Presented by Isabelle Baltenweck at the Pilot project on the feasibility of generating carbon credit through dairy productivity gains Second Project Stakeholder Consultation Workshop, Nairobi, Kenya, 29 January 2013
Feasibility assessment of selected sites for the pilot project on the feasibility of generating carbon credit through dairy productivity gains
Feasibility assessment of selected sitesfor the pilot project on the feasibility ofgenerating carbon credit through dairy productivity gains Second Project Stakeholder Consultation Workshop, Nairobi, Kenya, 29 January 2013 Isabelle Baltenweck International Livestock Research Institute Nairobi
Overall objective• To evaluate the viability of the project concept and establish whether carbon finance is a viable option• Data used: literature survey, expert interviews, household surveys etc..• Focus on the selected site
Project location and boundaries• Location, geophysical and ecological aspects, socio- economic context, detailed description of production systems, institutional set-up, access conditions, etc.• Description of potential project participants in selected project area; key actors engaged in the dairy sector in selected site; document recent or currently ongoing project interventions in the area (if any);• Identification of a suitable and comparable reference group• Perform an evaluation of the cost, ease and practicality of monitoring and evaluation of project activities highlighting any constraints/ barriers
Technical feasibility• Analysis of key factors or underlying drivers for low milk productivity• Evaluation of the potential for increases in milk yield• Identification of possible technical packages to increase milk productivity and assessment of risks and barriers associated with uptake and to performance improvements;• Evaluation of the rate of technology transfer and adoption and identify any risks to the maintenance of improved practices and technologies• Identification of potential technology and other related service providers• Provide recommendation of viable technical strategies/activities focusing on their cost and GHG emission implications;• Assess the technical capacity to perform Measurement Reporting and Verification (MRV) activities and develop relevant MRV indicators.• Propose a preliminary robust and practical MRV system including mechanisms for coordination and regular reporting of mitigation, approaches for verification, etc.
Financial feasibility• Assess preliminary estimate of project costs associated with the initial project development e.g. costs related to technological transfer and uptake, training costs; management costs i.e. costs of administration, monitoring, extension services/activities;• Assess non-carbon revenues accruing from project interventions, foregone benefits and other costs for project participants;• Assess need for complementary funding and recommend financing alternatives that may be pursued further by project developers.
Institutional feasibility• Identification of crucial partners in implementing the underlying project, define key areas of expertise, strengths and capacities and analyzing the potential roles and responsibilities that different stakeholders identified can play in the project;• Assess whether institutional capacity in project area is sufficient to implement project;• Evaluation of stakeholder interests relevant to project objectives assessing the likely impact of the project on these interests;• Evaluate the institutional capacity of different stakeholders to implement and monitor project interventions;• Identify and evaluate key factors that will affect willingness of farmers to participate in project;• Propose a suitable institutional arrangement for the implementation of the project.
Socio-economic impacts• Conduct an analysis of socio-economic benefits and risks to evaluate the likely impacts of the project• Examine how project interventions will impact socio- economic dynamics in project area and recommend mechanisms that can be build into the project in order to mitigate negative impacts or enhance the positive ones;• Conduct an assessment of the likely co-benefits the project is likely to deliver and evaluate the possible secondary effects on other sectors/industries• Propose mechanisms for benefit and revenue-sharing or compensation for participating farmers
Risk assessment• Operational and technical risks (e.g. lack of implementation support, risk of slower/limited uptake of technologies, time lags in implementation, etc.);• Regulatory risks (e.g. absence of financial/credit revenue distribution mechanisms);• Natural/biophysical risks that may undermine the ability of participants to remain in project (e.g. likelihood of unforeseen risks such as disease outbreaks, extreme weather conditions, etc.);• Risks to project sustainability and permanence of emission reductions over lifetime of the project, etc.• Legal risks: identify any potential issues with legal aspects of project implementation, legislation relevant to planned project
Workplan• February and March: – Tool development – Analysis of secondary data/ information – Key informants interviews• April – Data collection• May – Data analysis and reporting