Towards Resilient and Low-Emission Agriculture: A Review of Climate-Change Policy Instruments for Colombia’s Agricultural Sector December 19, 2025 Knowledge product - Report P a g e 1 | 34 Towards Resilient and Low-Emission Agriculture: A Review of Climate-Change Policy Instruments for Colombia’s Agricultural Sector December 19, 2025 Report Acknowledgments This work was undertaken as part of the CGIAR Scaling for Impact (S4I) Program. We gratefully acknowledge the support and funding provided by the CGIAR Trust Fund. We extend our sincere appreciation to our partners, stakeholders, and collaborators whose expertise, insights, and commitment have contributed significantly to shaping this work. Their contributions have been instrumental in advancing CGIAR’s ambition to scale proven innovations across food, land, and water systems, fostering impact that is inclusive, sustainable, and transformative. We also recognize the continued support and collaboration of national and regional partners, whose engagement ensures that the solutions developed are responsive to local needs, strengthen innovation systems, and contribute to building more resilient agrifood systems. We also thank the Science Editing Unit of the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT for copyediting of this report. To learn more about CGIAR Scaling for Impact (S4I) program, please contact: scaling@cgiar.org About CGIAR Scaling for Impact (S4I) program Scaling for Impact (S4I) is a CGIAR Program (2025–2030) that tests, refines, and scales innovations in food, land, and water systems. It works to align those innovations with stakeholder needs to achieve transformative impact. Website: https://www.cgiar.org/cgiar-research-porfolio-2025-2030/scaling-for-impact/ About CGIAR CGIAR is a global research partnership for a food secure future. Visit https://www.cgiar.org/research/cgiar-portfolio to learn more about the initiatives in the CGIAR research portfolio https://www.cgiar.org/cgiar-research-porfolio-2025-2030/scaling-for-impact/ https://www.cgiar.org/research/cgiar-portfolio P a g e 3 | 34 © 2025 CGIAR System Organization. This publication is licensed for use under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). To view this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0. AUTHORS Rivas, Juan Sebastian – Alliance Bioversity International and CIAT Martínez-Barón, Deissy – Alliance Bioversity International and CIAT Castellanos, Andrea – Alliance Bioversity International and CIAT SUGGESTED CITATION Rivas, J.S., Martínez-Barón, D., & Castellanos, A. 2025. Towards Resilient and Low- Emission Agriculture: A Review of Climate-Change Policy Instruments for Colombia’s Agricultural Sector. Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT. PHOTOS © CGIAR / Arce, Daniela DESIGNED BY Arce, Daniela Urdinola, Jaime https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations 5 Executive Summary 7 1. Context and Rationale 8 2. Study Objectives 9 3. Methodology 10 4. Policy Landscape and Alignment 12 5. Institutional Programs and their Role 14 6. Political and Financial Commitment 15 7. Results 16 7.1. Overview of policies and programs analyzed 16 7.2 NDC targets for agriculture and sectoral non‑NDC targets 17 7.3 Alignment between NDC and non-NDC targets 18 7.4 NDC progress reporting in Colombia’s BTR 2024 19 7.5 Missing elements and areas to be strengthened in the NDC targets (GAP Analysis) 20 8. Opportunities for Contributing to Targets through the Scaling of Proven Innovations 22 9. Conclusions 26 10. Annexes 28 Annex 1. Excel file with Inventory of Active Climate-Relevant Policies in Colombia 28 Annex 2. Excel file with Inventory of Active Climate-Relevant Programs, Plans, and Projects in Colombia 28 Annex 3. Matrix of National Targets (Attached Excel) 29 Annex 4. Notes – Matrix of National Targets 29 Annex 5. Summary of NDC 2020 Targets 30 References 32 P a g e 5 | 34 Acronyms and Abbreviations AFOLU – Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use AWM – Adjusted Water Management BTR – Biennial Transparency Report CGIAR – Global research partnership for a food-secure future CIAT – International Center for Tropical Agriculture CONPES – National Council for Economic and Social Policy CGF – Financial Management Committee DANE – National Administrative Department of Statistics DNP – National Planning Department E2050 – Carbon Neutrality Long-Term Climate Strategy of Colombia ECDBC – Colombian Low-Carbon and Climate-Resilient Development Strategy ECLAC – Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean ENFC – National Climate Finance Strategy FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GANSO – Livestock Sustainability Assurance System GDP – Gross Domestic Product GHG – Greenhouse Gas IDB – Inter American Development Bank IFAD – International Fund for Agricultural Development IDEAM – Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change LTAC – Local Technical Agroclimatic Committee MADR – Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MADS – Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development MSME – micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprise MRV – Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification NAMA – Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action NDC – Nationally Determined Contribution PECTIA – Strategic Plan for Science, Technology, and Innovation in Agriculture PIGCCS – Sectoral Climate Change Management Plan for Agriculture and Rural Development PNACC – National Climate Change Adaptation Plan PNCC – National Climate Change Policy PND – National Development Plan REDD+ – Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation SISCLIMA – National Climate Change System tCO₂e – Tons of carbon dioxide equivalent UMATA – Municipal Extension Services UNFCCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UPA – Agricultural Production Unit P a g e 7 | 34 Towards Resilient and Low-Emission Agriculture: A Review of Climate-Change Policy Instruments for Colombia’s Agricultural Sector Executive Summary Climate change poses one of the greatest challenges to rural development and food security in Colombia. The agricultural sector, which supports over 25% of the rural population and contributes nearly 10% of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP), faces increasingly severe impacts from climatic events such as La Niña (2021–2023), which affected more than 1.2 million hectares and caused losses exceeding USD 300 million (DANE, 2023; Fondo Adaptación & PNUD, 2024; World Bank, 2025). This context highlights the urgency of strengthening public policies and investing in a more resilient and low-emission agriculture. To this end, this report analyzes the coherence and alignment among national climate-change policies, programs, and commitments, particularly Colombia´s agricultural targets under its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC 2020), and the opportunities offered by the CGIAR innovation portfolio to support their achievement. Through a structured content and gap analysis, 30 national instruments (15 policies and 15 programs) were reviewed, distinguishing between the 11 official agricultural NDC targets and a broader set of sectoral targets embedded in policies and programs. From this sphere, 101 goals directly linked to climate adaptation and mitigation in the agricultural sector were identified in these sectoral instruments, providing a detailed view of how climate action is being operationalized beyond the NDC text. The review reveals that Colombia has a solid regulatory framework and a broad institutional architecture for climate action, but still faces operational gaps that limit policy effectiveness. In relation to adaptation, the lack of indicators and monitoring mechanisms hampers progress tracking; in mitigation, the absence of clear implementation pathways and robust Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) systems constrains Colombia’s ability to track and demonstrate results. In practice, the 11 agricultural NDC targets are supported by multisectoral policies and programs, but critical elements for implementation, traceability, and verification remain incomplete or only weakly developed. When these gaps were compared with CGIAR’s innovation portfolio—assessed in terms of maturity and scaling potential—several ready-to-implement solutions were identified. Among the most relevant are: • Digital agroclimatic tools, such as the Agroclimatic Bulletins through public systems and the Agvisely Climate Advisory Tool, which strengthen information management and the operation of Local Technical Agroclimatic Committees (LTACs). • Sustainable livestock models, the GANSO Guarantee, and other monitoring frameworks, enhance traceability and certification within the Livestock Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA). • Mitigation practices and technologies for rice, including low-carbon hybrid varieties and efficient water and methane management, aligned with the targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction. These innovations serve as a bridge between scientific evidence and policy implementation, helping to close implementation gaps for achieving national targets. By identifying these ready-to-scale innovations and linking them to specific policy gaps, this report provides a practical framework for bridging the divide between Colombia’s climate ambitions and its operational reality. Ultimately, the study reaffirms that leveraging validated scientific evidence and scalable technologies is essential for translating the country’s robust regulatory framework into measurable and lasting climate outcomes on the ground. https://reporting.cgiar.org/reports/result-details/5191?phase=4 https://reporting.cgiar.org/reports/result-details/5194?phase=4 https://reporting.cgiar.org/reports/result-details/14773?phase=4 https://reporting.cgiar.org/reports/result-details/1296?phase=4 https://reporting.cgiar.org/reports/result-details/9410?phase=4 https://reporting.cgiar.org/reports/result-details/14352?phase=4 https://reporting.cgiar.org/reports/result-details/5195?phase=4 https://reporting.cgiar.org/reports/result-details/5195?phase=4 1. Context and Rationale This report is situated within the CGIAR Scaling for Impact (S4I) Program, specifically under Work Area 1: Engage and Empower, which examines the research and scaling demands of CGIAR’s partners and seeks to improve the alignment of their priorities with CGIAR’s portfolio-wide objectives. As an initial effort under this work area, inventories of active public policies and institutional programs were developed across ten priority countries (including Colombia) to identify instruments directly linked to CGIAR’s five impact areas: (i) Climate change adaptation and mitigation; (ii) Environmental health and biodiversity; (iii) Nutrition, health, and food security; (iv) Poverty reduction, livelihoods, and jobs; and (v) Gender equality, youth, and social inclusion. Given the climate challenges faced by Colombia, detailed below, this report focuses its analysis on the impact area of Climate change adaptation and mitigation for the agricultural sector. The agricultural sector plays a strategic role in Colombia’s economy and social fabric. On the one hand, 26.4% of Colombians aged 15 and over (equivalent to about 10.2 million people) self-identify as peasants (DANE, 2023). Of these, 53.7% are aged 41–64 or older than 65 (DANE, 2023), indicating a rapidly aging rural population (DANE, 2025). Within this group, 45.2% engage in agriculture, livestock, forestry, hunting, or fishing activities (DANE, 2023). On the other hand, in 2024, agriculture, forestry, and fishing contributed approximately 9.3% of the national GDP, gradually recovering from a downward trend that reached a low of 5.4% in 2013–2014 (World Bank, 2025). In this context, family farming plays a crucial role in food supply, contributing 35.3% of root and tuber production and 22.8% of total agricultural production units (UPAs) (FAO et al., 2022). Despite this diversity and production capacity, more than half of households (54.2%) experience some degree of food insecurity, and food accounts for 15.9% of monthly household spending, making income shocks and poverty major barriers to accessing healthy diets (FAO et al., 2022). Meanwhile, consumption of sugar, sweetened beverages, and ultra-processed foods has increased, with 37.7% of adults overweight and 18.7% obese (Minsalud, 2021). In terms of climate vulnerability, Colombia and its agricultural sector have proven highly exposed, suffering significant impacts over the past 15 years. The 2010–2011 La Niña phenomenon caused one of the country’s worst recent climate crises, with over 1.6 million hectares affected by floods and landslides, causing direct losses to agricultural and livestock production, according to a joint assessment by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Colombia’s National Planning Department (DNP), and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) (CEPAL et al., 2012). Over 3 million people were affected, and the economic losses highlighted the sector’s fragility in the face of extreme climate events. More recently, the 2021–2023 La Niña affected over 1.2 million hectares of farmland, with estimated losses in the agricultural sector exceeding ≈USD 300 million1, affecting key crops such as coffee, maize, and rice, as well as livestock production (Fondo Adaptación & PNUD, 2024). Around 500,000 families, 85% of them rural, were affected, suffering damage to their homes and loss of access to public services, underscoring the sector´s persistent vulnerability and the urgent need to strengthen risk management and climate adaptation (Fondo Adaptación & PNUD, 2024). These events highlight the high sensitivity of the agricultural sector to climate variability, amplified by the concentration of production in vulnerable areas and the limited capacity of smallholders to implement adaptation measures. Indeed, projections in Colombia’s Second Biennial Update Report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2018) indicated that, if current trends persist, climate variability could reduce productivity in key crops such as rice, maize, and coffee by 7– 10% by 2030 (IDEAM et al., 2018). Beyond extreme events, changing climate patterns affect production systems in distinct ways. For example, climate change may negatively impact coffee, rice, and sugarcane, while potentially increasing oil palm and maize yields, underscoring the need to reorient land use and promote agro-industrial technologies for adaptation (Forero & González, 2020). Recent evidence confirms that agriculture and livestock remain highly vulnerable, and that losses linked to declining productivity demand urgent policy attention (DNP & KPMG, 2020; Forero & González, 2020; DNP, 2022). 1 Monetary figures are reported in their original currency (COP) and converted to USD using the average exchange rate for the relevant year(s). P a g e 9 | 34 Under its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), Colombia recognizes the agricultural sector as one of its most climate-vulnerable sectors, and has committed to advancing climate-smart agriculture, ecosystem restoration, and climate risk management in priority watersheds (MADS, 2020). However, overlapping institutional mandates, misalignment between levels of government, and the coexistence of multiple programs with non-interoperable monitoring mechanisms have limited their effective implementation (CEPAL et al., 2012; DNP, 2011; Fondo Adaptación & PNUD, 2024). In this context, the NDC serves as the central analytical axis for three main reasons: 1. It concentrates the political and technical consensus on what must be achieved in adaptation and mitigation, with quantifiable targets and timeframes that guide the prioritization of interventions and budgets. The NDC aligns Colombia’s principal climate-policy instruments (PNACC, sectoral plans, land-use and risk management instruments) and defines key areas of action for agriculture: reducing Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector emissions, managing climate risk, and restoring or sustainably using strategic ecosystems (MADS, 2020). 2. It provides a reference framework for public institutions, subnational governments, and international cooperation to align investments, monitoring, and accountability, facilitating the consistent tracking of progress and identification of gaps, and helping determine the required scale of ambition. 3. It establishes a shared language linking science, innovation, and public policy, enabling coordination and collective action toward common goals. Building on this rationale, focusing the analysis on the NDC enables the identification of implementation gaps and bottlenecks where CGIAR innovations can add distinctive value. In mitigation, the leadership of the AFOLU sector, which is responsible for 71% of historical emissions, indicates strong potential for low-emission technologies and practices such as silvopastoral systems, agroforestry, soil and carbon management, nitrogen efficiency, and reduced enteric emissions (IDEAM et al., 2017). In adaptation, the frequency and severity of events such as La Niña (2010–2011 and 2021–2023), combined with projected yield declines in strategic crops, call for context-specific climate-smart packages such as stress-tolerant varieties, efficient irrigation and watershed management, agroclimatic insurance, climate information services, and digital extension targeting smallholders (CEPAL et al., 2012; Fondo Adaptación & PNUD, 2024; IDEAM et al., 2018). In both dimensions—mitigation and adaptation—the CGIAR Scaling for Impact Program (S4I) can accelerate adoption by combining applied scientific evidence, pilot-scale demonstrations, linkages with public instruments, and MRV schemes that connect productive outcomes with climate outcomes. By anchoring the climate-policy analysis in the NDC, this document aims to identify concrete and scalable innovations that contribute to closing policy and implementation gaps in Colombia’s agrifood sector. 2. Study Objectives The objective of this report is to identify opportunities for greater alignment and coherence between Colombia’s climate-change policies and programs targeting the agricultural sector, in line with national priorities and the CGIAR agenda (CGIAR, 2024). Specifically, the document aims to: • Review and systematize the main national policies, programs, and institutional instruments related to climate-change adaptation and mitigation in Colombia’s agricultural sector. • Identify synergies, overlaps, and gaps in the articulation between Colombia’s national NDC commitments and other relevant instruments. • Identify and highlight opportunities for CGIAR to contribute through evidence, innovations, and partnerships that support scaling efforts aligned with Colombia’s climate priorities. • Propose recommendations to strengthen policy coherence, mobilize investments, and enhance local and regional capacities for adaptation and mitigation in the agricultural sector. Study research questions: • What adaptation and mitigation goals and commitments has Colombia made for its agricultural sector, and how are these reflected in its national policies and strategies? • What specific adaptation and mitigation programs and instruments are being implemented in the agricultural sector, and how do they contribute to achieving these goals? • How does CGIAR's work align with Colombia’s agrisector policies? • How could the design of scaling pathways, supported by CGIAR, help accelerate the climate transformation in Colombia’s agricultural sector? 3. Methodology To address this study’s objectives and research questions, an analysis was conducted using a structured seven-stage process that combined Content Analysis and Gap Analysis methodologies. Figure 1 provides a visual overview of the information extraction and analysis process applied in this study. Figure 1 Stages of information extraction and analysis applied in this study. BTR: Biennial Transparency Report (Source: Authors’ elaboration). Stage 1 consisted of compiling and reviewing inventories of active national policies and programs linked to CGIAR’s five impact areas. These inventories were developed following the analytical methodological framework adapted from Nandi et al. (2023, 2024) (Figure 2) and include only national public policies and active institutional programs directly related to the impact areas. S1 – Inventory development S2 – Target Identification S3 – Target Alignment with NDC S4 – BTR progress results S5 – Gap Analysis S6 – Available CGIAR Innovations S7 – Scaling-up recommendations P a g e 11 | 34 Figure 2 Analytical framework elucidating the inventory and analysis of CGIAR impact area-related policies and institutional programs in priority countries. (Source: Adapted from Nandi et al. (2024)). As mentioned earlier, and in line with the purpose of the Climate Action Area of the Alliance Bioversity– CIAT, which aims to generate research on climate-change mitigation and adaptation for equitable peace, resilience, and food security (Alianza Bioversity-CIAT, n.d.), this report focuses on CGIAR’s Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Impact Area. For this analysis, 15 Colombian policies and 15 institutional programs were identified as relevant and used as the analytical baseline. Stage 2 involved extracting climate-change adaptation and mitigation targets in the agricultural sector from Krippendorff’s (2019) theory. This was accomplished by using the explicit NDC targets, commitments, and lines of action related to agricultural adaptation and mitigation in the reviewed documents as the unit of analysis. Extraction was carried out manually, identifying and recording the climate-related targets for the agricultural sector in a matrix, along with relevant contextual information. Subsequently, categories were created to classify targets by type, nature, thematic axis, measurement unit, compliance horizon, and responsible entity. The rationale and detailed description of these categories are presented in Annex 4. Notes – Matrix of National Targets. In Stage 3, NDC targets were identified and separated from the overall set of extracted targets. These NDC targets were then used as the reference criterion to assess the degree of alignment between the targets of other instruments and those of the NDC. Four alignment levels were defined: • Direct (clearly contributes) • Indirect (weak relationship) • Same target (adopts the NDC target verbatim) • Strengthens (broadens the ambition of the NDC target). Stage 4 consisted of reviewing Colombia’s Biennial Transparency Report (BTR) (2024), the official instrument for monitoring national climate commitments under the UNFCCC, with the objective of identifying the progress reported therein on NDC targets for the agricultural sector. From Stage 5 onward, the analysis aimed to identify missing elements and areas to be strengthened to achieve the NDC targets, and subsequently map CGIAR innovations with scaling potential to address these needs. To this end, an adaptation of the classical Gap Analysis model was applied, whereby: • The desired future state corresponded to the 2020 NDC targets and commitments (Stage 3). • The current state corresponded to the progress reported in the 2024 BTR (Stage 4). Comparing these two dimensions enabled us to identify: • Missing elements: aspects that are not covered or are only weakly reflected in the existing instruments and implementation (e.g., absence of indicators, methodological tools, or institutional mechanisms). • Areas to strengthen: aspects where targets and actions exist, but available evidence on their implementation, monitoring, or results is insufficient, fragmented, or non‑specific. In a subsequent step: • An additional dimension, representing available options and prioritized CGIAR innovations with potential to respond to these missing elements and areas to be strengthened, was incorporated (Stage 6). • Finally, rather than developing an action plan, as is done in the classical model, the study formulated high-level scaling recommendations based on the preceding results. These recommendations proposed validated and scalable innovations as mechanisms for achieving the national climate targets for the agricultural sector. In greater detail, during Stage 6, the innovations with potential to respond or contribute to the identified targets were selected from the CGIAR Results Dashboard, applying the following filters: • Climate Tag: significant or principal. • Output: Innovation Development; or Outcome: Innovation Use. Additionally, since the Scaling Readiness methodology (Sartas et al., 2020) enables the assessment and enhancement of an innovation’s readiness for scaling and use beyond its initial context (Sartas et al., 2020), the innovations examined were also filtered by maturity level, selecting only those rated as Level 8 or 9, that is, tested and ready to scale. The selected innovations were grouped thematically using natural language processing techniques, validated through manual coding, and organized in a correspondence matrix linking the prioritized NDC targets with the identified gaps and shortfalls. Finally, Stage 7 consisted of an analytical exercise to formulate scaling recommendations, drawing on all the findings and inputs identified, to support Colombia in addressing the detected gaps and achieving its agricultural climate commitments. 4. Policy Landscape and Alignment The review of climate change–related policy and program inventories linked to Colombia’s agricultural sector (see Annexes 1 and 2) reveals a broad institutional architecture, with multiple intersecting levels whose central point of articulation remains the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC, 2020). The NDC serves as the guiding thread that provides coherence and direction to a diverse set of laws, plans, and strategies. In Colombia, the National Climate Change System (SISCLIMA) is the overarching mechanism governing climate-change efforts and serves as the integrative framework of the national climate architecture. Established under Decree 298 of 2016 and later consolidated and strengthened through Law 1931 of 2018 on Climate Management, SISCLIMA articulates the policies, plans, programs, institutions, mechanisms, and financial resources related to climate change, integrating different levels of government and sectors to ensure a coordinated and coherent response. Within SISCLIMA’s framework for climate-change management, several key instruments are included: the National Climate Change Policy (PNCC), the Sectoral and Territorial Comprehensive Climate Change Management Plans (PIGCCS and PIGCCT), the NDC, and Colombia’s national inventories and reports submitted to the UNFCCC, as well as various information systems and economic and financial instruments. Together, these function as a governance platform that facilitates the implementation, monitoring, and updating of the country’s climate actions (Congreso de Colombia, 2018). https://www.cgiar.org/food-security-impact/results-dashboard/ P a g e 13 | 34 Beyond Law 1931 of 2018, which provides the general framework for climate management, Colombia has additional enabling laws2 that define its legal and institutional structure, such as Law 2169 of 2021, which promotes the country’s low-carbon development (known as the Climate Action Law), and Law 1523 of 2012, which regulates disaster risk management. As illustrated in Figure 3, these enabling laws are complemented by strategic policy instruments such as the PNCC and key National Council for Economic and Social Policy (CONPES) policy documents, including CONPES 3934 (Green Growth) and CONPES 4058 (Risk and Adaptation), which continuously feed into and strengthen the NDC with sectoral and cross-cutting perspectives. Figure 3 Architecture of Colombia’s Climate Policy Framework. (Source: Authors’ elaboration). From this center point, as Figure 3 depicts, the NDC functions as a hinge, connecting laws, policies, and plans, allowing for multiple flows: legal flows that enable, strategic flows that legitimize, and operational flows that translate commitments into concrete actions. This architecture combines a defined 2030 horizon with a long-term vision, exemplified by the Long-term Climate Strategy (E2050), which extends the country’s climate-action horizon to 2050, envisioning economic decarbonization and a deepening of existing commitments. In parallel, instruments such as the National Adaptation Plan for Climate Change (PNACC), the National Climate Finance Strategy (ENFC), and most relevant for the agricultural sector, the Comprehensive Climate Change Management Plan for the Agricultural Sector (PIGCCS), operationalize national commitments through specific programs, mitigation and adaptation measures, and financing mechanisms. Although some of the instruments identified do not include specific adaptation or mitigation targets for the agricultural sector, they are still essential for building a robust and enabling framework that provides strategic guidance and addresses key thematic areas. For instance, instruments such as Law 1931 of 2018, Law 1523 of 2012, the Green Book, the Colombian Strategy for Low-Carbon and Climate-Resilient Development (ECDBC), and the ENFC may lack directly comparable adaptation and mitigation targets, yet they establish management frameworks and general guidelines that are crucial for the sector and for fulfilling the NDC. 2 In this document, enabling laws are understood as framework regulations that grant competences and establish institutional conditions for climate action (see (IPCC, 2022), on enabling conditions). In terms of representativeness, this does not imply a gap, but rather a distinct functional role within the broader policy ecosystem. Even though these instruments may not contribute directly to the count of measurable targets, they act as enabling frameworks, defining competencies, principles, and coordination mechanisms, guiding investment, and standardizing technical criteria. In other words, they create the conditions for other instruments to translate the national climate agenda into measurable targets (IPCC, 2022). 5. Institutional Programs and their Role If policies set the roadmap and the NDC acts as the articulating node, it is the institutional programs that bring this architecture to life across the national territory. In the case of Colombia’s agricultural sector, the analysis shows that only a few programs effectively connect sectoral action with the national climate agenda: the Comprehensive Climate Change Management Plan for the Agricultural Sector (PIGCCS), the National Adaptation Plan for Climate Change (PNACC), and the National Development Plan 2022– 20263. These three programs provide a significant share of the targets that directly align with the 2020 NDC, in contrast to other programs reviewed, whose climate contributions are more diffuse or marginal. This does not imply irrelevance; rather, it indicates that their targets operate on different fronts without such a clear point of intersection between agriculture, climate change, and international commitments. From an institutional standpoint, leadership lies with the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MADS), which serves as the governing body for climate policy, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MADR) and its technical agencies, particularly the Department of Rural Extension, which play a key role in translating policy guidelines into concrete practices with producers. Additional technical and financial support is provided by multilateral partners, such as the World Bank, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and various cooperation agencies that have co-financed projects on sustainable agriculture, low-carbon livestock systems, and climate information systems. The role of these programs is twofold. On the one hand, they serve a direct implementation function, designing and executing concrete measures, from the establishment of Local Technical Agroclimatic Committees (LTACs) to the transformation of production practices in rice, coffee, and livestock systems. On the other hand, they play a coordination and integration role, reflected in the efforts to connect national plans with territorial agendas, extension platforms, and local actions. In this sense, both the PIGCCS and the PNACC have functioned as coordination platforms between MADS, MADR, research institutes, and subnational governments. However, experience also shows that coordination is not without tension. The main challenge lies in many programs competing for the same spaces and target populations, resulting in duplication of efforts and making it difficult to jointly evaluate impacts. Added to this is institutional fragmentation: while MADS can promote cross-cutting climate actions, MADR often maintains more traditional sectoral approaches, and fluid mechanisms for aligning objectives and budgets are not always in place. Despite these challenges, progress has been made, such as the creation of joint agendas around sectoral adaptation, the establishment of LTACs across the country, and the common framework provided by the Climate Action Law, all of which have helped improve coherence and strengthen spaces for intersectoral dialogue. Although institutional programs are decisive for translating agricultural climate commitments into territorially grounded actions and measurable indicators, many still face substantial challenges in monitoring and evaluation. Among the targets analyzed, some focus on creating new instruments and systems for this purpose, while others seek to strengthen existing mechanisms. Nevertheless, the lack of systematic measurement and implementation data remains a recurring limitation, making exercises such as this one fall short when assessing the actual progress of active instruments. Looking ahead, the challenge is not the absence of programs—the inventory shows a broad base—but rather the need to ensure that the most strategic ones are sustained, and that dispersed efforts find effective channels for integration, avoiding overlaps and guaranteeing sustainable, measurable results. 3 Although the National Development Plan (PND) is a public policy adopted by law, it is included in the Program Inventory due to its role as a key instrument that operationalizes goals and programs, emphasizing its function as an action plan. P a g e 15 | 34 6. Political and Financial Commitment The National Climate Finance Strategy (ENFC) states that one of Colombia’s greatest challenges is to mobilize resources sustainably and at scale to achieve the objectives of the National Climate Change Policy (PNCC) and the NDC (DNP, 2021). Under this premise, the ENFC was developed within the framework of the National Climate Change System (SISCLIMA) and led by the Financial Management Committee (CGF) to bridge the gap between the investment needs required for the transition toward a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy and the resources effectively available. Among its pillars is knowledge and information management for decision-making, where the Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) System for climate finance is located. This system is designed to organize, systematize, and make visible the flow of resources allocated to mitigation and adaptation, thereby facilitating transparency and accountability. Its mandate derives from Law 2169 of 2021 (Article 7), which assigns the CGF the responsibility for the annual monitoring and reporting of climate-related spending by national entities. The most recent MRV reports reflect clear progress, challenges, and patterns. In 2022, climate investment obligations reached USD 210.27 million (1.63% of total national investment), and in 2023, USD 228.40 million (1.66%). In 2023, allocations were concentrated in mitigation (45.5%), adaptation (33.3%), and dual interventions (21.2%). Most resources were directed to Transport (40.4%), Environment (27.6%), and Mines and Energy (12.1%), while Agriculture and Rural Development received only USD 2.13 million (less than 1%), contrasting sharply with other sectors (DNP, 2023). When examining execution levels, the comparison is equally revealing. In 2023, while public investment expenditure achieved an execution rate of 79.2%, that associated with climate change reached only 35.1%. In the case of Agriculture and Rural Development, the execution efficiency was even lower (26%), making it difficult to translate commitments into tangible results (DNP, 2023). Beyond these figures, however, the MRV system still does not enable a clear and verifiable linkage between every peso invested and the specific NDC targets. The system identifies where and in which sectors resources are spent, and records 91 projects in 2023, yet it does not specify which projects contributed to which indicators or how much progress was achieved. This methodological gap limits the evaluation of the investments’ real effectiveness. Furthermore, according to the inventories, much of the financing is channeled through co-financing schemes combining national funds and international cooperation; however, details on who is financing what remain scarce, reducing traceability and increasing dependency risks. In addition, the climate finance debate cannot be confined to budget accounting. Its true value lies in advancing toward a comprehensive monitoring system that not only tracks planned use and financial execution but also the effective achievement of results. Colombia has made notable progress in strengthening its national policy and strategic framework, with the PNCC, ENFC, Long-Term Climate Strategy (E2050), and NDC updates, all with ambitious goals. Yet the dual challenge remains: improving execution and documenting the contribution of each investment to the committed outcomes. An incipient effort to close the gap between resource supply and project demand is the Climate Finance Corridor, launched by the National Planning Department (DNP) in 2023 (Loaiza, 2023). This mechanism seeks to structure sectoral project portfolios aligned with the NDC, strengthen their design through accelerator support, and connect them with a broker platform that links instruments and funding sources, public, private, national, and international. Although there are still no consolidated metrics or operational results, the initiative has strong potential as a mechanism for coordination and mobilization, particularly for territorial actors and micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), provided that it is supported by clear criteria and adequate technical assistance. From a broader perspective, it is also worth examining the international and sectoral context. Since the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow (2021), the global climate-finance debate has increasingly shifted toward “green finance”, the mobilization of capital to transform productive systems, reduce fossil-fuel dependence, and foster low-carbon sectors (DNP, 2024). In Colombia, this momentum aligned with the formulation of the ENFC and with public–private efforts to design green instruments, yet the challenge remains to ensure that these financial flows reach strategic sectors—particularly agriculture— which is highly climate-vulnerable and essential for production and food security (DNP, 2024). The Detailed Report of the Mission for the Transformation of the Countryside (DNP, 2015), reinforces this argument: Colombia’s climate transition will remain incomplete if it leaves the countryside behind. The Mission argues that building a more competitive, sustainable, and inclusive rural sector requires dedicated climate investment in areas such as water management, productive modernization, soil restoration, and strengthening of rural community networks. However, as previously noted, MRV data show that Agriculture and Rural Development absorbed barely 1% of total climate spending in 2023, contrasting sharply with the strategic role this sector is expected to play in territorial adaptation, the bioeconomy, and a just transition. The gap between what is invested and what should be invested thus remains one of the key areas warranting future research. 7. Results 7.1. Overview of policies and programs analyzed The results show that, in Colombia, there are 62 policies and 65 programs active, which can be clustered across CGIAR’s five impact areas (see Table 1). This landscape facilitates the identification of potential collaboration pathways to channel the scaling of innovative solutions in the country. The Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation and Environmental Health and Biodiversity areas stand out for having the largest number of policies and programs, reflecting strong institutional commitment to environmental management and climate adaptation in the sector. Table 1. Results—An inventory of active policies and programs in Colombia clustered by CGIAR impact area. (Source: Authors’ elaboration). CGIAR Impact Area # of Policies Identified # of Programs Identified Climate Adaptation and Mitigation 15 15 Environmental Health and Biodiversity 14 20 Nutrition, Health, and Food Security 12 10 Poverty Reduction, Livelihoods, and Jobs 13 10 Gender Equality, Youth, and Social Inclusion 8 10 Although the analysis focused exclusively on active national policies for the agricultural sector, the number of policies identified in the Poverty, Gender, and Diets areas, though smaller, should not be considered negligible. Because policies tend to be highly topic-focused, the existence of a significant number of active policies in these areas within the agricultural sector is a good indicator of institutional recognition of the need to address social and nutritional dimensions alongside productive and environmental aspects. This suggests a specialized regulatory framework, with opportunities to articulate multisectoral approaches that contribute to more inclusive and sustainable rural development. Within this broader landscape, the in-depth analysis for this study focused on 15 policies and 15 programs within CGIAR's Climate Adaptation and Mitigation impact area, specifically around national targets for the sector set out in the NDC. Across these 30 CGIAR instruments, Colombia has 138 targets for the agricultural sector. Of these, 12 instruments (8 policies and 4 programs) include concrete targets, while the remaining 18 documents contribute to adaptation and mitigation without specific targets, functioning instead as legal frameworks, providing general guidelines, or outlining enabling targets and actions that support climate change objectives. To analyze this architecture in relation to the NDC, the study distinguishes between: (i) official agricultural NDC targets, and (ii) additional sectoral targets found in policies and programs that, while not part of the NDC text, relate to climate action in agriculture. The following subsections first describe the NDC targets, then characterize these additional non‑NDC targets, and finally examine how both sets align and are reported. P a g e 17 | 34 7.2 NDC targets for agriculture and sectoral non‑NDC targets Identified NDC targets for the agricultural sector. Recognizing the prominent role of the NDC in structuring the climate policy architecture for the agricultural sector and in setting the national direction to 2030, 11 NDC targets were identified4 (Table 2), which, when disaggregated into sub-targets5, total 27. Table 2. Colombia’s NDC 2020 targets identified relating to the agricultural sector. (Source: Authors’ elaboration). NDC 2020 Target Internal (Excel) Coding Include climate-change considerations in agricultural sector planning instruments (PIGCCS) and implement adaptation actions. AG_1_Considerations Ten agricultural subsectors (banana, beef cattle, cocoa coffee, dairy cattle, maize, panela cane, potato, rice and sugarcane) with improved capacities to adapt to climate variability and/or climate change. AG_2_Subsectors Three natural regions with the greatest agricultural potential (Andean, Caribbean, and Orinoquía) participating in Local Technical Agroclimatic Committees (LTACs) articulated with the national committee. AG_3.1_LTACs One million producers receiving agroclimatic information to support decision- making. AG_3.2_AgroclimaticInfo Emit no more than 169.44 million tCO₂e in 2030 (equivalent to a 51% reduction relative to projected 2030 emissions in the reference scenario), initiating a decline in emissions between 2027 and 2030 toward mid-century carbon- neutrality. MG_4_GHGReduction Establish carbon budgets for 2020–2030 no later than 2023. MG_4.1_CarbonBudgets Reduce black carbon emissions by 40% relative to 2014 levels. MG_5_BlackCarbon Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA) for sustainable cattle: potential GHG reduction by 2030 of 11,151,000 tCO₂e. MG_6_NAMA_Livestock Develop and consolidate the productive chain of commercial forest plantations as a contribution to GHG removals. Potential greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction by 2030 of 10,366,000 tCO₂e. MG_7_GHG_Forestry Reduce GHG emissions in the cocoa production life cycle. Potential GHG reduction by 2030 of 165,000 tCO₂e. MG_8_GHG_Cocoa Reduce GHG emissions in rice production through large-scale adoption of technology (AMTEC 2.0) in Colombia. Potential GHG reduction by 2030 of 84,000 tCO₂e (via N₂O reduction from fertilizer use). MG_9_GHG_Rice NAMA Panela: potential GHG reduction by 2030 of 21,000 tCO₂e. MG_10_GHG_Panela NAMA Coffee: implementation of sustainable production practices with a potential reduction of 285,000 tCO₂e by 2030. MG_11_NAMA_Coffee These 11 targets constitute the official NDC commitments for Colombia’s agricultural sector and provide the reference framework against which sectoral instruments and targets are assessed in this study. Typology and purpose of sectoral non‑NDC targets Beyond the 11 official NDC targets for the agricultural sector, the review identified 101 additional targets in agricultural policies and programs that relate to climate action but are not part of the NDC text. These non‑NDC targets were systematically extracted and coded to understand how sectoral instruments operationalize, complement, or expand upon the NDC commitments. To interpret the function of these 101 relevant non-NDC targets and how they support the NDC, we first classified them by purpose and by climate orientation. By orientation, adaptation predominates (60), followed by mitigation (27) and dual benefit (adaptation + mitigation) (14). By purpose, most targets are operational in nature (focused on implementing actions and scaling coverage), rather than on measuring environmental outcomes:47 refer to a wide range of implementation management/actions (such as 4 For the purposes of this study, as shown in Table 2, two of the eleven NDC targets were split into components (3.1 and 3.2; 4 and 4.1), resulting in 13 NDC targets used as the reference set for the alignment process. Although the NDC presents each pair as a single target, their indicators and expected results differ. This disaggregation allows for more precise mapping to targets in other instruments and helps avoid aggregation bias when analyzing coherence and the degree of alignment. 5 The detailed table of NDC 2020 targets and sub-targets can be consulted in the attached Annex 5. Summary of NDC 2020 Targets. updating a plan, identifying needs, including guidelines, etc.), 22 to coverage or beneficiary reach, and 13 to percentage/intensity improvements; only a smaller subset is framed as institutional delivery6 (9), land-use/area outcomes (7), or explicit emissions reduction (3). In other words, while the 11 NDC targets define the high-level commitments for agriculture, the 101 non‑NDC targets in sectoral instruments reveal a much broader and more operational universe of actions through which these commitments are intended to be implemented or supported. 7.3 Alignment between NDC and non-NDC targets Regarding the degree of alignment between the 101 non-NDC targets and the 11 official agricultural NDC targets (Stage 3 – Target Alignment with NDC results), different intensities were identified. Figure 4 presents a visual representation of this, mapping each policy and program on the left to the NDC targets on the right, using color to denote the alignment type (direct, indirect, strengthens, or same/verbatim target). This network mapping view makes three results immediately visible: (i) Most connections are either direct (60) or indirect (28), confirming that the current policy architecture is largely oriented to support the NDC. (i) A smaller but strategic set of links strengthens NDC ambition (9) or adopts NDC targets verbatim (4), signaling opportunities to consolidate coherence. (ii) Alignments cluster around adaptation targets (69 links), versus mitigation (32 links). Figure 4. Alignment between instrument targets and NDC 2020 targets. (Source: Authors’ elaboration). The NDC target with the highest alignment in other instruments (with 40 alignments) is AG_2_Subsectors (ten agricultural subsectors with improved adaptive capacities). It is followed by AG_1_Considerations (including climate considerations in the sector’s planning instruments (PIGCCS) and implementing adaptation actions), with 19 alignments. This concentration around adaptation targets reflects the earlier typology finding: most non‑NDC targets are designed for implementation and 6 Refers to regulatory or policy commitments, and to the creation of systems, guidelines, committees, or policies. The full description of the remaining categories can be found in Annex 4. Notes – Matrix of National Targets. P a g e 19 | 34 coverage expansion, which naturally translate into direct or indirect operational alignments with adaptation-focused NDC commitments. In summary, the alignment analysis shows that sectoral policies and programs (through their 101 non‑NDC targets) are predominantly geared toward implementing and expanding actions that support Colombia’s delivery of agricultural NDC targets, especially on adaptation, while mitigation‑related commitments have comparatively fewer, though still relevant, operational linkages. 7.4 NDC progress reporting in Colombia’s BTR 2024 This subsection presents a cross-check of the 11 NDC 2020 targets for the agricultural sector against Colombia’s (BTR 2024) (Stage 4 – BTR progress results), to identify what progress is explicitly reported and where reporting is absent or non-specific (Table 3). The aim is not to evaluate policy design, but to establish the status of reporting and the type of evidence available per target, as an input to the subsequent gap analysis. Table 3. Summary — BTR 2024 Reporting Status for Agricultural Sector NDC Targets. (Source: Authors’ elaboration). NDC target (code) Target description What BTR 2024 reports Evidence type in BTR AG_1_ Considerations Include climate change considerations in sector planning instruments and implement adaptation actions. Lists actions and planning instruments; no quantified progress levels or percentages. Descriptive (processes and instruments). AG_2_ Subsectors Ten subsectors with improved adaptive capacities. Mentions actions contributing to adaptive capacities; no operational definition or verification criteria for “improved capacities”. Descriptive; no compliance threshold/metric. AG_3.1_ LTACs Participation in Local Technical Agroclimatic Committees. Participation from 27 departments; presence in all five regions. Coverage counts; no quality/effectiveness indicators. AG_3.2_ AgroclimaticInfo Producers receiving agroclimatic information. No quantified progress on producers reached; no verification method described. Not reported quantitatively. MG_4_ GHGReduction Economy‑wide emissions cap and trajectory to neutrality. Aggregate progress reported; still far from the 2030 goal. Economy‑wide aggregate; sectoral attribution not detailed. MG_4.1_ CarbonBudgets Establish carbon budgets 2020–2030. No progress reported. Not reported; no technical document cited. MG_5_ BlackCarbon 40% reduction vs. 2014. 0.24% reduction in 2021. Single‑year percentage; pathway/sectoral contribution not detailed. MG_6– MG_11 (Livestock, Forestry, Cocoa, Rice, Panela, Coffee) Sectoral mitigation measures. Status labels include “designed” (livestock) and “implemented” (forestry, cocoa, rice, panela, coffee); criteria/scope for labels not specified. Emission reductions not fully quantified; frequent “FX” (flexibility)—expected 2030 reductions rather than measured/verified to date. Status labels without defined criteria; projections instead of verified reductions. Table 3 provides a target-by-target summary of what BTR 2024 explicitly reports for the agricultural NDCs and the type of evidence available. A clear pattern emerges: • For adaptation, reporting concentrates on general actions and coverage, without detailing compliance indicators. • For mitigation, status labels and projected reductions to 2030 prevail, with limited verification of measured results. Within this landscape, two instruments stand out as operational vehicles: the Comprehensive Climate Change Management Plan for the Agricultural Sector (PIGCCS) and the Colombia Sustainable Agri- Food Project (CSICAP). In the case of PIGCCS, BTR 2024 presents it as an umbrella for several mitigation actions; however, when verifying target by target, our review identifies five specific PIGCCS objectives aligned with sectoral mitigation measures (3 in livestock, 1 in rice, 1 in panela) and five general objectives aligned with MG_4_GHGReduction. For adaptation, although not explicitly mentioned in the BTR, PIGCCS concentrates 16 additional alignments, 11 of them with AG_2_Subsectors. Taken together, this evidence positions PIGCCS as the “implementing arm” that translates NDC commitments into operational objectives within the sector; nonetheless, not all BTR statements about PIGCCS coverage are traceable to specific targets, underscoring the need to standardize traceability and verification. The CSICAP Project is reported in the BTR as a direct contribution to AG_2_Subsectors. Our verification confirms 7 targets aligned with that NDC and one additional target aligned, respectively, with AG_3.2_AgroclimaticInfo and MG_4_GHGReduction, in prioritized production systems that also overlap with several mitigation NDCs (livestock, rice, panela, and coffee). This cross-check with the BTR matters for three reasons. First, it defines the evidence profile currently used for accountability: strong on activities and reach, weak on standardized measurement of environmental results. Second, it has direct implications for MRV: comparable indicators, verification methods, and reporting protocols are needed to consistently track real performance by target. Third, it helps explain the alignment patterns described earlier: an architecture weighted toward operation and coverage naturally concentrates alignments on adaptation more than on mitigation. This evidence profile helps explain the frequent use of projections and flexible criteria in reporting. While such flexibility is understandable in developing countries that are still strengthening their MRV systems, it highlights the urgent need to move toward standardized, robust, and transparent systems to precisely measure the real impacts of climate policies and actions. Strengthening MRV is key to improving the credibility and effectiveness of target tracking, enabling evidence-based decision-making, and meeting international transparency requirements. In this sense, Colombia's BTR is an important step, but also a call to consolidate technical and managerial capacities to more faithfully reflect effective progress toward carbon neutrality and climate adaptation. These reporting patterns directly inform the subsequent gap analysis, which examines where key elements are missing and where existing efforts need to be strengthened. 7.5 Missing elements and areas to be strengthened in the NDC targets (GAP Analysis) Building on the alignment analysis between NDC and non‑NDC targets and on the BTR 2024 review, the Gap Analysis focuses on the 11 NDC 2020 targets for the agricultural sector. For each target, it examines what is missing in the current policy and implementation landscape, and where existing efforts need to be reinforced. The GAP Analysis (Stage 5) reveals a consistent pattern across the portfolio. In adaptation, despite strong institutional and regulatory backing, shortfalls persist in operationalization and tracking. Targets linked to LTACs and agroclimatic information show clear coverage gains, yet lack the guidelines, indicators, and verification mechanisms needed to ensure information quality, continuity, and effectiveness for producer decision‑making. In other words, there are both missing elements (e.g., defined quality standards, monitoring protocols) and areas to be strengthened (e.g., territorial capacity, roles, and resources for continuous dissemination and MRV). In mitigation, the most salient finding is the absence of clear pathways to implement and scale sectoral measures (NAMAs and GHG‑reduction actions). Evidence often relies on projections for 2030 rather than measured and verified results, and progress is frequently captured through status labels. This points to missing elements such as methodologies and regulatory instruments for carbon budgets and sector‑specific strategies for black carbon, alongside areas to be strengthened, including the generation of adoption incentives, robust MRV frameworks, and intersectoral coordination to address drivers like deforestation. Table 4 summarizes these results, target by target, distinguishing between “missing elements” (components that are not covered or are only weakly reflected in existing instruments and P a g e 21 | 34 implementation) and “areas to be strengthened” (dimensions where targets and actions exist, but where available evidence on implementation, monitoring, or results is insufficient, fragmented, or non‑specific). Framing the findings in this way clarifies why alignment counts cluster around adaptation and why substantiated mitigation progress remains limited, and it sets up the next section on MRV priorities and scalable solutions. Table 4. Summary—Identification of missing elements and areas to be strengthened for NDC 2020 targets. (Authors’ elaboration). NDC Target Missing elements Areas to be strengthened AG_1_ Consideratio ns Absence of a clear, systematic pathway to implement agricultural adaptation guidelines across territorial levels, and limited mechanisms for inter‑sectoral articulation. Existing implementation mechanisms, territorial training efforts, and coordination spaces incorporate adaptation and risk criteria only partially, and their scope, coverage, and integration of gender and risk dimensions remain limited or insufficiently documented. AG_2_ Subsectors Lack of a clearly defined strategy for large-scale and sustained uptake of adaptive measures across agricultural subsectors, and limited incorporation of monitoring, evaluation, and advanced technologies into these strategies. Ongoing efforts related to implementation, training, and monitoring of adaptive measures, as well as the integration of advanced technologies and green‑growth criteria into sectoral plans, remain fragmented or only partially developed, with limited evidence on their effective reach and performance. AG_3.1_ LTACs Limited attention to the quality, effectiveness, and concrete results of LTAC operations, and the absence of official guidelines that clearly link LTACs to a national strategy for agricultural climate risk management. The operational capacity of LTACs, their ability to generate and use decision‑relevant information, and their articulation with other institutions are only partially documented, with heterogeneous practices and limited evidence on their contribution to national adaptation objectives. AG_3.2_ Agroclimatic Info Lack of clearly defined information and monitoring systems to ensure the effective delivery, quality, and coverage of agroclimatic information to one million producers. Existing initiatives to disseminate agroclimatic information show gaps in the definition of roles and protocols, the robustness of monitoring arrangements, and the availability of stable resources, resulting in uneven continuity and effectiveness of information services across territories. MG_4_ GHG Reduction Absence of a clear and accelerated pathway for large‑scale implementation of emissions‑reduction practices in the agricultural and land‑use sectors, alongside limited mechanisms for coordinated action to curb deforestation. Existing initiatives related to sustainable practices, economic incentives, and monitoring arrangements remain only partially articulated, with weak evidence on their combined effectiveness and on the extent to which inter‑sectoral coordination contributes to reducing emissions and deforestation at scale. MG_4.1_ Carbon Budgets No documented progress or clearly defined pathways for establishing carbon budgets for the 2020–2030 period, including a lack of specific technical and policy instruments to operationalize them. The development and consolidation of methodologies, regulatory frameworks, institutional capacities, resource allocation mechanisms, and clear lines of responsibility for the design and implementation of binding carbon budgets remain incipient or insufficiently specified. MG_5_ Black Carbon Lack of clearly defined targets, documented progress, and specific strategies focused on reducing black carbon emissions in relevant sectors. The policy and programmatic framework for black carbon reduction is still limited, with monitoring, regulatory instruments, and indicator systems either absent or weakly developed, which constrains the ability to track and attribute progress toward this commitment. MG_6_ NAMA_ Livestock No clear evidence of large‑scale implementation of the Sustainable Livestock NAMA, nor of effective MRV arrangements that would allow verification of emissions reductions and associated co‑benefits. Efforts to promote the adoption of sustainable livestock practices, economic and ecosystem‑service incentives, and MRV systems are fragmented, with limited documentation of their coverage, effectiveness, and capacity to support a transition from pilot interventions to widespread implementation. MG_7_ GHG_ Forestry Lack of clear information on the scale, coverage, and effectiveness of sustainable forest management practices, and incomplete Implementation and monitoring of forest management initiatives, the consolidation of economic and regulatory instruments, and inter‑sectoral coordination mechanisms remain fragmented or only partially NDC Target Missing elements Areas to be strengthened integration of economic instruments and coordinated policies to reduce deforestation and enhance carbon sinks. developed, with limited evidence on their contribution to emissions reductions and forest conservation objectives. MG_8_ GHG_ Cocoa Absence of complementary targets and clearly defined MRV mechanisms to track and verify emissions reductions in cocoa production systems. Capacity‑building efforts, promotion of clean technologies, and the establishment of robust monitoring and reporting systems for cocoa are still incipient or insufficiently documented, limiting the ability to measure progress and ensure effective reductions. MG_9_ GHG_ Rice Lack of complementary targets and clearly defined tracking systems to support and verify the large‑scale adoption of AMTEC technology in rice production. Outreach, training, and technical assistance initiatives, as well as monitoring and reporting arrangements to measure adoption and adjust implementation, remain limited in scope and documentation, constraining the ability to demonstrate and scale impacts. MG_10_ GHG_ Panela Absence of complementary targets and clearly defined tracking and verification mechanisms to support the effective implementation of the Panela NAMA. Efforts to promote the adoption and scaling of sustainable practices in panela production, and the establishment of robust MRV systems to certify emissions reductions, are still fragmented or only partially operationalized, with limited evidence on their reach and effectiveness. MG_11_ NAMA_ Coffee Lack of complementary targets and clearly defined tracking and verification mechanisms to support the effective implementation of the Coffee NAMA. Initiatives to promote the adoption and expansion of sustainable practices in coffee production, and the development of robust MRV systems to certify emissions reductions, remain limited in scope and documentation, with insufficient evidence on their coverage and contribution to national mitigation goals. Taken together, these findings show that Colombia’s agricultural NDC targets are supported by a relatively strong regulatory and institutional framework, but nonetheless exhibit critical missing elements and areas to be strengthened in implementation and MRV. Adaptation targets (AG_1–AG_3.2) tend to be better defined on paper, but face challenges related to practical execution and information quality, while mitigation targets (MG_4–MG_11) display more pronounced gaps in measurable progress and sector‑specific MRV. These patterns provide the basis for the next section, which explores how existing policy instruments and programs could more effectively leverage available innovations to accelerate progress toward the NDC commitments. 8. Opportunities for Contributing to Targets through the Scaling of Proven Innovations The review of missing elements and areas to be strengthened (Stage 6) and the identification of available innovations (Stage 7) reveal that Colombia has a broad institutional architecture and a portfolio of potential solutions, but still faces significant challenges in transforming commitments into tangible results. In this context, scaling should not be understood solely as the mass dissemination of practices or technologies, but rather as a comprehensive process that combines innovation, institutional capacity, financing, and governance around measurable and sustainable outcomes (Cooley & Linn, 2014; Hartmann & Linn, 2011). Building on this diagnostic, the following subsections highlight opportunities to leverage existing policy instruments and programs through the integration and scaling of proven CGIAR innovations, in direct support of the 2020 NDC targets for the agricultural sector. Table 5 maps each agricultural NDC target to specific CGIAR innovations, indicating the key missing elements or areas to be strengthened and how each CGIAR innovation responds to each NDC target. Starting from the needs identified in the gap analysis, the table pairs them with tools and approaches that can translate commitments into measurable outcomes within existing policy and program frameworks. P a g e 23 | 34 Table 5. Summary — be strengthened in Colombia’s NDC 2020 targets. (Source: Authors’ elaboration). NDC Target Key Missing Element or Area to be Strengthened CGIAR Innovation How It Responds AG_1_ Considerations Lack of clear pathways for practical implementation and intersectoral coordination. Agvisely Climate Advisory Tool (5194), Digital Fertilizer and Planting Advice (975), Agro-climatic Bulletins Vietnam (5191). Provides climate forecasts and adaptive management advice; integrates digital agronomic recommendations; disseminates agroclimatic bulletins to support decision- making. AG_2_ Subsectors Lack of large-scale, sustained adoption of adaptive technologies. Digital Fertilizer and Planting Advice (975), Community Nutrition Scholars Model (6272), Underground Transfer of Floods for Irrigation (14117). Digital platform for agronomic advice; community training model for nutrition and agricultural interventions; technological solution for efficient water management. AG_3.1_ LTACs Limited quality and effectiveness of LTACs. Agro-climatic Bulletins Vietnam (5191), Agvisely Climate Advisory Tool (5194). Systematic dissemination of agroclimatic bulletins to support decision-making; digital platform for interpreting and applying climate information. AG_3.2_ Agroclimatic Info Lack of robust systems for delivery and monitoring of agroclimatic information. Agro-climatic Bulletins Vietnam (5191), Agvisely Climate Advisory Tool (5194). Public system for disseminating climate and agroclimatic data; digital platform translating climate data into practical recommendations. MG_4_ GHG Reduction Lack of clear pathway for large-scale implementation and effective monitoring of emissions reduction. MRV Framework Colombia (9410), Biodigesters for Manure Management (14773), Protocol for Enteric Methane Emissions (18318), Adjusted Water Management in Rice (5195), Low-Carbon Hybrid Rice Varieties (14352). Tools for transparent monitoring; clean energy generation and emission reduction; standardized protocols for estimating emissions; agronomic water management practices; low- carbon rice varieties. MG_4.1_ Carbon Budgets Absence of methodologies and frameworks for establishing carbon budgets. MRV Framework Colombia (9410), Protocol for Enteric Methane Emissions (18318). Provides protocols for transparent emissions measurement and reporting; standardized methodology to estimate methane emissions. MG_5_ Black Carbon Lack of specific strategies and targets for black carbon reduction. Biodigesters for Manure Management (14773). Generates clean energy and reduces polluting emissions, indirectly contributing to the target. MG_6_ NAMA_ Livestock Lack of a defined pathway to scale good practices and monitor emissions. Exclosures for Ecological Restoration (14773), MRV Framework Colombia (9410), Digital Fertilizer and Planting Advice (975), GANSO Guarantee (1296). Proven model for ecological restoration; robust monitoring framework; digital training platform; certification and tracking tool. MG_7_ GHG_ Forestry Need to strengthen sustainable forest management and intersectoral coordination. Restoration of Degraded Landscapes (7543), MRV Framework Colombia (9410), Collaborative Platform for Forest Management (10308). Promotes restoration and carbon sequestration; monitoring framework; facilitates community participation and local governance. NDC Target Key Missing Element or Area to be Strengthened CGIAR Innovation How It Responds MG_8_ GHG_ Cocoa Lack of specific targets and robust monitoring systems in cocoa production. MRV Framework Colombia (9410), Protocols for Enteric Emissions (18318). Framework for measurement and certification; robust methodologies to estimate emissions. MG_9_ GHG_ Rice Lack of dissemination and monitoring for large- scale AMTEC adoption. Low-Carbon Hybrid Rice Varieties (14352), Adjusted Water Management in Rice (5195), Direct Mechanized Planting (1098), RiceMoRe (4868), Rice Observatory (3798), Diversification of Rice Systems (3231). Reduces emissions while maintaining productivity; agronomic water and fertilizer management; digital monitoring; indicators for policymaking; diversification for sustainability. MG_10_ GHG_ Panela No baseline or sector- specific MRV framework for trapiches (small sugarcane mills); low adoption of efficient technologies; weak coordination for technological transition. Adaptable agricultural MRV framework (MRV and mitigation frameworks); Technology menu (IDs 833/834); Digital agroclimatic advisory and efficient management tools (RCMAS Climate+ ID 5015; Digital Advice IDs 779/975). Enable the establishment of baselines and emission tracking; prioritize efficient combustion/biomass technologies; and scale adoption through digital advisory services and capacity building with climate- and productivity-oriented criteria. MG_11_ GHG_ Coffee Lack of clear targets and monitoring for the adoption of sustainable practices in coffee production. Mucuna pruriens Cover Crop (2896), Online Course on Climate Change Adaptation (13510). Improves soil health and productivity; provides training for adaptation in coffee production. Based on Table 5, at least four concrete opportunity areas emerge where existing policy instruments and programs can integrate CGIAR innovations to accelerate progress toward NDC targets. 1. Climate‑resilient agricultural extension and advisory systems (AG_1, AG_3.1, AG_3.2) The gap analysis identified missing elements and areas to be strengthened in the practical implementation of agricultural adaptation guidelines across territorial levels and in the delivery and monitoring of agroclimatic information through LTACs and producer services. At the same time, multiple policy instruments (including the PIGCCS, sectoral adaptation plans, and the national Agroclimatic Early Warning System) already prioritize climate‑resilient agricultural extension as a key mechanism for adaptation. In this context, CGIAR innovations such as Agvisely Climate Advisory Tool, digital fertilizer and planting advice, and agroclimatic bulletins offer opportunities to: • Strengthen the capacities of Local Technical Agroclimatic Committees (LTACs) and municipal extension services (UMATAs) by training extension agents in the use of digital tools to interpret and disseminate localized forecasts and agronomic advice. • Link LTACs and agricultural extension services more effectively with the national Agroclimatic Early Warning System led by IDEAM and MADR, facilitating regional deployment of standardized agroclimatic information products that respond to local crop and risk profiles. • Enhance farmer feedback loops by using bulletins and digital platforms as interfaces to capture producers’ responses and information needs, thereby improving the quality, relevance, and usability of climate information. These opportunities are directly aligned with Colombia’s NDC adaptation commitments related to climate‑resilient agricultural extension systems and improved access to actionable climate and agroclimatic information for producers. P a g e 25 | 34 2. Strengthening capacities in agricultural subsectors (AG_2) For AG_2, the gap analysis highlighted missing elements and areas to be strengthened in the large- scale and sustained adoption of adaptive technologies in priority subsectors, as well as limited integration of monitoring, evaluation, and advanced technologies into sectoral plans. Existing policy instruments and programs that prioritize capacity building and technology adoption in subsectors (e.g., value‑chain strategies and sectoral adaptation measures under PIGCCS and CSICAP) provide an entry point for innovation. CGIAR solutions, such as digital fertilizer and planting advice, community training models, and water management technologies, can be integrated to: • Reinforce capacity‑building components within subsector programs, combining community‑based training models with digital advisory tools to reach different types of producers and territories. • Support the uptake of water‑efficient and climate‑resilient practices, particularly in areas exposed to recurrent droughts or floods, by linking technologies such as underground water transfer with existing extension and investment programs. • Improve monitoring of adoption and performance through digital platforms that generate data on practice uptake, enabling better tracking of progress toward adaptation goals in specific value chains. These opportunities help close the gap between subsector‑level commitments and the effective, sustained adoption of adaptive practices in the field. 3. Sustainable Livestock NAMA and low‑emission livestock systems (MG_6) For MG_6, the missing elements and areas to be strengthened relate to the absence of a clearly defined pathway to scale good practices under the Sustainable Livestock NAMA and to monitor associated emissions reductions. Existing instruments—including the Livestock NAMA itself and related policies on sustainable livestock and restoration—already recognize the need to transition to low‑emission production systems, but face implementation and MRV challenges. In this setting, CGIAR innovations, such as exclosures for ecological restoration, the MRV Framework Colombia, digital advisory platforms, and the GANSO Guarantee, can support: • Design and implementation of livestock‑specific MRV schemes that connect farm‑level data with national inventory requirements, improving traceability of emissions reductions and co‑benefits. • Integration of restoration and sustainable grazing practices into NAMA implementation, using proven models for ecological restoration and pasture improvement in degraded areas. • Use of certification and assurance tools, such as the GANSO Guarantee, to link sustainable livestock practices with market incentives and financial instruments, thereby supporting broader adoption and long‑term sustainability. These opportunities can propel pilot initiatives to coherent national programs with clearer evidence of environmental and productive outcomes. 4. Rice mitigation and low‑carbon production systems (MG_9) For MG_9, the analysis identified missing elements and areas to be strengthened associated with the lack of complementary targets and robust tracking systems to support large‑scale AMTEC adoption and other low‑emission practices in rice cultivation. At the same time, the Rice NAMA and related sectoral strategies provide a framework to advance mitigation in the subsector. CGIAR innovations such as low‑carbon hybrid rice varieties, adjusted water management (AWM), direct mechanized planting, and digital tools such as RiceMoRe, the Rice Observatory, and diversification of rice systems can be leveraged to: • Strengthen the technological package for low‑emission rice, combining varietal innovation, improved water and nutrient management, and reduced tillage practices. • Improve monitoring and decision‑making by generating plot‑level data on yields, water use, and emissions proxies through digital tools, supporting both producers and policymakers. • Support alliances between producers, buyers, and service providers, facilitating the inclusion of low‑carbon rice practices in supply‑chain initiatives and climate‑finance mechanisms. This set of opportunities can contribute to turning the Rice NAMA into a more robust platform for measurable mitigation, aligned with the NDC targets for the AFOLU sector. Taken together, these opportunity areas illustrate how existing policy instruments and programs— including PIGCCS, CSICAP, sectoral NAMAs, and agroclimatic advisory systems—could more effectively leverage proven CGIAR innovations to address both the missing elements and the areas to be strengthened identified in the gap analysis. In several cases, a common thread is the need to complement ongoing efforts with more operational tools for implementation and MRV, rather than creating entirely new structures. By anchoring innovations in current targets and instruments, Colombia can make incremental yet measurable progress toward its agricultural NDC commitments, while generating evidence to inform future revisions such as NDC 3.0. 9. Conclusions This analysis confirms that Colombia has developed a solid regulatory framework and a broad institutional architecture to address the challenges of climate change in the agricultural sector. Instruments such as the NDC, the PNCC, the Climate Action Law, the Long‑Term Strategy (E2050), and the PIGCCS provide a clear direction of travel and establish adaptation and mitigation targets that are, in general, well aligned with international commitments. At the same time, our gap analysis shows that this strong architecture coexists with critical missing elements and areas to be strengthened in implementation, monitoring, and verification. Adaptation targets (AG_1–AG_3.2) tend to be better defined and supported by specific instruments, but they still face challenges related to practical execution at the territorial level, information quality, and the continuity of advisory and extension services. Mitigation targets (MG_4–MG_11) exhibit more pronounced limitations in terms of sector‑specific pathways, measurable progress, and operational MRV arrangements. The review of Colombia’s policy instruments and institutional programs reveals that, beyond isolated initiatives, there is still not a fully articulated, large‑scale implementation pathway that consistently links national targets, budget allocations, and concrete actions across territories. This is reflected in low execution levels of climate‑related spending and in the fragmented deployment of tools and programs across sectors and regions. The analysis of missing elements and areas to strengthen also highlights the central role of information and MRV systems. Without reliable, comparable, and context‑appropriate data from the farm level to national reporting, it is difficult to substantiate progress toward NDC targets, to adjust interventions based on evidence, or to access larger volumes of climate finance. Current efforts in MRV and information systems provide a starting point, but their coverage, interoperability, and effective use remain uneven. Against this backdrop, the mapping of CGIAR innovations to Colombia’s NDC targets illustrates that there is a substantive portfolio of validated tools, approaches, and technologies that can help address the specific bottlenecks identified in this study’s gap analysis. In relation to adaptation, digital advisory platforms, agroclimatic bulletins, and community‑based capacity‑building models align with the need to improve the quality, reach, and usability of climate information and extension services. In relation to mitigation, MRV frameworks, emission protocols, biodigesters, low‑emission rice technologies, and assurance tools correspond to identified weaknesses in measurement, adoption, and traceability of low‑carbon practices. More broadly, the Colombian case shows that the main challenge is not the absence of policies or innovations, but rather the ability to connect them through coherent, scalable programs and projects. International experience on scaling suggests that progress is more likely where “innovation packages” bring together technology, extension, financing, institutional arrangements, and MRV around common objectives. The findings of this study point in the same direction: Colombia has many of the individual components in place, but their integration and orchestration will largely determine whether agricultural adaptation and mitigation targets are achieved in practice. P a g e 27 | 34 Finally, the combination of an advanced regulatory framework, accumulated experience with instruments such as LTACs and sectoral NAMAs, and the availability of diverse innovations positions Colombia as a potential reference for integrated agricultural climate action in the region. Realizing this potential will depend on the country’s capacity to close the identified implementation and information gaps and to make more systematic use of existing innovations and institutional mechanisms in support of its agricultural NDC targets and broader climate goals. 10. Annexes Annex 1. Excel file with Inventory of Active Climate-Relevant Policies in Colombia Summary Table – Annex 1 # Policy Name Year Duration Issuing Authority File name 1 National Climate Change Policy (PNCC) 2017 Ongoing MADS COL_CLIM_01 2 Colombia’s Updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) 2020 2020–2030 MADS COL_CLIM_02 3 Climate Action Law (Law 2169 of 2021) 2021 Ongoing Congress of Colombia, MADS COL_CLIM_03 4 Climate Change Management Guidelines Law (Law 1931 of 2018) 2018 Ongoing Congress of Colombia, MADS COL_CLIM_04 5 Green Growth Policy (CONPES 3934 of 2018) 2018 2018-2030 DNP, MADS COL_CLIM_05 6 Sustainable Livestock Policy Guidelines (Resolution 126 of 2022) 2022 2022-2050 MADR, MADS COL_CLIM_06 7 Green Book 2030 – National Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2018 2018-2030 COLCIENCIAS COL_CLIM_07 8 Colombian Low Carbon and Climate Resilient Development Strategy (ECDBC) 2011 2011-2040 MADS COL_CLIM_08 9 National Disaster Risk Management Policy (Law 1523 of 2012) 2012 Ongoing UNGRD COL_CLIM_09 10 Policy Strategy for Public Financial Management of Natural Disaster Risk 2012 Ongoing MHCP, DNP, UNGRD, ANI, CCE COL_CLIM_10 11 Portfolio of Adaptation Targets, Colombia’s Updated NDC (2020) 2020 2020-2030 MADS COL_CLIM_11 12 Portfolio of Sectoral Mitigation Measures, Colombia’s Updated NDC (2020) 2020 2020-2030 MADS COL_CLIM_12 13 Carbon Neutrality Long-Term Climate Strategy of Colombia – E2050 2021 2021-2050 MADS, DNP COL_CLIM_13 14 Public Policy to Reduce Disaster Risk Conditions and Adapt to Climate Variability Phenomena (CONPES 4058 of 2021) 2021 2021-2030 CONPES, DNP COL_CLIM_14 15 National Climate Finance Strategy (ENFC) 2022 Ongoing DNP COL_CLIM_15 Annex 2. Excel file with Inventory of Active Climate-Relevant Programs, Plans, and Projects in Colombia Summary Table – Annex 2 # Program Name Year Duration Issuing Authority File name 1 Sectoral Climate Change Management Plan for Agriculture and Rural Development (PIGCCS) 2014 Ongoing MADR PRG_COL_CLIM_01 2 National Climate Change Adaptation Plan (PNACC) 2012 Ongoing MADS PRG_COL_CLIM_02 3 National Development Plan (PND) – Agriculture & Climate Focus 2022 2022–2026 DNP, MADR PRG_COL_CLIM_03 4 Bosques Territorios de Vida – REDD+ (EICDGB) 2017 Ongoing MADS, IDEAM PRG_COL_CLIM_04 5 National Program on Payments for Environmental Services (PSA) 2011* 2011–2030 MADS, DNP PRG_COL_CLIM_05 P a g e 29 | 34 6 Productive & Sustainable Transformation Line (LTPS 2025) – FINAGRO 2023 2023–2026 FINAGRO, MADR PRG_COL_CLIM_06 7 Colombia Carbon Neutral Strategy (ECCN) 2020 2020–2050 MADS PRG_COL_CLIM_07 8 National Irrigation & Drainage Plan for Peasant, Family, and Community Agriculture (PNRECFC) 2020 2020–2031 MADR, ADR PRG_COL_CLIM_08 9 National Irrigation Plan 2020–2039 (PNR) 2020 2020–2039 MADR PRG_COL_CLIM_09 10 National Plan for Comprehensive Technical Assistance & Research Promotion (Plan AT) 2022 Ongoing MADR, ADR, AGROSAVIA PRG_COL_CLIM_10 11 Strategic Plan for STI in Agriculture (PECTIA 2017–2027) 2017 2017–2027 MinCiencias, MADR, AGROSAVIA PRG_COL_CLIM_11 12 National Plan for Ecological Restoration, Rehabilitation & Recovery (2015–2035) 2015 2015–2035 MADS PRG_COL_CLIM_12 13 CSICAP – Climate-Smart Initiatives for Adaptation & Sustainability 2024 2024–2029 MADR, CIAT PRG_COL_CLIM_13 14 National Disaster Risk Management Plan (PNGRD) 2015–2030 (Second Update) 2015 (upda te) 2015–2030 UNGRD PRG_COL_CLIM_14 15 Local Technical Agroclimatic Committees - LTACs (Mesas Técnicas Agroclimáticas - MTA) 2014 Ongoing MADR, IDEAM, FAO, Alliance of Bioversity & CIAT, Agrosavia - Annex 3. Matrix of National Targets (Attached Excel) Annex 4. Notes – Matrix of National Targets The matrix was developed by compiling the widest possible range of information available in the policy documents analyzed. It includes two types of columns: • General Columns, which record the information exactly as it appears in the policy instruments (if a data point was not available, it was entered as “Not specified”). • Categorization Columns, created by the researcher to organize, filter, and group the targets according to affinity, type, and thematic orientation, to facilitate the creation of clusters and associations. The following section describes both categories of columns in detail: General Column Name Content Description File Name of the source file in the repository. Policy Instrument Official name of the policy instrument. Year of Publication Year the instrument was published. Target / Commitment Description Literal wording of the target as stated in the document. Numeric Value Indicates whether the target includes a defined numeric value (Yes/No). Quantitative / Qualitative Value Specific objective to be achieved (number, indicator, or description). Unit of Measurement Unit used to measure the achievement of the target. Deadline / Time Horizon Year or period defined for fulfillment. Document Page Page number in the document where the target is located (for exact reference). Specific Agricultural Sector / Subsector All targets refer to the agricultural sector; subsectors are specified when applicable (e.g., livestock, rice, coffee, etc.). Responsible Entity Main institution designated as responsible for achieving the target. Supporting Entities / Actors Institutions identified as supporting, partnering, or financing in the instrument. Allocated Budget Budgetary resources indicated (when specified). Categorization Column Name Content Description / Categories Type of Target Classification by focus: Adaptation, Mitigation, or Dual-benefit (adaptation and mitigation). Nature of Target Criterion related to the way progress is measured or the type of expected result: • Actor or unit count: number of producers, systems, regions, or other units. • Management/action: general actions expressed with verbs such as identify, implement, update. • Institutional delivery: regulatory or political commitments, creation of systems, guidelines, committees, or policies. • Percentage intensity: targets expressed as relative values or percentages. • Land area/land use: targets quantified in hectares or other land-surface measures. • Emission reduction: targets directly oriented toward reducing tons of CO₂ or GHGs. Thematic Axis Thematic orientation of the target, grouped into the following categories: • Agricultural (general): general actions not classifiable in other categories. • Governance: creation of policies, guidelines, committees, or institutional systems. • Capacity building: training initiatives and skill development for sector stakeholders. • Incentives and insurance: economic instruments, subsidies, or PES (Payments for Environmental Services), as well as the design/strengthening of agricultural insurance schemes. • Research and evaluation: studies, methodologies, and impact or technical assessments. • Soil management: actions for soil conservation, improvement, or fertilizer use. • Water management: measures for efficient use, storage, or management of water resources. • Forest management: initiatives for conservation, restoration, or sustainable forest use. • Sustainable livestock management: actions in livestock systems aimed at sustainability and impact reduction. • Agronomic management: measures to improve adaptation, productivity, and pest control in crops. NDC 2020 Target Identifies the specific 2020 NDC target with which the analyzed target most closely aligns. Level of alignment with NDC Target Indicates the degree of relation and alignment of the target to the NDC. Four categories are defined: • Strengthens: when the target expands or enhances the ambition of the NDC. • Same target: when the instrument literally adopts the target established in the NDC. • Direct: when the target is clearly and directly aligned and contributes to achieving an NDC target. • Indirect: when there is a relation to the NDC target, but it is not immediate or central. Annex 5. Summary of NDC 2020 Targets # Coding Target / Commitment Description Type 1 AG_1_Considerations Include climate change considerations in agricultural sector planning instruments (PIGCCS) and implement adaptation actions. Adaptation 2 AG_2_Subsectors Ten agricultural subsectors (rice, maize, potato, beef cattle, dairy cattle, panela cane, cocoa, banana, coffee, and sugarcane) with improved capacities to adapt to climate variability and/or climate change. Adaptation 3 AG_3.1_LTACs Three natural regions with the greatest agricultural potential (Andean, Caribbean, and Orinoquía) participate in Local Technical Agroclimatic Committees (LTACs) articulated with the national committee. Adaptation P a g e 31 | 34 4 AG_3.2_AgroclimaticInfo One (1) million producers receiving agroclimatic information to support decision-making in their activities. Adaptation 5 MG_4_GHGReduction Emit no more than 169.44 million tCO₂e in 2030 (equivalent to a 51% reduction compared to the 2030 projected baseline scenario), initiating a decline in emissions between 2027 and 2030 toward mid-century carbon neutrality. Mitigation 6 MG_4.1_CarbonBudgets Establish carbon budgets for the 2020–2030 period no later than 2023. Mitigation 7 MG_5_BlackCarbon Reduce black carbon emissions by 40% compared to 2014 levels. Mitigation 8 MG_6_NAMA_Livestock Sustainable cattle NAMA: potential GHG reduction of 11,151,000 tCO₂e by 2030. Mitigation 9 MG_6.1_Restoration Sustainable cattle NAMA: 68,675 ha of land released for restoration. Mitigation 10 MG_6.2_ImprovedPastures Sustainable cattle NAMA: 2,169,230 ha in improved pastures. Mitigation 11 MG_6.3_ScatteredTrees Sustainable cattle NAMA: 601,187 ha of scattered trees in pastures. Mitigation 12 MG_6.4_MixedForageBanks Sustainable cattle NAMA: 3,805 ha in mixed forage banks. Mitigation 13 MG_6.5_LiveFences Sustainable cattle NAMA: 663.54 ha in live fences. Mitigation 14 MG_6.6_FodderHedges Sustainable cattle NAMA: 61,254 ha in fodder hedges. Mitigation 15 MG_6.7_IntensiveSilvopasto ralSystems (SSPi) Sustainable cattle NAMA: 61,054 ha in intensive silvopastoral systems. Mitigation 16 MG_7_GHG_Forestry Development and consolidation of the commercial forest plantation value chain as a contribution to GHG removals. Potential GHG reduction of 10,366,000 tCO₂e by 2030. Mitigation 17 MG_7.1_Plantations Development and consolidation of commercial forest plantations for GHG removals: 300,000 ha established 2015–2030. Mitigation 18 MG_8_GHG_Cocoa Reduce GHG emissions in the cocoa production life cycle. Potential GHG reduction of 165,000 tCO₂e by 2030. Mitigation 19 MG_8.1_Renovation Reduce GHG emissions in cocoa production: 80,000 ha in renovation and rehabilitation. Mitigation 20 MG_8.2_Agroforestry Reduce GHG emissions in cocoa production: 150,000 ha in agroforestry systems with timber species. Mitigation 21 MG_9_GHG_Rice Reduce GHG emissions in rice production through large- scale adoption of technology (AMTEC 2.0) in Colombia. Potential GHG reduction of 84,000 tCO₂e by 2030 (via N₂O reduction from fertilizer use). Mitigation 22 MG_9.1_IrrigatedRice Reduce GHG emissions in rice production through AMTEC 2.0: 255,000 ha under irrigated rice. Mitigation 23 MG_9.2_RainfedRice Reduce GHG emissions in rice production through AMTEC 2.0: 207,046 ha under rainfed rice. Mitigation 24 MG_10_GHG_Panela Panela NAMA: potential GHG reduction of 21,000 tCO₂e by 2030. Mitigation 25 MG_10.1_HeatRecirculators Panela NAMA: 1,500 production units with thermal recirculators installed and diesel engines replaced by electric ones. Mitigation 26 MG_10.2_Restoration Panela NAMA: 800 ha in restoration processes compensating for historical deforestation. Mitigation 27 MG_11_NAMA_Coffee Coffee NAMA: implementation of sustainable production practices with potential GHG reduction of 285,000 tCO₂e by 2030. Mitigation References Alianza Bioversity-CIAT. (n.d.). Acción Climática | Alliance Bioversity International - CIAT. Retrieved October 5, 2025, from https://alliancebioversityciat.org/es/research-themes/accion-climatica CEPAL, DNP, & BID. (2012). Valoración de daños y pérdidas. Ola invernal en Colombia 2010-2011. https://archivo.minambiente.gov.co/images/cambioclimatico/pdf/Plan_nacional_de_adaptacion/3. _Da%C3%B1os_y_p%C3%A9rdidas_ola_invernal.pdf CGIAR. (2024). CGIAR Portfolio Narrative 2025–2030. Cooley, L., & Linn, J. F. (2014). Taking Innovations to Scale: Methods, Applications and Lessons. 1– 24. DANE. (2023). Caracterización sociodemográfica del campesinado colombiano . DANE. (2025). Demografía Rural en Colombia. https://www.dane.gov.co/files/investigaciones/poblacion/informes-estadisticas- sociodemograficas/Demografia-Rural-Colombia-2025.pdf DNP. (2015). El Campo Colombiano: Un camino hacia el bienestar y la paz. Informe detallado de la Misión para la Transformación del Campo. https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Agriculturapecuarioforestal%20y%20pesca/TOMO%201.pdf DNP. (2021). Recomendaciones para la formulación de acciones climáticas. https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Ambiente/Finanzas%20del%20Clima/Recomendaciones- Formulacion-Acciones-Climaticas.pdf DNP. (2023). Reporte del Gasto Público. https://mrv.dnp.gov.co/casosdeusodelmrv/Documents/2023%20Reporte%20del%20Gasto%20P %c3%bablico%20-%20N_03.pdf DNP. (2024). Financiamiento Verde Perspectivas para la transformación productiva en Colombia. Archivos de Economía, Documento 565., 73. www.dnp.gov.