Adaptation Start to Finish in Colombia

4,094 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,094
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2,964
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
29
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The results from the CSA study of the Silvopastoral system in colombia are displayed here. In the matrix, you can see how well the practice performed with regards to the different indicators. 0 = negative change, 1 = no change, 2 = positive change. Some of the matrix squares aggregate the results from more than one indicator. Spider diagrams show the difference between the baseline scenario and the scenarios with the CSA practice for the different CSA pillars and dimensions of CSA. A table at the bottom list the projected barriers to adoption for this practice and if they can be overcome.
  • After assessing all of the results for all practices in the generic list, a ranked list of the best practices is compiled Here you can see the top 8 practices. All of the practices are ranked based on their final score for the indicators. These practices have now undergone a CBA assessment (only done on the practices ranked highest based on the indicators) and the quality of the data used for the indicators and CBA is included here, giving an overall quality score for the assessment of this practice.
  • Adaptation Start to Finish in Colombia

    1. 1. Climate change adaptation from start to finish: The case for Colombia
    2. 2. The challenge: Colombia is a victim of climate variability Maíz Arroz T-Max Rendimient o Rendimient o T-Max Climate anomolies and production anomolies go hand in hand Fuente: Agronet y CRU (http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/cru/)
    3. 3. And in the long term • Coffee suitability in the Cauca region • Significant changes to 2020, drastic changes to 2050 • The Cauca case: reduced coffeee growing area and changes in geographic distribution. Some new opportunities. MECETA
    4. 4. Diagnose the problem
    5. 5. Vulnerability mapping Food security Income
    6. 6. Listen to farmers • Listen to local perspectives of vulnerability • Participatory identification of adaptation options Girardot - Maize Ipiales - Potato San Gil - Beans
    7. 7. A systematic look at impacts and economic costs across LAC • Detailed crop modelling of climate impacts across LAC • Analysis of social and economic impacts • Zoom in analysis at national level Crops Food Supply (kcal/capita/day) Harvested Area (Ha) Contribution to GDP DSSAT model? 41,171,982.60 10,270,087.00 28,633,254.40 8,988,559.80 5,943,971.40 7,240,355.00 342,874.20 199,494.00 1,190,503.00 5,706,389.00 2,052,958.80 998,955.20 242,739.60 1,495,006.20 Net Production Value (constant 2004-2006 1000 I$) 27,707,066 25,072,226 6,087,072 3,505,114 7,092,796 3,602,564 4,107,232 1,902,269 7,065,053 4,986,781 127,456 2,453,723 1,167,699 5,170,592 Soybean Sugar Cane Maize Wheat Rice Beans Tomatoes Pineapples Bananas Coffee Sorghum Potatoes Onions Oranges, Mandarines Palm Lemons, Limes Grapes Cottonseed Oil Apples Nuts Coconut Groundnuts Cassava Plantains Cocoa Beans sunflower Yams Mangoes 170 383 435 331 296 90 11 5 34 3 6 34 7 17 5 13 5 1 8 2 1 2 16 4 0 1 0 1 y n y y y y n n n n y y n n 64 3 1,085,119.00 319,617.20 1,078,458 2,095,406 1 0 n n 3 8 547,380.00 1,873,788.60 4,124,806 953,103 1 0 n n 5 6 21 11 44 33 3 18 12 NA 192,937.80 574,795.65 676,841.00 534,019.00 2,747,793.60 948,142.00 1,476,678.40 2,588,299.00 173,591.40 435,323.20 1,748,896 943,316 589,058 515,363 2,027,450 1,572,812 520,235 1,142,205 270,343 2,705,656 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 2 2 n n n y n n n n n n
    8. 8. Prioritise
    9. 9. Ranked List of Practices Practice CBA Quality 1 Silvopastoral Systems 1.5 2.11 2 Efficient Use of Fertilizer 1.4 2.87 3 Improved Forages 1.3 2.85 4 Biogas 1.2 2.36 Grass-Legume 5 Association 1.2 2.11 6 Water harvest structure 1.2 2.08 Silage, haylage and 7 nutritional blocks 1 2.01 9 Early warning systems 1 1.89
    10. 10. Act
    11. 11. Objectives 1) Generate capacity to reduce agroclimatic risk: modelling impacts and seasonal forecasting 2) Close the yield gap through climate specific agriculture 3) Evaluate and generate new adapted technologies 4) Evaluate resource efficient production systems (water and carbon footprints) and establish new incentive structures for their adoption (PES, NAMAs, low carbon development pathways etc.)
    12. 12. In action 9 Partners 52 Municipalities 16 Departments >800 experimental lots in 20 localities > 200 on farm participatory experiments > 40 events with 660 participants and 32 institutions 97 researchers working on the program > 70 technologies being evaluated
    13. 13. What defines yield? 51% of yield variation is caused by climate for rice
    14. 14. Matching technologies with climate in space and time
    15. 15. PROBABILISTIC PRECIPITATION FORECAST 33 Normal Below 33 31 22 27 31 33 Above 38 39 33 51 37 33 31 28 Agroclimatic Seasonal forecasting
    16. 16. Big opportunities for reducing water dependency
    17. 17. Global learning
    18. 18. Leb by Climate smart villages: Key agricultural activities for managing risks
    19. 19. Climate resilience Pulling the pieces together Adapted technologies Baseline Adapted technologies + Climatespecific management Adapted Adapted technologies technologies + + Climate-specific Climatemanagement specific + management Seasonal + agroclimatic Seasonal forecasts agroclimatic + forecasts Efficient resource use Climate smartness Adapted technologies + Climatespecific management + Seasonal agroclimatic forecasts + Efficient resource use + Enabling environment NAPs and NAMAs
    20. 20. Gracias! www.aclimatesectoragropecuariocolombiano.org

    ×