Energy Management
Water Management
Rewarding Mechanisms
Crops Management
Herd Management
Biogas Production
Agroforestry and Relation to Landscape
Manure Storage and Spreading
Grassland Management
Soil Health and Biodiversity
Forage Production
Advisors must consider a wide range of climate mitigation and adaptation actions, but it can be difficult to know which options are feasible for farmers and capable of delivering meaningful climate impact. This practice introduces a simple, structured method – adapted from the ClieNFarms Creative Arena and used during the ClimateSmartAdvisors Train the Trainer programme – to help advisors identify and prioritise climate actions for their sector. It provides a practical starting point for climate discussions, helping advisors and farmers focus on feasible, high-impact actions while identifying where additional support or incentives may be needed to increase adoption.
Advisors either receive or create a set of cards, each presenting a relevant climate solution. Each card briefly describes the action and includes two scoring boxes where advisors record a score for potential climate impact (1-5) and likelihood of implementation on farms (1-5). Advisors begin by identifying the actions most applicable to the farming sector they work with. Each action is then scored for climate impact and likelihood of implementation. This produces a clear understanding of:
• which actions have a positive climate impact and are likely to be implemented on farm (“quick wins”)
• which high-impact actions need additional advisory support or incentives
• where barriers limit adoption of impactful practices
Groups identify their top three solutions and then examine 2-3 actions with high impact but low likelihood to explore barriers, prerequisites, and support needs.
This method helps advisors build trust with farmers by starting with realistic, implementable actions, while also creating opportunities to introduce more ambitious climate measures over time. The exercise supports evidence-based advisory planning, strengthens advisor-farmer dialogue, and encourages a practical approach to climate action at farm level. Costs are minimal, and materials can be delivered in printed or digital format.
The implementation of this method is supported by simple, easy-to-use materials (solution cards) and works best when advisors have a good understanding of local farming systems. Group discussion also helps to validate feasibility scores and encourages shared learning. Potential obstacles include differences in advisors’ knowledge of specific climate measures and the need to keep impact rankings updated as new research and policies emerge.
Future actions could include developing a digital version of the tool, updating the list of climate solutions as technologies evolve, and testing the approach directly with farmer groups to support co-learning.
