OTROS TIPOS DE GARANTÍA

As discussed in Chapter 1 , one objective of this book is to recommend fi ve “lines of action” for conserving biodiversity in LAC. That is a challenging task. As we have seen, LAC is exceptionally diverse in terms of ecosystems, politics, culture, and economics. A wide array of site-specifi c factors determine what policies are most appropriate in any given place, and some policies may be effective in some places but not in others.

Two caveats follow from those observations. First, our recommendations must necessar- ily be somewhat broad-brush and general. We have attempted to make them specifi c enough to be useful without being so specifi c that they do not apply broadly. Second, brief mention or even omission of a policy from our list does not necessarily imply that the idea is not worth pursuing in some instances.

In general, based on the evidence and analysis in Chapters 2 and 3 , we have prioritized policies meeting at least one – and in many cases several – of the following criteria:

• the policy specifi cally addresses a pressing threat; and/or

• has been proven effective, and ideally cost-effective, in at least some situations; and/or • leverages past investments in conservation; and/or

• helps address pervasive institutional obstacles to effective conservation.

Table 4.1 indicates which criteria were paramount in selecting each line of action. We fur- ther explain our reasons for selecting each line of action in the subsections that follow.

Each of the next fi ve subsections describes a line of action. The last subsection explains why we have not placed more emphasis on several of the policies discussed in Chapter 3 , namely eco-certifi cation, ecotourism, bioprospecting, and CSR programs.

Each of the subsections describes a line of action, in three parts. The fi rst explains our reasons for selecting the line of action, and the second gives specifi c recommendations. In parentheses, we refer readers to earlier sections of the book that provide evidence supporting the rationale and recommendations. The third part briefl y describes how the overall line of action – and each component intervention – is expected to affect biodiversity and suggests indicators to measure those effects.

A few explanatory remarks about the indicators are in order. We propose indicators of the effectiveness both of the broad line of action and of the specifi c recommendations. In some cases, the same indicator applies to both. For each recommendation, indicators are listed in order of coarse to fi ne. For expositional clarity, we describe each indicator as a level at a given point in time. However, we are really interested in changes in these levels, which would obviously require repeated measurement at different points in time. For example, to measure the effectiveness of our recommendation to promote green agricultural practices,

we propose measuring tons of chemical fertilizer used in a given year, but repeated measure- ments are required to track changes in fertilizer use over time. We specify the units for each indicator in brackets.

4.1 Green agriculture 4.1.1 Rationale

This line of action addresses a pressing threat to LAC biodiversity ( Table 4.1 ). Reducing the adverse effects of agriculture on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LAC is critically important for three reasons:

1 Agriculture is the most important driver of terrestrial biodiversity loss in LAC. To be precise, it is the top driver of terrestrial habitat loss and degradation, which in turn is the preeminent threat to terrestrial biodiversity. Agriculture destroys and degrades terrestrial habitat through two broad channels: extensifi cation in frontier areas and mosaic lands, largely through expansion of export-oriented agroindustry; and intensi- fi cation characterized by heavy use of water, soils, agrochemicals, and GMOs (Sections 3.2, 3.13).

2 Most of the imminently threatened terrestrial species in LAC live in mosaic lands used for agriculture, not in remote contiguous landscapes (Section 3.2).

3 Pollution, forest clearing, and forest degradation linked to agricultural extensifi cation and intensifi cation in LAC also destroy and degrade freshwater and marine biodiversity and ecosystem services (Sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.5).

4.1.2 Recommendations

Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in LAC can be advanced by stemming agricultural extensifi cation and mitigating the adverse effects of agricultural intensifi cation. We refer to these two broad activities as greening agriculture. The following actions would spur it:

Table 4.1 Principal criteria met by each line of action

Criterion (1) Promotes green agriculture (2) Strengthens terrestrial protected areas and comanagement (3) Improves environmental governance (4) Strengthens coastal and marine resource management (5) Improves biodiversity data and policy evaluation Addresses pressing threat 9 9 9

Has been proven effective 9 Leverages past investments 9 Addresses pervasive obstacles to conservation 9 9

• Reform agricultural subsidies . Subsidies for agricultural outputs (crop price sup- ports) and inputs, including irrigation water, agrochemicals, land, and infrastructure, create economic incentives for agricultural extensifi cation and environmentally unfriendly activities associated with agricultural intensifi cation. Reducing or elimi- nating subsidies, therefore, can mitigate these adverse effects. Political challenges of subsidy reform sometimes can be addressed by decoupling subsidies – that is, return- ing their value to producers as lump sums unconnected to specifi c goods or activities (Sections 3.7, 3.15).

• Strengthen land-use planning . In principle, land-use planning (in addition to protected areas and comanagement, discussed below) can stem both agricultural extensifi cation and certain types of particularly worrisome intensifi cation. However, in LAC it is often undermined by failure to prioritize environmental goals among other aims (e.g., extend- ing infrastructure and reducing disaster risks) and by weak implementation, monitor- ing, and enforcement. It can be strengthened by fi lling gaps and addressing inconsistencies in written regulations for land-use planning, explicitly incorporating environmental goals into planning regulations, building capacity in appropriate institu- tions, helping to enhance coordination of the myriad governmental institutions typi- cally involved in land-use planning, and promoting experiments with habitat offsets (Sections 3.3, 3.6, 3.12).

• Promote green agricultural practices . A wide variety of green agricultural practices can help mitigate environmentally harmful effects of intensive agriculture in LAC, includ- ing natural fertilizers, pest and weed management, vegetative barriers, hedgerows, ground cover, terracing, agroforestry, silvopastoral systems, and more precise applica- tion of agrochemicals. Strategies to speed dissemination of such practices include conducting training and information initiatives and reforming subsidies that create dis- incentives for their use. Promoting research and development – for example, through the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research centers – can also encourage green technological change (Sections 3.7, 3.8, 3.13).

• Improve payments for ecological services (PES) initiatives . PES can help stem agricul- tural extensifi cation and create economic incentives to use green agricultural practices, particularly in agricultural mosaic lands where biodiversity is most threatened and pri- vate ownership is more likely. LAC leads the world in PES implementation, yet consid- erable evidence indicates that many PES initiatives lack design and implementation elements widely considered prerequisites for effectiveness, such as strictly enforced conditionality and targeting for ecosystem service provision and additionality. This is particularly true of the large-scale national programs in Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Mexico that, arguably, could have the biggest impact on biodiversity. Hence, green agriculture can be advanced by initiatives aimed at improving PES design and imple- mentation both for existing PES programs, especially large ones, and for planned programs.

4.1.3 Expected benefi ts and indicators

OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS

In general, we expect this line of action to help conserve biodiversity by reducing agricul- tural extensifi cation and mitigating the effects of agricultural intensifi cation, which in turn

would stem habitat loss and degradation. The overall effect of the line of action through agricultural extensifi cation could be measured by changes in

• agricultural land area [ha]; and

• natural habitat land area, by habitat type (forest, grassland, desert, wetland, etc.) [ha]. The overall effect of the line of action through mitigating effects of agricultural intensifi ca- tion could be measured by changes in

• agrochemical use (both total use and intensity) [tons, tons/ha], including fertilizers and pesticides;

• species richness in agricultural landscapes [no. species/ha];

• surface water quality [biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids]; • soil erosion, including

– soil area [m 2 _]

– soil depth [m] – soil volume [m 3 _{]; and}

• the percentage of crops that are traditional varieties [%].

REFORM AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES

Reforming agricultural subsidies can help conserve biodiversity by dampening economic incentives for agricultural extensifi cation and intensifi cation, which destroy and degrade habitat. The effectiveness of efforts to reform agricultural subsidies can be measured by changes in

• the nominal rate of assistance in the agricultural sector (government subsidy as a per- centage of gross value of agricultural production) [%];

• gross agricultural subsidies [$];

• the nominal rate of assistance in the agricultural sector counting only subsidies that spur environmental and natural resource degradation [%]; and

• gross agricultural subsidy, counting only subsidies that specifi cally spur environmental and natural resource degradation [$].

STRENGTHEN LAND-USE PLANNING

Strengthening land-use planning can help conserve biodiversity by stemming agricultural extensifi cation, which destroys and degrades habitat. Simple quantitative indicators of the strength of land-use planning are diffi cult to identify. Therefore, we propose

• national-level qualitative expert assessment of changes in

– the extent to which legal and regulatory framework for land-use planning is clear, complete, and internally consistent [qualitative];

– the extent to which a feasible mechanism for coordinating land-use planning activities across various institutions exists [qualitative];

– existence of actual land-use plans [qualitative];

– emphasis on environmental goals – specifi cally, stemming habitat loss and fragmenta- tion – in land-use plans [qualitative]; and

PROMOTE GREEN AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES

Promoting green agricultural practices can help conserve biodiversity by mitigating the harms of agricultural intensifi cation, which destroys and degrades habitat. The effectiveness of efforts to promote green agricultural practices can be measured by

• the percentage of farms or farmland using selected environmentally friendly agricultural practices, including [%]:

– natural fertilizer

– natural pest and weed control – vegetative barriers

– ground cover – terracing

– deviation canals and infi ltration holes – agroforestry

– silvopastoral systems; and

• agrochemical use (both total use and intensity), including fertilizers and pesticides [tons and tons/ha].

IMPROVE PAYMENTS FOR ECOLOGICAL SERVICES (PES) INITIATIVES

Improving PES initiatives can help conserve biodiversity by stemming agricultural extensi- fi cation and mitigating the harms of agricultural intensifi cation, both of which destroy and degrade habitat. The effectiveness of efforts to improve PES can be measured by

• program-level qualitative expert assessments of changes in PES program design and implementation aimed at enhancing targeting for additionality and ecosystem services provision, and enforcement of conditionality [qualitative]; and

• rigorous statistical analyses of PES effects on land-cover change using remote sensing data to measure land-cover change and statistical techniques to control for nonrandom siting (as described in Blackman 2013 ).

4.2 Strengthen terrestrial protected areas and comanagement 4.2.1 Rationale

This line of action addresses a pressing threat to LAC biodiversity, entails a mechanism (protected areas) that has been proven effective in some circumstances, and leverages past investments in conservation ( Table 4.1 ). More specifi cally:

• PAs and comanagement have the potential to stem habitat loss, which is the preeminent threat to terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity (Section 2.1).

• Over the past 20 years, hundreds of new terrestrial PAs have been established in LAC such that today, one-fi fth of the region’s land is protected, the highest share in the world (Section 3.1).

• Although some PAs are effective at conserving biodiversity and protecting ecosystem services, a large proportion are not particularly effective because they are fragmented, poorly managed, and underfunded (Section 3.1).

• Corridors among biodiversity habitats, including those in PAs, will serve as an impor- tant means of promoting adaptation to climate change (Section 3.1).

• Forest comanagement, including indigenous territories, extractive reserves, and com- munity-managed concessions, has proliferated rapidly in LAC during the past 20 years. Today, it covers 22 percent of LAC forests (Section 3.2).

• Very little rigorous evidence indicates that forest comanagement is generally effective. Rather, its effectiveness depends critically on site-specifi c factors.

4.2.2 Recommendations

The following actions would strengthen terrestrial PAs and forest comanagement:

• Build domestic capacity to sustainably fi nance existing PAs . According to a recent study, current allocations to LAC PAs, which amount to just over $1 per hectare per year, cover only about half of what is needed for minimally effective management, including developing management plans and having basic monitoring and enforcement. Planning, human capacity, and institutions are needed to build domestic capacity to sustainably fi nance existing PAs (Section 3.1).

• Consolidate and establish more corridors among existing PAs . Many LAC PAs are too small and fragmented to effectively stem the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem ser- vices. Large and/or uninterrupted areas, which help block access and discourage extraction, are required for some species and natural processes, and help facilitate climate adaptation. Hence, consolidating and establishing corridors among existing PAs – both within and between countries – can improve their effectiveness (Section 3.1).

• Selectively expand PA networks . Despite overall high levels of protection in LAC, many LAC areas fall far short of the widely accepted global goal of protecting 10 percent of all national territory and 10 percent of all biomes (Section 3.1). Expansion should take into account anticipated climate change.

• Provide additional support for improved comanagement . Local communities often do not have the requisite experience and resources to effectively and sustainably manage forests. Infrastructure, subsidies, technical assistance, and research can help meet this need (Section 3.2).

4.2.3 Expected benefi ts and indicators

OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS

In general, we expect this line of action to help conserve biodiversity by stemming habitat loss and degradation. The overall effect of the line of action through agricultural extensifi ca- tion could be measured by

• rigorous assessment of the effect of PAs and comanagement on forest cover using remote sensing data to measure land-cover change and statistical techniques to control for non- random siting (as per Blackman 2013 ).

BUILD DOMESTIC CAPACITY TO SUSTAINABLY FINANCE EXISTING PAS

Building domestic capacity for sustainably fi nancing existing PAs can help conserve biodi- versity by increasing their effectiveness in stemming habitat loss and degradation. The suc- cess of efforts to build this capacity can be measured by

• changes in funding per hectare of protected area [$/ha];

• the existence of a dedicated permanent budget for PAs (e.g., line item in annual budget) [0/1]; and

• expert assessment [qualitative].

CONSOLIDATE AND ESTABLISH MORE CORRIDORS AMONG EXISTING PAS

Consolidating and establishing more corridors among existing PAs can help conserve bio- diversity by blocking human access and thereby stemming the destruction and degradation of habitat, and it can improve habitat by facilitating natural processes and behaviors such as migration as well as climate adaptation. The effectiveness of efforts to implement this rec- ommendation can be measured by:

• changes in fragmentation [edge/area ratio];

• changes in connectivity [total area of connected PAs/total area]; and

• expert assessment of connectivity, taking into account the ecological value and effec- tiveness of corridors [qualitative].

SELECTIVELY EXPAND PA NETWORKS

Expanding PAs can help conserve biodiversity by stemming habitat loss and degradation. Expansion can be measured by changes in

• the percentage of national territory under protection [%]; and • the percentage of each of a country’s major biomes protected [%].

PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR IMPROVED COMANAGEMENT

Improved comanagement can help conserve biodiversity by stemming habitat loss and deg- radation. Provision of additional support for improved comanagement can be measured by changes in

• funding for comanagement per hectare [$/ha];

• the number of programs per hectare aimed at supporting comanagement [no./ha]; and • the number of comanagement extension agents per hectare [no./ha].

4.3 Improve environmental governance 4.3.1 Rationale

This line of action addresses pervasive institutional obstacles to effective conservation in LAC ( Table 4.1 ). Environmental governance refers to the exercise of economic, political, and administrative authority by state institutions to manage the environment and natural resources. Improved environmental governance is needed in LAC for the following reasons:

• Implementation – including monitoring and enforcement – of environmental regula- tions and policies in LAC is weak. Most LAC countries have basic (if not fully fl eshed out and internally consistent) environmental laws, regulations, and policies, but fail to

fully or consistently implement them. Implementation is critically important both to state-led conservation policies, such as PAs and land-use planning, and to incentive- based policies like bioprospecting and PES. Closely related drivers of weak implemen- tation include a lack of political will and inadequate human, technical, and fi nancial resources (Section 3.6).

• Government economic development and other policies in agriculture, fi shing, transpor- tation, tourism, and urban development have enormous consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Yet in most cases, decision making linked to these policies does not adequately take into consideration potential effects on the environment in gen- eral and on biodiversity and ecosystem services more specifi cally (Sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7).

4.3.2 Recommendations

The following actions would strengthen environmental governance in LAC:

• Build human capital . Knowledge about, and expertise in biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services is lacking in many LAC state institutions, particularly those not directly engaged in environmental management. Building such knowledge and exper- tise can enhance both the ability and the willingness of government institutions to pro- tect the environment. Information campaigns, targeted training, revised academic curricula, and new requirements for hiring, promotion, and professional certifi cation can further this goal (Section 3.6).

• Mainstream biodiversity . Mainstreaming biodiversity refers to incorporating biodiver- sity considerations into governance in state institutions–both those focused on environ- mental management and those not focused on it–that have environmental effects. Mainstreaming can be promoted by enhancing coordination between environmental management and economic development institutions (often sorely lacking), creating units in economic development institutions devoted to environmental management, strengthening requirements for environmental impact assessments, and building human capital through the means listed above (Section 3.6).

• Promote national environmental accounting . Environmental national accounting entails systematically collecting and disseminating data on environmental quality and natural resources and (ideally) incorporating them into national income measures. Although evidence of the benefi t is lacking – partly because the practice is nascent in LAC – in principle, environmental accounting creates incentives to improve environ- mental governance by enhancing transparency, accountability, and data availability (Section 3.13).

4.3.3 Expected benefi ts and indicators

OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS

In general, we expect this line of action to help conserve biodiversity by improving the effec- tiveness of a wide range of state-led conservation policies, including protected areas, com- mand-and-control fi sheries and forest regulations, and PES, that in turn address a wide range of threats to biodiversity, including habitat loss, pollution, and overexploitation. The overall effect of the line of action could be measured by

• a national-level overall index of environmental management effectiveness, including the indexes being developed by IDB [index]; and

• indicators collected for national environmental accounting [various].

BUILD HUMAN CAPITAL

Building human capital in the manner described above can help conserve biodiversity by enhancing expertise in biodiversity conservation within government and raising awareness of biodiversity issues in civil society, which in turn improves stakeholders’ ability and will- ingness to undertake and implement a wide range of conservation policies. Enhanced exper- tise in government institutions can be measured by changes in

• the percentage of staff with specialized training (degrees, certifi cates) in conservation- and environment-related fi elds, by level of position, and by institutional focus of environ- mental management, transportation, agriculture, tourism, fi sheries, and fi nance ministries [%].

Enhanced awareness in civil society can be measured by

• conservation and environmental management requirements in curricula at primary and secondary educational levels and postsecondary certifi cate and degree programs [0/1]; • changes in government budget allocations for conservation and environmental manage-