Crops Management
Biogas Production
Water Management
Rewarding Mechanisms
Herd Management
Energy Management
Agroforestry and Relation to Landscape
Manure Storage and Spreading
Grassland Management
Soil Health and Biodiversity
Forage Production
Advisors may identify climate mitigation or adaptation actions that have high potential impact but low likelihood of uptake due to practical, technical, or financial constraints. This practice introduces a structured approach that advisors can use to understand why such actions are difficult to implement and what is needed to enable adoption.
The exercise brings advisors, or other agricultural stakeholders including farmers and researchers, together in small groups and focuses on one or more high-impact, low-likelihood climate actions. For each action, participants complete a simple template by:
1. Noting the climate practice being considered,
2. Identifying what needs to be in place first for the practice to be taken on,
3. Listing the main barriers to implementation, and
4. Identifying the types of support required to overcome these barriers.
Participants first complete the template individually or within their group, then discuss their thinking in pairs. The pairs return to the wider group to share insights, compare perspectives, and refine the identified barriers and support needs.
This structured exchange helps advisors test assumptions, identify common challenges, and build a shared understanding of enabling conditions across different farming systems. While delivered as a group exercise, the same step-by-step approach can be applied in day-to-day advisory work. Advisors can use it in one-to-one discussions with farmers to assess readiness, identify barriers early, and clarify what supports or incentives may be needed before adoption is realistic.
This practice strengthens advisors’ problem-solving capacity, supports more targeted and realistic climate advice, and helps move from identifying ambitious actions to developing practical pathways for implementation. Costs are minimal, requiring only a simple template and discussion, and the method can be used in both group and individual advisory settings.
This practice works best when run in conjunction with an exercise that helps advisors first identify and prioritise climate mitigation and adaptation actions based on their impact and likelihood of implementation (See Practice Abstract #20). Linking both exercises allows advisors to move logically from identifying priority actions to understanding what is needed to enable their uptake.
Group-based delivery supports shared learning and helps build confidence in assessing barriers and support needs, while the same structured approach can also be applied in one-to-one advisory settings.
Potential challenges include limited time for discussion and varying levels of familiarity with specific climate practices. Keeping the exercise focused on a small number of priority actions helps address these challenges.
This exercise was used as part of the ClimateSmartAdvisors Training-of-Trainers (TTT) programme to train Climate Smart Coaches. Although described here as a tool for advisors, the approach is not limited to advisory settings and can also be used with other agricultural stakeholders, including farmers, and researchers.
