THE IMPORTANCE OF BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND EQUITY IN COSTA RICA
NATIONAL ECONOMIST REPORT
Jaime Echeverria, MSc
San Jos, Costa Rica February 2010
2
Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................5 1.1 CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................................. 7 1.3 BIODIVERSITY IN COSTA RICA .................................................................................................... 7 2 SECTOR ANALYSIS: THE IMPACT OF BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AND EQUITY .........................................................................................8 2.1 TOURISMS IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY AND POVERTY ................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Income / foreign exchange revenues .......................................................................... 9 2.1.2 Tax Revenues ............................................................................................................ 10 2.1.3 Jobs and Poverty Reduction ...................................................................................... 12 2.1.4 W ......................................................................... 13 2.2 BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION ..................................................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Conservation of public protected areas .................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Economic Contribution of the National Parks and Biological Reserves to Costa Rica 20 2.2.3 The use of biodiversity in the development of pharmaceutical and agricultural products ................................................................................................................................. 22 2.3 AGRICULTURAL SECTOR ......................................................................................................... 26 3 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS AND THEIR IMPACT .... 29 3.1 ECOLOGICALLY ADJUSTED WATER USE FEE ................................................................................. 29 3.2 WASTEWATER DISCHARGE FEE ............................................................................................... 30 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PAYMENT PROGRAM ....................................................................... 31 3.4 DEBT FOR NATURE SWAPS ..................................................................................................... 33 4 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 35 5 REFERENCES AND LITERATURE REVIEWED ...................................................................... 37 6 ANNEX 1. SECTORS PROPOSAL ....................................................................................... 39
List of Tables Table 1. Sustainable Environmental Management vs Business as Usual ........... 6 Table 2. Costa Rica: Foreign exchange income from tourism and tourism related to exports. 1999-2008 (millions of U.S. dollars) ........................................... 10 Table 3. Costa Rica: Budgeted and actual revenues from the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT). 2005 -2008. $ Million. ............................................. 11 Table 4. Costa Rica: Measuring poverty among employees (individual income from a main job) .......................................................................................... 13 3
Table 5. Costa Rica: National Conservation Areas System Comparative income 2004-2006 ($ millions) ................................................................................. 17 Table 6 Costa Rica: the Economic Impact of National Parks and Biological Reserves Estimation. ($ millions for 2002). ................................................. 20 Table 7 INBio bioprospecting projects-inactive .................................................. 24 Table 8. Costa Rica: INBio budget for 2002. ..................................................... 25 Table 9. Costa Rica: farm and livestock products exports. 2004-2008. (in thousands of US$). ...................................................................................... 27 Table 12 Costa Rica: Output from main agricultural crops. In metric tons. 2004- 2008 ............................................................................................................ 28 Table 14. Costa Rica: Water use fee ($/m3) according to water use ................. 29 Table 15. Costa Rica: Estimated revenues for discharge fees in $ dollars ........ 31 Table 16. Costa Rica: Amounts paid per hectare and per tree for PES by modality for a five-year contract, 2009. (U.S. dollars) .................................. 32
List of Figures Figure 1. Costa Rica: percentage distribution of tourist arrivals ........................... 9 Figure 2 Costa Rica: International tourist arrivals from 1999 to 2008 ................... 9 Figure 3 Costa Rica: Foreign exchange earnings from tourism .......................... 10 Figure 4 Costa Rica: Estimated income from tourist's air departing tax. n U.S. dollars......................................................................................................... 12 Figure 5 Costa Rica: Conservation Areas and Biological Corridors.................... 14 Figure 6 Costa Rica: National System of Conservation Areas. Generated Revenue. National Park Fund-($ millions) ................................................... 17 Figure 7. Costa Rica: Forest Fund / National Conservation Areas System. Share of Revenue Generated by source. ............................................................... 19 Figure 8. Costa Rica. Value added of different sectors ($ millions) .................... 26 4
Figure 9 Costa Rica: Projection of the amount collected as fees for water use, according to expected demand. -Millions of dollars ..................................... 30 Figure 10. Costa Rica: FONAFIFO budgetary allocation for payment of CAF and PSA by source of funding, 2000 - 2008-Thousands of dollars ..................... 32 Figure 11. Costa Rica: Distribution and number of hectares under for Environmental Services Payment, by year and type, 2000 2008 ............. 33
5
1 Introduction The importance of biodiversity often goes unnoticed by those making decisions that affect the economy. Since most of these benefits are of a public nature, dispersed in space and not traded in markets, it is often difficult to quantify their importance. However, the fact is that the global economy depends upon the planet's biological resources and the health of the systems that support it. In some sectors of the economy this is more evident. For example, fishing is a global industry that depends almost entirely on a biological resource that reproduces itself, but that at the same time depends on the ecosystem's balance. And though the interest of the industry is on a single species, such as for example tuna fish, its existence depends upon the health of the ecosystem as a whole. In the case of tourism, or more specifically, ecotourism, this relationship is quite clear in the case of Costa Rica: hundreds of thousands of tourist's arrive each year interested in exploring the biodiversity contained in the protected areas system, including National Parks, Biological Reserves and other categories. Even so, usually the contributions that biodiversity represents to the country's economy are usually overlooked by those who make decisions and draw public policy. Usually the country's protected areas are subject to budget cuts, or at best, a freeze on spending levels. This occurs despite of the importance of the services obtained from these areas. This study provides useful information to demonstrate the great importance of biological diversity for the country's economy using several sectors as examples. Aspects related to revenue generation for the economy in tourism, water use and protected areas, are presented to illustrate the economic relations that depend on biodiversity. The point being made throughout the document is that in these sectors, Costa Rica, has been using a sustainable environmental management approach towards biodiversity, not business-as-usual. For example, it is the only country in Central America that directs revenues from an eco-tax on petrol and water-use- fees towards the protection and conservation of forests on private and public land. The case of water-use fees is a good example. In most of Central America, business as usual means not even paying a volumetric fee for water. The information provided here should be useful to make a comparison across countries, using these sectors as indicators and Costa Rica as an example of how a sustainable environmental management approach works; at least, in some sectors of the economy. (See next table) 6
Table 1. Sustainable Environmental Management vs Business as Usual Sector/Issue BAU SEM (Costa Rica Example) National Parks Sparse independent units. Poor financing. Little research. Unsecure land tenure.
Cohesive and integrated system of protected areas. Good research facilities Partnerships with Universities and other research centers.
Secure land tenure. Payment for environmental Services Isolated and very limited local schemes Lack of legal framework Problems assigning and collecting resources.
National system, based on a law, Secure sources of revenue. Extensive know-how Private sector support and engagement Water Limited, or lack of, legislation Use fees do not cover the management cost Resistance to metering Users are not registered Extensive legislation that considers a use-fee on a volumetric basis, for the different types of water use. Integrated Water Management Costs are included in water use fees. Metering is common and most users are registered. 1.1 Context As part of the Regional Program for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) 2008-2011, UNDP adopted a regional initiative in order to inform policy-makers in the region about the need to incorporate biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES) in local strategies, considering the role they could play in meeting development and equity the objectives. To support this initiative, UNDP, in collaboration with UNEP, ECLAC and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), has initiated a dialogue with political and economic leaders and Latin American and the Caribbean environmental experts to prepare a report that presents convincing arguments about the need to invest to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem services. 7
1.2 Objective The terms of reference indicate that the objective of this document includes: "... A review of relevant data and evidence from the existing literature as well as projects and case studies in Costa Rica, which may allow the construction of convincing arguments to make decision makers reconsider their investment decisions and ensure the transition from a business as usual (BAU) approach to natural resources management, to a sustainable environmental management (SEM) approach." 1.3 Biodiversity in Costa Rica Costa Rica is located in Central America, between Nicaragua and Panama. It comprises a land area of 51,100 km2 and a marine component of 568,000 km2. Several mountain ranges cross the country from side to side, providing a huge variety of climates and microclimates. Significant differences in conditions between the Caribbean and the Pacific make this country rich in biodiversity. Costa Rica is ranked among the richest countries in biodiversity per unit of area in the world and shares about 80% of its biological wealth with other Central American countries (SINAC, 2009). Furthermore, it has 3,5% of the world's reported marine species, including invertebrates and microorganisms. Regarding vertebrates and plants, the number of described species is approximately 95%, and 100% for freshwater fish according to SNAC (2009). Based on the Holdridge's Life Zone System (bioclimatic units) Costa Rica has 12 life zones and 12 transition areas, its basal tropical forests and the premontane are the largest, representing a 44.8% and 43,34%, respectively. Costa Rica has 4.5 million inhabitants (INEC, 2010), of which about 80,000 belong to the indigenous population. They are located mostly in 24 indigenous territories in Talamanca, that represent 7% of the national territory (about 400,000 ha), near the buffer zone of the country's largest protected area, La Amistad International Park (PILA). According to the National Biodiversity Report, Costa Rica has made significant progress towards achieving the 2010 CBD goals. The national system of protected areas, along with programs such as payment for environmental services and sustainable tourism certification are contributing to this end. However, there are still challenges such as the coordination of different efforts. 8
2 Sector analysis: The impact of biodiversity and ecosystem services on economic growth and equity 2.1 Tourism's impact on the economy and poverty According to ECLAC (2007), tourism is an economic activity that contributes to the growth and development of economies, and has a high potential for poverty reduction. The "Tourism Enriches" campaign implemented by the World Tourism Organization (WTO, emphasizes that this activity generates substantial economic benefits. International tourism is the mayor world export sector, and an important factor in reducing the trade deficit in for many countries. It generates employment for millions of people around the world, opportunities in rural areas and encourages the establishment of tourism enterprises in the less developed regions. It also increases investment in infrastructure, government's revenues through tourism taxes, and environmental conservation through the visitation to national parks, historical monuments and archaeological sites. Tourism can promote development and alleviate poverty as the WTO highlighted in its 2002 campaign called "Sustainable Tourism - Eliminating Poverty" (http:/ / www.unwto.org / sdt / index.php). Costa Rica is the country that captures the largest amount of tourists in Central America, 25% of the total. Figure 1 shows the origin of tourist arrivals to the country. The average spending by international tourists visiting the country was estimated at between $ 800 and $ 1,000 per visitor in 2004. The main reason to visit the country is tourism and recreation, followed by business purposes (ECLAC, 2007). Those who visit the country for recreation represent 60% and visit at least two national parks (Arias, 2010). Tourism generates about 110,000 direct jobs in the country, representing approximately 9% of total jobs generated by the private companies in Costa Rica. If the recent growing pace of tourism is kept, by 2015 the tourism sector could become the largest employer in Costa Rica. Another important fact is that 56% of these jobs are generated in rural areas, mostly in Guanacaste, the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. 9
Figure 1. Costa Rica: percentage distribution of tourist arrivals
Source: Costa Rican Tourism Institute, 2009. 2.1.1 Income / foreign exchange revenues Tourism is a major source of foreign exchange for Costa Rica. Since 1999, the arrival of international tourist has doubled from 1 million to over 2 million in 2008, mainly from North America, Central America and Europe, as shown in Figure 2. The 2 million tourists that entered the country in 2008, generated income of U.S. $ 2,144 million (Table 2), equivalent to 22.6% of total exports' earnings (Costa Rican Tourist Institute, 2009). Figure 2 Costa Rica: International tourist arrivals from 1999 to 2008
Source: Costa Rican Tourist Institute, 2009. 46.744% 31.045% 13.851% 5.462% 2.898% AMRICA DEL NORTE AMRICA CENTRAL EUROPA AMRICA DEL SUR OTRAS ZONAS* 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 N u m b e r
o f
t o u r i s t s 10
Table 2. Costa Rica: Foreign exchange income from tourism and tourism related to exports. 1999-2008 (millions of U.S. dollars) Year Total Exports Income from Tourism* Ratio: Tourism/Exports 1999 6.662,1 1.036,1 15,6 2000 5.848,7 1.229,2 21,0 2001 5.021,0 1.095,5 21,8 2002 5.263,5 1.078,0 20,5 2003 6.101,2 1.199,4 19,7 2004 6.301,7 1.358,5 21,6 2005 7.027,2 1.570,1 22,3 2006 8.199,8 1.620,9 19,8 2007 9.337,0 1.927,4 20,6 2008 9.503,7 2.144,2 22,6 */ These figures do not include cruise information. Source: Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT), 2009. Figure 3 Costa Rica: Foreign exchange earnings from tourism
Source: Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT), 2009. 2.1.2 Tax Revenues The Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT) is the institution in charge of promoting integrated tourism development in Costa Rica. Expected revenues for 2008 were a total of $ 33.3 million. However, real revenues were almost $50 million. (see Table 3). Currently tax revenues are the largest funding source for ICT, generating 47% of total revenues each year. These taxes include a: 00 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Divisas (millones $) Ao 11
3% tax on lodging ($ 9.93 million in 2007). (Law N 2706, Art. 7). 5% on international airfares ($9.73 million in 2007). It applies to tickets sold in Costa Rica for any kind of international travel. Revenues belong to ICT and are used to fulfill its duties (Law 1917, art. 46). Non-tax revenues came primarily from securities' investments and rents from land and buildings. Surplus revenues have shown significant growth between 2005 and 2007, from $ 9.17 million to $ 14.9 million; these are invested in government securities (Legislative Assembly, 2008). Table 3. Costa Rica: Budgeted and actual revenues from the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT). 2005 -2008. $ Million.
Source: (Legislative Assembly, 2008) * Approved Budget for ICT to 21 August 2008. ** Actual revenue. Additionally, there is another tourism-related tax. The "airport tax generates more than US$50 million per year from international tourists. It has steadily increased, in parallel to visitation, from $43.6 million in 2005 to $54.3 million in 2008. Each tourist pays $ 26.00 and must be paid by all who leave by air (Law No. 8316). $12.15 goes to the Central Government and $13.85 to the Civil Aviation Technical Council (CTAC), and both are used to finance general expenditures (Legislative Assembly, 2008). 12
Figure 4 Costa Rica: Estimated income from tourist's air departing tax. n U.S. dollars
Source: based on ICT data for international tourists departing Costa Rica. In summary, the three existing taxes directly related to tourism generated an estimated $ 76.5 million in 2008. Recently, the Law for Strengthening the Development of the Tourism Industry created two new taxes. A $15.00 tax is assigned to the promotion, trade, planning and the sustainable development of the country as a tourist destination. This specific assignation is wider than the tax it eliminated, for it allows major flexibility in the use of these resources. This new tax will generate an estimated average per year of $500 thousand. A 5% tax on tickets sold outside the country, and that have Costa Rica as departure point, created to complement to the already existing 5% tax that is applied to all air tickets sold in Costa Rica. It is expected to generate some $7.48 million. Since the approval of this Law, the 3% tax on lodging was eliminated with the derogation of the Law N 2706, which was part of the tax basis on which the sales tax is applied, therefore, the collection of the sales tax is reduced on lodging services. 2.1.3 Jobs and Poverty Reduction It is also important to consider that there are other activities that depend upon tourism for development, such as agriculture, transportation, construction and commercial activities. According to the World Tourism Organization (WTO) tourism indirectly produces 4 indirect jobs for each direct job. This means that around 550,000 people in Costa Rica depend directly or indirectly on tourism (Rodriguez, August 2005). When it comes to education levels, the preparation of tourism workers largely reflects the education characteristics of each country. Costa Rica has a staff with 13
higher education levels than the other countries in the region and this is also reflected in the tourism sector. In Costa Rica, 45% of the employees of the tourist sector have had at least primary school; 54% have high school or university diplomas. These values are similar for the other sectors of the economy (CEPAL, 2007). According to CEPAL (2007), the poverty incidence among employees in Costa Rica is 7.1%. However, it is only 3.6% for the tourism sector. Other variables such as the depth and severity of poverty behave in the same way. (see Table 4). Table 4. Costa Rica: Measuring poverty among employees (individual income from a main job) Sector Incidence Depth Severity Tourism 0,036 0,013 0,006 All sectors 0,071 0,030 0,016 Source: (CEPAL), 2007 2.1.4 Protected Areas impact on tourism All of the above has relevance for biodiversity because a significant part of the tourism industry strictly depends upon the national system of protected areas. According to Monestel DeShazo and Luis Vega (1999) of Harvard University studied the protected areas role in the development of foreign and domestic tourism in Costa Rica, but found little evidence in quantitative terms. They found however that: Foreigners visit 4.5 public places during their stay of 16 days in the country. Foreigners invest between 50% and 70% of their visiting time in protected areas and their surroundings. The national tourist makes 4.8 trips per year to visit 9.9 sites. Domestic and foreign tourists with higher incomes spend a higher proportion of their time visiting protected areas. A 30% reduction from 1995 to 1997 in the government's budget for maintenance and infrastructure investment of protected areas, might affect the increase of foreign and domestic tourism in the mid term: 14
DeShazo and Vega (1999) conclude, that from any point of view, public protected areas are and will be one of the main engines of growth for the tourism sector in Costa Rica. In Section 2.2.2 a broader analysis of the economic impact of protected areas is presented. 2.2 Biodiversity Protection 2.2.1 Conservation of public protected areas Costa Rica is usually considered a worldwide leader in the development of market mechanisms for environmental management. However, barriers have been identified that prevent the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), established in 1995 (Figure 5), from fully implementing its national biodiversity strategies. For this reason, SINAC and UNDP are implementing a GEF-financed project entitled "Overcoming Barriers for the Sustainability of Protected Areas in Costa Rica with the objective of generating the capacities needed to ensure that the system achieves its goals, generating local and global benefits (for more details see http://www.sinac.go.cr/proyectobig.php). Figure 5 Costa Rica: Conservation Areas and Biological Corridors
Using a scenario approach, Mark Adamson (2006) studied the economic and financial sustainability of the Protected Areas System. He assessed a total of 132 possible options (3 management alternatives, 11 revenue cases, and 4 expenditures including alternatives). The economic analysis included generation of hydrological services, and the value of environmental functions recognized by the national system of payment for environmental services (PES). The financial analysis assesses revenues including only the income generated by the protected areas through visitation, taxation, and surplus transferred; it does not consider externalities. According to the study, the Protected Areas System is providing the country with economic benefits in excess of the expenses associated with its existence. Results show that the system is sustainable in economic terms and for all scenarios. This means that if SINAC successfully collects its tax revenues and visitation fees, and visitation and revenues maintain its current trend, the total economic benefits produced by the ASP exceed their expenses, based on a definition of economic efficiency or inter-temporal dynamics. This does not exclude the possibility that in economic terms the system could be more efficient. It was not possible, however, to determine the cost-effectiveness of the system because SNAC's accounting is not done by "cost centers. But, considering the possible scenarios for tax revenue collection, surplus transfers and income opportunities from visitation, there is economic evidence that the system could substantially increase its efficiency; both increasing revenues and reducing expenditures. The author concludes that the system is sustainable from an economic point of view (i.e. economic benefits outweigh its costs in a planning horizon up to 2020). Net present values are positive for the three scenarios considered ($182.48 million in the baseline, $293.39 million in the middle, and $476.33 million in the optimist scenarios). Financially, including only direct profits, the system reduces its sustainability and cannot cover all their expenses. Thus, the financial sustainability of the system depends on the internalization of the economic benefits generated by the ASP, which rests upon a political decision. The main opportunity for this being the financial resources the new water use fee will generate, 25% of which will be directed towards SINAC. Therefore, making the case about the system's benefits for the economy is very important. The financial sustainability of the system however, depends upon the assumptions used to estimate it. SINAC and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (2007) used the Convention on Biological Diversity's goals as guidelines. A financial gap analysis was carried out using information from 2004 to 2006. It included all revenue sources administered by SNAC's regular budget, three special funds (National Parks, Forestry and Wildlife funds), development aid and 16
private and resources. Currently the main funding sources of SINAC are (Valerio, 2010): Central Government. Through its ordinary and extraordinary budgets, currently is the largest source of revenue for SNAC's annual budget. National Parks Fund. Includes admission fees, other Protected Area' s services and the National Parks mail stamp). The Forestry Fund and the Wildlife Trust, which represents the third source of revenue for the System. Wildlife fund. 25% of the ecologically adjusted water use fee. Royalties and research projects of INBio bioprospecting. Donations, conventions from national and international agencies. Loans, with international financial organizations. Interests generated on the transitional investments from the Heritage Fund of the Conservation Areas. Revenue from concessions services of the Protected Areas (ASP). Permits fees for using the ASP. Deposits / fines resulting from the reconciliations and settlement of legal proceedings for environmental damages. Fines for infringement of the forestry, wildlife and protected areas legislation. The next table shows sources of income for three years and the relevant contribution of each. Notice the important increase suffered by the approved budget, from $17 million to almost $28 million and the reduction in the difference between the received and the budgeted amount. The Government budget covers approximately 75% of the total costs while resources from other sources cover the rest. 17
Table 5. Costa Rica: National Conservation Areas System Comparative income 2004-2006 ($ millions) 2004 Real Approved Difference Regular budget 7,8 7,8 0 Parks Fund 8,7 6,6 2,1 Forestry Fund 1,7 0,54 1,1 Wild Life Fund 0,22 0,035 0,19 Private Resources 2,1 2,1 0 Total 20,5 17 3,5 2005 Regular budget 11,6 11,6 0 Parks Fund 9,05 9,04 0,01 Forestry Fund 1,4 0,28 1,1 Wild Life Fund 0,26 0,13 0,13 Private Resources 4 4 0 Total 26,4 25,1 1,3 2006 Regular budget 12,44 12,44 0 Parks Fund 9,6 10,7 -1,02 Forestry Fund 0,15 1,4 0,12 Wild Life Fund 0,26 0,13 0,13 Private Resources 3,3 3,3 0 Total 27,2 27,9 -0,78 Source: (SINAC/TNC, 2007) In the case of the National Parks Fund, its main income is from the "pro national parks stamp and the parks entrance fees, as shown in Figure 6 below: Figure 6 Costa Rica: National System of Conservation Areas. Generated Revenue. National Park Fund-($ millions)
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 2004 2005 2006 Surplus Transfers Financial revenues Other income Entrance fees 18
Source: Prepared based on (SINAC / TNC, 2007). The pro-national parks stamp amount ($0.4) was updated in the Biodiversity Law No. 7788, and revenues from it are managed by the Banco Credito Agricola de Cartago, a national bank, and collected by the Immigration Office, the National Property Registry, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The funds are then transferred to the Central Bank of Costa Rica (BCCR) and subsequently deposited in the Ministry of the Environment's account. However, it is important to mention that these mechanisms have only very few controls and verification systems. As a result it is difficult to determine if the amounts collected are consistent with those deposited in SNAC's account. The same situation happens with Local Municipalities, which have to collect a 2% over patents and an $8.7 stamp duty for the right to allow alcoholic beverages consumption in commercial establishments (SINAC / TNC, 2007). The Forestry Fund was created in 1996 (Forest Act 7575) and obtains resources from the forestry tax and non-tax income, such as the sale of forms, applications, and guides. The forestry tax is 3% of the market value of logs/timber sent to its primary industrialization and imported logs/timber. Wood pays a sales tax equal to the general sales tax of 13%, minus a 3%, which is the forestry tax. However, its collection has been hampered by different legal interpretations, a situation that must be resolved. Taxes on imported wood are collected through various tariff items and at different ports of entry (SINAC/TNC, 2007). As shown in Figure 7, the surplus amounts of the Forestry Fund are quite important. However, the procedure to include these funds in SNAC's budget is very complicated. Even though the law established the amounts, SINAC requires legal amendments to be able to access them. 19
Figure 7. Costa Rica: Forest Fund / National Conservation Areas System. Share of Revenue Generated by source.
Source: Prepared based on (SINAC / TNC, 2007). Finally, the Wildlife Fund is entrusted with the collection of its wildlife-stamp, which is a kind of tax associated with the import and export of flora and fauna, entrance fees from wildlife refuges and related activities such as research fees and permits, hunting and fishing licenses. This fund makes the smallest contribution to SNAC's budget. And worse of all, it entails high administration costs because accessing these funds is a complex process. Even though SINAC has been able to diversify its funding, available resources favor the "normal" functioning SINAC. This is insufficient to meet other conservation needs, such as development, institutional strengthening, sustainable use and conservation of resources, and biodiversity, in accordance with the duties and responsibilities that the legislation entrusted the institution with (Valerio, 2010). Luckily, the situation is expected to improve once its share of the ecologically adjusted water fee starts to flow in. To reduce further these funding gaps, SINAC proposes to develop mechanisms such as (Valerio, 2010): Adjusting the admission fees and other services provided to visitors and users of the wilderness areas. Granting contracts for non-essential services in the protected areas. Establishing and implementing cooperative agreements with NGOs. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2004 2005 2006 Surplus Transfers Other income Assets sales Financial revenues Goods and Services Government Budget 20
Monitoring and ensuring proper collection of revenues from all of the different sources typified by the legislation. 2.2.2 Economic Contribution of the National Parks and Biological Reserves to Costa Rica In a study by CINPE-UNA, Furst, Moreno, Garcia, & Zamora (2004), estimated the contribution of national parks and biological reserves to the national economy in $815 million per year (Table 6). For illustrative purposes, that amount is 40 times greater than SNAC's budget for 2004. However, in the end probably the system's contribution is larger, since there are many goods and services that are not considered in the study. In the case of tourism, activities such as lodging, transportation and food were included. Table 6 Costa Rica: the Economic Impact of National Parks and Biological Reserves Estimation. ($ millions for 2002). Economic activity Estimated revenue (millions of US$) Tourism (national benefits) 708,47 Availability of good quality water for power generation 87,00 Resources for conservation of protected areas 9,16 Contributions to INBio contributions 5,60 Visitation to PNRB 2,70 Employment and wages generation 1,31 Land purchase 0,71 Payment for environmental services (FONAFIFO) 7,53 Total 814,96 Source: (Furst, Moreno, Garca, & Zamora, 2004) In a different study, the International Center for Economic Policy and Sustainable Development at the Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica (CINPE-UNA) analyzed the economic and development contribution of three protected areas: Chirripo, Cahuita and Poas Volcano. The authors quantified these benefits using "cluster analysis", by which they estimated the contribution of socio-economic activities induced by productive chains around the protected areas. The protected areas studied have become development poles that also make an environmental contribution, preserving biodiversity resources and providing many goods and services. They also promote the development of new economic activities, such as scientific research and tourism, related to the existence of the protected area. The CINPE-UNA estimated that Cahuita, Chirripo and Poas Volcano contributed $6.41 million to the tourism sector. Additionally, these areas generated almost $1 million in park entrance fees. In the case of Chirripo, the development of tourism related services such as hotels, restaurants, transportation, rental equipment and related activities like fishing and hot springs were analyzed. These activities 21
currently generate $183,426 in revenues for San Gerardo and surrounding communities because of the 6,300 tourists per year that visit the area. In the case of Cahuita National Park, the park's existence promotes income- related activities such as food services, fishing guides, handcraft production and sale and other commercial businesses that produced $1.87 million in 2002. Finally, in the case of the Poas Volcano National Park, activities related to the protected area generated revenues of $ 4.36 million the same year. In this park, important activities include non-traditional agriculture, specifically strawberries cultivation, processing and marketing, and ferns for export. Extrapolating the result to the parks' system as a whole, the park system generates about $900 million in added value, an amount equivalent to a 5.5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for 2002. A different study by Juan Antonio Aguirre from the Sustainable Development Center, measured the economic impact of tourist spending in the neighboring communities of Poas Volcano National Park. In this study the author determined a multiplier effect of 1.56, which implies that every dollar spent on direct purchases, generated another $0.56 in revenues for indirect purchases in and outside the community. He estimated sales multipliers with respect to the impact of tourist expenditure in the area and determined no significant differences between the types of business analyzed (souvenir shops and restaurants). The only difference was the amount of investment needed to establish a business, $33,323 in the case of restaurants and $9,800 in the case of souvenir shops. They receive an average of 44 customers per day who spend on average $28.76 per person. The park had to be closed completely for one week and partially for two in 2006 due to crater eruptions of the volcano. According to the study, the Park's closure as a result of the eruptions meant a 72% reduction in visitation to the area. This meant foregone income for the community of $42,108, $5,474 in uncollected sales' tax, and $2,267 in reduced park entrance fees. All of these examples illustrate the role that national parks play in promoting development in Costa Rica. Clearly, the system generates benefits beyond protecting biodiversity for future generations. t is an "engine of growth that brings a steady flow of foreign visitors, who engage in different activities and generate many indirect benefits. Scientific research, and other high added value activities, including significant aid programs from the international community. 22
2.2.3 The use of biodiversity in the development of pharmaceutical and agricultural products Since 1991 The National Biodiversity Institute (INBio) through its bioprospecting program 1 , has established research and collaboration agreements nationally and internationally with over 30 companies in the pharmaceutical and agricultural industries. By 2004 this program had contributed with $600,000, which correspond to 10% of research funds, to the conservation of protected areas, through the Ministry of Energy and the Environment (MINAE). Additionally INBio has contributed with more than $1.5 million for the conservation of protected areas and research projects with public universities and invested about $ 1.7 million in training national scientists, equipment purchases and infrastructure (Tamayo, Guevara, & Huertas, 2009). Although INBio has signed agreements with different companies worldwide the case that set the stage for the development of such agreements was signed with Merck & Co in 1991. t was called a "shared benefits agreement. This agreement provided access to a number of plant samples, insects and microorganisms for pharmaceutical product development. Part of the research should be carried out locally and the company would cover research costs. Furthermore, it included a clause by which MINAE would receive 50% of the funds during the discovery and development phases. It also provided these organizations with a percentage of the profits (which would be decided later), joint intellectual property rights, technology transfer and knowledge to develop scientific capacity in Costa Rica (Tamayo, Guevara, & Gamez, Biodiversity Prospecting: The INBio Experience, 2004). INBio has entered into at least 22 other agreements from 1991 to 2005 that have already been completed, which are summarized in Table 7. These research projects contemplate chemistry and biotechnology with human health applications, veterinary, agriculture, fragrances and essences development, insecticides, nematicides, ecological control, biopesticides, and Chagas disease. Although the products developed are not yet on the market, Merck & Co had filed for 27 patents by the year 2004, mainly related to anti-bacterial ingredients, antiprotozoal, antifungal, inhibiting fat activity in HIV and the development of a natural nematicide component, 2R, 5R-dihydroxymethyl-3R, 4R- dihydroxypyrrolidine (DMDP), isolated from a leguminous tree, which is one of the most advanced projects. The fact that some projects are classified as inactive
1 Bioprospecting is defined as the systematic search for genes, compounds and organisms that might have a potential economic use and assisting the development of a product (Tamayo, Guevara, & Gamez, Biodiversity Prospecting: The INBio Experience, 2004). 23
does not mean that the agreements with the companies on compensation, profit sharing, or intellectual property rights are complete. 24
Table 7 INBio bioprospecting projects-inactive Project Name Number of agreements, including the number of renewals - Project Partners Chemical prospecting Search for sustainable uses for biodiversity of Costa Rica 4 Merck & Co, Inc. Whitehouse Station, NJ USA Supply and implementation of DMDP (2.5-didydroxy-methyl- 3 ,4-dihydroxypyrrolidine) 1 British Technology Group (BTG), London, UK Chemical Prospecting in conservation areas in Costa Rica 1 Briston-Myers Squibb Company (BMS), Walling Ford, CT USA y Cornell University, Ithaca, NY USA Fragrances and aromas 2 Givaudan Roure, NJ USA Insecticides Components 1 University of Massachussetts, Boston, MA USA Development of a natural nematicide -Tropical Program for assessing the effectiveness of DMDP 1 Ecos S.A.-La Pacfica, San Jos & Guanacaste, Costa Rica Search for plant components with antibacterial and antiviral properties 2 Indena S.p.A, Milan, Italia Human Health 1 Strathclyde University, Stathclyde, Scotland Search for new plant compounds 1 Eli Lilly & Co. Indianapolis, IN USA Search for plants with antiparasitic activity 1 Swiss Tropical Institute, Basel, Switzerland Potential drugs little known in Costa Rica 1 Institute of Chemistry and Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA USA Biotechnology Prospecting Search extremophile organisms enzymes 1 Recombinant BioCatalysis, Inc, San Diego, CA, USA Gene Prospection - Fase 1 1 Diversa Corporation, San Diego, CA USA Prospecting of genes with potential nematicidal activity 1 Akkadix Corporation, La Jolla, CA, USA Search biologically active components in tissue culture of the Costa Rican flora 1 Phytera Inc, Worcester, MA, USA Development of protocols for micro-organisms with potential biological control 1 Compaa Agrcola La Gavilana Ltda, San Jos, Costa Rica Development of protocols for micropropagation of potential ornamental plants 1 Agrobiot S.A. Alajuela, Costa Rica Source: (Tamayo, Guevara, & Huertas, Research Collaborative Agreements and Bioprospecting in Costa Rica: Scientific, Technological and legal impacts, 2009) 25
According to Tamayo, Guevara & Gardens (2009) INBio is involved with the University of Alabama leading the search for a Chagas disease vaccine or cure. Other organizations involved in this case include the School of Agriculture of the Humid Tropical Region (EARTH), National University of Costa Rica, Universidad de Santiago de Chile and Universidad de la Republica de Uruguay. Additionally, other projects with national and international partners, with the main objective of finding a cure for cancer. These projects are funded by agencies like the Organization of American States (OAS), the National Cancer Institute and the U.S International Fogarty Center. In addition, with financing from the Inter- American Development Bank (IDB) / FOMIN, INBio developed an initiative to develop pharmaceutical products from popular medicinal plants. This company launched in 2004 and in 2006 two products known as "Qassia & Style, both derivatives, the first from the plant known as "Big Man and the second from a plant called "Justicia Pectoralis, and whose profits are shared with NBio and MINAET to be used on Costa Rican sustainable biodiversity. Among other active biotechnology exploration projects, INBio develops studies with other local partners such as BioTcnica Anlisis Moleculares S.A to control diseases that attack crops. Two other active projects with international organizations include one carry out gene exploration in collaboration with Diversa Corporation. INBio processes the samples and Diversa searches for enzymes and structural proteins that can be used for industrial biotechnology, crop protection and pharmaceutical applications. Already released, the first product is a fluorescent protein and enzyme helpful in cotton processing, and whose profits are also shared with MINAET for the conservation of protected areas. NBio's success at developing bioprospecting projects with national and international companies and multi-donor support is a clear indication about the value of biodiversity used in a sustainable and strategic way, as a source of knowledge and resources for conservation. For example, INBio's 2002 budget of $5.65 million came mainly from bilateral and international organizations, its own resources and agreements with different companies (see Table 8). Table 8. Costa Rica: INBio budget for 2002. Source of Funds 2002 ($ millions) % Bilateral 1,26 22,4 CR-USA Foundation 0,29 5,2 NGO`s 0,048 0,8 Agreements with Companies 0,34 6,1 International Organizations 1,19 21,1 Own resources 2,09 37,0 Agreements with International Universities 0,4 7,2 Other sources 0,008 0,15 Total 5,65 100% Source: Adapted from (Furst, Moreno, Garca, & Zamora, 2004). 26
2.3 Agricultural Sector Agriculture as well as tourism is a major source of foreign exchange and indirectly benefits from the existence of protected areas. The agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors value added is estimated at $1,865 millions in 2009, representing 7.6% of GDP. Nevertheless, its share has been declining in recent years, at the expense of other sectors such as industry, trade, restaurants, hotels and other services (see Figure 8Error! Reference source not found.). Despite all of this, the sector still remains an important source of revenue for the country, and provided 224,322 direct jobs in 2009, or 11.5% of total employment in the country. Figure 8. Costa Rica. Value added of different sectors ($ millions)
Source: (SEPSA, 2010) In 2008 Costa Rica's total exports of bananas, pineapples and coffee were respectively $689 million, $572.7 million and $308 million. Relative to total exports these represent 20.1%, 16.7% and 9% (see Table 9, Error! Reference source not found., and Table 10). Companies planting these three crops have seen their output increase, but at the same time have shown interest in implementing good agricultural practices, such as integrated pest management programs. 27
Table 9. Costa Rica: farm and livestock products exports. 2004-2008. (in thousands of US$).
Source: (SEPSA, 2010) Regarding the legal framework, in April 1997 the Phytosanitary Protection Act was established, which includes international agreements with the World Trade Organization on sanitary and phytosanitary aspects for the export of agricultural products. The Phytosanitary Department was created, and currently works as a decentralized body of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG). This law provides a wide range of applications including plant protection, pesticides, organic farming and creates the Biosafety Commission (Murillo, Hernandez, & Sanchez, 2008) A study done by ICSTD-CINPE (Murillo, Hernandez, & Sanchez, 2008), analyzes the sanitary and phytosanitary control measures of the major export products of Costa Rica, such as bananas, pineapple and melon and their economic impact. Banana production is the agricultural product that generates more jobs, mainly in the Atlantic region of the country, it is estimated that 91 of every 100 workers are directly or indirectly related to banana production. As mentioned above, total banana exports in 2008 amounted to $ 689.3 million, consistent with an average of 100 million boxes per year (1.8 million cubic meters). The banana exports are mainly in the hands of foreign companies such as Chiquita, Dole, Fiffes and Del Monte. Many individual farmers have contracts with these companies who provide them with all standards and regulations in order to buy the product. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 a/ Banano 545.179 481.940 638.580 682.141 689.388 1,1% 20,1% Pia 256.210 324.144 436.866 489.190 572.723 17,1% 16,7% Caf oro 197.596 232.601 258.715 308.225 308.048 -0,1% 9,0% Otras preparaciones alimenticias 140.570 146.664 158.223 186.367 220.825 18,5% 6,4% Los dems jarabes y concentrados para la preparacin de bebidas gaseadas 16 75.085 131.108 155.335 185.060 19,1% 5,4% Aceite de palma 60.318 64.623 19.813 77.731 103.958 33,7% 3,0% Plantas ornamentales 71.033 70.495 76.426 81.800 83.808 2,5% 2,4% Follajes, hojas y dems 61.508 65.919 73.280 73.282 76.704 4,7% 2,2% Salsas y preparaciones 44.353 50.558 56.249 69.107 71.485 3,4% 2,1% Meln 71.630 73.923 82.534 85.920 67.968 -20,9% 2,0% Productos de panadera fina 26.211 31.525 41.628 51.848 67.806 30,8% 2,0% Alcohol etlico 34.279 37.120 92.608 106.684 66.454 -37,7% 1,9% Purs de frutas 45.080 52.823 43.509 60.633 65.576 8,2% 1,9% Yuca 34.474 43.093 35.855 42.048 64.006 52,2% 1,9% Filetes y dems carnes de pescado 35.729 35.033 16.925 31.559 48.987 55,2% 1,4% Carne de bovino 27.393 32.248 31.170 32.152 45.220 40,6% 1,3% Azcar 38.058 29.671 42.562 48.717 34.361 -29,5% 1,0% Palmito 20.046 20.223 21.887 28.010 26.673 -4,8% 0,8% Jugo de naranja sin congelar concentrado 17.630 25.344 32.836 62.989 21.557 -65,8% 0,6% Pescado fresco o refrigerado 28.093 30.228 30.896 23.451 20.370 -13,1% 0,6% Chayotes 8.220 8.221 8.222 8.223 13.508 64,3% 0,4% Otros 493.436 455.156 449.490 489.113 583.112 19,2% 17,0% Total 2.257.063 2.386.638 2.779.381 3.194.524 3.437.597 7,6% 100,0% %Participacin 2008 Descripcin Variacin % 2008/07 28
A good example is the case of Chiquita, which has programs to support independent producers and is designed to meet the socio-environmental rules established by The Rain Forest Alliance and EurepGAP. The adoption of international standards and certification involves a high economic cost that the banana industry is assuming; it implies substantial investments in their packing facilities such as lighting, ventilation, safety and health. It is intended to reduce the risk of contamination and to generate a change in their employees' practices, which means a new learning process. An example of adopting good agricultural practices is the Talamanca Small Producers Association, formed by 1200 farmers (90% of whom are indigenous) export dehydrated banana to Canada and England, and are Fair Trade and Organic certified ( FLO-CERT GmbH). Table 10 Costa Rica: Output from main agricultural crops. In metric tons. 2004- 2008
Source: (SEPSA, 2010) 29
3 Analysis of existing or potential economic instruments and their impact As part of the Water Department initiatives for institutional strengthening and financial viability within MINAE, two water resource charges or fees have been recently implemented. Ecologically updated water resources use fee. Wastewater discharge fee. 3.1 Ecologically adjusted water use fee This fee was recently updated to reflect not only changes in the cost of living but also to include the watershed protection cost component. It must be paid by all water users, on a volumetric basis, as shown in Table 11. Table 11. Costa Rica: Water use fee ($/m3) according to water use Use Fee ($/m3) Surface Water Groundwater Human consumption 0,002 0,003 Industrial 0,005 0,006 Commercial 0,005 0,006 Agro industrial 0,003 0,004 Tourism 0,005 0,006 Agricultural 0,002 0,002 Aquaculture 0,0002 0,0003 Hydraulic Force 0.0002 --- Source: (Decreto Ejecutivo No.32.868-MINAE) The funds raised will allow the State to secure financing for the administrative management of water resources, financing of public policies aimed at guaranteeing the quality and quantity of available water, and its efficient use. It will also contribute to the conservation of forests in private and public protected areas through the payment for environmental services national program (detailed in Section 3.3. In 2007 MINAE's Water Department raised $1.2 million in fees. These are allocated 50% towards integrated water management, 25% towards payment for environmental services in private areas and 25%, or $300 thousand, were transferred to SINAC for the conservation of protected areas. The National Management Plan for Integrated Water Resources forecasts income from this fee up to 2010, assuming that it is updated progressively 30
starting in 2006 (Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications (MINAET) and Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)-Netherlands Integrated Water Resources Management (INWAP), 2008). Figure 9 shows the projected amounts to be collected through the fee for the years 2010, 2015, 2025 and 2030, and under those scenarios the amount that corresponds to SINAC. Figure 9 Costa Rica: Projection of the amount collected as fees for water use, according to expected demand. -Millions of dollars
Source: Ministerio de Ambiente, Energa y Telecomunicaciones (MINAET) y Programa de Alianza Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID)-Pases Bajos para la Gestin Integrada de Recursos Hdricos (INWAP), 2008) 3.2 Wastewater Discharge Fee The discharge fee is based on the "polluter pays" principle, which seeks to internalize the costs associated with waste discharges into rivers, lakes and other water bodies. It seeks to charge polluters by kilogram of chemical oxygen demand (COD). It is administered by the Environmental Quality Department at MINAE and it is just starting to rake in funds. However, the implementation process has been slow, because of operational difficulties. During the first year of implementation, this fee is expected to collect between $1.0 and $1.4 million as shown in Table 12 below. However, in year 6, when the full amount will be recovered, the collected amount should be between $5 and $6 million. 31
Table 12. Costa Rica: Estimated revenues for discharge fees in $ dollars Case Total Estimation (year 1) in $ US- Domestic Productive Activities Total Case 1: All registered entities meet the discharge limits 402.607 559.754 961.821 Case 2: All registered entities do NOT meet the discharge limits 402.607 1.026.186 1.428.079 Source: Ministerio de Ambiente, Energa y Telecomunicaciones (MINAET) y Programa de Alianza Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID)-Pases Bajos para la Gestin Integrada de Recursos Hdricos (INWAP), 2008) 3.3 Environmental Services Payment Program The Payment for Environmental Services Program (PSA) was created in 1996 through the Forestry Act 7575, and is administered by the National Forestry Financing Fund (FONAFIFO), a decentralized institution. PSA is a kind of compensation to the owners and holders of forests, forest plantations and agroforestry systems for the environmental services they provide to society locally, nationally or internationally. Owners must be willing to comply with certain requirements. Environmental services recognized for the PSA payment are scenic beauty, water, biodiversity and carbon sequestration for different uses. For example, biodiversity protection for conservation and sustainable use, scientific and pharmaceutical use, research and genetic improvement, ecosystems and life forms protection, as well as natural scenic beauty for tourism and scientific purposes (www.fonafifo.go.cr). The program evolved from a classic forestry incentive scheme to a payment for environmental services scheme that was mainly funded by a tax on fuel. However, it has sought for alternative funding sources to ensure its long-term sustainability, and reduce its dependence on only one source. Figure 10, shows the amounts allocated from PSA since 2000 to 2008, and the process of source diversification promoted by FONAFIFO. Despite these efforts, in 2006 funds from the central government began to increase again and the pursuit of new economic instruments for the long-term sustainability of the program became a priority. A clear example of this effort is the creation of the Biodiversity Fund, which has $7.5 million of co-financing from GEF and aims to create an endowment that will allow the long-term sustainability of the system. The first agreements signed in 1998 were with companies such as Global Energy Hydroelectric Power Plant and Hidroelctrica Platanar, the Compania Nacional de Fuerza y Luz and Florida Ice & Farm Company, a beverages business. From 2001 to 2006, a loan came into effect between the Costa Rican government and 32
the World Bank for institutional strengthening of the PSA program, which greatly reduced the Central Government contribution during those years. Considering the different financing sources, it is estimated that FONAFIFO since its inception has invested close to $133 million in five-year-contracts, according to the amounts presented in Table 13 for forest protection, protection within protected areas, water resources protection, protection in conservation gaps, pasture regeneration, natural regeneration and trees outside forests in agroforestry systems. Figure 10. Costa Rica: FONAFIFO budgetary allocation for payment of CAF and PSA by source of funding, 2000 - 2008-Thousands of dollars
Source: Prepared based on information provided by FONAFIFO, 2010. Table 13. Costa Rica: Amounts paid per hectare and per tree for PES by modality for a five-year contract, 2009. (U.S. dollars) Modality Payment ($) Forest Protection 320 Protection in Wildlife Protected Areas 320 Water Resources Protection 400 Protection for Conservation Gaps 375 Reforestation 980 Regeneration in Kyoto pasture land or carbon 320 Pastures Regeneration 205 Natural regeneration with productive potential 205 Agroforestry systems by tree 1,30 Source: FONAFIFO, 2009 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 PSA (CSA) PSA (Hydroelectric) PSA (Florida Ice & Farm) PSA (CNFL) PSA (Pres. KFW) PSA Ecomarkets PSA CAF 33
From 1997 to 2008, 8,345 contracts have been established, covering 671,278 hectares, distributed in the different modalities mentioned above. Of the total, some 56,870.7 hectares were contracted to indigenous territories. As shown in Figure 11, more resources have been allocated for the protection of areas considered as priorities, with the objective of conserving biological corridors, or highly threatened areas. Furthermore, 2.6 million trees have been planted in agroforestry systems, contributing to the connectivity of key ecosystems. Figure 11. Costa Rica: Distribution and number of hectares under for Environmental Services Payment, by year and type, 2000 2008
Source: Prepared based on information provided by FONAFIFO, 2010. There are different opinions about the environmental services program ability to reduce poverty. A study by (Camacho, Reyes, Miranda, & Segura, 2002), conducted a multiple criteria analysis that determined that the PSA program has influenced and improved the communities organizational capacity. However, it showed that it contributes little to improve the quality of life in those communities. This is in part due to the fact that it is usually non-profitable for small farmers. The PSA thus, should be seen as a complementary activity for small farmers, but not a main single activity. Moreover, the study by (Miranda & Porras, 2002) for the Virilla river basin determined that those entering the PSA program in areas near the Central Valley, with small holdings fewer than 10 ha, on average are working professionals to whom PSA payments represents only 4% of their income. Such study suggests that the primary objective should be the conservation of natural resources; and that the allocation of funds should be made based on conservation priorities not income distribution issues. 3.4 Debt for Nature Swaps A debt for nature swap between Costa Rica and the United States was signed in September 2007. It led to the modification of the Costa Rican debt with The 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Natural Regeneration Plantations Reforestation Forest Management 34
United States Government. The Government of Costa Rica contributes 80% of these funds ($ 12.6 million dollars) and non-governmental organizations such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Conservation International (CI) provide the other 20% of the exchange $2.5 million for a total of $15.1 million (Dobles, 1997). The resources are managed by INBio and will be invested for a period of 16 years by grassroots organizations, Costa Rican NGOs or Universities (Matamoros, 2010). These funds are intended to finance and strengthen the policy building capacity related to social participation around protected areas, planning and effective management of these processes, and promote local conservation. Proposed priority areas include Osa, Amistad, Tortuguero, Maquenque and Guanacaste. The thematic priority areas are groundwater recharge, integrated watershed management, biological corridors, ecosystem restoration, and socio-economic aspects related to the surrounding areas of influence areas, among others. (Dobles, 1997) 35
4 Conclusions Costa Rica's economy has always relied on the exploitation of biological resources. Initially, to support a subsistence oriented economy, based on exchanges at a local level. Then as part the global system of trade, initially in the international commodities market for meat, coffee and bananas. Recently however, it has shifted to a services based economy that heavily relies on eco-tourism as a main driver of development. During the past 10 to 15 years, the country has taken a series of small steps that have led to the understanding that protected areas, and biodiversity, are economic uses of the territory that generate multiple benefits. They are not only costs to society. Rather, they support a series of high-value added economic activities that benefit the people and increase human development. They represent the main attraction of a tourism sector that takes more importance every day, provides significant employment and fuels other sectors such as real estate development. Marine protected areas allow the reproduction of commercial species of fish, while land areas provide indirect benefits to industry, agriculture and the services sectors in many different ways. Many economic studies, carried out by the government, NGOs and universities have shown the relationship between biodiversity conservation and economic activity. These, have turned out to be compelling arguments for politicians and the public at large. Some of this studies may have generated the political will to charge water users for the ecological services provided by watershed protection. Also, to the allocation of a proportion of the fuel tax for payment of environmental services in private areas. The population has been willing to support both ideas, because it has seen the benefits of forest conservation in Costa Rica. Benefits occur in many ways through a variety of interactions and so it is hard to capture all of them. Some of the pathways are not understood, or could be misinterpreted as a result of partial information. For example, the role of biodiversity and the national system of protected areas in building a country- brand that has given Costa Rica a green image. This has attracted other knowledge-based businesses and information technology companies. In the nineties, eco - tourism emerged as a very important new economic activity, showing the population that preserving nature provided tangible economic benefits to society. Additionally, scientific studies that highlighted the economic impacts of biodiversity, significantly increased interest in preserving it. At present, there is ample evidence that biodiversity has provided the country many economic benefits. As a result,it was for example willing to ban 36
offshore oil exploration on the Caribbean coast since 2002. This policy has been basically maintained to date. The use of two economic instruments for financing conservation provides more weight to the idea that Costa Rica has been following a sustainable environmental management, or SEM, approach towards development. A tax on fuel allows for funding the national system of payment for environmental services (or PES) through the National Forestry Fund (FONAFIFO). This flow will be complemented by fresh funds coming from the "ecologically adjusted water fee which is just starting to become operational. Both cases confirm that people are willing to invest and spend to protect nature, and that there is an underlying demand for environmental protection. However results must be shown and the conservation benefits are sometimes overshadowed by an ageing infrastructure, and lack of personnel in some key protected areas. 37
5 References and Literature Reviewed (CEPAL), C.E.(2007). Tourism and social conditions in Central America: Experiences in Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Mexico: CEPAL. Arias, M. (2010, February 3). Sustainable Tourism Program SINAC. (V. R. Gatjens, Interviewer) Camacho, M. A., Reyes, V., Miranda, M., & Segura, O. (2002). Local management and participation around the payment for environmental services: Study Case from Costa Rica. Costa Rica: PRISMA. Dobles, R. (07 May 1997). Presentation Speech: Debt for Nature. San Jose, Costa Rica. Executive Decree No.32.868-MINAE. (no data). Costa Rica. Furst, E., Moreno, M. L., Garca, D., & Zamora, E. (2004). Development and conservation in interaction: How and how much benefit the economy and community wildlife areas in Costa Rica? Heredia: INBio-CINPE. INEC. (February 12, 2010). INEC. Retrieved from INEC: http://www.inec.go.cr/ Legislative Assembly. (2008). Study on the impact on public finances of the "Law for Strengthening the Development of the Tourism ndustry. Report DAP-I-28- 09-2008. San Jose. Matamoros, A. (February 11th, 2010). Debt for Nature. (V. Reyes Gatjens, Interviewer) Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications (MINAET) Alliance Program and Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)-Netherlands Integrated Management of Water Resources (INWAP). (2008). National Integrated Management of Water Resources Plan. San Jose: MINAET Miranda, M., & Porras, I. (2002). The social impact of payment for environmental services in Costa Rica. London: IIED. Murillo, C., Hernndez, G., & Snchez, R. (2008). Case Study on Trade effects of SPS and TBT Measures on selected Tropical Products in Costa Rica. Heredia: ICSTD-CINPE. Quiros, M. (2010, January 22). ICT Finance Department. (V. R. Gatjens, Interviewer) 38
Rodriguez, W. (August, 2005). Tourism reality in Costa Rica. Digital Parliamentary Review. SEPSA. (2010). INFOAGRO. Retrieved on February 12 2010, Agricultural Statistics Bulletin: http://www.infoagro.go.cr SINAC / TNC. (2007). Revenue administration analysis of the National Conservation Areas System. San Jose. SINAC. (2009). Republic of Costa Rica: IV Country Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. San Jose. Tamayo, G., Guevara, L., & Gamez, R. (2004). Biodiversity Prospecting: The INBio Experience. Microbial Diversity and Bioprospecting, 445-449. Tamayo, G., Guevara, L., & Huertas, A. (2009). Collaborative Research Agreements and Bioprospecting in Costa Rica: Scientific, Technological and legal impacts. In T. Y. (Editor), Contracting for ABS. The Legal and Scientific Implications of Bioprospecting Contracts. (p. 308). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Valerio, R. (2010, February 10). AFE Assistant Executive Director. (V. R. Gatjens, Interviewer) 39
6 ANNEX 1. Sectors Proposal Sector Justification & indicators Tourism and protected areas Tourism is a major source of foreign exchange in Costa Rica; in 2008 2 million tourists arrived, generating 22.6% of foreign exchange in relation to exports ($ 2144.2 million) (Costa Rican Tourism Institute, 2009). Indicators Total visitation in relation to protected areas visitation. Jobs generated by the tourism sector. The impact of protected areas tourism in the local economy (Case of Talamanca and Poas Volcano). Multipliers: The impact of protected areas on the gross domestic product. Taxes and existing rates to finance the tourism sector and its relationship to protected areas. Agriculture Agriculture as well as tourism is a major source of foreign exchange and benefits from the existence of protected areas. In 2008 Costa Rica exported $ 305 million in coffee, $ 689 million in banana and $ 572.9 million in pineapples, as major non-traditional products, which involves implementing agroforestry programs, organic farming, good agricultural practices and integrated pest management programs. Indicators Areas under agricultural production. 40
Employment generated by the sector. Organic production. Revenue generated by the sector and its participation in the nations accounting. Cases of integrated pest management and the implementation of good agricultural practices. Forest Protection (Payment for Environmental Services) Costa Rica developed in 1996 the program of Payment for Environmental Services, which prioritizes the investment depending on the areas of greatest biodiversity in the country, priority buffered zones of protected areas. The Ecomarkets Project initiated the process of developing the Biodiversity Fund, which will be formed as a public foundation which will channel the funds of international cooperation for payment for environmental services in priority biological corridors, from mid 2010. The country has a seed fund of $ 15 million from GEF. Indicators Areas under PSA and number of beneficiaries. mpact of PSA on family income and the local economy, Multiplier effect of PSA on income generation for the pharmaceutical industry. ncome generation for the conservation of economic instruments such as water use fee. 41
mpact of PSA on the gross domestic product. Study of Cases.