Presentation made in a World Bank Brown bag seminar in Washington DC, April 19th 2012.

1. From Cows to Coffee: evaluating low-carbon
options in Colombia’s agricultural sector
Andy Jarvis, Jeimar Tapasco, Myles
Fisher, Emmanuel Zapata
International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)

2. CCAFS: the partnership! The largest global
coalition of scientists working on
developing-country agriculture and climate
change

3. CCAFS objectives
1. Identify and develop pro-poor
adaptation and mitigation practices,
technologies and policies for
agriculture and food systems.
2. Support the inclusion of agricultural
issues in climate change policies, and
of climate issues in agricultural
policies, at all levels.

4. The CCAFS Framework
Adapting Agriculture to
Climate Variability and Change
Technologies, practices, partnerships and
policies for:
Improved
1. Adaptation to Progressive Climate Environmental Improved
Change Health Rural
2. Adaptation through Managing Livelihoods
Climate Risk Improved
3. Pro-poor Climate Change Mitigation Food
Security
4. Integration for Decision Making
• Linking Knowledge with Action
• Assembling Data and Tools for Analysis
and Planning
• Refining Frameworks for Policy Analysis
Enhanced adaptive capacity
in agricultural, natural
resource management, and
food systems

5. The adaptation context for Colombia

6. Heavy reliance of agricultural GDP on
perennial crops and livestock
3,500,000
Distribucion de cultivo Área (ha)
3,000,000 Distribucion de cultivo Pdn (Ton)
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0

7. Government policies increasing agricultural
land-area especially in perennials

8. …and increasing livestock production, but
on less land

9. Cambio en
Cambio en Cambio en Incertidumbre
Cambio en meses
Region Departamento Temperatura estacionalidad de entre modelos
Precipitacion consecutivos
media precipitacion (StDev prec)
secos
Amazonas Amazonas 12 2.9 1.4 0 135
Amazonas Caqueta 138 2.7 -1.3 0 193
Amazonas Guania 55 2.9 -3.2 0 271
Amazonas Guaviare 72 2.8 -2.9 -1 209
Amazonas Putumayo 117 2.6 0.6 0 170
Andina Antioquia 18 2.1 1.3 0 129
Andina Boyaca 50 2.7 -3.9 -1 144
Andina Cundinamarca 152 2.6 -2.6 0 170
Andina Huila 51 2.4 1.0 0 144
Andina Norte de santander 73 2.8 -0.4 0 216
Andina Santander 51 2.7 -2.4 0 158
Andina Tolima 86 2.4 -3.1 0 148
Caribe Atlantico -74 2.2 -2.9 2 135
Caribe Bolivar 90 2.5 -1.8 0 242
Caribe Cesar -119 2.6 -1.3 0 160
Caribe Cordoba -11 2.3 -3.8 0 160
Caribe Guajira -69 2.2 -1.8 0 86
Caribe Magdalena -158 2.4 -1.8 0 153
Caribe Sucre 10 2.4 -4.1 -1 207
Eje Cafetero Caldas 252 2.4 -4.2 -1 174
Eje Cafetero Quindio 153 2.3 -4.1 -1 145
Eje Cafetero Risaralda 158 2.4 -3.5 -1 141
Llanos Arauca -13 2.9 -6.4 -1 188
Llanos Casanare 163 2.8 -5.7 -1 229
Llanos Meta 10 2.7 -5.4 -1 180
Llanos Vaupes 46 2.8 -1.4 0 192
Llanos Vichada 59 2.6 -2.6 0 152
Pacifico Choco -157 2.2 -1.2 0 148
Sur Occidente Cauca 172 2.3 -1.6 0 168
Sur Occidente Narino 155 2.2 -1.4 0 126
Sur Occidente Valle del Cauca 275 2.3 -5.1 -1 166

10. A future coffee crisis?

11. Mountains as climate change
gradients….
Tmedia
Tmedia Tmedia Ppt total Ppt
Rango anual
anual anual anual an
Altitudinal cambio
actual futuro actual fut
(ºC)
190-500 25.54 27.70 2.16 5891
501-1000 23.47 25.66 2.19 3490
1000-1500 21.29 23.50 2.21 2537
1500-2000 18.36 20.58 2.22 2519
2000-2500 15.60 17.82 2.22 2555
2500-3000 13.33 15.54 2.21 2471
Temperatura media reduce por 0.51oC por cada 100m en la
zona cafetero. Un cambio de 2.2oC equivale a una diferencia
de 440m.

12. Suitability in
Cauca
• Significant changes to
2020, drastic changes
to 2050
• The Cauca case:
reduced coffeee
growing area and MECETA
changes in geographic
distribution. Some
new opportunities.

13. Impactos en Colombia: cambio (%) en
productividad a nivel Nacional
Cambio adaptabilidad (%) 2050-A2
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
Cambio adaptabilidad (%) 2050-A2
-16
-18

14. Cambios promedios por departamento
Cambio promedio en adaptabilidad
15
10
Cambio promedio en adaptabilidad
5
0
-5
-10
-15

15. Dos casos diferentes: Bolivar vs. Cauca
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
-10.00
-20.00
Bolivar
-30.00
Cauca
-40.00
-50.00
-60.00

16. Crops threatening high mountain ecosystems, and water
resources…

17. And a poverty/food security angle

18. The adaptation outlook
• Perennial crops (66.4% ag GDP in 2007) seriously
affected
• Long lead times for adaptation – a coffee crop is a
20 year investment, palm, fruits and rubber is
more
• Likely exacerbation of equity as staple crops more
sensitive than many annual cash crops
• Clear geographic priorities in the Caribbean
region

19. Evaluation of mitigation
options in the Colombian
agricultural sector

21. A stakeholder- and science- driven
approach
• Stakeholder workshop to identify medium-long list of
mitigation measures
– Industry, government, civil society participation
• Quantification of costs and benefits of each measure
– Modelling
– Empirical evidence
– Tools e.g. Cool Farm Tool
• Prioritisation of measures based on a range of
cost/benefit criteria
• Stakeholder driven selection of mitigation portfolio for
sector or sub-sector

22. An inevitable need to use models
• Desire is to have a data-driven approach, but
alone is simply not possible
• Major data constraints – poor or non-existent
empirical data
• An approach of fitting the model to the
problem (not the other way around)
• Different models used to arrive at individual
numbers on costs or benefits of each
mitigation measure

23. Summary of interventions studies
Potential
$US/TonCO2
Intervention Hectares abatement
Min Max
(KTonCO2/ year)
Increased efficiency of
nitrogen fertilizer in rice 169,200 38 -267 145
sector
Conversion of degraded
395,320 1,938 -188 -25
pastures to fruit orchards
Establishment of
521,839 11,538 -49 0.6
silvopastoral systems
Pasture intensification 51,487 54 -103 -62

24. 1. Uso eficiente de fertilizantes (Arroz)
Un uso más eficiente de fertilizantes permite llevar a
cabo un mejor aprovechamiento del suelo y reducir
las emisiones de GEI generadas por los fertilizantes
nitrogenados
• Medidas para uso eficiente de la
fertilización en arroz
– Micronivelación del terreno (Jamundí y
Cúcuta)
– Asistencia técnica especializada
(Espinal, Guaranda, Nunchía,
Valledupar, Villavicencio y Yopal).
– Intervención: 169.200 ha

25. Resumen
Municipio Departamento Area a intervenir
Cucuta Norte de Santander 16,900
Espinal, Ibague, Ambalema,
Campoalegre, Venadillo y Saldana Tolima 59,990
Guaranda y Nechi Sucre 10,369
Jamundi Valle 5,113
Nunchia y Villanueva (Riego) Casanare 20,080
Valledupar Cesar 3,035
Villavicencio, Pto Lopez, Fte Oro y
Granada Meta 36,771
Yopal, Villanueva (secano) y
Aguazul Casanare 17,229

26. Sub-optimal nitrogen applications

27. IMPACTO EN EMISIONES

28. Private perspective: 100% investment and O&M are
assumed for farmers

29. 2. Reconversion of pasturelands to fruit orchards
La sustitución de pasturas degradadas por
plantaciones de árboles frutales representa no solo
una oportunidad económica para desarrollar
nuevos mercados, sino además un potencial de
mitigación de GEI
• Se analizan tres especies de frutales
– Aguacate (165.682 has)
– Mango (193.638 has)
– Cítricos*
• Se buscan los nichos para estas especies con el fin de
determinar el área potencial.
• Intervención: 395.320 ha

30. Cultivo: Aguacate
Superficie potencial (ha)
Nivel de productividad respecto al promedio de la zona
Departamento 85% 79% 75.5% 72% 70% Total
ANTIOQUIA 3,355 3,183 11,269 11,269 23,055 52,131
CALDAS - 1,548 7,828 10,925 2,839 23,140
HUILA - 86 86 516 602 1,290
QUINDIO 172 4,043 7,140 5,850 3,183 20,388
RISARALDA 344 1,634 1,721 2,065 5,764
TOLIMA 774 4,989 24,775 21,764 10,667 62,969
Total 4,301 14,193 52,732 52,045 42,411 165,682

31. Private perspective: 100% investment and O&M are
assumed for farmers

32. 3. Improved pastures
La actividad ganadera en pasturas degradadas resulta
una reducción en la eficiencia de producción, pérdida
de biodiversidad y aumento en la emisión de GEI. El
mejoramiento de pasturas presenta una opción
atractiva a nivel económico y ambiental.
• Mejoramiento de pasturas en los
departamentos:
– Arauca (11.228 has)
– Casanare (21.521 has)
– Meta (18.738 has)
• Intervención:51.487 hectáreas

33. Private perspective: 100% investment and O&M are
assumed for farmers

34. 4. Silvopastoral systems (SSPi)
Los sistemas silvopastoriles constituyen una opción
atractiva para la reconversión de modelos de
ganadería extensiva al aumentar la carga animal por
hectárea, capturar carbono por medio de la
plantación de árboles y un mejoramiento de la
alimentación de animal reduciendo la emisión de
metano.
• Se plantea la reconversión a sistemas silvopastoriles en
los departamentos:
– Atlántico
– Córdoba
– Sucre
– Antioquia: Bajo cauca, Nordeste, Urabá, Oriente
• Intervención: 521.839 hectáreas

35. Agosto 15, 2008
Recuperación de
corredores ribereños
Piedemonte llanero
13 meses
Octubre 22, 2008
Estado inicial: Julio 17, 2007
15 meses

36. From a private perspective: 100% investment and O&M are
assumed for farmers

37. Aggregated
Priorities using MAC
curves

38. Private perspective: 100% investment and O&M are
assumed for farmers
MAC curve for capture/reduction of CO2e emissions in some lines (fruit trees, rice and
livestock) of the livestock sector in Colombia

39. Some challenges in
the analysis

40. Mitigation of the sector, or per unit
product?
Emisiones CO2 proyectadas ganadería bovina
60,000
50,000
40,000
GgCO2eq
30,000
20,000
10,000
-
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Año
Cardenas, 2011

41. MAC curve focuses on EFFICIENCY (US$/Ton CO2e)
Between two options with the same
I–C
___________________________ benefits, the option with less carbon is
CO2e capture
better
BUT CAUTION ABOUT
INTERPRETATION

42. Private
perspective
Public
perspective

43. Methodological considerations
• Range of approaches for quantifying
mitigation costs and benefits available
• Estimations should be stakeholder driven, and
not ignore social/cultural/economic barriers
• Priorities based on efficiency of measures
depend on the perspective of who is asking
(e.g. government versus private)

44. Conclusions
• Apparent large opportunities for win-win
measures, but care needed about analysing
barriers (e.g. cultural)
• Co-benefit of adaptation not quantified, but
significant and should be included (also to
avoid mal-adaptation through mitigation
incentives)
• Entry point mitigation, or adaptation?

45. Email: a.jarvis@cgiar.org
Internet: http://dapa.ciat.cgiar.org