Environment at a Glance Indicators

Biological resources and biodiversity

Context

Biodiversity, encompassing species, ecosystems and genetic diversity, is an integral component of natural capital. It underpins essential ecosystem services such as raw materials, pollination, water purification and environment regulation, all critical to human well-being and economic activity.

Biodiversity is under growing pressure from land- and sea-use change, over-exploitation of natural resources, pollution, invasive alien species and climate change These pressures can lead to habitat degradation and fragmentation, species decline and reduced ecosystem resilience, with implications for both environmental quality and economic activity.

Policy challenges

The main challenge is to ensure effective conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity while restoring degraded ecosystems and reducing pressures on species and habitats.

This requires a coherent mix of economic, regulatory and voluntary instruments, supported by effective monitoring, enforcement and tackling environmental crimes (such as illegal trade in endangered species and unregulated fishing). Policies must address direct pressures on biodiversity, including habitat loss, over-exploitation, pollution and invasive alien species, while integrating biodiversity considerations into key sectors such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, infrastructure and spatial planning.

Economic instruments can complement regulations by strengthening incentives for conservation and sustainable resource use. These include biodiversity-related taxes, fees and charges, payments for ecosystem services, biodiversity offsets, tradable permits and the reform of environmentally harmful subsidies.

Measuring progress and performance

Environmental performance can be assessed against domestic objectives and international commitments.

The main international agreement on biodiversity is the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and its Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) adopted in 2022. Other relevant international agreements and regulations are: OECD Council Recommendation, the 1979 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, the 1979 Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats and the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing that entered into force in June 2016.

Indicator groups

• Land use: share of land area by type of use; and share of agricultural area under organic farming.

• Land cover: share of land cover by type; loss and gain of natural and semi-natural vegetated land; and gain of artificial surfaces. Note that land cover and land use are related but different. While land cover measures the biophysical characteristics of land surface (e.g. tree cover, grassland), land use describes the socio-economic use of land (e.g. forest, pasture land, wild meadow).

• Forest resources: share of forest area naturally regenerating versus planted forest; intensity of use of forest resources.

• Threatened species and protected areas: share of threatened mammals, vascular plants, freshwater fish, birds and amphibians, and protected areas by management categories.

• Taxes relevant for biodiversity: revenue raised and tax base structure.

The indicators presented here reflect internationally available and harmonised data. For instance, neither land use nor land cover captures the conditions, functioning and services provided by ecosystems, and related biodiversity. Therefore, results should be interpreted with caution and complemented with additional indicators (e.g. on the state of ecosystems).

Land use

Key messages

• The overall distribution of land use types across OECD countries has remained relatively stable over the past three decades. Around one-third of land is forest, about one-quarter is permanent meadows and pastures and around one-tenth is cropland.

• This overall stability masks large differences across countries. Between 2000 and 2024, some countries experienced sizeable shifts in cropland, pasture and forest area, reflecting different land-use pressures and structural changes.

• The share of agricultural land under organic farming has expanded significantly in most OECD countries since 2005. In 2024, organic agriculture accounted for around 6.5% of agricultural land on average across OECD countries, although shares and trends vary widely.

Main trends and recent developments

During the past three decades, the composition of major land use types has remained quite stable in OECD countries, with about 11% of arable land and permanent crops, 23% of permanent meadows and pastures, 34% of forest area and 32% of other land use types. OECD totals mask large differences across countries: during 2000-2024, from almost 10 percentage points lost in Czechia for the share of cropland to 5.8 points gained in Latvia; from 19.8 percentage points lost in Greece for permanent meadows and pastures to 6.7 points more in Portugal; from 2.7 percentage points lost Colombia for forest to 3.5 points more in Italy.

Certain land uses may be more beneficial to biodiversity, such as organic farming (less use of chemical inputs), richer soils, vegetation cover attracting pollinators, etc. and the share of naturally regenerating forest (more diverse and resilient than planted forests).

Since 2005, organic agriculture has increased in the vast majority of OECD member countries, albeit with large differences: from a 20.6% decrease in the United Kingdom to a 280% increase in Estonia. In 2024, the share of agricultural land under organic farming ranged from less than 1% in several countries to 27% in Austria, and to 6.5% in the OECD area.

Indicators

Comparability and interpretation

The FAO defines land use by the arrangements, activities and inputs people undertake in a certain land cover type to produce, change, or maintain it. In this sense, land use has a direct link with land cover through the actions of people on the land. Changes in the use of land are a relatively good proxy, albeit incomplete, to monitor pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity. However, results should be interpreted with caution and complemented with land cover, land cover change transition matrices, and ecosystem (conditions, functioning and services) indicators. For example, an increase in cropland may come at the expense of naturally vegetated areas or, inversely, a planted forest may replace an intensively farmed land. Indicators of change can hide significant modifications to ecosystems and natural habitats and should therefore be complemented with information on the state of ecosystems. Countries may have different legislation and requirements for organic farming; therefore, data may not be fully comparable across countries.

For further details see the metadata in the source databases.

Land cover

Key messages

• Artificial surfaces in OECD countries increased by 59% between 2000 and 2022, now covering almost 1% of the total area. OECD Europe has the highest share (2.5%) whereas OECD America and OECD Asia-Oceania have rates below 1%. Most new artificial surfaces are built on cropland.

• Tree cover remains the most prevalent land cover type in OECD countries, accounting for about one-third of total area.

• Natural and semi-natural vegetated areas have remained broadly stable in OECD countries since 2000. However, global trends show a loss of 1.8% of (semi-)natural vegetated land converted to more anthropogenic uses, mostly in Brazil, the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the United States and Indonesia. Gains in (semi-)natural vegetated land are unlikely to fully offset losses, for example where old-growth or primary forests are replaced by monoculture tree plantations.

Main trends and recent developments

Artificial surfaces expanded by 59% in OECD countries between 2000 and 2022, now covering almost 1% of the region’s total area. This is equivalent to 266 m² per inhabitant, 2.6 times the world average. OECD Europe has the highest share of artificial surfaces (2.5%) whereas OECD America and OECD Asia-Oceania have rates below 1% (mainly because of low extents in Canada and Australia).

Most new artificial surfaces are built on cropland, except for a handful of countries where urban expansion occurred at the expense of tree-covered areas, grasslands or shrubland.

Tree cover dominates in OECD countries, accounting for roughly one-third of land cover. However, the distribution is heterogeneous across countries. For instance, cropland makes up the majority of many countries’ territory (Hungary, Denmark, Belgium, Türkiye, Italy and Poland) whereas it represents less than 6% of Iceland, Norway, New Zealand and Canada territories.

The natural and semi-natural vegetated area in OECD countries has remained broadly stable since 2000. This is in contrast with some other regions of the world where natural and semi-natural areas have come under intense pressure from agriculture, urbanisation, resource extraction and infrastructure. Among OECD countries, from 2000 to 2022, the most intense losses of (semi-)natural vegetated land have occurred in Korea, Israel and Portugal. Most natural and semi-natural land is converted to cropland. In most countries, new cropland is converted primarily from tree-covered areas but conversions from grassland and shrubland are important in some countries. In some cases, the change may be due to re-cultivation of previously abandoned agricultural land.

Worldwide, approximately 1.8% of (semi-)natural vegetated land has been lost to other land cover types since 2000. This is an area around 2.5 times the size of Spain. OECD and G20 countries account for more than half of these conversions, which occur primarily in Brazil, the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the United States and Indonesia.

Gains of (semi-)natural land are unlikely to compensate for losses, as for example, the costs of the loss of old-growth or primary forest are not comparable to the benefits provided by equally sized new forest plantation.

Indicators

Comparability and interpretation

The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Central Framework (SEEA CF) defines land cover as the observed physical and biological cover of the Earth’s surface and includes natural vegetation and abiotic (non-living) surfaces. Current land cover is a function of natural changes in the environment and of previous and current land use, particularly in agricultural and forestry areas. Thus, a clear and systematic description of classes of land cover allows the land cover classification to be compared with that for types of land use, while maintaining pure land cover criteria. A more detailed description of the aggregation of land cover classes can be found in the Glossary. In this sense, land cover has a direct link with land use through the activities of humans on the land. Like for land use, changes in land cover are an important, albeit incomplete, indicator for monitoring pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity. Additional indicators, such as transition matrices and ecosystem health data, are necessary to understand the full impact. For instance, gains in tree cover may not improve biodiversity if they involve monoculture plantations.

The indicators developed provide a global perspective on land cover changes, but they should be interpreted in the context of local conditions and complemented with more granular data where available. National statistics and higher-resolution data can provide valuable insights into the specific drivers and impacts of land cover changes at the local level.

Forest resources

Key messages

• Forests face increasing threats from degradation, fragmentation and land conversion. Wood demand tied to renewable energy targets is a growing pressure.

• The distribution of forests is highly uneven. A few countries hold most of the world’s forests. OECD countries account for about 29% of global forest area.

• Since 2000, about two thirds of OECD countries witnessed increases in both naturally regenerating and planted forests.

• OECD countries maintain harvest rates below annual growth in forests available for wood supply, albeit intensity varies across countries. However, assessing sustainability requires additional information on forest management practices.

Main trends and recent developments

Forest resources face ongoing pressures, notably from overexploitation, land conversion and ecosystem degradation. Unsustainable forestry practices can deplete valuable species, fragment habitats and degrade environmental quality. The main drivers include agricultural expansion, infrastructure development, air pollution, climate change and the rising demand for wood as a renewable energy source. The use of primary wood biomass, in particular, to meet renewable energy targets may undermine broader environment policy objectives.

Globally, forests are unevenly distributed. A handful of the most forest-rich countries account for the bulk of the world’s forest resources. OECD countries account for about 29% of the world’s forest area. Since 1990, the area of forests and wooded land has increased in most OECD countries, but it has been decreasing at world level due in part to continued deforestation in tropical countries, often to provide land for agricultural, crops and cattle grazing.

Since 2000, just over a third of OECD countries witnessed an increase in the share of naturally regenerating forests. However, in the majority of OECD countries, this share is greater than 50%, and greater than 80% in 17 countries. By contrast, just over a half of these countries saw an increase of planted forest during the same period. The share of planted forests is much more variable: from 0.2% in Mexico to 94% Czechia in 2023.

OECD countries do not over-harvest their resources in forests available for wood supply, maintaining the intensity of use below 100%. However, assessing sustainability requires additional information on forest management practices (e.g. forest biodiversity, soil health). There is significant variation among and within countries. Since the 1990s, intensity of use of forest resources has increased in some countries for which longer trends are available. This is partly due to the use of wood biomass for energy. Korea shows a relatively low intensity because its forests are young and grow rapidly (due to massive reforestation programmes since 1973).

Indicators

Comparability and interpretation

The intensity of use of forest resources provides insights into quantitative aspects of forest resources. It present national averages that may conceal important variations among forests. It should be read with information on forest quality (e.g. species diversity, including tree and non-tree species; forest degradation; forest fragmentation) and be complemented with data on forest management practices and protection measures. Data on the intensity of use of forest resources can be derived from forest accounts and from international forest statistics and the FAO/UNECE Forest Resource Assessments for most OECD countries, although differences in the variables monitored result in interpretation difficulties. Historical data often lack comparability or are not available over longer periods.

For further details see the metadata in the source databases.

Threatened species and protected areas

Key messages

• Many species remain threatened across OECD countries, although the extent varies considerably among countries and species groups, particularly in countries with high population density and intense economic activity. Amphibians and reptiles are generally more threatened than mammals and plants.

• Specialist bird species have declined significantly due to habitat degradation, especially in grasslands, arid zones and farmland.

• Marine biodiversity is under severe threat. Coral reefs and marine fish species face growing risks, with population declines evident across multiple groups. According to the IUCN Red List, 44% of reef-forming corals, 28% of crustaceans and 26% of freshwater fishes are globally threatened.

• Protected areas have expanded substantially in all OECD countries. In 2024, they covered 17% of terrestrial areas and 23% of marine areas within national jurisdictions, compared to just 10% and 3% respectively in 2000. By contrast, outside national jurisdictions, less than 1% of high seas are protected.

Main trends and recent developments

Biodiversity remains under considerable pressures across OECD countries. Many ecosystems have been degraded, reducing their capacity to provide ecosystem services, and many animal and plant species are threatened by habitat alteration or loss, both within and outside protected areas (e.g. on farms and in forests).

The number of terrestrial animal and plant species identified as endangered is increasing, particularly in countries with a high population density and a high level of concentration of human activities. Amphibians and reptiles are generally more threatened than mammals and plants. Specialist bird population have also declined markedly by nearly 30% in 40 years, reflecting habitats degradation. The largest declines occurred in grasslands, shorelines and arid lands in North America, and in farmed lands in Europe. Pollution from chemicals and waste drives biodiversity and ecosystem changes, with particularly severe impacts on freshwater and marine habitats. The continuous use of insecticides and herbicides is causing a decline in plant and insect populations.

Marine wildlife is increasingly threatened. According to the Living Planet Index average populations of marine birds, mammals, reptiles and fish have dropped by around 50% since 1970 (WWF, 2015). The IUCN Red List Index shows increasing extinction risks, particularly for corals, which are deteriorating rapidly (Carpenter et al., 2008). By 2025, 44% of reef-forming corals, 28% of crustaceans, 26% of freshwater fishes and cetacean were considered threatened globally (IUCN, 2026_[1]).

Protected areas are growing across OECD countries. In 2024, they covered 17% of the terrestrial area and 23% of marine areas (i.e. exclusive economic zones - EEZ), compared to 10% and 3% respectively, in 2000. Outside national jurisdictions, however, less than 1% of high seas are protected. Also, marine protected areas that explicitly restrict commercial fishing or other extractive activities are less frequently used, accounting for a mere 5.5% of OECD EEZ (essentially in the United States and Australia).

The extent and the management objectives of terrestrial protected areas also differ considerably across countries, reflecting differences in geography, ecology, and the pre-existing patterns of human settlement and land use. Some countries (e.g. Canada, Costa Rica, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway) have designated proportionally large areas as strict nature reserves, national parks and wilderness areas (IUCN management categories I-II). Some countries (e.g. Belgium, Israel, Luxembourg and New Zealand) use these designations to establish habitats and species management areas (categories III and IV) and others (e.g. France, Germany, Greece, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia) for the preservation of cultural heritage or the promotion of sustainable resource use (categories V and VI). Other countries use mainly regional and international designations such as the European Natura 2000 regional network (e.g. Ireland). The designation of protected areas does not, by itself, ensure effective biodiversity conservation. Outcomes also depend on whether protected areas cover ecologically important habitats, are sufficiently connected and are effectively managed.

Coastal areas are often more protected than offshore marine areas. They contain important biodiversity concentrations such as estuaries, wetlands, mangroves, seagrass beds and coral reefs, and they face intense human pressures from urban development, tourism, ports, fisheries, pollution and infrastructure, which makes their protection a priority. Coastal protected areas are often easier and less costly to manage than offshore marine areas, although overlapping coastal use and stakeholder interests can also complicate their management. In addition, coastal ecosystems provide direct and tangible benefits to local communities, including protection against storms and erosion, water purification, carbon storage and recreation, which can strengthen public support for their conservation.

Indicators

Comparability and interpretation

Threatened species include those listed as vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered. Data on threatened species are available for all OECD countries with varying degrees of completeness. The number of species known or assessed does not always accurately reflect the number of species in existence, and the definitions that should follow IUCN standards are applied with varying degrees of rigour in countries. Historical data are generally not comparable or not available. For many of the incompletely evaluated species groups, assessment efforts have focused on species that are likely to be threatened; therefore, any share of threatened species reported for these groups would be heavily biased (i.e., the % threatened species would likely be an overestimate). For some countries, data include extinct species. For some countries, birds’ data refer to breeding species only.

Data on protected areas are available for all countries globally from 1950 to 2024. The definitions, although harmonised by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, may vary among countries. The extent, and management types, of terrestrial and marine protected areas can indicate countries’ efforts to safeguard habitats and species as well as landscapes shaped by human-environment interactions that are valued for cultural or other reasons. Protection designation does not guarantee that the area in question is appropriately located (it may not be representative of national biodiversity or sufficiently connected). Indicators on the extent of protected areas do not reflect the effectiveness of the management of these areas. Furthermore, changes in protected areas are an important, albeit incomplete, indicator for monitoring pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity. Additional indicators are necessary to understand impacts on ecosystem functioning or ecosystem services. On a more technical level, the UNEP-WCMC’s World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA) relies on regular submissions of data from countries and other data providers; therefore, where these have not been provided the database is incomplete or outdated. Some designated marine protected areas target only a narrow range of species (or even just a single species) through (e.g.) proscription of a particular fishing technique, but without any special restrictions on other high-impact activities that may harm biodiversity and are therefore only marginally more protected than other areas. For certain countries, more recent national or regional information may show updated trends.

Taxes relevant for biodiversity

For further details see the metadata in the source databases.

Key messages

• By 2026, OECD countries had adopted 557 biodiversity-related policy instruments, more than doubling since the mid-1990’s, with environmentally positive subsidies the most prevalent.

• In 2024, biodiversity-related taxes raised USD 10.4 billion across OECD countries, representing only 0.05% of total tax revenue, compared to 0.08% in 2000.

• Most of biodiversity-related tax revenue comes from pollution, resource and transport taxes, while energy taxes currently contribute relatively little to biodiversity objectives.

Main trends and recent developments

Since 2010, all OECD countries have expanded their use of biodiversity-related policy instruments, reaching 557 active instruments by 2026, more than double compared to the mid-1990’s. Biodiversity-positive subsidies are the most common type (with 232 implemented), followed by taxes (141) and resource-use charges (123). Less common approaches include tradeable permits and offsets (40) and voluntary approaches (21). The United States, Spain, France, Australia, Finland, and Ireland have the highest number of instruments, and countries such as Luxembourg, Türkiye and Hungary have fewer. Biodiversity-relevant policy instruments cover both terrestrial and marine ecosystems. In the OECD PINE database, environmental domains are not mutually exclusive. Instruments tagged under the biodiversity domain, for instance, can cut across multiple environmental protection and natural resource management domains, in particular forests, oceans, and fisheries (see OECD PINE database for more information).

In 2024, biodiversity-related taxes generated USD 10.4 billion across OECD countries, representing a small share of total tax revenue (0.05%), remaining relatively stable since 2000 (0.08%). As a share of total environmentally related tax revenue, biodiversity-related taxes make up 1.22%, mostly generated from pollution taxes (0.64%), followed by resource (0.29%) and transport taxes (0.25%), with energy taxes contributing minimally.

Indicators

Comparability and interpretation

Care should be taken when interpreting the policy instrument counts. The existence of an instrument does not guarantee its enforcement; moreover, the level of stringency might not be adequate for the desired environmental outcome and the pattern of instrument types recorded in the OECD Policy Instruments for the Environment (PINE) database may not be representative of all existing instruments.

To assess the “environmental friendliness” of the tax systems, indicators on environmentally related taxes should be complemented with information describing the economic and taxation structure of each country. Moreover, some environmentally related taxes can have important environmental impacts even if they raise little (or no) revenue. In addition, revenue from fees and charges, and from royalties related to resource management, is not included.

Comparisons of ERTRs in OECD countries provide a useful starting point for analysing the impact of environmental taxation, however, comparing only the levels of revenue does not provide the full picture of a country’s environmental policy, as it does not provide information on the levels of tax rates or the exemptions applied. Other parts of the OECD PINE database, including information on tax rates and exemptions, allows deeper assessment of the environmental impacts of these taxes. In addition, governments may choose to implement environmental policy using a range of other instruments, including fees and charges, expenditures (both direct and subsidies) and regulation, some of which are also detailed in the PINE database (see https://oe.cd/pine for information on the use of alternative instruments in countries).

For further details see the metadata in the source databases.

Glossary

Biodiversity-related policy instruments: Biodiversity-related policy instruments include taxes, fees and charges, tradable permits and offsets, environmentally beneficial subsidies, deposit-refund schemes and voluntary approaches. These instruments are considered relevant to biodiversity if they aim to protect, conserve, restore, and sustainably use ecosystems, habitats, and natural or semi-natural landscapes. It encompasses conservation, sustainable use, and restoration of biodiversity covering both terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Examples include taxes on pesticides and fertilizers, national park entrance fees, hunting licenses, individual transferable quotas (ITQs) for fisheries, marine environment protection fees, grants for sustainable forest management, and payments for ecosystem services.

The data are extracted from the OECD Policy Instruments for the Environment (PINE) database, which contains quantitative and qualitative information on over 4 800 policy instruments in more than 150 countries. Policy instruments are tagged into 22 environmental domains following the PINE environmental domain tagging methodology (Chhun, B., et al., 2024). Each instrument is tagged in every domain it directly targets; indirect or incidental effects are not considered. An instrument may therefore be tagged in more than one domain, for example both Biodiversity and Fisheries. For additional examples and details see Chhun, B., et al. (2024).

Biodiversity-related tax revenue: Revenue raised from taxes and auctioning of tradable permits directed at biodiversity. These include specific taxes on i) energy products for water transport purposes; ii) vehicles and vessels for water transport (e.g. one-off or recurrent taxes on ownerships and use of boats); iii) discharges into water bodies, soil contamination, etc. and iv) resource extraction such as fishing or hunting taxes, forestry taxes, water abstraction, revenue from auctioning of individual transferable quotas for fisheries.

The information on taxes and the associated tax revenue is from the extracted from the OECD Environmentally related tax revenue (ERTR) dataset, drawing on data from OECD Policy Instruments for the Environment (PINE) database (https://oe.cd/pinedatabase).

Intensity of use of forest resources (timber): Actual harvest or fellings (of forest available for wood supply) over annual productive capacity. Annual productive capacity is either a calculated value, such as annual allowable cut, or an estimate of annual growth for existing stock. It should be noted that the national averages presented here may conceal variations among forests.

Land cover type: The observed physical and biological cover of the Earth’s surface, including natural vegetation, abiotic (non-living) surfaces and inland.

Natural and semi-natural land: Used to designate land covered by natural or semi-natural vegetation with limited anthropogenic footprint as a proxy for land which is important for maintaining biodiversity and provides higher-value ecosystem services at the global scale.

Vegetation loss: Share of tree cover, grassland, wetland, shrubland and sparse vegetation converted to any other land cover type. The denominator used is the ‘stock' of natural and semi-natural land at the start of the period.

The eight broad land cover categories constitute several land cover subclasses

Land cover (CCI-LC) classes are aggregated into eight broad land cover categories.

Category	CCI-LC
Cropland	10,11,12,20,30,30
Tree cover	50,60,61,62,70,71,72,80,81,82,90,100,160,170
Grassland	110,130
Wetland	180
Artificial surfaces	190
Shrubland	120,121,122
Bare area	140,150,151,152,153,200,201,202,220
Water bodies	210

Note: Further details on the CCI-LC subclasses can be found in ECMWF, 2021, Product User Guide and Specification - ICDR Land Cover 2016-2020, https://dast.copernicus-climate.eu/documents/satellite-land-cover/WP2-FDDP-LC-2021-2022-SENTINEL3-300m-v2.1.1_PUGS_v1.1_final.pdf. The aggregation of CCI-LC land cover classes corresponds also with CORINE Land Cover classes according to Reinhart, V.; Fonte, C.C.; Hoffmann, P.; Bechtel, B.; Rechid, D.; Boehner, J., 2021, Comparison of the ESA’s land cover product to CORINE land cover over Eastern Europe and the Baltic States from a regional climate modelling perspective, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2020.102221.

Source: OECD aggregations of land cover classes as described in Tesnière, V.; Maes, M.J.A.; Haščič, I., 2024, Monitoring land cover change to understand biodiversity pressures: Indicator methodology and key findings, OECD Environment Working Papers, https://doi.org/10.1787/441a7a6c-en.

Land use: The FAO defines land use by the arrangements, activities and inputs people undertake in a certain land cover type to produce, change, or maintain it. Land area excludes area under inland water bodies (i.e. major rivers and lakes).

Agricultural land: Land used for cultivation of crops and animal husbandry. The total of areas under ''Cropland'' and ''Permanent meadows and pastures.''

Agriculture area under organic agriculture: Agriculture area certified organic and/or in conversion to organic according to national legislation.

Arable land: Land used for cultivation of crops in rotation with fallow, meadows and pastures within cycles of up to five years. The total of areas under "Temporary crops'', ''Temporary meadows and pastures,'' and ''Temporary fallow''. Arable land does not include land that is potentially cultivable but is not cultivated.

Forest land: Land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 metres and a canopy cover of more than 10 per cent, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. Excludes land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use.

• Forest land is determined both by the presence of trees and by the absence of other predominant land uses. The trees should be able to reach a minimum height of 5 metres in situ.

• Includes areas with young trees that have not yet reached but that are expected to reach a canopy cover of 10 percent and tree height of 5 metres. It also includes areas that are temporarily unstocked owing to clear-cutting as part of a forest management practice or natural disasters, and that are expected to be regenerated within five years. Local conditions may, in exceptional cases, justify the use of a longer time frame.

• Includes forest roads, firebreaks and other small open areas.

• May include forest land in national parks, nature reserves and other protected areas, such as those of specific environmental, scientific, historical, cultural or spiritual interest.

• Includes windbreaks, shelter belts and corridors of trees with an area of more than 0.5 hectares and width of more than 20 metres.

• Includes abandoned shifting cultivation land with a regeneration of trees that have, or is expected to reach, a canopy cover of 10 percent and tree height of 5 metres.

• Includes areas with mangroves in tidal zones, regardless of whether this area is classified as land area or not.

• Includes areas with bamboo and palms provided that land use, height and canopy cover criteria are met.

• Some agroforestry systems such as the taungya system, where crops are grown only during the first years of the forest rotation should be classified as forest.

• Excludes: tree stands in agricultural production systems, such as fruit-tree plantations (→Permanent crops), oil palm plantations, rubber and Christmas trees (→Permanent crops) and agroforestry systems when crops are grown under tree cover.

Naturally regenerating forest: Forest predominantly composed of trees established through natural regeneration.

• Includes forests for which it is not possible to distinguish whether planted or naturally regenerated.

• Includes forests with a mix of naturally regenerated native tree species and planted/seeded trees, and where the naturally regenerated trees are expected to constitute the major part of the growing stock at stand maturity.

• Includes coppice from trees originally established through natural regeneration.

• Includes naturally regenerated trees of introduced species.

Permanent crops: Land cultivated with long-term crops which do not have to be replanted for several years (such as cocoa and coffee), land under trees and shrubs producing flowers (such as roses and jasmine), and nurseries (except those for forest trees, which should be classified under "Forestry"). Permanent meadows and pastures are excluded from Permanent crops.

Permanent meadows and pastures: Land used permanently (five years or more) to grow herbaceous forage crops through cultivation or naturally (wild prairie or grazing land). Permanent meadows and pastures on which trees and shrubs are grown should be recorded under this heading only if the growing of forage crops is the most important use of the area. Measures may be taken to keep or increase productivity of the land (i.e., use of fertilizers, mowing or systematic grazing by domestic animals.) This class includes:

• Grazing in wooded areas (agroforestry areas, for example);

• Grazing in shrubby zones (heath, maquis, garigue);

• Grassland in the plain or low mountain areas used for grazing: land crossed during transhumance where the animals spend a part of the year (approximately 100 days) without returning to the holding in the evening: mountain and subalpine meadows and similar; and steppes and dry meadows used for pasture.

Planted forest: Forest predominantly composed of trees established through planting and/or deliberate seeding. In this context, predominantly means that the planted/seeded trees are expected to constitute more than 50 percent of the growing stock at maturity. Includes coppice from trees that were originally planted or seeded.

Terrestrial and marine protected areas as share of total land and of exclusive economic zone (EEZ): Protected areas are areas of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural resources and managed through legal or other effective means. The data refer to the World Conservation Union (IUCN) management categories I-VI. National classifications may differ. The data cover areas under the management categories:

• I (strict nature reserves and wilderness areas),

• II (national parks),

• III (natural monument or feature)

• IV (habitat or species management area),

• V (protected landscape or seascape) and

• VI (protected area with sustainable use of natural resources).

Areas nationally/internationally designated without any IUCN category assigned are also included. This category includes regional and international designations such as the European Natura 2000 network.

In general, under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea the EEZ of a country extends 200 nautical miles from the coastline, or to the mid-point between coastlines where the EEZ of different countries would otherwise overlap.

Threatened species: The number of threatened species compared to the number of known or assessed species. “Threatened” refers to the categories of “endangered”, “critically endangered” and “vulnerable” species (i.e. species in danger of extinction and species soon likely to be in danger of extinction), as defined by the IUCN.

Data sources

FAO, “Land use”, FAOSTAT (database), https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RL

OECD, "Biodiversity: Threatened species", OECD Environment Statistics (database), https://doi.org/10.1787/data-00605-en.

OECD, "Biodiversity: Protected areas", OECD Environment Statistics (database), https://doi.org/10.1787/5fa661ce-en.

OECD, "Environmental policy: Environmentally related tax revenue", OECD Environment Statistics (database), https://doi.org/10.1787/df563d69-en

OECD, "Land and forest: Depletion and growth of forest resources", OECD Environment Statistics (database), https://doi.org/10.1787/data-00600-en.

OECD, "Green transition: Green transition indicators", OECD Environment Statistics (database), https://doi.org/10.1787/data-00665-en.

OECD, "Land use", OECD Environment Statistics (database), https://doi.org/10.1787/8ecc9c9c-en.

OECD, Policy Instruments for the Environment (PINE) database, https://oe.cd/pine

References and further reading

BirdLife International, https://www.birdlife.org/

Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP) https://www.bipindicators.net/

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), https://www.cbd.int/

CBD, The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) https://www.cbd.int/gbf

Chhun, B., et al. (2024), "Environmental domain tagging in the OECD PINE database", OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 232, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/be984b0a-en

FAO, 2020, Global Forest Resources Assessment, https://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/2020/e#:~:text=The%20rate%20of%20net%20forest%20loss%20declined%20from%207.8%20million,the%20rate%20of%20forest%20expansion. .

Tesnière, V., M. Maes and I. Haščič (2024), “Monitoring land cover change to understand biodiversity pressures: Indicator methodology and key findings”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 254, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/441a7a6c-en.

IPBES (2019), Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, https://www.ipbes.net/global-assessment-report-biodiversity-ecosystem-services

IUCN (2019), “The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species”. Version 2019-3. https://www.iucnredlist.org/

North American Breeding Bird Survey and European Bird Census Council ; The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) ; BirdLife International ; Statistics Netherlands.

OECD, Indicators on Terrestrial and Marine Protected Areas: Methodology and Results for OECD and G20 countries, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/indicators-on-terrestrial-and-marine-protected-areas_e0796071-en.html

OECD Data Explorer, Environment datasets

OECD work on biodiversity https://www.oecd.org/env/resources/biodiversity/.

OECD (n.d.), “Biodiversity: Finance and the Economic and Business Case for Action”, OECD.org., http://www.oecd.org/env/resources/biodiversity/biodiversity-finance-and-the-economic-and-business-case-for-action.htm

OECD (2023), Revenue Statistics 2023: Tax Revenue Buoyancy in OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9d0453d5-en.

UNEP (2019), Global Environmental Outlook 6, Chapter 6 Biodiversity https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/27659/GEO6_CH6.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

UNEP-WCMC, World Database on Protected Areas (database), https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/world-database-on-protected-areas.