2011-2015 epr... · mainstreaming biodiversity the oecd environmental performance review (epr)...

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

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.

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

OE

CD

Enviro

nm

ental Perfo

rmance R

eviews b

Ra

zil

2015

2015

9HSTCQE*ceaagd+

OECD Environmental Performance Reviews

Mainstreaming

biODiVERsiTY into sectoral policies

2011-2015

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

In response to the CBD notification [2015-131] to provide information and experiences relevant to mainstreaming biodiversity across sectors and into cross-sectoral plans and policies, this brochure provides excerpts of the mainstreaming sections of recent OECD EPR chapters on biodiversity, namely from:

• Brazil (2015)

• Spain (2015)

• Colombia (2014)

• South Africa (2013)

• Mexico (2013)

• Israel (2011)

For further information, please contact:

Ivana Capozza ([email protected]), team leader for EPRs

Katia Karousakis ([email protected]), team leader for biodiversity and CBD focal point.

1

From:OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Brazil2015

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 PerformanceReviews: 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 argumentsemployed 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 thedelimitation 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, providedthat suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use andtranslation rights should be submitted to [email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material forpublic or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or theCentre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at [email protected].

2

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

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

tomasini_c

Typewritten Text

4. CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: BRAZIL 2015 © OECD 2015

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.

3



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

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

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

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

8 000

9 000

10 000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

%Km2

Agricultural organic area, 2005-12

Surface % of total agricultural area (right axis)

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

4



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

5



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 Belém, 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 forests20 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.

6



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.

7



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 co-

operation 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-of-

river (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

8



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.

9



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, guaranaand 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 possesspersonal 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, conservationand restoration of all forest resources, including those not designated for production. It gathers biophysical, socio-environmental and landscape data covering Brazil’s entire territory.

10



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 TechnologicalDevelopment, 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-norway-agreement-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/Amazon-Conservation-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.

11



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-ambiente-financeiro-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/lista-de-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.

12



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 Fundamentals5, 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/noticias-do-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-do-desenvolvimento-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.

13



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”, Science25 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-debate-vol-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-policy-to-curb-deforestation.

14

From:OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Spain2015



OECD (2015), “The conservation and sustainable use of the marine and terrestrial environment”, in OECDEnvironmental 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 argumentsemployed 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 thedelimitation 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, providedthat suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use andtranslation rights should be submitted to [email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material forpublic or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or theCentre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at [email protected].

15

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

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

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

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SPAIN 2015 © OECD 2015

6. Integrating biodiversity into economic sectorsThe 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

16



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 cross-

compliance 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 cross-

compliance 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

17



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.

18



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.

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).

Figure 4.6. Trends in organic farming area

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

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800

2 000

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 201 2012

1 000 ha

Trends, 2000-12 Share by autonomous community, 2012

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%)

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

19

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



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

Figure 4.7. Number of organic livestock farms

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

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

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

NumberTrends, 2001-12 By autonomous community, 2012

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 (-)

Total: 6 104

20

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



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

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 Estateat Isla Mayor, municipality of Puebla del Rio near Sevilla, Spain. PIMSA is part of GrupoHisparroz, a leading rice production company. The estate, which stretches across 11 331 hain the Doñana Natural Park, is faced with increasing agricultural productivity withoutjeopardising the ecosystem resilience of the surrounding landscape. Veta La Palmaillustrates how holistic business practices can lead to productivity gains while taking intoaccount ecosystem services beyond “provisioning”, such as enhanced landscape andbiodiversity values.

PIMSA established a polyculture fish farming operation in the early 1990s, fullycomplying with the park’s management plan. The firm re-flooded wetlands lost to naturalsiltation, and used a pump system to engineer drainage to restore the original drainagechannels to bring in water from the estuary. The fish farm covers some 3 200 ha and usesextensive and semi-extensive methods to breed a large variety of fish in 45 interconnectedponds of 70 ha each, which are joined to the local river system through a web of irrigationand drainage channels. To maintain high levels of environmental sustainability, the firmkeeps fish at a relatively low density and harvests them less frequently compared tointensive aquaculture. The fish feed on microalgae and shrimp that reach the ponds fromthe 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), whichreduces total production by approximately 20% per year. Before the aquaculture operationwas established, only about 50 bird species were recorded in the area. With ecologicalinvestment 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 permanentlyflooded aquaculture marshland play an important role as a refuge for the natural fishfauna of the Guadalquivir River estuary, including several endangered species. Thebusiness 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 operationfor organic beef and grows some dry-farmed crops. About 2 400 ha of the estate producelivestock feed using a rotation system without fertilisers or pesticides; this also benefitssteppe 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 asa conservation area. The reclaimed wetland habitat and sustainable production methodson the estate have boosted the area’s biodiversity, while generating economic value.

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

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

21

http://www.vetalapalma.es

http://www.ecoagriculture.org



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

22



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).

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.

Box 4.8. Growth of adventure tourism in Spain

Adventure tourism is one sector experiencing greater growth in recent years, withapproximately 1 300 companies engaged in Spain. This type of tourism attracts over7 million people annually thanks to a heterogeneous offer that has developed around thegreat variety of the country’s landscape, including mountains, coastal areas, islands, cavesand natural parks. Adventure tourism has resisted the economic crisis well, as Spain isable to offer low-cost active holiday opportunities to European markets, which make it ahigh 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, whileAndalusia offers a rich set of natural caves open to the public, as well as the third largestchasm in the world in the Sierra de Tolox in the province of Málaga. Sierra Nevada is oneof the most popular winter sports destinations in Europe, equipped with 105 km of runs forall levels. Spain is also one of the most attractive destinations for surfing, windsurfing andkitesurfing, with areas like the Basque Country and the Canary Islands promoted as well-equipped, low-cost destinations.

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

23



Notes

1. In terms of the total organic area (fully converted and under conversion) of individual EU memberstates as a share out of the total organic area in EU27, Spain accounted for the highest share as of2008.

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 ofchange based on eight indicators is related to the ecological footprint, emissions of sulphur andcarbon dioxide, introduction of invasive alien species, overexploitation of fishery resources andgroundwater, and land-use changes associated with urbanisation of the territory.

3. There are important regional variations in these figures with Asturias Murcia, Extremadura andGalicia 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 specificallyfocuses on national parks, while 41/2010 focuses on marine protected areas).

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

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 Councilincludes working groups on all facets of the environment, including terrestrial, coastal and marinebiodiversity.

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 minimumlower 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 anattempt to address habitat fragmentation.

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

15. Of the 176 species, there are 112 flora, 21 birds, 17 invertebrates, 10 fish, 7 reptiles, 7 mammals and2 amphibians.

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

17. Under the Spanish Constitution, the autonomous regions are responsible for the promotion andregulation of tourism within their own territories. However, the national authorities, and inparticular the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism, design tourism policy and overallregulation of tourist activity and promote tourism abroad, in addition to their role in nationaleconomic planning in which tourism is a key component. The main institutions that bringcoherence to the actions of public authorities in tourism matters are: the Inter-Ministry Committeefor Tourism (Comisión Interministerial de Turismo), a co-ordination body whose membersrepresent those national ministries that have responsibility for tourism-related matters; theSectoral Tourism Conference (Conferencia Sectorial de Turismo), a co-ordination body that bringstogether public representatives from central government and the autonomous regions withtourism 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, theNational Employers’ Association [CEOE], professional associations, trade unions and a widespectrum of tourism professionals).

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

24

http://www.business-biodiversity.eu

http://www.mercadosdemedioambiente.com/plataforma

http://www.magrama.gob.es/es

http://www.fega.es/PwfGcp/es



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. 325September 2013, Convention for Biological Diversity, www.cbd.int/financial/doc/id325-spain-incentives-en.pdf.

CBD (2012), EU Submission to the CBD Notification 2012–023 on Methodological and Implementation Guidancefor the “Indicators for Monitoring the Implementation of the Convention’s Strategy for ResourcesMobilization”, Convention for Biological Diversity, www.cbd.int/financial/doc/eu-members-resource-mobilization-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 ReportNo 12/2013, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, www.eea.europa.eu/publications/balancing-the-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 GonzalezFoundation, Madrid, www.redeuroparc.org/img/publicaciones/Anuario2011.pdf.

EUROPARC-Spain (2010), Innovative Financial Mechanisms for Biodiversity Conservation, Work Programmefor 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 infraestructurasde transporte en funcionamiento. Documentos para la reducción de la fragmentación de hábitats causada porinfraestructuras de transporte, número 5. O.A. Parques Nacionales. Ministry of Agriculture, Food andEnvironment, 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 ofAgriculture, Food and Environment, Madrid.

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

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

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

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

25

http://www.fundacion-biodiversidad.es

http://www.cbd.int/financial/doc/id325-spain-incentives-en.pdf



http://www.cbd.int/financial/doc/eu-members-resource-mobilization-en.pdf



http://www.ecoagriculture.org

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/balancing-the-future-of-europes



http://www.ecomilenio.es

http://www.redeuroparc.org/img/publicaciones/Anuario2011.pdf

http://www.nature.com

https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads

http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/es/es-nr-05-es.pdf

http://dx.doi.org



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

SEC (2014), Catalogue of Good Business Practices in Biodiversity Management, Sustainability ExcellenceClub, 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/, (accessed15 July 2014).

Voth, A. (2007), “National parks and rural development in Spain”, in: Mose, I. (ed.) Protected Areas andRegional 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.

26

http://www.iberdrola.es/webibd/gc/prod/en/doc/CatalogoBiodiversidad.pdf

http://www.vetalapalma.es

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787

From:OECD Environmental Performance Reviews:Colombia 2014


Biodiversity


OECD (2014), “Biodiversity”, in OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Colombia 2014 OECD Publishing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264208292-en

27

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264208292-en

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264180109-9-en

II.7. BIODIVERSITY

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: COLOMBIA 2014 © OECD 2014

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

28

II.7. BIODIVERSITY


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

Figure 7.5. Head of cattle1990-2011

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

millions

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

29

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

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

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.

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.

Figure 7.6. Cost-effectiveness of the CIF programme

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

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0

100

200

300

400

500

1995-2001 2002-06 2007-11 2012-14*

COP million/ha2012 prices1 000 ha

Cumulative reforestation 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).

31

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

II.7. BIODIVERSITY


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 suspend17 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

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

Ecological areas SourceTitles granted

Number Area (ha)

National protected areas IAvH 35 36 475

Ingeominas 36 36 456

Regional protected areas IAvH 24 15 002

Ingeominas 7 2 541

Protected forest reserves IAvH 66 12 882


Law 2 forest reserves IAvH 2 083 2 224 902

Ingeominas 984 1 136 256

Páramo IAvH 451 106 596


Wetlands IAvH 1 122 311 994

Ingeominas 43 8 353

Total 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.

32

II.7. BIODIVERSITY


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

Figure 7.7. Mining titles

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

Mining titles 2012 Mining titles and applications 2012

33

http://dx.doi.org/

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 nature-

based 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 significantdisturbance to primary vegetation (e.g. where grass and scrub land develops after burning orfelling of primary forest). Pressures (such as grazing by domestic livestock) that prevent primaryvegetation returning maintain secondary vegetation.

2. Ecological-social mosaics are areas containing a mix of agricultural and other transformed landand 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 deAndréi 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 Researchon 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 ofcoastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystemservices, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representativeand well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservationmeasures, 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 (severalmaritime boundary disputes persist). This figure excludes some areas of the Subsystem of Marine

34

http://www.evri.ca/Global/HomeAnonymous.aspx

http://www.tremarctoscolombia.org

II.7. BIODIVERSITY


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

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 stableresources over the long term to meet its total management cost. This is a necessary, but notsufficient, 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-water-funds-partnership.xml.

16. No date is noted for this data, but other data presented are for 2005, so it is presumed that thisfigure 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 ofprotected 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 ZonaRural De Usme. Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto De Estudios Ambientales “Idea”, Facultad De CienciasEconómicas,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 paraColombia, 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 ServiciosAmbientales, 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 NatureConservancy (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 – escalasgruesa 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 DegreePaper for the Program in Sustainable International Development at The Heller School for Social Policy andManagement, Brandeis University.

35

http://www.cbd.int/lifeweb/project.shtml?did=4683

http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/Economic_Instruments_and_Marine_Litter.pdf

http://www.pemsea.org/publications/manual-economic-instruments-coastal-and-marine-resource-management

http://www.inecc.gob.mx/descargas/dgipea/ffrteopetm.pdf

http://www.cites.org/common/cop/16/inf/E-CoP16i-14.pdf

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/latinamerica/latin-american-water-funds-partnership.xml



http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207

http://www.bdigital.unal.edu.co/4125/1/905057.2011.pdf

http://www.cifor.org/

http://web.undp.org/latinamerica/biodiversity-superpower/Download_Reports/

II.7. BIODIVERSITY


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

Contraloria General de la Republica (CGR) (2011), Estado de los Recursos Naturales y del Ambiente 2010-2011, 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 dela República, Bogotá.

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

CONPES (2011), Modificacion a conpes social 91 del 14 de junio de 2005: “metas y estrategias decolombia 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 (DocumentoCONPES 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 losfertilizantes en el sector agropecuario, Documento CONPES 3577, Consejo Nacional de PolíticaEconómica y Social, Bogotá.

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

CONPES (2003), Distribución de recursos para el certificado de incentivoforestal (CIF de reforestación) – vigencia2003, 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 deaguas 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 enconservación 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 delSistema 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 habitatbanking, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/index.htm.

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

FAO (2012), Estado de las Á;reas Marinas y Costeras Protegidas en América Latina, Elaborado por AylemHernández Avila, REDPARQUES Cuba. Santiago de Chile, Chile: Organización de las NacionesUnidas 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 enColombia , 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 inColombia – 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 CaucaValley, Colombia (TEEBcase), The Economics and Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB),www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Water-Funds-for-conservation-of-ecosystem-services-in-watersheds-Colombia.pdf.

36

http://www.dps.gov.co/contenido/contenido.aspx?conID=6637&catID=127

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/index.htm

http://portal.fedepalma.org//documen/2013/minianuario_estadistico_2013.pdf

http://portal.fedepalma.org//documen/2013/minianuario_estadistico_2013.pdf

http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Water-Funds-for-conservation-of-ecosystem-services-in-watersheds-Colombia.pdf



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 yPesqueros Continentales de Colombia, Instituto de Investigación de los Recursos BiológicosAlexander 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 andEquity in Latin Americaand the Caribbean, Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia: Oficina Regional del PNUDpara América Latina y el Caribe.

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

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

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

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

Isaza, J.C. (undated), Development of Payments for Ecosystem Services for the Seaflower MPA: An InnovativeFinancing Mechanism to Protect Coastal and Marine Ecosystems, Masters Degree Paper for the Programin 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 deDesarrollo 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 Públicoencargado de la gestión y conservación del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales renovables, se organizael Sistema Nacional Ambiental – SINA y se dictan otras disposiciones, Bogotá, Colombia: El Congreso deColombia.

MADS (2013), press release – 2 May 2013, Nace alianza “Naturalmente Colombia” para apoyarconsolidación 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 atthe OECD – Joint Meetings of Tax and Environment Experts, Paris, 1 June 2012.

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

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

37

http://www.minambiente.gov.co//documentos/normativa/

II.7. BIODIVERSITY


MAVDT (2010), Política Nacional par a la Gestión Integral del Recurso Hídrico, Bogotá, Colombia: Ministeriode 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 enColombia, Bogotá, Colombia.

Mendoza, J.E., F.H. Lozano-Zambrano and Kattan (2007), Composición y estructura de la biodiversidaden paisajes transformados en Colombia (1998 – 2005), Informe Nacional sobre el avance delconocimiento y la información de la biodiversidad 1998-2004, Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto Alexander vonHumboldt (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 suimplementación y operativización. Componente II – Sostenibilidad Financiera Largo Plazo AMP-Seaflower.

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 Repúblicade Colombia.

República de Colombia (2005), Constitución Política de la República de Colombia de 1991, con reformas hasta2005, http://pdba.georgetown.edu/constitutions/colombia/col91.html.

Rudas, G. (2009), La Política de Biodiversidad en Colombia. Algunos elementos para el análisis de larelaciónentre la conservación y el crecimiento económico (Documento interno), Programa de las NacionesUnidas 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 theCorporación para el Desarrollo Sostenible del Archipiélago de San Andrés, Providencia y SantaCatalina (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 deRecursos 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 CurrentInitiatives (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 DailyClimate, 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.

38

http://pdba.georgetown.edu/constitutions/colombia/col91.html

http://runap

http://www.sibcolombia.net/web/sib/cifras#amenazadas

http://www.oired.vt.edu/sanremcrsp/documents/research-themes/pes/Sept.2007.PESLatinAmerica.pdf

http://go.worldbank.org/4WOZ2VYQM0

http://data.worldbank.org

From:OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: SouthAfrica 2013


Biodiversity and economics of ecosystemservices


OECD (2013), “Biodiversity and economics of ecosystem services”, inOECD Environmental Performance Reviews: South Africa 2013, OECDPublishing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264202887-9-en

39

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264202887-en

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264202887-9-en

II.5. BIODIVERSITY AND ECONOMICS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SOUTH AFRICA 2013 © OECD 2013

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 five-

fold 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 community-

based 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

40



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 alternativelylosing vital aspects of their structure, function and composition, on which their ability to provideecosystem services ultimately depends. Ecosystem protection level shows whether ecosystemsare adequately protected based on the proportion of each ecosystem type that occurs within aprotected area recognised in the Protected Areas Act.

3. The NBA categorises ecosystem types as critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable or leastthreatened, based on the proportion of each ecosystem type that remains in good ecologicalcondition 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 andKei have their headwaters in this biome.

5. To be fully protected, an estuary should be surrounded by a land-based protected area and a no-take marine or estuarine protected area. Its freshwater flow requirements should be met usinglegal mechanisms in the National Water Act.

6. The assessment covered South Africa’s Exclusive Economic Zone, which extends 200 nauticalmiles 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 chestinfections, 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, thecommercial fisheries sector employs about 27 000 people; an estimated 28 000 households areengaged in subsistence fishing.

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

10. Production landscapes refer to landscapes that support both agricultural production and biodiversityconservation. They keep ecosystems intact (and not fragmented) and aim to improve the livelihoodsof 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 andecological support areas; freshwater ecosystem priority areas (including rivers and wetlands); highwater yield areas; flagship free-flowing rivers; priority estuaries; focus areas for land-basedprotected area expansion; and focus areas for offshore protection.

41


OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: SOUTH AFRICA 2013 © OECD 2013 167

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

13. South African National Parks (SANParks), established through the Protected Areas Act (No 57 of2003), is the lead statutory conservation authority.

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

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

16. Some of the large or long-established environmental NGOs in South Africa include the BotanicalSociety of South Africa, the World-Wide Fund for Nature (South Africa), the Endangered WildlifeTrust, the Wilderness Foundation, the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa, theWildlands Conservation Trust, Conservation International-South Africa, BirdLife South Africa,EcoAfrica and Fauna and Flora International. Some of these are local branches of international NGOsthat 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 creationfrom payment for ecosystem services, combating environmental degradation and poverty on asingle budget while delivering real services to real people”, Second Economy Strategy: AddressingInequality and Economic Marginalisation, An initiative of the Presidency, hosted by Trade andIndustrial Policy Strategies (TIPS).

Cadman, M. et al. (2010), Biodiversity for Development: South Africa’s Landscape Approach to ConservingBiodiversity 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 ProtectedAreas, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.

DEA (2013, forthcoming), South Africa Environmental Outlook 2012, Department of EnvironmentalAffairs, 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, CapeTown, 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 Conventionon 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 andTourism, 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 Biodiversityand Ecosystem, Synthesis Report, South African National Biodiversity Institute and Department ofEnvironmental 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 AfricanEconomy, Industrial Development Corporation, Development Bank of Southern Africa, Trade andIndustrial Policy Strategies, Sandown.

42



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, IntergovernmentalFiscal Reviews, National Treasury, Republic of South Africa.

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

Raimondo, D. et al. (2009), “Red List of South African Plants”, Strelitzia25, South African NationalBiodiversity 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 fromBiodiversity 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 ReportSeries – 2009/Marine/001, WWF-South Africa, Newlands, Cape Town.

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

43

From:OECD Environmental Performance Reviews:Mexico 2013


Biodiversity and forests


OECD (2013), “Biodiversity and forests”, in OECD EnvironmentalPerformance Reviews: Mexico 2013, OECD Publishing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264180109-9-en

44

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264180109-en

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264180109-9-en

II.5. BIODIVERSITY AND FORESTS

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: MEXICO 2013 © OECD 2013

5. Mainstreaming biodiversity and forestry in other sectors and policy areasMany 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

45



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 (Guevara-

Sanginé, 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+

46



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 WaterTechnology (IMTA) (see Chapter 2).

2. CONAPESCA, the National Commission of Aquaculture and Fishing, is the decentralised agencyunder SAGARPA responsible for promoting sustainable exploitation and conservation of marineresources.

3. SEMARNAT, SAGARPA and the ministries of Social Development (SEDESOL), Health (SALUD), PublicEducation (SEP), Energy (SENER), Tourism (SECTUR), Foreign Affairs (SRE), Economy (SE), andFinance and Public Credit (SHCP).

4. SEMARNAT, SHCP, SAGARPA, SECTUR and the National Defence Ministry (SEDENA), plusCONAGUA.

5. Data based on INEGI’s land use and vegetation maps (INEGI, 1994, 2002, 2007), in accordance withthe 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 andenvironmental 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 5.4is 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-Zoquerainforests (Selva Maya-Zoque, northern Chiapas), Calakmul-Sian Ka’an (Campeche), Sian Ka’an-Calakmul (Quintana Roo) and Yucatan north coast (Costa norte de Yucatan, Yucatan and QuintanaRoo).

10. The additional corridors are Coastal wetlands to Huimanguillo mountains (Humedales costeros-Sierra de Huimanguilla, Tabasco), Centla swamps to Usumacinta Canyon (Pantanos de Centla-Cañon 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 inAppendix I or II of CITES.

13. DOF 13-II-1992.

47



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 ofcommercial forest plantations, forest fire prevention and soil conservation; PROCYMAF, to improveforest ecosystem productivity; and PRODEFOR, the forest development programme.

16. Other elements of the vaquita PACE include commitment of additional resources by CONAPESCAand PROFEPA towards enforcement of regulations to eliminate fishing without a permit; aprogramme instituted by INAPESCA to test new fishing methods (suripera nets) that do not riskharming vaquitas; and bans on all gill net and trawl fishing in the Vaquita refuge, withenforcement 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, amongstother sources of finance.

18. Under PROCAMPO, eligible farmers receive payments based on the area planted in 1991-93 on thecondition that the land is used for legal agricultural or livestock production, or within anenvironment 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 DryTropical 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 EconomicValue 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) inthe 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 ServicesProvided by Mexico’s Protected Areas”, The Nature Conservancy-México Program-ComisiónNacional 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 decambio, Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, México, DF.

CONABIO – UNDP (2009), Mexico: Capacities for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, NationalCommission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity and the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme, Mexico City.

CONAFOR (2010), “Mexico’s REDD+ Readiness Preparation Proposal”, Powerpoint presentation to FCPCParticipants 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 deÁreas Naturales Protegidas, México, DF.

CONANP (2010), Pago por Servicios Ambientales en Áreas Naturales Protegidas, Comisión Nacional paraÁreas Naturales Protegidas, México, DF, www.conanp.gob.mx/contenido/pdf/PSA%20en%20ANP%202003-2008%20coments%20FJMG-JMfinal-resumen.pdf.

Cortez, R.C. (2000), “Inseguridad alimentaria, pobreza y deterioro ambiental en el marco de laglobalización”, Sector agropecuario y alternativas comunitarias de seguridad alimentaria y nutrición enMéxico, 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 ambiental-Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para suinclusión, exclusión o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo”, 30 December, 2010.

48

www.conanp.gob.mx/contenido/pdf/PSA%20en%20ANP%202003-2008%20coments%20FJMG-JMfinal-resumen.pdf


http://www.earthcheck.org/

http://www.rainforest-alliance.org

http://www.cserge.ac.uk/publications/cserge-working-paper/gec-1994-21-towards-estimating-total-economic-value-forests-mexico

http://www.cserge.ac.uk/publications/cserge-working-paper/gec-1994-21-towards-estimating-total-economic-value-forests-mexico

http://www.ine.gob.mx/descargas/dgipea/ine-biodiv-pc-01-2009.pdf

http://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/pais/pdf/CapNatMex/Vol%20II/II00_Preliminares%20Guia%20de%20lectura%20Indice%20Siglas.pdf

http://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/pais/pdf/CapNatMex/Vol%20II/II00_Preliminares%20Guia%20de%20lectura%20Indice%20Siglas.pdf

http://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/v_ingles/country/pdf/Capacities.pdf

http://www.conafor.gob.mx/portal/index.php/temas-forestales/certificacion-forestal

http://www.conafor.gob.mx/portal/index.php/temas-forestales/certificacion-forestal





FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2010), Global Forest ResourcesAssessment 2010, Rome.

Figueroa, F. and V. Sánchez-Cordero (2008), “Effectiveness of natural protected areas to prevent landuse 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 delos servicios ecológicos que prestan los murciélagos Tadarida brasiliensis como controladores deplagas en el norte de México”, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Escuela de graduados de AdministraciónPública 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 delfinanciamiento”, Cuadernos Agrarios, 15: 94-115.

Guajardo, R. and A. Martínez (2004), “Cuantificación del impacto económico de la caza deportiva en elnorte de México y perspectivas de su desarrollo”, Revista electrónica Entorno Económico, Centrode Investigaciones Económicas, Universidad de Nuevo León.

Guevara-Sanginés, A. (2009), “Mexico Country Case Study: Desk-Review of the Importance of Biodiversity andEcosystem 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 (inpreparation)”, 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), “Estrategiasproductivas campesinas: un análisis de los factores condicionantes del uso del suelo en el orientede Tabasco, México”, Universidad y Ciencia, 21: 56-72.

Klepeis, P. and C. Vance (2003), “Neoliberal Policy and Deforestation in Southeastern Mexico: AnAssessment of the Procampo Program”, Economic Geography, 79: 221-240.

Martínez-Meyer, E., D. Arroyo-Lambear and E. Calixto-Pérez (2011), “Caracterización y evaluación delos sitios prioritarios para la conservación de las especies prioritarias ante los impactos del cambioclimático en México”, Informe técnico, Instituto de Biología de la UNAM, Comisión Nacional para elConocimiento 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 dePago 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 laPropiedad Social en México”, Proyecto Registro Agrario Nacional (RAN), Instituto Interamericano deCooperación 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 deforestacióndurante el periodo 1999-2000 en la región de Calakmul”, Campeche, México, InvestigacionesGeográficas, 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’sMarine Natural Areas”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 8 (2-3).

49

http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en/

http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9423-3

http://www.mty.itesm.mx/egap/deptos/cee/cieds/2006-5.pdf

http://web.undp.org/latinamerica/biodiversity-superpower/Power_Centers_Mexico/National_Economist_Report_Mexico.pdf

http://web.undp.org/latinamerica/biodiversity-superpower/Power_Centers_Mexico/National_Economist_Report_Mexico.pdf

http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/pdf/154/15404202.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264040854-en

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264090279-en

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2010-en

www.agri-outlook.org

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264083578-en

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_pol-2012-en



García Romero, H. (2012), “Payments for Environmental Services: Can They Work?”, Field ActionsScience 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 inMexico”, Biodiversity & Conservation, Vol. 18 (5): 1421-1434.

SEMARNAT (2006), La gestión ambiental en México, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales,México, DF, www.semarnat.gob.mx/informacionambiental/publicaciones/Publicaciones/Gestion_Ambiental.pdf.

SEMARNAT (2011), Programa Anual de Trabajo, 2011, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y RecursosNaturales, 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 tortugasmarinas”, 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 ofCalifornia”, in Workshop Proceedings for A Private Sector Approach – Conservation Agreements in supportof 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,http://148.223.105.188:2222/gif/snif_portal/administrator/sistemas/evaluaciones/1301593358_2009_reforestacion_resumen_eje.

USAID (2009), “Assessment of Tropical Forest and Biodiversity Conservation in Mexico”, FAA Section118-119 Report, United States Agency for International Development.

50

http://factsreports.revues.org/1711


www.semarnat.gob.mx/informacionambiental/publicaciones/Publicaciones/Gestion_Ambiental.pdf



http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9538-6

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9538-6



www.semarnat.gob.mx/programassubsidios/pat/Documents/PAT2011/PAT_2011_Final.pdf

www.semarnat.gob.mx/programassubsidios/pat/Documents/PAT2011/PAT_2011_Final.pdf

http://www.cefns.nau.edu/Academic/CSE/Lab/Publications/documents/Sisk_etal_2007_Frontiers.pdf

http://www.mcatoolkit.org/pdf/PMCA_Workshop/1_MCAWorkshop_FullProceedings.pdf

http://148.223.105.188:2222/gif/snif_portal/administrator/sistemas/evaluaciones/1301593358_2009_reforestacion_resumen_eje

http://148.223.105.188:2222/gif/snif_portal/administrator/sistemas/evaluaciones/1301593358_2009_reforestacion_resumen_eje

http://transition.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/environment/docs/FAA_118_119_Mexico_2009_FINAL.pdf

http://transition.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/environment/docs/FAA_118_119_Mexico_2009_FINAL.pdf

From:OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Israel2011


Biodiversity conservation and sustainable use


OECD (2011), “Biodiversity conservation and sustainable use”, inOECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Israel 2011, OECDPublishing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264117563-9-en

51

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264117563-en

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264117563-9-en

II.5. BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE

OECD ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: ISRAEL 2011 © OECD 2011

4. Mainstreaming biodiversity into other sectors/policy areasMainstreaming 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.

52



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

53



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

Table 5.3. Existing and proposed forest area under the National Master Plan for Forests and Afforestation

Type Area (km2)

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

54

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932495931



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).

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.

Figure 5.4. Visitors to NPA nature reserves, 2000-09

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932495399

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

million visitors

Source: NPA.

55

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932495399



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

Box 5.4. Ecotourism and carrying capacity in Israel

The Hula Agmon pond, located in the Rift Valley, is a critical migratory stopover andwintering site for more than 500 million birds belonging to over 390 species, including21 globally threatened species and 16 nationally threatened ones. The nature area, openedin 2004, has witnessed a sharp increase in the number of visitors, from 78 000 in 2004to 240 000 in 2008.

Several studies have been conducted to monitor and assess the impacts of tourism onbird populations. They have examined the impact of tourist demand, tourismdevelopment trends and management on birds, and how management policies canalleviate negative tourist-bird impacts and enhance real ecotourism. One finding was thatfor every 20 visitors, birds tend to retreat by 27 metres. This led to the development ofsustainability guidelines concerning visitor load regulation, fencing, appropriatesignposting and the positioning of telescopes. Further research could help establish visitorvolumes that are consistent with maintaining optimal numbers of various species.

Source: MoEP (2009, 2010a).

56



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, one-third local government and the other third academia and NGOs.

2. For example, Mount Carmel was declared a Biosphere Reserve in April 1996, within the frameworkof UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme. Other areas considered appropriate to bedeclared biosphere reserves include Mount Meron in northern Israel and the Judean Hills area inthe 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 greentaxes, and the benefits emerging from the added innovation and entrepreneurship that economicinstruments stimulate (e.g. providing growth and employment opportunities, as well as improvinginternational 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 ecosystemservices 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 throughthe implementation of ecological considerations in planning, rehabilitation and management ofroad 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 thischapter 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 ofStatistics, Jerusalem.

Emerton, L. (2001), National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans: A Review of Experiences, LessonsLearned and Ways Forward, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Regional EnvironmentalEconomics 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 ofEnvironmental Defence.

MoEP (Ministry of Environmental Protection) (2002), The Environment in Israel 2002 (chapter onlandscape and biodiversity), Ministry of Environmental Protection, Jerusalem.

MoEP (2008), “Brief Note on Environmental Policy and Institutional Framework of Israel”, paper for theOECD Environment Policy Committee, Paris, available from the Israeli Ministry of EnvironmentalProtection, 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 EnvironmentalProtection, Jerusalem.

57

http://www.ebone.wur.nl/uk

http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org

http://www.ecotourism.org.il



MoEP (2010b), “Israel’s Second National Communication on Climate Change”, submitted under theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Ministry of Environmental Protection,Jerusalem.

MoEP (2010c), The Environment in Israel – Indicators, data and trends, 2010, Ministry of EnvironmentalProtection, 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 ofAqaba”, Scientific Report 2009 (in Hebrew with English abstract), Interuniversity Institute for MarineSciences, 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.

58