Biodiversity Conservation in Latin
America and the Caribbean
Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region is exceptionally biodiverse. It contains about half of the world’s remaining tropical forests, nearly one-fi fth of its coastal habitats, and some of its most productive agricultural and marine areas. But agriculture, fi shing, and other human activities linked to rapid population and economic growth increasingly threaten that biodiversity. Moreover, poverty, weak regulatory capacity, and limited political will hamper conservation.
Given this dilemma, it is critically important to design conservation strategies on the basis of the best available information about both biodiversity and the track records of the various policies that have been used to protect it. This rigorously researched book describes the status of biodiversity in LAC, the main threats to this biodiversity, and the drivers of these threats. It identifi es the main policies being used to conserve biodiversity and assesses their effectiveness and potential for further implementation.
It proposes fi ve specifi c lines of practical action for conserving LAC biodiversity, based on: green agriculture; strengthening terrestrial protected areas and co-management; improv-ing environmental governance; strengthenimprov-ing coastal and marine resource management; and improving biodiversity data and policy evaluation.
Allen Blackman is Thomas Klutznick Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future, USA. Rebecca Epanchin-Niell is Fellow at Resources for the Future, USA.
Juha Siikamäki is Associate Research Director and Fellow at Resources for the Future, USA.
Daniel Velez-Lopez is a PhD student in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and former Research Assistant at Resources for the Future, USA.
Resources for the Future (RFF) improves environmental and natural resource policymak-ing worldwide through independent social science research of the highest caliber. Founded in 1952, RFF pioneered the application of economics as a tool for developing more effective policy about the use and conservation of natural resources. Its scholars continue to employ social science methods to analyze critical issues concerning pollution control, energy policy, land and water use, hazardous waste, climate change, biodiversity, and the environmental challenges of developing countries.
RFF Press supports the mission of RFF by publishing book-length works that present a broad range of approaches to the study of natural resources and the environment. Its authors and editors include RFF staff, researchers from the larger academic and policy communities, and journalists. Audiences for publications by RFF Press include all of the participants in the policymaking process—scholars, the media, advocacy groups, NGOs, professionals in busi-ness and government, and the public.
Resources for the Future Board of Directors
Board Leadership W. Bowman Cutter Chair John M. Deutch Vice Chair Frank E. Loy Vice Chair Lawrence H. Linden Treasurer Philip R. Sharp President
Board Members Vicky A. Bailey Anthony Bernhardt Trudy Ann Cameron Red Cavaney
Mohamed T. El-Ashry Linda J. Fisher C. Boyden Gray
Rick Holley Peter R. Kagan Sally Katzen Rubén Kraiem Bob Litterman Richard G. Newell Henry Schacht Richard Schmalensee Lisa A. Stewart Joseph Stiglitz Mark R. Tercek Chair Emeriti Darius W. Gaskins, Jr. Robert E. Grady
Editorial Advisers for RFF Press Walter A. Rosenbaum, University of Florida Jeffrey K. Stine, Smithsonian Institution
“At last: the handbook on biodiversity conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean we all have needed... with all the considerations necessary for best practice choices... a revolutionary contribution.”
– Tom Lovejoy, University Professor, George Mason University and
Senior Fellow, United Nations Foundation.
“A great addition to literature, this book starts by describing LAC biodiversity’s status and progresses to a critical study of the main conservation policies. It is here that the book excels becoming a fascinating read for those involved in the fi eld and a compulsory one from the management and education perspective.”
– Francisco Alpízar, Founder, Latin American and Caribbean Environmental
Economics Program (LACEEP), Director, Economics and Environment for Development (EfD-CATIE) and Associate Professor, Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg.
“This book has been instrumental in setting new directions for conservation investments at the Interamerican Development Bank and provides the foundation for more effective policy in the future.”
– Michele Lemay, Natural Resources Lead Specialist,
Inter-American Development Bank.
“This book provides a wealth of data and information, a clear-eyed assessment of the challenges to biodiversity conservation in the region, and a valuable framework for prioritizing policies. It makes it clear that mainstreaming biodiversity will require a continuous and coherent process in which early and well planned commitments will reduce overall costs.”
– Carlos Manuel Rodríguez, Vice President, Conservation International
Biodiversity Conservation
in Latin America and the
Caribbean
Prioritizing policies
Allen Blackman, Rebecca
Epanchin-Niell, Juha Siikamäki,
and Daniel Velez-Lopez
by RFF Press
Taylor & Francis, 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by
RFF Press
Routledge, 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
RFF Press is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa
business
© 2014 Allen Blackman, Rebecca Epanchin-Niell, Juha Siikamäki, and Daniel Velez-Lopez
The right of Allen Blackman, Rebecca Epanchin-Niell, Juha Siikamäki, and Daniel Velez-Lopez to be identifi ed as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice : Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifi cation and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Biodiversity conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean : prioritizing policies / Allen Blackman, Rebecca Epanchin-Niell, Juha Siikamaki, [editors].
pages cm. – (Environment for development)
1. Biodiversity conservation–Latin America. 2. Biodiversity
conservation–Caribbean Area. 3. Environmental policy–Latin America. 4. Environmental policy–Caribbean Area. 5. Latin America–Environmental conditions. 6. Caribbean Area–Environmental conditions. I. Blackman, Allen. QH77.L25B59 2014 333.95’1609729–dc23 2013042508 ISBN: 978-0-415-73096-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-84843-3 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Cenveo Publisher Services
1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objectives 2 1.3 Methods 2 1.4 Organization 3
2 Status and trends 4
2.1 Terrestrial and freshwater systems 4 2.2 Coastal and marine systems 18
3 Policies 27
A Regulatory and comanagement 27 3.1 Terrestrial protected areas 27 3.2 Forest comanagement 33 3.3 Land-use planning 36 3.4 Fisheries management 39 3.5 Wastewater treatment 43 3.6 Environmental governance 45 B Market-based approaches 49 3.7 Subsidy reform 49
3.8 Payments for environmental services 54 3.9 Eco-certifi cation 58
3.10 Ecotourism 59 3.11 Bioprospecting 61
3.12 Mitigation offsets and banking 62 C Other 66
3.13 National environmental accounting 66 3.14 Corporate social responsibility 68 3.15 Greening agriculture 72
3.16 Targeting, data, and evaluation 75
3.17 Reduced emissions from deforestation and degredation 77
4 Lines of action 85 4.1 Green agriculture 86
4.2 Strengthen terrestrial protected areas and comanagement 89 4.3 Improve environmental governance 91
4.4 Strengthen coastal and marine resource management 94 4.5 Improve biodiversity data and policy evaluation 96 4.6 Policies omitted from lines of action 98
5 Latin America and Caribbean biodiversity actors 100
Appendices 101
References 130
List of illustrations xiv
About the authors xvi
Acknowledgments xvii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives 2 1.3 Methods 2 1.4 Organization 3
2 Status and trends 4
2.1 Terrestrial and freshwater systems 4 2.1.1 Biophysical environment 4 2.1.2 Status and trends 3
2.1.2.1 Species richness and overall threat levels 5 2.1.2.2 Terrestrial ecosystems 6
2.1.2.3 Freshwater ecosystems 8 2.1.3 Threats 9
2.1.3.1 IUCN Red List data 9
2.1.3.2 Habitat loss and degradation 10 2.1.3.3 Invasive species 15
2.1.3.4 Climate change 16 2.1.3.5 Overexploitation 17 2.1.3.6 Pollution 18 2.2 Coastal and marine systems 18
2.2.1 Biophysical environment 18 2.2.2 Status and trends 19
2.2.2.1 Species richness 19 2.2.2.2 Coastal ecosystems 20 2.2.3 Threats 21
2.2.3.1 Habitat loss and degradation 22 2.2.3.2 Pollution 22
2.2.3.3 Overexploitation 23 2.2.3.4 Climate change 24 2.2.3.5 Invasive species 25
3 Policies 27
A Regulatory and comanagement 27 3.1 Terrestrial protected areas 27
3.1.1 Description 27 3.1.2 Status and trends 27
3.1.2.1 Protected area coverage standards 27 3.1.2.2 Coverage by region 28
3.1.2.3 Coverage by country 28
3.1.2.4 Coverage by type of protection 28 3.1.2.5 Coverage by biome 29
3.1.3 Issues 29
3.1.3.1 Coverage gaps 29 3.1.3.2 Size and fragmentation 30 3.1.3.3 Management 30 3.1.3.4 Financial resources 30 3.1.3.5 Local communities 31 3.1.4 Effectiveness 32 3.1.5 Easements 33 3.2 Forest comanagement 33 3.2.1 Description 33 3.2.2 Status and trends 34 3.2.3 Issues 34
3.2.3.1 Stemming forest loss 34 3.2.3.2 Spurring forest loss 35 3.2.4 Effectiveness 35
3.3 Land-use planning 36 3.3.1 Description 36 3.3.2 Status and trends 37 3.3.3 Issues 38
3.4 Fisheries management 39 3.4.1 Description 39 3.4.2 Status and trends 39
3.4.2.1 Economic importance 39
3.4.2.2 Fleet and market characteristics 39 3.4.2.3 Production in capture fi sheries 40 3.4.3 Issues 40
3.5 Wastewater treatment 43 3.5.1 Description 43 3.5.2 Status and trends 43 3.5.3 Issues 44
3.6 Environmental governance 45 3.6.1 Description 45 3.6.2 Status and trends 45
3.6.2.1 Environmental laws, policies, and programs 45 3.6.2.2 Governance effectiveness 45
3.6.2.3 Environmental capacity and mainstreaming 47 3.6.3 Issues 48
B Market-based approaches 49 3.7 Subsidy reform 49
3.7.1 Description 49 3.7.2 Status and trends 49
3.7.2.1 Agriculture 49 3.7.2.2 Water 51 3.7.2.3 Fishing 51 3.7.2.4 Energy 52 3.7.3 Issues 52 3.7.4 Evidence 53
3.8 Payments for environmental services 54 3.8.1 Description 54
3.8.2 Status and trends 54
3.8.2.1 Overall level of implementation 54 3.8.2.2 Level of implementation by subregion 55 3.8.3 Issues 55
3.8.3.1 The case for payments for ecosystem services 55 3.8.3.2 Barriers to effectiveness 55
3.8.4 Evidence 57 3.9 Eco-certifi cation 58
3.9.1 Description 58 3.9.2 Status and trends 58 3.9.3 Issues 58
3.9.4 Evidence 59 3.10 Ecotourism 59
3.10.1 Description 59 3.10.2 Status and trends 60 3.10.3 Issues and evidence 60 3.11 Bioprospecting 61
3.11.1 Description 61 3.11.2 Status and trends 61
3.11.3 Issues 61 3.11.4 Evidence 62
3.12 Mitigation offsets and banking 62 3.12.1 Description 62
3.12.2 Status and trends 63
3.12.2.1 Mitigation offsets 63 3.12.2.2 Mitigation banking 63
3.12.2.3 Tradable development rights 64 3.12.3 Issues 65
C Other 66
3.13 National environmental accounting 66 3.13.1 Description 66
3.13.2 Status and trends 66 3.13.3 Issues 67
3.13.4 Evidence 68
3.14 Corporate social responsibility 68 3.14.1 Description 68
3.14.2 Status and trends 68
3.14.2.1 Overall levels of CSR, by type of participant 68 3.14.2.2 International pressures 69
3.14.3 Issues 70
3.14.3.1 The case for CSR 70 3.14.3.2 Barriers to effectiveness 71 3.14.4 Evidence 71
3.15 Greening agriculture 72 3.15.1 Description 72 3.15.2 Status and trends 73 3.15.3 Issues 73
3.15.3.1 Preventing extensifi cation 73
3.15.3.2 Reducing adverse effects of intensifi cation 74 3.15.3.3 Biofuels 74
3.15.4 Effectiveness 75
3.16 Targeting, data, and evaluation 75 3.16.1 Description 75
3.16.2 Status and trends 76 3.16.3 Issues 76 3.17 REDD 77 3.17.1 Description 77 3.17.2 Issues 78 3.17.2.1 Scope 78 3.17.2.2 Reference levels 78 3.17.2.3 Monitoring 79 3.17.2.4 Leakage 79
3.17.2.5 Permanence 79 3.17.2.6 Capacity 79
3.17.2.7 Co-benefi ts and safeguards 80 3.17.2.8 Financing 80
3.17.3 Status and trends 80
3.17.3.1 Progress under UNFCC 80
3.17.3.2 Progress outside of the UNFCCC 81 3.17.4 Effectiveness 83
4 Lines of action 85
4.1 Green agriculture 86 4.1.1 Rationale 86
4.1.2 Recommendations 86
4.1.3 Expected benefi ts and indicators 87
4.2 Strengthen terrestrial protected areas and comanagement 89 4.2.1 Rationale 89
4.2.2 Recommendations 90
4.2.3 Expected benefi ts and indicators 90 4.3 Improve environmental governance 91
4.3.1 Rationale 91
4.3.2 Recommendations 92
4.3.3 Expected benefi ts and indicators 92
4.4 Strengthen coastal and marine resource management 94 4.4.1 Rationale 94
4.4.2 Recommendations 94
4.4.3 Expected benefi ts and indicators 95 4.5 Improve biodiversity data and policy evaluation 96
4.5.1 Rationale 96
4.5.2 Recommendations 97
4.5.3 Expected benefi ts and indicators 97 4.6 Policies omitted from lines of action 98
5 Latin America and Caribbean biodiversity actors 100
Appendix 1: stakeholder interviews 101
Appendix 2: country-level data 103
Appendix 3: LAC biodiversity actors 125
References 130
List of illustrations
Tables
2.1-1 Forest area in LAC, by type and use, 2010 6
2.1-2 Trends in forest area in LAC, 1990–2010 7
2.1-3 Trends in landcover by biome/region in LAC, 2001–2010 7
2.1-4 Percentage of IUCN Red List species (vulnerable – extinct) in LAC identifying each threat category as “primary,”
by ecosystem type 10
2.1-5 Area devoted to agricultural crops and pasture, by year and subregion 11 2.1-6 Market value of agricultural output, by year and subregion 12 2.1-7 LAC soybean and sugar cane production, by year and subregion 12 3.1-1 Percentage of terrestrial and marine area protected, by region 28 3.1-2 Percentage of terrestrial protected areas, by type and region, 2000 29 3.1-3 Percentage of terrestrial protected areas, by biome, region, and year 29 3.1-4 Protected area management costs and fi nancial gaps in
selected LAC countries, 2010 31
3.2-1 Forest tenure by subregion, 2005 34
3.2-2 Forest tenure by subregion for 39 countries with most
tropical forest, 2008 35
3.4-1 Challenges and solutions to unsustainability of fi sheries 42 3.5-1 Percentage of sewer water with some type of treatment,
by country, 2000 44
3.6-1 National forest policies, programs, and laws in LAC, by subregion 45 3.6-2 Worldwide Governance Index indicators for LAC
(–2.5 to +2.5), 2010 46
3.6-3 Human resource levels in LAC, 2008 47
3.7-1 Nominal rate of assistance (NRA) in eight LAC countries,
1965–2004 50
3.7-2 Gross subsidy equivalents of assistance to farmers in eight
LAC countries, 1965–2004 50
3.7-3 Per person gross subsidy equivalents of assistance to farmers
in eight LAC countries, 1965–2004 50
3.7-4 Spending on irrigation in 13 LAC countries, 2001 51
3.7-5 Pre-tax energy subsidies as a percentage of GDP 53
3.8-1 PES schemes, by region 54
3.14-1 Corporate social responsibility in selected countries in
the Americas, by type of participation, 2003 69
3.15-1 Fertilizer use and intensity, by subregion, 1990–2008 73
3.17-1 LAC countries participating in major multilateral
REDD readiness schemes 82
3.17-2 Total REDD fi nancing reported by funders, by country, 2013 83
4.1 Principal criteria met by each line of action 86
A2.1-1 Forest area in LAC, by country, type and use, 2010 104
A2.1-2 Trends in forest area, by country, 1990–2010 106
A2.1-5 Area devoted to agricultural crops and pasture, by country and year 108 A2.1-6 Market value of agricultural output, by country and year 109 A2.1-7 LAC soybean and sugar cane production, by country and year 110 A2.2-S1 Population within 100 km of the coastline, by country 111
A2.2-S2 Current mangrove area and loss rates, by country 112
A2.2-S3 Landings from coastal fi sheries, by country, 2008 113
A3.1-1 Terrestrial and marine area protected, by country and year 114
A3.1-S1 Government contribution to PAs, by country, 2007 115
A3.2-1 Forest ownership and management rights, by country, 2005 116 A3.2-S1 Forest area under community and indigenous tenure regimes,
by country, 2012 118
A3.4-S1 Fisheries contribution to GDP, by country, 2008 118
A3.4-S2 Fisheries employment, by country, 2008 119
A3.6-1 National forest policies, programs, and laws in LAC, by country 120
A3.8-S1 Watershed PES programs in South America 122
A3.8-S2 Watershed PES programs in Mesoamerica and the Caribbean 123 A3.15-1 Fertilizer use and intensity, by country and year 124
Figures
2.2-1 Landings from coastal fi sheries in LAC 24
2.2-2 Landings from coastal fi sheries in the Caribbean 25
Plates
2.1-1 Terrestrial biomes of Latin America and the Caribbean 2.1-2 Status of LAC ecoregions
2.1-3 Global biodiversity hotspots of Latin America and the Caribbean 2.1-4 Surface water abstraction stress in LAC
2.2-1 Coastal biogeographic provinces in LAC
2.2-2 Insular Caribbean and Mesoamerican biodiversity hotspots 2.2-3 Mangrove distribution in Americas
About the authors
Allen Blackman is Thomas Klutznick Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future. He holds a PhD in Economics from the University of Texas, Austin and a BA in International Relations from the University of Pennsylvania. His research focuses on environmental and natural resource policy in Latin America.
Rebecca Epanchin-Niell is Fellow at Resources for the Future. She received a PhD in Agricultural and Resource Economics from the University of California, Davis, MS degrees in Biology and Applied Economics from University of Nevada, Reno, and a BS from Stanford University. Her research tackles issues at the intersection of ecology and economics. Juha Siikamäki is Associate Research Director and Fellow at Resources for the Future. He has a PhD from the University of California, Davis in Environmental Policy Analysis. His research focuses on economic analyses of ecosystem services and biodiversity, especially economic valuation and conservation prioritization.
Daniel Velez-Lopez is a PhD student in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and former Research Assistant at Resources for the Future. He has a BA in Economics and Mathematics from the University of Maryland. His research focuses on envi-ronmental policy and political economy in developing countries.
Acknowledgments
This book evolved from a 2012 report commissioned by the Inter American Development Bank (IDB) to inform the design of its Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Program. We are grateful to Michele Lemay, Rebecca Benner, Carolina Jaramillo, Erivelthon Lima, and Paul Winters at IDB and to Tim Hardwick and Ashley Wright at RFF Press for multifaceted assistance; our interviewees (listed in Appendix 1 ) for valuable input; two anonymous reviewers and participants in an April 2012 IDB peer review workshop for helpful com-ments and suggestions; and Anne Riddle, Jessica Chu, and Sally Atwater for assistance with graphics and editing.
1
Introduction
1.1 Background
Although the term biological diversity is often used narrowly to refer to the number of spe-cies in a defi ned geographical area, it has a much broader meaning. It denotes the diversity of living things at all levels, ranging from genetic material in individual organisms to conti-nental ecosystems like forests and grasslands. In both the broad and narrow senses, the region comprising Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) is exceptionally biodiverse. Stretching from the Northern Hemisphere through tropical, subtropical, and temperate regions to the icy waters off Antarctica, it comprises areas with very different topography and climate that host a variety of ecosystems. It contains about half of the world’s remaining tropical forests, nearly one-fi fth of global coastal habitats, fi ve of the world’s 20 longest rivers, and some of the most productive agricultural and marine areas on Earth. And it supports a staggering array of plants and animals. About one-third of all known mammals and an even higher share of reptiles, birds, and amphibians are found there, many of which are endemic – that is, found nowhere else.
LAC’s biodiversity has incalculable value. Part is intrinsic: it does not depend on human use. In addition, LAC biodiversity directly underpins a broad range of human activities – such as agriculture, aquaculture, and nature tourism – that generate goods and services sold in markets. These activities provide food, income, and employment to the people in the region. LAC biodiversity also generates a wide array of ecosystem services that are not (nor-mally) bought and sold in markets, including water purifi cation, oxygen creation, mainte-nance of soil productivity, waste decomposition, nutrient cycling, pest control, fl ood control, climatic control (e.g., climate moderation, carbon sequestration), pollination of crops and native vegetation, and provision of recreational opportunities. Although not as well under-stood or appreciated as marketed nature-based activities, these nonmarketed ecosystem services, by all accounts, also are extremely valuable.
Despite its value, biodiversity in LAC is increasingly threatened. The main underlying causes are high rates of population and economic growth that have spurred environmentally harmful human activities. Expansion of agriculture, urban areas, and coastal development have displaced natural biodiversity habitat. Agriculture, industry, and mining have gener-ated pollution that threatens biodiversity directly and indirectly by degrading habitat. Agriculture, international trade, and human travel have introduced invasive species that have destabilized ecosystems. Unsustainable fi shing, logging, and other extractive activities have depleted natural resources. And deforestation, agriculture, and industry have generated greenhouse gases that are changing the climate.
LAC countries have used a wide variety of policies to stem these threats. However, a number of factors constrain their effectiveness. At least two have to do with inherent features
of biodiversity. First, as noted above, many of the services provided by biodiversity are left out of the marketplace, not by a conscious effort, but rather because they are not easily priced or traded. That dampens economic incentives to preserve biodiversity. For example, landowners are paid to produce crops and therefore have economic incentives to preserve the resources that enable them to do that. But they normally are not able to sell the ecosystem services their properties produce and thus do not have economic incentives to ensure contin-ued provision of these ecosystem services. A related problem is that some of the value of biodiversity does not arise from human use. Examples are the value of preventing extinction of a species, apart from any value it would have to ecosystems or humans. Such nonuse values are diffi cult to measure or incorporate into management decisions.
In addition to those somewhat subtle obstacles to biodiversity preservation are more obvi-ous ones having to do with socioeconomic and institutional factors in many LAC countries. These include poverty and social problems that (rightfully) compete with biodiversity for scarce public funds, a lack of political will for strict enforcement of environmental regula-tions, weak regulatory instituregula-tions, and limited technical capacity.
Given the enormous value of LAC biodiversity, increasing threats to that biodiversity, and the challenges to effective conservation, it is important to think carefully about how to prioritize policies for biodiversity conservation.
Ecosystem management is one broad approach to biodiversity conservation policy. It emphasizes the inherent links among ecosystems, ecosystem services, and human activities: Although ecosystems provide valuable services to people, human activities can degrade their ability to supply these services. Spatial connectivity, location-specifi c factors and interactions further complicate these links. Ecosystem management is an integrated and adaptive approach to managing, using, and preserving ecosystems – including land, water, and living resources – so as to support both ecosystem services and human well-being. Despite considerable progress, signifi cant barriers complicate putting the ecosystem man-agement approach into practice, ranging from basic institutional capacity to lack of informa-tion on the ecological and economic processes underlying ecosystem services and their value to people.
1.2 Objectives
This book has four specifi c objectives:
1 to describe the status of biodiversity in LAC, the main threats to this biodiversity, and the drivers of these threats;
2 to identify the main policies being used to conserve biodiversity and assess their effec-tiveness and potential for further implementation;
3 based on results from the effort to address the fi rst two objectives, to propose fi ve “lines of action”; and
4 to identify the major actors engaged in biodiversity conservation in LAC.
1.3 Methods
In compiling this book, we have relied mainly on secondary sources. Specifi cally, we drew on published and unpublished reports, journal articles, books, and book chapters, written in both English and Spanish. We augmented these secondary sources with two types of primary data. First, we used selected digital and printed primary data from the International Union of
Concerned Scientists (IUCN), the Economic Commission on Latin America (ECLAC), and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), all described in the body of the book. Second, we conducted structured interviews of approximately one hour apiece with ten experts in LAC biodiversity representing multilateral and bilateral international cooperation institutions (the World Bank, United Nations Environment Program, US Agency for International Development, Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza), nongovernmental organizations (The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, and Forest Trends), academia (Georgia State University, Universidad Iboamericana), and a foundation (the Ford Foundation). Appendix 1 lists our interviewees.
LAC is an exceptionally diverse region, not only in terms of the geography and biodiver-sity emphasized above, but also in terms of economics, politics, and culture. Hence, our discussion is necessarily somewhat broad-brush and general.
1.4 Organization
The remainder of the book is organized as follows. Chapter 2 discusses the status and trends in LAC biodiversity. It is split into two subsections: one on terrestrial and freshwater sys-tems and a second on marine and coastal ecosyssys-tems. Each of these subsections discusses the biophysical environment, status and trends in biodiversity by ecosystem type (mangrove, salt marsh, etc.), and fi nally threats to biodiversity by threat types (habitat loss, pollution, overexploitation, climate change, and invasive species).
Chapter 3 discusses 17 policies (listed in the table of contents) used to conserve biodiver-sity in LAC. They are grouped into three categories: regulation and comanagement, market-based policies, and a catch-all “other” category. Each subsection describes the policy, discusses status and trends in implementation in LAC, and highlights prominent implemen-tation issues. For ten of 17 cases, we also review evidence on the policies’ effectiveness in a separate subsubsection. We omit such a discussion for the seven remaining policies for var-ious reasons. A contributing factor in all seven cases is that, as discussed in Section 3.16, credible evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation polices is generally quite scarce. In addition, in some cases evidence of effectiveness is virtually nonexistent because the policy is either new in the region (mitigation offsets and banking) or has a predictable effect (wastewater treatment). Finally, in several cases the policy is cast so broadly – a nec-essary strategy given the scope of this effort – that evaluations of the policies as we have defi ned them do not exist (governance; targeting, data, and evaluation; fi sheries manage-ment). In these instances, we have incorporated into the discussion citations to evaluations of more narrowly defi ned policies associated with the broad policy. For example, in the fi sheries management subsection, we cite evaluations of catch share and transferable quota policies.
As for the remainder of the book, Chapter 4 presents our fi ve recommended lines of action. Finally, Chapter 5 briefl y discusses our map of major LAC biodiversity actors, which is included in Appendix 3 . For readers interested in specifi c LAC countries, Appendix 2 includes country-level tables, which complement subregion-level tables and statistics in the body of the book.
2
Status and trends
2.1 Terrestrial and freshwater systems
2.1.1 Biophysical environment
Biophysically, the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region is exceptionally diverse. It supports 11 of Earth’s 14 terrestrial biomes, including wet and dry habitats; tropical, temper-ate, and desert systems; and forests, shrublands, and grasslands ( Plate 2.1-1 ). It hosts fi ve forest biomes (Olson et al . 2001 ; UNEP 2010c ):
• Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forest is both LAC’s largest biome and its larg-est forlarg-est biome. It covers 44 percent of the region, including much of northern South America and parts of Central America and the Caribbean. Dominated by semievergreen and evergreen deciduous trees, this biome contains the highest levels of biodiversity of any LAC biome.
• Tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forest is the next largest forest biome. It covers 6 percent of LAC, including parts of central South America, eastern Brazil, western Central America, and Cuba. It includes the world’s most endangered tropical and sub-tropical forests.
• Tropical and subtropical coniferous forest covers 2 percent of LAC. Found in Mexico, Guatemala, and the Caribbean, it also is critically endangered worldwide; 85 percent of the biome worldwide is in LAC.
• Temperate broadleaf and mixed forest also covers 2 percent of LAC. Found in the southern tip of South America and central Chile, it includes the Valdivian temperate forest, the second-largest temperate rainforest in the world, of which only 40 percent of the original cover remains.
• Mediterranean forests, woodlands, and shrubs are found in a small part of Baja California, Mexico, and in central Chile and have particularly high endemism.
LAC also contains several nonforest biomes (Olson et al . 2001 ; UNEP 2010c ).
• Tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannahs, and shrublands are the second-largest biome in LAC and the largest nonforest biome. It covers vast areas of southern Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, and all of Uruguay, as well as relatively small parts of Colombia and Venezuela.
• Temperate grasslands, savannahs, and shrublands, which differ from the biome just noted in temperature, rainfall, and tree cover, are mostly in Argentina.
• Flooded grasslands and savannahs, which include wetlands, are scattered throughout LAC. One of the largest wetlands in the world, the Pantanal, is in central South America. This biome hosts many plant and animal species and is particularly important for migratory birds. • Montane grasslands and shrublands are primarily confi ned to the Andean region,
extending along the Pacifi c coast of South America.
• Deserts and xeric shrublands are scattered throughout LAC, including a large stretch of desert along central western South America, just east of the Andes in Chile and Peru. Another, exceptionally species-rich portion, the Caatinga, is on the eastern tip of Brazil and is the largest dry forest in South America.
• Mangroves, the fi nal biome found in LAC, are described in the section on marine and coastal diversity.
2.1.2 Status and trends
2.1.2.1 Species richness and overall threat levels
LAC terrestrial biomes are remarkably biodiverse and host many species that are endemic. Although it constitutes only about 15 percent of Earth’s total land area, LAC supports 50 percent of its amphibians (i.e., half of known amphibians can be found in LAC, among other places), 41 percent of its birds, 35 percent of its reptiles, 33 percent of its mammals, and 32 percent of its vascular plants (UNEP 2010a ; ICSU-LAC 2010 ). LAC includes six of the world’s 17 “megadiverse” countries, defi ned as countries hosting the largest numbers of endemic species: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela (Sarukhán and Dirzo 2001 ; UNEP 2010b ). Although no Caribbean countries are included in this list, the endemism of plants there is remarkable: half of Caribbean plant life is unique to the region. While LAC hosts signifi cant species diversity, it also hosts some of the greatest numbers of threatened and endangered species:
• LAC contains fi ve of the 20 countries with the highest numbers of endangered and threatened fauna and seven of the 20 countries with the most threatened plant species (UNEP 2010a ).
• In LAC, 6,659 species – including 2,834 animal and 3,819 plant species – are among the 20,293 species worldwide that are included on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and are classifi ed as extinct, extinct in the wild, critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable. These include 1,131 amphibians, 458 birds, 366 mammals, and 237 reptiles. The Red List likely underestimates the species at risk, as it considers only those species for which status has been assessed. Nonetheless, 79 terrestrial species and 28 freshwater species in LAC are already extinct (IUCN 2011 ). As is generally the case worldwide, information on freshwater species richness and status in LAC is limited. This ecosystem is relatively poorly understood (ICSU-LAC 2010 ).
• As a result of species loss, the region’s genetic resources are being rapidly degraded. Approximately 40 percent of medicinal plant species in South America are threatened, and LAC has lost about 75 percent of its agricultural crop genetic diversity over the past 100 years (CBD 2010 ; UNEP 2010a ).
Although the geographical distribution of both species richness and threats in LAC is varied, across the region most imminently threatened species are concentrated in nonremote fragmented habitats, principally in mosaic lands comprising both agricultural and natural
areas (Ricketts et al . 2005 ; Chomitz 2007 ). These are degraded habitats where species are under signifi cant threat but have not yet gone extinct.
2.1.2.2 Terrestrial ecosystems
Despite LAC’s diversity of biomes, much of the discussion of its terrestrial biodiversity focuses on forests. Excluding Mexico, LAC forests cover almost 900 million ha, or 22 per-cent of global forests ( Table 2.1-1 ; see Table A2.1-1 for country-level data). 1 This forest covers half of LAC’s land mass. Seventy-six percent is primary forest, which is particularly rich in biodiversity – a much higher percentage than global forests. Four of the top ten coun-tries in the world in terms of primary forest are in LAC: Brazil (35 percent), Peru (4 percent), Bolivia (3 percent), and Mexico (3 percent) (FAO 2011 ).
Roughly half of LAC forests (460 million ha) are frontier forests – defi ned as tracts of continuous intact natural forest large enough to support viable populations of all biodiver-sity associated with the forest. LAC frontier forests account for 34 percent of the world’s total (ICSU-LAC 2010 ). The countries with the largest tracts of frontier forest, as a percent-age of world total, are Brazil (17 percent), Peru (4 percent), Venezuela (3 percent), Colombia (3 percent), Bolivia (2 percent), and Chile and Argentina (2 percent). Chile and Argentina contain the world’s largest remaining tract of temperate frontier forest (ICSU-LAC 2010 ).
A signifi cant fraction of important forest ecosystems has already been lost because of conversion. The annual deforestation rate for LAC as a whole was 0.5 percent from 1990 to 2000 – more than double the global rate – and slightly lower, 0.4 percent, from 2000 to 2010 ( Table 2.1-2 ; see Table A2.1-2 for country-level data). At the subregional level, for South America, the annual rate of deforestation was about half of 1 percent from 1990 to 2000 and from 2000 to 2010. Three of the 10 countries in the world with the largest annual net loss of forest area from 2000 to 2010 were in South America: Brazil, which lost 2.6 million ha, more than three times any other country; Bolivia, which lost 0.3 million hectares; and Venezuela, which also lost 0.3 million hectares (FAO 2011 ). It is important to note, how-ever, that net loss of forest in South America actually declined between 2000 and 2010 – from a high of 4.4 million ha per year at the beginning of the decade to 3.6 million ha per year in 2010 – primarily because of reductions in deforestation rates in Brazil, which accounts for 60 percent of South America’s forests (FAO 2011 ).
Table 2.1-1 Forest area in LAC, by type and use, 2010 Region Forest area (1,000 ha) Primary forest area (1,000 ha) Forest area (percentage of land area) Primary forest area (percentage of forest area) Production forest (percentage of forest area) Planted forest (percentage of forest area) Caribbean 6,933 205 30 4 28 11 Central America 19,499 4,482 38 23 19 3 South America 864,351 624,077 50 76 14 2 LAC * 890,783 628,764 49 71 14 2 World 4,033,060 1,102,382 31 36 30 7 Note * without Mexico. Source: FAO 2011 .
Although the total forest area lost was much smaller, the annual deforestation rate in Central America was the highest in LAC – 1.6 percent from 1990 to 2000 and 1.2 percent from 2000 to 2010. Forest cover in the Caribbean actually expanded in the past two decades,
Table 2.1-2 Trends in forest area in LAC, 1990–2010
Region Annual change in total forest cover Annual change in primary forest cover 1990–2000 2000–2010 1990–2000 2000–2010 1,000 ha/yr Percentage 1,000 ha/yr Percentage 1,000 ha/yr Percentage 1,000 ha/yr Percentage Caribbean 53 0.87 50 0.75 n.s. –0.07 n.s. –0.02 Central America –374 –1.56 –248 –1.19 –54 –0.98 –74 –1.52 South America –4,213 –0.45 –3,997 –0.45 –3,096 –0.46 –2,961 –0.46 LAC – –0.5 – –0.4 – – – – World –8,327 –0.20 –5,211 –0.13 –4,666 –0.40 –4,188 –0.37
Sources: FAO 2011 ; ECLAC 2011 .
Table 2.1-3 Trends in landcover by biome/region in LAC, 2001–2010 Biome/region Woody vegetation 1 Mixed woody vegetation/
plantations 2 Agriculture/herbaceous vegetation 2001 (1,000 ha) 2010 (1,000 ha) % 3 2001 (1,000 ha) 2010 (1,000 ha) % 3 2001 (1,000 ha) 2010 (1,000 ha) % 3 Moist forests 607,521 590,037 −2.9 113,460 105,786 −6.8 208,608 233,446 11.9 Dry forests 123,332 112,526 −8.8 28,510 32,142 12.7 56,019 63,937 14.1 Conifer forests 24,947 26,749 7.2 15,168 15,197 0.2 9,891 8,469 −14.4 Temperate forests 14,685 13,748 −6.4 7,397 9,205 24.4 13,977 13,117 −6.2 Savannas/ shrublands 50,213 48,835 −2.7 74,680 78,676 5.4 152,288 151,657 −0.4 Pampas 4,648 3,476 −25.2 15,752 11,525 −26.8 141,002 143,979 2.1 Pantanal 5,458 4,386 −19.6 2,712 2,992 10.3 7,646 8,416 10.1 Montane grasslands/ shrublands 1,737 1,633 −6.0 3,923 3,201 −18.4 27,721 28,340 2.2 Mediterranean forests 540 559 3.5 3,861 3,970 2.8 1,233 1,133 −8.1 Deserts/xeric shrublands 66,661 79,853 19.8 62,906 51,141 −18.7 34,566 36,429 5.4 South America 778,641 751,391 −3.5 257,796 249,571 −3.2 591,661 628,278 6.2 Mexico 95,119 104,728 10.1 48,334 42,023 −13.1 38,060 37,111 −2.5 Central America 20,142 19,604 −2.7 15,831 15,176 −4.1 13,900 15,048 8.3 Caribbean 5,841 6,080 4.1 6,408 7,064 10.2 9,329 8,486 −9.0 LAC total 899,743 881,802 −2.0 328,369 313,833 −4.4 652,949 688,923 5.5 Notes
1 closed-canopy (>80%) woody vegetation.
2 open-canopy (20-80%) woody vegetation and plantations . 3 decadal change .
growing at more than three-quarters of 1 percent between 1990 and 2000 and between 2000 and 2010 ( Table 2.1-2 ; see Table A2.1-2 for country-level data). 2
Recent remote sensing data provide more detailed information on land cover change in LAC during the fi rst ten years of the millennium, including how changes break down across different land covers, biomes, and subregions (Clark et al . 2012 ; Aide et al . 2013 ) ( Table 2.1-3 ). As for types of land cover, from 2001 to 2010 LAC as a whole experienced a loss of 2.0 percent of its closed-canopy woody vegetation, a loss of 4.4 percent of its mixed woody vegetation and plantations, and an increase of 5.5 percent of its agriculture and herbaceous vegetation. In other words, to a large extent, forests and fragmented forests transitioned to agriculture. However, these trends vary greatly across subregions. For example, Central and South America experienced loss of woody vegetation and increases in agriculture/herba-ceous vegetation, whereas the Caribbean and Mexico experienced the opposite. Land cover change also differed across biomes. Eighty percent of deforestation in the LAC from 2001 to 2010 occurred in three biomes – moist forest, dry forest, and savannas/shrublands – which not surprisingly also had the largest increase in agriculture/herbaceous vegetation (Aide et al . 2013 ). Among these three biomes, moist forests experienced the greatest area loss of woody vegetation. The Amazon Basin was the epicenter of this type of deforestation (Clark et al . 2012 ). Deforestation in dry forests largely occurred in Argentina, Paraguay, and Bolivia. Most of the deforestation in the savannah/shrubland biome occurred in South America (Aide et al . 2012 ). In contrast to these trends and refl ecting regional heterogeneity, dry forests are increased in Mexico, Central America, and northern South America. There also were signifi cant gains in woody vegetation in deserts and shrublands of Mexico, which may be associated with local climate changes (Clark et al . 2012 ).
Just as the rate of forest loss varies across the region, so does the level of threat facing the wider diversity of terrestrial ecosystems ( Plate 2.1-2 ). Many nonforested systems are highly threatened, and the threat level of the vast majority of the region is critical, endangered, or vulnerable.
Global biodiversity hotspots are ecological regions that host extremely high biodiversity and are under signifi cant threat because less than 70 percent of their original habitat remains (Mittermeier et al . 2005 ; Brooks et al . 2002 ). They help to identify high-priority conservation areas. LAC hosts nine of the world’s 34 biodiversity hotspots, including the California Floristic Province, Caribbean Islands, Madrean Pine-Oak Woodlands, Mesoamerica, Atlantic Forest, Cerrado, Chilean Winter Rainfall-Valdivian Forests, Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena, and Tropical Andes ( Plate 2.1-3 ). These regions include much of Central America and Mexico, the Caribbean, and the Pacifi c coast and the central Atlantic region of South America.
2.1.2.3 Freshwater ecosystems
Rainfall tends to be high or very high through much of LAC. Partly as a result, it has an abundance of freshwater resources – more than 30 percent of Earth’s available fresh water and roughly 40 percent of its renewable water resources (UNEP 2010a ). LAC includes some of the world’s largest rivers (Amazon, Parana-Paraguay, Orinoco, Uruguay, Magdalena-Cauca, and Usumacinta), wetlands (the Pantanal, Amazon wetlands, and southern South American temperate peatlands), lakes (Titicaca, Nicaragua, Managua, Maracaibo, and Chapala), and aquifers (the Guarani, Chaco, Puelche, and Valley of Mexico aquifers) (UNEP 2010c ; ICSU-LAC 2010 ). The region contains a wide array of freshwater habitats, from large rivers and their deltas to rivers and streams in wet, xeric, and montane regions, fl ooded grasslands and savannahs, cold streams, bogs, swamps, and large lakes (Olson et al . 1998 ; Abell et al . 2008 ).
LAC contains 11 freshwater ecoregions considered globally outstanding in terms of bio-diversity (Olson and Dinerstein 2002 ). Of these, however, seven have been classifi ed as critical, endangered, or vulnerable based on the threats that they face: the Colorado River, Upper Parana Rivers and Streams, Brazilian Shield Amazonian Rivers and Streams, Greater Antillean Freshwater, High Andean Lakes, Mexican Highland Lakes, and Chihuahuan Freshwater systems (Olson and Dinerstein 2002 ).
2.1.3 Threats
As discussed above, terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity in LAC is highly threatened in many regions. In this subsection, we fi rst review IUCN data to shed light on which threats are most prominent in the region. We then discuss major threats one by one, focusing on identifying the activities and phenomena that spur them. Unfortunately, the terminology used in the relevant literature is confused – no common usage has yet emerged – so the same terms (threat, driver, factor, proximate cause, secondary cause, etc.) are used refer to differ-ent things (e.g., Angelsen 2007 ; UNEP 2007 ; Geist and Lambin 2002 ). Here we have adopted a simple lexicon. Threats are broad categories of phenomena that directly harm biodiversity. We use the most common typology, comprising fi ve categories (e.g., Wilcove et al . 2000 ; Pereira et al . 2012 ):
1 habitat loss and degradation; 2 overexploitation;
3 climate change; 4 pollution; and 5 invasive species.
Drivers are activities, such as agricultural extensifi cation and logging, that spur threats. Factors , in turn, are activities and phenomena, such as population growth, that spur drivers. Complicating this lexicon is the fact that the relationships among threats, drivers, and factors are inherently complex. Threats (e.g., climate change) can spur other threats (e.g., habitat loss), and drivers (e.g., logging) can spur other drivers (e.g., agriculture). Identifying and pars-ing the causal relationships that affect biodiversity is a research topic in itself and is beyond the scope of this book. Our aim is simply to identify the main activities and phenomena affect-ing biodiversity in LAC. Throughout, we discuss freshwater and terrestrial systems together. It is worth highlighting that although the relative importance of threats varies across regions, species, and ecosystems, habitat loss and degradation are believed to be the single most important threat to terrestrial biodiversity globally (Sala et al . 2000 ; Dirzo and Raven 2003 ; Pereira et al . 2012 ). Looking to the future, climate change and invasive species are going to be increasingly important (Sala et al . 2000 ; Pereira et al . 2012 ). For freshwater systems, invasive species may be more important than in terrestrial systems, and sedimenta-tion from land-use change is a major threat (Sala et al . 2000 ). Within LAC, these same patterns generally hold (UNEP 2010a ).
2.1.3.1 IUCN Red List data
The IUCN Red List, a global database of threatened and endangered species, catalogs the threats facing listed species (IUCN 2011 ). However, it does not use the common typology of fi ve threats described above. Instead, it uses 11 “threat categories” that are combinations of
what we refer to as threats and drivers ( Table 2.1-4 ; Salafsky et al . 2008 ). For each listed species, the IUCN identifi es at least one of these categories as a “primary” threat. For many species, more than one threat is identifi ed as primary. Table 2.1-4 shows the percentage of the species in LAC that the IUCN classifi es as “vulnerable” to “extinct” for which each threat category is primary, by ecosystem type. 3 For example, for terrestrial species in LAC classifi ed as vulnerable through extinct, 19 percent face a primary threat from “residential and commercial development.” In addition, IUCN data include subcategories for each of the 11 categories in Table 2.1-4 . For example, “livestock ranching” and “wood plantations” are subcategories under “agriculture and aquaculture.”
Because the IUCN categories mix what we are calling threats and drivers, they do not provide a clear representation of causation. For example, numerous categories, including “residential and commercial development” and “agriculture and aquaculture,” can spur another threat category, “natural systems modifi cations.” Nevertheless, the IUCN – which to our knowledge has the only available data on threats by ecosystem and geo-graphical region – provides a general sense of the importance of various activities and phenomena.
For the terrestrial species on the list, the three most important (frequently listed) catego-ries are “biological resource use” (particularly logging and wood harvesting), “agriculture and aquaculture” (especially annual and perennial nontimber crops and livestock ranching), and “residential and commercial development” (especially housing and urban areas). For the freshwater species on the list, the three most important are “agriculture and aquacul-ture” (particularly annual and perennial nontimber crops), “biological resource use” (par-ticularly logging and wood harvesting), and “invasive and other problem species and genes.” We discuss the IUCN data on marine species (last column of Table 2.1-4 ) in the next section.
2.1.3.2 Habitat loss and degradation
This section discusses habitat loss and degradation fi rst in the context of terrestrial ecosys-tems and then in the context of freshwater sysecosys-tems.
Table 2.1-4 Percentage of IUCN Red List species (vulnerable – extinct) in LAC identifying each
threat category as “primary,” by ecosystem type
Threat category Percentage of species
Terrestrial Freshwater Marine
Residential and commercial development 19 34 21
Agriculture and aquaculture 31 55 7
Energy production and mining 4 4 4
Transportation and service corridors 3 5 3
Biological resource use 33 45 56
Human intrusions and disturbance 4 7 14
Natural system modifi cations 10 18 4
Invasive and other problem species and genes 13 42 30
Pollution 6 32 20
Geological events 1 3 2
Climate change and severe weather 6 14 48
TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS
In terrestrial ecosystems, habitat loss and degradation threaten biodiversity in multiple ways. Habitat loss directly destroys organisms and habitat. It also fragments the habitat that is not destroyed, disrupting important ecological processes by limiting species dispersal and creat-ing “edge” effects that cause diverse physical and biotic changes to the system (Saunders
et al . 1991 ; Fischer and Lindenmayer 2007 ). Fragmentation can also hinder species’ abilities
to adapt to anticipated climate change by preventing them from shifting their habitat range in response. Furthermore, habitat loss can disrupt ecosystem functions and inhibit the provi-sioning of valuable ecosystem services. For example, disruption of hydrological cycles and consequent reduced rainfall, a predicted result from massive loss of Amazon forest, can harm agriculture (Malhi et al . 2008 ). Similarly, the loss of natural habitat can lead to a decline in pollination services (Priess et al . 2007 ).
Drivers of terrestrial habitat loss include agricultural extensifi cation, logging, urban expansion, fi re, and mining. As noted above, the relationships among these drivers are com-plex. Below, we discuss each in turn.
Agricultural extensifi cation . The main driver of habitat loss in LAC is clearing for agri-culture. Between 1990 and 2008, cropland grew by 13 percent and pasture grew by 2 percent in LAC, with most of the growth in Latin America ( Table 2.1-5 ; see Table A2.1-5 for coun-try-level data). Pasture actually shrank by 6 percent in the Caribbean during this period.
This trend also is evidenced by changes in agriculture and herbaceous vegetation in LAC from 2001 to 2010 ( Table 2.1-3 ). This type of vegetation increased by 6.2 and 8.3 percent in South and Central America, respectively, but decreased by 2.5 and 9.0 percent in Mexico and the Caribbean. Across the LAC agriculture and herbaceous vegetation increased by 5.5 percent.
The extensifi cation of agriculture at the expense of native habitat has coincided with increases in agricultural production. Agricultural output (including forestry and fi shing) grew 69 percent between 1990 and 2008 ( Table 2.1-6 ; see Table A2.1-6 for country-level data). It grew much faster in Latin America (69 percent) than in the Caribbean (8 percent).
The dynamics associated with agricultural expansion are diverse, complex, and region-ally varied. Expansion of one form of agriculture (e.g., soybeans) may displace other forms (e.g., cattle ranching), which in turn relocate to the agricultural frontier and displace forests. Such complexity – along with limited land-use data – make it diffi cult to clearly identify and characterize the importance of the specifi c agricultural activities, such as export agriculture, ranching, and biofuels, that drive habitat loss (Chomitz 2007 ).
Table 2.1-5 Area devoted to agricultural crops and pasture, by year and subregion (thousands of
hectares)
Region Cropland Pasture 1990 2000 2008 Percentage growth, 1990–2008 1990 2000 2008 Percentage growth, 1990–2008 LAC 149,975 161,778 169,747 13 533,941 548,543 542,318 2 Latin America 143,112 154,779 162,804 14 529,064 544,103 537,747 2 Caribbean 6,683 6,999 6,943 4 4,877 4,440 4,571 –6 Source: ECLAC 2011 .
That said, signifi cant evidence suggests that much of the observed agricultural expansion is due to large-scale, export-oriented commercial agriculture. In general, LAC agriculture has experienced a shift from basic food crops grown by small- and medium-scale producers and sold domestically, to agro-industrial export crops, such as soy, grown by large commer-cial operations (UNEP 2010b ; IAASTD 2009 ). According to UNEP ( 2010a ), almost half of deforestation in LAC results from expansion of commercial export agriculture. This trend has been especially prominent in northern Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Brazil (UNEP 2010c ). In contrast, areas that recovered woody vegetation from 2001 to 2010 tended to occur in areas too steep or dry for modern agriculture (Aide et al . 2012 ).
Roughly two-thirds of agricultural expansion in tropical Latin America between 1990 and 2000 replaced intact forests (Gibbs et al . 2010 ). There is strong geographic variation in this trend, with shrublands subject to greater conversion in less forested areas. Although soy expansion in southeastern Brazil replaced forest, pasture, and shrubland in roughly equal measures between 2000 and 2004, it was the main crop replacing intact forests (Gibbs et al . 2010 ; Morton et al . 2006 ).
The growth in large-scale, export-oriented agriculture is refl ected in production statistics. From 1990 to 2007, LAC soybean production grew 238 percent and sugar cane production 54 percent ( Table 2.1-7 ; see Table A2.1-7 for country-level data).
Livestock production is also a major driver of habitat conversion in some regions of LAC, particularly in parts of Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, and Bolivia (UN 2010 ). However, regional data paint a mixed picture. From 1990 to 2007, livestock production increased by 66.2 million head, reaching 392.3 million head, mainly in South and Central America (UN 2010 ). More recently, from 2005 to 2010, cattle production in South America has been fairly steady (FAO 2012 ), and the area devoted
Table 2.1-7 LAC soybean and sugar cane production, by year and subregion (thousands of tons) *
Region Soybeans Sugar cane 1990 2000 2007 Percentage growth, 1990–2007 1990 2000 2007 Percentage growth, 1990–2007 LAC 33,699 57,339 113,877 238 492,419 536,026 760,719 54 Latin America 33,699 57,339 113,877 238 382,067 471,686 720,799 88 Caribbean –– –– –– –– 110,352 64,340 39,920 –64 Note
* Not all LAC countries included in regional totals. For details, see country-level data in Appendix 2 .
Source: ECLAC 2011 .
Table 2.1-6 Market value of agricultural output, by year and subregion (millions of 2005 US$) *
Region 1990 2000 2008 Percentage growth, 1990–2008
LAC 91,011 115,728 152,830 68
Latin America 89,572 114,041 151,273 69
Caribbean 1,438 1,687 1,556 8
Note
* Includes fi shing and forestry .
to pasture has declined in the region as a whole and in both subregions since 2000 ( Table 2.1-5 ). These statistics do not capture spatial trends in livestock production within countries, as when livestock production remains constant but is pushed to the agricultural frontier by competing land uses, and therefore may not be a good measure of its effect on habitat conversion.
Biofuel production in Latin America has grown signifi cantly over the past decades. Brazil, Colombia, and Paraguay are the leading producers of ethanol fuel in the region, and Colombia and Argentina have begun to export biodiesel derived from oil palm and soybeans (Janssen and Rutz 2011 ; Grau and Aide 2008 ; IAASTD 2009 ). The biofuel sectors in these countries are substantial. For example, 55 percent of sugar cane production in Brazil is used for ethanol and 35 percent of palm oil in Colombia is exported as biofuel. In 2009 Latin America produced 3.99 million terajoules of solid biofuels and 23 million tons of liquid biofuels (IEA 2012 ). Biofuels themselves may not be a leading driver of habitat loss and degradation, but cropland for feedstocks pushes cattle ranching and other forms of agricul-ture into the agricultural frontier. For example, soy production for biofuels has displaced a signifi cant portion of ranchlands in Brazil (Janssen and Rutz 2011 ).
Logging . Logging for timber and fuelwood is also an important source of deforestation and forest degradation (Chomitz 2007 ; Nepstad et al . 1999 ; TNC 2005 ). The main direct effect on habitat generally is degradation, since logging rarely entails clear cutting. For example, Asner et al . ( 2005 ) found in fi ve Brazilian states that the area degraded by logging was greater than the area clear-cut. Selective logging damages remaining trees, other vegeta-tion, and soils, causing erosion and altering hydrological processes, fi re regimes, carbon storage, and biodiversity (Nepstad et al . 1999 ; Asner et al . 2005 ). Logging also can increase human access and can fi nance the clearing of land for agriculture. Therefore, it can be a factor spurring agricultural extensifi cation (Chomitz 2007 ).
Roads . Roads cause habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation directly (Laurance et al . 2009 ). In addition, they are a major factor spurring clearing for agricultural and illegal log-ging: they lower the costs of these activities and improve access to unclaimed or loosely titled lands (Ibrahim et al . 2010 ; Chomitz 2007 ). Numerous studies have found that location near a road is an important predictor of deforestation (e.g., Kirby et al . 2006 ; Pfaff et al . 2007 ; for a review, see Chomitz 2007 ). Road building generally results from colonization, development projects, and natural resource extraction (TNC 2005 ; Chomitz 2007 ).
Mineral and fossil fuel extraction . Mining and fossil fuel extraction contribute directly to habitat loss via deforestation and road building and by generating pollution that affects water, forests, and soils (see Section 2.1.3.6). In addition to these direct effects, mining and other extractive activities also indirectly degrade habitat by increasing access to new areas, which in turn facilitates the expansion of agriculture and logging. In LAC, mining focuses on copper, coal, nickel, gold, silver, and sand. In the Caribbean, mining income grew from 10 to 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) from 1990 to 2010, and in the rest of LAC it has grown enough to maintain a constant 6 percent share of (growing) regional GDP (ECLAC 2011 ). Foreign investment in mining in LAC increased about 400 percent between 2000 and 2009, with an estimated $10 million invested in the sector annually (UNEP 2010b ). The region has 10 percent of the world’s oil reserves and 14 percent of production (UNEP 2010b ). Brazil, Mexico, and Bolivia are particularly dependent on the production and sale of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel production will probably increase, given that the industry is not well regulated and additional large fossil fuel reserves are likely to be discovered.
Fire . In LAC fi re causes forest loss and, more frequently, forest degradation (Nepstad et al . 1999 ). One cause of fi res is accidental ignition, which tends to be particularly severe in
El Niño years (Cochrane 2003 ). But fi re also is often used to clear land for agriculture and provide additional agricultural benefi ts, such as fertilization. Intentional fi res, which can spread beyond their intended area, drive forest loss and degradation in remnant habitat patches and natural forest adjacent to agriculture, particularly in Central America (Chomitz 2007 ; TNC 2005 ). In LAC the extent and frequency of human-induced fi re far exceeds his-toric rates, although rates vary by system and region (ICSU-LAC 2010 ). Between 2000 and 2004, about 3.3 million hectares of forest was lost to forest fi res, especially in dry and semi-dry tropical forest ecosystems (UN 2010 ). Although fi re is a natural part of some systems, including the grasslands and savannahs of Venezuela and Colombia, fi re frequency in these systems has also increased because of humans (ICSU-LAC 2010 ).
FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS
By changing water quantity, fl ows, and temperatures and reducing connectivity, dams and channelization inhibit the functioning of freshwater systems, thereby degrading freshwater biodiversity and the human activities that depend on it (Craig 2000 ; Bunn and Arthington 2002 ; Strayer and Dudgeon 2010 ; Pereira et al . 2012 ). For example, dams in the Araguaia-Tocantins River basin of Brazil have blocked migration routes, reducing fi sh population in downstream areas by up to 70 percent (Craig 2000 ). Natural system modifi cations, including dams, water management, and water use, are cited as the primary threats to 18 percent of freshwater species ranked as vulnerable to extinct in the IUCN Red List ( Table 2.1-4 ).
Among natural freshwater ecosystems modifi cations, hydropower is probably the major driver of habitat loss and degradation. In South America, hydropower has grown rapidly in recent years as energy demands have increased. In the region as a whole, 60 percent of elec-tricity produced is from hydro (Ray 2010 ).
Water extraction and modifi cation of surrounding terrestrial habitats also reduce freshwa-ter biodiversity by causing wetland loss and affecting fl ows, wafreshwa-ter temperature, and wafreshwa-ter quality (Pereira et al . 2012 ). Because of the differences in water use and availability, the consequences of water extraction vary regionally. In LAC, surface water abstraction stress, defi ned as the ratio of water use (i.e., surface water withdrawn for domestic, crop, and live-stock use) to water availability (measured as discharge by subbasin), is greatest in parts of Mexico, along the Pacifi c coast of South America, and in the Caribbean ( Plate 2.1-4 ).
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO HABITAT LOSS
Certain underlying factors strengthen the drivers of habitat loss discussed above.
• Population growth . Between 1950 and 2010, human population in LAC grew by more than 250 percent (ECLAC 2011 ). This rapid growth, along with comparable growth in other parts of the world, has increased demand for food, forest products, land, minerals, and energy, in turn spurring agriculture, logging, mining, oil drilling, and other activi-ties that drive deforestation and habitat loss and degradation.
• Economic growth . GDP for LAC grew 87 percent between 1990 and 2010, and GDP per capita grew by 40 percent (ECLAC 2011 ). Again, this rapid growth, along with concur-rent growth in other parts of the world, has increased demand for food, forest products, land, minerals, and energy, strengthening various drivers of habitat loss. It also has changed food consumption patterns. Demand for meat and milk products are increasing as the middle class grows (Delgado 2003 ; Ibrahim et al . 2010 ).