1. Kenya Smallholder Agriculture
Carbon Finance Project
Amos Wekesa
amos.wekesa@viafp.org

2. Outline
• Project description: Size, location and ER Value
• Methodology: Sustainable Agriculture Land
Management
• Monitoring plan
• Conclusion

3. Where and How do we work?
Background

4. Land degradation
The organic matter content of many soils in East Africa has
been depleted

6. Institutionalization: Project Participants
• Project proponent: Vi agro forestry
• Project developer: Unique Forestry Consultants Ltd.
• Technical advisors:JOANNEUM RESEARCH
• Finance : World Bank, sida and self
• Stakeholders: MOA, KARI, ICRAF, KEFRI, CBOs etc

7. Public policy
• Voluntary Carbon Standard rules
– Validation and Approvals of methodology
• World bank safeguard policies
– ERPA
– Environmental and social protection
• National government policies
– Project approvals
– Secured land tenure and carbon rights

8. Project purpose
• Advisory/extension services
• Restoring agricultural production, adopting
farm enterprise approach and reducing
climate change vulnerability
– Target cropland management
– Livestock management
– High carbon sequestration Agro forestry options that
increase food or incomes as well

9. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Practice of no tillage
Removal of Residues
Use of crop residues for
direct mulching
Burning of residues
Distribute raw manure to
the field
Composted manure to the
field
Use of cover crops
Terracing of fields
Water harvesting
structures
Adoption of SALM practices Kitale
Current practice Future adoption
Matthias Seebauer 2010

10. Project Area: Piloted in Western
Kenya

11. Western Kenya smallholder agriculture carbon project
• Key project features:
• Western Kenya, with 6 Divisions 3 each in Kisumu
and Kitale (project region: 116,000ha, adoption area:
45,000ha, with 60,000 farmers)
• Project developer: SCC – VI (Swedish Cooperative
Centre – Viagroforestry)
• Project roll out plan: 9 years
• Average ex-ante estimated SOC sequestration rate:
1.37 tCO2 /ha/yr
• Total estimated emission reductions over 20 years
(2009 – 2029) is about 1.2 million
• Transactable VCUs about 618,000 (considering 60 %
leakage and non-permanence buffer)
• Assumed transaction value (US$4/tCO2): US$2.48 m
• Status of the project:
• Methodology submitted to VCS
• ERPA signed
• Implementation activities started in 2009

12. Methodology
• Methodology is called: Adoption of sustainable
agricultural land management (SALM)
• To be approved by Voluntary Carbon Standard
• The methodology is aimed to estimate and monitor
greenhouse gas emissions of project activities that
reduce emissions in agriculture by applying sustainable
land management practices (SALM)
• Carbon pools
– Above ground
– Below ground
– Soil organic carbon

13. Transaction costs
Planned Cost Amount (U$)
Preparation 50, 000
Establishment 50, 000
Operation 1, 026, 000
Others 172, 000
Total 1046,000
Carbon payments and co-benefits totals projects values and
benefits

14. BioCarbon fund (WB)
Unique Forestry
programme office
Project office
-PM
- DPM
Field Operation
-Head unit
-M & E
Zone 1
- Zone coordinator
Environment Climate
change
-Head
-Energy & SLM/seed
Administration
-Head
- accountant
-Casher & HR
Field staffs per
location
Farmer Enterprise
Development
-Head unit
- finance coord. &
-- capacity Building
Organizational structure
- 28 field staffs
- 6 zonal coordinators
- 6 financial field staffs
How are we implementing? SIDA/VI Planterar/LVB/Farmers
ICRAF
CAMCO
KARI, Local Gk AND MOA
KEFRI/Kenya Seed/Moi Uni
NEMA
Participatory extension
Provision

15. Agricultural mitigation potential in Kenya
:Commodity Smallholder
Mixed
cropping
system
Maize Bio
fuels
Coffee Tea Sugar
Land (m ha) 3 1.6 0.9 0.15 0.15 0.15
GHG
mitigation
activities
SALM:
Agronomy
Nutrient mgmt
Water mgmt
Agroforestry
Set aside land
Residue
mgmt
Jatropha
/Croton
1) Fuel
switch
2) AR
1) Shade
trees,
multiple
cropping
2)
Mulching
3)
Fertilizer
use
efficiency
Inter
cropping
no option
in Kenya
Inter-
1) No/
burning
of
residues
2)
Mulching
systems
3)
Fertilizer
related
emissions
Existing
Extension
services
0 0 0 + ++ +
Tech. GHG
mitigation
potential in t
CO e/ha/y.
CO2
2 – 5 0.5 1 – 12
2.5 –
5.0
3 – 8 ----- 7.8 in 3
years
14 in 10
years
20 in 20
years
Economic
mitigation
potential
++ ? ? ++ 0 +

16. Emissions and Removals in Agricultural
Land Management
Emissions Removals
CO2 �Biomass removal
�Land clearing
�Tree cutting
�Soils
�Fossil fuel use
Carbon
Sequestration
�Trees
�Improved soil
management
CH4 �Manure
�Biomass burning
�Fossil fuel use
N2O
�Manure
�Fertilizer use
�N-fixing species
�Biomass burning
�Fossil fuel use

17. SALM technology SALM sub-category Adaptation
potential
Mitigation potential Sited literature
Agronomic practices Improved crop varieties, Cover
crops and green manure,
Multiple cropping, crop
rotations, intercropping
High yields 0.51-1.45 tCO2-eq/ha/yr Follet 2001; Barthés et al 2004 and Freibauer et
al 2004 ;
Nutrient management Mulching, Improved fallow,
Manure management,
Composting, Improving fertilizer
use efficiency
Soil fertility
improved
0.02-1.42 tCO2-eq/ha/yr Also reduced N2O Willey et al. 2007;
ICRAF 2003;
Paustian et al. 2004; Pattey et al. 2005 ;
Smith et al 2007 and IPCC 2007;
Tillage and Residue
Management
Reduced tillage, Residue
management
Soil protected -0.44-1.89 tCO2-eq/ha/yr Willey et al. 2007
Smith et al. 2008
Water management Water harvesting structures,
Terracing
Soil protected -0.55-2.82 tCO2-eq/ha/yr Follet 2001, Lal 2004a ; Monteny et al. 2006
Agro forestry Woodlots, boundary, Dispersed
interplanting, fruit orchards
Wood products,
soil protected
-0.44-1.89 tCO2-eq/ha/yr CIFOR 2000, Sampson and Scholes 2000
Roshetko et al. 2008, Gou & Gifford 2002, Paul
et al. 2003 ; Oelbermann et al. 2004; Mutuo et al.
2005; Montagnini et al. 2004
Restoration and
rehabilitation of Degraded
Land
Set-aside land Soil restored and
protected
1.17-9.51 tCO2-eq/ha/yr Follet 2001, Ogle et al. 2004, Falloon et al. 2004,
Lal 2004a ; Scholes et al. 1996
Livestock management Improving pasture and fodder
Quality Upgrading
Food and income,
soil protected
0.0002-0.01 tCO2-eq/ha/yr
(for East Africa)
Leng 1991, McGrabb et al. 1998, Alcock &
Hegarty 2005; Boadi et al. 2004; Rice &
Owensby 2001, Liebig et al. 2005
Sustainable agricultural land
management activities

18. Roll out and carbon creditting potential
1.4 Tons of CO2/ha
0.75Hectares/farmer
www.v-c.org/methodology_salm.html

19. Monitoring
Monitoring method Activities monitored
Activity Based monitoring Agriculture practices Production (yields)
Cover crops
Residues
Manure
Fertilizer use Amount of fertilizer applied
Biomass burning Amount of residues burnt
Fossil fuel use Litters/kgs of petrol/diesel/gas
used
Soil organic carbon Model long-term Δ of soil
organic carbon
Trees Measure Δ tree biomass
Livelihood monitoring Livelihood status of a farmer Type of shelter
Water supply
Savings
Food sufficiency
Family Education levels
Social farm structure
Income and expenses
Environmental and social
management monitoring
Pesticides IPM activities
Farmer Group monitoring Group contracts and payments Recording all group activities
and grievances

20. Activity &
Productivity
Monitoring Survey
Project
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
?
?
Carbon
sequestration
10% Re-
sampling
Uncertainty analysis
Input
Input
Project region
Monitoring
Baselineassessment
Soil Carbon Model
(RothC, Century, etc)
Verification
Model
outputs
Baseline
IPCC Tier 1
data
Research
data
?
?
?
?
?
?
? ?
10% Re-
sampling
Methodology: Activity Baseline and carbon monitoring
approach

21. Soil Organic Carbon Component
• Roth C model
to be used to Model long-term Δ soil
organic carbon
– Clay content, weather
– plant residues, manure, soil cover

22. Linking ABMS data to Google earth
maps

23. Implementation status
• Methodology submitted to Voluntary Carbon
Standard, validation ongoing: www.v-c-
s.org/methodology_salm.html
• Project validation as soon as methodology
approved
• ERPA signature was done in Hague 5th November
2010
• SALM practices disseminated and adopted by
18,800 farmers, i.e. role out plan for 2009 - 2010
implemented covering 16,000 ha

24. SALM practices
Improved fallow

25. conclusion
• The project aims to improve staple food
production and providing advisory services to
farmers
• Combined benefits: carbon assets and co-
benefits

26. Thanks