Ciniro Costa Jr., climate & food systems specialist at the Alliance of Bioversity & CIAT, shared learnings from the Livestock Carbon Project in Colombia and measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) lessons for scaling. C. Costa Jr. presented "Livestock Carbon Project: the case in Colombia and MRV learnings to scale," on 16 March 2023.

1. Livestock Carbon Project: the
case in Colombia and MRV
learnings to scale
Ciniro Costa Jr
Climate and Food System Specialist

2. "Science and innovation that advances transformation of
food, land and water systems in a climate crises"
15 top-class Research Centers
CGIAR’s global network of 15 Research
Centers contributes to an unrivalled mix of
knowledge, skills, and research facilities able to
respond to emerging development issues.
89 countries
We have a local presence in 89 countries with a
deep knowledge of customs, values, and market
operations in developing countries.
50 years experience
A wealth of experience and knowledge spanning 50
years that builds on a track-record of innovation
and world-class research
3,000+ partners
Unequalled partnerships network of more than
3,000 partners from national governments,
academic institutions, global policy bodies,
private companies and NGOs.
The CGIAR

3. Maximizing impact investing through science-based data
Costa Jr et al. (in review)
Global Mitigation and Adaptation Hotspots
Asia has the largest mitigation and
adaptation potential globally
Improved livestock feeding and
rice/soil/crop management,
are key practices to unlock the mitigation
and adaptation potential along with
other socio-environmental co-benefits in
the region.
India, China and Southeast Asia
countries are key location for climate
mitigation and adaptation investments

4. Livestock has the highest mitigation potential with the implementation of
best practices (~5 Billion t CO2e/y) – essential to meet global climate targets
Scenarios by 2050
Higher production efficiency
BAU - 2050
Today
Maize
Beef
Rice
Dairy
Costa Jr et al., 2022
• Improved animal feeding and breeding
• Recover degraded lands

5. Case Study of Hacienda San José in Colombia: Sustainable beef cattle production
www.cgiar.org
Carbon Footprint: -13.9 kg CO2eq kg-1 LW
Improved animal and
pasture management
• HSJ has been implemented 7,000 ha of CIAT improved grasslands - expansion plan covers 180,000 ha
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/121105
Colombia’s new
agricultural frontier
Holistic sustainability:
• Society: consultation with native communities,
payment of fair wages, contributions to community
welfare (education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.)
• Economy: formalization of labor, financially
competitive returns, resource maximization
• Environment: animal welfare, landscape preservation,
protection of flora and fauna

6. Implementation of improved forages developed by CIAT has been a solution
for carbon sequestration and emission reduction from livestock systems
• Improved forages (and livestock practices) could also be used to engage livestock systems in voluntary
carbon markets and attract finance for scaling

7. The HSJ package of interventions complies with C project
standards applicability conditions (such as Verra-VM 0042)
• The project must implement new change(s) to the pre-existing agricultural
management activities. For example::
a. Reduction in fertilizer application,
b. Improvement of water management,
c. Improvement of residue management.
d. Reduce tillage
e. Improve crop planting and harvesting
f. Improved grazing practices
• The project activities must be implemented on either grassland or
cropland at the start of the project and remain grassland or cropland
through the project crediting period.
• No native ecosystems (forest or other) are or have been cleared for
agricultural purposes within the past ten years.
• The project activity cannot occur on wetlands.

8. Estimating C-credits potential: sources and sinks to be monitored
EMISSION SOURCE Emissions
baseline
(tCO2e/year)
Emissions
project
(tCO2e/year)
Net carbon
benefits
(tCO2e/year)
Soil organic carbon 0 -50,442 50,442
Fossil fuels 0 20 -20
Soil Methanogenesis 0 0 0
Enteric fermentation 688 11,703 -11,015
Manure deposition 79 1,337 -1,258
Use of nitrogen fertilizers 0 28 -28
Use of N-fixing species 0 0 0
Biomass burning 1,908 0 -1,908
Woody biomass 0 - 406 406
TOTAL (~7,000 ha) 2,675 -37,760 40,435
C-Credits / ha / y (tCO2e/ha/y)
(Buffer 20%)
4.62
C-Credits - Scaling phase 180,000 ha
(MtCO2e/y) (Buffer 20%)
0.83
Source Gas Included? Justification/Explanation
Baseline
Soil organic
carbon
CO2 Yes Quantified as carbon stock change. This is the
main carbon pool in the project
Fossil fuel
CO2 Yes Pasture improvement in the project requires the
use of agricultural machinery, which is
supposedly different from the baseline scenario.
Thus this emission source has to be included
here, too.
Soil
methanogenesis
CH4 No This can be excluded from the project. Since
temporarily water-logged soils should anyways be
excluded from the project, soil methanogenesis
on other soils is deemed de minimis.
Enteric
fermentation
CH4 Yes Livestock is present and the project anticipates
increasing their number.
Manure
deposition
CH4 Yes Livestock is present and the project anticipates
increasing their number.
N2O Yes Livestock is present and the project anticipates
to increase their number.
Use of nitrogen
fertilizers
N2O Yes The project produces silage, which may require
fertilization. So this source is also included in the
baseline.
Use of nitrogen
fixing species
N2O Yes Fabaceae species such as Arachis pintoi are
being considered for CH4 mitigation for the
project. It should be accounted in the future
project, but since this has not been implemented
yet, the emissions are 0 here.
Biomass
burning
CO2 No -
Biomass
burning
CH4 Yes Biomass burning is a common baseline practice,
which is to be ceased in the project. Its
accounting is necessary.
N2O Yes Biomass burning is a common baseline practice,
which is to be ceased in the project. Its
accounting is necessary.
Woody biomass
CO2 Yes Agroforestry or other increases in woody biomass
are likely as windbreaks, shade trees, and live
fences are planned for the project. For this
study’s calculations this value is set to 0.
roject
Soil organic
carbon
CO2 Yes Quantified as carbon stock change
VM0042 – GHG Sources and Sinks

9. How we are going to monitor Emissions of Greenhouse Gases?
Source Gas Included? Justification/Explanation
Baseline
Soil organic
carbon
CO2 Yes Quantified as carbon stock change. This is the
main carbon pool in the project
Fossil fuel
CO2 Yes Pasture improvement in the project requires the
use of agricultural machinery, which is
supposedly different from the baseline scenario.
Thus this emission source has to be included
here, too.
Soil
methanogenesis
CH4 No This can be excluded from the project. Since
temporarily water-logged soils should anyways be
excluded from the project, soil methanogenesis
on other soils is deemed de minimis.
Enteric
fermentation
CH4 Yes Livestock is present and the project anticipates
increasing their number.
Manure
deposition
CH4 Yes Livestock is present and the project anticipates
increasing their number.
N2O Yes Livestock is present and the project anticipates
to increase their number.
Use of nitrogen
fertilizers
N2O Yes The project produces silage, which may require
fertilization. So this source is also included in the
baseline.
Use of nitrogen
fixing species
N2O Yes Fabaceae species such as Arachis pintoi are
being considered for CH4 mitigation for the
project. It should be accounted in the future
project, but since this has not been implemented
yet, the emissions are 0 here.
Biomass
burning
CO2 No -
Biomass
burning
CH4 Yes Biomass burning is a common baseline practice,
which is to be ceased in the project. Its
accounting is necessary.
N2O Yes Biomass burning is a common baseline practice,
which is to be ceased in the project. Its
accounting is necessary.
Woody biomass
CO2 Yes Agroforestry or other increases in woody biomass
are likely as windbreaks, shade trees, and live
fences are planned for the project. For this
study’s calculations this value is set to 0.
Project
Soil organic
carbon
CO2 Yes Quantified as carbon stock change
Fossil fuel CO2 Yes Pasture improvement requires the use of
agricultural machinery.
Low cost system to assess farm records and feed a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
approach (Gonzales-Quintero, 2021)
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/121105

10. How we are going to monitor above-ground C-sequestration (silvopastoral)?
Source Gas Included? Justification/Explanation
Baseline
Soil organic
carbon
CO2 Yes Quantified as carbon stock change. This is the
main carbon pool in the project
Fossil fuel
CO2 Yes Pasture improvement in the project requires the
use of agricultural machinery, which is
supposedly different from the baseline scenario.
Thus this emission source has to be included
here, too.
Soil
methanogenesis
CH4 No This can be excluded from the project. Since
temporarily water-logged soils should anyways be
excluded from the project, soil methanogenesis
on other soils is deemed de minimis.
Enteric
fermentation
CH4 Yes Livestock is present and the project anticipates
increasing their number.
Manure
deposition
CH4 Yes Livestock is present and the project anticipates
increasing their number.
N2O Yes Livestock is present and the project anticipates
to increase their number.
Use of nitrogen
fertilizers
N2O Yes The project produces silage, which may require
fertilization. So this source is also included in the
baseline.
Use of nitrogen
fixing species
N2O Yes Fabaceae species such as Arachis pintoi are
being considered for CH4 mitigation for the
project. It should be accounted in the future
project, but since this has not been implemented
yet, the emissions are 0 here.
Biomass
burning
CO2 No -
Biomass
burning
CH4 Yes Biomass burning is a common baseline practice,
which is to be ceased in the project. Its
accounting is necessary.
N2O Yes Biomass burning is a common baseline practice,
which is to be ceased in the project. Its
accounting is necessary.
Woody biomass
CO2 Yes Agroforestry or other increases in woody biomass
are likely as windbreaks, shade trees, and live
fences are planned for the project. For this
study’s calculations this value is set to 0.
Project
Soil organic
carbon
CO2 Yes Quantified as carbon stock change
Fossil fuel CO2 Yes Pasture improvement requires the use of
agricultural machinery.
Prediction for Hacienda San José (segmentation
of individual trees in yellow)
Planet-Unet framework
Deep Learning with an U-Net architecture for semantic segmentation of individual
trees and tree cover in PlanetScope scenes (University of Copenhagen, LSCE, CNRS,
INRAE, and NASA).

11. How we are going to monitor Soil Carbon?
Source Gas Included? Justification/Explanation
Baseline
Soil organic
carbon
CO2 Yes Quantified as carbon stock change. This is the
main carbon pool in the project
Fossil fuel
CO2 Yes Pasture improvement in the project requires the
use of agricultural machinery, which is
supposedly different from the baseline scenario.
Thus this emission source has to be included
here, too.
Soil
methanogenesis
CH4 No This can be excluded from the project. Since
temporarily water-logged soils should anyways be
excluded from the project, soil methanogenesis
on other soils is deemed de minimis.
Enteric
fermentation
CH4 Yes Livestock is present and the project anticipates
increasing their number.
Manure
deposition
CH4 Yes Livestock is present and the project anticipates
increasing their number.
N2O Yes Livestock is present and the project anticipates
to increase their number.
Use of nitrogen
fertilizers
N2O Yes The project produces silage, which may require
fertilization. So this source is also included in the
baseline.
Use of nitrogen
fixing species
N2O Yes Fabaceae species such as Arachis pintoi are
being considered for CH4 mitigation for the
project. It should be accounted in the future
project, but since this has not been implemented
yet, the emissions are 0 here.
Biomass
burning
CO2 No -
Biomass
burning
CH4 Yes Biomass burning is a common baseline practice,
which is to be ceased in the project. Its
accounting is necessary.
N2O Yes Biomass burning is a common baseline practice,
which is to be ceased in the project. Its
accounting is necessary.
Woody biomass
CO2 Yes Agroforestry or other increases in woody biomass
are likely as windbreaks, shade trees, and live
fences are planned for the project. For this
study’s calculations this value is set to 0.
Project
Soil organic
carbon
CO2 Yes Quantified as carbon stock change
Fossil fuel CO2 Yes Pasture improvement requires the use of
agricultural machinery.
Measure and re-measure
Soil sampling
Modeling
Measure and re-measure
Radar
Satellite
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Estimated MRV Cost = ~5 USD (SOC) and ~15 USD/ha/y (SOC + GHG)
~ 20 soil samples / area
(Confidence level of 95%)

12. Estimate internal rate of return (IRR) shows profitability under a best and
medium case scenario
IRR
56% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%
-30% 56% 60% 64% 68% 71% 74% 77%
-20% 52% 56% 60% 63% 66% 69% 72%
-10% 49% 53% 56% 60% 63% 65% 68%
0% 46% 50% 53% 56% 59% 62% 65%
10% 43% 47% 50% 53% 56% 59% 61%
20% 41% 44% 48% 51% 54% 56% 59%
30% 39% 42% 45% 48% 51% 54% 56%
Carbon credit price
Expenses
IRR
16% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%
-30% 16% 19% 21% 23% 25% 27% 29%
-20% 13% 16% 18% 20% 22% 24% 26%
-10% 11% 14% 16% 18% 20% 22% 24%
0% 9% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 21%
10% 7% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 19%
20% 6% 8% 11% 13% 14% 16% 18%
30% 4% 7% 9% 11% 13% 14% 16%
Carbon credit price
Expenses
Best case Medium case

13. The Alliance is willing to promote livestock carbon projects globally
as a financial mechanism to scale climate mitigation (and looking
forward to collaborations!)

14. Thank you!
c.costajr@cgiar.org