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)

CCAFS: the partnership! The largest global

coalition of scientists working on

developing-country agriculture and climate

change

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.

CCAFS objectives

The CCAFS Framework

Adapting Agriculture to

Climate Variability and Change

Technologies, practices, partnerships and

policies for:

1. Adaptation to Progressive Climate

Change

2. Adaptation through Managing

Climate Risk

3. Pro-poor Climate Change Mitigation

Improved

Environmental

HealthImproved

Rural

Livelihoods

Improved

Food

Security

Enhanced adaptive capacity

in agricultural, natural

resource management, and

food systems

4. Integration for Decision Making

• Linking Knowledge with Action

• Assembling Data and Tools for Analysis

and Planning

• Refining Frameworks for Policy Analysis

The adaptation context for Colombia

Heavy reliance of agricultural GDP on perennial crops and livestock

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000Distribucion de cultivo Área (ha)

Distribucion de cultivo Pdn (Ton)

Government policies increasing agriculturalland-area especially in perennials

…and increasing livestock production, buton less land

Region DepartamentoCambio en

Precipitacion

Cambio en

Temperatura

media

Cambio en

estacionalidad de

precipitacion

Cambio en

meses

consecutivos

secos

Incertidumbre

entre modelos

(StDev prec)

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

A future coffee crisis?

Mountains as climate changegradients….

Rango

Altitudinal

Tmedia

anual

actual

Tmedia

anual

futuro

Tmedia

anual

cambio

(ºC)

Ppt total

anual

actual

Ppt total

anual

futuro

Cambio

ppt total

(%)

190-500 25.54 27.70 2.16 5891 6002 1.88

501-1000 23.47 25.66 2.19 3490 3597 3.04

1000-1500 21.29 23.50 2.21 2537 2641 4.10

1500-2000 18.36 20.58 2.22 2519 2622 4.08

2000-2500 15.60 17.82 2.22 2555 2657 4.00

2500-3000 13.33 15.54 2.21 2471 2575 4.20

Temperatura media reduce por 0.51oC por cada 100m en la zona cafetero. Un cambio de 2.2oC equivale a una diferencia de 440m.

Suitability in Cauca

• Significant changes to 2020, drastic changes to 2050

• The Cauca case: reduced coffeee growing area and changes in geographic distribution. Some new opportunities.

MECETA

Impactos en Colombia: cambio (%) en productividad a nivel Nacional

-18

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

Cambio adaptabilidad (%) 2050-A2

Cambio adaptabilidad (%) 2050-A2

Cambios promedios por departamento

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Cambio promedio en adaptabilidad

Cambio promedio en adaptabilidad

Dos casos diferentes: Bolivar vs. Cauca

-60.00

-50.00

-40.00

-30.00

-20.00

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

Bolivar

Cauca

Crops threatening high mountain ecosystems, and water resources…

And a poverty/food security angle

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

Evaluation of mitigationoptions in the Colombianagricultural sector

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

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

Summary of interventions studies

Intervention Hectares

Potential

abatement

(KTonCO2/ year)

$US/TonCO2

Min Max

Increased efficiency of

nitrogen fertilizer in rice

sector

169,200 38 -267 145

Conversion of degraded

pastures to fruit orchards395,320 1,938 -188 -25

Establishment of

silvopastoral systems521,839 11,538 -49 0.6

Pasture intensification 51,487 54 -103 -62

1. Uso eficiente de fertilizantes (Arroz)

• 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

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

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

Resumen

Sub-optimal nitrogen applications

IMPACTO EN EMISIONES

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

2. Reconversion of pasturelands to fruit orchards

• 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

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

Cultivo: AguacateSuperficie 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

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

3. Improved pastures

• Mejoramiento de pasturas en los departamentos:

– Arauca (11.228 has)

– Casanare (21.521 has)

– Meta (18.738 has)

• Intervención:51.487 hectáreas

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.

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

4. Silvopastoral systems (SSPi)

• Se plantea la reconversión a sistemas silvopastoriles en los departamentos:

– Atlántico

– Córdoba

– Sucre

– Antioquia: Bajo cauca, Nordeste, Urabá, Oriente

• Intervención: 521.839 hectáreas

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.

Recuperación de corredores ribereños

Piedemonte llanero

Estado inicial: Julio 17, 2007

Agosto 15, 2008

13 meses

Octubre 22, 2008

15 meses

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

Aggregated Priorities using MAC

curves

MAC curve for capture/reduction of CO2e emissions in some lines (fruit trees, rice and livestock) of the livestock sector in Colombia

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

Some challenges in the analysis

Mitigation of the sector, or per unit product?

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

GgC

O2

eq

Año

Emisiones CO2 proyectadas ganadería bovina

Cardenas, 2011

MAC curve focuses on EFFICIENCY (US$/Ton CO2e)

I – C___________________________

CO2e capture

Between two options with the same benefits, the option with less carbon is better

BUT CAUTION ABOUT INTERPRETATION

Private perspective

Public perspective

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)

Conclusions

• Apparent large opportunities for win-win measures, but care needed about analysingbarriers (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?

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