Economic analysis for mitigation alternatives - limits of MACCs by Andy Jarvis and Lini Wollenberg
•
1 gefällt mir•542 views
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ă„hnlich wie Economic analysis for mitigation alternatives - limits of MACCs by Andy Jarvis and Lini Wollenberg
Ă„hnlich wie Economic analysis for mitigation alternatives - limits of MACCs by Andy Jarvis and Lini Wollenberg (20)
Mehr von CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
Mehr von CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (20)
KĂĽrzlich hochgeladen
KĂĽrzlich hochgeladen (20)
Economic analysis for mitigation alternatives - limits of MACCs by Andy Jarvis and Lini Wollenberg
- 1. Expert Workshop on NAMAs: national mitigation planning and implementation in agriculture. Rome, 16-17 July 2012. CCAFS and FAO. Economic analysis for mitigation alternatives - limits of MACCs Jeimar Tapasco Andy Jarvis Lini Wollenberg WWW.ciat.cgiar.org Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 2. MAC Curve McKinsey & Company (2010). Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 3. MEXICO BRASIL Source: World Bank (2010) Source: World Bank (2010) UK Agriculture USA Source: OECD (2010) Sorce: Lutsey (2008)Agriculture for the Poor Eco-Efficient
- 4. MAC Curve for Colombia World Bank and DNP -Energy - Transport - Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 5. Agriculture Agroforestry Forestry Annual Perrennial Tree + Crops Livestock Natural Plantation or/and Livestock Efficient Oil Palm Commercial Fertilization Silvopastoral Systems Forestry (Case Study: Plantations Rice) Pasture Rubber Plantations Improvement REDD+ Conversion of Pastures to Fruit Tree Plantations Crops in Cacao Nutritional Histosols Complements Low-Carbon Ecological Agricultural Restoration Practices Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 6. Abatement Potential Cost- potential area effectiveness Intervention alternative (thousands evaluated (US$/tCO2eq) of (ha) Min Max tCO2eq/year) Commercial Forestry 44,037 4,000,000 -4,4 -2,7 Plantations Intensive Silvopastoral (ISS) 3.739.109 -49 0.6 Projects 43.819 Avoided Deforestation 65,874 2,250,000 -0.2 -0.2 (REDD Projects) Conversion of Pastures to 1,938 359,320 -188 -25 Fruit Production Rubber Plantations 1,786 260,000 -1,05 -0,67 Efficient Use of Fertilizers 38 170,000 -267 145 Pasture Improvement 54 51,487 -103 -62 Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 7. MAC Curve - Aggregate 130 30 MAC: US$/tCO2 (70) (170) (270) - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Thousand tonnes of carbon saved/year Rice Casanare (Irrigation) Rice Valledupar Mango Huila Small Mango Huila Large Avoca.Tolima Medium Avoca. Tolima Large Mango Cundinamarca Small Avoca. Huila Medium Avoca. Huila Large Mango Cundinamarca Large Rice Tolima Improve Pasture Meta Rice Casanare Mango Cundinamarca Medium Mango Boyaca Small Improve Pasture Casanare Mango Tolima Small Rice Meta Improve Pasture Arauca Mango Tolima Large Avoca. Risaralda Large Avoca. Antioquia Medium Avoca. Quindio Large SSPi Bajo-Cauca (Antioquia) Avoca. Risaralda Small Avoca. Quindio Small Avoca. Caldas Large Mango Boyaca Large Avoca. Antioquia Large Avoca. Risaralda Medium Avoca. Caldas Small Avoca. Quindio Medium Mango Antioquia Large Avoca. Antioquia Small Mango Boyaca Medium Mango Antioquia Small Avoca. Caldas Medium Rice Guaranda y Nechi SSPi Eastern -Antioquia rest of the country (CIPAV) SSPi CĂłrdoba SSPi Atlantico SSPi Sucre SSPi Uraba-Antioquia SSPi Northeast - Antioquia Rice Jamundi Rice Cucuta Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 8. CAUTION!! Economic tools must be appropriate for the problem at hand. Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 9. Overview of selected key limitations of the cost/supply curve method* • Negative costs (Not all cots were included) • Strong focus on costs as selection criteria (there are other criteria) • It does not include environmental and social benefit and costs • Economic and technological uncertainty inherent to predicting the future • Strong level of aggregation of the databases used • High sensitivity relative to baseline assumptions (future) • Ignoring interdependencies between measures • High sensitivity to (uncertain) emission factor assumptions *Fischedick et al. 2011. Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 10. MAC Curve global GHG beyond business as usual 2030 Source: McKinsey & Company (2010) Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 11. Top priorities according to MAC curve Carbon saved (tCO2e/year) Cost (benefit) US$ Individual Individual Priority Measure US$/tCO2e Measure Aggregate Measure Aggregate 1 Rice Casanare (Irrigation) (267.2) 2,075 2,075 (554,465) (554,465) 2 Rice Valledupar (202.0) 321 2,397 (64,923) (619,388) 3 Mango Huila Small (188.2) 11,519 13,916 (2,168,430) (2,787,819) 4 Mango Huila Large (158.4) 46,296 60,212 (7,332,158) (10,119,977) 5 Avoca.Tolima Medium (138.1) 212,958 273,170 (29,412,260) (39,532,237) Least priorities according to MAC curve Carbon saved (tCO2e/year) Cost (benefit) US$ Individual Individual Priority Measure US$/tCO2e Measure Aggregate Measure Aggregate 43 SSPi Uraba-Antioquia (0.6) 898,966 898,966 (537,857) (537,857) 42 SSPi Sucre (2.6) 1,831,998 2,730,964 (4,699,801) (5,237,657) 41 SSPi Atlantico (3.4) 596,711 3,327,675 (2,042,915) (7,280,572) 40 SSPi CĂłrdoba (4.5) 3,747,996 7,075,671 (16,882,013) (24,162,585) 39 SSPi Eastern -Antioquia (8.5) 2,019,716 9,095,387 (17,218,786) (41,381,371) Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 12. Conclusions • There are a large number of potential mitigation options that could be implemented at the national level, with highly varying degrees of emissions reductions, and associated costs for implementation Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 13. . Clear goals should be set with any emissions reduction plan or strategy, and these goals can then be used as criterion for prioritization Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 14. MAC curves are a useful input to evaluating priority interventions, but…….should be interpreted with caution. Incorrect use of the MAC curve for selecting interventions could lead to failure to prioritize the most appropriate interventions. Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 15. Private perspective Public perspective Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 16. Biophysical efficiency (kg meat) Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 17. Biophysical efficiency (ha) Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 18. Time constrains Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 19. Thanks! Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 20. Business as usual: Agriculture (Colombia) Business as usual: Livestock (Colombia) Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 21. Cost (benefit) -1.000.000 -1.000.000 Carbon capture 1 1.000.000 Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 22. Figure 1 - Effect of the emission reduction amount on the cost- effectiveness value. Figure 1a - CEA value against different levels of emission reduction and a constant cost. Figure 1b - Representation of a cost-effectiveness curve Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 23. Figure 2 - Effect of the emission reduction amount on the cost- effectiveness value. Figure 2a - CEA value against different levels of emission reduction and a constant cost. Figure 1b - Representation of a cost-effectiveness curve Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 24. MAC Curve: Silvopastoral Systems Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 25. MAC Curve: Improved Pastures Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 26. MAC Curve: Efficiency of Fertilizer Use in Rice Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor
- 27. MAC Curve: Mango and Avocado Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor