Solidaridad (Colombia)

Name: Bringing Agriculture Capacity, Carbon and Knowledge to REDD+ (BACK to REDD+)
Country: Colombia
Duration: Sep-2013 to June 2016
Project Manager: Solidaridad Network
Funding: NORAD
Budget: 1,000,000 EUR –please confirm
Partners: Federacion Nacional de Cafeteros (FNC), Hanns R. Neumann Stiftung (HRNS), YARA, CENICAFE, Universidad Santa
Rosa de Cabal, Asotatama, Agrosolidaria.

Key informants: Carlos Isaza, Coffee Programme Manager for Colombia (Solidaridad), Juan Manuel Cornejo, Consultant
(Solidaridad), members of staff of the FNC of Risaralda.
Farmer interview and FGD: Focus Group (x1), 2 farmer interviews

[photo] The region where the project is being implemented is located in the Cauca River's largest basin at 1400 masl. The
project zone is influenced by the weather phenomena “El Niño” and “La Niña.” In 2015-16 “El Niño” was equally, if not
stronger, than the 1997-98 episode. The project aimed to reach 4,564 famrers in the following municipalities involved:
Balboa, La Celia, Santuario, Apia, Mistrató, Guática, Pereira, Marsella, Belén De Umbría and El Águila.

“We heard about climate change before but we thought we were far from it because we are on the mountains, we thought
it would only affect the coastal areas”, Coffee farmer in La Celia, Risaralda

Project Design

The project was designed in response to the call from NORAD by Solidaridad Network (NL) and based on a regional
proposal submitted by Solidariad - South America. The final agreed proposal was accepted for three countries: Colombia,
Mexico and Peru. In Colombia (focus of the case study), the project design was elaborated taken into account some ideas
and recommendations from the National Growers Federation (Federacion National de Cafeteros) and HR Neumaan
Stiftung (HRNS), as these organisation were already involved in the area bordering the Tatama National Park, in the
department of Risaralda.

Project partners identified andSolidaridad prioritised this area because it is prone to deforestation, its proximity to the
national park, the increasing pressure on natural resources and its importance as a hotspot of biodiversity. It is also a zone
that was not accessible before for public order (guerrillas) reasons. The area is very exposed to the Pacific Ocean winds,
and the coffee farms under 1,400 masl are very affected by a drier micro-climate and are more vulnerable to extreme
climate events (e.g. El Nino) and to climate change in genera - Did Solidaridad collect (literature review) or triangulate
climate change data at any point in this project?

The project’s desired impact is: the adoption of Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) will make farming systems more
productive and resilient thereby guaranteeing supply of commodities for future generations to come. Forest conversion
will not be necessary to meet future demand for coffee. Farmers’ livelihoods are improved, food security is enhanced and
poverty is reduced.

The project is structured around three components or outcomes:

A. Demonstration projects – building carbon stock while increasing productivity and resilience

B. Training of trainers and learning – building capacity stock

C. Informing tool development, carbon and agricultural standards, and REDD+ strategies – building knowledge stock

Indicators of the Outcome A focused on i) increased productivity (30%), ii) reduction of Co2 emissions (30%), iii) increase in
revenue (8%) and iv) reduction of cost of production (5%) (Do you want to mention these last two indicators as they do not
appear in the table (logical framework) of the initial proposal to NORAD?) and i) number of technical staff trained under
and ii) learning material produced under Outcome B.

Shall we add indicators on component C even though you told me you didn’t work on them in Colombia?

Whilst the costs of transitioning to CSA is initially financed by grants, new revenue streams are developed to share the
costs along the value chain (as additional premium payment or a carbon credits sales), and potentially outside the value
chain in the carbon marketer payments for adaptation – do you have more results on this component now?

Project implementation
 1. Identification of partners and synergies. Six months spent in scanning the landscape of organisations and
potentially complimentary projects and identifying matching activities.
2. Selection of beneficiaries (N=970). The FNC and HRNS suggested a selection of target population using their
own database of farmers and agreed criteria (size of farms, altitude, attendance to training …etc.)
3. Baseline survey on sustainability and carbon footprint amongst a sample of farmers (n=80) through farm
visit and interview with farmers using Cool Farm Tools and a questionnaire focused on sustainability
parameters (e.g. soil management, natural resources management, productivity, wellbeing of family and
workers…etc.)
4. Identification of key CSA practices to focus on: 1) planting trees for shade, 2) improved fertilisation through
soil analysis and fertilisation plan, 3) composting pulp, 4) soil management (weed management to allow
ground cover) and 4) water usage in post- harvest.
5. Training of technicians (FNC & HRNS) on extension methodologies and change management. Technicians
were encourage to take a role of facilitator (triggering discussion/experimentation) more than educator
(delivering information) as well as design and deliver new activities that are didactic, ludic and engaging.
These included team games (see box), a mobile muppet theatre and other interactive workshops ideas for
which each municipality received a kit pack.
6. Training of farmers through various format: i) Field Day (several technicians for 100-200 farmers split in
different stations/workshops on the same farm), ii) Group training (one technician for 15-20 farmers, trained
on a specific theme through 4 workshops per year),iii) Individual farm visit, iv) Exchange visits between
municipality and v), Demonstration of practices or technologies developed by CENICAFE and/or HRNS (e.g.
selective weed sprayer).
7. Demonstration Farms (=970) who received inputs (tree seedlings, selective weed sprayer, material for
construction of compost shed) and regular technical advice and follow up.
8. Rotating fund for small loans in investment in farm inputs (in two cooperatives: AssoTatama and
Agrosolidariad)
9. Developing training materials and virtual courses on change management (http://www.agrolearning.com/)
10. Inform Solidaridad Network (NL) to improve industry standards (GOLD Standard and Rainforest Alliance
Climate Module)

The approach in the project is to work first at the technical staff level (FNC, HRNS, YARA) on accompanying change and
thinking differently about extension service. The topics (CSA practices and/or technologies) inside the project were agreed
by CENICAFE and partners.

“We have defined that there are three key roles of technicians. The first is the interaction with farmers. Trying to establish
trust, develop a relationship, and gain respect. He/she is not a source of science. The second is to propose a methodology
that maintain farmers’ initial enthusiasm and actively engaged. We want people to smile. The third one is to develop the
content. That is the ‘thread’. We always start with a question, not an answer.” Carlos Isaza, Solidaridad.

[Photo] Team games– for young and adults – based on carbon emissions, capture and other climate adaptation strategies
are a great tool to engage farmers in a fun way before practising CSA in the field.

This new approach was proposed to the FNC and HRNS technicians, implementers in the project, to discuss the content of
the CSA practices. This methodology and the focus on carbon emissions and climate change adaptation was new to most
technicians.

“The extension methods we learned in university here, but I think it is the same in the rest of the world, it is through
individual visits and this is standardise in our extension service for quality control, certification… But with the project we
introduced the fun part, the entertainment. When we stimulate the creative part of the brain people remember better
what they learned or did. We may have delivered a thousand times the same workshop but with the new methodology
people are involved, engaged and interact. It is different from listening to one who knows. This entertainment part isf
crucial.” Ruben, FNC, Coordinator for Risaralda District

The selected CSA the most emphasised were tree planting (Guada sp, Inga sp and Cordia sp.), smart fertilisation plan
(based on soil analysis) and soil management through weed control to improve ground cover. The latter used a ‘selective
sprayer’ to suppress aggressive weeds, instead of a blanket application of herbicides, therefore preserving ground cover to
help control soil erosion and improve water infiltration and retention.

“For example, how do I manage the soil on this land? We proposed an exercise/activity (e.g. try to measure the amount of
soil you can lose during the rainy season using a ‘simulation box’ (mock-up of different soil cover from which we can collect
run off) – please provide photo [Photo]. It is like the game and the connection with realty. We observe, analyse the results
and discuss as a group. Why are we losing in this system and not in this one? Manuel, Solidaridad Consultant
The demonstration plots were the hub for learning and technicians focused on establishing and following up these farms
on production (productivity, cost of production) and carbon emission reduction. The pilot farms received inputs (selective
sprayer, material for compost platform, tree seedling) and intensive technical assistance.

Project Evaluation

A baseline was conducted at the beginning of the project including practices and GHG data collection. Most of the
emissions come from applying fertilizers which account for 2.8 tCO₂eq/ha - It wasn’t clear in the report if this is the total
emissions or the fertiliser part. Could you please clarify?

The principal carbon reserves on these farms are the coffee stand and the trees planted. This contributes 10,3Mt of
captured CO2eq. The project, instead of looking at adding a certification for carbon credits, has integrated the coffee
families to the project BANCO2 (http://banco2.com/v2) a regional initiative that channelled >700,000 pesos (please
confirm, it seems very low!) of private investment from a local electrical company. Suggestions on the improvements of the
Cool Farm tool v2.0_beta3.1 were submitted to take into considerations different waste management scenarios – Do you
have the data on reduced emissions by end of the project? (target was of - 30%)

970 pilot farms were set up with the help of the FNC technical staff (inc. 290 ran by women) which represents 2,612 ha.
7886 farmers have participated in the CSA trainings and are implementing measures - 100 %o of them and what are the
evidence of adoption of CSA measures to the population size?

In total 720 hectares of the coffee land was converted to agroforestry systems and over 1,500 ha of existing agroforestry
systems improved though shade management, renovation and soil management. Another key practice to reduce soil
erosion, with the end of reducing emissions, is the integrated management of weeds. 834 selective herbicide sprayer were
distributed.

“I love a lot our Mother Earth and weed management is something we were taught in a group. We used a lot the fumigator
before to control weeds. But Solidaridad gave us a ‘selector’ to avoid fumigate as much everywhere and spray only certain
weed.” Gloria Ines Betancur

Two indicators of the project were difficult to measure: increase in yields and resilience (“Climate resilient farms: long term
yields have stabilized above poverty levels”) because they don’t fit within the timeframe of the project (3 years). Although
some feedback from farmers seems encouraging and show the process has started.

“We are better prepared to climate change, but we need to plant more trees. We are also the smallest [coffee farmers] but
those who burns are the big ones. ” Francisco Selazar Gomes

“We have understood that by planting trees we could protect the soil and maintain the humidity in the soil” Maria Lucerito
Martinez

“Solidaridad gave us a lot of knowledge through this project” Gonzalo Betancur Noreña

“Others don’t have a black soil [top soil] because they don’t have trees. I have a vision: that coffee growing would be
‘clean’. That we put the environment before ourselves. Maybe we should force people to plant trees? Imagine the whole
planet covered by trees” Orlando de Jesus Castaneda Ramirez

“I observe the winds, and find the weak spot on my farm and plant trees there. I have managed to reduce coffee berry
borer (broca) by changing the environment, but other farmers without this way of thinking, go mad and start spraying
everywhere when they see broca. Before it seems to me that pest and diseases were not so harmful because people were
used to work with natural cycles. All in due time”, Andres Nieto Rojas

Key M& Facts

• 120 field staff from FNC and HRNS trained

• Training materials and virtual courses produced and publihsed online
• 720 ha of agroforestry and 1,500 ha improved shade management in renovation plots
• 9,471 tree seedlings were distributed
• 7886 farmers reached CSA training and are implementing measures
• 970 pilot farms set up and running
This table below will be part of the Comparative Analysis section of the report, alongside the 3 other case studies:

Project Design Project Implementation Project Evaluation

Colombia • The initial proposal for Colombia
was already a concerted efforts
between three organisations
that led to the identification and
synergies in terms of
geographical area
• The project was designed under
the specific requirements of the
donor for a specific grant (under
REDD+ projects)
• The logical framework was
based on three components
(Farming, Capacity Building and
Industry Standards) and the
M&E (mainly oriented on the
component A in Colombia) is
results based and focused on
adoption of practices leading to
increase or decrease in
profitability and reduction of
emissions.
• Multiple indicators are used in
each component (A, B, C) and
are linked to activities. Each
activity, as a different output
and outcome.
• The communities were involved
after the project design phase
• Carlos: “If I had the opportunity
to change something, ideally I
would like to build the proposal
with communities. Communities
perceived different priorities as
donors or different approach. It
is really important to take into
account their real necessities,
challenges and hopes”
• The first phase of coordination
and identification of synergies
with other organisations albeit
time consuming is an excellent
way of not duplicating projects,
and creating a spiral of
competition between
implementers, in the same zone.
• The change management
approach and capacity building
of local technical assistance
personnel has introduced a
change of paradigm and a more
engaging activities for coffee
families. This has changed the
way technicians see their work
and is a very innovative
approach to extension.
• The pilot farms are a good way
of introducing change and
showcasing new
methods/technologies but the
‘multiplication activities’ (or spill
over effect) is uncertain and left
in the hands of lead farmers.
• The rotating fund was managed
by cooperatives with limited
management capacity and
proved to be difficult in reaching
out to all farmers.
• Carbon emissions were
measured with the Cool Farm
tools and were a good way to
identify emissions sources but
the tool needs improvements to
adapt to coffee and small holder
in general.
• This three year project
effectively started after the
lengthy, yet necessary, phase of
consultation and coordination at
regional level, thus shortening
the implementation phase to 2
years. It is therefore difficult in
this context to evaluate
outcomes.
• The logical framework is mainly
based on outputs and is able to
show results in terms of area in
agroforestry, number of demo
plots and farmers trained, but
the project duration make it
difficult to show reliable results
on production (increase in
production should be measure
over a period of 5 years at least)
or resilience over that period of
time.
• Resilience is the overall aim of
the project but appears as an
indicator in the logframe and is
not measured in the project
evaluation.
• The project in a short time, and
outside carbon credit
certification schemes, has
managed to create new revenue
streams for coffee farmers
through the regional initiative
BanCO2.
• Qualitative results such as the
feedback from the FNC staff and
farmers show that the process
of change in mentality has
started but the process will
require more time and
resources focus in the same
area. SMART indicators should
be developed to monitor this
change.

This table below will be part of the Lessons Learned section of the report, alongside the 3 other case studies:

Colombia
• Spending time to coordinate with other stakeholders should be factored in the project duration and interventions.
• There is a need to involved management level of organisations or cooperatives in climate project, because one might have an
impact on technical staff and make a small change but if the organisation a whole and its senior management team is not involved
the change might fade away or be reversed by other directions from the top.
• It is an advantage of being part of a producer organisation (i.e. cooperative). In Colombia every producers is part of the FNC so
there is little incentive to be part of another structure. But in terms of access to finance (e.g. loans from the project) and markets
(relation with buyers and potential investments) the cooperative can have provide better services.
• During the first years of the project, improvements in reducing carbon footprint are few. Only after five years are substantial
improvements made and significant amounts captured.
• The carbon market is more complex than anticipated and it not so promising as the price of the tonne of carbon is low. Coffee
project doesn’t seem to be priority compared to other carbon projects or crops (e.g. rice). It is difficult to identify a roaster or
someone in the coffee chain that is interests in investing. Different mechanisms need to be invented.
• Communities are more inclined to work on adaptation than mitigation. Most of them are conscious that the problem of climate
change is generated by other people in other parts of the world.
• Using appropriate fertilization plans it is possible to reduce the carbon footprint caused by fertilization, which is the practice in the
production process that causes the most carbon emissions.
• Projects that incorporate trees are long-term (> 15 years) and the results many times are not visible in the first years of
implementation. Three years in a CSA is not enough time to prove some hypothesis to show an impact we need at least 5 years.