Carbon insetting
TO CONFRONT CLIMATE CHANGE, IMPROVE FARMER
LIVELIHOODS AND ENHANCE SUPPLY CHAIN
RESILIENCE
ERIC RAHN, PETER LÄDERACH, MARIA BACA
CIAT - DAPA

What is carbon insetting?
— General context
¡ It refers to the process of integrating greenhouse gas
mitigation activities within the sphere of influence or interest
of a company
¡ Mutual benefit is derived compared to the offsetting approach

Carbon Insetting in agricultural value chains
— Carbon credits generated by farmers will be
marketed directly to buyers within the same supply
chain
— Carbon credit = tradable certificate representing the
right to emit 1 tonne of CO2 equivalent
Ø Derived benefits
Ø Improves smallholder livelihoods
Ø Adapts farm systems to the impacts of climate change
Ø Increases the resilience of the company’s supply chain

Requirements of carbon projects
— Additionality
— Permanence
— Leakage
— Land tenure rights
— Aggregation à Farmer organization

Carbon certification standards
— Mandatory carbon market
¡ Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol
— Voluntary carbon market
¡ Plan Vivo
¡ Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS)
¡ Clean Development Mechanism Gold Standard
¡ Carbon Fix
¡ etc.

Case study
CARBON INSETTING TO CONFRONT CLIMATE
CHANGE, IMPROVE FARMER LIVELIHOODS
AND ENHANCE SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE
THE CASE OF ORGANIC COFFEE PRODUCTION
IN NORTHERN NICARAGUA

The case of coffee
— Farmers
¡ The majority of coffee producers are smallholders, often
marginalized and cannot remain productive or sustain, much less
improve, their quality.
¡ Climate change will severely affect coffee production
— Private sector
¡ Obtaining a reliable supply of specialized coffees is extremely
challenging
¡ Companies need to invest to improve quality and productivity
— Mitigation
¡ 55% of emissions stem from agronomic practices on farm

Objective
— To identify practices that enable generating carbon
credits but at the same time result in highest
synergies with climate change adaptation and
livelihood benefits

Approach

Results I: Practices

Results II: Feedback
— Farmers:
¡ Skepticism with activities they are not familiar with
¡ Activities of most interest:
÷ Reforestationof degraded areas with coffee agroforestry systems
÷ Boundary tree plantings
— Private sector:
¡ Issues of permanence in sequestration activities
¡ Are very eager to mainstream this approach

Results III: Standards

Conclusions
— Carbon Credits
¡ One of the few viable vehicles to financially compensate farmers for
ecosystem services …
¡ … and create shared value between agrifood companies and farmers
— Difficulties/Limitations
¡ Permanence (generational overtake, price volatility, climate change,
etc.)
¡ Outreach à Farmers have to be well organized (problem of
exclusion)
¡ Adoption of practices by farmers
— Lack of research and methodologies
¡ Lack of knowledge/data on trade-offs between adaptation, mitigation
and livelihood benefits
¡ More easy-to-use methodologies approved by standards are needed
(e.g. for Quesungual)

Thank you!