Argentina: A State-of-the-Environment Report

Matthew B. Connior

Department of Biological Sciences

Arkansas State University

P.O. Box 599

State University, AR 72467, U.S.A.

matthew.connior@smail.astate.edu

 

Received: 6 December 2007

Accepted: 17 January 2008
Geographic Background

            Argentina is located in the southern portion of South America and the name is derived from the Latin Argentum, which means “silver”, stemming from a concept that had been coined in a Venetian atlas of 1536 and later in a poem published in 1602 (Anonymous 2005). Argentina encompasses 2,766,889 km² (1,068,302 mi²), stretching about 3,330 km (2,070 mi) in length, which makes it the eighth largest country in the world and the second of South America.  It is bordered by Bolivia to the north, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Brazil to the northwest, and Chile to the west (Figure 1).  .

            Argentina is divided into six major regions: Mesopotamia, Chaco, Puna, Cuyo, Patagonia, and Pampas.  Mesopotamia is located in the northeastern region and has a tropical climate with frequent rainfall.  The Chaco region varies from scrub forests to jungles and has seasonal rainfall.  Puna lies in the east and is characterized by a cold desert with sparse vegetation.  Cuyo lies to the east of the Andes Mountains and is known for its wine industry.  Patagonia is characterized by a dry and cold climate that is sparsely populated, however, remains an important area for agriculture, livestock, and tourism.  Finally, the Pampas is an alluvial plain with a temperate climate and is home to the country’s largest cities.  Argentina’s geography can not be characterized by a single form, but instead is composed of several distinct geographic areas allowing it to be biologically diverse (Lewis 2001). 

Figure 1: Map of Argentina

Courtesy of CIA World Fact Book

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ar.html

 

History of Environmental Issues

Due to Argentina’s diverse geography, its historical environmental issues originated from many different venues.  Guaraní farmers, who were an indigenous group that migrated from Paraguay and southern Brazil, settled in the Mesopotamian region and made an existence by using “slash and burn” farming techniques, burning the land to clear for agriculture and then moving on after the soil was overused (Lewis 2001).  This type of farming is not sustainable and creates major environmental problems, such as soil and wind erosion and reduction in species richness and diversity.  After the first and second settlement of Argentina in 1536 by Pedro de Mendoza and in 1580 by Juan de Garay, respectively, further environmental issues related to agriculture and the increase of human population started to wear on the natural environment.  During the 17^th and 18^th century, silver mining and cattle ranching flourished (Rock 1985) and still have an impact on the economy (see soil erosion and desertification).  Then, in 1876, sheep (mainly in the Pampas and Patagonia) were introduced into Argentina, which exacerbated the current environmental degradation (Aagesen 2000).  To boost the economy of Argentina after the unification in 1862, European investors poured substantial sums of money into major Argentina railways (Jones 1985).  The construction of railways throughout Argentina in the late 19^th and early 20^th century allowed for the expansion of the wine and sugar trade along with immigration into the countryside (Lewis 1985).           

In 1971, public concern about environmental issues commenced with endangered species when Argentina signed the Convention for the Conservation of the Vicuna and in 1981 when it ratified the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)[1] (Aguilar 2002).  Public involvement with environmental issues continued to grow after the return of democracy in the 1980’s (Aguilar 2002). 

 

Section 41 of Argentina’s 1994 constitution[2] states:

 

all inhabitants are entitled to the right to a healthy and balanced environment fit for human development in order that productive activities shall meet present needs without endangering those of future generations; and shall have the duty to preserve it. As a first priority, environmental damage shall bring about the obligation to repair it according to law. The authorities shall provide for the protection of this right, the rational use of natural resources, the preservation of the natural and cultural heritage and of the biological diversity, and shall also provide for environmental information and education. The Nation shall regulate the minimum protection standards, and the provinces those necessary to reinforce them, without altering their local jurisdictions. The entry into the national territory of present or potential dangerous wastes, and of radioactive ones, is forbidden.

 

This law has further enabled the public to become involved in the environmental issues and policies.  Thus, environmental reform can and hopefully will occur because it is in the hands of the people.  Current environmental issues are reflected by effects of poverty stricken people coupled with the lack of commercial and urban environmental safeguards limiting environmental degradation.

            Societies created for the protection of the wildlife and conservation of natural resources dates back to the creation of Asociación Ornitológica del Plata (now called Aves Argentina[3]) in 1916.  Other Non Government Organizations (NGO) were created in the 1940’s such as Asociación Natura and Asociación de Amigos de los Parques Nacionales.  However, the first NGO that became mainstream was the Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina[4] created in 1977 (Aguilar 2002).  Currently, NGO’s are still growing in number and strength helping to protect wildlife and conserve the natural resources.        

Human Population

Although humans could have reached Argentina by boat as early as 15,000 B.P., they probably did not arrive until sometime after 13,000 B.P. by land (Dillehay 2000).  Archaeological remains from between 10,000 and 11,600 B.P. show that hunting and gathering societies flourished on the grassland of Argentina (Dillehay 2000). At the time of the Spanish arrival, Native American populations in Argentina may have been as high as 750,000, though true estimates may only be half this much (Pyle 1976).  Discrepancies in population estimation methods leave the actual population unknown; however, it is likely to be around this estimate.  As the development of urban areas occurred, people moved from rural areas to cities.  In 1949, the rural population was about 33% of the total population.  By 1970, 79% of the total population lived in urban areas (Rock 1985), whereas 90% lived in urban areas in 2003 (Encyclopedia Britannica 2007a).  The 2007 population of Argentina is over 40 million with a growth rate of 0.9% due to births and an estimated population in 2025 of almost 46 million (US Census Bureau 2007).  Argentina has a human density of one person per 14 km² whereas both Brazil and Peru have a density of about one person per 21 km² (Encyclopedia Britannica 2007a, b, c) Energy production and consumption are directly related to this population (Table 1).

Figure 2: Evolution of the total population according to the national censuses. Years 1869-2007.

Source:  INDEC, http://www.indec.mecon.ar/

   US Census Bureau, http:www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/country/arportal.html

 

Biodiversity and Deforestation

            Although Argentina is only the 39^th out of 53 countries rated for biological richness (CITES 2000), Argentina’s habitat is diverse due to the mixture of geographic regions.  Argentina’s species richness tends to follow an east to west gradient with the east having the greatest diversity (Bucher 1982).  As of 2004, the number of species and threatened species in Argentina for plants were: 9,372, and 42; mammals: 375 and 32; birds: 1,038 and 55; reptiles: 338 and 5; amphibians: 162 and 30; and fish: 102 and 12, respectively (UNEP 2005).  In 2006, an additional 17 species were added to the 186 species already on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red List (Table 6) whose purpose is to “draw the attention of the public and policy-makers to the urgency and scale of conservation problems, and to motivate the global community to try to reduce species extinction” (IUCN 2001)[5].  Species that are on the red list are categorized as critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable (IUCN 2007).  Argentina and its bordering countries have all experienced an increase in species on the IUCN red list since 2004 (Table 6), although Argentina has less species in all three categories: endangered, critically endangered, and vulnerable, than both Brazil and Peru (Table 5).   

Both mammals and birds in Argentina’s grasslands have been exploited, such as the pampas deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus celer), greater rhea (Rhea Americana), and “perdices” (Rynchotus rufescens, Nothura sp., Eudromia elegans) (Krapovickas and Di Giacomo 1998).  Other bird species have been harmed from pesticide exposure.  For example, Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) were severely affected by pesticides; however, public outcry caused the pesticide to be banned, hopefully ensuring the hawks’ comeback (Krapovickas and Lyons 1997).  Due to agricultural and urban development, the biodiversity is at risk.  Independent of economic reasons, the ecological justification for biological diversity is that diversity is required for the persistence of ecological systems (Botkin and Talbot 1992).  Therefore, Argentina needs to reach a balance between the economic rationale and ecological justification to protect the biological diversity.

            Deforestation is occurring in Argentina similar to many other regions in the world.  Forests only account for a small portion of Argentina’s land cover (Table 2).  The two most extensive contiguous tropical dry forests in the world are located in South America, of which a portion of one is located in northern Argentina; thus, protection of these vast areas is a key priority of conservation (Miles et al. 2006).  In the Chaco region of Argentina, the subtropical Chaco forest has been the most adversely affected resulting in about 1.2 million ha of lowland and mountain forests and woodland being cleared during a 30 year period in the late 20^th century (Zak et al. 2004).  Evidence to this is that only six patches remain that are larger than 400 ha with the largest being 1800 ha (Zak et al. 2004).  Economic developments have had consequences on deforestation in the Paraná basin (Tucci and Clarke 1998).  Fuel wood gathering has led to deforestation in the Andean plateau; however, commercial logging has not affected Latin America’s tropical forests as severely as other regions of the world (Rowe et al. 1992).  None the less, as other regions’ forests are decimated, subsequent logging in the remaining forests is possibly inevitable.  The current rate of agricultural expansion predominantly in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa could lead to a loss of about one third of the remaining tropical and temperate forests, savannas, and grasslands (Tillman et al. 2001).

National Parks          

The creation of the National Parks and Reserves known as Administración de Parques Nacionales (APN) started in 1903 with the donation of land by Dr. Francisco P. Moreno that was accepted by President Hipólito Irigoyen by decree of 1 February 1904 (Hopkins 1995).   In 1934, the APN was officially established by the Argentine Congress (Boyle and Boyle 1990).  Argentina’s National Parks are extensive in the total size of area they encompass and continue to grow (Table 3; for specific characteristics of protected areas see Appendix 1).  In addition to the National Parks, the APN also has several additional National Monuments and Reserves[6].  Commercially important forest areas, which account for 40% of the total forests, become an important factor in policymaking for both conservation and induction into the park system (Hopkins 1995).  The economic crisis of the late 20^th century put an additional strain on the country’s natural resources, thus resulting in difficulty of protecting the protected areas (IUCN 1992).   The protection of land of various geographical and biological importances by the APN demonstrates the potential capabilities of countries to protect lands that they consider biologically significant to the future of world.  However, the land protected as a percentage of total land area in Argentina is only about one-third that of Brazil, Peru, and South America and less than the percentage of the world (Table 2).

Soil Erosion and Desertification

            The main cause of soil erosion and desertification is the direct result of improper agricultural techniques that leave the soil bare or unprotected from the elements.  South America’s Chaco is the second largest biome in the world next to the Amazon (Abril and Bucher 2001).  This biome is at risk due to overgrazing and soil degradation shifting the “wet forest” to a “desert” (Abril and Bucher 2001).  Regions of the Patagonia are suffering the same outcomes from overgrazing, causing the land to have a reduction of plant cover and a depletion of soil organic horizon, fertility, and their capacity to absorb and retain water (Aagesen 2000).  Soil in the Pampas is perhaps the most degraded with at least 1.3 million ha losing more than 20 tons/ha of soil each year (Krapovickas and Di Giacomo 1998).  Furthermore, wind erosion is still common in the Pampas and water erosion was recognized as a major problem by the middle 20^th century (Soriano et al. 1992).  A total of 11% of Argentina’s area suffers from water erosion and 9% suffers from wind erosion (Chisari et al. 1996).  

            Agriculture and mining can enhance soil erosion and desertification by topsoil exposure and depletion of the aquifers.  Livestock production is a major component of the economy with an estimated 50,768,000 cattle (more than the human population in the country) and 12,450,000 sheep in 2003 (Encyclopedia Britannica 2007a).  Additionally, mining and quarrying produced approximately 133,917 kg of silver and 29,744 kg of gold in 2003 (Encyclopedia Britannica 2007a). Improper livestock production and mining augment the exploitation and depletion of natural resources.

A proposed Paraná-Paraguay waterway would improve the Paraná River conveyance decreasing the flood area, which may result in the Pantanal changing from a wetland to a drier savannah (Tucci and Clarke 1998).  The Pantanal’s wetland nature is determined by flood pulses that replenish nutrients, which if altered coupled with the present deforestation in the region would result in large-scale disruption of the ecosystem (Harris et al. 2005).  Improper agricultural practices and urbanization have left their mark on the land permanently altering the soil and geography of the land.  Sawers (2000) concluded that environmental degradation due to agriculture in the Argentine Interior has been caused by all society classes.

Air Pollution

            Argentina is a world leader in setting voluntary greenhouse gas targets leading to a consistent decline in emissions (Viglizzo et al. 2003, World Fact Book 2007).  Additionally, the incineration of household waste for heating in cities has been illegal for 15 years coupled with the fact that present agricultural techniques use fossil fuels more efficiently has led to a further reduction in air pollution (Chisari et al. 1996; Viglizzo et al. 2003).  Motor vehicles have a significant impact on air pollution, such that in Buenos Aires, the largest urban area, motor vehicles account for the majority of air pollution (Onursal and Gautam 1997).  In 1999, motor vehicles accounted for the largest portion of CO₂ emission, almost one-third of the total (Table 4). Although Argentina emits air pollutants like any other country, they are taking great steps in reducing the emissions to counter environmental degradation.  The three largest countries in South America only account for about 2% of the world total CO₂ emissions (Table 4).

Water Pollution

            Water pollution typically occurs due to dumping waste into water systems, improper landfill techniques, flooding of urban areas resulting in unexpected pollution, and agricultural practices.  For example, the cities La Rioja and Catamarca have constraints on expansion of freshwater supplies forcing the residents to use whatever water they have available even if it is contaminated (Hardoy et al. 1992). The lack of piped water and sewage can exacerbate the water pollution problem by excessive contamination of water by excrement.  For example, urban centers that have between 5,000 and 10,000 residents and urban centers between 200,000 and 500,000 residents have 90% and 60% of residents that lack connection to sewers, respectively (Hardoy et al. 1992).  On the other hand, Argentina’s slow growth rate of industrialization has restricted water pollution indirectly (Chisari et al. 1996).   

Palaeolimnological records of Argentina show that recently there have been several short-term wet intervals (Piovano et al. 2002).  These wet phases may attribute to even higher water pollution rates due to flooding of urban areas and degraded agricultural land.  Recent flooding of the Paraná River has extended it over areas used for agriculture and some important cities likely resulting in agricultural and urban waste, such as sewage and solid waste, being introduced into the water table (Tucci and Clarke 1998).  Highly toxic pesticides now banned that were used during the 1990’s may have prolonged effects on the environment occurring in the water table due to flooding of agricultural land (Viglizzo et al. 2003).  Water pollution continues to be a problem in Argentina much like other regions of the world due to population growth and agricultural practices.

In addition to Argentina’s expansive land area and riverine systems, it also has a total of 8,397 km (5,206 mi) of marine coastline encompassing two marine provinces: Warm Temperate Southwestern Atlantic and Magellanic (Earthtrends 2003, Spalding et al. 2007).  In 2001, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) proposed a project to strengthen Argentina's efforts to reduce pollution of the Patagonia marine environment and improve sustainable management of marine biodiversity by improving oil spill prevention, knowledge base about the Patagonia marine environment, and promoting regional knowledge for sustainable management of marine resources (World Bank 2001).

Solid Waste

Solid waste is a major problem in Argentina’s urban areas specifically because there are not suitable establishments to correctly dispose of it and determine what proportion of the waste is hazardous (World Bank 1995a, Chisari et al. 1996).  Thus, waste, both solid and hazardous, is subsequently dumped into sewage drains, storm drains, and open air dumps (Chisari et al. 1996).  Even though the inadequate solid waste disposal problem is understood, it is not being correctly monitored or combated (World Bank 1995b).  A solution to fight this problem is to maximize recovery and recycling to minimize the solid waste generated at the source (World Bank1995a).  The majority of solid waste in the greater Buenos Aires is organic and paper (Figure 3).  Solid waste remains to be a problem in Argentina, especially in urban areas due to the incorrect disposal of solid waste and the widespread paucity of household sewage connection.

Figure 3: Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area urban solid waste composition characteristics

Source: Methane to Markets Partnership Landfill Subcommittee. 2006. http://www.methanetomarkets.org/resources/landfills/docs/argentina_lf_profile.pdf

Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes

            Improper disposal of hazardous, radioactive or both types of wastes can have severe health and environmental consequences well into the future.  It is hard to quantify the amount of hazardous waste since the proportion of it in solid waste is unknown (Chisari et al. 1996).  The scarcity of specialized facilities to handle hazardous waste certainly creates opportunities for improper disposal of the waste even though it is illegal to dispose of these wastes in sewers or sanitary landfills (World Bank 1995b). Two functioning nuclear facilities, Atocha I and Embalse, exist in Argentina (Anonymous 2007).  However, Section 41 of the constitution explicitly states that it’s unlawful to cross Argentina’s border with potentially dangerous or radioactive waste.  Illegal dumping of hazardous and radioactive waste in open air dumps and pits certainly occurs to some degree throughout Argentina (World Bank 1995b).

Environmental-Health Related Issues

Health issues directly related to environmental issues occur in Argentina mainly due to inadequate waste disposal and industrialization more so than from meager health care.  Although Argentina has health problems typical of an industrial nation instead of a developing nation (World Bank 1995b), the deficiency in sewage treatment present there can lead to diseases such as typhoid, amebiases, serigelosis, intestinal infections, viral hepatitis and bacterial sickness (Chisari et al. 1996).  Overall, the citizens have decent housing and are well fed (World Bank1995b). During the 1990’s and early 2000’s, contrary to the fact that Argentina has a sewage treatment problem leading to groundwater pollution, the leading mortality causes were heart and cardiovascular disease, cancer, and accidents, which are likely not a result of sewage contamination (World Bank1995b, Encyclopedia Britannica 2007a).

Public Opinion and Education on Environmental Matters

            With the return of democracy and the subsequent 1994 constitution, the citizens were granted a new “platform” to become active in environmental issues and policymaking. The “platform” is supported by both Section 41 of the constitution coupled with the General Environmental Law (GEL), which requires public participation on environmental decision-making processes (Di Paola 2004).  Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) date back to 1916 with the creation of the Asociación Ornitológica del Plata (AOP) dedicated to the study and protection of birds (Aguilar 2002).  However, public participation did not account for much input in environmental public policy before the 1980’s.  Between 1990 and 1994, public awareness of environmental issues in the news mainly focused on water pollution (Dasguta et al. 2000).  Additionally, the number of firm-related news (i.e., specific companies) increased until 1993 and then decreased in 1994 (Dasguta et al. 2000). 

One example of the public’s present involvement with the environment can be seen in an experimental school building built in Mendoza.  This school building had a reduction in all the environmentally negative effects measured except for photochemical ozone creation potential; however, when reevaluated this effect could be countered also (Arena and de Rosa 2003).  Another example is the case of two species of the caiman (Caiman latirostris, C. yacare). Eggs are collected from wild nests and hatched in rearing facilities and then rereleased.  In addition, payments to “guachos”(local people) provide an incentive not to kill adults but also to protect them, as well as the nesting areas (Larriera and Imhof 2006).  It seems that Argentinean citizens are concerned about the environment and are taking great strides to minimize environmental degradation in both the rural and urban areas of their country.

Conclusion

Argentina is a vast country with several different ecosystems that have varying degrees of environmental degradation.  Typically, the environmental problems are twofold: rural and urban.  Rural degradation is mostly a result of improper agricultural practices of livestock foraging and crop farming that leads to soil erosion and native plant species reduction.  Extreme poverty is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, 40% versus 30%, respectively (World Bank 2006).  Ultimately, the outcome of rural poverty is the fact that before environmental protection, such as eco-friendly agricultural practices, can occur; poverty stricken people must first worry about the basic human needs to survive.  This circumstance rather forces people that live in rural areas to degrade the environment in order to sustain themselves.  This is contrary to the misconstrued common stereotype that “people that live off the land, protect the land.”  In fact, Sawers (2000) “uncovered no evidence suggesting that any of the poor agriculturalists of the interior are environmental activists who defend the environment because they know their livelihood depends on it.”

Urban degradation in Argentina is typical of other areas; such that it comes down to the fact that too many people occur in too little of a place with not enough environmental safeguards in place to thwart pollution.  Waste disposal issues seem to be the major pollution problem in the urban areas.  This is because improper waste treatment ultimately contaminants the surface and ground water causing health problems.  If the current reduction of air pollution is coupled with providing sewage connection and piped water to all the urban residents, then Argentina’s urban pollution would be controlled for the most part.  In addition, Argentina produces more energy than it uses, whereas both Brazil and Peru have higher consumption than production (Table 1).  Thus, environmental degradation can be minimized by limiting pollution during energy production.  In conclusion, Argentina has environmental problems similar to the rest of the world due to population growth and the subsequent natural resources needed to maintain that population.   

 

Acknowledgements

            I thank C. Roa for assistance with Spanish translations and R. Medlin for editorial advice.  A. Romero and one anonymous reviewer made comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. 

 

           

Table 1: Energy production and consumption of Argentina compared to Brazil, Peru, South America and the World.

Energy Use	Argentina	Brazil	Peru	South America	World
Energy Production and Consumption
Total Energy production (in thousand metric tons) 2000	81,221	142,078	9,477	577,464	10,077,984
Total Energy Consumption (in thousand metric tons) 2000	63,182	179,701	13,101	383,514	9,702,786
Energy Consumption by Sector, 1999 (in thousand metric tons)
Industry	13,993	64,317	3,141	114,332	2,140,474
Transportation	14,153	48,112	3,407	96,231	1,755,505
Agriculture	2,623	7,500	502	13,232	166,287
Commercial & public services	3,144	7,753	400	15,693	511,555
Residential	9,246	20,407	4,995	52,172	1,845,475
Non-energy Uses	845	4,113	154	9,446	333,981
Total Final Energy Consumption	44,003	152,203	12,598	301,106	6,753,276

Adapted from Earthtrends 2006, http://earthtrends.wri.org/

 

 

 

Table 2: Environmental parameters of Argentina compared to Brazil, Peru, South America, and the World. 

Environmental Parameter	Argetina	Brazil	Peru	South America	World
Agriculture
Total Cropland (thousands ha) (1999)	27,200	65,200	4,210	116,131	1,501,452
Annual Fertilizer Use (thousands m ton) (1999)	823	5,856	248	8,612	141,360
Pesticide Use kg/ha (1994-1996)	1,266	836	N/A	N/A	N/A
Biodiversity
Total Area Protected (in thousands of ha)	17,435	153,299	21,609	375,207	1,457,674
Area as Percent of Total Land (2003)	6.30%	18%	16.7%	21.10%	10.80%
Fisheries production metric tons (capture in 2000)	890,725	510,580	10,624,696	17,552,234	84,411,066
Forest Resources
Total forest area (2000) (thousands of ha)	34,648	543,905	65,215	885,618	3,869,455
Forests as a Percent of Total Land Area in 2000	12%	64%	51%	50%	29%
Water Resources
Surface Water produced internally in cubic km (2001)	276	5,418	1,616	12,198	N/A
Ground Water Recharge in cubic km (2001)	128	1,874	303	3,693	N/A
Per capita Internal renewable water resources, 2001 (cubic meters)	7,274	31,012	60,929	34,428	N/A

Adapted from Earthtrends 2006, http://earthtrends.wri.org/

Table 3: National Parks in Argentina with the date

established and the area in hectares.

Name	Date Established	Area (Hectares)
Nahuel Huapi*	1922	758,000
Iguazú	1934	55,500
Los Glaciares	1937	600,000
Perito Moreno*	1937	115,000
Los Alerces	1937	263,000
Lanin	1937	379,000
Lago Puelo	1971	27,674
Laguna Blanca	1940	11,250
El Rey	1948	44,162
Río Pilcomayo	1951	47,000
Chaco	1954	15,000
Tierra del Fuego	1960	63,000
El Palmar*	1966	8,500
Formosa	1968	10,000
Los Arrayanes*	1971	1,753
Baritú	1974	72,439
Lihue Calel	1977	9,901
Calilegua	1979	76,306
Laguna de los Pozuelos	1981	16,245
Los Cardones	1986	76,000
Sierra de las Quijadas	1991	150,000
Predelta	1992	2,458
Campo de los Alisos	1995	10,000
Quebrada del Condorito	1996	150,000
Talampaya	1997	215,000
Copo	1998	114,250
San Guillermo	1998	150,000
El Leoncito	2002	76,000
Monte León	2004	61,700

*Protected and named Patrimonio Nacional

Adapted from Boyle and Boyle 1990 and APN 2007

Table 4: Argentina pollution emissions compared to Brazil, Peru, South America and the World.

Pollutant Emissions	Argentina	Brazil	Peru	South America	World
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions
Total emissions 1998 (in million metric tons of CO2)	136,914	299,556	27,854	801,222	24,215,376
Emissions as a percent of global CO2 production	0.6%	1.2%	0.1%	3.3%	N/A
CO2 Emissions by Sector, 1999 (in million metric tons of CO2)
Public electricity, heat production,  and auto producers	29	27	3	106	8,693
Other Energy Industries	14	19	2	79	1,205
Manufacturing Industries and Construction	20	87	7	183	4,337
Transportation	41	123	9	258	5,505
Residential	17	17	3	52	1,802
Other Sectors	14	27	3	64	5,640
Total Emissions All Sectors	137	300	27	742	27,180
Non-CO2 Air Pollution, thousand metric tons
Sulfur dioxide emissions, 1995	331	2,050	723	7,062	141,875
Nitrogen oxide emissions, 1995	610	3,870	290	6,722	99,271
Carbon monoxide emissions, 1995	4,421	61,710	3,649	100,454	852,415

Adapted from Earthtrends 2006, http://earthtrends.wri.org/

 

Table 5: Argentina, Brazil, and Peru IUCN Red List Species Categories for 2006.

	Argentina			Brazil			Peru
Category	Fauna	Flora	Total species	Fauna	Flora	Total species	Fauna	Flora	Total species
Extinct	1	0	1	6	5	11	1	1	2
Extinct in the wild	3	0	3	3	0	3	0	0	0
Critically Endangered	13	1	14	57	46	103	36	9	45
Endangered	42	10	52	79	117	196	75	15	90
Vulnerable	104	33	137	203	219	422	137	252	389
Near Threatened	123	13	136	220	66	286	149	38	187
Data Deficient	66	13	79	332	37	369	178	19	197
Least Concern	1248	13	1269	2433	86	2519	2165	40	2205
TOTAL	1600	91	1691	3331	577	3908	2741	374	3115

Adapted from IUCN, http://iucn.org/themes/ssc/redlist.htm

 

 

 

 

Table 6: Number of Species on the IUCN Red List in 2004 and 2006 in Argentina and its bordering countries.

	Argentina		Bolivia		Brazil		Chile		Paraguay		Uruguay
Taxonomic Group	Red List 2004	Red List 2006	Red List 2004	Red List 2006	Red List 2004	Red List 2006	Red List 2004	Red List 2006	Red List 2004	Red List 2006	Red List 2004	Red List 2006
Mammals	32	32	26	24	74	73	22	22	11	9	6	7
Aves	55	57	30	32	120	124	32	35	27	29	24	26
Reptiles	5	5	2	3	22	22	0	1	2	2	3	3
Amphibians	30	33	21	23	24	28	20	21	0	2	4	4
Fish	12	22	0	0	42	58	9	12	0	0	11	22
Mollusc	0	0	0	0	21	21	0	0	0	0	0	0
Other Invertebrates	10	10	1	1	13	13	0	2	0	0	1	1
Plants	42	44	70	71	381	382	40	39	10	12	1	1
Total species	186	203	150	154	697	721	123	132	50	54	50	64

Adapted from IUCN, http://www.sur.iucn.org

 

Literature Cited

Aagesen, D. 2000. Crisis and conservation at the end of the world: sheep ranching in Argentine Patagonia. Environmental Conservation 27: 208-215.

Abril, A. and E. H. Bucher. 2001. Overgrazing and soil carbon dynamics in the western Chaco of Argentina. Applied Soil Ecology 16:243-249.

Aguilar, S. 2002. Environmental non-government organizations in Argentina. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 11: 225-234.

Anonymous.  2007. South America: Argentina: energy.  http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ar-argentina/ene-energy

Anonymous. 2005. About Argentina. http://www.argentina.gov.ar/argentina/portal/paginas.dhtml?pagina=1654

APN, (Administracion de Parques Nacionales). 2007. Fichas tematicas de las areas protegidos. http://parquesnacionales.gov/ar.

Arena, A. P., and C. de Rosa.  2003.  Life cycle assessment of energy an environmental implications of the implementation of conservation technologies in school buildings in Mendoza-Argentina.  Building and Environment 38:359-368.

Botkin, D. B. and L. M. Talbot. 1992. Biological diversity and forests, in: Managing the world’s forests: looking for balance between conservation and development, N. P. Sharma, ed. Kendall/Hunt Publishing company, Dubuque, IA, pp. 47-74.

Boyle, S. C., and T. P. Boyle. 1990. Argentina, in: International handbook of national parks and nature preserves, C. W. Allin, ed. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, pp. 21-36.

Bucher, E. H., 1982. Chaco and Caatinga-South American arid savannas, woodlands, and thickets, in: Ecology of tropical savannas, B. J. Huntley and B. H. Walker, eds. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 48-79.

Chisari, O. O., J. M. Fanelli, and R. Frenkel.  1996.  Argentina: growth resumption, sustainability, and environment.  World Development 24:227-240.

CITES, (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). 2000. Report on National Reports Required Under Article VIII, Paragraph 7(a), of the Convention, Eleventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, Gigiri, Kenya, April 2000.       

Dasguta, S., B. Laplante, and C. Meisner.  2000.  Environmental news in Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and the Philippines.  Local Environment 5:351-359.

Di Paola, M. E.  2004.  Environmental compliance and enforcement indicators in Argentina: primary concerns. http://www.inece.org/indicators/proceedings/04a_argentina.pdf

Dillehay, T. D. 2000. The settlement of the Americas: a new prehistory. Basic Books, New York, NY.

Earthtrends.  2003.  Earthtrends: the environmental information portal, country profile-Argentina. WRI, (World Resources Institute)  http://earthtrends.wri.org

Encyclopedia Britannica. 2007a. Argentina. http://www.britannica.com/new-multimedia/pdf/wordat012.pdf

Encyclopedia Britannica. 2007b. Brazil. http://www.britannica.com/new-multimedia/pdf/wordat031.pdf

Encyclopedia Britannica. 2007c. Peru. http://www.britannica.com/new-multimedia/pdf/wordat159.pdf

Hardoy, J E., D. Mitlin, and D. Satterthwaite. 1992. Environmental problems in third world cities. Earthscan Publications Limited, London, UK.

Harris, M. B., W. Tomas, G. Mourão, C. J. Da Silva, E. Guimarães, F. Sonoda, E. Fachim. 2005. Safeguarding the Pantanal wetlands: threats and conservation initiatives. Conservation Biology 19:714-720.

Hopkins, J. W. 1995.  Policymaking for conservation in Latin America: national parks, reserves, and the environment.  Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT.

IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 2007. The IUCN red list of threatened species. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/redlists/background_EN.htm

IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 2001. World Conservation 32 (3):4.

IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 1992. Protected areas of the world: a review of national systems, Volume 4: Nearctic and Neotropical. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Jones, C. A. 1985. The state and business practice in Argentina, 1862-1914, in: Latin America, economic imperialism and the state: the political economy of the external connection from independence to the present, C. Abel and C. M. Lewis, eds. The Athlone Press, London, UK, pp. 184-198. 

Krapovickas, S. and A. S. Di Giacomo. 1998. Conservation of pampas and campos grasslands in Argentina. Parks 8:47-53.

Krapovickas, S. and J. A. Lyons. 1997. Swainson’s hawk in Argentina: international crisis and conservation. World Birdwatch 19:12-15.

Larriera, A. and A. Imhof.  2006.  Proyecto Yacaré: Cosecha de huevas para cría en granjas del género Caiman en la Argentina, in: Manejo de fauna silvestre en la Argentina programas de uso sustentable, M. L. Bolkovic and D. Ramadori, eds. Dirección de Fauna Silvestre, Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable, Buenos Aires.

Lewis, C. M. 1985, Railways and industrialization: Argentina and Brazil, 1870-1929, in: Latin America, economic imperialism and the state: the political economy of the external connection from independence to the present, C. Abel and C. M. Lewis, eds. The Athlone Press, London, UK, pp. 199-230.

Lewis, D. K. 2001. The history of Argentina. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.

Miles, L., A. C. Newton, R. S. DeFries, C. Ravilious, I. May, S. Blyth, V. Kapos, and J. E. Gordon. 2006. A global overview of the conservation status of tropical dry forests. Journal of Biogeography 33:491-505.

Newcomer, B. E. 2003. The Swainson’s hawk in Argentina: possibilities for success in migratory bird conservation. B.A. Thesis. Environmental Studies Program, Bates College, Lewiston, ME.     

Onursal, B. and S. P. Gautam.  1997.  Vehicular air pollution: experiences from seven Latin American urban centers.  Technical Paper No. 373, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Piovano, E. L., D. Ariztegui, and S. D. Moreira. 2002. Recent environmental changes in Laguna Mar Chiquita (central Argentina): a sedimentary model for a highly variable saline lake. Sedimentology 49:1371-1384.

Pyle, J. 1976. A reexamination of Aboriginal population estimates for Argentina, in: The native population of the Americas, W. M. Denevan, ed. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, pp. 181-204.

Rock, D. 1985. Argentina: 1516-1982. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Rowe, R., N. P. Sharma, and J. Browder. Deforestation: problems, causes, and concerns, in: Managing the world’s forests: looking for balance between conservation and development, N. P. Sharma, ed. Kendall/Hunt Publishing company, Dubuque, IA, pp. 33-46.

Sawers, L.  2000. Income distribution and environmental degradation in the Argentine Interior.  Latin American Research Review 35:3-33.

Spalding, M. D., H. E. Fox, G. R. Allen, N. Davidson, Z. A. Ferdańa, M. Finlayson, B. S. Halpern, M.  A. Jorge, A. Lombana, S. A. Lourie, K. D. Martin, E. McManus, J. Molnar, C.  A. Recchia, and J. Robertson. 2007. Marine ecoregions of the World: a bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. Bioscience 57:573-583.

Soriano, A., R. J. C. León, O. E. Sala, R. S. Lavado, V. A. Deregibus, M. A. Cauhépé, O. A. Scaglia, C. A. Veláquez and J. H. Lemcoff. 1992. Río de Plata grasslands, in: Natural Grasslands: introduction and western hemisphere, R. T. Coupland, ed. Elsevier Science Publishing Company Inc., New York, NY.

Tillman, D., J. Fargione, B. Wolff, C. D’Antonio, A. Dobson, R. Howarth, D. Schindler, W.H. Schlesinger, D. Simberloff, and D. Swackhamer. 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292:281-284.

Tucci, C. E. M., and R. T. Clarke. 1998. Environmental issues in the la Plata Basin. Water Resources Development 14:157-173.

UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme. 2005.  Biodiversity 2005. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Ramsar Convention Bureau, United Nations

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, World Conservation Union

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/biodiversity-protected/bio1_2005.pdf

US Census Bureau. 2007. Country summary: Argentina. http:www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/country/arportal.html

Viglizzo, E. F., A. J. Pordomingo, M. G. Castro, and F. A. Lertora. 2003. Environmental assessment of agriculture at a regional scale in the pampas of Argentina. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 87:169-195.

World Bank.  2006.  Argentina Agriculture and Rural Development: Selected Issues. Report No. 32763-AR, Washington, DC.

World Bank.  1995a.  Argentina Managing Environmental Pollution: Issues and Options, Vol. l: Summary Report.  Report No. 14070-AR, Washington, DC.

World Bank.  1995b.  Argentina Managing Environmental Pollution: Issues and Options, Vol. 2: Summary Report. Report No. 14070-AR, Washington, DC.

Zak, M. R., M. Cabido, and J. G. Hodgson. 2004. Do subtropical forests in the Gran Chaco, Argentina, have a future? Biological Conservation 120:589-598.