UNEP GEF PIR FY 06 · Web viewPIR FY 2016 template PIR FY 2016 template PIR FY 2016 template PIR FY 2016 template PIR FY 2016 template PIR FY 2016 template 33 33 33 5 5 5 Nanjing

PIR FY 2016 template1

UNEP GEF PIR Fiscal Year 16 (1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016)

1. PROJECT GENERAL INFORMATION

GEF project ID: 5824 IMIS number*1: GFL-5060-2770-4F17Focal Area(s): Land Degradation GEF OP #: GEF-5GEF Strategic Priority/Objective:

LD-1; LD-4. GEF approval date*: May 22, 2014

UNEP approval date: 17 May 2014 Date of first disbursement*:

Feb 9, 2015

Actual start date2: April 2015 Planned duration: 38 monthsIntended completion date*:

October 30, 2017 Actual or Expected completion date:

June 2018

Project Type: Medium size project GEF Allocation*: USD 1,826,484PPG GEF cost*: PPG co-financing*:Expected MSP/FSP Co-financing*:

USD 1,257,800 Total Cost*: USD 3,084,284

Mid-term review/eval. (planned date):

December, 2016 Terminal Evaluation (actual date):

n/a

Mid-term review/eval. (actual date): No. of revisions*: 0

Date of last Steering Committee meeting:

7 April 2016 Date of last Revision*:

n/a

Disbursement as of 30 June 2016*:

USD 990,012 Date of financial closure*:

n/a

Date of Completion3*:n/a Actual expenditures

reported as of 30 June 20164:

USD 700,806

Total co-financing realized as of 30

USD 628,931 Actual expenditures entered in IMIS as of

USD 511,236

1 Fields with an * sign (in yellow) should be filled by the Fund Management Officer2 Only if different from first disbursement date, e.g., in cases were a long time elapsed between first disbursement and recruitment of project manager.3 If there was a “Completion Revision” please use the date of the revision.4 Information to be provided by Executing Agency/Project Manager

Sharing knowledge on the use of biochar for sustainable land management, or Biochar for Sustainable Soils (B4SS)

Project Title:

Starfish InitiativesExecuting Agency:

Nanjing Agricultural University; Jimma University; World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF); Asociación para la promoción del desarrollo sustentable (APRODES); Thai Nguyen University of Sciences (TNUS); Cornell University; New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI); and Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI).

Project partners:

GlobalGeographical Scope:

China, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, Peru and VietnamParticipating Countries:


June 20165: 30 June 2016*:Leveraged financing:6

USD 1,140,167

5 Projects which completed mid-term reviews/evaluations or terminal evaluations during FY16 should attach the completed co-financing table as per GEF format. See Annex 16 See above note on co-financing7 As in project document8 Progress made during current reporting period (one paragraph stating key changes since previous reporting period)

The project brings together a wide range of projects investigating the use of biochar in sustainable land management. Formal biochar research is in its infancy. Yet there is much traditional knowledge about the use of charcoal in various applications to enhance soil productivity. Many scientific studies have been undertaken in recent years using biochar prepared in advanced facilities, and there is increasing understanding of the properties of biochar, and the chemical, physical and biological processes involved when biochar is applied to soil. This project builds on current activities to evaluate biochar in field trials.

Some trials utilize biochar in novel ways to capture nutrients and return them to the soil. Some projects have established networks of landholders and mechanisms for capacity building, but do not have the knowledge of appropriate formulations of biochars. Other projects have strong scientific expertise, but no capacity in participatory action research and rural extension. Therefore, this project collates the best available knowledge generated amongst the project participants, including expertise of world-leaders in biochar science and engineering, to expand the demonstration of biochar in a range of settings (soil types, climates and agricultural systems), and to disseminate the findings broadly amongst landholders and resource managers.

Project summary7

The Biochar for Sustainable Soils (B4SS) project was launched during the inception workshop held on 13-14 April 2015 in Nanjing, China. The workshop allowed the B4SS partners to meet, network and design the plan for achieving the project’s objectives. Additionally, twelve B4SS project members, from seven countries, participated in the third international training course on biochar production, testing and application, hosted by Nanjing Agricultural University. Since then, the B4SS project has primarily focused on:- developing the country project plans, following the technical advice provided by the B4SS scientific panel (SP);- aligning the six country plans with the overall B4SS project’s activities and objectives. The work plans and partner agreements have all been approved by the scientific panel and signed, respectively;- designing the B4SS baseline survey (see outcome 1 below);- collaborating with researchers in European and African universities and research centres to strengthen capacity on generating and sharing knowledge on biochar systems in Africa and assist in elaborating the concept note for the newly-created Africa Biochar Partnership (ABP); and- creating the B4SS website <www.biochar.international>.

Due to delays in the transfer of funds from UNEP (the contract was

Project status FY168


signed on 15 Dec 2015 and the first instalment was released on 9 Feb 2015) and project planning, it took about 3-4 months from the inception meeting for the project to start field activities. This changed the planned start date of the project in Kenya. Also, there was a change of partners in Indonesia and significant efforts have been made to improve communications with the partners in Peru. Despite these key changes, the project has progressed according to plan with minor variations in the expected date of some outcomes/outputs mostly due to the late start of the new partner in Indonesia.

During project’s design, there was a misinterpretation of the co-financing offered by the Executing Agency in their letter of support, which says: “Starfish is proposed to be the Executing Agency for the project. At the same time, Starfish will contribute significant in-kind value beyond this funded role ~ particularly through governance and strategic oversight of the project. We have calculated that the total value of Starfish's contribution to be USD430,000 which includes USD330,000 in-kind (that is, in addition to the USD100,000 component of work covered by the cash funding).”

The last sentence seems to have been misinterpreted, and as a result co-financing from Starfish Initiatives was noted in the project document as USD 330,000 in-kind and USD 100,000 in the form of cash. However, the correct co-finance contribution offered by Starfish Initiatives is USD 330,000 in-kind. The additional USD 100,000 component of work that is mentioned to be covered by the cash funding relates to the GEF-funded work that Starfish Initiatives is doing for the B4SS project and not to any additional cash co-finance contribution.

Nevertheless, the project has now secured additional co-finance of US$ 152,331 (39,331 as cash and 113,000 as in-kind co-finance) from project partners (World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF); Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI); and University of Udine/Biochar Plus Project). Therefore, the project will raise co-finance of US$ 827,800, as committed in the project formulation.

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVE

State the global environmental objective(s) of the project10

9 For Full Size Projects this information is found in the front page of the project Executive Summary; for Medium-Sized Projects the information appears in the MSP brief cover page.10 Or immediate project objective

Strategic priorities/targets for GEF-5: LD-1: “Improved agricultural management”, “Types of innovative SL/WM practices introduced at field level”, and “Information on SLM technologies and good practice guidelines disseminated”; and LD-4: “Improved GEF portfolio monitoring using new and adapted tools and methodologies”, and “GEF-financed projects contribute to SLM/SFM/INRM knowledge base”.

Planned contribution to strategic priorities/targets9


Please provide a narrative of progress made towards meeting the project objective(s). Describe any significant environmental or other changes (results) attributable to project implementation. Also, please discuss any major challenges to meet the objectives or specific project outcomes (not more than 300 words)

Please provide a narrative of progress towards the stated GEF Strategic Priorities and Targets if identified in project document 11(not more than 200 words)

11 Projects that did not include these in original design are encouraged to the extent possible to retrofit specific targets.

To demonstrate and promote the adoption of SLM practices involving the use of innovative organic amendments, based on biochar, that improve the capture and efficient use of nutrients, and enhance productivity, improve climate resilience, support rural livelihoods, and contribute to watershed management.

The project has made progress towards meeting the objectives in various ways. The baseline knowledge of biochar has been defined through surveys. In general, farmers had not heard about using biochar for sustainable land management (SLM) before the B4SS. Hence, the project is likely to deliver an increased level of farmers’ understanding of biochar. However, this baseline also represents a challenge since some farmers are reluctant about burying biochar in soil instead of burning it for cooking. The field trials were designed to address soil-crop constraints for farmers to observe benefits, notwithstanding the challenge to achieve this in the short duration of the B4SS. Another challenge is to convey the message to farmers and stakeholders that biochar is only produced from biomass residues that otherwise would not be used or even pose environmental problems. Biochars were produced from coffee husk that is left to decompose in piles; chicken litter that a farm cannot dispose of; green waste diverted from landfill; sugarcane bagasse abandoned next to a sugar factory; rice straw and corn stover diverted from open burning; and cattle bones.Recovering these residues for biochar application to soil has contributed to an efficient capture of nutrients and improved waste management. Greenhouse gas emissions associated to the disposal of these residues are therefore reduced, and carbon that would have been emitted to the atmosphere has now been sequestered in the soil in the form of biochar. Besides contributing to climate-change mitigation, biochar formulations have already resulted in enhanced soil fertility and crop productivity, such as in Ethiopia. Furthermore, the project has trained farmers, NGO and agricultural extension staff, government researchers, students and academics in developing countries. The South-South capacity building effort achieved so far has contributed to the creation of networks of farmers and stakeholders interested in using biochar for SLM.

The B4SS project made progress towards the five GEF strategic priorities and targets stated in the project document:

LD-1: “Improved agricultural management”Experimental field trials have been established in four countries and will be established in the other two countries by December 2016. The objective is to compare different biochar formulations with alternative soil amendments, notably farmers’ common practice, to test whether biochar proves to be an improved agricultural management practice.

LD-1 “Types of innovative SL/WM practices introduced at field level”Biochar technologies have been introduced to the farmers and other stakeholders in all countries.


LD-1: “Information on SLM technologies and good practice guidelines disseminated”While the plan is to publish the B4SS good practice guidelines at the end of the project, it has already become evident that different information will be disseminated to different stakeholders, targeted to their specific context (biomass resources, soil constraints, available and appropriate biochar technologies).

LD-4: “Improved GEF portfolio monitoring using new and adapted tools and methodologies” The B4SS project is evaluating new biochar formulations in six countries that will improve the diversity and reach of the tools and methodologies of the GEF portfolio.

LD-4: “GEF-financed projects contribute to SLM/SFM/INRM knowledge base”The B4SS project is generating new knowledge on the use of biochar for SLM. The experience and findings are being shared internally among project members, and will be disseminated broadly in later stages of the project.


3. RATING PROJECT PERFORMANCE AND RISK

Based on inputs by the Project Manager, the UNEP Task Manager12 will make an overall assessment and provide ratings of:(i) Progress towards achieving the project objective(s)- see section 3.1(ii) Implementation progress – see section 3.2

Section 3.3 on Risk should be first completed by the Project Manager. The UNEP Task Manager will subsequently enter his/her own ratings in the appropriate column.

3.1 Progress towards achieving the project objective (s)

Project objective and Outcomes

Description of indicator13

Baseline level14 Mid-term target15 End-of-project target

Level at 30 June 2016

Progress rating 16

Objective17 To demonstrate and promote the adoption of SLM practices involving the use of innovative organic amendments, based on biochar, that improve the capture and efficient use of nutrients, and enhance productivity, improve climate resilience, support rural livelihoods, and contribute to watershed management.

Outcome 1: Number of farmers 0 ≥ 60 ≥ 120 83 HSIncreased that will participateunderstanding of thepotential of biochar in improving productivity and addressing issues of declining soil fertility and mismanagement of nutrient resources.

in the evaluation of the effects of biochar in soil and generate useful information for sustainable land management.

12 For joint projects and where applicable ratings should also be discussed with the Task Manager of co-implementing agency.13 Add rows if your project has more that 3 key indicators per objective or outcome.14 Depending on selected indicator, quantitative or qualitative baseline levels and targets could be used (see Glossary included as Annex 1).15 Many projects did not identify Mid-term targets at the design stage therefore this column should only be filled if relevant.16 Use GEF Secretariat required six-point scale system: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Marginally Satisfactory (MS), Marginally Unsatisfactory (MU), Unsatisfactory (U), and Highly Unsatisfactory (HU). See Annex 2 which contains GEF definitions.17 Add rows if your project has more than 4 objective-level indicators. Same applies for the number of outcome-level indicators.






Progress rating 16

Output 1.a: Number of 1 ≥ 3 ≥ 6 3 HSCollation of demonstrationdemonstration resultscomparing biochar with alternative management

programs developed and implemented.

practices.

Output 1.b: Number of biochar 0 ≥ 12 ≥ 24 8 SEvaluation of a range formulations/rates/of formulations andapplication rates of nutrient-enhanced biochar.

soil type/crop type combinations evaluated in all the six participatingcountries.

Output 1.c: Report N/A N/A Completed report N/A N/ACollation of documentingrecommendedpractices for the use of biochar in SLM.

recommended practices






Progress rating 16

Outcome 2: Number of 0 ≥ 60 ≥ 120 54 SKnowledge landholders,generated anddisseminated on the appropriate use of biochar to improve the capture and efficient use of nutrients, while

researchers, students and other stakeholders visiting demonstration sites.

reducing air andwater pollution; and

Increased awarenessand improvedunderstandingamongstsmallholders,including women’sfarming groups, andresource managersof the use of biocharto address soilconstraints, and mosteffective applicationrates andformulations (e.g. mixwith other organicand mineralamendments) toachieve agronomicbenefits.Output 2.a: Number of 0 0 6 0 N/AGuidelines for the guidelinesuse of biochar inSLM.

produced in all countries.






Progress rating 16

Output 2.b: Number of local 1 6 6 4 SNetworks of networks createddemonstration sitesand farming groups.

due to the implementation ofthis project.

Output 2.c: Number of 0 ≥ 50 ≥ 100 119 HSAt least 100 smallholders,smallholders,farmers, resource managers, development agents, agricultural extension staff, researchers, B4SS project members, producers

farmers, resource managers, development agents, agricultural extension staff, researchers, B4SS project members,

of biochar-making producers ofovens, and university biochar-makingstudents trained inthe production and use of biochar as soil amendment.

ovens and university students trained in the production and useof biochar as soilamendment.

Overall rating of project progress towards meeting project objective(s) (To be provided by UNEP GEF Task Manager. Please add columns to reflect all prior year ratings)

FY2015 rating FY2016 rating Comments/narrative justifying the current FY rating and explaining reasons for change (positive or negative) since previous reporting periods

S The project is on track. The project has exceeded its targets on training participants. The project is also on track on developed biochar formulations.


Action plan to address MS, MU, U and HU rating (To be completed by UNEP GEF Task Manager in consultation with Project Manager)

Action(s) to be taken By whom? By when?

This section should be completed if project progress towards meeting objectives was rated MS, MU, U or HU during the previous Project Implementation Review (PIR) or by the Mid-term Review/Evaluation (To be completed by Project Manager).

Problem(s) identified in previous PIR

Action(s) taken By whom When

3.2 Project implementation progress

Outputs 18 Expected completion date 19

Implement- ation status as of 30 June2015 (%)


Comments if variance20.Describe any problems in delivering outputs

Progress rating21

Output 1a: collation of demonstration results comparing biochar with alternative management practicesActivity 1a.1: Identification of demonstration sites July 2016 17% 100% COMPLETED. SActivity 1a.2: Establishment of experiments in demonstration sites

August 2016

17% 78% ICRAF in Kenya and NGI in Indonesia have established

S

18 Outputs and activities as described in the project logframe or in any updated project revision.19 As per latest workplan (latest project revision)20 Variance refers to the difference between the expected and actual progress at the time of reporting.21 To be provided by the UNEP Task Manager






Progress rating21

33% of experiments. ICRAF expects to complete this activity in October 2016, whereas NGI recently joined the B4SS and is catching up. The expected completion date is now March 2017.

Output 1.b: evaluation of 24 combinations of biochar formulations/rates/soil type/crop typeActivity 1b.1: Soil sample collection and analysis August

201617% 68% Soil samples have been

collected and analysed in Ethiopia, Peru and Vietnam. In China, samples have been collected and their analysis is expected in October 2016. In Kenya and Indonesia, samples will be collected in September - October 2016. So, the expected completion date is now October 2016.

S

Activity 1b.2: Production and characterisation of biochars August 2016

17% 67% Biochars have been produced and characterised at the following rates: 100% for China, 100% for Ethiopia, 60% for Indonesia, 90% for Peru, and 50% for Vietnam. In Kenya, all the biochar required will be produced by October 2016. The delay in transfer of funds from UNEP caused the production of biochar in Vietnam to be

S






Progress rating21

delayed to the rainy season. Efforts have been made to make biochar under wet and more difficult conditions.Lessons learned have been noted. The expected completion date is now October 2016.

Activity 1b.3: Preparation and application of biochar formulations to soil

October 2016

17% 68% On track. Progress rates for this activity are: 75% for China, 100% for Ethiopia, 33% for Indonesia, 100% for Peru, and 100% for Vietnam. In Kenya, this will be done during the establishment of on-farm experiments in October 2016.

S

Activity 1b.4: Analysis of different effects of biochar on different crops and interpretation of the results

January 2018

0% 0% The experiments have not finished, and so there are no results to analyse yet.

N/A

Output 1.c: report of recommended practices for the use of biochar in SLMActivity 1c.1: compile the recommended practices in a draft report

June 2018 0% 0% This activity will start in the next reporting period.

N/A

Activity 1c.2: review of the draft report by the scientific panel and steering committee, and submission of final report to UNEP

July 2018 0% 0% This activity will start in the next reporting period.

N/A

Output 2.a: publication of the “B4SS good practice guide” in English and translation into the six country languagesActivity 2a.1: compile recommendations and design the B4SS guide in English

June 2018 0% 0% This activity will start in the next reporting period.

N/A






Progress rating21

Activity 2a.2: review of the B4SS guide by the scientific panel and steering committee, and final amendments


Activity 2a.3: translation of the B4SS guide into the country languages


N/A

Output 2b: six networks of demonstration sites and farming groupsActivity 2b.1: visits to the demonstration sites in all countries

December 2017

0% 21% On track. In Ethiopia, Kenya and Peru, partners report 33% progress for this activity, whereas the partner in Vietnam reports 25% progress. So far, no visits to the demonstration sites have been conducted in China and Indonesia.

S

Output 2c: ≥100 smallholders, farmers, resource managers, development agents, agricultural extension staff, researchers, B4SS project members, producers of biochar-making ovens, and university students trained in the production and use of biochar as soil amendment.Activity 2c.1: training on biochar production September

20160% 57% In contrast with other

countries, in China most farmers participating in the B4SS project rely heavily on the paid work they do in the cities. Therefore, these farmers do not spend much time and effort on farming, and do not value crop productivity as much as the farmers in the other

S






Progress rating21

participating countries. Therefore, Nanjing Agricultural University (NAU) aims at increasing farmers’ interest and knowledge on biochar by applying biochar in some of their fields for them to see the benefits, but will not train them directly on production or application methods. NAU has already provided training to 30 students and researchers in parallel to the B4SS inception workshop. In Indonesia, some farmers preferred slash and burn over biochar making, because of the lower amount of work involved.Therefore, the original number of 21 villages was reduced to 14 villages, of which 8 villages have been trained. In Kenya, this activity is expected to be completed in March 2017. Training rates are: 100% for China, 50% for Ethiopia, 57% for Indonesia, 34% for Peru and 100% for Vietnam. The expected completion date is now March 2017.

Activity 2c.2: training on biochar formulations and use September 0% 49% Training rates for this activity S






Progress rating21

2016 are similar to those for activity 2c.1 with the exception of Vietnam that has achieved 50% progress. The expected completion date is now March 2017.

Overall project implementation progress 22 (To be completed by UNEP GEF Task Manager. Please add columns to reflect prior years’ ratings):

FY2015 rating FY2016 rating Comments/narrative justifying the rating for this FY and any changes (positive or negative) in the rating since the previous reporting period

S The project activities are on track to deliver the outputs as planned.

Action plan to address MS, MU, U and HU rating. (To be completed by UNEP Task Manager in consultation with Project Manager23)

Action(s) to be taken By whom? By when?

This section should be completed if project progress was rated MS, MU, U or HU during the previous Project Implementation Review (PIR) or by the Mid-term Review/Evaluation (To be completed by Project Manager).



22 Use GEF Secretariat required six-point scale system: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Marginally Satisfactory (MS), Marginally Unsatisfactory (MU), Unsatisfactory (U), and Highly Unsatisfactory (HU)23 UNEP Fund Management Officer should also be consulted as appropriate.

PIR FY 2016 template

16



3.3. RiskThere are two tables to assess and address risk: the first “risk factor table” to describe and rate risk factors; the second “top risk mitigation plan” should indicate what measures/action will be taken with respect to risks rated Substantial or High and who is responsible to for it.

Project Manager Rating

Notes Task Manager Rating

Risk Factor Indicator of Low Risk

Indicator of Medium Risk

Indicator of High Risk

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

INTERNAL RISKProject management

Management structure

Stable with roles and responsibilities clearly defined and understood

Individuals understand their own role but are unsure of responsibilities of others

Unclear responsibilities or overlapping functions which lead to management problems

X PM : X

TM: Management structure is in place

Project Managers will use this table to summarize risks identified in the Project Document and reflect also any new risks identified in the course of project implementation. The Notes column should be used to provide additional details concerning manifestation of the risk in your specific project, as relevant. The “Notes” column has one section for the Project Manager (PM) and one for the UNEP Task Manager (TM). If the generic risk factors and indicators in the table are not relevant to the project rows should be added. The UNEP Task Manager should provide ratings in the right hand column reflecting his/her own assessment of project risks.

RISK FACTOR TABLE


17

Governance structure

Steering Committee and/or other project bodies meet periodically and provide effective direction/inputs

Body(ies) meets periodically but guidance/input provided to project is inadequate. TOR unclear

Members lack commitment Committee/body does not fulfil its TOR

X PM : X

TM: Steering committee has been established and meet online semi-annually






Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined


Internal communications

Fluid and cordial Communication process deficient although relationships between team members are good

Lack of adequate communication between team members leading to deterioration of relationships and resentment

X PM: In the first half of 2016, the project manager, Ruy Anaya de la Rosa, visited Peru on two separate occasions to improve communications between Brenton Ladd and APRODES. As a result, we are now seeing more enthusiasm for the project and more timely liberation of project funds from APRODES.

X

TM: The internal communication among the lead EA and partner organizations is fluid.

Work flow Project progressing according to work plan

Some changes in project work plan but without major effect on overall timetable

Major delays or changes in work plan or method of implementation

X PM: The change of partners in Indonesia delayed activities, but NGI is now catching up.

X

TM: Agreed with the challenge highlighted above but in general the project is progressing according to work plan

Co-financing Co-financing is secured and payments are received on time

Is secured but payments are slow and bureaucratic

A substantial part of pledged co-financing may not materialize

X PM:

TM:


18






Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined


Budget Activities are progressing within planned budget

Minor budget reallocation needed

Reallocation between budget lines exceeding 30% of original budget

X PM: UNEP delayed the transfer of funds and some activities were affected notably in Vietnam where, due to change of season, the construction of the kilns was delayed and the production of biochar was more difficult. Efforts were made to work under wet conditions, and the plan is for TNUS staff to catch up. In Kenya, the late start, given funding delays, did not allow to start on-farm experiments in the first rainy season. Experiments will be established in Sep-Oct 2016

X

TM: Due to the technical problems in the new ERP system which has been used by UN Secretariat organizations, including UNEP, has caused significant delay in releasing the second instalment. This caused delays in some of the activities. IA and EA agreed to start to work on the next instalment earlier


19






Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined


Financial management

Funds are correctly managed and transparently accounted for

Financial reporting slow or deficient

Serious financial reporting problems or indication of mismanagement of funds

X PM: X

TM: Funds are correctly managed and transparently accounted for

Reporting Substantive reports are presented in a timely manner and are complete and accurate with a good analysis of project progress and implementation issues

Reports are complete and accurate but often delayed or lack critical analysis of progress and implementation issues

Serious concerns about quality and timeliness of project reporting

X PM: Reports from partners are OK but often delayed and sometimes lack critical analysis of progress and implementation status. This has been addressed by sending constant reminders and specific questions to clarify doubts.

X

TM: Closer follow up of the partners is needed on reporting by the leading EA hence for all of the partners this is the first GEF project.

Stakeholder involvement

Stakeholder analysis done and positive feedback from critical stakeholders and partners

Consultation and participation process seems strong but misses some groups or relevant partners

Symptoms of conflict with critical stakeholders or evidence of apathy and lack of interest from partners or other stakeholders

X PM: X

TM: Key Stakeholders are part of the project implementation


20






Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined


External communications

Evidence that stakeholders, practitioners and/or the general public understand project and are regularly updated on progress

Communications efforts are taking place but not yet evidence that message is successfully transmitted

Project existence is not known beyond implementation partners or misunderstand- ings concerning objectives and activities evident

X PM: X

TM:

Short term/long term balance

Project is addressing short term needs and achieving results with a long term perspective, particularly sustainability and replicability

Project is interested in the short term with little understanding of or interest in the long term

Longer term issues are deliberately ignored or neglected

X PM: X

TM:

Science and technological issues

Project based on sound science and well established technologies

Project testing approaches, methods or technologies but based on sound analysis of options and risks

Many scientific and /or technological uncertainties

X PM: X

TM: Project based on sound science


21






Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined


Political influences

Project decisions and choices are not particularly politically driven

Signs that some project decisions are politically motivated

Project is subject to a variety of political influences that may jeopardize project objectives

X PM: X

TM:

Other, please specify. Add rows as necessary

PM:

TM:






Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

EXTERNAL RISKProject context


22

Political stability

Political context is stable and safe

Political context is unstable but predictable and not a threat to project implementation

Very disruptive and volatile

X PM: In Kenya, the B4SS workshop participants departing from Kisumu to Kapsabet were almost affected by the protests against the electoral commission. Measures were taken to depart early, and we avoided the road blockages.

X

TM: The partners are following up the local political challenges.

Environmental conditions

Project area is not affected by severe weather events or major environmental stress factors

Project area is subject to more or less predictable disasters or changes

Project area has very harsh environmental conditions

X PM: In Vietnam, bad weather affected the rice experiments, and rice had to be re-grown. There is also the risk of drought and flooding affecting the experimental fields, especially the one for maize located close to a river.

X

TM: Agreed






Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

EXTERNAL RISKProject context

Social, cultural and economic factors

There are no evident social, cultural and/or economic issues that may affect project performance and results

Social or economic issues or changes pose challenges to project implementation but mitigation strategies have been developed

Project is highly sensitive to economic fluctuations, to social issues or cultural barriers

X PM: There were social and cultural factors that could affect project performance when dealing with the previous partners in Indonesia. As a result, the engagement of a new partner, NGI, has been negotiated to conduct the B4SS project in Indonesia.

X

TM: Agreed


23

Capacity issues

Sound technical and managerial capacity of institutions and other project partners

Weaknesses exist but have been identified and actions is taken to build the necessary capacity

Capacity is very low at all levels and partners require constant support and technical assistance

X PM: In Vietnam, we have been building capacity on managerial and scientific writing skills. In addition to project activities, the plan is to conduct a training course specifically for TNUS staff to improve this.

X

TM: The leading EA will need to provide additional technical support for the Vietnam team given the identified capacity needs.

Others, please specify

If there is a significant (over 50% of risk factors) discrepancy between Project Manager and Task Manager rating, an explanation by the Task Manager should be provided below

Rank Risk Statement24 Action to Take Who DateCondition Consequence

Project overall risk rating (Low, Medium, Substantial or High) (Please include PIR risk ratings for all prior periods, add columns as necessary):

FY2015 rating FY2016 rating Comments/narrative justifying the current FY rating and any changes (positive or negative) in the rating since the previous reporting period

L Some external risks have been rated as Medium. However, most of the critical internal risks that might affect the project outcomes have been rated as Low.

Rank – importance of riskRisk Statement – potential problem (condition and consequence) Action to take – action planned/taken to handle the riskWho – person(s) responsible for the actionDate – date by which action needs to be or was completed

TOP RISK MITIGATION PLAN


24

If a risk mitigation plan had been presented for a previous period or as a result of the Mid-Term Review/Evaluation please report on progress or results of its implementation

24 Only for Substantial to High risk.

4. RATING MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Based on the answers provided to the questions in 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 below, the UNEP Task Manager will provide ratings for the following aspects of project monitoring and evaluation:

(i) Overall quality of the Monitoring & Evaluation plan(ii) Performance in the implementation of the M&E plan

4.1. Does the project M&E plan contain the following: Baseline information for each outcome-level indicator Yes No □ SMART indicators to track project outcomes Yes No □ A clear distribution of responsibilities for monitoring project progress. Yes No □

4.2. Has the project budgeted for the following M&E activities: Mid-term review/evaluation Yes □ No (However, the next semi annual progress

report will be used as the mid-term review process and the findings will be discussed in the next in person meeting which is tentatively scheduled in March 2017)

Terminal evaluation Yes No □ Any costs associated with collecting and analysing indicators’

related information Yes No □

Please rate the quality of the project M&E plan (use HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU): S

4.3 Has the project: Utilized the indicators identified in the M&E plan to track progress

in meeting the project objectives; Yes No □ Fulfilled the specified reporting requirements (financial, including

on co-financing and auditing, and substantive reports) Yes No □ Completed any scheduled MTR or MTE before or at project

implementation mid-point; Yes □ No Applied adaptive management in response to M&E activities Yes No □ Implemented any existing risk mitigation plan (see previous section) Yes □ No

Please rate the performance in implementing the M&E plan (use HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU): S


25

4.4. Please describe activities for monitoring and evaluation carried out during the reporting period25

Baseline surveysThe B4SS baseline survey has been carried out in Ethiopia, Kenya, Peru and Vietnam. The project manager, Ruy Anaya de la Rosa, conducted the baseline survey in Peru and now has direct understanding of the conditions of all farmers involved.

Monitoring visits to field sitesRuy visited the project areas in all countries except for the new project area in Indonesia due to change of partners. Ruy visited twice the project in Peru, which was required to improve communications, strengthen project’s ownership, and build trust with APRODES. During his visit to Vietnam, Ruy recommended to refine the work plan by refocusing on only one project area and putting aside the promotion of biochar-making stoves. This was because he found that in the other proposed and wealthier area using LPG for cooking is becoming a trend and many young farmers there do not have much time to work in the project because they work in factories. Therefore, it would be less likely for rural biochar technologies to be accepted there during this project’s period. Ruy also participated in the participatory trials design workshop in Kenya, where the formal presentation of the project was made to stakeholders including the 34 participating farmers, academics including B4SS Scientific Panel member, Johannes Lehmann, NGO and agricultural extension staff, students and researchers from governmental institutions. This participatory approach allowed commencement of relevant, credible and legitimate action research.

B4SS websiteThe visits to the field sites and other important project activities are reported on the news section of the B4SS website: http://www.biochar.international/news/

Steering Committee meetingsTwo project steering committee (SC) meetings have taken place online, in October 2015 and April 2016.

Scientific Panel meetingsOne scientific panel (SP) meeting took place online in November 2015.

4.5. Provide information on the quality of baseline information and any effects (positive or negative) on the selection of indicators and the design of other project monitoring activities

25 Do not include routine project reporting. Examples of M&E activities include stakeholder surveys, field surveys, steering committee meetings to assess project progress, peer review of documentation to ensure quality, etc.

The information provided in the project document and M&E plan is suitable for the purpose of monitoring the project. With the exception of certain activities in Ethiopia, such as the preparation of biochar formulations and the establishment of demonstration sites, all baseline indicators were set to zero. This is due to the fact that biochar is a relatively new concept, and so most farmers involved in the project had not heard about biochar


26

4.6. Provide comments on the usefulness and relevance of selected indicators and experiences in the application of the same.

4.7. Describe any challenges in obtaining data relevant to the selected indicators; has the project experienced problems to cover costs associated with the tracking of indicators?

4.8. Describe any changes in the indicators or in the project intervention logic, including an explanation of whether key assumptions26 are still valid

26 Assumptions refer to elements of the “theory of change” or “intervention logic” (i.e, the problem is a result of A, therefore, if we change B, this will lead to C) and not to pre-conditions for project implementation. It is a common mistake to include statements such as “political will” as an assumption. This is rather a necessary condition to implement the project.

before. In Ethiopia, 30 farmers have been involved in biochar research with Jimma University before the B4SS project started, and the B4SS project brought 28 new farmers into the biochar network. This is now considered in the monitoring activities.

The selected indicators are useful and relevant for the monitoring of project’s progress. However, since a biochar system tends to be very context- specific and knowledge-intensive, evaluating farmers’ increased understanding of biochar across all countries does not seem to be straightforward. A simple ranking criteria matrix encompassing a range of levels of knowledge may be developed to address this diversity.

The project has not encountered any challenge in collecting data relevant to the selected indicators.

With respect to the project results framework mentioned in the project document, there have been three changes related to the selected indicators of the following outcomes/outputs:

1. outcome 1: assessment surveys will be conducted at the beginning and end of the project, instead of at mid- and end-project levels as originally planned. This changed because the survey at the initial stage of the project will allow to: 1) define a baseline prior to project’s implementation, and 2) allow a longer period in between surveys for farmers to have more time to experience the effects of biochar;

2. outcome 2: the type of stakeholders to which the knowledge generated on the use of biochar for SLM will be disseminated during visits to the demonstration sites was expanded from landholders only to landholders, researchers, students and other stakeholders visiting demonstration sites. This change was made for the project to be more inclusive and not restrict the diffusion of the knowledge created; and

3. output 2.c: the amount and type of trainees and the scope of training were expanded from “at least 36 smallholders and resource managers trained in the use of biochar as soil amendment” to “at least 100 smallholders, farmers, resource managers, development agents, agricultural extension staff, researchers, B4SS project members, producers of biochar-making ovens, and university students trained in the production and use of biochar as soil amendment”. As the project progressed, it became evident that different people were required to be trained for different purposes, and so the indicator had to be expanded to be more comprehensive and ambitious.


27

4.9. Describe how potential social or environmental negative effects are monitored

4.10. Please provide any other experiences or lessons relevant to the design and implementation of project monitoring and evaluation plans.

5. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS

5.1. Please summarize any experiences and/or lessons related to project design. Please select relevant areas from the list below:

The B4SS project aims at introducing, assessing and sharing knowledge on the use of biochar in sustainable land management (SLM) in six countries facing different conditions. The project is multifaceted. The lessons learned about project design are explained below:

Conditions necessary to achieve global environmental benefits such as (i) institutional, social and financial sustainability; (ii) country ownership; and (iii) stakeholder involvement, including gender issues.

The institutional and scientific capacity in the participating countries is increasingly growing with China leading the efforts in biochar research and development. With the exception of APRODES in Peru, all partners are research institutions that have previously investigated the effects of biochar on certain crops. Therefore, the previous experience and understanding of biochar in these countries has allowed them to achieve a high project ownership. In contrast, more efforts and several field visits by the project manager have been required in Peru for APRODES to fully appreciate and increase their commitment to the project. In Indonesia, a lesson learned is that farmers often prefer the short-term benefits of

The assessment surveys conducted both at the beginning and end of the project include questions about the social and environmental aspects encountered during the project’s implementation. Moreover, the monitoring visits to the project areas provide the project manager with local information collected through participant observation that may be overlooked during official reporting.

A biochar system has to be designed according to the context in which it will operate. The system variables range from the collection of sustainable feedstock through the type of biochar production and post-production technologies to the type of climate, soil, and crop grown – among others. In addition to the technical parameters, social, environmental and cultural aspects have to be considered. In the six countries, different project conditions exist. Efforts were made to align the work plans of the six projects with the objectives of the global B4SS project by distributing deliverables equally among the six partners. In practice, however, some partners are able to meet certain targets more easily than others. Thus the targets were kept flexible for each partner ensuring, however, that the overall targets would be achieved as a whole project. In case of exceeding targets (e.g. a significantly higher number of farmers involved), the costs of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) will also increase (e.g. more expensive to monitor more farmers). However, increased M&E costs should be marginal in comparison with the increased project’s impact. Therefore, the M&E plans have not been significantly affected so far.


28

biochar briquettes that can be marketed for cooking over the long-term benefits of biochar as a soil amendment, even though both life-cycle and cost-benefit analyses clearly have shown that biochar as soil amendment is the better option. In Kenya, the project has been successful in building the solid engagement of key stakeholders and country ownership through the Participatory Trials Design (ParTriDes) workshop process. In Vietnam, women in one of the proposed project areas preferred using LPG for cooking and households were relatively wealthy, and so the plans of diffusing stoves and working in this area were cancelled. The plan was designed to not depend on the dissemination of biochar-making stoves and therefore the project was not seriously affected. In Indonesia, gender issues are particularly important and have been considered in the training workshops that have taken place. In Ethiopia, women have been involved in the long-term testing of the biochar-making stoves. In Ethiopia and Kenya, this project builds upon other projects funded for international development that partners have conducted with Cornell University for several years and so the B4SS project benefits from long-term institutional, social and financial sustainability.

Institutional arrangements, including project governance

After the official launch of the project during its inception meeting in April 2015, the project’s governance was redesigned to establish a Steering Committee (SC) composed of all project partners in the six countries in order to have a more complete representation and consideration of all major stakeholders’ interests. The chair of the Scientific Panel is also part of the SC.

Engagement of the private sector

In China, it has proven to be very difficult to train farmers to produce biochar. This is because they do not spend much time on farming. Now, Nanjing Agricultural University is working with the private sector to diffuse biochar in China and so farmers will not be directly involved in training. This consideration resulted in the refinement of the project plan for China in which training activities will now be limited to students, researchers and B4SS project members. Engagement of the private sector in China is important to consider in the design of the project.

Capacity building

In Kenya, the capacity building on ParTriDes knowledge sharing tools has contributed to create a “methodological bond” which is instrumental to facilitate future collaborative efforts among different institutions represented (e.g. NARS, extension services, universities, NGOs). In Indonesia, Peru and Vietnam, the introduction of inexpensive flame curtain (Kon Tiki, both metal and soil pit) kilns, has proven to be an appropriate technology for farmers to understand and adopt. There has been engagement among the dozens of trained farmers to learn this technology. In Ethiopia, the plan was refined to build capacity of four MSc students and support them to conduct biochar research related to this project. In Peru, five undergraduate students have been involved and the plan allows for the inclusion of more students if interested and/or required. Moreover, the analytical and reporting skills of the Vietnamese and Chinese partners have also been improving. The design of the B4SS project also promotes a South-South cooperation on the diffusion of biochar in rural areas of developing countries that may find some similar barriers and perhaps similar approaches to overcome them.

Scientific and technological issues


29

The evaluation of biochar technologies can be complex and requires scientific advice. The B4SS project was designed to bring together various world experts in biochar research to address promptly any scientific questions arising during the evaluation of the biochar formulations. Having a solid scientific understanding of the effects of biochar is likely to lead to a relatively high confidence in using biochar for SLM.

Interpretation and application of GEF guidelines

Factors that improve likelihood of outcome sustainability

In Kenya, ICRAF has created interest in biochar through the participatory workshop. Farmers were actively involved in the design of the experiments and are now contributing to the B4SS with fertilisers and labour. In Ethiopia, the 30 farmers involved in the baseline projects have helped to communicate with other farmers in the area the potential benefits of using biochar-making stoves and applying biochar to soils. As a result, the additional 28 farmers that have been invited to participate in the B4SS project have shown great interest in learning more about the use of biochar for sustainable land management. In Vietnam, the training workshops in biochar production and use provided by TNUS and Prof Stephen Joseph have been effective in raising awareness about biochar among farmers, researchers and students. In the case of APRODES in Peru, the NGO just celebrated 20 years of promoting sustainable development with rural farming communities, and although the B4SS project was not well understood by APRODES since its design, the biochar technologies have now caused great interest from APRODES and the beneficiaries who are now evaluating different biochar formulations.

The B4SS project team is composed of world experts in biochar research that have attracted funding for baseline projects, and this improves the likelihood of securing future funding to continue the generation and diffusion of biochar knowledge. The five partner research institutions are reporting positive results from their biochar studies and this also increases the possibilities of continuing with these projects.

Factors that encourage replication, including outreach and communications strategies

The team at Starfish Initiatives is quite conscious about the importance of communications and is very creative when using communication channels to translate a complex concept, such as biochar, to simple words or images. Simple and effective communication strategies were envisaged during the project’s design. The creation and maintenance of a website over the project’s duration was included. A project mailing list is also used to exchange communications with all project members. The latest project news stories are documented in the website and will be further compiled into a bi-monthly newsletter. A cartoon describing the life cycle and potential benefits of using biochar for SLM was created as well as a B4SS poster that was showcased during Expo Milano 2015. The B4SS logo was also planned in the project’s design, developed and has now been displayed in conference banners, workshop bags, poster and leaflets.

Financial management and co-financing

The B4SS project involves numerous partners including world experts in biochar research. Their in-kind co-finance contribution has significantly assisted country partners in project design and planning. The advice of the Scientific Panel has also helped country partners to design the experimental trials, evaluate the biochar formulations, and assess new biochar production ovens. The in-kind contribution from APRODES has allowed a direct and warm interaction with the beneficiaries, for them to easily understand the use of biochar in SLM. This is because the


30

landholders have been part of APRODES’ baseline projects with improved cookstoves, and have a positive attitude to their work. The B4SS project is also leveraging networks for promoting the use of biochar in SLM. In addition to planned co-financing, the B4SS project has secured additional sources of co-finance from ICRAF (in-kind) and NGI (in-kind and cash). Furthermore, the B4SS project co-funded, with the Biochar Plus Project, the launch of the Africa Biochar Partnership (ABP) in Nairobi (March 2016).The only issue has been the delays in transfer of funds from UNEP, which has delayed some project activities. Efforts are being made to catch up with the project plan.

5.2. Please highlight a few major achievements resulting so far from the project implementation, including but not limited to:

Concrete results, both on-the-ground and normative

The construction and evaluation of different biochar production technologies

About 40% of the project’s budget in Peru was used to construct an Australian-design batch pyrolyser in Lurin, near Lima. The objective was to be able to produce high-quality biochars in a controlled and relatively clean manner. Having not accounted for time to secure reliable sources of high- quality materials, such as high-grade stainless steel, the pyrolyser was constructed with materials available during the short visit of the consultants to Peru. Some of the components degraded significantly during the first few runs of kiln operation, due to the low quality of the steel. The repairs were easily undertaken using some higher grade steels on key components, and the batch pyrolyser now works well and can produce biochar with low emissions. However, the loading of the feed crates is labour intensive and it is difficult to standardise feedstock composition in these crates using the municipal green waste available in Lima. In response to these limitations, the B4SS project has constructed four metal Kon Tiki kilns, which have been proven to be cheaper and easier to use in practice and with which the team is more easily able to standardise the composition / formulations of biochars produced for the project. In the central jungle, the project has also promoted the production of biochar in soil pit Kon Tiki kilns. One lesson learned is that the soil pits are more appropriate for the farmers that cannot afford to buy and transport a metal oven and will only produce biochar occasionally (e.g. when they clear their orchards of weed regrowth), whereas the metal Kon Tikis work well in Lurin where developing more sustainable strategies for waste management is a central objective. Another lesson learned is that it can be more convenient to use the metal Kon-Tikis to tip the oven over and unload the produced biochar onto the ground than to have to get into the soil pit to dig out the biochar. The batch pyrolyser is still used for research and demonstration purposes. The lesson learned in relation to the batch pyrolyser is that time and effort should be taken to obtain a good team of constructors and high-quality materials.

Following this experience in Peru, TNUS constructed a hybrid kiln, based on the same Australian design but now with Vietnamese adaptation, with bricks replacing certain metal components. The operation of the hybrid kiln seems to produce low emissions. Drums, cookstoves and Kon Tiki kilns have also been constructed and evaluated in Vietnam. Moreover, soil pit Kon Tiki kilns have been promoted in Indonesia. The main lesson learned is that the context and objectives are very important when selecting the type of biochar production technologies to promote.

Numerous lectures, international workshops, demonstrations and training courses have taken place

In China, around 30 people, including 12 B4SS project members, attended the third international biochar training course on biochar production, testing and application provided by Prof Stephen Joseph and hosted by Nanjing Agricultural University (NAU) in April 2015. This training course


31

was held in conjunction with the B4SS project inception meeting. Also, in October 2015, Prof Joseph visited NAU and gave two lectures on methods to produce biochar and prepare biochar formulations for different purposes.

In Ethiopia, Jimma University (JU) organized a farmers’ day on 28-30 September 2015, in which 66 people participated including smallholders and stove-producing entrepreneurs. Dr Berhanu Belay (lead coordinator of the project) was invited to participate in a national soil campaign in Addis Ababa (16-19 November 2015) and discuss the use of biochar for improving soil health. JU hosted a regional soil campaign workshop on 4 December 2015 and discussed the B4SS project activities. On 5-13 January 2016, Prof Joseph provided training to JU’s engineers and soils scientists in relation to biochar characterisation and production techniques, and gave two lectures covering findings on biochar research and pyrolysis stove oven and kiln design. Prof Joseph noted that there are some areas where the post graduates’ knowledge and skills need upgrading and would benefit from visits to Australia and USA. On 15-29 May 2016, Dr Belay undertook a scientific visit to Cornell University to present the B4SS project activities to the University community and discuss further partnerships on the commercialization of bone char with Prof Johannes Lehmann. JU also hosted an international workshop titled "Feasibility study for the use of biochar systems to improve the soil and nutrient management in agriculture in Ethiopia" on June 14-15 2016.

In Aceh, Indonesia, Ruy visited the former partners and gave a lecture on “The carbon footprint of agricultural products and biochar” at Syiah Kuala University (14 October 2015), to which 67 people attended including: 10 lecturers, 6 postgraduate students and 51 undergraduate students. In the new project area in Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT) province, Indonesia, biochar trainings have been conducted for 33 participants in Pallanggay village in East Sumba, and 32 in Tada village in Sabu Raijua. Participants were regular farmers, farmers who are the heads of "Pro Climate Villages", Head of Agricultural Field Technician Agency (BP4K), and agricultural experts from the NGO KOPPESDA.

In Nairobi, Kenya, the B4SS and the Biochar Plus projects joined forces to organise the “Biochar Systems for Africa” workshop (March 1-2, 2016). The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) hosted the workshop and served as the platform for the launch of the Africa Biochar Partnership (ABP). Moreover, on 6-10 June 2016, the Participatory Trials Design (ParTriDes) workshop was organised by Dr. Edmundo Barrios (lead coordinator of the project) in Kapsabet with about 20 participants including academics, PhD students, researchers, NGO and agricultural extension staff, and the 34 participating farmers. The workshop helped to established the relevant, credible and legitimate approach to continue with the participatory action research.

In Peru, in August 2015, Prof Joseph visited the project area and assisted three students from the Universidad Científica del Sur (UCSUR) in establishing two experiments in which the effects of two biochar formulations on radish would be evaluated. On 5-12 February 2016, Prof Lukas van Zwieten and Ruy Anaya de la Rosa visited the B4SS in Peru. Prof van Zwieten listened to the presentations of the three UCSUR students who are conducting research in the B4SS project and provided feedback on hypotheses tested, proposed experimental designs, analysis of biochar formulations, etc. Furthermore, drawing from the knowledge learned at the Climate Farming Workshop organized by the Ithaka Institute in Nepal (26 March – 2 April 2016), Ruy travelled to the central jungle of Peru and, together with Dr Brenton Ladd, conducted a training workshop (on 5 May 2016) with 23 people, including APRODES staff, four farmers and four students, on the production of biochar in Kon Tiki kilns, both in metal and in soil pits.

In Vietnam, Ruy visited the project area and attended a demonstration meeting at Quang Chu and Luong Phong commune office (11- 13 August 2015). The operation of biochar-making stoves and drums were demonstrated. Local farmers were introduced to biochar production. The B4SS


32

project delivered 36 stoves and three drums to local farmers in Bac Kan and Bac Giang provinces. Due to the widespread use of LPG and farmer’s lack of time to work in the project in Bac Giang, work in this province was discontinued. Prof Joseph visited Thai Nguyen University of Sciences (TNUS) on 23 May – 2 June 2016 and conducted a training course in biochar production, testing and application. More than 10 TNUS staff and 6 students learned how to produce biochar in Kon Tiki and brick kilns. In addition, a training course for 40 farmers was provided by Prof Joseph in Quang Chu commune. On 23 June 2016, TNUS organised the first farmer field days in which 20 women attended the training course.

Establishment of field biochar experiments in demonstration sites

Demonstration sites showing the effects of biochar formulations on various crops have been established in China, Ethiopia, Peru and Vietnam. It is important to establish the demonstration sites at locations that can be easily accessed by the project team, farmers and visitors alike. The sites have therefore been mostly established at central positions next to roads.

Data collection on farmer’s knowledge of biochar

The B4SS baseline surveys have been conducted in Ethiopia, Kenya, Peru and Vietnam. The information collected suggests that very few farmers knew about biochar before the project’s implementation.

Two articles published in peer-reviewed journals

1. Mohammadi, A., Cowie, A., Anh Mai, T. L., Anaya de la Rosa, R., Kristiansen, P., Brandão, M. and Joseph, S. (2016). Biochar use for climate-change mitigation in rice cropping systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 116: 61-70.

2. Cornelissen, G ., Pandit, N. R., Taylor, P., Pandit, B. H., Sparrevik, M., and Schmidt, H. P. (2016). Emissions and char quality of flame- curtain "Kon Tiki" kilns for farmer-scale charcoal/biochar production. PloS one, 11(5), e0154617.

Gender and indigenous peoples’ issues

In Indonesia, the Alliance of Indigenous Peoples has been involved and high engagement among farmers, men and women alike, has been experienced. In Vietnam, the B4SS project has focussed on women since they are particularly active in agriculture. In Ethiopia, Jimma University has continued their work with women to evaluate the adoptability of the biochar-making stoves.

Private Sector

In China, Nanjing Agricultural University is working with private fertiliser companies, biochar producers and waste management organisations to make an efficient biochar compound fertiliser that would facilitate the dissemination and successful adoption of biochar in China.In Ethiopia, Jimma University has engaged with the private sector to commercialise a fertiliser product based on bone char.


33

In Indonesia, private sector engagement was planned to be on Husk Power Systems (HPS) gasifiers. However, a dialogue has been started about the electrification/biochar generation with a HPS gasifier unit vs. solar-powered electrification in addition to flame curtain kiln biochar. A simple cost-benefit assessment will be done in September 2016 to decide about a go/no go for the investment of purchasing and installing an HPS gasifier unit.In Peru, mining companies contacted the local project coordinator and are now evaluating biochar in their operations.In Vietnam, partners are planning to build relations between the B4SS project and the private sector to improve biochar production and develop a commercial biochar product.

Sustainability

The published findings of project members bring confidence in the appropriate technologies promoted in this project, such as the Kon-Tiki kiln. For example, Gerard Cornelissen, coordinator at NGI of the project in Indonesia, and colleagues recently published a paper that shows that the proposed technique of biochar making with flame curtain kilns is low-emission and sustainable.In Ethiopia, Jimma University has secured a small grant of USD 25,000 from Japanese organisations to assess the feasibility of using biochar as a waste management option.In China, Nanjing Agricultural University started a cooperation with Beijing Sanju Environmental Protection and New Material Co. Ltd aimed at further investigating and promoting the use of biochar compound fertilizers.

Innovation

The production and use of biochar in SLM is a novel and multifaceted strategy in waste management, renewable energy production, soil improvement and climate-change mitigation. The design of effective biochar formulations applied at a relatively low rate is innovative, as is the production of biochar in inexpensive Kon Tiki kilns. Innovative communication tools, such as the B4SS logo and cartoon, have also been created.

Upscaling

Biochar is being introduced as an innovation in SLM to address its potential effectiveness in enhancing soil fertility in com parison with other soil amendments, in a range of situations. In each of the participating countries, the number of farmers has been limited according to the project’s funding and scope, and in some cases the number of beneficiaries could be higher. In Peru for example, the project has already attracted interest from other farmers in the project’s region and elsewhere that would like to try the use of biochar in their fields. As a result, APRODES expanded their biochar work in Cusco with new farmers. There is potential for scaling up nationally and globally to other regions affected by similar conditions.

Documents

UNEP GEF PIR FY 06 · Web viewPIR FY 2016 template PIR FY 2016 template PIR FY 2016 template PIR FY 2016 template PIR FY 2016 template PIR FY 2016 template 33 33 33 5 5 5 Nanjing