UNEP Initiative on Capacity Building for Integrated Assessment and Planning for

Sustainable Development

Mid-term Review Meeting

Geneva, February 16-17, 2005

Enhancing Capacity for Integrated Assessment and Planning for Sustainable Development in Colombia:Agricultural Trade Liberalization and its relationship

with Biodiversity and Poverty Alleviation

Brief Description of the Project

Objective

To analyze the effects of the liberalization of agricultural trade on biodiversity, the

sustainability of small scale farmers, and possible structural changes in agriculture and

cattle production.

Brief Description of the Project

Expected outcome

• Analysis of the decision planning process related with agricultural trade liberalization.

• Analysis of the process of incorporating biodiversity and poverty criteria on the decision making process.

• Identification of trends in, opportunities created by, and threats from the liberalization process.

• Identification of alternatives for implementation of priorities

• Achievement of agreements with the decision makers.

• Identification of policy mechanisms.

National Steering Committee Government institutions leading the project

The project is led by

The Ministry of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development, and the National Planning Department.

Ministry Of Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry of Commerce, Industry and TourismMinistry of Interior and Justice

With the collaboration of

Colombian Agricultural Institute

Interamerican Institute for Agricultural Cooperation

Semillas Group

Selection of priority sectors

Identification of key instances for decisions

Identification of linksbetween sector, environment, biodiversity and social aspects

Stakeholders Analysis

OfficialImplementation

Monitoring and control Indicators

Feed back system for continuous improvement

Alternatives Analysis (trends, threads, opportunities)

Participatory identification and construction of the proposalsPriorities and Consensus

Description of the Project Process Methodology for Integrated Assessment

Interinstitutional Coordination

Identification of linksbetween sector, environment, biodiversity and social aspects

Priorization

NE

GO

CIA

CIO

NE

S

CO

ME

RC

IAL

ES

AM

UM

AS

Structural changes in agricultural production

Effects over small scale farmers

Food Security and Agro-Biodiversity.

TR

AD

E

NE

GO

TIA

TIO

NS

ME

A

Main Links

Food Security

small scale

farmers

ProductiveStructures

BD

Selection of priority sectors Key Economic, Social and Environmental Issues

Integrated Assessment

Trade Biodiversity Poverty

Agricultural

Ecosystems

Genetic Resources

Income/

Employment

Food

Security

Agricultural Biodiversity

Land use

Productive systems

Agriculture is the most closely related sector to Biodiversity

Stakeholder Analysis

This planning process was selected because:

• The FTA is a concrete liberalization policy instrument.• Colombia is currently involved in FTA negotiations with

the US which will influence various aspects of long term national development policies.

• It presents a unique opportunity to influence a process of this magnitude on the domestic level

Description and Rationale of the Planning ProcessThe Free Trade Agreement – US

And the Agricultural Internal Agenda

DIRECTIVECOUNCIL

TECHNICAL SECRETARY

NPD

PUBLICFORUMS

REGIONAL SECTORAL THEMATIC

FTA NEGOTIATING

TEAM

Description and Rationale of the Planning Process

Decision Planning Process for the Internal Agenda

Main gaps and weaknesses• Substance

The overall purpose is clear, but the planning process of the FTA and the Internal Agenda is not sufficiently open, as it hardly involves local communities.

The FTA and Internal Agenda has separated chapters related to Economic, Environmental and Social issues but does not consider this issues in an integrated manner.

Main gaps and weaknesses of the processMain gaps and weaknesses of the process

• It is not clear – the participation of marginalized, weak, minority groups, in particular local

communities. – the flow of information on the planning process related with such groups.– the role of these groups inside the trade policy objective– which are going to be their expectative and opportunities after the FTA.

• Despite the important dissemination instruments, the information related with the FTA and IA does not reach rural communities.

• Despite the effort, the process is not supported in a substantial budget that allows a wider participation. As well, the timeline has been very tight.

• Government Partners

National Planning Department Directorate of Rural Sustainable Development (primary beneficiary)

Ministry of Agriculture (NSC)Ministry of Commerce (NSC)

R. Andina 1 R. Caribe

Potatoe (--, 100, 41) 7,58 D XCorn (20, 8, 22) 32 145.000 9,32 D Traditional TechnifiedAfrican Palm 62.000 13,62 F X

1. In ( ) is indicated the varieties and species found on ( Z.Cafetera, Santander, Laguna La Cocha)

CRITERIA OF PRIORITY CROPS IDENTIFICATION

Jaime Forero Alvarez

Clasification of production systems related to its impact

over BDFarmer

productionCommercial productionProducts

National Development Plan (2003-

2006) Targeted New Crops (Ha).

IDEA

Local variaties of crops grown by farmer and indigenous

communities

Semillas Group

AEC* SAFP** Salvaguardias -

OMC Contingentes arancelarios

Vistos buenos

Acuerdos de absorción

Precios minimos de

garantíaPrecios de

intervenciónCuotas de fomento

Apoyo a la comercialización

Interna

Potatoe XCorn X X X X X X X X X XAfrican Palm X X X X X XForest X

*Arancel Externo Común

** Sistema Andino de Franja de Precios

Internal Policies

Products

Market Acces

TRADE INSTRUMENTS OF COLOMBIAN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

Information AvailabilityConflict of Land Use indicator (livestock)Assessment of a Georeference Information System Instrument

OTHER CRITERIA

Stakeholder InvolvementMinistries (environment, interior, commerce, agriculture):

Guide the project Provide Information

Identify priorities

Participate in national workshops

National Planning Department

Guide the project

Provides Information

Identifies priorities

Helps with methodologies

Participates in national workshops

Other agricultural authorities (ICA, Corpoica)

Guide the project

Provide Information

Identify priorities

Participate in national workshops

Regional Authorities (Agricultural Agencies – Umatas - regional)

Logistical support

Convoke local community meetings

Provide Information

Participate in workshops

Private sector (Fedepalma – Fedipapa)

Provide InformationStudy partners

Academic institutions (Javeriana University – Cega):

Provide Information

Help with methodologies

Participate in workshops

Local communities: (Individual Farmers & Farm Associations)

Participate in workshops

NGOs:

Convoke farmer & farm association meetings

Participate in workshops

International Institutions (IICA)

Logistical support

Provides Information

Helps in methodologies

Participates in workshops

Stakeholder Involvement

Methods for stakeholder consultations and involvement

Workshops & Meetings Consultations & Interviews WEB page

http://www.humboldt.org.co/chmcolombia/servicios/jsp/comercio_agricola/

Description of the Project Process

Activities undertaken• Background document: main relationships and priorities• Official Project Launch – held in Aug 2004• First National Workshop –held in Sep 2004:

Presentation of the methodology - The UNEP team participated

• Two regional Workshops Local communities (farmers), regional agricultural authorities and

related NGOs.

Tools and methods • The Integrated Assessment was focused on the small scale farms .• The main focus is to find the economical, ecological and social relationships• Deficiencies

- Lack of information on agrobiodiversity, production systems, food security - Financial resources- No information available for small scale farmer

Qualitative Tools

Workshops with marginalized and weak represented groups to wide their participation on the planning process. Quick Agro – Ecological AssessmentsValidation of linkages by perception (Mental Maps)Semi – Structured Local Market Surveys

Literature Reviews

Quantitative Tools

In order to analyze the linkage of the effect of the agricultural trade policy on the land use conflict.

– Production Function Approach– Geographic Information System Tools (Desired)

Qualitative Tools

Conceptual framework for Conceptual framework for food securityfood security and its relationship with and its relationship with TradeTrade

TRADE global

national

household& individuals

individuals

Global FoodAvailability

National NetImports of Food

National FoodProduction

National FoodAvailability

GovernmentRevenues

Growth,Employment,

Income distribution

HouseholdIncomesHousehold

Food Access

Food Food SecuritySecurity

Care HealthOther Basic

Needs

Nutrition Nutrition SecuritySecurity

Source: IFPRI, TMD Discussion Paper No.59, 2000

Food Insecurity causes on rural familiesLow food availability and consumption on the familyLow food availability and consumption on the familyLow food availability and consumption on the familyLow food availability and consumption on the family

Low production for self-consumption

Low purchasing powerto buy food

Low cropyields

Scarce landendowment

Low SoilProductivity

Inappropriate technologies

Inadequate soils

for crops

Inadequate use of soils

Lack of knowledge

Lack of inputs

LowIncomes

High foodprices

Lack ofPermanent

employment

LowSalaries

Low Sales

revenues

GeographicIsolation

Low laborcapacities

High workdemand

Lack of Surplus for

saleSeasonalActivities

Source: FAO. 2001. Guía para la gestión municipal de programas de seguridad alimentaria

No marketfor theirproducts

Quick Agro – Ecological Assessments

Literature Reviews

How does public policy affect the ESE issues?1990 - 2000

Fuentes: periodo 1980-1997: DNP - UDA y Oficina de Información y Estadística del Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural. Periodo 1998-2003: Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, Dirección de Politica Sectorial - Grupo Sistemas de Información

Calculos: IAvH - LVE

Trade Balance Cattle and Agricultural And Agro-Industrial Production 1980-2003

-500000

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

4000000

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

US

D t

housands

TOTAL AGROPECUARIO Y AGROINDUSTRIAL.

TOTAL AGROPECUARIO Y AGROINDUSTRIAL. SIN CAFE

Total Agric and Cattle And Agro-IndustrialTotal Agric and Cattle And Agro-Industrial. Excluding coffee

Calculos: IAvH - LVE

FUENTE: DNP- Dirección de Desarrollo Agrario con base en Evaluaciones Agropecuarias URPA´s, UMATA´s. MADR - Dirección de Política Sectorial - Grupo Sistemas de Información. FEDEPALMA. Banco de la República, Superintendencia Bancaria.

Colombia:African Palm yield Vs IR 1990 - 2003

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

To

n /

Ha

05101520253035404550

Inte

rest

Rea

l

Rendimiento (Ton/ha) TIEAYield (Ton/Ha) IR

FUENTE: DNP- Dirección de Desarrollo Agrario con base en Evaluaciones Agropecuarias URPA´s, UMATA´s. MADR - Dirección de Política Sectorial - Grupo Sistemas de Información. FEDEPALMA. MADR, Anuarios

Producción en Términos de Aceite. No incluye material verde M/V

Colombia. Tariff and Palm Oil Production 1996 - 2003

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

%

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

To

n

Arancel ProducciónTariff Production

Datos tomados de Forero y otros 2002

Fuente: Base de datos Minagricultura y Desarrollo Rural

Elaboró: IAvH - LVE

Colombia: Distribución de la superficie cultivada por los campesinos. 2002

05

101520253035

Ca

ribe

An

din

aO

rie

nta

l

An

din

aC

ent

ro-

Occ

ide

nte

An

din

aS

uro

ccid

en

tal

pa

cífic

o

Ori

no

qu

ía

Am

azo

nía

Po

rce

nta

je

Distribution of small scale farmer production

Campesinos 58,2 67,1Capitalistas 41,8 32,9Total nacional 100 100Campesinos 54,9 58,1Capitalistas 45,1 41,9Total nacional 100 100

Tomado de Forero y otros 2002

Surface and Agriculture Output Value

Superficie cosechada (hectáreas)

Valor producción (millones de $ 1994)

Fuente. Minagricultura y Desarrollo Rural - urpas, Umatas, Augura, Federacafé, Asocaña, Fedepalma, Ascolflores

1990-1992 % 1999-2001 %Predominancia

cultivosVariable

Alimentos Participación (%)Arroz 0,7Tubérculos y plátanos 8,1Hortalizas y legumbres 8,7Frutas 5,8Carnes 6,2Lácteos 4,2Panela 1,5TOTAL 35,3Tomado de Forero y otros 2002

Share of Farmer Economie´s Products on the Food Purchasing 1995

Participation of small scale farmer’s production

Small scale farmers and indigenous communities agrobiodiversitySmall scale farmers and indigenous communities agrobiodiversityESPECIES Y VARIEDADES CULTIVADAS POR COMUNIDADES CAMPESINAS E INDIGENAS DE ESPECIAL INTERÉS PARA LA

ALIMENTACIÓN

Productos con estadísticas MADR (1991-2001)

Tratado FAO Grupo Semillas

Lista de cultivos alimentarios (Anexo I)

Variedades locales de cultivos manejadas por organizaciones y comunidades campesinas e

indigenas

R. Andina1 R. Caribe2

Arroz: Secano Manual / Total X   22

Papa X (--, 100, 41)  

Cebada X (--, 5, --)  

Fríjol X (34, 12, 46) 12

Maíz X (20, 8, 22) 32

Trigo X (--, 8, --)  

Caña de Azúcar   (21, --, --)  

Ñame X   10

Plátano X (22, --, --)  

Yuca     16

Café   (8, --, --)  1 Especies y variedades cultivadas por organizaciones locales de la Zona Cafetera, la Provincia García Rovira de Santander y el ecosistema de la Laguna de la Cocha en Nariño. En paréntesis se indíca las especies y variedades encontradas en las zonas mencionadas: (Z. Cafetera, Santander, Nariño), se relacionan sólo aquellas que coinciden con los cultivos que tienen estadísticas oficiales. Adaptado de: Grupo Semillas (2004) "Cultivando la Diversidad en Colombia", Proyecto Cultivando la Diversidad, Bogotá, 2004, p. 33

2 Variedades de los cultivos tradicionales manejados por las comunidades indígenas y campesinas de la región Caribe, se relacionan sólo aquellas que coinciden con los cultivos que tienen estadísticas oficiales. Adaptado de: Grupo Semillas (2004) "Cultivando la Diversidad en Colombia", Proyecto Cultivando la Diversidad, Bogotá, 2004, p. 48

COLOMBIA: rural poverty and food securityCOLOMBIA: rural poverty and food security• Rural population: 1938 = 70%; 1990 = 30%; 2001 = 25.5%• Agricultural sector: 13.4% GDP (Producto Interno Bruto)• One of the countries with worst income distribution in Latin America• Increasing unemployment• In 2000, statistics show a return to poverty levels from 1988

Desempleo Urbano / Rural 1980-2002 (%)

7,7

10,3

8,7

11,6

11,8

15,0

19,7

16,6

16,4

15,7

1,4

4,6

5,0

6,4

6,5

7,6

10,9

10,4

9,1

9,7

0 5 10 15 20

1980

1988

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Urbano (%) Rural (%)

INDICADOR DE POBREZA (%)

1988 1993 1998 2000

Nacional 59.2 51.7 51.5 59.8Rural 74.9 70.7 75.8 82.0Urbana 48.2 43.6 41.8 51.0

INDICADOR DE INDIGENCIA(%)

Nacional 27.2 19.4 17.9 23.4Rural 43.3 37.7 37.5 43.4Urbana 15.9 11.6 10.1 15.8

INDICADOR GINI (%)Nacional 0.55 0.54 0.56Cabecera 0.52 0.50 0.50Rural 0.50 0.56 0.54Fuente: Dirección Desarrollo Social, DNP, con base en ENH, DANE

Fuente: DANE

COLOMBIA: rural poverty and food insecurityCOLOMBIA: rural poverty and food insecurity

• The contribution of imported food to the total daily per capita provision was almost duplicated between 1991 and 2001, from 10,1% to 19.6%

– Imported food participation: cereals 50.5%; oils and fats 42%; vegetables (leguminosas) 60.5%

• Although the nutritional status of children less than 5 years has been improved, persists the problem of chronic undernourishment intensified in rural areas

EVOLUCION DE LA DESNUTRICIÓN EN NIÑOS(AS) MENORES DE CINCO AÑOS

NIVELES DE DESNUTRICIÓN 1986 1995 2000

CRÓNICA Talla Para la Edad

TOTALURBANARURAL

16.6 15.012.519.1

13.510.819.4

GLOBALPeso Para la Edad

TOTALURBANARURAL

10.1 8.4 6.6

11.4

6.7 5.7 8.9

AGUDAPeso Para la Talla

TOTALURBANARURAL

2.9 1.4 1.0 2.1

0.8 0.7 1.0

Fuente: MINISTERIO DE SALUD y PROFAMILIA. Encuesta Nacional de Demografía y Salud, Colombia.

Conflict of Land UseConflict of Land Use

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Forest Agriculture Pasture Other

Potential32982000

Usos Potencial 1932 1998 2000

Forest 69 53 48 54Pasture 13 43.7 35 36Agric. 16 2.4 4 4.4

Others 2 13 5 Fuen

te: I

GA

C 1

998.

Transformation of habitats and ecosystems

Scenarios

Positive Scenario

Negative Scenario

Preliminary ResultsPlanning Process• Rural and marginalized communities feel distant towards the decision planning process• Considerable negative expectations regarding results of FTA negotiations due to asymmetric

information flows• Change of perceptions when information is provided

Social• Small scale farmers near extinction - Under-estimation of importance of Farm

Economies - Decrease in the quality of food supplyEconomic• Substantial decrease on rural income and employmentEnvironmental and BD• Lost of traditional practices• Higher pressure for incremental production. –

– More usage of agro – chemistry inputs– Expansion of agriculture frontier (Increase of pressure over natural eco-systems)– Productive systems less friendly with Biodiversity

• Loss of agriculture biodiversity

Preliminary Recommendations

To successfully influence in the four main strategies of the Internal Agriculture Agenda

Land & Water Land Planning Tools con BD criteria

Value of Local communities function Instruments for assessment of the importance of the environmental services provided by Farm Economies

– (e.g. In-Situ Conservation of Agrobiodiversity)

Technological Innovation & Sanitary Admissibility Conversion to Friendlier Production Systems An agenda for Ecological Agriculture investigation

Transaction Costs Stable Legal frame

Farmers rights Capacity Building Incentives for

in-situ conservation Conversion to Friendlier Production Systems

Economic Social Environmental / BiodiversityIncome - Employment Food Security Agricultural Biodiversity - Land Use Conflic

PositveNegative

Scenario

Pillars

Planned Activities and Next Steps

Planned Activities and Next Steps

• At least two more Regional Workshops• Possibility of a Sub-sectorial workshop• Evaluating the viability of implementation of a

Geo-referencing Information System tool• Economic Studies• Build up of policy recommendations for the

Internal Agenda