IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/adv/wpaper/202507.html

Sustainable cost of quinoa production in Bolivia: A landscape approach integrating the recovery of agricultural heritage (COSPH)

Author

Listed:
  • Javier Aliaga Lordemann

    (Investigador senior asociado de INESAD)

  • Adriana Caballero Caballero

    (Investigadora Junior de INESAD)

Abstract

This study analyzes the sustainable production cost, integrating the recovery of agricultural heritage (COSPH), for quinoa cultivation in the Bolivian High Plateau (Altiplano), seeking to answer: How much does it cost to make quinoa production sustainable over time in Bolivia? And, How does this change when considering agricultural heritage conservation? Specifically, the study evaluates how good agricultural practices (GAP) can mitigate climate change impacts and whether they are cost-effective, integrating the costs of agricultural heritage, which are particularly important for the quinoa real (royal quinoa) crop in Bolivia. Methodologically, the research combines a microeconomic model of imperfect competition calibrated for quinoa — capturing price differentiation based on sustainability and heritage conservation — with the NL-CROP model (Non-Linear Crop Optimization Model), which simulates non-linear interactions between climate, soil, and farming practices. Key findings show that GAP significantly reduce yield losses: under moderate climate conditions, productivity declines decrease from 5-7% to 1.8-2%, while in extreme events, losses drop from 16-30% to 2.5-6.2%, attributed to sustainable soil management. GAP remain viable in scenarios with up to two to three standard deviations, where profit margins cover additional costs. However, in severe crises (50% yield losses), negative margins (-4.7%) make agricultural insurance necessary (premiums of 7-10%), as well as tailored policies to balance climate adaptation with smallholders' economic viability. When heritage conservation costs are included (COSPH), results show improved resilience (yield loss reduced to 10.5% under a moderate climate scenario) at a moderate additional cost (5.75% compared to 5%), suggesting that preserving agroecological heritage contributes to long-term sustainability. These findings highlight the strategic role of combining sustainable agriculture with the protection of cultural landscapes in vulnerable highland farming in Bolivia.

Suggested Citation

  • Javier Aliaga Lordemann & Adriana Caballero Caballero, 2025. "Sustainable cost of quinoa production in Bolivia: A landscape approach integrating the recovery of agricultural heritage (COSPH)," Development Research Working Paper Series 07/2025, Institute for Advanced Development Studies.
  • Handle: RePEc:adv:wpaper:202507
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inesad.edu.bo/pdf/wp2025/wp07_2025.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:adv:wpaper:202507. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lykke Andersen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inesabo.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.