which is looking a lot at carbon finance and we collected some experience on that in a in a organic farm in a organic farming focused project and we draw some lessons from that basically the project was not only organic farming itself but it was an intervention to save forests it's a RED intervention in the end so what was done is basically upscaling of conservation and organic farming in mason millet production um through activities such as composting precision planting anti erosion terracing and so on but we framed that also with additional activities fairly soon um which were um around enabling conditions to to to allow that had to happen for example fire management there was a lot of wild fires that spread from other farms or from poaching activities into the fields which and then burned the biomass that you needed for the organic farming we also needed to diversify the workload over the year so we we looked at honey production and we looked at nutrition gardens next to the villages so that donated more work when there was no other work to do and we looked also into fertilizer producing trees such as um piterbia and additional food crops such as moringa and finally we framed that as I said with a carbon methodology using the vcs and the ccbs and so what we found is that actually the carbon finance in the end was only you needed to kick start activities at the start and then the project is sort of rolling out itself by itself now of course it's being you know supported ongoing with carbon but um the the project managed to to raise 30 productivity of of of staples output it managed to generate 400 dollars a prox of income per honey farmer per year which is about triplicating the income they had before so we saw that carbon finance was an excellent kickstarter and if there would be a better carbon price we could do a lot more because the project is at 800 000 hectares with um several hundred thousand people so it could be rolled out and I hope that in the negotiations that you know the enabling conditions will be set for that um so maybe some lessons there one was that um it was key to maintain the to avoid leakage and maintain that conditionality that we know we do this for a purpose and which also includes mitigation as honestly for the local population as the second most important priority but the findings providers the most important one and therefore it was key to make sure that there was a land use planning set for example there were boreholes that were dried up since decades partially and before rehabilitating those and starting organic farming there we looked is that in a biodiversity corridor or or not and then we focused on those that community said and we looked after that are not in the middle of an area that is sensitive um a second point is that work generation was key um you don't want to generate more outcome with less work because then people spend their time opening new areas um and it facilitated this was also a little facilitated because it's really a non-market environment there's almost no one going to the market selling excess crops so as long as they have the production they need and a little excess for paying school fees for kids there's not a lot of expansion going on and with regards to that negotiations I mean um it would be nice if the technologies that have been presented here and then are being used that the landscape approach could receive the adequate support by either market-based mechanisms or by the green climate fund or other discussions that are ongoing it's going slow so meanwhile um what a positive message is all these project that's have been mentioned here are probably the most sexiest one that you have on the voluntary carbon market it's hard it's not a big market but meanwhile those those projects that probably fetch the best prices thanks thank you I tend to talk too much and so if you please have questions just raise your hands meanwhile I have one for the case holders uh Harry Francisco what basically your cases were talking about mitigation and how you can reduce the amount of carbon but what about adaptation and food security well actually the use of the bioslurry also has great benefits for the food security and the adaptation uh first of all the food security now because it's uh yeah it's used the bioslurry is often used for uh yeah growing new crops nearby in the the house so there's new uh yeah what you call vegetables and food crops coming into the the home system uh yeah and and then uh next to that the yeah the the the the the fertilizer as I mentioned it's a good fertilizer and it's because it's also containing the micronutrients it's uh improving the soil uh condition the soil structure so that is also making an impact on the resilience and yeah to adapt against possible negative weather impacts and climate impacts so I think there's clearly an adaptation benefit as well maybe you want to add more on that it's okay okay um yeah from we uh one way of looking at this is uh farmers are already uh by using improving their their their income they will be able to buy some other uh food that they already they cannot get because of the they have a very low income but we are also increasing our encouraging the farmers to diversify the their production in the case of protocol they also are producing honeybee and they are getting income from there we have seen uh in other cases of diversification the farmers themselves were able to pay the renovation of the plant of the coffee plantations because other sources that they are starting recently like a small farming a small vegetable facilities are they are selling to the markets they also having chicken eggs and some small animals and some cows and they are diversifying in this way they are reducing the risk and they are getting income from other parts so it is another contribution for the food security food insecurity they already have thank you very much um my name is Bill Herditch from Australia um thanks for the fantastic presentations of the case studies I just had a question for the panel about um the application of this type of innovation to broader scale landscapes we've talked a little more about small holders here but in Australia for example we've got millions and millions of hectares of extensive uh rangelands some on the edge of deserts and we're doing some work in the north on the application of um technology by way of better water access for large large areas opportunities to increase biodiversity cell grazing and reduction of wildfire so just a general question to the panel about the application of organic farming or agroecological farming processes to broader scale landscapes around the world because in a way because of the climate issues and adaptation and mitigation uh will rely a lot on big areas of land being recovered rehabilitated and put into better food production for giving me the opportunity to also put the my hair in the soup of this this issue and um I agree with with your your question this is uh how this very innovative examples on cases that uh I am very grateful to be here being here this morning and listening to these very highly relevant examples at this small scale and how large scale operations also can can benefit from this issue how can this change can be driven not only at the at the on the ground but also the financial aspects this is a challenge that we have in front of us and if we include in this in this in this soup as I said the the negotiation process of where why we are here in in Lima today the climate change conference um well let me say first that I work in the other convention uh that came out of Rio one of the three Rio there were three conventions for those of you who don't know if you already know I'm sorry I have to repeat this the climate change convention is only one of the three Rio conventions that were agreed upon in 1992 the other one is the biodiversity convention and the desertification convention I work in the desertification convention and from that angle I can say that um it is a challenging to to see the common denominator of these presentations the soil organic carbon or carbon content in the soil how is this going to be adopted and embraced by the negotiators in the in the I mean some kilometers away from here uh this is not something that we can hope and we can wish this is something that we have to advocate and fight for and 20 years have passed by uh discussing about in the inclusion of land and soil into the negotiation of climate change and nothing has happened in Kyoto in Kyoto 1997 for example I I I at the time I had my hair black we in Kyoto the the Europeans they said you know we want a chemically pure a green protocol chemically pure means means land and forest out of the negotiation and that was what they got you know they got the Kyoto protocol the way they wanted it this energy business and now in order to include the the issues of land and soils and water and for a vegetation it's going to be challenging um Cristiana Figueres mentioned this month this past Monday she wants an universal agreement for Paris universal the world universal includes this issue but I don't know how how is this going to happen if we only uh well it's good that we have this this innovative cases and that we reflect and highlight the the issue of soil carbon content but we have to pass this message in events like this and individually to those negotiators there are other issues on not only on mitigation mitigation is great and good and well the issues of adaptation and food security what happened to other indicators that are out there like for example the land productivity dynamics uh net primary product how can we use that in the in the within the framework of this convention or the trends in land cover these are indicators for the resilience of the of the land so there are options that we out there many research has been done that it can be used and this is one side the other side is the financial issue it's true that um that there are many resources out out there at the national level in other public public and private investments but how to jump start how to drive this change how the green climate fund or the jeff or the cdm or all these other financial mechanisms that they discuss here for years and years in the convention how can this be the the seed to create this change and i don't see the eligibility of of um projects that have this this soil component or land component be included um Richard right the gentleman from you mentioned sorry you mentioned about the the methodology not being agreed by the cdm so you have to work on on this methodology to include the soil carbon content but this is not the only case how we can do this to actually make these projects eligible for for this carbon financing and adaptation financing this is the challenge we have terms of metrics also sure i'll just take one minute it's a very good question on scale love it one i think want to bring up the issue of adaptation mitigation i think it's not a question of either or we live on a spectrum so no matter what you do on mitigation often you get adaptation benefits or if you package is adapted to adaptation you get mitigation benefits what's important i think is for us to know where we are and what those elements are the components how much and in terms of scale uh we are having these negotiations and and it's great and i think they can add value in terms of trying to drive scale but really scale happens at home it happens is driven by local interest as in the individual farmer and by national interest we need to serve those and to do that we need to basically these examples are great and we need more and more of these examples that are very much data driven with strong metrics that really make the economic case you know governments typically look at uh money going into this sector as a cost and we need to start looking at that as an investment and the moment we can show very categorically that here are the returns on that investment then you can really start getting some scale so the more number of projects you had the good more data you have you get build confidence so that's kind of the stuff that we are beginning to see with some of our work are we moving from project-based approaches now to try and drive change across a whole district with small holder farmers in vietnam the work we're doing in the delta we turn on our replicated and have the government suddenly woken up and they're asking some good questions and i think in the end the government is the big driver of scale when it comes to investments in this sector as well include you know you need the private sector you need other financing but in the developing countries often the government plays a pretty decent role especially on infrastructure etc Roberto you want to start just a quick answer to your question in the organic movement we don't pretend to have answers for yet for every farming system every country in the world but there are already about 70 million hectares certified organic worldwide and australia is one of the top five countries in terms of acreage in organic land so and this only is when we count third party certified in africa asian latin america there is much more there is not yet certified but the principles are applied on farm so we hope to have this increased but certainly we need to do much more research and outreach okay let's move to finance and uh pita do you see what do you see the role where do you see the role of private investors private capital in to to reach this scale that we are talking about it's a very important role if sustainability was the business as usual we wouldn't be sitting here so um the the the conventions and all the efforts and the case studies they all show how it can be done or they want to kind of break through the existing systems and come up with some new solutions so we make things like the green climate funds and we do case studies and we do development aid but if we compare those sums with the finance that is yearly going to conventional agriculture if you know if we would ask somebody from mars to look at how we do things here he would be saying what what what are you doing here this doesn't make any sense the only way in which we can make this transition is by changing the behavior of private capital that's i'm totally convinced of that um and it seems so obvious to me as well fortunately we're seeing that so there is more and more corporates like unilever that are making commitments and also putting uh you know they walk the talk they they they make they work towards more sustainable practices and there's many others doing that as well there's movements in europe in the us of people that start to appreciate again more the say also intrinsic values of uh of food and and regionality and and things like that so i think there's hope but there's a lot that needs to be done yet um true certification we we are partly doing that there is examples also uh of germany where a city actually paid for organic certification of farmers that surround the city they said we pay for the certification because they knew if farmers would be organically certified in the surroundings it will improve the quality of the drinking water in the city because they're not allowed to use pesticides and chemical fertilizers anymore there's a lot of good examples out there already but for real change uh the the behavior of this big lump of investments that is really going into agriculture that has to change and this is i think what we're all trying through institutions through uh through laws and regulations through certification and christian so do you see a role of the payment for ecosystem services schemes to increase the to reduce the impact on forest degradation then work yes this time it works i do thank you i think it was one of the two big frameworks that everyone is waiting for to be set and that everyone is working on to be set one is um payment for ecosystem services at a global scale driven by a large scale mechanism where the rules are set and the reward is clear and then the private sector could deliver very significantly on that and i so therefore an investment to get that done should be from the public sector should be in setting those rules you know and on the other hand setting the reward in the end but not crowding out the implementation which often can be done by private players or together with the public place and the other one the other big framework is the deforestation free supply chains and clean supply chains that we are looking at if that compromise that has been done um this and last year is really delivered on by lots of large companies and we had a side event in cop some days ago people are moving and companies are moving but they're not really clear yet how they will do it to get to this very short-term goal to 2020 if that is getting traction then you know all these technologies here and all these initiatives that sit on this desk will you know will get a big boost and can probably partially even forget about the ecosystem service payments because there's enough drive without them thank you christian the reality is that the carbon official carbon markets are collapsed so where are you going to sell these carbon credits Harry yeah well many things have been mentioned by other panelists that i would like to reinforce and that is for example also that yeah don't do this for carbon finance no it the objective is the economic benefit of the farmer still though the carbon finance can help to trigger to kickstart changes no and another aspect that has not been mentioned is that the strong monitoring impact no so interestingly is that yeah for carbon credits you will need to monitor so that also helps to to to focus and to improve your interventions because you have uh you have to really to to to follow up on what you're doing no so traditionally also in the biocast there were there were bad systems uh bad models which were distributed and the people just count uh how many models digesters have been distributed no and with the water we all know uh well it's in all the sectors it's the same so the carbon finance has that uh effect of uh good monitoring and seeing what works and what does not work but yeah clearly so we we we we sell the the carbon credits on the voluntary carbon market and biocast carbon credits are great and relatively good price but of course it's far from sufficient what is needed to make the real transition and the real impact no somehow also Peter mentioned we need to change behavior of private capital maybe yeah there's also still so much lacking but in the two cases we have so small steps because in the Indonesia biocast program and bioclary there's a real contribution from Nestle no and that was so the program is in nine provinces and it performs best where Nestle is involved now they support the the farmers and who produce their milk and in Kenya we also have the cooperation with econ trading which is a large coffee company and it's also uh yeah investing in improving the agricultural practices and there also the bioclary uh it's uh yeah they they they are supporting with the private capital as well now but it's far far from what is really on needed and I would say also that yeah carbon markets and the the project-based approach it's just a small start towards really promoting low carbon growth thank you well I know that there are a lot of questions but we ran out of time so I have one last question to say here to end this this session so here was what lesson lessons can we take for the current coming sustainable development goals discussions hello yes with the with the topic at this session the how is it that the in the sustainable development goals that are being negotiated in in New York from December this December to to next August or September next year there are 17 goals and out of these 1714 make a reference to land so water and vegetation 14 out of the 17 so how is this global universal negotiation in New York is going to be reflected as well in the negotiations of this this this convention on climate change because what we have seen here today this morning I mean these three very in we benefit from these innovative cases in which organic agriculture has has a role to play and the approaches to climate change are really evident there but how is this going to be reflected in the practical approaches to the implementation of the SDGs it depends on the on the national and regional structures and negotiations that are going to and dynamics situations that the different countries and regions have and how they will see and and and face these sustainable development goals the sustainable development goals at the same time they will have targets so what it could be a good approach is to have make sure that some of the targets that the sustainable development goals have contain the issues of land and soil for example I know that target 15.3 is the the achievement of land degradation neutrality which is like land degradation prevention and the same within food security and the financial structures of food that that accompany the assurance of of a secure world with regarding food and and feed so this this issue of of political negotiation financial aspects also include what the presenters mentioned the how to increase social capital how to increase livelihoods how to increase governance at the local level how to interact between the the small-scale farming and the large-scale operations in a within the same region or within the same country these are the issues that perhaps we should bring to the table and at the core of the negotiations not only of this convention on climate change but also the convention on the certification and the convention on biodiversity as well as to highlight it in the in the in New York how we can do this we can as I said provide the message like the events like this but also talk individually to the negotiators and highlight this is important and this is a priority for the majority of the countries even even Germany even Australia even India these all these countries are based have a substantive base on on agricultural production and how is it that we can tap and harness that that issue so this is what I I take home with from this event but thank you for asking thank you say you thank you all the panelists and thank you all the audience for for being here I know that we have to close the session the lunch is waiting for us there's still a lot of questions I see a lot of hands rising so but you already know his faces you can approach them during the breaks or during the lunch or during the coffees and ask the questions more specifically thank you all I think we deserve an applause