OECD EPR on mainstreaming biodiversity 2016

2015

OECD Environmental Performance Reviews Mainstreaming

biODiVERsiTY into sectoral policies 2011-2016

This work is published on the OECD iLibrary, which gathers all OECD books, periodicals and statistical databases.

Visit www.oecd-ilibrary.org for more information.

2015

isbn 978-92-64-24006-3 97 2015 15 1 P

9HSTCQE*ceaagd+

OECD Environmental Performance Reviews Brazil

Consult this publication on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264240094-en.

www.oecd.org/environment/country-reviews

oecd environmental performance reviews

Mainstreaming biodiversity The OECD Environmental Performance Review (EPR) chapters on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use are intended to assess how well the reviewed country has done in achieving its biodiversity-related objectives, in terms of both environmental effectiveness and economic efficiency of policies and measures, and to provide recommendations for improving future policies and performance. These chapters also include a section on mainstreaming biodiversity into other sectors (such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, infrastructure, and tourism). Other sections of the biodiversity chapters also deal with mainstreaming (e.g. institutional co-operation, policy instruments), as do other chapters of EPRs, in particular the one on green growth.

General structure of OECD EPR chapters on biodiversity: •

State and trends in biodiversity/ecosystems

•

Institutional and regulatory/legal framework

•

Policy instruments for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use

•

Mainstreaming biodiversity in other sectors/ policy areas

This brochure provides excerpts of the mainstreaming sections of recent OECD EPR chapters on biodiversity, namely from: •

Chile (2016)

•

France (2016

•

Brazil (2015)

•

Spain (2015)

•

Colombia (2014)

•

South Africa (2013)

•

Mexico (2013)

•

Israel (2011)

For further information, please contact: Ivana Capozza (ivana.capozza@oecd.org), team leader for EPRs Katia Karousakis (katia.karousakis@oecd.org), team leader for biodiversity and CBD focal point.

From:

OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Chile 2016

Access the complete publication at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264252615-en

Please cite this chapter as: OECD/ECLAC (2016), “Biodiversity conservation and sustainable use”, in OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Chile 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264252615-12-en

This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries, or those of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at info@copyright.com or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at contact@cfcopies.com.

6..

Mainstreaming biodiversity into sectoral and other policies The Chilean export-oriented economy depends on the use of its natural resources, with copper production, fishing and aquaculture, forestry, tourism and agricultural industries providing the greatest contribution to GDP (Chapter 1; Figure 1.2; Chapter 3).

With growing economic activity, infrastructure development and expansion into new areas, pressures on biodiversity and environmental conflict are increasing (Chapter 2). This makes mainstreaming all the more important, especially in biodiversity hotspot areas with growing population density, such as the Chilean matorral, the Valdivian forests and the Sechura desert (Hogan, 2013).

While biodiversity objectives are now being incorporated into several other policy areas, tangible results from these efforts – beyond a few local examples – are not yet apparent. There has generally been a lack of knowledge among decision makers of the role that biodiversity and ecosystem services play in supporting Chile’s economy and the quality of life of its citizens (MMA, 2014a). Improving knowledge, building awareness and actively engaging local stakeholders are, therefore, necessary to make the case for actions towards biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, to address trade-offs and social conflicts and, ultimately, to ensure effective mainstreaming.

The new National Biodiversity Strategy (under development at the time of writing) increases emphasis on mainstreaming. It promotes work with trade associations of the major producing sectors to address biodiversity concerns and creates an Advisory Steering Committee with representation from 11 ministries, 2 NGOs, 2 scientific institutions and 5 trade associations. Mainstreaming biodiversity considerations into land-use planning, marine planning and sectoral policies can also help leverage new sources of financing for pursuing biodiversity-related objectives, such as with tourism in protected areas.

As discussed in the following sections, key mainstreaming areas of focus should include reform of environmentally harmful subsidies such as those for irrigation works and small-scale mining; reductions in fertiliser and pesticide application; improved monitoring of the impacts of aquaculture on ecosystems; improved monitoring of soil and water contamination from mining; and the development of decontamination plans for abandoned mines.

6.1. Agriculture Agriculture is a mainstay of the Chilean economy and an important source of exports and employment. Total agricultural production increased by 30% over 2002-13. It concentrates on high quality export products, notably fruit farming (40% of agricultural GDP) and animal husbandry. The country is one of the world’s leading exporters of fresh fruit and wine. Several trade agreements are pushing Chile to improve the sustainability of its products (Chapter 3), and market demand is driving greater production of organic products.

Controlling the use of fertilisers and pesticides The use of nitrogen fertilisers and pesticides increased faster than total agricultural production and the expansion of agricultural land (Figure 5.9). Chile had the highest average annual increase in pesticide sales among OECD member countries, mainly linked to the growth of the horticulture and vine sub-sectors (OECD, 2013c). The use of pesticide per unit of agricultural land has grown rapidly since 2000. It is now similar to that of many OECD member countries (Figure 5.9; Annex 1.C). Wageningen (2013) indicates that small farmers in Chile often spray more pesticides than necessary.

Risks to soil and water from pesticide and fertiliser use in agriculture appear to be considerable, yet Chile has no comprehensive system to monitor soil and water quality

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CHILE 2016 © OECD 2016

227

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

Figure 5.9. The use of agricultural chemicals increased Fertiliser use, 2002-13 Nitrogen fertilisers Agricultural production

Pesticide sales, 2005-13a Fungicides/bactericides Insecticides Pesticides intensityb (right axis)

Phosphate fertilisers

2000 = 100 180

1 000 tonnes 30

Herbicides Other pesticides 2005 = 100 140

160 120

25

140 120

100

20

100

80 15

80

60

60

10

40

40 5

20 0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

0

20 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

0

a) Data refer to imports in formulated products for use in agriculture, forestry and veterinary and sanitary sectors. b) Based on data expressed in tonnes per km2 of agricultural land.

Source: FAO (2015), FAOSTAT (database).

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933388726

(notably in remote regions). Chile is the only OECD member country that does not estimate its national (soil surface) nitrogen and phosphorus balances (OECD, 2013c). To date, controls have not been sufficient to address nutrient releases from agricultural activities into inland water systems. In addition, Chile has long subsidised the recovery of the production potential of degraded agricultural soils, which can entail nutrient contamination from chemical fertilisers, although some measures could improve the soil’s ability to sequester carbon (Chapter 4).

NGOs have reported massive deaths of bees after pesticide sprays and academic research found pesticide residues in honey (CIAP, 2012). 28 This calls for adequate restrictions based on pesticide risk assessments such as those conducted in the EU.29 While no taxes are in place on fertilisers and pesticides or on water effluents, the proposed extended producer responsibility legislation does include disposal of unused pesticides (Chapter 1).

Improving water use The agriculture sector’s demand for water is a significant threat to biodiversity in Chile, draining wetlands and eroding soil (Section 1.3). A large part of Chilean agriculture produce relies on irrigation technology. Chile has heavily invested in irrigation infrastructure and subsidised on-farm investment in irrigation and drainage works.30 The irrigation subsidies have encouraged the adoption of water-saving techniques. Coverage of modern irrigation methods and irrigation efficiency have increased,31 together with the expansion of irrigated areas by 8 000 ha per year. However, Chilean agricultural sector has generally not yet transitioned to sophisticated irrigation systems that minimise water use.

Traditional gravitational irrigation still accounts for over 70% of irrigated area (Guzmán, 2012). Chile still has among the highest irrigation water application rates in the OECD, which suggests a low efficiency of irrigation water use (OECD, 2013c).32

228

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CHILE 2016 © OECD 2016

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

The impacts of irrigation subsidies on groundwater recharge and sustainability have not been assessed (Donoso, 2015). The subsidies do not incorporate any environmental criteria. They allow drainage of wetlands or installation of an irrigation system on pronounced hillslopes with bushes and rich biodiversity, which is replaced by a monoculture that does not contribute to biological diversity. They also promote drainage or canalisation of natural water courses in areas of ecological value or promote degraded soil recovery, allowing non-regulated development in natural environments. Drawing on policies in Australia’s Murray Darling Basin, economic analysis suggests that buyback of water-use rights (e.g. to maintain environmental flows) is more cost effective in enhancing water-use efficiency than subsidies to upgrade irrigation infrastructure (Wittwer, 2012).

Existing irrigation capacity should be used more efficiently before constructing new irrigation reservoirs, as foreseen in the National Irrigation Plan.33

Decoupling agricultural support from production Agricultural support in the form of transfers to farmers, as measured by the OECD Producer Support Estimate (PSE), has declined significantly since 2000 (Figure 5.10).34 Chile is now among the OECD member countries with the lowest level of such support. PSE averaged 3% of gross farm receipts between 2013 and 2014, compared to an OECD average of about 18% and to about 18% in Colombia, 12% in Mexico and 4% in Brazil. Chile has reduced its potentially most distorting support (based on output and variable input use – without input constraints), which accounted for 28% of PSE in 2012-14. Transfers to farmers mostly target small-scale agriculture and indigenous farmers, aim to improve productivity and competiveness, and create almost no market distortions (OECD, 2015a).

Yet over 90% of transfers to farmers are linked to input use (Figure 5.10). In other words, they reduce the cost of capital and other purchased inputs. This indirectly encourages agricultural production and increases risk of overuse or misuse of inputs such as pesticides and fertilisers, with potentially negative environmental impact. These subsidies include support to investment in on-farm irrigation systems, which can harm

Figure 5.10. Support to agricultural producers has dropped, but it is linked to input use Support based on:

Commodity output

Input use

Current A/An/R/I, production required*

% of gross farm receipts 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

*A/An/R/I: Area/animal numbers/receipts/income criteria Source: OECD (2015), "Producer and Consumer Support Estimates", OECD Agriculture statistics (database).

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933388732

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CHILE 2016 © OECD 2016

229

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems (as discussed above). Chile would benefit from systematically assessing the effectiveness of these budgetary allocations against their socio-economic objectives and potential environmental impact.

Promoting organic farming Organic agricultural production has expanded markedly in Chile since the early 2000s, accompanied by a national certification system and the National Commission of Organic Agriculture. Chile also introduced a certification system for sustainable wineries in 2012 (Box 5.9). However, in 2013, organic agricultural land still amounted to a negligible share of total agricultural land (0.15%, or 0.6% if wild collection and other non-agricultural land is included).35 Organic exports amounted to USD 178 million in 2013 (FiBL and IFOAM, 2015); the domestic market demand is relatively small, but growing. The number of certified organic producers (446) is significantly below that of regional peers with a similar size of organic agricultural land, such as Colombia (4 700) or Bolivia (9 800).

Box 5.9. Sustainable practices in Chile’s wine industry Wine is one of Chile’s key agricultural exports, with production concentrated in the biodiversity-rich central Mediterranean climate regions. The wine industry is particularly vulnerable to climate change and its expected impact on water availability (Box 4.4). Chile’s wineries are already moving in the direction of more sustainable practices, and working with universities to innovate. The industry aims to position itself as an international leader in sustainability by 2020. Chile established a certification system for sustainable wineries in 2012, which uses a variety of environmental and social criteria such as methods for soil protection, water use, energy use, recycling and pesticide use. Forty-six Chilean wineries are listed as sustainable. Emiliana, for example, has organic vineyards that incorporate a number of environmentally-beneficial practices such as the use of compost instead of synthetic fertiliser, biological corridors for native trees and flowers, cover crops to prevent soil erosion and chickens as a natural form of pest control.

In 2008, the Chilean Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity started an initiative to demonstrate the compatibility of biodiversity conservation and growth of Chile’s wine industry. It is developing research capacity regarding the industry’s susceptibility to climate change; proposing improvements in the design of vineyards and management practices; improving knowledge dissemination in both industry and society; promoting creation of protected areas within the territory of the vineyards; and developing an international network of scientists and winemakers from other water-scarce wineproducing regions such as California, South Africa and Australia. The programme has led to the conservation of more than 11 000 ha of land.

Source: Wines of Chile (2012a, 2012b, 2012c); MMA (2014a); Emiliana (2015).

6.2. Forestry Forestry is a major economic sector in Chile, contributing 5.2% to national exports in 2013, the third highest value in the OECD after Finland (13.5%) and Sweden (6.3%) (OECD, 2015c).36 The Chilean forest industry is centred in territories that are traditionally Mapuche, and environmental concerns have long been a source of conflict with indigenous communities. Expansion of pine and eucalyptus plantations, which cover vast tracts of land and absorb significant groundwater, has sparked violent conflict in the Araucanía region of southern Chile (Miroff, 2014).

230

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CHILE 2016 © OECD 2016

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

The forestry industry has reduced its consumption of native wood significantly in the last 20 years, but direct consumption of native tree species (e.g. firewood collection for domestic heating) has almost doubled (MMA, 2014a). Chile’s forest products sector has increasingly certified its production processes to conform to market demand and trade agreements (CBD, 2015). At least 70% of plantation companies affiliated with the trade association qualify for the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification, and the FSCcertified forest area has increased more than five-fold since 2010 (FAO, 2015). In addition, Chile’s forestry industry has used some national sustainable forestry labels such as Certfor, Marcha Blanca and Sello Verde. The forestry industry (including pulp and paper and wooden furniture) has also established eight Clean Production Agreements that include targets for reducing liquid industrial waste and management plans for solid industrial waste (MMA, 2014a; see also Chapter 2).

The 2008 Native Forest Recovery and Forestry Promotion Law created a financial incentive for the protection and preservation of native forests, in addition to supporting economic activities focused on timber and non-timber production. The law also created a Conservation Fund to promote management, conservation, restoration and research on native forest ecosystems.

At the same time, Chile has long subsidised afforestation and forest plantation (Decree Law 701/1974 and its amendments). While these subsidies can contribute to increasing carbon sequestration capacity (Chapter 4), they may have encouraged replacing native forests by plantations with exotic species. In addition, the level of subsidies for native forests is well below that for tree planting, thus creating few incentives to bid for native forest subsidies (CONAF, 2013). The tree plantation subsidy programme ended in 2012, but is expected to be renewed. In designing the new programme, Chile should rebalance the incentives, traditionally in favour of forest plantation, and carefully assess costs, benefits and trade-offs between carbon sequestration and biodiversity objectives.

6.3. Fishing and aquaculture Fishing Chile is among the world’s major producers and exporters of fish products. In 2013, it had the 12th largest commercial fish catch in the world, accounting for 2% of global catches. Fish catches from large industrial operators have dramatically declined since 2000, in part due to critically low fish stocks and overexploitation of some species (e.g. horse mackerel and anchovy).37 Despite the growth of the artisanal fishery, overall fish captures have more than halved since 2000 (Figure 5.11).

Chile has established over 700 Areas of Management and Exploitation of Benthic Resources (AMERBs) to help sustainably manage its fisheries. Through the areas, exclusive rights are assigned to organisations of artisanal fishers. Studies have shown the number of species in managed areas is much higher than those in open access fisheries. The management plans in the AMERBs are developed in participation with communities and fishers through joint workshops (MMA, 2014a).

Following severe depletion of its fish stock, Chile introduced a quota system in 2001, which helped reduce fishing (Figure 5.11). Global catch quotas are usually distributed between the industrial and small-scale sectors. A transferable quota licence (TQL) system covers industrial fisheries, with duration of the quotas normally of 20 years. The TQLs corresponds to a percentage of the industrial quota, so its amount might change from one

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CHILE 2016 © OECD 2016

231

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

Figure 5.11. Fish catches have declined, while aquaculture has expanded Aquaculture, major 15 producers, 2013

Fish catches and aquaculture, 2000-13a Aquaculture

Catches

Million tonnes 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

2000

2002

43.6 million t.

China (P.R.) India Indonesia Viet Nam Bangladesh Norway Egypt Thailand Chile Myanmar Philippines Brazil Japan Korea United States 2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

0

1

2

3

4 Million tonnes

5

a) Excludes aquatic mammals, aquatic plants and other miscellaneous aquatic animal products.

Source: FAO (2015), FAO Global Capture and Aquaculture Production (databases).

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933388744

year to another (OECD, 2015c). This is an advantage, as it will give the permit holders an incentive to argue for the global catch limit to be set at sustainable levels – in order to preserve their value. In cases of non-compliance, where permit holders overfish, a significant fine is applied; the excess amount fished is deducted from next year’s permit.

In 2013, the Law on Fishing and Aquaculture was amended to recover fishing grounds and enhance the sector’s sustainability. It shifted the basis for fishing quotas from economic and social considerations to scientific and technical factors (MMA, 2014a). The new law introduced concepts such as the precautionary principle and ecosystem approaches. It includes new definitions and classifications for assessing and measuring the availability of fishery resources and incorporates international sustainability management standards (e.g. biological reference points and maximum sustainable yield), which set the maximum catch that a resource can be subject to without affecting its medium- and long-term sustainability. The law requires conservation measures for vulnerable marine ecosystems, management plans for resources with closed access and recovery plans for overexploited and depleted fisheries. It also adjusted the tradable quota system, establishing new controls for larger vessels and reserving the first nautical mile from shore exclusively for smaller vessels (less than 15 m in length) (OECD, 2015c).

In addition, a new tax on fisheries extraction rights was introduced in 2014, based on the quota size of each industrial operator. Such a tax should help secure a part of the resource rents related to fish stocks for society as a whole. The small-scale sector is not subject to the tax, but the fishers have to pay a permit for each registered vessel, which increases with the size of the vessel.

Chile provides modest support to fisheries, totalling approximately USD 90 million in 2012 (OECD, 2015c). It gives less than 5% as grants for vessel construction, modernisation and equipment. In addition, diesel used for powering vessels benefits from a tax credit.

While these measures may encourage fishing and pressure on fish stocks, if the total catches of the transferable quota system are being respected, fish stocks should not be affected.

232

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CHILE 2016 © OECD 2016

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

Aquaculture Chile is among the world’s biggest producers in aquaculture (Figure 5.11). Fish production from aquaculture almost tripled over 2000-12. Although it dropped between 2008 and 2010 due to a salmon virus crisis,38 it amounted to nearly one-third of total fish production in 2014. The effluent, pesticides and medicines flowing from the fish farms are a major source of pollution of, and pressure on, inland waters, estuaries and marine ecosystems (MMA, 2014a).

Since the salmon virus crisis, the government has promoted diversification of aquaculture. At the same time, industry has reduced density of farms and relocated operations to new areas with better ventilation and depth (OECD, 2015c). Certification of salmon production centres to international Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) has increased.

Fisheries legislation is also being amended to limit emissions of solid and liquid waste from aquaculture.

Limited financial and human resources to enforce regulation and monitoring of aquaculture impacts on ecosystems and aquatic species still pose a challenge (MMA, 2014a).

By 2013, 1 300 violations were detected in the fisheries sector, and 215 in the aquaculture sector, but enforcement capacity for fisheries and aquaculture remains weak (MMA, 2014a).

6.4. Tourism Tourism is an important and growing source of foreign income in Chile. The tourism sector represents Chile’s fourth largest export sector, with about 4.5 million foreign visitors in 2015 (Subsecretaría de Turismo, 2015). Many of Chile’s forests, glaciers, mountains and lakes have high recreational and scenic value. More than three-quarters of foreign tourists are drawn to Chile because of its natural environment and wide variety of ecosystems (Government of Chile, 2014).

Since many natural attractions are in protected areas, tourism presents an opportunity to raise awareness and support for conservation, as well as financing for biodiversity protection in Chile. As noted in Section 5, Chile raised USD 10 million in 2012 through access fees and concessions (including for ecotourism). The number of national and international visitors to protected areas grew by 38% between 2010 and 2014. One in three Chileans reportedly visit one of the country’s protected areas at least once a year (MMA, 2015). One study showed that divers in Chile were willing to pay up to USD 65 extra for more biodiverse marine sites (MMA, 2014a). However, tourism can also be a potential threat to biodiversity conservation efforts if not managed carefully, while environmental degradation can reduce the attractiveness of tourist destinations.

For most of the 2000s, there has been limited recognition of the economic potential of sustainable tourism and a lack of policy co-ordination (OECD and LEED, 2014). Sustainability, however, is one of five pillars in the Tourism Strategy for 2012-20 and the government launched an action plan for sustainable tourism in protected areas for 2014-18. The 2010 Tourism Law contains a regulation specific to the granting of concessions for private tourism activities in protected areas (MMA, 2014a). New Sustainable Distinction Systems for Chilean Tourist Accommodation and Destinations have also been created based on global sustainable criteria suggested by the World Tourism Organization, which include economic, environmental and social components (OECD and LEED, 2014). 39 The government created a technical board to address areas with tension between tourism development and sustainability objectives. It defines criteria to establish limits of acceptable change for specific tourist destinations in the country.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CHILE 2016 © OECD 2016

233

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

6.5. Mining The mining industry is a pillar of the Chilean economy (Chapter 1). Excessive extraction of groundwater, soil and water contamination and hazardous waste represent the mining sector’s greatest risks to biodiversity in Chile. Mining development is expected to continue to be a source of environmental conflict, as a result of disputes over land and water. Twenty of 30 cases of environmental conflict documented in Chile are linked to mining activities (Segall, 2014).40 Excessive groundwater use threatens to dry out wetlands, which are the habitats and feeding grounds of species such as the Andean flamingo. Dust from mining can also cause Andean glaciers – a precious freshwater source – to melt faster (SDSG, 2010). The mining industry has responded to the worsening water scarcity with greater water-use efficiency and a massive increase in seawater use (Chapters 1 and 3).41 Most improvements have, however, been in large-scale mining projects. Water needs for mining are expected to rise by 40% over 2014-25 due to rising production and declining ore grades.42 Seawater use is projected to expand massively, with the supply of seawater used in copper mining expected to increase from 16% to 36% between 2014 and 2025 (Cochilco, 2014a, 2014b). An increase of this magnitude would sharply expand energy needs; it may also alter salt concentrations and chemical compositions at discharge sites, with unknown impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity.

Tailings ponds (where hazardous mining waste is stockpiled) present a significant risk to human health and ecosystems in regions prone to earthquake, landslides and heavy rains. 43 Large volumes of tailings (containing chemicals and heavy metals) have contaminated soil, surface water and groundwater (Jarroud, 2015). However, data on soil and water contamination from mining activities are limited. While Chile restricts the disposal of mining waste at sea, tailings have been discarded into the Pacific Ocean off the Chilean coast, with potential negative impacts on marine biodiversity.

Chile has made progress in surveying abandoned and/or inactive mine sites. The 2012 Mine Closure Law requires all new mines to get approval for end-of-life closure plans. This is an important step to prevent creation of abandoned mine sites in the future. However, it does not apply to the over 650 already abandoned mining sites, which have no decontamination plans. Imposing decontamination fees on hazardous industrial installations could help raise the necessary funding for remediation (Chapter 1; Box 2.1).

Information on small-scale mining operations and their impact is insufficient. The government subsidises small-scale mining, which encourages exploitation of natural resources, increases the risk of pollution of water table and affects biodiversity.

As with other major projects, mining projects undergo an EIA. Between 2000 and 2015, nearly 11% of all projects that underwent an EIA related to mining activities (SEIA, 2015).44 In the context of the EIA, some mining companies have compensated the biodiversity loss at the mining site with conservation projects at other locations (Box 5.10). In 2013, the Iquique region conducted a biodiversity offset pilot in the mining sector. These initiatives should be further encouraged, as they can help better engage mining companies in addressing social and environmental concerns arising from their projects. The EIA process should ensure that species and ecosystems in water-scarce regions are adequately considered in project licensing.

234

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CHILE 2016 © OECD 2016

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

Box 5.10. Biodiversity offset in the mining sector In late 2015, Antofagasta Minerals submitted a revised EIA for its multi-million dollar copper mine in the central-northern Coquimbo region that proposed a biodiversity offset.

The proposal is to spend USD 43 million to support conservation and reforestation efforts in other areas impacted by mining operations, instead of the local area which the company says is too arid to support certain plant species. One of the proposed areas for conservation is on the coast of Chile.

Source: Abarca (2015).

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CHILE 2016 © OECD 2016

235

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

Notes 1. The Chilean matorral and Valdivian temperate rainforest ecoregions are estimated to hold nearly 2 000 endemic plant species and at least 26 endemic animals, with endemism levels of 90% and 70% respectively.

2. The Tropical Andes Hotspot covers the Andes Mountains of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and the northern tropical portions within Argentina and Chile. It contains about one-sixth of all plant life in the world and has the largest variety of amphibian, bird and mammal species and second largest reptile diversity (CEPF, 2015).

3. For example, the area of avocado plantation has tripled and that of vineyards has doubled over the last 20 years.

4. Eight of these ecosystems are vulnerable due to having lost more than 50% of native biota coverage and eight are considered endangered due to having lost more than 70% of coverage between 1992 and 2012.

5. The Central Chilean coast has been particularly affected, with a loss of native forest of 26% between 1992 and 2012 in the coastal area of the Maule and Bío Bío regions, mainly due to the establishment of new plantation forests (MMA, 2014a).

6. For example, eucalyptus trees require significant amounts of water, which can be challenging in water-scarce regions. There is a negative correlation between plantation forests of eucalyptus and radiata pine and water flow (Lara et al., 2010).

7. The 2015 Ocean Health Index assessed countries across ten goals, with half of the score based on present status and half based on the likely future status resulting from trends, pressures, policies and other factors.

8. However, the index only assesses the health of mangroves, seagrass, salt marsh, tropical coral reefs, soft bottom subtidal habitats and sea ice. Country scores are not penalised for lack of data.

9. Algae blooms and phytotoxins have increased in certain regions such as in Region VII (Lake Vichuquén and connected Torca lagoon and Llico estuary).

10. For example, crop farming and intensive livestock husbandry have led to high concentrations of nitrates in tributaries of Bío Bío river and in Rapel river (Chile’s second longest and third largest river, respectively).

11. This excludes wetlands on the oceanic islands and meadows and bogs in southernmost Chile.

12. These include the espinillo, lantana, common cane, pomacea snail, rainbow trout, brown trout, carp, mosquito fish, red-eared slider, goat, red deer, boar, cat, rabbit, mink, European rabbit and rodent.

13. The General Water Directorate (DGA) of the Ministry of Public Works is in charge of water allocation issues; the Superintendence of Water Services regulates water supply and sanitation services; the Ministry of Health regulates water quality and pollution; irrigation is governed by the Ministry of Agriculture; and the Ministry of Environment is responsible for the well-being of ecosystems and species.

14. The committee, created in 2005, includes CONAF, the National Museum of Natural History, the Agriculture and Livestock Service, SERNAPESCA, the Undersecretary for Fishing and Aquaculture,

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CHILE 2016 © OECD 2016

237

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

and the Ministry for the Environment, as well as three representatives from the Chilean Science Academy, three from universities and three from the agriculture, forestry and fishing sectors.

15. Chile is also a party to the Inter-American Convention for the Protection of Flora, Fauna and Natural Scenic Beauties, the Protocol for the Conservation and Management of Protected Marine and Coastal Areas of the South-East Pacific, and the Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage.

16. The plans cover 17 flora and 14 fauna species, including the hummingbird of Arica, the little tern, the ruddy-headed goose, Darwin’s fox, several amphibians and five cactus species (CBD, 2015).

17. CONAF developed a National Wetlands Conservation Programme in 2010 for protected areas. In 2013, they performed 64 actions in 76 continental areas and on Easter Island. They also developed an Andean Wetlands Regional Strategy in 2005, with representatives from academia, NGOs and ten mining companies. The strategy focuses on biological and water resource monitoring, resource protection, and land-use planning and local development (MMA, 2014a).

18. Under the Chile-US partnership, protected areas in the two countries are matched, supporting information exchange, technical visits, internships and other beneficial initiatives. For example, the US Glacier Bay National Park and Reserve and Chile’s Francisco Coloane Marine Park in the Strait of Magellan were twinned, allowing scientific co-operation in studying the population of humpback whales and strategies to protect the species in shipping lanes (MMA, 2014a).

19. These include agreements for the conservation of the huemul deer, the canquén colorado, the High Andean flamingos, vicuña, Andean cat, suri, guanaco, Andean chinchilla, horned tagua and queñoa (polylepis).

20. Secondary water quality standards regulate biological contamination, nutrient levels (nitrogen, phosphorus), heavy metals, and toxic contaminants (phenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, organic halogen compounds and some pesticides).

21. Minimum ecological flows aim to preserve the hydrological and ecological functions of rivers, e.g. by preventing rivers from drying up or significantly altering their physical regimes. The minimum ecological flow was set at 10% to 20% of the annual average flow rate in 2005, and replaced in 2014 by a more flexible 50% of monthly river flow rates, while the 20% cap has remained.

22. The recommendation included a menu of options such as fees, charges and environmental taxes; payments for ecosystem services; assignment of well-defined property rights; reform or removal of harmful subsidies; and environmental funds and public financing.

23. Official protected areas refer to those areas administered by public institutions, including CONAF, SERNAPESCA and MMA. They include national parks, national reserves, nature sanctuaries, natural monuments, marine reserves, marine parks and multiple use marine coastal protected areas. The government estimated the total area under some form of protection is broader and reaches almost 40% of the territory.

24. The SNASPE includes national parks, national reserves and natural monuments.

25. There are an additional 64 initiatives not yet surveyed and characterised.

26. The Chilean matorral ecoregion extends over about 148 000 km2, of which slightly more than 1 760 km2 are covered by official protected areas and 261 km2 by private protected areas; the Valdivian temperate rainforest ecoregion extends over about 200 300 km2, of which nearly 38 000 km2 lie within official protected areas and nearly 4 900 km2 are under private protection initiatives.

27. For example, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) Chile developed a planning tool for marine ecosystem conservation actions in southern Chile and a plan for the conservation of Valdivian temperate rainforests. An agreement between the NGO TNC, Austral University and forestry company Masisa was established to restore native forest in the Valdivian Coastal Reserve (MMA, 2014a).

28. Chile’s beekeeping industry has about 500 000 hives, providing pollinating services to fruit producers and producing honey. Honey is now the main primary livestock product exported by Chile (MMA, 2014a).

29. Risk assessments led to restricting the use of pesticides belonging to the neonicotinoid family in the EU as from end-2013.

30. The grants can reach up to 70-90% of the total cost of the project, depending on the type of farmer who applies, with a higher percentage for the most vulnerable farmers.

31. Modern irrigation includes drip irrigation as well as furrow, sprinkler and pivot irrigation.

238

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CHILE 2016 © OECD 2016

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

32. In the late 2000s, Chile’s water application rate was 15.2 megalitres per hectare of irrigated land, the third highest, after Japan and Korea, among the OECD member countries with irrigation area larger than 5% of total agricultural area.

33. The National Irrigation Plan foresees expanding irrigated area by 55%, or 600 000 ha, by 2022.

34. Agricultural support is defined as the annual monetary value of gross transfers to agriculture from consumers and taxpayers, arising from government policies that support agriculture. The Percentage Producer Support Estimate (%PSE) represents policy transfers to agricultural producers individually, measured at the farm gate and expressed as a share of gross farm receipts. Transfers included in the PSE are composed of market price support, budgetary payments and the cost of revenue foregone by the government and other economic agents. They require that an individual farmer takes actions to produce goods or services, to use factors of production, or to be defined as an eligible farming enterprise or farmer, to receive the transfer.

35. Main organic crops are berries, grapes, fruit and olives.

36. Chile is one of Latin America’s largest producers of pulp and cellulose (Segall, 2014). Chile’s forests are an important source of timber, pellets, firewood, biofuel and other forest products.

37. Declining fish catches have also been related to the El Niño phenomenon, whose effect on sea temperature impacts fisheries destined for fish meal, as well as to the 2010 earthquake and tsunami, which caused considerable losses in processing plants.

38. A case of “infectious salmon anaemia” infected and killed millions of salmon. It resulted in a collapse of the sector and the loss of more than 13 000 jobs.

39. The Sub-secretariat of Tourism has identified three local destinations for the distinction system: Easter Island; the Cajon de Maipo (near Santiago) and Lake Llanquihue (Los Lagos region) (OECD and LEED, 2014).

40. For example, Codelco’s Andina 244 expansion close to Santiago is raising concerns about impacts to glaciers that form part of the watershed providing drinking water to 6 million people (Segall, 2014). Opposition to the Pascua Lama mining project by neighbouring communities concerned about water use and damage to glaciers led to works being halted (OCMAL, 2015).

41. Between 2009 and 2014, freshwater consumption in the mining sector increased by only 4%, while use of seawater increased almost ten-fold.

42. Lower ore grades make the extraction and processing of copper more difficult and typically lead to increased use of chemicals, water and energy per produced tonne.

43. The 2010 earthquake caused the collapse of one abandoned tailings pond onto a family that was unaware of the risk. In March 2015, heavy rains in the northern Atacama desert region stirred up heavy metals in abandoned ponds.

44. Of these projects, 68% were approved, 3% were rejected and the remaining were revoked, judged non-admissible, withdrawn or not rated.

45. The project benefits of the financial and technical assistance of the UNFCCC Climate Technology Centre and Network and the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center.

46. The Climate Change Adaptation Plan for Forestry and Agriculture includes 21 measures mainly focused on water management, research, information and capacity building, risk management and agricultural insurance and forestry management. The Climate Change Adaptation Plan for Fisheries and Aquaculture includes 29 measures to be implemented by the Sub-secretariat for Fisheries and Aquaculture under the Ministry of Economy, Promotion and Tourism.

47. The REDD+ initiative under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change provides a mechanism to finance projects that reduce deforestation and forest degradation, thereby contributing to both climate change mitigation and biodiversity objectives.

References Abarca, J.A. (28 December 2015), “Antofagasta Minerals submits US$43mn biodiversity offset EIA”, BNamericas blog, http://subscriber.bnamericas.com/en/news/mining/antofagasta-minerals-submitsus43mn-biodiversity-offset-eia/ (accessed 30 September 2015).

Acuna, P.L. et al. (2014), “Mortalidad de la población de Rana Grande Chilena, Calyptocephalella Gayi (Calyptocephalellidae), en la Laguna Matanzas del Humedal El Yali, en Chile Central” [Population

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CHILE 2016 © OECD 2016

239

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

mortality of the Chilean frog, calyptocephalella gayi (Calyptocephalellidae) in Matanzas lagoon in El Yali Wetland, central Chile], Anales Museo de Historia Natural de Valparaiso, Vol. 27.

AGRIMED (2013), “Action plan for biodiversity protection and conservation in a context of adaptation to climate change”, report prepared by University of Chile Agriculture and Environment Center for the Chilean Ministry for the Environment, Santiago.

Azzopardi, T. (26 February 2014), “Biodiversity offsets in Chile”, Amcham Chile blog, www.amchamchile.cl/ en/2014/02/compensaciones-por-perdida-de-biodiversidad-en-chile/ (accessed 30 September 2015).

Barton, D.N. (29 November 2013), “Payment for ecosystem services: Costa Rica’s recipe”, International Institute for Environment and Development blog, www.iied.org/payments-for-ecosystem-servicescosta-rica-s-recipe (accessed 30 September 2015).

BIOFIN (2014), Biofin Activities in Chile, The Biodiversity Finance Initiative, website, www.biodiversity finance.org/countries/chile (accessed February 2016).

Birdlife (2010), Humedal El Yali, BirdLife International, Cambridge, website, www.birdlife.org (accessed February 2016).

Bovarnick, A. et al. (2010), Financial Sustainability of Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean: Investment Policy Guidance, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York and The Nature Conservancy, Ballston.

CBD (2015), Chile – Country Profile, Secretariat of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, website, www.cbd.int/countries/profile/default.shtml?country=cl#facts (accessed February 2016).

CEPAL and MMA (2015), Estimación del gasto público en protección ambiental en Chile [Estimated public expenditure on environmental protection in Chile], UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and Ministry of Environment, Santiago.

CEPF (2015), “The biodiversity hotspots. South America”, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Arlington, www.cepf.net/resources/hotspots/South-America/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 4 February 2016).

CIAP (2012), “Desaparición de las abejas y los residuos de plaguicidas en miel: Situación de la región de O’Higgins” [Disappearance of bees and pesticide residues in honey: Situation in the region of O’Higgins], Agrocompetitivo, Boletin N°1-2012, Centro de Investigaciones Aplicadas, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Rancagua.

Cochilco (2014a), Proyección de Consumo de Agua en la Minería del Cobre 2014-2025 [Projected Water Consumption in Copper Mining 2014-2025], Chilean Copper Commission, Santiago.

Cochilco (2014b), Análisis de variables claves para la sustentabilidad de la minería en Chile, 2014 [Analysis of key variables for the sustainability of mining in Chile, 2014], Chilean Copper Commission, Santiago.

CONAF and FCPF (2015), Mid-Term Review Chile: Request for Additional Funds from Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, September 2015, Ministry of Agriculture, Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, Santiago.

CONAF (2013), “Informe final; Programa ley del bosque nativo” [Final Report; the Native Forest Law Programme], in J. de la Fuente Olguín et al. (eds.), Ministry of Agriculture, Santiago.

DIPRES (2015), “Estado de operaciones del gobierno central 1990-2014” [State of Central Government Operations 1990-2014], Budget Directorate, Ministry of Finance, Santiago, www.dipres.gob.cl/594/w3propertyvalue-15494.html (accessed 15 September 2015).

Donoso, G. (2015), “Water pricing in Chile: Decentralisation and market reforms”, in Dinar, A., V. Pochat and J. Albiac-Murillo (eds.), Water Pricing Experiences and Innovations, Springer International Publishing, Geneva.

Donoso, G. (2012), “The evolution of water markets in Chile”, in Water Trading and Global Water Scarcity, International Perspectives, J. Maetsu (ed.), RFF Press, Washington, DC. Dusaillant, A., P. Galdames and C.L. Sun (2007), “Water Level Fluctuations in a Coastal Lagoon: El Yali Ramsar Wetland, Chile”, presentation at multi functions of a wetland system, Legnaro (Padova), 26-29 June 2007.

ELI (2003), Legal Tools and Incentives for Private Lands Conservation in Latin America: Building Tools for Success, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC. Emiliana (2015), Emiliana Organic Vineyards, website, www.emiliana.cl (accessed 5 January 2016).

FAO (2015), Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/en/ (accessed 15 September 2015).

240

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CHILE 2016 © OECD 2016

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

FiBL and IFOAM (2015), The World of Organic Agriculture 2015, Research Institute for Organic Agriculture and International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Frick and Bonn.

Figueroa, E. (2012), Operative Design of a Financing Strategy for the Medium and Long Term of the Chile National Protected Areas System, Santiago.

Fuentes, E., R. Domínguez and N. Gómez (2015), Consultoría de Aplicación y Análisis de Resultados del Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) a las Principales Áreas Protegidas en Chile 2015 [Consultation on the Application and Analysis of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) to Chile’s main Protected Areas 2015], Santiago.

GEF (2009), Project Identification Form: Sustainable Land Management Project in Chile, 1 September 2009, Global Environment Facility, Washington, DC. GEF (2005), Request for Pipeline Entry and PDF B Approval: Building a Comprehensive Protected Areas System for Chile, 5 April 2005, Global Environment Facility, Washington, DC. Give Green Canada (2015), Ecological Gifts Program, website, www.givegreencanada.ca (accessed 10 January 2016).

Government of Chile (2014), Plan de acción de turismo sustentable en áreas protegidas del estado 2014-2018 [Action plan for sustainable tourism in national protected areas 2014-2018], Santiago.

Guzmán, A. (2012), “Cambios territoriales y tecnológicos en el riego agrícola en Chile entre los años 1997 y 2007”, [Territorial and technological changes in agricultural irrigation in Chile between 1997 and 2007], Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias (ODEPA), Ministry of Agriculture, Santiago.

Hoffman, C. (2010), “Workshop in Chile targets the protection of the Chilean frog”, Amphibian Rescue and Conservation Project Panama, http://amphibianrescue.org/2010/12/15/workshop-in-chile-targetsthe-protection-of-the-chilean-frog/ (accessed September 2015).

Hogan, M.C. (15 June 2013), “Ecoregions of Chile”, The Encyclopedia of Earth, www.eoearth.org/view/article/ 152002/ (accessed 10 September 2015).

IEB (2010), “Estudio de Vulnerabilidad de la Biodiversidad Terrestre en la Eco-Región M, a Nivel de Ecosistemas y Especies, y Medidas de Adaptación frente a Escenarios de Cambio Climático” [Vulnerability of the Terrestrial Biodiversity in the Mediterranean Ecoregion, at the Ecosystems and Species Level, and Adaptation Measures for Climate Change Scenarios], Ecology and Biodiversity Institute, Santiago.

Jarroud, M. (21 April 2015), “Tailings ponds pose a threat to Chilean communities”, IPS News, www.ipsnews.net/2015/04/tailings-ponds-threaten-chilean-communities/ (accessed 10 September 2015).

Ladrón de Guevara, J. (2013), Proposed 2015-2030 Financial Strategy for the Chile National Protected Areas System, Santiago.

Lara, A. et al. (2010), “Servicios ecosistemicos y ley del Bosque Nativo: No basta con definirlos” [Ecosystem services and the Native Forest Law: Definitions are not enough], Revista Bosque Nativo, Vol. 47, pp. 3-9.

Lee, J.J. (5 October 2015), “Chile creates largest marine reserve in the Americas”, National Geographic blog, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151005-desventuradas-islands-marine-protected-areaconservation-science/ (accessed 10 September 2015).

MISP (2015), “Política Nacional para los Recursos Hídricos 2015” [National Policy for Water Resources 2015], Presidential Delegation for Water Resources, Ministry of the Interior and Public Safety, Santiago.

MMA (2015), “Primera encuesta nacional de Medio Ambiente” [First National Environment Survey], Ministry of Environment, Santiago.

MMA (2014a), Quinto Informe Nacional de Biodiversidad de Chile. Elaborado en el marco del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica [Fifth National Biodiversity Report of Chile to the Convention on Biological Diversity], Ministry of Environment, Santiago.

MMA (2014b), “Proyecto Ley Servicio Biodiversidad” [Draft Law on the Biodiversity and Protected Areas Service], Bulletin, No. 9404-12, Ministry of Environment, Santiago.

MMA (2013), “Diagnóstico y caracterización de las iniciativas de conservación privada en Chile (Resumen Ejecutivo)” [Diagnosis and characterisation of private conservation initiatives in Chile (Executive Summary)], Ministry of Environment, Santiago.

MMA (2012), Official Environment Status Report 2011, Ministry of Environment, Santiago.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CHILE 2016 © OECD 2016

241

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

Miroff, N. (8 June 2014), “Land reclamation campaign by indigenous Mapuches scorches southern Chile”, Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/land-reclamation-campaign-by-indigenousmapuches-scorches-southern-chile/2014/06/08/264f17dc-ccdb-4ec0-a815-a80360b6f02a_story.html (accessed 10 September 2015).

Nahuelhual L. et al. (2007), “Valuing ecosystem services of Chilean temperate rainforests”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 9/4, Springer, pp. 481-499.

Naturalista (2015), El Yali Wetland Programme, webpage, www.naturalista.cl/pages/en_elyali.php (accessed 15 December 2015).

Ocean Health Index (2015), Ocean Health Index 2015, www.oceanhealthindex.org (accessed February 2016).

OCMAL (2015), Conflictos mineros en Chile, Observatory of Mining Conflicts in Latin America, http:// basedatos.conflictosmineros.net/ocmal_db/?page=lista&idpais=02032300 (accessed February 2016).

OECD (2015a), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1787/agr_pol-2015-en.

OECD (2015b), Environment at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1787/9789264235199-en.

OECD (2015c), OECD Review of Fisheries Policies and Summary Statistics 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1787/97892640223-en.

OECD (2013a), Scaling-up Finance Mechanisms for Biodiversity, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1787/9789264193833-en.

OECD (2013b), OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: South Africa, OECD Publishing, Paris, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264202887-en.

OECD (2013c), OECD Compendium of Agri-environmental Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264186217-en.

OECD (2011), Mid-Term Progress Report: Chile Environmental Performance Review 2005, OECD Working Party on Environmental Performance, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD and LEED (2014), Chile’s Pathway to Green Growth: Measuring Progress at Local Level, OECD Publishing, Paris, www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/Green_growth_Chile_Final2014.pdf.

OECD/ECLAC (2005), OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Chile 2005, OECD Publishing, Paris, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264009684-en.

Pauchard, A. and P. Villarroel (2002), “Protected areas in Chile: History, current status, and challenges”, Natural Areas Journal, Vol. 22/4, pp. 318-330.

Pumalìn Park (2015), “Proyecto y Parque Pumalín”, Puerto Varas, www.parquepumalin.cl/en/pumalin_history.htm (accessed 14 December 2015).

Ramsar (2015), Country Profile: Chile, Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, www.ramsar.org/wetland/Chile (accessed February 2016).

SDSG (2010), Report: Current Issues in the Chilean Mining Sector, Sustainable Development Strategies Group, www.sdsg.org/.

Segall, S. (27 March 2014), “Chile among top twenty countries prone to environmental conflict”, Santiago Times.

SEIA (2015), Servicio de Evaluación Ambiental, website, www.sea.gob.cl (accessed 15 December 2015).

Subsecretaría de Turismo (2015), Barómetro de Turismo [Tourism Barometer], Undersecretariat for Tourism, December 2015, Santiago.

Vía Ambiental (2015), Analisis del proyecto de ley que crea el Servicio de Biodiversidad y Areas Protegidas [Analysis of the Bill creating the Biodiversity and Protected Areas Service], Santiago.

Vidal-Abarca, R. et al. (2011) “Caracterización hidroqumica del Complejo de Humedales El Yali, Chile Central”, Limnetica, Vol. 30/1, pp. 43-58, Madrid.

Wageningen UR (31 October 2013), “Chilean farmers learn to reduce pesticide use”, blog, www.wageningenur.nl/en/show/Chilean-farmers-learn-to-reduce-pesticide-use.htm.

Wines of Chile (2012a), “Chile goes Organic”, Fresh Ideas Organic Marketplace, 8 March 2012, Anaheim.

Wines of Chile (2012b), “Wines of Chile: The natural choice”, Fresh Ideas Organic Marketplace, 8 March 2012, Anaheim.

242

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CHILE 2016 © OECD 2016

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

Wines of Chile (2012c), “Wines of Chile promote sustainability”, Fresh Ideas Organic Marketplace, 8 March 2012, Anaheim.

Wittwer, G. (2012), “The economic consequences of a prolonged drought in the Southern MurrayDarling Basin”, in G. Wittwer (ed.) Economic Modeling of Water, The Australian CGE Experience, Global Issues in Water Policy, Vol. 3, Springer.

World Bank (2015), World development indicators: Deforestation and biodiversity, in Environment, World Bank, Washington, DC, http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/3.4 (accessed February 2016).

World Bank (2012), Project Brief on a Proposed Grant from the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund to the Republic of Chile for the Design and Implementation of a Biodiversity Management System in the Ministry of Public Works, 22 March 2012, Washington, DC. World Bank (2011), Diagnóstico de la Gestión de los Recursos Hídricos [Assessment of Water Resources Management], World Bank, Washington, DC, http://water.worldbank.org/node/83999.

Worth, K. (10 March 2014), “Argentina and Chile decide not to leave it to beavers”, Scientific American, www.scientificamerican.com/article/argentina-and-chile-decide-not-to-leave-it-to-beavers/.

WWF (2015), WWF Chile Office, Threats to Local Biodiversity, webpage, www.panda.org/who_we_are/ wwf_offices/chile/about_chile/threats/ (accessed 14 December 2015).

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: CHILE 2016 © OECD 2016

243

From:

OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: France 2016

Access the complete publication at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264252714-en

Please cite this chapter as: OECD (2016), “Biodiversity: Protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty”, in OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: France 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264252714-12-en

This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries.

This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at info@copyright.com or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at contact@cfcopies.com.

5.

BIODIVERSITY: PROTECTION OF AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY

6. Integrating biodiversity into economic sectors 6.1. Integrating biodiversity into agricultural Agriculture occupies over half the metropolitan land area and exerts great pressure on biodiversity (Chapter 1). Despite growing awareness of its impact, the instruments put in place to develop agricultural practices remain insufficient. Although these instruments are largely negotiated at European level, France has substantial room for manœuvre that could be used to the benefit of biodiversity.

Biodiversity in the Common Agricultural Policy Biodiversity-friendly agricultural policies principally arise from the “further greening” of the CAP by means of agri-environment measures (AEMs) and the environmental conditionality of subsidies. Biodiversity has been gradually integrated into the CAP in France

240

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: FRANCE 2016 © OECD 2016

5.

BIODIVERSITY: PROTECTION OF AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY

since 2004 through direct or contractual aid for the voluntary implementation of AEMs, which allow farmers to receive subsidies in exchange for certain environmentally-friendly agricultural practices, some of which focus directly on biodiversity. Farmers must adhere to one or more measures for at least five years, their remuneration for doing so being dependent on the degree of constraint of the practices. In its agricultural programming for 2007-13, France introduced “regionalised” AEMs which allowed resources to be focused on areas with priority challenges, including biodiversity, notably in Natura 2000 sites.

Between 2007 and 2012, around 21 000 regionalised AEM contracts were signed, covering some 65 500 ha of agricultural land. The agri-environment payments, however, including those linked to Natura 2000, accounted for less than 5% of CAP expenditure in France from 2007 to 2014 (Agreste, 2015). Total public subsidies devoted to AEMs for 2014 to 2020 will be doubled compared to 2007-13. The AEM mechanism was also strengthened in the French agri-environmental project “Produisons autrement” [Produce differently].

“Conditionalities” have been imposed on direct aid since 2003. The most recent CAP reform, operative since 2015, provides for making around 30% of subsidies (EUR 2.2 billion per year) conditional upon three environmental criteria: maintenance at regional level of the ratio between permanent grassland and agricultural areas; diversity of crop rotation, with three annual crops as a general rule; and maintenance of “areas of environmental interest” on holdings. These may be topographic features (trees, hedges, ponds) or areas (buffer zones, or nitrogen-fixing crops such as vegetables). They are often refuge habitats for cultivated landscape biodiversity.

The green payment, in effect since 2015, also seeks to maintain permanent grassland by controlling the ratio between the latter and usable agricultural area (UAE) at regional level. If the regional ratio declines by more than 5%, the Government may ask certain farmers to replant new grassland. Some grasslands are classified as “sensitive” because of the presence of heritage species identified by the MNHN and cannot be reconverted. The scheme for “areas subject to environmental constraints”, provided for in the draft law on biodiversity, must ensure the legal means for imposing these objectives.

Organic farming and the ecological intensification of agriculture Organic farming brings together a range of practices that exclude the use of synthetic chemical inputs (fertilisers, pesticides). Despite their potential consumer health benefits, these practices have less impact on biodiversity. Organic farming still constitutes a very small minority in France, covering less than 5% of the agricultural area, though it is currently expanding after stagnating from 2003 to 2007 (Agence Bio, 2015). Demand has developed more rapidly than supply, which means that 30% of the organic produce consumed has to be imported (Quelin, 2010).

The Grenelle I Law sought to expand the area devoted to organic farming from 2% of the UAE in 2004 to 6% in 2012 and 20% in 2020. In 2013, the area given over to organic farming represented a mere 4% of the UAE, suggesting that the target for 2020 is out of reach. According to a survey in 2010, farmers cited economic difficulties, the administrative burden of the aid, lack of technical expertise, problems in organising product lines and poor acceptance by neighbouring producers as barriers to setting up in organic farming (Quelin, 2010).

The “Ambition Bio 2017” programme seeks to overcome these barriers and to double the proportion of areas under organic farming between 2013 and 2017 (Minagri, 2014).

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: FRANCE 2016 © OECD 2016

241

5.

BIODIVERSITY: PROTECTION OF AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY

Funded by the second pillar of the CAP up to an average of EUR 160 million per year (European and ministerial credits) from 2014 to 2020 (compared to EUR 90 million in 2012), the programme provides aid for converting to and maintaining organic farming, in combination with product line organisation, marketing, R&D promotion, training and regulatory adjustments.

Measures to promote organic farming fall within the 2012 French agri-environmental project (Minagri, 2012). The aim of this project, reflected in the 2014 law on the future of agriculture, food and forestry, is to reconcile the economic and environmental performance of agriculture by 2025 on the basis of a variety of action plans, including: the teaching of links between agronomic sciences and ecology, the development of a farmer support service bringing together economic, environmental and social performance factors (Box 5.9), and financial support for farmers moving towards agri-environmental practices by increasing start-up and investment aid (Minagri, 2015).

Box 5.9. DEPHY: reducing the use of pesticides by spreading good practices Since 2009, the DEPHY network of demonstration farms (DEPHY Ferme) and test farms (DEPHY Expe) verifies, develops and rolls out agricultural techniques and systems for reducing the use of crop protection products. At the end of 2014, 1 900 farms were voluntary members of the DEPHY Ferme network, and 41 DEPHY Expe projects had been conducted on 200 test sites.

All the sectors in the DEPHY network have managed to reduce their use of crop protection products while maintaining very good productivity levels. Between 2012 and 2014, the average number of treatments fell by 10% for field crops and mixed crop-livestock farming, by 12% for orchards and vineyards, by 15% for vegetable crops, by 38% for horticulture and by 22% for sugar cane.

The 2015 Ecophyto II Plan aims to increase the number of farms in the DEPHY network to 3 000 and to share their practices by supporting 30 000 farms in their transition to systems with little reliance on plant protection products.

Source: MAAF (2016), Écophyto, Note de suivi 2015, Tendances du recours aux produits phytopharmaceutiques de 2009 à 2014, Ministry of Agriculture, Agrifood and Forestry.

6.2. Integrating biodiversity into land use planning, infrastructure and urban development France has a complex range of planning documents which endeavour to limit land take and the fragmentation of natural environments. Awareness of biodiversity challenges in the regions continues to be very mixed, as shown by the limited success of attempts to ensure the voluntary participation of local elected officials in relation to wetlands or municipal biodiversity atlases (Box 5.10). Conversely, the establishment of TVB, piloted jointly by the State and local authorities, has raised these officials’ awareness of urban development projects and documents, as has the application of the “avoid, reduce, offset” (ARO) sequence, reinforced with respect to offsets in particular on conclusion of the Grenelle Forum.

Urban planning documents Since 2013, the various plans and programmes, particularly urban planning documents, have been subject to the ARO sequence,42 yet the treatment of biodiversity continues to be mixed. The regional consistency schemes (SCOT, intermunicipal strategic planning tools

242

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: FRANCE 2016 © OECD 2016

5.

BIODIVERSITY: PROTECTION OF AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY

Box 5.10. Factoring wetlands into land use planning The case of wetlands clearly illustrates the difficulty of factoring biodiversity into regional planning. Since 2004, urban planning documents (SCOT, PLU, municipal charters) have had to be compatible with water planning and management schemes (SAGE), though in June 2014 the latter covered only 51% of French territory (including the overseas territories) (Couraud et al., 2014). The possibility that the State would define “wetlands of particular environmental interest”, which may include “strategic areas for water management”, was barely raised, except for a small number of SAGE. The assessment of the national wetlands plan (2010-13) suggested that they should be abandoned to ensure simplification, while not forgetting that each SAGE had to identify its priority wetlands (Lavoux et al., 2013).

These disappointing results show that, despite legislative progress, factoring wetlands into land use planning depends largely on how the general interest is defined at local level, according to commitments validated and disseminated by the dominant political stakeholders in the regions concerned (Barone, 2012). Consequently, outside protected areas with a designated manager, wetlands conservation is generally factored in only by default in connection with planning project assessments. The requirement to apply the ARO sequence to projects that have an impact on wetlands, established in many water planning and management master plans (SDAGE), could raise elected officials’ awareness of the value of better anticipation and planning of wetlands management at their regional level. The updating of the SDAGE has preserved that objective. The 2014 MAPAM law, meanwhile, provided for the management of aquatic environments, including the respective wetlands and neighbouring woodlands, to be gradually entrusted to intermunicipal authorities, dedicated public institutions [EPTB] and public water planning and management institutions [EPAGE]).

Source: Lavoux, T. et al. (2013), Évaluation du Plan national d’action pour les zones humides 2010-2013.

introduced in 2000) include a sustainable planning and development project that may encompass biodiversity in the event of a challenge identified by local elected officials.

Failing this (still the majority of cases), biodiversity continues to be addressed at project level, particularly with respect to wetlands or protected species.

Mirroring the poor mobilisation with respect to wetlands, the programme to develop local biodiversity atlases, launched in 2010, did not significantly raise local elected officials’ awareness of the subject43 (MEDDE, 2015). The preparation of SRCE, on the other hand, which government services (DREAL) contributed to with the regions, did raise their awareness of biodiversity challenges thanks to the TVB, which all urban planning documents must factor in44. The drafting of TVB thus corrected the lack of involvement of local elected officials and authorities in the Grenelle Forum. This positive outcome has, at times, been achieved to the detriment of the relevance and accuracy of the proposed environmental mapping, but the principal criticism of SRCE is that they are “non-binding”.

Many regions already have an SRCE, and all regions should have one by the end of 2015.

The “avoid, reduce, offset” (ARO) sequence The ARO sequence, a feature of French environmental law since 1976, seeks to ensure that land use planning and infrastructure projects do not entail net losses in environmental quality. The sequence requires developers to avoid and reduce the negative impacts of projects before offsetting their residual impacts. Offset measures should be long-lasting and implemented close to the affected site and should maintain or improve OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: FRANCE 2016 © OECD 2016

243

5.

BIODIVERSITY: PROTECTION OF AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY

the environmental quality of the natural environments concerned at the relevant regional scale (MEDDE, 2012b). Offsetting also includes a biodiversity funding mechanism which mobilises private-sector funds.

Despite the long history of the ARO sequence in France, offsets have been overlooked or poorly applied for some time. Since the reform of exemptions from the strict protection of certain protected species in 2007 and the reform of the impact study in 2012, monitoring requirements and the effective implementation of the sequence have been strengthened (Quétier et al., 2014). In this context, the French Government published further information on the ARO sequence in the form of a legal principle (MEDDE, 2012b) and guidelines (MEDDE, 2013).

The requirements of these documents are consistent with good international practices, such as those in the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, and are underpinned by an international comparison carried out by the MEDDE (Morandeau and Vilaysack, 2012). The “no net loss” objective also mirrors the EU objective set out in its 2011 biodiversity strategy, which involves halting biodiversity loss and ecosystem service degradation by 2020 and restoring them as far as feasible.45 In practice, the ARO scheme is still beset by significant weaknesses (Quétier et al., 2015; de Billy et al., 2015): the ability to achieve the objective of no net loss of biodiversity is often poorly assessed, and the legal and financial arrangements for putting compensation into effect are often weak. It is frequently criticised for lack of transparency, and applications for exemptions for protected species have been available for public consultation only since September 2013. A committee to monitor the implementation of the sequence was established in updating the law on the environment (2013-14). Its findings feed debate in Parliament on the draft law on biodiversity.

Besides technical issues, the institutional framework still does not allow offsets to be implemented effectively. Offsets must help to minimise the impacts of development on biodiversity and must fund sustainable environmental restoration action. At the moment, the performance standards and criteria according to which measures are conceived and followed up remain very mixed, and the residual impacts of projects are addressed on a case-by-case basis. The draft law on biodiversity now outlines a number of solutions (Pirard et al., 2014), such as the creation of “natural asset reserves” (a forecasting and pooling mechanism drawing on American or German clearing “banks”), an offset trader status and real environmental obligations (a legal mechanism to protect the environmental value of land). These developments are underpinned by the piloting of “on demand” offsets, available since 2008 (Box 5.11).

Box 5.11. The piloting of “on demand” compensation: The Cossure natural asset reserve The coinciding of private initiatives and political thinking gave rise in 2008 to the first French natural asset reserve (NAR) (Calvet et al., 2015). The project, realised in Cossure in the Crau plain (south-east France), is run by CDC Biodiversité, a subsidiary of Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (CDC) [public financial institution].

After acquiring a bankrupt industrial orchard, the undertaking took measures to rehabilitate 357 ha of dry open grasslands providing habitats for La Crau steppe birds and enhancing environmental links between protected areas through the Coussouls de Crau

244

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: FRANCE 2016 © OECD 2016

5.

BIODIVERSITY: PROTECTION OF AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY

Box 5.11. The piloting of “on demand” compensation: The Cossure natural asset reserve (cont.) national nature reserve. Offsets in connection with this project have the advantage of being foreseen in advance and therefore implemented before the impacts arise, and the action taken has a strong additionality. The project also allowed certain developers to implement offset schemes that had been suspended because appropriate measures had not been identified. With regard to the no net loss objective proposed by the 2012 national legal principle, however, the environmental outcome is more debatable. The NAR was, in fact, used to offset impacts on species that had not been targeted at the outset by ecological restoration actions.46 The use to be made of the land restored, moreover, beyond the commitment of CDC Biodiversité to protect it for 30 years, remains unresolved at the time of writing.

The operation has been monitored from the outset by MEEM, and exchanges between CDC Biodiversité and developers with offset obligations are connected to the authorisations issued to them by the administration. The latter ensures respect for the requirements of the national legal principle relating to the ARO sequence. Several other operations of this kind have been initiated recently and are also monitored by MEEM. Source: Calvet, C. et al. (2015), “La réserve d’actifs naturels. Une nouvelle forme d’organisation pour la préservation de la biodiversité en France?”, in Restaurer la nature pour atténuer les impacts du développement.

Analyse des mesures compensatoires pour la biodiversité.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: FRANCE 2016 © OECD 2016

245

5.

BIODIVERSITY: PROTECTION OF AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY

Notes 1. To be classified as megadiverse, a country must have at least 1% (3 000) of the world’s endemic vascular plant species. New Caledonia is largely responsible for the inclusion of France among these countries.

2. “Hotspots” are the most vulnerable biodiversity-rich places on the planet: they are eco-regions containing at least 1 500 endemic vascular plant species which have lost at least 70% of their original habitat. The overseas territories and Mediterranean regions account for the importance of France in this respect.

3. Considering the non-native species assessed.

4. The 2014 Écophyto Report did not allay doubts regarding the definitive nature of declared sales, and therefore of the representativity of data provided at the time of writing compared to real uses and their development.

5. As a signatory to the 1979 Berne Convention, France has undertaken to strictly control the introduction of non-native species (Article 11.2.b of the Berne Convention).

6. The species concerned include the tiger mosquito and ragweed.

7. The NBS comprises 10 sectoral action plans: agriculture, international co-operation, transport infrastructure, the sea, natural heritage, urban development (2005), forests, research (2006), tourism (2009) and overseas territories (introduced between 2005 and 2009; the scheme consists of a crosscutting action plan and 10 local action plans, i.e. one per department or overseas community).

8. Decree No. 2012-219 of 16 February 2012 on national marine and coastal strategy and strategic seaboard documents.

9. It will be noted that the wording “green and blue infrastructure” has replaced the initial proposal, “ecological network”, which was deemed to be too close to the “Natura 2000 network”, the introduction of which was strongly contested. Source: Vimal, Mathevet and Michel (2012).

10. Other operational committees have worked on pollenisers (bees and bee keeping), forests, overseas territories, etc.

11. In addition, mechanisms favouring the inclusion of sustainable development and environmental protection, as well as the social responsibility of public-sector purchasers, have gradually been included in French public procurement law, particularly in applying Directive 2004/18/EC on the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts. Criteria specifically focusing on biodiversity, however, are more often than not absent from the criteria for awarding public contracts or subsidies.

246

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: FRANCE 2016 © OECD 2016

5.

BIODIVERSITY: PROTECTION OF AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY

12. The IPBES, established in 2012, is an independent intergovernmental group which assesses the situation of the planet’s biodiversity, ecosystems and services. It is equivalent to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

13. The DGALN comes under the dual supervision of the Ministries responsible for the Ministry of Ecology and Housing.

14. Order of 11 January 2012.

15. In terms of EPIC [établissement public à caractère industriel et commercial – state-funded industrial and commercial undertakings], autonomous ports and the major maritime ports are also managers – by delegation – of natural environments of special interest, particularly in the estuaries and coastal wetlands (Seine estuary, Golfe de Fos, etc.). State-funded property management undertakings are tasked with supporting local authorities in their planning projects by establishing land reserves to foster biodiversity preservation, among other things.

16. In particular by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche [National Research Agency] and by EU programming, in a context of a net reduction in MEDDE and state-funded research expenditure.

17. Collective scientific expertise on relationships between agriculture and biodiversity, finalised in 2008 under the NBS 2004-10 action plan for agriculture, is an example of the successful mobilisation of research. The latter, however, benefited from strong links between the INRA, which co-ordinated the expertise, and the Ministry of Agriculture, which piloted the action plan, though some participants were frustrated by the failure to fulfil the results of the expertise in practice.

18. Besides the role of organising biodiversity research, the FRB also assists the Secretariat of the French committee of the IPBES, in support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

19. Like US trustees, or even the US Environmental Protection Agency, which can apply a right of veto to certain authorisations given by other agencies, such as USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers), concerning the destruction of wetlands.

20. Between 2007 and 2010, over 25 000 articles focused on one of the facets of the Grenelle process. In June 2010, almost two million Internet pages citing the Grenelle Forum were consulted. A total of 128 reports were also produced. This proliferation of written matter may sometimes appear to be redundant, but it helps to inform the largest number of people and contributes to the development of opinions. Source: Boy, D. et al. (2012). Le Grenelle de l’environnement: acteurs, discours, effets.

Armand Colin. See also: http://concertation-environnement.fr/documents/cs/rf/RF_Grenelle.pdf.

21. SINP data are forwarded to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (and vice versa) where relevant.

22. Many administrative regions have set up their own SINP, which contributes to the national SINP, to manage relations with stakeholders in connection with the proper use of their data.

23. The MEDDE seeks to propose methods to integrate ecosystems into national compatibility (in line with Eurostat expectations under the EU Biodiversity Strategy).

24. Decree 2005-475, together with Circular DCE 2006/17 on the formulation, content and scope of programmes of measures.

25. Law of 14 April 2006 on national parks, natural marine parks and natural regional parks.

26. Law of 23 February 2005 on regional development.

27. Since Order No 2001-321 of 11 April 2001, the designation and management of Natura 2000 sites has been covered by Articles L. 414.1 to L. 414.7 of the Environmental Code. An Order of 19 April 2007 subsequently amended the list of birds that could justify the designation of special protection areas (SPAs).

28. Law 2008-757 of 1 August 2008.

29. After a long gestation period beginning in 2000, a CEN was created in New Caledonia in the form of a public interest group (GIP) bringing together the State, local authorities and national institutions (New Caledonia, the three provinces and the Customary Senate), the MPA Agency, NGOs such as the WWF and Conservation International, the two mayors’ associations and the “Ensemble pour la Planète” environmental association.

30. Outside any regulatory prerogative, the sites managed by Natural Area Protection Agencies correspond to IUCN Categories IV and V. 31. In 2008, France also registered 16 000 km2 of reefs, herbaria, mangrove swamps, algae colonies and sandy or muddy seabeds in New Caledonia’s lagoon as world heritage (UNESCO).

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: FRANCE 2016 © OECD 2016

247

5.

BIODIVERSITY: PROTECTION OF AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY

32. Article L 334-1 of the Environmental Code specifies that marine protected areas comprise: “national parks with a marine section (Article L. 331-1); natural reserves with a marine section (Article L. 332-1); biotope protection orders with a marine section (Article L. 411-1); marine natural parks (Article L. 334-3); Natura 2000 sites with a marine section (Article L. 414-1); maritime areas covered by the Coastal and Lake Shore Protection Agency”.

33. Article 86 of Law 2006-11 of 5 January 2006, Implementing Decrees of 19 February 2007 and Administrative Decision of 29 October 2009.

34. Many species which are protected under French law are not listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive. For the latter, only the specimens are protected, not their habitats.

35. Despite a public consultation in which a majority opposed wolf culling, an Administrative Decision taken in July 2015 authorised the culling of 36 animals.

36. Administrative Decision of 27 July 1995, as amended, establishing the list of marine mammals protected on national territory.

37. Administrative Decision of 14 October 2005 establishing the list of marine turtles protected on national territory and the means for their protection.

38. In this context, reference will also be made to the creation in 2012 of the Agoa sanctuary for marine mammals in the French Antilles, recognised by virtue of the Cartagena Convention in 2012.

39. In 2005, the French regulatory framework thus foresaw the requirements of EU Regulation No. 1143/ 2014, which came into force in 2015.

40. The 2012 Finance Act set a ceiling of EUR 41 million per year for the part of the payment for diffuse pollution to finance measures under the Écophyto 2018 Plan. Broadening the base of the payment to all active substances classified as category 2 carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic by Decree of 6 October 2014 expands the Plan’s financial envelope from EUR 41 million to around EUR 70 million per year from 2016.

41. Access and benfit sharing, however, has not been retained in the OECD study on Scaling-up Finance Mechanisms for Biodiversity (2013).

42. Decrees 2012-616 and 2012-995.

43. Only 300 municipalities had signed up at the time of writing.

44. In addition to not very binding factoring-in, case-law distinguishes between much more demanding compliance and compatibility, which assumes that the provisions of a document are no obstacle to the application of provisions in a higher-ranking document.

45. In this context, the European Commission announced an initiative corresponding to Objective 2 of the strategy: “ensure there is no net loss of ecosystems and their services (e.g. through compensation or offsetting schemes)” (COM/2011/0244 final).

46. In the USA, the difficulties of developing NAR focusing on species (conservation banks), compared to those focusing on wetlands (mitigation banks) corroborate this analysis: species need to develop equivalence systems as much as species systems, while wetland banks can be supported by more general methods adapted to large ecosystem categories.

References EEA (2011), Landscape fragmentation in Europe, Report No. 2/2011, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, ISSN 1725-9177, www.eea.europa.eu/publications/landscape-fragmentation-in-europe/ at_download/file.

AFD, (2013), Biodiversity – Cross-sectoral Intervention Framework 2013-2016, French Development Agency, Paris, www.afd.fr/webdav/shared/L_AFD/L_AFD_s_engage/documents/2013-08-28-CIT%20 BIODIVERSITY-VA.pdf.

Agence Bio (2015), “Chiffres de la bio en France en 2014”, Agence Bio, Paris, www.agencebio.org/la-bioenfrance (consulté le 10 octobre 2015).

Agence des AMP (2015a), “Indicateur: Aires marines protégées pourvues d’un document de gestion”, May 2015, http://indicateurs-biodiversite.naturefrance.fr/indicateurs/aires-marines-protegees-pourvuesdun-document-de-gestion.

248

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: FRANCE 2016 © OECD 2016

5.

BIODIVERSITY: PROTECTION OF AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY

Agence des AMP (2015b), Le plan d’actions dugong en Nouvelle Calédonie, Agence des aires marines protégées, Brest, www.aires-marines.fr/Proteger/Protection-des-habitats-et-des-especes/Protection-duDugong/Le-plan-d-actions-dugong-en-Nouvelle-Caledonie.

Agreste (2015), “Les concours publics prévisionnels à l’agriculture en 2014”, in Les comptes prévisionnels de l’agriculture française pour 2014, Agreste Les Dossiers, No. 23, January 2015, Ministry of Agriculture, Agrifood and Forestry, Montreuil Sous Bois, http://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/ dossier23_integral.pdf.

Alexandre, S. et al. (2010), La stratégie nationale pour la biodiversité: bilan et perspectives, Report No. 2076, General council of food, agriculture and rural areas and Report No. 007100-01, General council of the environment and sustainable development, Paris.

Attali, C. et al. (2013), Vers une filière intégrée de la forêt et du bois, report No. 008736-01, Conseil général à l’environnement et au développement durable, http://cgedd.documentation.developpementdurable.gouv.fr/documents/cgedd/008736-01_rapport.pdf.

Badré, M. and J.-P. Duranthon (2010), Mission sur l’évolution de l’organisation des opérateurs publics en matière de protection de la nature, Report No. 007182-01, Conseil général de l’environnement et du développement durable, La Défense, http://cgedd.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/ documents/cgedd/007182-01_rapport.pdf.

Barone, S. (2012), “SCoT est-il plus SAGE? Gestion de l’eau et aménagement du territoire en France depuis la loi du 21 avril 2004”. VertigO, No. 12(2), Open Editions, Marseilles, http://vertigo.revues.org/12460.

BIPE (2015), L’impact économique, social et environnemental de la chasse française, Fédération nationale des chasseurs, Issy-les-Moulineaux, www.chasseurdefrance.com/limpact-economique-social-etenvironnemental-de-la-chasse-francaise/.

Blanc, M. (2011), “La biodiversité: relever le défi sociétal”, Report No. 2011-05 (NOR CESL1100005X), Les Rapports du Conseil économique, social et environnemental, Éditions du Journal officiel de la République française, www.lecese.fr/sites/default/files/pdf/Rapports/2011/2011_05_biodiversite.pdf.

Bocquet, A. and O. Gargominy (2013), Biodiversité d’outre-mer, Éditions Roger Le Guen, Paris.

Boy, D. et al. (2012), Le Grenelle de l’environnement: acteurs, discours, effets, Armand Colin, Paris.

Burelli, T. (2014), “La France et la mise en œuvre du Protocole de Nagoya”, VertigO, No. 14(2), Open Editions, Marseilles, https://vertigo.revues.org/15101.

Burelli, T. (2013), “La bioprospection dans l’outre-mer français. Opportunités et limites des dispositifs de régulation émergents dans l’outre-mer français”, Revue de la Recherche Juridique : Droit Prospectif, No. 4, Université d’Aix-Marseille 3, Aix-en-Provence, p. 1747-1787, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2478410.

Calvet, C. et al. (2015), “La réserve d’actifs naturels. Une nouvelle forme d’organisation pour la préservation de la biodiversité en France?”, in Restaurer la nature pour atténuer les impacts du développement. Analyse des mesures compensatoires pour la biodiversité, Collection Repères, Éditions Quae, Paris, ISBN 978-2-7592-2290-2.

CAS (2012), Les aides publiques dommageables à la biodiversité, Centre d’analyse stratégique, Paris, http:// archives.gouvernement.fr/fillon_version2/sites/default/files/fichiers_joints/Aides_dommageables_a_la_ biodiversite_Rapport_CAS_Octobre2011.pdf.

CEN (2015a), Tableau de bord du réseau des conservatoires d’espaces naturels. Édition 2016, Conservatoires d’espaces naturels, Orléans, www.reseau-cen.org/sites/default/files/fichiers/plaquette_tdb_cen_ed.2016_ vfsacopie45_21-9-15_15h30corrfsa.pdf.

CEN (2015b), Le Fonds de dotation des Conservatoires d’espaces naturels (website), www.reseau-cen.org/fr/ decouvrir-le-reseau/le-fonds-de-dotation (accessed 11 December 2015).

CEV (2015), “Avis du Comité pour l’économie verte du 29 octobre 2015 portant sur le développement des paiements pour services environnementaux”, Comité pour l’économie verte, Paris, www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Avis_du_29_octobre_2015_sur_les_PSE-DOC.pdf.

CFE (2014), La protection des ressources en eau et en biodiversité, avis n° 8 du CFE, issu du débat en séance du 13 février 2014, Comité pour la fiscalité écologique, Paris, www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/ IMG/pdf/Avis_sur_la_protection_des_ressources_en_eau_et_en_biodiversite.pdf.

CGDD (2015a), “Analyse économique des espèces exotiques envahissantes en France: première enquête nationale (2009-2013)”, Études & documents, No. 130, General Commissariat for Sustainable Development, La Défense, www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/ED130.pdf.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: FRANCE 2016 © OECD 2016

249

5.

BIODIVERSITY: PROTECTION OF AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY

CGDD (2015b), Les comptes de l’environnement en 2013, Rapport de la Commission des comptes et de l’économie de l’environnement, Édition 2015, General Commissariat for Sustainable Development, La Défense, www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Les_comptes_de_l_environnement_en_2013.pdf.

CGDD (2013a), “Peu de zones humides échappent à la colonisation par des espèces envahissantes et proliférantes entre 2000 et 2010”, Le point sur, No. 165, General Commissariat for Sustainable Development, La Défense, www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/fileadmin/documents/ Produits_editoriaux/Publications/Le_Point_Sur/2013/lps-165-especes-envahissantes-corrige.pdf.

CGDD (2013b), “Biodiversité et Territoires 2030: cinq scénarios d’évolution”, Études & documents, No. 86, General Commissariat for Sustainable Development, La Défense, www.developpementdurable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/ED86-2.pdf.

CGDD (2013c), La fiscalité environnementale en France: un état des lieux, General Commissariat for Sustainable Development, La Défense, www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Ref_-_Fiscalite_ environnementale.pdf.

Challéat, M. and P. Lavarde (2014), Les plans nationaux d’actions en faveur des espèces menacées, une politique à refonder, Report No. 009290-01, Conseil général de l’environnement et du Développement durable, Paris, http://cgedd.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/documents/cgedd/00929001_rapport.pdf.

Charpin, J.M. et al. (2013), Conclusions du Comité opérationnel n° 5 “Droits d’usage des mers, financement, fiscalité” du Grenelle de la mer, General Commissariat for Sustainable Development, La Défense, www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/G5-2.pdf.

Conservation International (2015), “Hotspots” (website), www.conservation.org/How/Pages/Hotspots.aspx (accessed 9 December 2015).

Coste, S. et al. (2010), Stratégie nationale de création d’aires protégées. Première phase d’étude: volet Biodiversité, Report SPN 2010-7, Service du patrimoine naturel, Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, Paris, http://spn.mnhn.fr/spn_rapports/archivage_rapports/2010/SPN%202010%20-%207%20%20Synth%C3%A8se%20finale%20SCAP%20version%2020100618.pdf.

Couraud, G., K. Petit and J. Michon (2014), “Les schémas d’aménagement et de gestion des eaux: vingt ans d’existence”, Les synthèses Eaufrance, No. 10, Eaufrance, Paris, www.eaufrance.fr/ressources/ documents/?id_article=1050.

DAISIE (2013), Delivering Alien Invasive Species In Europe (database), www.europe-aliens.org/regionFactsheet. do?regionId=FRA-FR (accessed 4 December 2015). de Billy, V. et al. (2015), “Compenser la destruction de zones humides. Retours d’expérience sur les méthodes et réflexions inspirées par le projet d’aéroport de Notre-Dame-des-Landes (France)”, Natures, Sciences, Sociétés, No. 23, EDP Sciences, Les Ulis, France, p. 27-41.

Drutschinin, A. et al. (2015), “Biodiversity and Development Co-operation”, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, No. 21, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js1sqkvts0v-en.

Drutschinin, A. and S. Ockenden (2015), “Financing for Development in Support of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services”, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, No. 23, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js03h0nwxmq-en.

CMS Signatory States (2007), Memorandum of understanding on the Conservation and Management of Dugongs (Dugong dugon) and their Habitats Throughout Their Range, Abu Dhabi, 31 October 2007, Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, www.cms.int/dugong/en/page/mou-text.

Feuillette S. et al. (2015), “Évaluation monétaire des services écosystémiques. Un exemple d’usage dans la mise en place d’une politique de l’eau en France”, Natures, Sciences, Sociétés, No. 23(1), EDP Sciences, Les Ulis, France, pp. 14-26.

Féral, F. (2011), “L’extension récente de la taille des aires marines protégées: une progression des surfaces inversement proportionnelle à leur normativité”, VertigO, hors-série No. 9, Open Editions, Marseilles, http://vertigo.revues.org/10998.

French National Assembly (2014), Étude d’impact du projet de loi relatif à la biodiversité (NOR: DEVL1400720L/ Bleue-1), National Assembly, Paris, www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/pdf/projets/pl1847-ei.pdf.

Gervasoni, V. (2008), Gouvernance et Biodiversité. Étude comparative, French Committee of the IUCN, Paris, www.uicn.fr/IMG/pdf/UICN_Gouvernance_et_Biodiversite_droit_compare_2008.pdf.

Hernandez, S. and G. Sainteny (2008), “Évaluation économique et institutionnelle du programme Natura 2000: étude de cas sur la plaine de la Crau”, Lettre de la direction des études économiques et de l’évaluation environnementale, hors-série No. 08, Paris.

250

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: FRANCE 2016 © OECD 2016

5.

BIODIVERSITY: PROTECTION OF AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY

Ifrecor (2008), L’état des récifs coralliens en France outre-mer, Initiative française pour les récifs coralliens, Paris, http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers14-11/010021366.pdf.

INPN (2015), “Inventaire national du patrimoine naturel”, website, http://inpn.mnhn.fr/programme/lesprogrammes (accessed 15 April 2015).

Juffé, M. (2012), “La stratégie nationale pour la biodiversité: un progrès vers le pluralisme et la diversité dans la prise de décision collective”, Responsabilité & Environnement, Annales des Mines No. 68, École des Mines, Paris, pp. 40-43.

Lavoux, T. et al. (2013), Évaluation du Plan national d’action pour les zones humides 2010-2013 (PNZH), report No. 008343-01, General Council of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Paris, http:// cgedd.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/documents/cgedd/008343-01_rapport.pdf.

Le Clézio, P. (2010), “La stratégie nationale de développement durable 2009-2013”, opinion of the Economic, Social and Environmental Council, Les éditions des Journaux officiels, Paris.

Le Maho, Y. and J. Boucher (2011), Mission de réflexion sur l’organisation française en matière d’expertise sur la biodiversité, Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable development, Transport and Housing, La Défense, www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/114000285/index.shtml.

Le Roux, X. et al. (2008), “Agriculture et biodiversité. Valoriser les synergies”, Expertises scientifiques collectives de l’INRA, INRA, Paris, http://institut.inra.fr/Missions/Eclairer-les-decisions/Expertises/ Toutes-les-actualites/Agriculture-et-biodiversite.

Levraut, A. et al (2013), Évaluation de la politique de l’eau, Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Marine Affairs, Paris, www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/134000639.pdf.

MEDDE (2015), L’Atlas de la biodiversité communale (ABC), Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, La Défense, www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/L-Atlas-de-la-biodiversite.html.

MEDDE (2014), “5ème rapport national de la France à la convention sur la diversité biologique”, Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, Paris, www.cbd.int/doc/world/fr/fr-nr-05-fr.pdf.

MEDDE (2013), Lignes directrices nationales sur la séquence éviter, réduire et compenser les impacts sur les milieux naturels, Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, La Défense, www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Ref_-_Lignes_directrices.pdf.

MEDDE (2012a), Plans nationaux d’actions en faveur des espèces menacées: objectifs et exemples d’actions, Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, La Défense, www.developpementdurable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/PNA-Objectifs_exemples_brochure.pdf.

MEDDE (2012b), Doctrine relative à la séquence éviter, réduire et compenser les impacts sur le milieu naturel, Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, La Défense, www.developpementdurable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/doctrineERC-vpost-COPIL6mars2012vdef-2.pdf.

MEDDTL (2012), Stratégie nationale pour la biodiversité. Bilan 2004-2010, Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable development, Transport and Housing, La Défense, www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/ strategie_nationale_bilan_2004_-_2010.pdf.

Mermet, L. et al. (2005), “L’analyse stratégique de la gestion environnementale: un cadre théorique pour penser l’efficacité en matière d’environnement”. Natures, Sciences, Sociétés, No. 13(2), EDP Sciences, Les Ulis, France, p. 127-137.

Message from Guadeloupe, (2014), International Conference on Biodiversity and Climate Change, Guadeloupe, 22-25 October 2014, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/best/pdf/ message__from_guadeloupe_en__2_.pdf.

Message from Reunion Island, (2008), Conference “The European Union and its Overseas Entities: Strategies to counter Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss”, Reunion Island, 7-11 July 2008, http:// ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/best/pdf/message_from_reunion_island.pdf Michel, J.M. and B. Chevassus-au-Louis (2013), Rapport de préfiguration d’une agence française de la biodiversité, Paris, www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Rapport_Prefiguration_Agence_ francaise_biodiv_31_janv_2013-1.pdf.

Miquel, G. (2014), L’Agence des aires marines protégées : quelle ambition pour la politique de protection du milieu marin ?, information report by the Finance C ommittee of the French Senate No. 654 (20132014), Sénat, Paris, www.senat.fr/rap/r13-654/r13-6541.pdf.

Minagri (2015), Rapport annuel sur l’agro-écologie 2014, Ministry of Agriculture, Agrifood and Forestry, Paris, http://agriculture.gouv.fr/ministere/rapport-annuel-sur-lagro-ecologie.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: FRANCE 2016 © OECD 2016

251

5.

BIODIVERSITY: PROTECTION OF AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY

Minagri (2014), Programme Ambition bio 2017, Ministry of Agriculture, Agrifood and Forestry, Paris, http:// agriculture.gouv.fr/ministere/programme-ambition-bio-2017.

Minagri (2012), Projet agro-écologique pour la France, Ministry of Agriculture, Agrifood and Forestry, Paris, http://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/minagri/files/documents//projet-agroecologique-2013_cle43b56c-1.pdf.

Mittermeier, A. et al. (2008), “Focus: les pays de mégadiversité”, in P. Jacquet and L. Tubiana, Regards sur la Terre 2008, Presses de Sciences Po, Paris, pp. 153-154.

Morandeau, D. and D. Vilaysack (2012), “La compensation des atteintes à la biodiversité à l’étranger. Étude de parangonnage”, Études et Documents, No. 68, General Council of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Paris, www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/ED68.pdf.

ONB (2015a), Aide publique au développement à l’international liée à la biodiversité, mise à jour 20 May 2015, Observatoire national de la biodiversité, http://indicateurs-biodiversite.naturefrance.fr/indicateurs/aidepublique-au-developpement-a-linternational-liee-a-la-biodiversite.

ONB (2015b), Aires marines protégées pourvues d’un document de gestion, updated 20 May 2015, Observatoire national de la biodiversité, http://indicateurs-biodiversite.naturefrance.fr/indicateurs/ aires-marines-protegees-pourvues-dun-document-de-gestion.

ONB-SINP, Site NatureFrance d’information générale et d’actualités sur le SINP et l’ONB, Observatoire national de la biodiversité and Système d’information sur la nature et le paysage, www.naturefrance.fr (accessed 11 December 2015).

OECD (2015a), International Development Statistics (database).

OECD (2015b), OECD Economic Surveys: France 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ eco_surveys-fra-2015-en.

OECD (2010), Paying for Biodiversity: Enhancing the Cost-Effectiveness of Payments for Ecosystem Services, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264090279-en.

ONF, (2012), “La gestion durable des forêts domaniales: produire plus de bois, tout en préservant mieux la biodiversité”, Office national des forêts, Paris, www.onf.fr/outils/medias/20110216-091608-294282/ ++files++/1.

Parc national de la Réunion (2010), “Stratégie de lutte contre les espèces invasives à la Réunion”, Saint Denis, Réunion, www.reunion-parcnational.fr/IMG/pdf/strategie_EEE_web_1page.pdf.

Pelosse, H. et al (2012), “La fiscalité et la mise en œuvre de la nouvelle stratégie nationale pour la biodiversité (2010-2020)”, Report No. 2011-M-050-01, Ministry for the Economy, Finance and Industry, www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/124000117.pdf.

Perrot-Maître, D. (2006), The Vittel Payments for Ecosystem Services: A “Perfect” PES Case? International Institute for Environment and Development, London, http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G00388.pdf.

Pirard, R. et al. (2014), “Les dispositifs institutionnels régissant la compensation biodiversité en France.

Gouvernance de marché ou accords bilatéraux?”, Working Papers, Nos. 13 and 14, Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, Paris, www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/ Idees-pour-le-debat/WP1314_Pirard%20et%20al_compensation%20biodiversite.pdf.

PNF (2015), Éléments de valeur des parcs nationaux, Parcs nationaux de France, Paris.

Potier, D. (2014), Pesticides et agro-écologie: les champs du possible, Ministry of Agriculture, Agrifood and Forestry, Paris, www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/144000775.pdf.

Poulet, N., L. Beaulaton and S. Dembski (2013), Tendances évolutives des populations de poissons de 1990 à 2009, Eaufrance, www.eaufrance.fr/ressources/documents/les-syntheses-eaufrance-no7.

Prime Minister (2011), Stratégie nationale pour la biodiversité 2011-2020. Engagements de l’État 2011-2013, Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable development, Transport and Housing, La Défense, www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/SNB20112020engagement_etat.pdf.

Pusineri, C. and S. Caceres, (2012), “Plan national d’actions en faveur du Dugong (dugong dugon. Volet Mayotte 2012-2016”, Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, La Défense, www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/PNADugong_VF-BD_complet.pdf.

Quelin, C. (2010), “Agriculture biologique: la fin du retard français?”, Service des études, de la statistique et de la prospective, Ministry of Agriculture, Agrifood and Forestry, Paris, http:// agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/minagri/files/documents/pdf/Etude_ASP_dvlpt__AB_cle8c4c93.pdf.

Quétier, F. et al. (2015), “La doctrine ERC de 2012: les contours flous de la politique française d’absence de perte nette de biodiversité”, in Restaurer la nature pour atténuer les impacts du développement.

252

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: FRANCE 2016 © OECD 2016

5.

BIODIVERSITY: PROTECTION OF AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY

Analyse des mesures compensatoires pour la biodiversité, Collection Repères, Éditions Quae, Paris, ISBN 978-2-7592-2290-2.

Quétier, F., B. Regnery and H. Levrel (2014), “No net loss of biodiversity or paper offsets? A critical review of the French no net loss policy”, Environmental Science & Policy No. 38, Elsevier, Issy-les-Moulineaux, pp. 120-131.

Schmitt, D. (2012), Report to the Minister for Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing on governance with regard to biodiversity, Paris, www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/ Rapport_GouvernanceV2.pdf.

SOE (2014), L’état de l’environnement en France, Service de l’observation et des statistiques, Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, Paris, www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/ L_environnement_en_France_-_Edition_2014.pdf.

Soubeyran, Y. et al. (2015), “Dealing with invasive alien species in the French overseas territories: results and benefits of a 7-year Initiative”, Biological Invasions, No. 17(2), Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 545-554.

Stahl, L. (2011), “La protection de la nature outre-mer: un droit encore peu avancé”, Analyses IDDRI, No. 01/11, February 2011, Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, Paris, www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Analyses/AN_1101_droit%20outre-mer_lucile%20stahl.pdf.

IUCN (2014), “Programme de petites initiatives pour les organisations de la société civile d’Afrique du Nord”, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ ppi_fr_1.pdf.

IUCN (2010), “Stratégie nationale pour la biodiversité: bilan général 2004-2010 et recommandations pour une nouvelle stratégie”, French Committee of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, Paris, www.uicn.fr/IMG/pdf/Bilan_SNB_04-10_UICN_France.pdf.

Vial, I., R. Lalement and G. Deronzier (2010), “De l’état des eaux en 2009 aux objectifs 2015”, Eaufrance, www.eaufrance.fr/documents/?id_article=842.

Vimal, R., R. Mathevet and L. Michel (2012), “Entre expertise et jeux d’acteurs: la trame verte et bleue du Grenelle de l’environnement”, Natures, Sciences, Sociétés, Vol. 20, EDP Sciences, Les Ulis, France, p. 415-424.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: FRANCE 2016 © OECD 2016

253

From:

OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Brazil 2015

Access the complete publication at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264240094-en

Please cite this chapter as: OECD (2015), “Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity”, in OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Brazil 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264240094-11-en

This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the OECD member countries.

This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at info@copyright.com or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at contact@cfcopies.com.

2

4.

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY

7. Mainstreaming biodiversity into sectoral policies 7.1. Agriculture Brazil is a major agricultural producer and exporter and agriculture accounts for about 15% of employment (Chapter 1; also see Basic Statistics). Since the mid-2000s, the government has placed a greater focus on encouraging the adoption of new technology and sustainable agricultural practices and discouraging conversion of forests in agricultural areas. As Section 4 notes, since 2008 access to subsidised rural credit in the Amazon biome has been conditional on the legitimacy of land claims and compliance with environmental regulations, and rural credit will be conditional on land registration in the Rural Environmental Cadastre from October 2017 (Section 5.2).

Special programmes support small family farms, organic farming and sustainable production such as the National Agroecology and Organic Production Plan 2012-15. For example, the Family Production Socio-environmental Development Programme (Proambiente) awards farmers and ranchers with up to one-third of the minimum wage when they use more environmentally sound production practices, such as no pesticides or sustainable agroforestry (OECD, 2013). In 2010, the government launched the Low-Carbon Agriculture programme to provide subsidised credits for implementing good environmental practices. While the focus of this programme is on reducing GHG emissions, it contributes to mitigating the impact on biodiversity (Box 4.10).

Demand for organic products has grown in recent years. This fact and higher product prices are making organic production a viable way for small-scale rural producers to increase their income. The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply has developed an online system for registering organic producers. In 2014, there were more than 7 100 organic producers registered in the system (MMA, 2015). Yet organic farming accounts for a very small share of agricultural output and less than 1% of agricultural land area, and the area dedicated to organic practices has declined since 2010 (Figure 4.11).

Overall, the volume of the programmes to support sustainable agriculture is small compared to the total support provided to farmers. Most of the support and loans to agriculture are based on conventional agriculture practices (hybrid seeds, chemical fertilisers and pesticides), with potentially negative impacts on soil and water. The vast majority of support is tied to production, as it is based on commodity output and input use (Chapter 3). This is the most distorting and potentially environmentally harmful form of agricultural support.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: BRAZIL 2015 Š OECD 2015

3

4.

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY

Box 4.10. The Low-Carbon Agriculture programme The Low-Carbon Agriculture (ABC) programme, launched in 2010 as part of the National Climate Change Policy (Chapter 2), consolidated a range of concessional credit lines that targeted good environmental practices and the reduction of GHG emissions with a view to facilitating investment. Unlike previous rural credit lines, the programme does not finance specific items (e.g. machinery, seeds, fertilisers), but may finance actions that jointly reduce environmental impacts. The programme took off slowly, due to various technical and capacity challenges, but disbursement picked up in 2012 as more financial intermediaries became involved, the interest rate was decreased, technical capacity strengthened and dissemination of information about the programme improved. The total contracted operations in 2013/14 amounted to BRL 3 billion, nearly double the amount of the 2011/12 growing season. By July 2014, total contracted operations had reached BRL 8.2 billion, 62% of the planned value (FEBRABAN, 2014).

Despite improvement, intermediary banks continue to show little interest in the programme: 91% of disbursements were executed by the public Banco do Brasil, while only 9% were transferred by private banks with funds from the BNDES. This is partly because an ABC credit with the BNDES entails high transaction costs (FEBRABAN, 2014). Information on the programme needs to be expanded and resources for training technical assistants and for financial officers increased. Prioritising areas for expansion (e.g. where GHG reduction potentials are greatest) would help increase the effectiveness of the programme while it is gradually scaled up. As the programme expands, efforts should be undertaken to monitor its effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions and pressures on biodiversity.

Overall, the volume and scale of the ABC programme remain small when compared to conventional agricultural support.

Figure 4.11. Agricultural organic area is small and has declined Agricultural organic area, 2005-12 Surface

% of total agricultural area (right axis)

Km2 10 000

% 0.40

9 000

0.35

8 000 0.30 7 000 6 000

0.25

5 000

0.20

4 000

0.15

3 000 0.10 2 000 0.05

1 000 0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

0.00

Source: FAO (2015), FAOSTAT (database).

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933279755

By stimulating production and input use, and thereby agricultural intensification and expansion, these support and credit programmes risk increasing pressures on the natural resource base and encourage deforestation. These policies reduce incentives to use production factors more efficiently and tend to encourage agricultural production over

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: BRAZIL 2015 Š OECD 2015

4

4.

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY

other land uses, such as conservation, restoration and sustainable forestry. Agricultural support could be more strongly oriented to encouraging environmental improvement and efficient use of inputs, as well as to addressing infrastructure gaps. This could improve productivity of agriculture and cattle farming and reduce the impetus for converting land and clearing forests.

In addition, key agricultural inputs such as water, pesticides and fertilisers are implicitly subsidised. Water abstraction is not charged for in many regions (Section 5).

Fertilisers and pesticides are exempt from some federal and state taxes, which has increased their use and related impact on human health, ecosystems and water and soil quality. Brazil is one of the world’s largest consumers of fertilisers (after China, India and United States) and fertiliser use is particularly high for certain crops, such as soya, and in the South and South-east regions where large-scale farming prevails (Chapter 1). Several widely used pesticides are considered dangerous or highly dangerous for the environment and detrimental to pollinators (MMA, 2015); and the use of non-authorised pesticides is high (Jardim and Caldas, 2012).

The current regulation on pesticide approval should be revised to require periodic renewal of approvals, rather than these being granted permanently (MMA, 2015). When conducted, the review process often takes several years (Friedrich, 2013). In addition, tax exemptions for fertilisers and pesticides should be reconsidered with a view to encouraging more rational use of products that can harm human and animal health and ecosystems. The experience of other countries shows that this can lead to economic and environmental benefits. Indonesia, for example, gradually removed pesticide subsidies, while assisting farmers with the use of integrated pest management approaches. Three years later, this resulted in record levels of rice production and over USD 100 million in savings (OECD, 2013).

The Rural Land Tax (ITR), although not very significant, also incentivises agricultural production over conservation. The ITR is higher for “unproductive” land than for land under agricultural production. RL and APP areas benefit from ITR exemption, which partly compensates for the opportunity cost of not engaging in more intensive land use; however, the value of the exemption is so low that the incentive is negligible (MMA, 2015).

7.2. Forestry Timber and non-timber resources Brazil is a large producer and consumer of tropical timber. In 2007, the forestry sector accounted for 3.5% of GDP and 7.3% of exports, and employed about 7 million people (SFB, 2015b). Less than 1% of total forest area was designated for production in 2011/12 (SFB, 2013).19 Legally extracted timber from native forests came from both sustainable forest management (49%) and authorised deforestation (51%) in 2007-10. Extraction from planted forests has almost doubled since 2000 and reached almost five times the volume of extracted timber from native forests in 2013. Planted forests can help reduce demand for timber products from native forests and generate employment and income. Most planted forests are located in southern Brazil, while timber from native forests primarily originates in the Amazon and, to a lesser extent, the Atlantic Forest (SFB, 2015b).

Non-timber forest products generated BRL 936 million in 2011, or 5.1% of total primary forest production (MMA, 2015). The extraction of non-timber forest products is a diffuse and informal economic activity, practiced mainly, though not exclusively, in remote

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: BRAZIL 2015 © OECD 2015

5

4.

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY

regions by traditional and rural communities. Extractive activities often comprise an important (if not the only) source of their income. Products exploited for economic purposes include rubber, straws, reeds, leaves, fibres, seeds, resins and essential oils, but production scale varies significantly and species and/or environmental sustainability is not yet ensured for all products (MMA, 2015).

Production of such products has been encouraged through federal programmes such as the PNPSB (Section 5.7) and the creation of sustainable use protected areas (Chapter 5).

In Manaus and BelĂŠm, productive chains are being developed to connect and co-ordinate extractive activities in forest communities with urban economic sectors, small and medium-size processing industries, local research and technological support institutions, and other relevant sectors (MMA, 2015). However, the production extracted from the forest in sustainable conditions amounts to less than 0.2% of the GDP of the Legal Amazon municipalities, mainly due to insufficient demand and a missing link between production and commercialisation (WWF, 2015).

Concessions for sustainable forest management The government is committed to increasing the sustainable use of its forest resources, recognising that sustainable economic alternatives for local populations are needed to prevent deforestation and other environmentally harmful practises.

The 2006 Public Forests Management Law reinforced the right of local communities to manage their forests 20 and introduced concessions as an instrument to promote sustainable forest management for timber production. It established the SFB to manage concessions. The law allows federal, state and municipal governments to grant, through a bidding process, the legal right for private companies to harvest timber and non-timber forest products, provided that the forest is sustainably managed. 21 The selection of concessionaries is based on best price offers and on technical criteria such as lowest environment impact and highest social benefits. Forest concessions must be preceded by public hearings. Part of the concession area must be set aside and extractive activities need to respect local populations (SFB, 2013).

While the area of public forests is extensive, only a very small part of it is being used for sustainable forest management concessions. As of November 2012, Brazil had an area of 3.1 million km2 registered as natural public forests in the National Public Forest Registry (CNPF),22 representing 36% of the national territory (SFB, 2013). The first forest concessions were granted in 2008, but by 2013 only 0.2% of the public forest area available for concessions was under a federal or state concession regime.

Among the reasons for the slow take-off of concessions are insufficient expertise in technology for sustainable forest management in companies; the insufficient technical and economic capacity at government level to manage the concessions; lack of infrastructure in the concession areas; and unsolved land tenure conflicts. Forestry companies often complain about the high concession fees (for each cubic metre of wood harvested) and the technical specifications in contract terms. Rural communities have difficult access to concessions because they lack the ability to compete in a highly bureaucratic process (WWF, 2015). Systematic monitoring of areas under concessions is needed to ensure that forests are managed sustainably, according to the contract specifications, and that they achieve the expected environmental and social outcomes.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: BRAZIL 2015 Š OECD 2015

6

4.

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY

Timber certification The forest management and chain of custody certification in Brazil is carried out by several companies through two certification systems: the Brazilian Programme for Forest Certification (Cerflor), bound to the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC), and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Total area of certified forests has increased. By the end of 2012, more than 14 000 km2 of forest was certified by Cerflor and another 72 000 km2 by FSC (SFB, 2013).

Forest restoration As Section 5.2 points out, a large share of rural holdings do not comply with forest conservation obligations set in the 2012 Forest Code and the tree cover will need to be restored on these lands, especially in the Amazon, Atlantic Forest and Cerrado biomes. As of April 2015, data registered in the CAR indicated the need to restore 80 000 km2 of forest land (SFB, 2015a).

The National Plan for Native Vegetation Recovery (Planaveg), developed by the MMA and currently under public consultation, aims to promote large-scale forest restoration. The proposal projects recovery of at least 125 000 km2 within 20 years,23 primarily in APPs (46%) and RLs (37%), but also on degraded or low productivity areas where restoration is not required by law. The proposed plan includes several groups of actions aimed at raising awareness, making seedlings available and affordable, creating markets for products from restored forests and introducing new finance mechanisms (such as extending the existing tax-free infrastructure bonds to restoration investment), among other goals. It is expected to complement other initiatives, such as the ABC programme (Box 4.10) and ongoing land regularisation efforts. The MMA expects the plan to generate up to 191 000 direct jobs in rural areas.

Restoration costs are high, and can be prohibitive for small-scale land holders. Meeting Brazil’s restoration targets is therefore challenging and will require significant resources, financial and human. The preliminary budget for implementation is BRL 181 million for the first five years,24 but funding sources are yet to be defined. In addition to providing cost estimates, Brazil should prioritise the most important areas for restoration (e.g. using priority maps such as key areas for water production and biodiversity protection).

7.3. Fishery and aquaculture The Brazilian government has committed to support growth of the fishery sector as an important tool for food security and regional socio-economic development. The capacity of fishing vessels and tools has increased, which is reflected in increased fishery production (Section 1.2). Most fisheries, however, are carried out by obsolete fleets very often directed at fish stocks that are already heavily exploited, resulting in negative outcomes with respect to both biodiversity and efficiency. Resource conflicts between artisanal and industrial fishing and among fishing communities tend to exacerbate pressures on fish stocks (OECD-FAO, 2015).

Aquaculture production has grown nearly five-fold since 2000 and it is expected to grow further, driven by increasing domestic demand and policy support to the sector (OECD-FAO, 2015).25 Increasing aquaculture production may contribute to increase fish and seafood supply while reducing pressure on natural fishery resources, but policies aimed at expanding aquaculture needs to take into account potentially negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, particularly when alien fish species (or Brazilian species outside of their original habitat) are being cultivated. Aquaculture activities are subject to environmental licencing.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: BRAZIL 2015 Š OECD 2015

7

4.

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY

Brazil has adopted a shared fishery management model based on permanent management committees involving government and civil society institutions. This model aims to address environmental sustainability and social inclusion concerns. No formal environmental licensing of fishing activities is required, but several measures apply to limit their environmental impact (e.g. on fishing periods and areas, and gear). However, an audit conducted by the Federal Court of Accounts (TCU) found that this structure was not fully implemented, with measures for the sustainable use of fishery resources still being carried out by the government alone. Limitations in data on aquatic habitats and fishery resources, insufficient mechanisms to monitor and control compliance, and difficult cooperation between the MMA and the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture were found to pose further challenges to sustainable fishery management (MMA, 2015).

Additional measures, including fish catch quotas, effective management plans for overexploited species and the extension of marine protected areas, are needed, particularly in coastal and marine areas where fish stocks are at their limits. The Sectoral Plan for Sea Resources includes an initiative focusing on evaluation, monitoring and conservation of marine biodiversity (REVIMAR). For 2012-15, this initiative was to include establishing monitoring programmes for marine species, continuing the assessment and monitoring of mangrove areas and protected areas containing coral reefs, increasing the number of conservation plans for marine threatened species and expanding the total marine protected areas to 4% of Brazil’s territorial waters and exclusive economic zone (Chapter 5).

7.4. Infrastructure development: the case of hydropower Hydropower is, and will continue to be, a major energy source, but its expansion is constrained by location: most potential is located in the Amazon, which raises difficulties with environmental licensing and public acceptance (Box 2.8). Efforts are being made to develop new techniques to reduce the environmental impact of large hydropower plants, including platform hydropower, and, when suitable, new projects are designed as run-ofriver (IEA, 2013). Yet hydropower plants can have a number of adverse impacts on biodiversity, disrupting river connectivity, changing habitats and interfering with the natural cycles of aquatic species. The development of dams for large hydro may also encourage road construction, migration and urbanisation, further increasing pressures on native vegetation. About 95% of deforestation in the Amazon occurs within 5 km of roads (or rivers) (Barber et al., 2014).

Like all infrastructure projects, hydropower plants are subject to environmental licensing and impact assessment (Chapter 2). However, the licensing process and allocation of water use permits has paid little attention to environmental flows, i.e. to how much water is needed to sustain freshwater ecosystems and ecosystem services to prevent negative (and often unexpected) impacts. Legislation in many countries requires environmental water needs to be considered as part of the licensing process (OECD, 2015).

The streamlining of biodiversity into large-scale infrastructure projects benefits from enhanced co-operation between the MMA and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. With a few exceptions, however, impacts are addressed through ex post mitigation measures, rather than being considered at the early planning stages. Better integration between the regulatory and institutional frameworks for the environmental and energy sectors would allow a shift from project-based planning to a more strategic integration of energy development and conservation objectives. Brazil could consider using strategic environmental assessment procedures for hydropower development (Chapter 2). This would make it possible, for

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: BRAZIL 2015 Š OECD 2015

8

4.

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY

example, to identify where energy capacity could be built with the least environmental impact and take account of cumulative impact (e.g. from a series of dams on the same river).

This could help reduce the costs of mitigation the environmental and social impact of hydropower development projects, as identified by the environmental licence, which represent up to 12% of the total costs of these projects (World Bank, 2008).

Notes 1. Together the 17 megadiverse countries in the world contain around 70% of the world’s biodiversity.

2. A biome is a large naturally occurring community of flora and fauna occupying a geographic region.

3. The Amazônia Legal super-region corresponds to an area larger than the Amazon biome, encompassing both the Amazonian forest (about 4.1 million km2) and transitional vegetation (1 million km2); the Amazon biome covers only the forest area. Amazônia Legal takes in nearly nine states: Amazonas, Pará, Acre, Roraima, Rondônia, Amapá and Tocantins, and part of Mato Grosso and Maranhão.

4. The tracking of deforestation in Brazil’s other five biomes began later than in the Amazon. Annual deforestation data started being produced in 2009.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: BRAZIL 2015 © OECD 2015 OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: BRAZIL 2015 © OECD 2015

9

4.

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY

5. These include 732 mammal, 1 980 bird and 4 507 marine and freshwater fish species.

6. These include cassava, pineapple, peanuts, cocoa, cashew, cupuassu, passion fruit, Brazil nut, guarana and jabuticaba.

7. The list of threatened flora species is based on the 2013 Red Book by the National Centre for Plant Conservation at the Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden’s Institute of Research.

8. For example, the North American Pinus pine replaced steppe habitat in the south of Brazil with simplified forest habitats (MMA, 2015), 9. These include the National Environment Council (CONAMA) (Chapter 2), the National Council for the Legal Amazon (CONAMAZ), the Council for the Management of the Genetic Patrimony, the Commission for the Management of Public Forests and the Commission for Sea Resources.

10. The consultation process, called “Dialogues on biodiversity: building the Brazilian strategy for 2020”, involved participants from all sectors, including businesses, NGOs, academia, the federal and state governments, indigenous peoples and traditional communities, and the general public by means of an online public consultation process.

11. Some examples are the Vale Company, which invests through its Fundo Vale; Petrobras, which invests through Petrobras Ambiental; the cosmetic company Boticário, which invests through its Boticário Foundation; and the Natura cosmetic company (Box 3.8), which invests through Fundação Natura.

12. Life Certification was launched in 2009 under the aegis of the CBD. To obtain the certification, a company must implement a minimum set of biodiversity conservation and mitigation actions.

13. Some examples include pequi pulp, pine nuts, umbu and licuri, piassava palm babassu, buriti and carnauba palm, Brazil nut, andiroba and copaiba oils.

14. The National Supply Company (CONAB) implements the programme; it defines minimum prices and is responsible for operationalising the payment of benefits.

15. The operationalisation of subsidy payment is bureaucratic; the extractivists are required to possess personal documentation and a checking account.

16. In the case of babassu almond, the percentage of production subsidised by the PGPMBio was less than 2%. For rubber, a larger share of total production was subsidised, reaching almost 27% in 2012.

17. Obtaining a permit usually took about three years. Researchers have complained about the requirement of obtaining the consent of relevant communities for their research, arguing that they do not always know early on where a genetic resource is found (IEEP et al., 2012).

18. Payment into the Amazon Fund was based on reducing GHG emissions from historical average deforestation rates, using a formula that converted estimated CO2 emission reductions from deforestation abatement against an average rate and applied a value of USD 5 per tonne of avoided GHG emissions. The pace of decline in deforestation rates, however, was actually higher than the rate at which funding from international donors, primarily Norway, was provided, so the funding mechanism followed a predetermined commitment and disbursement schedule instead (Birdsall et al., 2014).

19. Includes national forests, states forests and forest plantations.

20. Community forests are forests designated for the use by traditional people and communities, indigenous people, family farmers and settlers registered in the national land reform programme.

The Brazilian Constitution safeguards the right of indigenous peoples and quilombola groups to their ancestral territories. Community forests amounted to 62% of the national registered public forests in 2012, most of which are indigenous lands or protected areas (extractive reserves and sustainable development reserves).

21. To qualify for sustainable forest management, producers may only explore forest or form secondary forest with prior approval of a sustainable forest management plan detailing technical guidelines and procedures by the competent forest agency. The forest management system used in the Amazon is polycyclic, based on a 35-year cutting cycle and on technical and environmental criteria to promote the regeneration of the managed forest species. In practice, only four to six trees per hectare are felled. Forest management in Caatinga is based on a monocyclic system, with a rotation period estimated at between 12 to 15 years. Trees are cut near the base to allow sprouting regeneration by regrowth (SFB, 2013).

22. The CNPF was established to produce and compile detailed information about the use, conservation and restoration of all forest resources, including those not designated for production. It gathers biophysical, socio-environmental and landscape data covering Brazil’s entire territory.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: BRAZIL 2015 © OECD 2015

10

4.

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY

23. The total area to be restored under Planaveg was defined based on Soares-Filho et al. (2014), who suggested that up to 92 000 km2 (of the total compliance deficit of 210 000 km2) could be offset through CRAs. Planaveg suggests that another 15 000 km2 could be offset by buying “inholdings” in protected areas (Section 5.4). Planaveg’s target thus exceeds by 22 000 km2 the estimated restoration needed to achieve compliance with the new Forest Code.

24. The plan calls for the government to conduct a mid-term review after ten years of implementation as well as intermediate progress reviews after 5 years, with a view to refine strategies and actions based on the results achieved, lessons learned and advances in knowledge and experience, and to respond to potentially changing public and private demands.

25. The Harvest Plan for Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012-14 foresees investments of BRL 9.8 billion for expanding aquaculture and modernising and strengthening the fishing industry and fishery trade.

26. Other programmes are being implemented through the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, including the National System of Research on Biodiversity (SISBIOTA), the Biodiversity Research Programme (PPBio) and the International Biodiversity Symposium System (SINBIO), with information on biological inventories compatible with SiBBr.

References Amazon Fund (2015), “Portfolio Report, March 15”, Amazon Fund, Brasília, www.amazonfund.gov.br/ FundoAmazonia/export/sites/default/site_en/Galerias/Arquivos/Informes/2015_03_informe_31mar15_engl.pdf.

Assunção, J. et al. (2013), Deforestation Slowdown in the Legal Amazon: Prices or Policies?, Climate Policy Initiative, Rio de Janeiro.

Barber, C.P. et al. (2014), “Roads, deforestation, and the mitigating effect of protected areas in the Amazon”, Biological Conservation, Vol. 177, pp. 203-209.

Bernasconi, P. (2013), Custo-efetividade ecológica da compensação de reserva legal entre propriedades no estado de São Paulo [Ecological cost-effectiveness of the legal reserve compensation among properties in São Paulo state], project Policymix financed by the European Commission, Directorate General for Research, Brussels, www.esaf.fazenda.gov.br/premios/premios-1/i-premio-florestal-brasileiro/3o-lugar-010p.pdf.

Birdsall, N., W. Savedoff and F. Seymour (2014), The Brazil-Norway Agreement for Performance-Based Payments for Forest Conservation: Successes, Challenges, Lessons, CGD Climate and Forest Paper Series No. 4, Center for Global Development, Washington, DC, www.cgdev.org/publication/ft/brazil-norwayagreement-performance-based-payments-forest-conservation-successes.

Börner, J. et al. (2013), Promoting Forest Stewardship in the Bolsa Floresta Programme: Local Livelihood Strategies and Preliminary Impacts, Center for International Forestry Research, Rio de Janeiro, Fundação Amazonas Sustentável, Manaus, Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung, Bonn, http://fas-amazonas.org/ versao/2012/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/BF_report_ENG_web.pdf.

Brito B. and P. Barreto (2009), “Os riscos e os princípios para a regularização fundiária na Amazônia” [The risks and principles for land regularisation in the Amazon], Imazon Belém, http://imazon.org.br/ PDFimazon/Portugues/estado_da_amazonia/os-riscos-e-os-principios-para-a-regularizacao.pdf.

BV Rio (2014), Operational Report 2011-13, Rio de Janeiro Environmental Exchange, www.bvrio.org/site/ images/publicacoes/relatorio2013_ing_04.pdf.

Cabrera, J. et al. (2014), Overview of National and Regional Measures on Access and Benefit Sharing. Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing the Nagoya Protocol, Centre for International Sustainable Development Law, Montreal, www.cisdl.org/aichilex/files/Global%20Overview%20of%20ABS%20 Measures_FINAL_SBSTTA18.pdf.

Castro de La Mata, G. and S. Riega-Campos (2014), An Analysis of International Funding in the Amazon, Moore Foundation, Ecosystems Services, www.vale.com/brasil/PT/aboutvale/news/Documents/AmazonConservation-Funding-Analysis-Publication-2014.pdf.

CDB (n.d.), “Brazil – Country Profile”, UN Convention on Biological Diversity, www.cbd.int/countries/profile/ default.shtml?country=br - facts (accessed May 2015).

CEPAL, GIZ e IPEA (2011), Avaliação do Plano de Prevenção e Controle do Desmatamento na Amazônia Legal: PPCDAm: 2007-2010 [Evaluation of the Action Plan for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon], United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, Brasília, Institute for Applied Economic Research, Brasília, and Deutche Gesellschaft fur International Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GMbH, Bonn, www. cepal.org/dmaah/publicaciones/sinsigla/xml/7/45887/ IPEA_GIZ_Cepal_2011_Avaliacao_PPCDAm_2007-2011_web.pdf.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: BRAZIL 2015 © OECD 2015

11

4.

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY

CGU (2014), “Relatório de Acompanhamento n° 07/2014 Programa Bolsa Verde” [Follow-up Report No. 07/2014 of the Green Grant Programme], Comptroller General of the Union, Brasília.

Conservation International (2015), “Hotspots”, Conservation International, www.conservation.org/How/ Pages/Hotspots.aspx (accessed May 2015).

FAO (2015), Global Forest Resource Assessment, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

FAO (2013), “Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles: Brazil”, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, www.fao.org/fishery/facp/BRA/en (accessed December 2014).

FEBRABAN (2014), The Brazilian Financial System and the Green Economy Alignment with Sustainable Development, Brazilian Federation of Banks, São Paulo.

Financial Times (2015), “Brazil farmers eye gains on eco exchange” by J. Leahy, Financial Times newspaper, London, www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60b19182-42ef-11e2-a3d2-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz3aUikxlS2 (accessed May 2015).

Friedrich, K. (2013), “Desafios para a avaliação toxicológica de agrotóxicos no Brasil: desregulação endócrina e imunotoxicidade” [Challenges for the evaluation pesticide and agro-chemical use in Brazil: endocrine disruption and immunotoxicity], Vigilância Sanitária em Debate, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 2-15, http://dx.doi.org/10.3395/vd.v1i2.30.

Funbio (2014), O Futuro do Ambiente Financeiro das Áreas Protegidas [The Future of Finance for Protected Areas], Brazilian Biodiversity Fund, Rio de Janeiro, www.funbio.org.br/o-funbio/tendencias-o-futuro-do-ambientefinanceiro-das-areas-protegidas.

GEF (2012), GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation. Brazil (1991-2011), Global Environment Facility, Washington, DC, www.thegef. org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/CPE-Brazil-v1.pdf.

Gibbs, H. et al. (2015), “Brazil’s Soy Moratorium. Supply-chain governance is needed to avoid deforestation”, Science, 23 January 2015, Vol. 347, Issue 6220, www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6220/377.full.pdf.

Guedes, F. and S. Seehusen (2011), Pagamento por Serviços Ambientais na Mata Atlântica. Lições Aprendidas e Desafios [Payment for Ecosystems Services in the Atlantic Forests: Lessons learned and challenges], Ministry of the Environment, Brasília, www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/202/_arquivos/psa_na_mata_ atlantico_licoes_apredidas_e_desafios_202.pdf.

IBAMA (2015), “Projeto de Monitoramento do Desmatamento dos Biomas Brasileiros por Satélite – PMDBBS” [Project for Satellite-based Deforestation Monitoring of Brazilian Biomes], Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, Brasília, http://siscom.ibama.gov.br/ monitorabiomas/index.htm (accessed February 2015).

IBGE (2013), Indicadores de Desenvolvimento Sustentável [Sustainable Development Indicators] (database), Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, Rio de Janeiro (accessed March 2015).

ICMBio (2015), “Espécies Ameaçadas – Lista 2014” [Endangered Species List 2014], Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation, www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/biodiversidade/fauna-brasileira/listade-especies.html (accessed May 2015).

IEA (2013), World Energy Outlook 2013, International Energy Agency, IEA/OECD Publishing, Paris, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1787/weo-2013-en.

IEEP, Ecologic and GHK (2012), “Study to analyse legal and economic aspects of implementing the Nagoya Protocol on ABS in the European Union”, final report for the European Commission, DG Environment, Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels and London, April 2012, http:// ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/international/abs/pdf/ABS%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf.

INPA (2015), INPA website, National Institute for Amazon Reserach, http://portal.inpa.gov.br/ (accessed May 2015).

INPE (2015), “Projeto PRODES: Monitoramento da floresta Amazônia Brasileira por satélite” [The PRODES Project: Monitoring the Brazilian Amazon forest by satellite], National Institute for Space Research, www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/index.php (accessed February 2015).

Instituto Life (2014), “Instituto Life”, Instituto Life, Curitiba, www.institutolife.org/ (accessed November 2014).

Jardim, A. and E. Caldas (2012), “Brazilian monitoring programs for pesticide residues in food – Results from 2001 to 2010”, Food Control, Vol. 25, Issue 2, pp. 607-616, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.11.001.

Leitão, S. (2014), “Isso é só o começo: sobre o Código Florestal” [This is just the beginning: on the Forest Code], in P. Little, Os novos desafios da política ambiental brasileira [The new challenges of Brazilian environmental policy], IEB, Brasília.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: BRAZIL 2015 © OECD 2015

12

4.

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY

MDA (2014), “Programa Terra Legal” [Terra Legal Programme], Ministry of Agrarian Development, Brasília, www.mda.gov.br/sitemda/secretaria/serfal/apresenta%C3%A7%C3%A3o (accessed November 2014).

MMA (2015), Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ministry of the Environment, Brasília, www.cbd.int/doc/world/br/br-nr-05-en.pdf.

MMA (2014), “Biomas” [Biomes], Ministry of the Environment, Brasília, www.mma.gov.br/biomas (accessed November 2014).

MMA (2010), Fourth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ministry of the Environment, Brasília.

Nogueron R. and L. Cheung (2013), Leveling the Playing Field for Legal Timber in Brazil, World Resource Institute, Washington, DC, www.wri.org/blog/2013/09/leveling-playing-field-legal-timber-brazil.

Norman, M. et al. (2014), “Climate Finance Thematic Briefing: REDD+ Finance”, Climate Finance Fundamentals 5, December 2014, Overseas Development Institute, London and Heinrich Böll Stiftung North America, Washington, DC, www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9330.pdf.

OECD (2015), Water Resources Governance in Brazil, OECD Studies on Water, OECD Publishing, Paris, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238121-en.

OECD (2013), Scaling-up Finance Mechanisms for Biodiversity, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1787/9789264193833-en.

OECD (2012), A Framework for Financing Water Resources Management, OECD Studies on Water, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264179820-en.

OECD-ECLAC (2014), OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Colombia 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264208292-en.

OECD-FAO (2015), “Brazilian agriculture: Prospects and challenges”, in OECD/FAO, OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2015-5-en.

Pinto, L.P. et al. (2012), “Mata Atlântica” [Atlantic Forest] in Scarano, F. et al. (eds), Biomas do Brasil: retratos de um país plural [Brazilian Biomes: portraits from a diverse country], Casa da Palavra, Rio de Janeiro.

Pires, M.O. (2014), “A política de combate ao desmatamento na Amazônia e no Cerrado” [The policy to combat deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado], in P. Little, Os novos desafios da política ambiental brasileira [The new challenges of the Brazilian environmental policy], IEB, Brasília.

Prates, A. (2014), “Gestão da biodiversidade costeira e marinha: desafios da era do pré-sal”, in P. Little, Os novos desafios da política ambiental brasileira [The new challenges of the Brazilian environmental policy], IEB, Brasília.

Roma, J. et al. (2013), A Economia dos Ecossistemas e da Biodiversidade (TEEB – Brasil): Análise de Lacunas [The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB - Brazil): Gap Analysis], Institute for Applied Economic Reserach, Brasília, www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/TDs/td_1912.pdf.

Santos, P. et al. (2012), Marco regulatório sobre pagamento por serviços ambientais no Brasil [Regulatory framework on payments for ecosystem services in Brazil], IMAZON, GVces, Belém.

Senado Federal (2015), “Portal Orçamento” [Budget portal], www12.senado.gov.br/orcamento/ (accessed May 2015).

Seroa da Motta, R. et al. (2011), Climate change in Brazil: Economic, social and regulatory aspects, Institute for Applied Economic Research, Brasília, www.ipea.gov.br/agencia/images/stories/PDFs/livros/livros/ livro_climatechange.pdf.

SFB (2015a), “Cadastro Ambiental Rural: Boletim Informativo” [Rural Environmental Cadastre: Information Bulletin], 30 April 2015, Brazilian Forest Service, Brasília, www.florestal.gov.br/noticiasdo-sfb/balanco-do-cadastro-ambiental-rural-car.

SFB (2015b), “Fundo Nacional do Desenvolvimento Florestal” [National Forestry Development Fund], Brazilian Forest Service, Brasília www.florestal.gov.br/extensao-e-fomento-florestal/fundo-nacional-dodesenvolvimento-florestal/fundo-nacional-de-desenvolvimento-florestal (accessed February 2015).

SFB (2014), “Os Biomas e Suas Florestas” [Brazilian biomes and its forests], Brazilian Forest Service, Brasília, www.florestal.gov.br/snif/recursos-florestais/os-biomas-e-suas-florestas (accessed February 2015).

SFB (2013), Brazilian Forests at a Glance, Brazilian Forest Service, Brasília, www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/ sites/fcp/files/2015/March/Brazilian_Forests_at_a_glance_2013%20(1).pdf.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: BRAZIL 2015 © OECD 2015

13

4.

CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY

SMA (2013), Action Plan of the State of São Paulo. Aichi targets 2020. Implementation in the State of São Paulo, Government of the State of São Paulo, Secretary of the Environment, www.ambiente.sp.gov.br/en/ files/2015/04/Aichi_impressao_21_2_14_pdf_ENG_V.pdf.

Soares-Filho, B. et al. (2014a), Supplementary material for “Cracking Brazil’s Forest Code”, Science 25 April, Vol. 344 no. 6182, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1126/science.1246663.

Soares-Filho, B. et al. (2014b), “Cracking Brazil’s Forest Code”, Science 25 April, Vol. 344 no. 6182 pp. 363-364, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1126/science.1246663.

Viana (2015), “Leveraging public programmes with socio-economic and development objectives to support conservation and restoration of ecosystems: the price-support policy for socio-biodiversity derived products and the Green Grant Programme of Brazil”, Institute for Applied Economic Research, Brasília, www.cbd.int/ecorestoration/doc/Brazil-case-study-Final-Version-20150114.pdf.

World Bank (2008), “Summary report”, Environmental Licensing for Hydroelectric Projects in Brazil: A Contribution to the Debate, Vol. 1 (of 3), World Bank, Washington, DC, http://documents.worldbank.org/ curated/en/2008/03/10155469/environmental-licensing-hydroelectric-projects-brazil-contribution-debatevol-1-3-summary-report.

WWF (2015), The Brazilian Amazon: challenges facing an effective policy to curb deforestation, World Wide Fund Brazil, Brasília, http://wwf.panda.org/?240971/Brazilian-Amazon-challenges-to-an-effective-policyto-curb-deforestation.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: BRAZIL 2015 © OECD 2015

14

From:

OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Spain 2015

Access the complete publication at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264226883-en

Please cite this chapter as: OECD (2015), “The conservation and sustainable use of the marine and terrestrial environment”, in OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Spain 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264226883-8-en

This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries.

This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at info@copyright.com or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at contact@cfcopies.com.

15

II. 4.

THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF THE MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT

6. Integrating biodiversity into economic sectors The Spanish 2011 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment showed that management of ecosystems and biodiversity based primarily on the designation of protected areas and species conservation has not been sufficient to stop biodiversity degradation. The need for biodiversity policies that go beyond the realm of protected areas has been accepted in Spain and is now enshrined in all recent key biodiversity legislative documents. This has been most prominent in the 42/2007 Biodiversity Law and the Strategic Plan on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity 2011-17. Ensuring the integrity of ecosystems and productive landscapes, especially those related to agriculture and tourism, and conserving corridor areas between reserves, is imperative for maintaining Spain’s biodiversity.

6.1. Integrating biodiversity in agriculture While agriculture generates more than 2.5% of Spanish GDP and creates jobs for more than 3.5% of the workforce, agricultural landscapes represent around half of the total surface of Spanish territory. Almost 75% of Natura 2000 areas in Spain are used to some

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SPAIN 2015 Š OECD 2015

16

II. 4. THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF THE MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT

degree for agricultural purposes. The sector exerts significant pressures on biodiversity.

Large areas of Spain are at risk of pollution by nitrates, which in turn affect aquatic biodiversity. This is mainly due to chemical fertiliser use for crops and discharges from intensive livestock farming into fresh waters. Nearly 12% of total national surface is classified as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ), an area that has increased in recent years.

Irrigation accounts for the largest share of water demand (63%), including three-quarters of groundwater used for agriculture. Although agricultural water withdrawals decreased in the last decade, the level of water stress did not, and remains among the highest in the OECD (OECD, 2013). Some regions, such as the Upper Guadiana basin, experienced intensive (and often uncontrolled) groundwater extraction for agriculture, which contributes to the degradation of ecosystems, including important wetlands.

Spain does not have a consolidated nation-wide sectoral plan for integrating biodiversity considerations into agriculture. However, the Strategic Plan on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity set the parameters for its development and included a series of policy measures for integration of biodiversity objectives into the agriculture policy. The main pillars of the integration include subsidy instruments associated with the CAP, rural development programmes and promotion of organic farming.

Despite various initiatives, the overarching trend in the Spanish agricultural sector has been the intensification of agriculture, bigger plots, the prevalence of monocultures, and the erosion and eventual abandonment of traditional agricultural practices. Traditional production landscapes, which included a mosaic of agricultural, forestry and ecosystems, are being gradually replaced by separation of productive areas from protected areas. These are relegated to isolated “islands” of protected areas that are not part of an integral component of broader production landscapes. Yet long-term biodiversity conservation requires the integration of sustainable agriculture and a network of protected areas within broader production landscapes. This is the main challenge in the development and implementation of the impending national sectoral plan for integrating biodiversity into agriculture.

Agri-environment payments Agri-environment payments under the Common Agriculture Policy have become perhaps the most important policy mechanism for integrating biodiversity into agricultural practices. Spain introduced compulsory environmental conditionality and crosscompliance by Royal Decree 2352/2004. According to the decree, beneficiaries of direct CAP aid, as well as certain rural development subsidies, must comply with environmental requirements. These include appropriate tillage to avoid soil erosion; appropriate management of stubble; investment in and maintenance of terraces; maintenance of ecological features of habitats; contribution towards habitat connectivity; appropriate use of water for irrigation; appropriate storage of livestock manure; and maintenance of permanent pasture. More recently, Royal Decree 486/2009 simplified criteria for crosscompliance with the aim to enhance compliance and facilitate enforcement. Another initiative to establish minimum controls for cross-compliance enforcement has been the development of a National Plan for Cross-compliance Control (implemented annually since 2005). This plan was developed by the Spanish Agrarian Guarantee Fund (FEGA) of the MAGRAMA16 (the national authority that co-ordinates agri-environment payments) and the Autonomous Communities. More recently, the Royal Decree 202/2012 modified the

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SPAIN 2015 © OECD 2015

17

II. 4.

THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF THE MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT

provisions of direct payments to agricultural activities and livestock with the inclusion of a compulsory norm on the protection strips along river banks.

Despite such regulations, the actual monitoring and enforcement of cross-compliance remains challenging. There is very little robust evidence on the ecological impact of these payments. Indicative, albeit inconclusive, evidence from declining bird indicators suggests that payments are not delivering intended benefits to ecosystem services; however, compulsory fulfilling of cross-compliance reduces the risk of negative environmental impacts linked to less environmentally respectful agricultural practices.

Spain has further promoted the “greening” of its agricultural policies via the new scheme for “payments for agricultural practices that are beneficial for the climate change and the environment”. This mechanism, introduced by CAP reforms and operational from 2015, aims to improve CAP’s environmental performance through farming practices that address climate change and environmental objectives. These include requirements to diversify crops and to maintain permanent grassland and ecologically important areas. As such, they emphasise the multifunctional role of farmers as guarantees of environmental protection in rural areas. The new scheme goes beyond cross-compliance, which remains mandatory in 2015-20.

Rural development The 2007-13 National Strategic Plan for Rural Development (NSPRD) set priorities for national policies and for using and allocating funds from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). Promoting sustainable agricultural activities and projects in Natura 2000 and other areas of high natural value have been granted the highest priority.

The NSPRD provided guidelines to the Autonomous Communities to develop their own rural development programmes (RDP), including measures to promote the integration of environmental and biodiversity conservation activities into rural areas. Approximately 40% of all RDP budgets from EAFRD sources (some EUR 3 billion) have been assigned to such measures; the majority are allocated to agri-environmental measures; afforestation of agricultural land and compensation for loss of profits after adopting biodiversity-friendly agricultural practices or investments; desertification mitigation; and forest fire prevention.

In Navarra, for example, farmers in Natura 2000 sites were compensated for loss of profits after adopting biodiversity-friendly practices. Such measures have been complemented under the EAFRD by investments in modern irrigation and soil erosion prevention practices to make the agricultural landscape more biodiversity-friendly.

The surface area covered by agri-environmental measures has been steadily increasing from 2.8 million ha in 2004, to 3.7 million ha in 2006, and 5.17 million ha in 2012.

Afforestation programmes on agricultural lands were implemented on 167 273 ha between 2000-04, and increased by another 476 858 ha in 2007-13. The most important of these rural development measures, discussed below, promoted the organic agriculture industry.

Organic farming (agriculture and livestock) Due to its favourable climate conditions and a larger proportion of agricultural land under extensive production systems compared to other OECD member countries, Spain has considerable potential for developing organic agriculture and livestock. Organic farming has considerable potential for export markets, and could lead to significant employment opportunities and wealth creation for rural communities. At the same time, it helps maintain and improve rural landscapes and conserve biodiversity.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SPAIN 2015 © OECD 2015

18

II. 4. THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF THE MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT

EU Regulations 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products regulate organic farming in Spain. Autonomous Communities designate competent authorities to certify organic agricultural products that may perform the control themselves, confer their competences to a control authority or delegate tasks to private control bodies. Steps have been taken to simplify the labelling process, as well as labelling signals observed by consumers. As a result, certification of organic products is at a much more advanced stage compared to other certified final consumer products, such as from marine or forest resources.

Between 2004-08, the area under organic farming rapidly increased from 733 000 ha to 1.3 million ha, and then to 1.8 million ha in 2011, occupying around 5% of total agricultural surface. Only around 800 000 ha of this area are under agri-environmental payments, which suggests that solely private initiatives are a key driver to this increase (Figure 4.6).

Spain continues to be, for the fourth consecutive year, the EU member with the highest land area under organic agricultural production. In terms of organic crops produced, 25% are cereals, 24% olive trees, 14.3% fallow and green fertiliser, 13.6% nuts and 11% vineyards, while the remaining consists of vegetables, aromatic and medicinal plants, fruit trees (mostly citric) and tubers (MAGRAMA, 2013b, 2012b). The increase in the number of employment opportunities has also been notable. In 2011, there were 32 206 producers and 2 729 processors registered.

Figure 4.6. Trends in organic farming area Share by autonomous community, 2012

Trends, 2000-12 1 000 ha 2 000

Andalusia (54%) Castilla-La Mancha (17%) Catalonia (4%) Extremadura (4%) Navarra (4%) Aragón (3%) Murcia (3%) C. Valenciana (3%) Castilla and León (2%) Balearic Islands (1%) Asturias (1%) Galicia (1%) Madrid (0.4%) Cantabria (0.4%) La Rioja (0.2%) Canary Islands (0.2%) Basque Country (0.1%)

1 800 1 600 1 400 1 200 1 000 800 600 400 200 0

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

201

2012

Source: MAGRAMA (2014), Banco Público de Indicadores Ambientales.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933183062

Spain witnessed the tripling of livestock farms between 2005-12, reaching 6 104 registered ecological livestock producers (Figure 4.7). The highest proportion is in Andalusia (60%), Catalonia (10%), Balearic Islands (7%) and Asturias (6%). There is thus considerable regional disparity in the development of the organic livestock sector. The most popular breeding types are bovine cattle (49%), ovine (28%) and goats (10%) (MAGRAMA, 2013b, 2012b). Although aquaculture accounts for a small share of organic production (0.2%), there are good examples of biodiversity objectives in this type of production (Box 4.7).

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SPAIN 2015 © OECD 2015

19

II. 4.

THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF THE MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT

Figure 4.7. Number of organic livestock farms By autonomous community, 2012

Trends, 2001-12 Number 7 000 6 000 5 000 4 000 3 000 2 000 1 000 0

Total: 6 104

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

Andalusia (60%) Catalonia (10%) Baleares (7%) Asturias (6%) Galicia (4%) Castilla-La Mancha (3%) Extremadura (3%) Basque Country (1%) Cantabria (2%) Navarra (1%) Castilla and León (1%) C. Valenciana (0.4%) Canary Islands (1%) La Rioja (0.2%) Madrid (0.3%) Aragón (1 %) Murcia (-)

2011

Source: MAGRAMA (2014), Banco Público de Indicadores Ambientales.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933183070

The development of the organic agricultural sector has been stimulated by the Spanish Comprehensive Plan of Action to Promote Organic Farming (2007-10), which established priority areas of development that have improved product knowledge, consumption and marketing. The MAGRAMA is making organic certification more reliable by developing the General Registry of Organic Agriculture Producers (REGOE). Numerous professional associations have developed over the last decade promoting organic farming and providing third-party certification.

6.2. Integrating biodiversity into tourism Key trends Tourism is one of the mainstays of the Spanish economy and an outstanding driver of social development. It accounts for almost 10% of GDP and 11% of employment. For decades, Spain’s tourism destinations grew rapidly based on a model of high volumes, price competition and a standardised holiday experience focusing on “sun, sea and sand” features. The impacts of this growth adversely affected the attractiveness of a number of destinations. In some regions, human pressure increased one hundredfold and led to overloading the capacity of the coastline, degradation of the environment and deterioration of social systems and facilities.

The threat of tourism decline prompted Spanish authorities to look towards a more sustainable approach. The 2007 Tourism Plan “Horizon 2020”, a comprehensive strategy to improve the quality of the country’s tourism products, called for ensuring that Spain stays competitive in the tourism marketplace by developing business models that are environmentally, socially and culturally sustainable. The plan envisaged mitigating environmental impacts of tourism by extending the tourist season and promoting lesser known areas of the country. To help achieve its goals, the Working Group on Sustainable Tourism was established in 2007 as part of the institutional framework for co-ordination of tourism policies in Spain.17

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SPAIN 2015 © OECD 2015

20

II. 4. THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF THE MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT

Box 4.7. Biodiversity-friendly holistic agriculture in the Veta La Palma Estate, Spain The Pesquerías Isla Mayor, S.A. (PIMSA) operation is located in the Veta La Palma Estate at Isla Mayor, municipality of Puebla del Rio near Sevilla, Spain. PIMSA is part of Grupo Hisparroz, a leading rice production company. The estate, which stretches across 11 331 ha in the Doñana Natural Park, is faced with increasing agricultural productivity without jeopardising the ecosystem resilience of the surrounding landscape. Veta La Palma illustrates how holistic business practices can lead to productivity gains while taking into account ecosystem services beyond “provisioning”, such as enhanced landscape and biodiversity values.

PIMSA established a polyculture fish farming operation in the early 1990s, fully complying with the park’s management plan. The firm re-flooded wetlands lost to natural siltation, and used a pump system to engineer drainage to restore the original drainage channels to bring in water from the estuary. The fish farm covers some 3 200 ha and uses extensive and semi-extensive methods to breed a large variety of fish in 45 interconnected ponds of 70 ha each, which are joined to the local river system through a web of irrigation and drainage channels. To maintain high levels of environmental sustainability, the firm keeps fish at a relatively low density and harvests them less frequently compared to intensive aquaculture. The fish feed on microalgae and shrimp that reach the ponds from the estuary through the channel system and hence do not rely on external food sources.

The harvest amounts to some 1 360 tonnes of fish per year (2010).

Birds are allowed to feed in the ponds (through nets and other technology), which reduces total production by approximately 20% per year. Before the aquaculture operation was established, only about 50 bird species were recorded in the area. With ecological investment undertaking by the PIMSA, over 250 different bird species (and 600 000 birds) visit or breed on the estates wetlands. Furthermore, the almost 3 200 ha of permanently flooded aquaculture marshland play an important role as a refuge for the natural fish fauna of the Guadalquivir River estuary, including several endangered species. The business provides income to about 100 farm workers from the nearby town of Isla Mayor (5 800 inhabitants) and to surrounding villages.

Apart from aquaculture, Veta La Palma also has an extensive horse and cattle operation for organic beef and grows some dry-farmed crops. About 2 400 ha of the estate produce livestock feed using a rotation system without fertilisers or pesticides; this also benefits steppe birds such as stone curlew (Burhinus oedicnemus) or pin-tailed sandgrouse (Pterocles alchata). Another 400 ha are used to cultivate rice. The remaining 4 800 ha are set aside as a conservation area. The reclaimed wetland habitat and sustainable production methods on the estate have boosted the area’s biodiversity, while generating economic value.

As a result of its pioneering efforts at integrating aquaculture and marsh area restoration, Veta la Palma has been recognised as an exemplary case for sustainable and holistic agricultural development that is biodiversity-friendly.

Source: www.vetalapalma.es/ and www.ecoagriculture.org/.

The creation of the working group expanded existing initiatives that incorporate environmental features in Spain’s tourism development, and spurred new ones. These included the “Nature Walks Programme” and “Natural Roads Programme” based on traditional drovers’ routes, paths and abandoned railway lines, “Sustainable Diving Strategy in Marine Reserves and Protected Areas”, and numerous training courses on sustainable tourism offered to Autonomous Communities. Steps have also been taken to OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SPAIN 2015 © OECD 2015

21

II. 4.

THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF THE MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT

align recreational hunting practices with the EU Habitats Directive and address the impact of tourism operators on marine mammals (primarily the whale-watching industry).18 In 2009, the MAGRAMA and the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade developed a joint initiative on the Tourist Product for Spanish Biosphere Reserves Club, promoted by the national tourism agency (Turespaña) and the National Parks Autonomous Organisation (OAPN).

Under the Horizon 2020 Plan, EUR 1.9 billion was made available to the tourism sector under two programmes: “Plan FuturE” and “Plan RenovE”. The first, established in 2009 with a budget of EUR 1 billion, was designed to improve the tourist offer with regard to sustainability, accessibility, quality and infrastructure through low-interest loans for small tourism-related businesses with repayment terms of 5-12 years. The Plan RenovE, a partnership between the State Secretary for Tourism and the Official Credit Institute, focused on improvements in energy efficiency and environmental conservation of tourism establishments. In the first two years of operation, EUR 3.6 billion was invested in 3 380 projects, with EUR 1.9 mobilised for every EUR 1 of the budget credit. The plans together created 77 000 jobs. The programmes’ success led to an additional EUR 300 million being made available for 2011.

Several other programmes focused on improving coastal tourism. These included the State Secretariat for Tourism’s Programme for the Integrated Revalidation of Mature Tourism Destinations in four pilot destinations: the beaches of Palma in the Balearic Islands, the Costa del Sol in Andalusia, San Bartolomé de Tirajana and Puerto de la Cruz in the Canary Islands and the Spanish Tourism Board (CONESTUR) support under the 21st Century Plan for Coastal Tourism. Finally, the Tourism Infrastructures Modernisation Fund (FOMIT), worth EUR 200 million, is available to help municipalities modernise infrastructure and tourism accommodation, particularly in coastal areas.

Horizon 2020 also provided a basis for public-private partnerships. It helped create new tourist products in protected areas through a “Joining Spanish System” programme, which provides assistance to tourist operators and companies to join the European Charter on Sustainable Tourism (EUROPAC-Spain, 2012). Two such initiatives are the Spanish Tourist Quality System (or “Q” system) and the European Charter on Sustainable Tourism (CETS) certification that received considerable uptake from the industry. For example, 28 protected areas were accredited with the Q system (from only 4 in 2005) in 2012 and 36 were certified by the CETS from only 7 in 2005. Further, in 2012, 270 companies were certified under the CETS, while only 95 firms were certified in 2009. Clearly, the trend of additional protected areas and companies being granted such certification is increasing rapidly. These developments suggest that high value, quality sustainable tourism will play an important role in future protected-area management plans. Other notable private sector-led initiatives include the development of Spanish sustainable tourism criteria that meet the requirements of the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC); the establishment of Ecotourism Club in Spain, which includes 32 protected areas and over 600 private tourist companies; and action plans by the hotel industry to promote corporate social responsibility and green/sustainable tourism.

Currently, the Spanish strategy for tourism is set out in the National and Integral Tourism Plan 2012-15 (Plan Nacional e Integral de Turismo, PNIT). The strategy reinforces efforts to make Spanish tourism destinations more attractive by shifting from standard/ basic products in traditional tourism markets to specialised products that address new markets and are tuned to preferences of different consumers. Innovation, technological

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SPAIN 2015 © OECD 2015

22

II. 4. THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF THE MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT

change, environmental responsibility and investment in human resources are key axes of the strategy, accompanied by supportive marketing campaigns. One area of growth is adventure tourism based on the country’s natural features (Box 4.8).

Box 4.8. Growth of adventure tourism in Spain Adventure tourism is one sector experiencing greater growth in recent years, with approximately 1 300 companies engaged in Spain. This type of tourism attracts over 7 million people annually thanks to a heterogeneous offer that has developed around the great variety of the country’s landscape, including mountains, coastal areas, islands, caves and natural parks. Adventure tourism has resisted the economic crisis well, as Spain is able to offer low-cost active holiday opportunities to European markets, which make it a high potential sector of investment.

Land adventure attracts tourists during both summer and winter holidays. For example, the Pyrenean Trail is famous for hiking and includes cross-country routes to France, while Andalusia offers a rich set of natural caves open to the public, as well as the third largest chasm in the world in the Sierra de Tolox in the province of Málaga. Sierra Nevada is one of the most popular winter sports destinations in Europe, equipped with 105 km of runs for all levels. Spain is also one of the most attractive destinations for surfing, windsurfing and kitesurfing, with areas like the Basque Country and the Canary Islands promoted as wellequipped, low-cost destinations.

Adventure tourism was explicitly recognised as a priority area of investment in the Horizon 2020 Plan, as part of a specialisation strategy aimed to de-seasonalise tourism and better tune the sector’s offer on different market segments. The current National and Integral Tourism Plan 2012-15 aims to further promote this product in the wider support framework to strengthen destination management, such as support to young and creative tourism entrepreneurs, and to help provide access to financing.

Changes in tourism preferences are generating greater movement away from traditional “sun and beach” destinations towards other locations, especially ones that present environmental values. As a result, Spain’s national parks have witnessed an increase in the number of visits during recent years. Therefore, integrating biodiversity concerns into the tourism sector entails both promoting biodiversity-friendly tourism practices in the mainstream tourism sector, and also developing and expanding the nature-based tourism segment of the industry. The PNIT included the development of ecotourism in selected protected areas as a priority area. This approach stimulated the development of the Sectoral Plan for Biodiversity and Nature Tourism 2014-20, which signals the importance of this sector as a vehicle for green growth. The plan, implemented by the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment, provides a framework for collaboration among all stakeholders (both public and private) to promote nature-based tourism that integrates biodiversity considerations.

As its main priority, the plan is to develop ecotourism within the Natura 2000 Network, while ensuring conservation of the sites. A new system for the accreditation of tourism sustainability in the Natura 2000 Network will consolidate and co-ordinate existing structures and mechanisms mentioned above, such as the European Charter on Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas, the Spanish Biosphere Reserve System and the Ecotourism Club of Spain.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SPAIN 2015 © OECD 2015

23

II. 4.

THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF THE MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT

Notes 1. In terms of the total organic area (fully converted and under conversion) of individual EU member states as a share out of the total organic area in EU27, Spain accounted for the highest share as of 2008.

2. The trends of indirect drivers of change based on six indicators are related to demographic, economic and technological dimensions at a national level. The pressure of direct drivers of change based on eight indicators is related to the ecological footprint, emissions of sulphur and carbon dioxide, introduction of invasive alien species, overexploitation of fishery resources and groundwater, and land-use changes associated with urbanisation of the territory.

3. There are important regional variations in these figures with Asturias Murcia, Extremadura and Galicia having converted land to urban lands at a rate ranging between 40-75% (MAGRAMA 2014, 2013a).

4. Other more specialised laws cover specific types of protected areas (e.g. 5/2007 law specifically focuses on national parks, while 41/2010 focuses on marine protected areas).

5. These demarcations correspond to the marine environment over which Spain has sovereignty or jurisdiction.

6. Its exact legal status, its mandates and responsibilities are detailed in Royal Decree 1424/2008.

7. Its status has been upgraded by formally detailing its functions in Act 27/2006. The Council includes working groups on all facets of the environment, including terrestrial, coastal and marine biodiversity.

8. Its composition and function are formally detailed in Royal Decrees 948/2009 and 649/2011.

9. www.business-biodiversity.eu.

10. www.mercadosdemedioambiente.com/plataforma/.

11. Four of these reports have already been published and are available at: www.magrama.gob.es/es/ biodiversidad/temas/inventarios-nacionales/inventario-espanol-patrimonio-natural-biodiv/ informe_anual_IEPNB.aspx.

12. The values were obtained under the assumption that their future provision is secured indefinitely.

Also, non-use values were not considered. As such, these figures can be considered as a minimum lower bound and are likely to be higher when the more comprehensive analysis is completed.

13. The legislative developments since 2004 also brought about Protected Peripheral Areas as an attempt to address habitat fragmentation.

14. In the calculation of territorial waters by the MAGRAMA, the provisions of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are applied, according to which the EEZ shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Protected marine areas include proposed areas for 2014.

15. Of the 176 species, there are 112 flora, 21 birds, 17 invertebrates, 10 fish, 7 reptiles, 7 mammals and 2 amphibians.

16. www.fega.es/PwfGcp/es/.

17. Under the Spanish Constitution, the autonomous regions are responsible for the promotion and regulation of tourism within their own territories. However, the national authorities, and in particular the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism, design tourism policy and overall regulation of tourist activity and promote tourism abroad, in addition to their role in national economic planning in which tourism is a key component. The main institutions that bring coherence to the actions of public authorities in tourism matters are: the Inter-Ministry Committee for Tourism (Comisión Interministerial de Turismo), a co-ordination body whose members represent those national ministries that have responsibility for tourism-related matters; the Sectoral Tourism Conference (Conferencia Sectorial de Turismo), a co-ordination body that brings together public representatives from central government and the autonomous regions with tourism responsibilities; and the Spanish Tourism Board (Consejo Español de Turismo – CONESTUR), an advisory body that brings together all the territorial tourism administrations (state, regions and provinces-cities) and the private tourism sector (e.g. chambers of trade, the National Employers’ Association [CEOE], professional associations, trade unions and a wide spectrum of tourism professionals).

18. This law provided guidelines for access to sensitive marine areas and for granting of special licences to diving operators, as well as to whale-watching vessels.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SPAIN 2015 © OECD 2015

24

II. 4. THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF THE MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT

References Biodiversity Foundation (2014), The Biodiversity Foundation website, www.fundacion-biodiversidad.es/ (accessed : 15 July 2014).

CBD (2013), Incentives for Biodiversity in Spain, Resource Mobilization Information, Digest No. 325 September 2013, Convention for Biological Diversity, www.cbd.int/financial/doc/id325-spainincentives-en.pdf.

CBD (2012), EU Submission to the CBD Notification 2012–023 on Methodological and Implementation Guidance for the “Indicators for Monitoring the Implementation of the Convention’s Strategy for Resources Mobilization”, Convention for Biological Diversity, www.cbd.int/financial/doc/eu-members-resourcemobilization-en.pdf.

Ecoagriculture Partners (2014), Ecoagriculture Partners website, www.ecoagriculture.org (accessed: 15 July 2014).

EEA (2013), Balancing the Future of Europe’s Coasts – Knowledge Base for Integrated Management, EEA Report No 12/2013, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, www.eea.europa.eu/publications/balancingthe-future-of-europes.

EME (2012), Evaluación de los Ecosistemas del Milenio de España. Síntesis de resultados. www.ecomilenio.es/ informe-sintesis-eme/2321.

EUROPARC-Spain (2012), Yearbook 2011 of the State of Protected Areas in Spain, Fernando Gonzalez Foundation, Madrid, www.redeuroparc.org/img/publicaciones/Anuario2011.pdf.

EUROPARC-Spain (2010), Innovative Financial Mechanisms for Biodiversity Conservation, Work Programme for protected areas 2009-2013, EUROPARC-Spain, Interuniversity Foundation for Natural Areas.

Ghai, R. et al. (2012), Metagenomes of Mediterranean Coastal Lagoons, Scientific Reports 2, www.nature.com/ srep/2012/120703/srep00490/full/srep00490.html.

IUCN (2013), “Spain’s biodiversity at risk”, IUCN 2013 Fact Sheet, https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ spain_s_biodiversity_at_risk__fact_sheet_may_2013.pdf.

MAGRAMA (2014), Fifth National Biodiversity CBD Report, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Madrid, www.cbd.int/doc/world/es/es-nr-05-es.pdf.

MAGRAMA (2013a) Desfragmentación de hábitats. Orientaciones parareducir los efectos de las infraestructuras de transporte en funcionamiento. Documentos para la reducción de la fragmentación de hábitats causada por infraestructuras de transporte, número 5. O.A. Parques Nacionales. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Madrid.

MAGRAMA (2013b), Environmental Profile of Spain 2012 – Indicator-based Report, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Madrid.

MAGRAMA (2013c), Report 2012 State of the Natural Heritage and Biodiversity in Spain, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Madrid.

MAGRAMA (2013d), Priority Action Framework for Natura 2000 in Spain (2014-20), March 2013, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Madrid.

MAGRAMA (2012a), Forest Fires in Spain – Decade 2001-10, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Madrid.

MAGRAMA (2012b), Agricultura Ecológica en España. Estadísticas 2011,[Organic Agriculture in Spain.

Statistics 2011] Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Madrid.

MAGRAMA (2012c), Environmental Profile of Spain 2011 – Indicator-based Report, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Madrid.

MAGRAMA (2011), Environmental Profile of Spain 2010 – Indicator-based Report, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Madrid.

MARM (2010), Valoración de los Activos Naturales de España,[Valuation of Spain’s Natural Assets], Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Environment, Madrid.

Moreno, V. et al. (2013), Valoración de los costes de conservación de la Red Natura 2000 en España, [Assessing the Costs of Red Natura 2000 Conservation in Spain], Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Madrid.

OECD (2013), Environment at a Glance, OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1787/ 9789264185715-en.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SPAIN 2015 © OECD 2015

25

II. 4.

THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF THE MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT

OSE (2012), Biodiversity in Spain: the Bases for Sustainability in the Face of Global Change, Spanish Sustainability Observatory, Madrid.

SEC (2014), Catalogue of Good Business Practices in Biodiversity Management, Sustainability Excellence Club, Madrid, www.iberdrola.es/webibd/gc/prod/en/doc/CatalogoBiodiversidad.pdf.

Veta La Palma Natural Park (2014), Veta La Palma Natural Park website, www.vetalapalma.es/, (accessed 15 July 2014).

Voth, A. (2007), “National parks and rural development in Spain”, in: Mose, I. (ed.) Protected Areas and Regional Development in Europe – Towards a New Model for the 21st century, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 141-160.

Wilson, L., et al. (2014), “The role of national ecosystem assessments in influencing policy making”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 60, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ 5jxvl3zsbhkk-en.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SPAIN 2015 © OECD 2015

26

From:

OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: &RORPELD

Access the complete publication at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264 -en

Biodiversity

Please cite this chapter as: OECD (201 ), “Biodiversity�, in OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Colombia 2014 OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264208292-en

27

II.7.

BIODIVERSITY

4. Integrating biodiversity into economic and sectoral policies 4.1. Agriculture and biodiversity Expansion of agricultural land is the major type of land use change in Colombia, and an acute threat to biodiversity. Conversion of forest to pasture for livestock grazing is the primary driver of deforestation. Figure 7.5 shows the steady increase in head of cattle over the decade to 2011.

According to Colombia’s livestock strategy 2019 (FEDEGAN, 2006), livestock occupied 38.3 million ha of land.16 The strategy suggests, however, that only 19.3 million ha is suitable for livestock, with the other 19 million ha considered more suitable for forest (10 million ha) and crop cultivation (9 million ha). The strategy suggested that 10 million ha of pasture should be returned to a more natural state (e.g. through

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: COLOMBIA 2014 Š OECD 2014

28

II.7.

BIODIVERSITY

Figure 7.5. Head of cattle 1990-2011 millions 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

Source: FAO (2013), FAOSTAT (database).

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932998196

reforestation or conversion silvopasture), and that production of livestock on the rest of the land be intensified. However, the strategy does not appear to have influenced the rate of forest lost to pasture: in 2000-05, 626 000 ha were lost, and in 2005-10, the period just before and after the adoption of the strategy, 664 000 ha were lost (Cabrera et al., 2011). By way of comparison, in 2000-07, 130 688 ha of forest were planted for productive functions and 41 223 ha for conservation purpose (IAvH, IDEAM, IIAP, INVEMAR, and SINCHI, 2011).

The increase in pasture area between 2000 and 2010 coincided with an increase in head of cattle (Figure 7.5), indicating continued extensive cattle rearing. The livestock strategy set a goal of 48 million head of cattle on 28 million ha of pasture, in line with reducing the 38.3 million ha of pasture land in 2005 by 10 million ha). Achieving the strategy’s goal implies intensifying cattle rearing across the whole country, from 0.6-0.7 head/ha in 2010 (range from FAO STAT and national industry data) to 1.7 head/ha in 2019. However, intensification of livestock production would exacerbate other environmental problems, such as run-off from increased manure production. Measures would need to be put in place to avoid or minimise these effects.

Pilot programmes have been initiated to promote silvopasture, notably through the Sustainable Colombian Cattle Ranching initiative. However, while welcome, this initiative is unlikely to significantly alleviate pressures from ranching on biodiversity. Farm-level implementation had occurred to a limited extent with pilot projects funded by the GEF, and the initiative targets only 50 000 ha rather than the 10 million ha required to achieve the objectives of the strategy. The UK International Climate Fund is providing GBP 15 million in grants over 2012 to 2016 to convert around 28 000 hectares of open pasture to silvopastoral systems.

At the heart of the problem is a set of incentives that promote the expansion of grazing land: property tax exemptions that encourage agriculture do not consider underuse of land, while agricultural credits and other incentives do not include environmental criteria (MADS, 2012c). Decoupling growth in livestock from habitat loss and degradation requires

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: COLOMBIA 2014 Š OECD 2014

29

II.7.

BIODIVERSITY

a co-ordinated effort to reduce direct and indirect incentives for extensive farming while actively supporting intensification of cattle rearing and greater use of silvopasture practices.

The second key impact on biodiversity from agriculture is loss of natural habitats to crop cultivation. This is most significant on the Caribbean coast, where the climate is suited to oil palm and other plantation crops. For example, the area of oil palm cultivation increased by 1 08 000 ha between 2008 and 2012 to 4 52 000 ha (Fedepalma, 2013). Henson et al. (2012) suggest that the majority of oil palm plantation takes place on previously cultivated or grazed land. However, this can still put pressure on natural habitats and biodiversity, as the displaced cultivation or grazing will increase demand for land converted from natural habitats.

A third major threat to biodiversity from agriculture is the overuse of chemical inputs that pollute waterways. The PNGIBSE highlights contamination of water bodies as one of five major threats to biodiversity in Colombia (see Box 7.2). In 2001, the water quality index regarding the function of preserving flora and fauna showed that 27% of 51 monitored stations had a poor or inadequate rating. The index declined between 2001 and 2008, with a clear seasonal pattern linked to rainfall (MADS 2012a), indicating surface run-off (likely from agriculture) as a major source of pollution. Colombia uses a relatively high amount of fertiliser: by amount applied per hectare of arable land it was ranked 10th out of 157 countries examined (World Bank, 2012). It is estimated that 70% of nitrogen application and 75% of phosphorus application is wasted (CONPES, 2009). The high rates of fertiliser and pesticide usage are encouraged by incentives that reduce their costs (MADS, 2012c).

4.2. Forestry and biodiversity Forestry exploitation is based on selective extraction of up to 470 native tree species, a clear example of Colombia’s biodiversity being an economic asset. Although clearance for cattle grazing is the primary cause of forest biodiversity loss, forestry activities to extract timber and fuel also exert pressure. In 2000-08, some 15 million m3 of timber was extracted (MADS, 2012a). The evidence suggests that policy instruments such as forest fees have had little influence on reducing logging or controlling the biodiversity impact of forestry.

Fuelwood production and consumption volumes were stable over the past decade. About 15% of the population in the cloud forests continue to depend on solid biofuels (firewood and charcoal) for heating and cooking (MADS, 2012).

Colombia’s Forestry Incentive Certification (CIF), established in 1994 (Law No. 139, 1994), was originally designed to promote reforestation. It subsidises 50% of the up-front planting costs for introduced species and 75% for native species. It also subsidises 50% of the running costs in the second through fifth years. Primary forest is not supposed to have been present on the site within five years of reforestation. Over 1995-2011, CIF supported reforestation of 173 950 ha (CONPES 3724, 2012). However, it has not been effective for commercial reforestation, nor has it been taken up for conservation of natural forests. As with similar programmes in other countries, there are problems with monitoring, reporting and verification.

The PND 2010-14 includes an objective to reach 1 million ha reforested, 60% of which should be commercial plantation. The reforestation CIF is the key instrument to achieve this goal. However, it only helped reforest 17 415 ha in 2010-11 (CONPES 3724, 2012). The budget was increased roughly sixfold from 2011 to 2012, to COP 93 000 million, only COP 7 000 million short of the target for 2012. Nevertheless, the programme still has a long OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: COLOMBIA 2014 © OECD 2014

30

II.7.

BIODIVERSITY

way to achieve about 250 000 hectares of reforestation over 2010-14. Figure 7.6 displays data from the intermittent CIF reports, including a cost-effectiveness measure of the programme’s budget in relation to the number of hectares reforested with CIF support in a given period. The cost-effectiveness appears fairly steady over the life of CIF to date, and implies a required total budget of COP 714 billion to COP 933 billion (2012 values) to achieve the commercial plantation portion of the reforestation goal in 2012-14. There is a second CIF for conservation of natural forest, but as of 2010 it had not been implemented.

Figure 7.6. Cost-effectiveness of the CIF programme COP million/ha 2012 prices

1 000 ha 500

0.8 400 0.6 300 0.4

200

0.2

100

0

1995-2001

2002-06

2007-11

Cumulative reforestation

2012-14*

0.0

Cost-effectiveness (right axis)

* Projections based on current policy objectives.

Source: Conpes (2003, 2008 and 2012), Distributión de Recursos para el Certificado de Incentivo Forestal con Fines Comerciales (CIF de reforestación).

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932998215

4.3. Extractive industries and biodiversity The oil and mining sectors have rapidly expanded over the last decade. By 2011, they represented 12% of total value added and more than half of exports (Chapter 1). As discussed elsewhere, rapid expansion of the extraction of exhaustible natural resources (oil, coal, gold) is a main cause of pollution of soil and water, degradation of sensitive ecosystems (e.g. páramos) and severe impacts on human health (e.g. from the use of mercury in gold mining).

There are important overlaps between mining areas and those areas that are important for biodiversity. Most mineral titles, requested and granted, are in the Andes, the region with the highest level of threatened and endemic species (CGR, 2011). There are also significant mining interests in Amazonia, which led to a two-year moratorium on new mining in the region being announced in 2012 while a management plan was developed. The moratorium was an important initiative to stem growing pressures from mining on biodiversity There is evidence of tens of thousands of mining titles of various designations being sought in protected areas. Of particular concern is a significant increase in titles solicited in páramos in 2005-09 (CGR, 2011), with over 400 titles granted in 2010 and, according to the IAvH (the national biodiversity research institute), over 800 titles sought (Table 7.3). The IAvH also recorded over 1 000 mining titles granted (and over 3 000 sought) in wetland habitats, and 2 000 granted (nearly 9 000 sought) in forest reserves in 2010.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: COLOMBIA 2014 © OECD 2014

31

II.7.

BIODIVERSITY

Table 7.3. Total mining titles granted in areas of ecological importance in 2010 Titles granted Ecological areas

Source Number

National protected areas Regional protected areas Protected forest reserves

IAvH

35

36 475

Ingeominas

36

36 456

IAvH

24

15 002

Ingeominas

7

2 541

IAvH

66

12 882

Ingeominas Law 2 forest reserves Páramo Wetlands

89

18 258

2 083

2 224 902

Ingeominas

984

1 136 256

IAvH

451

106 596

Ingeominas

410

106 356

1 122

311 994

IAvH

IAvH Ingeominas

Total

Area (ha)

43

8 353

IAvH

3 781

2 707 851

Ingeominas

1 569

1 308 220

Note: Ingeominas: National Institute of Geology and Mining (renamed as Colombian Geological Service in 2011).

Source: CGR (2011), Estado de los Recursos Naturales y del Ambiente 2010-2011.

Environmental policies relating to the mining sector have not been enforced effectively, if at all. Depending on the data source, 16% or 32% of the land titled for mining is in areas of environmental importance. The data recorded by the IAvH show a higher number of titles affecting protected areas (with one exception) than the mining agency’s data (Table 7.3). The IAvH and the mining agency also have different data regarding the number of titles in different ecological categories. These differences help illustrate some of the basic challenges to effective dialogue and co-operation between the two sectors including a clear demarcation of areas of ecological importance and a complete mining registry. In early 2011, the number of title requests had increased so fast that mining authorities had to suspend 17 the applications to manage the backlog of nearly 20 000 requests (Figure 7.7; CGR, 2013).

Nevertheless, these data should be interpreted with caution: not all areas with mining titles are necessarily mined (the area varies depending on the mineral involved,) which mean the data in Table 7.3 may overstate the scale of pressure from mining on biodiversity.

On the other hand, water and air pollution are generated by mining operations, which suggests that pressures on biodiversity from mining may be greater than Table 7.3 shows.

For example, mining is a source of heavy metals, which have been detected in fish (CRG, 2013).

In addition, pressures from other human activities associated with greater access to areas, which that may follow mining developments, can also contribute to biodiversity loss.

The government response to the significant increase in mining activity in recent years has been largely reactive. A recent update to the mining code restated the prohibition of mining in protected areas, including in the páramo (Law No. 1382, 2010). This was considered necessary because of the continued issuance of mining titles in areas of environmental importance. The environmental authorities were not able to prevent the Ministry of Mines and Energy from granting titles in such areas (CGR, 2011). Moreover, there was no provision in the mining strategy regarding respect of biodiversity or ecosystems (UPME, 2006). In 2011, the 2010 law was declared unconstitutional because of a failure to consult ethnic groups. To avoid adverse effects on the environment, the Constitutional Court suspended the entry into force of its decision for two years (until May 2013) to

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: COLOMBIA 2014 © OECD 2014

32

II.7.

BIODIVERSITY

Figure 7.7. Mining titles

Mining titles 2012

Mining titles and applications 2012

Source: CGR (2013), Minería en Colombia Funbdamentos para superar el modelo extractivista.

provide time to develop new legislation that conformed with constitutional requirements.

By mid-2013, as new legislation had not been adopted, the 2001 mining code was in force without its 2010 amendments. In 2013, the Ministry of Mines and Energy and MADS signed an agreement in which the mining ministry stated that it would respect protected areas and pursue sustainable development within its sector. The mining ministry also established an office to deal with social and environmental issues, and the two ministries are conducting research on the impact of mining on natural resources.

4.4. Fisheries Fishery resources are managed through various measures including catch quotas established by the Ministry of Agriculture with scientific support from the National Aquaculture and Fisheries Authority (AUNAP) and the executive committee on Fisheries including MADS and research institutes. However, fisheries management needs a more coherent and co-ordinated approach within the Colombian government (see also Chapter 4). For example, lack of data on commercial fish species is a key gap in information for both biodiversity and socio-economic policy. Governance and management of information could be improved by greater involvement by MADS in fish management, which currently is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture. At the same time, other sectors should be involved in the development of MPAs and the specification of management objectives.

The national legislation on protected areas requires zones of sustainable use to be defined so as to permit artisanal fishing but exclude more damaging industrial fishing. Due to the mobile nature of marine species, however, the necessary buffer zones around MPAs, across which sustainable fisheries management is measured, are large. An approach similar to terrestrial forest zones, requiring consideration of locals’ needs across a large

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: COLOMBIA 2014 © OECD 2014

33

II.7.

BIODIVERSITY

geographical range, appears to be a gap in marine designations with the exception of the Seaflower MPA. Co-operative management initiatives where local fishery communities are involved in the development and implementation of sustainable fishery policy are implemented in the North of Chocó Department. Such initiatives could be replicated in other coastal areas of the country.

4.5. Nature-based tourism Nature-based tourism is a growing economic sector in Colombia. The 2010-14 PND aims to increase visitor numbers to national parks from 679 000 to 1 million. Various instruments have been applied to support nature-based tourism. Ecotourism investment receives a 20-year income tax exemption if certified by MADS (Decree 2755, 2003). A voluntary environmental certification system for tourism providers has been established (see Section 3.1). The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism is also engaged with naturebased tourism, and a nature-based tourism strategy is under development.

Increased nature-based tourism represents both opportunities and threats to biodiversity. In 2011-12, there were 1.5 million visitors to all types of protected areas. There appears to be scope for Colombia to increase revenue from tourism in protected areas. This would help finance the management and infrastructure needed to ensure that increased tourism did not adversely affect the biodiversity and ecosystems in and around protected areas. The National Parks Authority has implemented Community Ecotourism Programmes in some national protected areas. By the end of 2012, six partnerships had been established. Their aim is to improve the livelihoods of communities in the parks’ zones of influence while reducing pressures on natural resources by fostering environmentally sustainable economic activities. These programmes support the goal of promoting fair access and benefit sharing of biological resources (see Box 7.3), and contribute to growth in the wider tourism sector, which is forecast a 3.6% annually over 2012-22 (WTTC, 2012).

Notes 1. Secondary vegetation comprises plant communities that have regrown after a significant disturbance to primary vegetation (e.g. where grass and scrub land develops after burning or felling of primary forest). Pressures (such as grazing by domestic livestock) that prevent primary vegetation returning maintain secondary vegetation.

2. Ecological-social mosaics are areas containing a mix of agricultural and other transformed land and natural habitats.

3. www.evri.ca/Global/HomeAnonymous.aspx (accessed, 22/2/2013).

4. The Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies, the José Benito Vives de Andréi Institute of Marine and Coastal Research, the Amazonian Institute of Scientific Research, the Pacific Institute of Scientific Research and the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Research on Biological Resources.

5. www.tremarctoscolombia.org.

6. Aichi Target 11: “By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes”.

7. Between 1.2% and 1.4%, depending on the figure used for Colombia’s maritime territory (several maritime boundary disputes persist). This figure excludes some areas of the Subsystem of Marine

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: COLOMBIA 2014 © OECD 2014

34

II.7.

BIODIVERSITY

Protected Areas which have less strict management requirements than those of the National Parks Authority.

8. Julia Miranda, Director of National Parks of Colombia, personal communication.

9. Financial sustainability is defined as a protected areas system having secured sufficient and stable resources over the long term to meet its total management cost. This is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for management of such a system (Bovarnick et al., 2010).

10. www.cbd.int/lifeweb/project.shtml?did=4683 accessed 22/2/2013.

11. Elizabeth Taylor, Director Marine, Coastal and Aquatic Affairs, MADS, personal communication, 18/6/2013.

12. www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/Economic_Instruments_and_Marine_Litter.pdf; www.pemsea.org/publications/manual-economic-instruments-coastal-and-marine-resource-management; www.inecc.gob.mx/descargas/dgipea/ffrteopetm.pdf accessed 15/06/13.

13. Elizabeth Taylor, Director Marine, Coastal and Aquatic Affairs, MADS, personal communication, 18/6/2013.

14. www.cites.org/common/cop/16/inf/E-CoP16i-14.pdf accessed 15/06/13.

15. For more information, see www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/latinamerica/latin-american-waterfunds-partnership.xml.

16. No date is noted for this data, but other data presented are for 2005, so it is presumed that this figure is for around that time.

17. Applications were suspended until July 2013.

References Armenteras, D., F. Gast and H. Villareal (2003), “Andean forest fragmentation and the representativeness of protected natural areas in the eastern Andes”, Colombia, Biological Conservation, 113(2), 245-256, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00359-2.

Barragán, F.M. (2011), Implicaciones Ambientales Del Uso De Leña Como Combustible Doméstico En La Zona Rural De Usme. Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto De Estudios Ambientales “Idea”, Facultad De Ciencias Económicas,Universidad Nacional De Colombia, www.bdigital.unal.edu.co/4125/1/905057.2011.pdf Baptiste, M.P. et al. (2010), Análisis de riesgo y propuesta de categorización de especies introducidas para Colombia, Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, Bogotá, DC. Bennett, G., N. Carroll and K. Hamilton (2013), Charting new waters: State of watershed payments 2012, Washington, DC: Ecosystem Marketplace.

Bessudo, S. (29 June 2011), Colombia: A megadiversecountry committed to a green and sustainable growth, Presented at the World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, Oxford, UK. Blanco, J., S. Wunder and F. Navarrete (2005), La Experiencia Colombiana en Esquemas de Pagos por Servicios Ambientales, Bogotá, Colombia: Ecoversa, Center for International Forestry Research, www.cifor.org/ pes/_ref/sp/proyectos/north_andean.htm.

Bovarnick, A. et al. (2010), Financial Sustainability of Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean: Investment Policy Guidance, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC), http://web.undp.org/latinamerica/biodiversity-superpower/Download_Reports/ PA_Sustainable_Financing_Report_ENG.pdf.

Cabrera, E. et al. (2011), Memoria técnica de la cuantificación de la deforestación histórica nacional – escalas gruesa y fina, Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales (IDEAM).

Calvache, A., S. Benítez and A. Ramos (2012), Fondos de Agua: Conservando la Infraestructura Verde, Alianza Latinoamericana de Fondos de Agua, Bogotá, Colombia: The Nature Conservancy, Fundación FEMSA y Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.

Castaño-Isaza, J. (undated), “Development of Payments for Ecosystem Services for the Seaflower MPA: An Innovative Financing Mechanism to Protect Coastal and Marine Ecosystems”, Masters Degree Paper for the Program in Sustainable International Development at The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: COLOMBIA 2014 © OECD 2014

35

II.7.

BIODIVERSITY

Castaño-Uribe, C. (2008). Pago por servicios ambientales a través de pago de la tasa de uso del agua en el parque nacional natural Chingaza, Colombia, Santiago de Chile, Chile: Oficina regional de la FAO para America Latina y el Caribe.

Contraloria General de la Republica (CGR) (2011), Estado de los Recursos Naturales y del Ambiente 20102011, Contraloría General de la República, Bogotá.

CGR (2012), Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia-PNNC- 2011, Informe de Auditoría, Cgr-Cdma No. 027.

CRG (2013), Minería en Colombia Fundamentos para superar el modelo extractivista, Contraloría General de la República, Bogotá.

CONPES, (2012), Distribución de recursos para el certificado de incentivo forestal con fines comerciales (CIF de reforestación) - vigencia 2012, Documento CONPES 3724, Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social, Bogotá.

CONPES (2011), Modificacion a conpes social 91 del 14 de junio de 2005: “metas y estrategias de colombia para el logro de los objetivos de desarrollo del milenio-2015”, Documento CONPES 140, Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social, Bogotá.

CONPES (2010), Lineamientos para la Consolidación del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (Documento CONPES No. 3680), Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social, Bogotá.

CONPES, (2009), Política nacional para la racionalización del componente de costos de producción asociado a los fertilizantes en el sector agropecuario, Documento CONPES 3577, Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social, Bogotá.

CONPES (2008), Distribución de recursos para el certificado de incentivo forestal con fines comerciales (CIF de reforestación) – vigencia 2008, Documento CONPES 3509, Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social, Bogotá.

CONPES (2003), Distribución de recursos para el certificado de incentivoforestal (CIF de reforestación) – vigencia 2003, Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social, Bogotá.

DANE (2012), Cuentas de gasto en protección ambeintal y actividad de reciclaje 2009-2010, Boletín de prensa, Bogotá, Colombia: Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística.

Decree 2820 (2010), Por el cual se reglamenta el Título VIII de la Ley 99 de 1993 sobre licencias ambientales, Bogotá, Colombia: Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial (MAVDT).

Decree 155 (2004), Por el cual se reglamenta el artículo 43 de la Ley 99 de 1993 sobre tasas por utilización de aguas y se adoptan otras disposiciones, Bogotá, Colombia: El Presidente de la República de Colombia.

Decree 2755 (2003), Por medio del cual se reglamenta el artículo 207-2 del Estatuto Tributario, Bogotá, Colombia: El Ministro del Interior y de Justicia de la República de Colombia.

DPS (22 June 2012), Familias Guardabosques fue presentado en conferencia Río+20 como ejemplo en conservación medio ambiental, www.dps.gov.co/contenido/contenido.aspx?conID=6637&catID=127.

Econometría Consultores (2012), Evaluación institucional y de resultados de la Política de Consolidación del Sistema Nacional de Á;reas Protegidas, SINAP: Informe final, Bogotá, Colombia: DNP, SINAP. eftec, IEEP et al. (2010), The use of market-based instruments for biodiversity protection – The case of habitat banking, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/index.htm.

FAO (2010), Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 (FAO Forestry Paper No. 163), Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (2012), Estado de las Á;reas Marinas y Costeras Protegidas en América Latina, Elaborado por Aylem Hernández Avila, REDPARQUES Cuba. Santiago de Chile, Chile: Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación (FAO).

FEDEGAN (2006), Plan estratégico de la ganadería colombiana 2019, Por una ganadería moderna y solidaria, Bogotá.

Fedepalma (2013), Minianuario estadistico 2013: principales cifras de la agroindustria de la palma de aceite en Colombia, Bogotá, Federacion Nacional de Cultivadores de Palma de Aceite, http:// portal.fedepalma.org//documen/2013/minianuario_estadistico_2013.pdf.

García Romero, H. and L. Calderón Etter (2013), Policies in sectors with environmental impacts in Colombia – Policies that support fossil fuel production and consumption in Colombia.

Goldman, R.L. et al. (2010), Linking People and Nature through Watershed Conservation in the East Cauca Valley, Colombia (TEEBcase), The Economics and Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Water-Funds-for-conservation-of-ecosystem-services-inwatersheds-Colombia.pdf.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: COLOMBIA 2014 © OECD 2014

36

II.7.

BIODIVERSITY

Gutiérrez, F. de P. et al. (2012), VI. Catálogo de la biodiversidad acuática exótica y trasplantada en Colombia: moluscos, crustáceos, peces, anfibios, reptiles y aves, Serie Editorial Recursos Hidrobiológicos y Pesqueros Continentales de Colombia, Instituto de Investigación de los Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt (IAvH), Bogotá, DC. Henson, I.E., R. Ruiz and H.M. Romero (2012), The greenhouse gas balance of the oil palm industry in Colombia: A preliminary analysis, I, Carbon sequestration and carbon offsets, Agron. Colomb. 30(3), 370-378.

Higinio, J. and S. Lucía (2010), Biodiversity and Ecosystems, Why these are important for Sustained Growth and Equity in Latin Americaand the Caribbean, Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia: Oficina Regional del PNUD para América Latina y el Caribe.

IAvH (2012), Informe sobre el estado de los recursos naturales renovables y del ambiente, Componente de biodiversidad, 2010-2011, Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt.

IAvH, IDEAM, IIAP, INVEMAR, and SINCHI (2011), Informe del Estado del Medio Ambiente y de los Recursos Naturales Renovables 2010, Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales.

IDEAM and Ministerio del Medio Ambiente (2010), Colombia. Segunda comunicación nacional ante la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático, Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales.

IDEAM, IGAC, IAvH, INVEMAR, SINCHI, and IIAP (2007), Ecosistemas continentales, costeros y marinos de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi (IGAC).

Isaza, J.C. (undated), Development of Payments for Ecosystem Services for the Seaflower MPA: An Innovative Financing Mechanism to Protect Coastal and Marine Ecosystems, Masters Degree Paper for the Program in Sustainable International Development at The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University.

Law No. 1450 (2011), POR lA CUAL SE EXPIDE El PLAN NACIONAL DE DESARROllO, 2010-2014. Bogotá, Colombia: El Congreso de Colombia.

Law No. 1382 (2010), POR EL CUAL SE MODIFICA LA LEY 685 DE 2001 CODIGO DE MINAS, Bogotá, Colombia: El Congreso de Colombia.

Law No. 1152 (2007), Por la cual se dicta el Estatuto de Desarrollo Rural, se reforma el Instituto Colombiano de Desarrollo Rural, Incoder, y se dictan otras disposiciones, Bogotá, Colombia: El Congreso de Colombia.

Law No. 1151. (2007), POR LA CUAL SE EXPIDE EL PLAN NACIONAL DE DESARROLLO 2006-2010, Bogotá, Colombia: El Congreso de Colombia.

Law No. 139 (1994), Por la cual se crea el certificado de incentivo forestal y se dictan otras disposiciones, Bogotá, Colombia: El Congreso de Colombia.

Law No. 99 (1993), Por la cual se crea el MINISTERIO DEL MEDIO AMBIENTE, se reordena el Sector Público encargado de la gestión y conservación del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales renovables, se organiza el Sistema Nacional Ambiental – SINA y se dictan otras disposiciones, Bogotá, Colombia: El Congreso de Colombia.

MADS (2013), press release – 2 May 2013, Nace alianza “Naturalmente Colombia” para apoyar consolidación del Sistema Nacional de Á;reas Protegidas, Bogotá.

MADS (2012a), Política Nacional para la Gestión Integral de la Biodiversidad y Sus Servicios Ecosistémicos (PNGIBSE), Bogotá, Colombia: Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (MADS).

MADS (2012b), Manual para la asignacion de compensacion por perdida de biodiversidad. Bogotá, Colombia: Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible, www.minambiente.gov.co//documentos/normativa/ resolucion/180912_manual_compensaciones.pdf.

MADS (2012c), Colombia’s response to the OECD Environmental Peformance Review questionnaire.

MADS and DIAN (2012), Colombia’s approach to environmental policy and the role of taxation. Presented at the OECD – Joint Meetings of Tax and Environment Experts, Paris, 1 June 2012.

MADS and Ecofondo (2012), Experiencias significativas de participación ciudadana y conocimiento tradicional en la gestión ambiental, Bogotá.

MAVDT (2008), Estrategia Nacional de Pago por Servicios Ambientales. Bogotá, Colombia: Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: COLOMBIA 2014 © OECD 2014

37

II.7.

BIODIVERSITY

MAVDT (2010), Política Nacional par a la Gestión Integral del Recurso Hídrico, Bogotá, Colombia: Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial (MAVDT).

MAVDT, UASPNN, WWF, Conservación Internacional, and The Nature Conservancy (2008), Reconocimiento de los Servicios Ambientales: Una Oportunidad para la Gestión de los Recursos Naturales en Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.

Mendoza, J.E., F.H. Lozano-Zambrano and Kattan (2007), Composición y estructura de la biodiversidad en paisajes transformados en Colombia (1998 – 2005), Informe Nacional sobre el avance del conocimiento y la información de la biodiversidad 1998-2004, Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto Alexander von Humboldt (IAvH).

Myers, N. et al. (2000), Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities, Nature 403: 853-858.

Newball, R. (undated), Tarifa de entrada al AMP Seaflower: Documento evaluación técnica sobre su implementación y operativización. Componente II – Sostenibilidad Financiera Largo Plazo AMPSeaflower.

OECD (2013), OECD Environmental Performance Review of Mexico, OECD Publishing, Paris, doi: 10.1787/ 9789264105010-en.

Presidencia República de Colombia (2012), Informe al Congreso, Bogotá, Colombia: Presidencia República de Colombia.

República de Colombia (2005), Constitución Política de la República de Colombia de 1991, con reformas hasta 2005, http://pdba.georgetown.edu/constitutions/colombia/col91.html.

Rudas, G. (2009), La Política de Biodiversidad en Colombia. Algunos elementos para el análisis de larelación entre la conservación y el crecimiento económico (Documento interno), Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo PNUD – Dirección Regional para América Latina y el Caribe.

Rudas, G. (2012), Indicadores financieros del SINA, Bogotá, Colombia.

RUNAP (2012), Reportes: Clasificación Áreas Protegidas, viewed 3 April, 2013, http://runap. parquesnacionales.gov.co/reportes.

Salazar-Bermudez, V. (2012), Modelo Financiero Área Marina Protegida Seaflower, Document for the Corporación para el Desarrollo Sostenible del Archipiélago de San Andrés, Providencia y Santa Catalina (CORALINA).

Salazar-Holguín et al. (2010), Informe sobre el Estado de los Recursos Naturales Renovables y del Ambiente, Componente de Biodiversidad Continental – 2009, Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt (IAvH).

SIB (2013), Biodiversidad en cifras, viewed 3 April, 2013, www.sibcolombia.net/web/sib/cifras#amenazadas.

Southgate, D. and S. Wunder (2007), Paying for Watershed Services in Latin America: A Review of Current Initiatives (Working Paper No. 07-07), Blacksburg, VA: SANREM-CRSP/USAID, Virginia Tech (OIRED), www.oired.vt.edu/sanremcrsp/documents/research-themes/pes/Sept.2007.PESLatinAmerica.pdf.

Spanne (2012), Colombia’s Unexplored Cloud Forests Besieged by Climate Change, Development, The Daily Climate, Dec 4, 2012.

TEEB (2008), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Interim Report.

UPME (2006), Escenarios y estrategías minería energía, Unidad de planeción minero energética, Bogotá.

World Bank (2013), WAVES: Colombia, http://go.worldbank.org/4WOZ2VYQM0.

World Bank (2012), World Development Indicator Database, http://data.worldbank.org.

World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) (2012), Travel & Tourism Economic Impact 2012 Colombia, London.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: COLOMBIA 2014 © OECD 2014

38

From:

OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: South Africa 2013

Access the complete publication at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264202887-en

Biodiversity and economics of ecosystem services

Please cite this chapter as: OECD (2013), “Biodiversity and economics of ecosystem services”, in OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: South Africa 2013, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264202887-9-en 39

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY AND ECONOMICS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

5. Integrating biodiversity into other sectors 5.1. Nature-based tourism Nature-based tourism is one of the most significant and dynamic industries in South Africa. The 2011/12 Annual Tourism Report states that total foreign direct spending18 in South Africa was ZAR 56 billion, or ZAR 28 billion more than gold exports. Game ranching, including hunting, is estimated to generate ZAR 7.7 billion a year and provides 100 000 jobs.

Substantially more labour-intensive than livestock farming, game ranching has grown at an average rate of 20% a year over the last 15 years, making it the fastest growing tourism sector in the world. A study in the Eastern Cape found that, for private game reserves, the switch from farming to ecotourism resulted in 4.5 times as many full-time employees and a fivefold increase in the average annual salary for full-time employees, as well as large increases in revenues (Blignaut et al., 2008; Maia et al., 2011).

Tourism contributes significantly to provincial and local economies, and there is growing awareness of this economic potential. Game farming is often undertaken on a private, commercial basis. However, unique opportunities also exist in community-based game farming and safari operations. To that end, communities are creating ecotourism associations and community-based tourism structures to collectively plan, manage and market specific tourism routes. Still, some indications show these community programmes are not yielding the anticipated results. Very few of the benefits, including financial, employment and business opportunities, are filtering through to the community at large (DEAT, 2005). Many community-based tourism efforts are poorly capitalised, widely dispersed, poorly marketed and not sufficiently unique to attract interest. Generally, there is a huge need to upgrade the skills of community-based tourism operators so they can compete effectively with better-known brands, such as the Namibia community-based tourism projects. There is a further need for supportive activities such as finance, training, extension and joint marketing to be drawn into a stronger relationship with communitybased operations.

5.2. The engagement of the financial sector Some mainstreaming of biodiversity in the financial sector in South Africa is observed with the financing of sustainable tourism operations, both by private banks and the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA). Yet there is scope for using the leverage of the financial sector to promote pro-biodiversity practices in key areas such as mining, commercial fishing and forestry. This can be done through more stringent environmental impact assessment procedure and better enforcement. In addition, the financial sector can play a larger role in aiding micro-finance schemes to develop small-scale markets for

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SOUTH AFRICA 2013 Š OECD 2013

40

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY AND ECONOMICS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

biodiversity conservation. Further, there is considerable scope for the financial industry to be engaged with developing biodiversity offsetting schemes.

The relatively new “Sustainable Finance Forum” provides a promising development in this direction. The Forum consists of members from the financial and industrial sectors with a shared belief in sustainable development. It has developed a “Code of Conduct” for its financing activities in line with the “Equator Principles”. Further, the New Banking Initiative (NBI) has been established as an umbrella process for green finance in South Africa. Lastly, the financial sector, primarily through the DBSA, has become heavily involved in shaping and financing biodiversity conservation/sustainable use and employment-generating programmes such as the Dry Lands Fund and the Green Fund. For example, the Dry Lands Fund finances primarily pro-poor rural development projects in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas. Biodiversity conservation and natural resource management is of strategic importance to this initiative as they promote healthy and resilient livelihoods and landscapes.

Notes 1. South Africa’s territorial waters include three bands: 12 nautical miles (nm) of the territorial sea, 24 nm of the contiguous zone and 200 nm of the exclusive economic zone.

2. Ecosystem threat status shows the degree to which ecosystems are still intact or are alternatively losing vital aspects of their structure, function and composition, on which their ability to provide ecosystem services ultimately depends. Ecosystem protection level shows whether ecosystems are adequately protected based on the proportion of each ecosystem type that occurs within a protected area recognised in the Protected Areas Act. 3. The NBA categorises ecosystem types as critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable or least threatened, based on the proportion of each ecosystem type that remains in good ecological condition relative to a series of thresholds.

4. The Grassland biome is of particular concern as it is the economic heartland of South Africa.

Densely populated, it is under immense development pressure, most notably from coal mining, agricultural activities and timber plantations. Major rivers such as the Orange, Tugela, Caledon and Kei have their headwaters in this biome.

5. To be fully protected, an estuary should be surrounded by a land-based protected area and a notake marine or estuarine protected area. Its freshwater flow requirements should be met using legal mechanisms in the National Water Act. 6. The assessment covered South Africa’s Exclusive Economic Zone, which extends 200 nautical miles offshore.

7. These include, for example, wild ginger (Siphonochilus aethiopicus), used to treat asthma, colds, coughs and flu; and pepper-bark tree (Warburgia salutaris), an expectorant for treating chest infections, as well as a range of yeast, fungal and bacterial infections.

8. With total annual production of 600 000 tonnes of fish valued at approximately ZAR 6 billion, the commercial fisheries sector employs about 27 000 people; an estimated 28 000 households are engaged in subsistence fishing.

9. These figures are almost certainly underestimated, as thorough surveys have not yet taken place in most environments.

10. Production landscapes refer to landscapes that support both agricultural production and biodiversity conservation. They keep ecosystems intact (and not fragmented) and aim to improve the livelihoods of rural communities, mostly through sustainable agriculture, while conserving biodiversity.

11. Biodiversity priority areas include the following categories, which are not mutually exclusive: protected areas; critically endangered and endangered ecosystems; critical biodiversity areas and ecological support areas; freshwater ecosystem priority areas (including rivers and wetlands); high water yield areas; flagship free-flowing rivers; priority estuaries; focus areas for land-based protected area expansion; and focus areas for offshore protection.

166

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SOUTH AFRICA 2013 © OECD 2013

41

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY AND ECONOMICS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

12. The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) is mandated through NEMBA to function as the lead national research, consultative and advisory organisation on South Africa’s biodiversity.

13. South African National Parks (SANParks), established through the Protected Areas Act (No 57 of 2003), is the lead statutory conservation authority.

14. This includes nearly 100 protected areas, as well as the uKhahlamba-Drakensberg Park World Heritage Site and the Isimangaliso Wetland Park World Heritage Site.

15. Due to changes in budgetary headings, comparable and meaningful expenditure trends can be only shown for the period since 2008/09.

16. Some of the large or long-established environmental NGOs in South Africa include the Botanical Society of South Africa, the World-Wide Fund for Nature (South Africa), the Endangered Wildlife Trust, the Wilderness Foundation, the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa, the Wildlands Conservation Trust, Conservation International-South Africa, BirdLife South Africa, EcoAfrica and Fauna and Flora International. Some of these are local branches of international NGOs that provide valuable links to international networks, programmes, technical expertise and funding.

17. Only biodiversity-significant land that is threatened should be considered for inclusion.

18. Direct expenditures by foreigners, including costs of transport to South Africa’s airlines.

References Blignaut, J. et al. (2008), “Making markets work for people and the environment: employment creation from payment for ecosystem services, combating environmental degradation and poverty on a single budget while delivering real services to real people”, Second Economy Strategy: Addressing Inequality and Economic Marginalisation, An initiative of the Presidency, hosted by Trade and Industrial Policy Strategies (TIPS).

Cadman, M. et al. (2010), Biodiversity for Development: South Africa’s Landscape Approach to Conserving Biodiversity and Promoting Ecosystem Resilience, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Cowan, G.I., N. Mpongoma and P. Britton (eds.) (2010), Management Effectiveness of South Africa’s Protected Areas, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.

DEA (2013, forthcoming), South Africa Environmental Outlook 2012, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.

DEA and DP (2011), Information Document on Biodiversity Offsets, EIA Guidelines and Information Series, October, Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Cape Town, www.iaia.co.za/File_Uploads/File/DEADP_EIA_Info_Doc_on_Biodiversity_Offsets_Oct2011.pdf.

DEAT (2010), South Africa’s Second National Communication Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

DEAT (2008), National Biodiversity Framework, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

DEAT (2006), South Africa Environmental Outlook 2006, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

DEAT (2005), South Africa Country Study, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

Driver, A. et al. (2012), National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: An Assessment of South Africa’s Biodiversity and Ecosystem, Synthesis Report, South African National Biodiversity Institute and Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.

Driver, A. et al. (2004), South African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Summary Report, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Esterhuizen, D. (2011), South Africa Biotech Annual Report, Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN), United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, http://gain.fas.usda.gov/.

GoSA (2011), National Climate Change Response White Paper, Government of South Africa, Pretoria.

Maia, J. et al. (2011), Green Jobs: An Estimate of the Direct Employment Potential of a Greening South African Economy, Industrial Development Corporation, Development Bank of Southern Africa, Trade and Industrial Policy Strategies, Sandown.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SOUTH AFRICA 2013 © OECD 2013

42

167

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY AND ECONOMICS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Maze, F. et al. (2004), Mining and Biodiversity in South Africa: A Discussion Paper, Forest Trends Association, Washington, DC, www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_602.pdf.

National Treasury (2013), Estimates of National Expenditure, National Treasury, Republic of South Africa.

National Treasury (2011), The 2011 Local Government Budgets and Expenditure Review, Intergovernmental Fiscal Reviews, National Treasury, Republic of South Africa.

National Treasury (2006), A Framework for Considering Market-Based Instruments to Support Environmental Fiscal Reform in South Africa, Tax Policy Chief Directorate, National Treasury, Republic of South Africa.

Raimondo, D. et al. (2009), “Red List of South African Plants”, Strelitzia25, South African National Biodiversity Institute.

South African Delivery Agreement Document (Outcome 10), www.info.gov.za/view/Download FileAction? id=134090.

South African National Biodiversity Institute (2012), Ecosystem Protection Level NBA 2011, available from Biodiversity GIS website, (http://bgis.sanbi.org/nsba/terrestrialStatus.asp), downloaded on 10 July 2013.

Tunley, K. (2009), State of Management of South Africa’s Marine Protected Areas, WWF South Africa Report Series – 2009/Marine/001, WWF-South Africa, Newlands, Cape Town.

Turpie, J.K., C. Marais and J. Blignautt (2008), “Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism addressing both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa”, Ecological Economics 65:788-798.

168

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SOUTH AFRICA 2013 © OECD 2013

43

From:

OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Mexico 2013

Access the complete publication at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264180109-en

Biodiversity and forests

Please cite this chapter as: OECD (2013), “Biodiversity and forests”, in OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Mexico 2013, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264180109-9-en

44

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY AND FORESTS

5. Mainstreaming biodiversity and forestry in other sectors and policy areas Many of the drivers of biodiversity and forest loss are, directly or indirectly, related to policies in other sectors, such as agriculture, with conversion to crop and livestock production; urban planning and infrastructure such as roads; and tourism (Challenger and Dirzo, 2008; FAO, 2010; SEMARNAT, 2011). Thus mainstreaming and aligning biodiversity and forest objectives in these sectors is a crucial element of effective conservation and sustainable use. Mexico’s National Development Plans since early 2000s have recognised the importance of this approach. Particularly since 2007, the government has included mainstreaming of environmental concerns as a necessary strategy for achieving sustainable development. The 2007-12 National Development Plan, for example, includes environmental sustainability as one of five key axes. The environment axis consists of 14 objectives and associated strategies, including slowing deterioration of forests and jungles, conserving ecosystems and biodiversity, and integrating conservation of natural capital with economic and social development. This section looks at key sectors for mainstreaming.

5.1. Biodiversity and agriculture While the negative impact of agricultural subsidies on land-use change and, consequently, on biodiversity is widely recognised in various sectors in Mexico, effective mainstreaming and aligning of objectives has not yet taken place (CONABIO-UNDP, 2009).

Policies addressing agri-environmental concerns are nascent. This is especially concerning as Mexico is projected to continue with strong growth in agricultural production in the coming decade, with the risk of further expansion of production onto environmentally fragile land (OECD, 2010b). Agriculture has also exerted pressure on aquatic environments (rivers, lakes, wetlands and coastal zones), from increasing levels of livestock effluents and diffuse pollution through the use of chemicals in arable farming. Other issues include the genetic erosion of maize varieties, which show a loss of 80% of local varieties compared to the 1930s, and more recently possible contamination of domesticated landraces and wild relatives from transgenic maize (OECD, 2008). While agri-environmental payments are possible under PROCAMPO for soil and water conservation, for instance, farmers’ uptake of these payments has been limited. A number of programmes support forestry but only one is aimed specifically at the reforestation of farmland.

There is evidence, moreover, that subsidy programmes such as PROCAMPO (direct assistance to agriculture)18 may promote clearing and burning, thereby accelerating land use change, a key driver of biodiversity loss (Gaytán and González, 1997; Cortez, 2000; Reyes-Hernández et al., 2003). “In the region of Calakmul, for example, Klepeis and Vance (2003) associate these subsidies with a higher rate of deforestation because they promote the cultivation of chili and pasture, and increase the clearance of mature forest to obtain soils suitable for crops. Abizaid and Coomes (2004) and Isaac-Márquez et al. (2005) obtained similar results regarding the effect of PROCAMPO on the expansion of deforestation

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: MEXICO 2013 © OECD 2013

45

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY AND FORESTS

in the southern region of the Yucatán Peninsula and in the Tenosique region of Tabasco” (CONABIO-UNDP, 2009).

Munoz-Pina (2004) reported that, in the early 2000s, subsidies that potentially had the most negative impact on the environment had a budget almost double that of more environmentally benign subsidies (Guevara-Sanginé, 2009). Programmes to pay grain producers above-market prices (Programa Ingreso Objetivo), to give per-animal subsidies to cattle ranchers (Programa de Estimulos a la Ganaderia) and to underwrite purchases of farm equipment (Programa Activos Productivos) may have led to increased intensification and expansion of agriculture, with negative impacts on biodiversity (GuevaraSanginé, 2009). Other harmful subsidies include VAT exemption for agrochemicals and electricity subsidies (OECD, 2008). Under the latter, pricing of electricity to pump water has been used to explain why so few farmers adopt water-saving technology despite significant pressure on water resources. In 2011, the government spent around USD 649 million in subsidies to irrigation agriculture (OECD, 2012). In July 2011, the government launched a pilot programme to partly decouple the amount of the subsidy from electricity use. The programme involves 13 aquifers and more than 8 000 potential beneficiaries. Farmers participating pay a higher electricity price, although still partially subsidised and below the average cost of electricity generation. In exchange, they receive a cash transfer equivalent to the forgone electricity subsidy, calculated on the basis on their last three years’ average consumption. Thus, farmers’ income is maintained while pressure on water resources is reduced (see Box 3.3).

5.2. Biodiversity and tourism Tourism is the third most important economic activity in Mexico, generating more than 8% of GDP. In 2000, SECTUR, in co-operation with SEMARNAT, CONABIO and several other institutions from the public, private, social and academic sectors, published a National Policy and Strategy for Sustainable Tourism, with useful guidelines and action plans. More recently, the 2009 General Law on Tourism included clauses relating to sustainability. Within the Sustainable Tourism Programme in Mexico, SECTUR diagnosed major destinations so as to identify priorities for promoting sustainable tourism, and is currently working to promote eco-certification of tourism-related businesses, in conjunction with the Rainforest Alliance and EarthCheck programmes,19 so as to comply with the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria. Between 1997 and July 2011, for example, a total of 4 828 Clean Industry certificates and Environmental Quality certificates (including tourism quality) were issued. Ecotourism is an important sector with green growth potential and should be further promoted. In addition to access fees for federal protected areas and reserves, other instruments to capture the international public good benefits provided by protected areas should be explored (see also Alpizar, 2006). For instance, in Belize, an environmental tax is levied on visitors upon departure.

5.3. Biodiversity and climate change Biodiversity and climate change are intricately linked, with opportunities for mainstreaming biodiversity in both climate change mitigation and adaptation. With regard to the latter, Mexico has recently developed a strategy for climate change adaptation in protected areas. In general, a key area where synergies can be captured is in forests, which provide carbon sequestration services as well as biodiversity benefits such as habitat provisioning. Recognising this, Mexico is developing a national strategy on REDD+

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: MEXICO 2013 © OECD 2013

46

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY AND FORESTS

emphasising the need to capitalise on the opportunities REDD+ provides in terms of co-benefits for biodiversity conservation, sustainable forest management and sustainable rural development (see Chapter 4). Prioritising REDD+ finance to areas that have both high carbon benefits and high biodiversity benefits is one way to harness these synergies and Mexico is exploring how such benefits can be captured through approaches such as PES. The key elements of Mexico’s REDD+ strategy are: 1) building and/or strengthening institutional capacities; 2) improving targeting and effectiveness of existing programmes and expanding the PES model; 3) promoting sustainable forest management; 4) improving monitoring capabilities for LULUCF based on the National Forest Inventory, including monitoring, reporting and verification in local communities; and 5) integrating new financing mechanisms (carbon finance) with a positive impact on biodiversity conservation and livelihoods of forest landholders and inhabitants (CONAFOR, 2010). To effectively enhance biodiversity co-benefits in its REDD+ strategy, Mexico will need to identify areas with both high-carbon and high-biodiversity benefits, as well as areas with high risk of deforestation and low opportunity cost. Pilot projects provide an opportunity for early testing and can build on experience from other projects, such as those which have met the standards of the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance. These pilots could help in mobilising additional finance via premiums for the biodiversity benefits in voluntary carbon markets.

Notes 1. Also operating as a decentralised agency of SEMARNAT is the Mexican Institute of Water Technology (IMTA) (see Chapter 2).

2. CONAPESCA, the National Commission of Aquaculture and Fishing, is the decentralised agency under SAGARPA responsible for promoting sustainable exploitation and conservation of marine resources.

3. SEMARNAT, SAGARPA and the ministries of Social Development (SEDESOL), Health (SALUD), Public Education (SEP), Energy (SENER), Tourism (SECTUR), Foreign Affairs (SRE), Economy (SE), and Finance and Public Credit (SHCP).

4. SEMARNAT, SHCP, SAGARPA, SECTUR and the National Defence Ministry (SEDENA), plus CONAGUA. 5. Data based on INEGI’s land use and vegetation maps (INEGI, 1994, 2002, 2007), in accordance with the criteria and methodology set out by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

6. PINE is an attempt to demonstrate the impact on Mexico’s GDP of the costs of ecological and environmental degradation.

7. NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010; NOM-022-SEMARNAT-2003; NOM-131-SEMARNAT-2010 respectively.

8. Note that the data on federal PA in Figures 5.4 and 5.5 differs. Data used by SEMARNAT in Figure 5.4 is calculated based on the year of the decree and the estimated areas provided by CONANP. 9. The corridors are Southern Sierra Madre (Sierra Madre del Sur, southern Chiapas), Maya-Zoque rainforests (Selva Maya-Zoque, northern Chiapas), Calakmul-Sian Ka’an (Campeche), Sian Ka’anCalakmul (Quintana Roo) and Yucatan north coast (Costa norte de Yucatan, Yucatan and Quintana Roo).

10. The additional corridors are Coastal wetlands to Huimanguillo mountains (Humedales costerosSierra de Huimanguilla, Tabasco), Centla swamps to Usumacinta Canyon (Pantanos de CentlaCañon de Usumacinta, Tabasco) and Tabasco mountains (Sierra de Tabasco).

11. General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection, Title First, Article 3, fraction XXIII. 12. That is, listed in the revised standard on threatened species, NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, or in Appendix I or II of CITES. 13. DOF 13-II-1992.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: MEXICO 2013 © OECD 2013

47

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY AND FORESTS

14. Art. 28 of LGEEPA. 15. The umbrella programme, ProÁrbol, includes the following in addition to the PES programmes: PROCOREF, for reforestation and restoration; PRODEPLAN, which includes promotion of commercial forest plantations, forest fire prevention and soil conservation; PROCYMAF, to improve forest ecosystem productivity; and PRODEFOR, the forest development programme.

16. Other elements of the vaquita PACE include commitment of additional resources by CONAPESCA and PROFEPA towards enforcement of regulations to eliminate fishing without a permit; a programme instituted by INAPESCA to test new fishing methods (suripera nets) that do not risk harming vaquitas; and bans on all gill net and trawl fishing in the Vaquita refuge, with enforcement by PROFEPA beginning at the start of the shrimp season in September 2008 (Barlow et al., 2009).

17. The remaining finance was contributed by academia, international organisations, NGOs, amongst other sources of finance.

18. Under PROCAMPO, eligible farmers receive payments based on the area planted in 1991-93 on the condition that the land is used for legal agricultural or livestock production, or within an environment programme.

19. See: www.earthcheck.org/ and www.rainforest-alliance.org.

Selected sources Abizaid, C. and O.T. Coomes (2004), “Land Use and Forest Fallowing Dynamics in Seasonally Dry Tropical Forest of the Southern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico”, Land Use Policy, 21: 71-84.

Adger et al. (1994), N. Adger, K. Brown, R. Cervigni, D. Moran (1994), Towards Estimating Total Economic Value of Forests in Mexico, CSERGE and UCL. Alpizar, F. (2006), “The pricing of protected areas in nature-based tourism: A local perspective”, Ecological Economics, 56: 294-307.

Barlow, J., L. Bracho, C. Muñoz-Piña and S. Mesnick (2009), “Conservation of the Vaquita (Phocoena sinus) in the Northern Gulf of California”, Mexico, www.ine.gob.mx/descargas/dgipea/ine-biodiv-pc-01-2009.pdf.

Bezaury Creel, J.E. and L. Pabón Zamora (2009), “Valuation of Environmental Goods and Services Provided by Mexico’s Protected Areas”, The Nature Conservancy-México Program-Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, Mexico City.

Challenger, A. and R. Dirzo (2008), “Factores de cambio y estado de la biodiversidad”, in Dirzo, R., R. Gonzalez and I. March (eds.), Capital natural de México, Vol. II: Estado de conservación y tendencias de cambio, Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, México, DF. CONABIO – UNDP (2009), Mexico: Capacities for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity and the United Nations Development Programme, Mexico City.

CONAFOR (2010), “Mexico’s REDD+ Readiness Preparation Proposal”, Powerpoint presentation to FCPC Participants Committee in Gabon in March, 2010.

CONAFOR (2011), Certificación forestal, www.conafor.gob.mx/portal/index.php/temas-forestales/ certificacion-forestal.

CONANP (2008), “Programa de trabajo sobre Áreas Naturales Protegidas México”, Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, México, DF. CONANP (2010), Pago por Servicios Ambientales en Áreas Naturales Protegidas, Comisión Nacional para Áreas Naturales Protegidas, México, DF, www.conanp.gob.mx/contenido/pdf/PSA%20en%20ANP%2020032008%20coments%20FJMG-JMfinal-resumen.pdf.

Cortez, R.C. (2000), “Inseguridad alimentaria, pobreza y deterioro ambiental en el marco de la globalización”, Sector agropecuario y alternativas comunitarias de seguridad alimentaria y nutrición en México, Plaza y Valdez/UAM/INMSZ, México, pp. 39-59.

Darbi, et al. (2009), “International Approaches to Compensation for Impacts on Biological Diversity”, Final Report, Dresden, Berlin.

DOF (Diario Oficial) (2010), “NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección ambientalEspecies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo”, 30 December, 2010.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: MEXICO 2013 © OECD 2013

48

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY AND FORESTS

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2010), Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010, Rome.

Figueroa, F. and V. Sánchez-Cordero (2008), “Effectiveness of natural protected areas to prevent land use and land cover change in Mexico”, Biodiversity and Conservation, 17:3223-3240.

Gandara, G., A.N. Correa Sandoval, and C.A. Hernández Cienfuegos (2006), “Valoración económica de los servicios ecológicos que prestan los murciélagos Tadarida brasiliensis como controladores de plagas en el norte de México”, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Escuela de graduados de Administración Pública y Política Pública, Cátedra de Integración Económica y Desarrollo Social, Working Paper, 2006-5.

Gaytán, H.M. and R.R. González (1997), “La unión de comunidades Kyat-nuu y el problema del financiamiento”, Cuadernos Agrarios, 15: 94-115.

Guajardo, R. and A. Martínez (2004), “Cuantificación del impacto económico de la caza deportiva en el norte de México y perspectivas de su desarrollo”, Revista electrónica Entorno Económico, Centro de Investigaciones Económicas, Universidad de Nuevo León.

Guevara-Sanginés, A. (2009), “Mexico Country Case Study: Desk-Review of the Importance of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Economic Growth and Equity in Mexico”, report written for UNDP. INEGI (2002), “Conjunto de datos de la carta de uso del suelo y vegetación, escala 1: 250,000: Serie III”, Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geográfia e Informatica, Aguascalientes, Mexico, DF. INEGI (2004), “Conjunto de datos de la carta de uso del suelo y vegetación, escala 1: 250,000: Serie II”, Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geográfia e Informatica, Aguascalientes, Mexico, DF. INEGI (2007), “Conjunto de datos de la carta de uso del suelo y vegetación, escala 1: 250,000: Serie IV (in preparation)”, Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geográfia e Informatica, Aguascalientes, Mexico, DF. Isaac-Márquez, R., B. de Jong, A. Estmond, S. Ochoa-Gaona and S. Hernández (2005), “Estrategias productivas campesinas: un análisis de los factores condicionantes del uso del suelo en el oriente de Tabasco, México”, Universidad y Ciencia, 21: 56-72.

Klepeis, P. and C. Vance (2003), “Neoliberal Policy and Deforestation in Southeastern Mexico: An Assessment of the Procampo Program”, Economic Geography, 79: 221-240.

Martínez-Meyer, E., D. Arroyo-Lambear and E. Calixto-Pérez (2011), “Caracterización y evaluación de los sitios prioritarios para la conservación de las especies prioritarias ante los impactos del cambio climático en México”, Informe técnico, Instituto de Biología de la UNAM, Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad and Instituto Nacional de Ecología, Mexico, DF. McAfee, K. and E.N. Shapiro (2010), “Payment for ecosystem services in Mexico: Nature, neoliberalism, social movements and the state”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100 (3), pp. 579-599.

Muñoz-Piña, C., M., Rivera, A. Cisneros and H. García (2011), “Retos de la focalización del Programa de Pago por los Servicios Ambientales en México”, Revista Española de Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros, Vol. 228 No. 1, pp. 87-113.

OECD (2008), Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries Since 1990, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2010a), Paying for Biodiversity: Enhancing the Cost-Effectiveness of Payments for Ecosystem Services, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2010b), OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2010-19, OECD, Paris, www.agri-outlook.org.

OECD (2010c), Sustainable Management of Water Resources in Agriculture, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2012), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2012: OECD Countries, OECD, Paris.

Reyes, J.A., J.P. Gómez, R.O. Muis and R. Zavala (2012), “Potencial de Servicios Ambientales en la Propiedad Social en México”, Proyecto Registro Agrario Nacional (RAN), Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA), México, DF. Reyes-Hernández, H., S. Cortina-Villar, H. Perales-Rivera, E. Kauffer-Michel and J.M. Pat-Fernández (2003), “Efecto de los subsidios agropecuarios y apoyos gubernamentales sobre la deforestación durante el periodo 1999-2000 en la región de Calakmul”, Campeche, México, Investigaciones Geográficas, Boletín del Instituto de Geografía, UNAM 51: 88-106.

Rivera-Planter, M. and C. Munoz-Pina (2005), “Fees for Reefs: Economic Instruments to Protect Mexico’s Marine Natural Areas”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 8 (2-3).

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: MEXICO 2013 © OECD 2013

49

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY AND FORESTS

García Romero, H. (2012), “Payments for Environmental Services: Can They Work?”, Field Actions Science Reports [Online], Special Issue 6/2012, On line since 27 June, 2012, viewed 24 July, 2012, http://factsreports.revues.org/1711.

Salcido R., I. Quiroz R. and Ramirez (2009), “Understanding investment in biodiversity conservation in Mexico”, Biodiversity & Conservation, Vol. 18 (5): 1421-1434.

SEMARNAT (2006), La gestión ambiental en México, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, M é x i c o, D F, w w w.s e m a r n a t . g o b. m x / i n fo r m a c i o n a m b i e n t a l / p u b l i c a c i o n e s / P u b l i c a c i o n e s / Gestion_Ambiental.pdf.

SEMARNAT (2011), Programa Anual de Trabajo, 2011, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, México, DF, www.semarnat.gob.mx/programassubsidios/pat/Documents/PAT2011/ PAT_2011_Final.pdf.

SEPESCA (Secretaría de Pesca) (1991), “Decreto que establece la veda total en la captura de las tortugas marinas”, Diario Oficial de la Federación, No. 28 de mayo, México, DF. Sisk, Castellanos, and Koch (2007), “Ecological impacts of wildlife conservation units policy in Mexico”, www.cefns.nau.edu/Academic/CSE/Lab/Publications/documents/Sisk_etal_2007_Frontiers.pdf.

Sanjurjo, E., S. Cox and A. Anderson (2008), “Buy-outs and buy-in: Saving the vaquita in the Gulf of California”, in Workshop Proceedings for A Private Sector Approach – Conservation Agreements in support of Marine Protection, Bainbridge Island, Washington State, USA, 16-19 June, 2008, viewed 24 July, 2012, www.mcatoolkit.org/pdf/PMCA_Workshop/1_MCAWorkshop_FullProceedings.pdf.

UACH (2010), “Informe de evaluación externa de los apoyos de reforestación, ejercicio fiscal 2009”, Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo, Comisión Nacional Forestal, Texcoco, México, h t t p : / / 1 4 8 . 2 2 3 . 1 0 5 . 1 8 8 : 2 2 2 2 / g i f / s n i f _ p o r t a l / a d m i n i s t ra t o r / s i s t e m a s / e va l u a c i o n e s / 1301593358_2009_reforestacion_resumen_eje.

USAID (2009), “Assessment of Tropical Forest and Biodiversity Conservation in Mexico”, FAA Section 118-119 Report, United States Agency for International Development.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: MEXICO 2013 © OECD 2013

50

From:

OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Israel 2011

Access the complete publication at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264117563-en

Biodiversity conservation and sustainable use

Please cite this chapter as: OECD (2011), “Biodiversity conservation and sustainable use�, in OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Israel 2011, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264117563-9-en

51

II.5. BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

4. Mainstreaming biodiversity into other sectors/policy areas Mainstreaming or integrating biodiversity into other policy areas is one of the pillars of the NBS. It is to be achieved primarily through the national land use planning framework, and secondarily by means of interventions in key sectors such as agriculture, forestry and fishing. Sectoral interventions include pro-active measures promoting biodiversity conservation (e.g. sustainable agriculture, ecotourism), as well as corrective measures that eliminate perverse incentives that are detrimental to biodiversity (e.g. removal of certain agricultural support programmes). Mainstreaming biodiversity into other policy sectors also requires looking into synergies and possible trade-offs (e.g. between biodiversity and food production, or biodiversity and climate change policies), as well as integrating biodiversity policy with equity objectives.

4.1. Israel’s national planning framework and biodiversity One of Israel’s unique features is that land is publicly owned. How it may be used is determined by the national land use planning policy. Within this framework, a relatively high share of the total land area has been designated as protected. In addition, extensive areas that are used for military training remain virtually unexploited, thereby contributing to the conservation of natural habitats. To address the conflicts between the need for development on the one hand, and the need to preserve landscapes and ecosystems on the other, a series of new land use planning initiatives was devised in the 1990s and integrated into a non-statutory strategic master plan complemented by sectoral National Master Plans. The Comprehensive National Master Plan for Building, Development and Conservation, an overarching outline plan affecting biodiversity conservation, was approved in 2005. It establishes guidelines for the development of conservation worthy areas, including coastal areas. It also gives protection to landscape ensembles and to coastal, river and landscape strips (MoEP, 2008, 2010a) (Box 2.4). Key sectoral national plans include: the National Master Plan for Forests and Afforestation; the National Master Plan for National Parks, Nature Reserves and Landscape Reserves; the National Master Plan for Coastal Areas; and the National Master Plan for Rivers and Drainage.

In addition, recently updated guidelines for landscape and environmental planning, published by the Israeli National Road Company, are aimed at addressing fragmentation and barriers caused by infrastructure.6 Israel now requires environmental impact assessments (EIAs) to be carried out for all major development projects and investments, with the explicit requirement to account for the impact of development plans on biodiversity (Chapter 2). Revised EIA regulations, which came into effect in 2003, expand the possibility to require EIAs for proposed development in environmentally sensitive areas such as coasts, riverbanks and stream corridors (MoEP, 2008). Most EIAs consider species and habitat diversity, endangered species, and connectivity issues (i.e. with regard to ecological corridors). However, the terms of reference (ToRs) of EIAs only occasionally consider impacts on biodiversity directly, and EIAs seldom incorporate estimates of new development projects’ biodiversity costs and benefits.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: ISRAEL 2011 © OECD 2011

52

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

4.2. Mainstreaming biodiversity into agriculture Agricultural practices in Israel are more environment-friendly than in the past, but there is as yet no integrated policy for farmland’s biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. In 2002, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development prepared a plan for sustainable agricultural development (PSAD). In addition to measures concerning the use of treated wastewater in agriculture and reforms with regard to livestock, it included others concerning the maintenance of open landscape for sustainable grazing.

Israel is developing a number of agri-enviromental schemes aimed at providing farmers with incentives to deliver biodiversity-related ecosystem sevices. For example, a two-year pilot project under way pays farmers through an auction system to maintain farmland for biodiversity conservation. A similar scheme related to grazing is mainly implemented in areas for which there is no alternative agricultural use. From 2004, this scheme provides a per-hectare grazing payment, taking into account livestock density relative to land vegetation cover, with the regions of Israel divided into four categories according to pasture richness. Herd owners must follow appropriate production practices and environmental criteria. The area covered by this scheme amounted to about 60% of total agricultural land area in 2008. Preliminary research suggests that such managed grazing regimes have helped support floral diversity (OECD, 2010).

The reform of the livestock sector, and integrated pest management (IPM) programmes, have also reduced environmental pressures from excess applications of nutrients and pesticides (OECD, 2010). Considerable attention has been given to biological pest management, for example in a project started in 2007 that uses barn owls and kestrels as biological pest control agents (OECD, 2010).

There are programmes to support farmers who have suffered losses of yields in fish ponds impacted by migratory birds. Agriculture is also subject to other forms of damage and losses from wildlife, such as damage to irrigation equipment by mammals and birds and losses to field crops and orchards due to small rodents and birds. In addition to support for some losses, farm advisory, bio-control, IPM and other approaches are used to address these wildlife-agriculture conflicts (OECD, 2010).

4.3. Mainstreaming biodiversity into forestry The 1926 Forestry Ordinance remains the basis for current formal afforestation policy in Israel. Although the act is still in force, afforestation policy is largely implemented under the guidelines included in the 1995 National Master Plan for Forests and Afforestation (TMA 22), under which about 1 620 km2 of forest and open spaces is protected (Table 5.3).

Forest management in Israel is carried out by the Jewish National Fund (JNF), an NGO that currently manages about 1 000 km2, largely in areas with a semi-arid climate and rocky, hilly terrain unsuitable for agriculture where there is a high risk of land degradation.

Afforested areas are used for tourism, pastureland and wood supply, as well as providing other general ecosystem services and contributing to the water budget and stream restoration. Israel is one of the few countries in the world that has more trees today than it did 100 years ago (MoEP, 2010a). Figure 5.2 shows trends in new and regeneration planting areas during the last 11 years.

Early afforestation efforts in Israel have been criticised for not creating functional ecosystems that support endemic species and conserve biodiversity. Yet Israel’s afforestation programme has gradually changed its orientation towards increased

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: ISRAEL 2011 Š OECD 2011

53

II.5. BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

Table 5.3. Existing and proposed forest area under the National Master Plan for Forests and Afforestation Area (km2)

Type Existing forest area Existing planted forests

536

Recommended planted forests

142

Existing forest parks

75

Proposed forest area Recommended forest parks

181

Fostering natural woodlands

176

Natural woodlands for preservation

428

Coastal forest parks

44

Riverside/dry stream plantings

39

Total

1 621

Source: MoEP.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932495931

consideration of biodiversity. In the past decade there has been a shift in the direction of ecologically oriented forest management, with a growing emphasis on fostering woodland biodiversity. Conifer-dominated forestry has changed to mixed woodland management, allowing the regeneration of wild tree and shrub species, their penetration into carefully managed areas, and increasing biodiversity in these areas. About 55% of afforestation areas are to remain as open space, with natural woodlands contributing to soil fertility and in many cases serving as sanctuaries for protected wildlife.

4.4. Mainstreaming biodiversity into fishing Israel’s marine fish catch comes principally from the Mediterranean Sea. Total production from the marine environment is small and steadily declining, partly due to the relative impoverishment of fish stocks in the eastern Mediterranean. The bulk of Israel’s fish production comes from aquaculture and mariculture (Chapter 3). The 1937 Fishing Ordinance regulates the use of fisheries, so that it is sustainable, fish stocks are not depleted, and the wider aquatic environment is protected against fishing-related externalities (e.g. pollution and the death of sea turtles). Fishing is overseen by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

During the past two decades, measures have been taken to protect fish stocks and aquatic biodiversity in the Red Sea. In 2008, all fish cages in the Gulf of Eilat/Aqaba were dismantled and mariculture in the Red Sea ceased due to concern about impacts on the vulnerable reef complex, a major tourism attraction (Chapter 3). However, few effective protective measures have been taken with regard to the Mediterranean or Lake Kinneret.

In 2000, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development concluded that the capture fishing industry in the Mediterranean had reached exploitation limits for most species.

More recently, some important initiatives have been taken. They include: a cap on the size of the fishing fleet; mesh size restrictions; gear modifications; prohibition of scuba diving; relocation of inshore fishing efforts to deep sea areas; seasonal fishing restrictions or temporary outright fishing bans (e.g. a ban on fishing in Lake Kinneret in the period 2010-12); doubling the minimum depth allowed for fishing with trawlers; and online monitoring of trawlers. Evidence suggests that the implementation of these policy measures is still

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: ISRAEL 2011 © OECD 2011

54

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

unsatisfactory in practice. Some members of Israel’s scientific and environmental communities, and of the general public, have raised concerns that fishing off the country’s coasts is endangering other living marine resources, including marine mammals (Chapter 3). Most of these initiatives constitute command and control approaches. The use of economic instruments (notably schemes for tradable fishing permits) has not been pursued but deserves further consideration.

4.5. Mainstreaming biodiversity into tourism Tourism is one of the most important sectors of the Israeli economy, with 45 million tourist arrivals in 2010. There is significant potential to utilise Israel’s natural resources for ecotourism, both as a source of growth and a means of sustainably managing ecosystems.

The main destinations for developing this niche tourism market are nature reserves and other protected areas. Tourism activities in protected areas are overseen by the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI). The number of visitors to NPA nature reserves showed an increasing and stable trend over the decade, with over 7 million visitors in 2009 (Figure 5.4).

Figure 5.4. Visitors to NPA nature reserves, 2000-09 million visitors 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Source: NPA.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932495399

A challenge that must be addressed with regard to nature reserve ecotourism is how to optimally price the entry to reserves and other related services. This, in turn, rests on determining the optimal carrying capacity of each reserve so that profits can be maximised while biodiversity is protected. An assessment of the carrying capacity levels in Israel’s protected areas should be prepared (Box 5.4).

Beyond protected areas, planted forests, overseen by the Jewish National Fund (JNF), have gradually become a main local tourism attraction. They include hiking trails, camping areas, and areas for sports and recreation activities. Forests adjacent to nature reserves attract visitors and consequently help lower visitor pressure on nature reserves.

The development of ecotourism will require mobilising and promoting the use of private resources. Some notable private initiatives exist, such as Eco and Sustainable Tourism Israel, a non-profit organisation established in 2006 to promote sustainability and ecotourism awareness and implementation. It is part of the international Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria (GSTC) initiative.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: ISRAEL 2011 © OECD 2011

55

II.5. BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

Box 5.4. Ecotourism and carrying capacity in Israel The Hula Agmon pond, located in the Rift Valley, is a critical migratory stopover and wintering site for more than 500 million birds belonging to over 390 species, including 21 globally threatened species and 16 nationally threatened ones. The nature area, opened in 2004, has witnessed a sharp increase in the number of visitors, from 78 000 in 2004 to 240 000 in 2008.

Several studies have been conducted to monitor and assess the impacts of tourism on bird populations. They have examined the impact of tourist demand, tourism development trends and management on birds, and how management policies can alleviate negative tourist-bird impacts and enhance real ecotourism. One finding was that for every 20 visitors, birds tend to retreat by 27 metres. This led to the development of sustainability guidelines concerning visitor load regulation, fencing, appropriate signposting and the positioning of telescopes. Further research could help establish visitor volumes that are consistent with maintaining optimal numbers of various species.

Source: MoEP (2009, 2010a).

4.6. Mainstreaming biodiversity into climate change mitigation and adaptation There is considerable scope for mainstreaming biodiversity concerns into climate change mitigation and adaptation measures. One of the pillars of Israel’s mitigation efforts is the development of new renewable energy sources. There is potential for conflict with solar parks and wind farms, in that the land they occupy could contribute to habitat fragmentation. This problem might be mitigated by producing these types of energy off-shore or by using existing structures (e.g. for the installation of solar panels).

Afforestation efforts in Israel, led by the Jewish National Fund, entail considerable synergies with climate change mitigation and adaptation. The JNF is examining ways to plant trees that are resistant to dry conditions and to introduce genetic improvements of plant species so that they can cope with high temperatures and water stress. Such actions could help respond to the potential northward expansion of the desert (MoEP, 2010b).

Israel has taken steps to develop its National Climate Adaptation Plan. Several adaptation actions being contemplated for sectors affected by climate change could have either positive or negative impacts on biodiversity. For example, in the case of agriculture the suggested actions of expanding the crop varieties used, developing substitutes for grains in animal feed, and better water management would all benefit biodiversity directly or indirectly. However, other suggested actions (e.g. increased use of treated effluents and the introduction of genetic improvements to crops and farm animals) could erode biodiversity. Likewise, adaptation actions taken in relation to coastal zone defence, such as specific forms of coastal infrastructure and the use of sea protection and sand nourishment techniques, could negatively impact biodiversity. Such trade-offs and concerns should be reflected in the final National Adaptation Plan.

4.7. Distributional issues Biodiversity considerations are not generally integrated into poverty reduction strategies, as the issue of the economic dependence of low-income sectors on biodiversity is generally irrelevant in the case of Israel. Most poverty reduction efforts are targeted at urban populations and are not necessarily related to agriculture or to natural resources. Yet

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: ISRAEL 2011 Š OECD 2011

56

II.5.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

biodiversity considerations are linked to equity issues, as part of the discussion on resource availability (mainly related to drinking water availability, access to marine and inland coasts, and the availability and accessibility of natural areas to socially deprived sectors for recreation) (MoEP, 2009). More progress needs to be made in including participatory and institutional approaches that address equity issues in the National Biodiversity Strategy framework.

Notes 1. The NPBB is made up of 32 representatives, one-third of whom represent the government, onethird local government and the other third academia and NGOs. 2. For example, Mount Carmel was declared a Biosphere Reserve in April 1996, within the framework of UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme. Other areas considered appropriate to be declared biosphere reserves include Mount Meron in northern Israel and the Judean Hills area in the transition zone between the Mediterranean Sea and the desert biome.

3. These include the double dividend benefits that can be derived from instruments such as green taxes, and the benefits emerging from the added innovation and entrepreneurship that economic instruments stimulate (e.g. providing growth and employment opportunities, as well as improving international competitiveness through first-mover advantages).

4. European Biodiversity Observation Network (EBONE) (www.ebone.wur.nl/uk).

5. The National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) is a systematic attempt to assess the value of ecosystem services that stem from biodiversity over a 100-year period (1950-2050) (http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org).

6. For example, by requiring the construction of animal passages below and above roads, and through the implementation of ecological considerations in planning, rehabilitation and management of road verges and other areas affected by road construction (www.ecotourism.org.il).

Selected Sources The government documents, OECD documents and other documents used as sources for this chapter included the following: BBOP (Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme) (2009), Biodiversity Offset Cost-Benefit Handbook.

BBOP, Washington DC. Cairncross, F. (2006), “Connecting Flights”, Conservation in Practice, Vol. 7, No. 1.

CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics) (2006), Environment Data Compendium of Israel, No. 2, Central Bureau of Statistics, Jerusalem.

Emerton, L. (2001), National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans: A Review of Experiences, Lessons Learned and Ways Forward, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Regional Environmental Economics Programme for Asia, Karachi, Pakistan.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010, FAO, Rome.

Frankenberg, E. (2005), Israel Third National Report to the Biodiversity Convention, 2005, Ministry of Environmental Defence.

MoEP (Ministry of Environmental Protection) (2002), The Environment in Israel 2002 (chapter on landscape and biodiversity), Ministry of Environmental Protection, Jerusalem.

MoEP (2008), “Brief Note on Environmental Policy and Institutional Framework of Israel”, paper for the OECD Environment Policy Committee, Paris, available from the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection, Jerusalem.

MoEP (2009), “Fourth Country Report to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity”, Ministry of Environmental Protection, Jerusalem.

MoEP (2010a), Israel’s National Biodiversity Plan, Executive Summary, Ministry of Environmental Protection, Jerusalem.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: ISRAEL 2011 © OECD 2011

57

II.5. BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

MoEP (2010b), “Israel’s Second National Communication on Climate Change”, submitted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Ministry of Environmental Protection, Jerusalem.

MoEP (2010c), The Environment in Israel – Indicators, data and trends, 2010, Ministry of Environmental Protection, Jerusalem.

OECD (2008), People and Biodiversity Policies: Impacts, Issues and Strategies for Policy Action, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2009), OECD Environmental Performance Reviews – 2nd Cycle (2001-09), OECD, Paris.

OECD (2010), Review of Agricultural Policies – Israel, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2011), Green Growth and Biodiversity, OECD, Paris, forthcoming.

Roberts, D., et al. (2010), “Impacts of Desalination Plant Discharges on the Marine Environment: A Critical Review of Published Studies”, Water Research, Vol. 44.

Shaked, Y. and A. Genin (2010), “The Israel National Monitoring Program at the Northern Gulf of Aqaba”, Scientific Report 2009 (in Hebrew with English abstract), Interuniversity Institute for Marine Sciences, Eilat.

Ten Kate, K., J. Bishop and R. Bayon (2004), Biodiversity Offsets: Views, Experience, and the Business Case, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, and Insight Investment, London, UK.

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: ISRAEL 2011 © OECD 2011

58