An Exercise of Conservation Prioritization and Search of Consensus Using Species Action Plans in Brazil

Authors

  • Emanuelle Cordeiro de Azevedo Souza Laboratório de Ciência Aplicada à Conservação da Biodiversidade, Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco. Rua Nelson Chaves s/n, Cidade Universitária, Recife/PE, Brasil. CEP: 50.670-901
  • Enrico Bernard Laboratório de Ciência Aplicada à Conservação da BiodiversidadeDepto. de Zoologia - Universidade Federal de Pernambuco

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37002/biodiversidadebrasileira.v11i1.1722

Abstract

In view of the urgency and multiple targets for biodiversity conservation, and the scarcity of financial resources and political will, it is important to reach a consensus on which actions should be given priority. Multicriteria techniques can contribute to the improvement of the conservation prioritization process and different initiatives and approaches could benefit from their use. Here we present an exercise in prioritizing and seeking consensus using a multicriteria technique to rank the objectives proposed by three national action plans in Brazil. This ranking allowed: 1) to compare whether the order of appearance of the actions in these plans are in fact considered to be priorities by the public that drafted these documents; 2) to identify idiosyncrasies between what an official public policy document says and what the people responsible for execution think of these actions; and 3) to identify priority actions common to more than one plan – which can optimize the biodiversity conservation process. We identified a lack of congruence between the order of objectives identified in the action plans and the ranking of priorities made by the specialists who prepared these same plans. A set of common objectives was identified as a priority among different Plans. However, these common objectives were not always a priority in their respective Action Plans. We warn that the lack of congruence observed can compromise the execution of some of the general objectives, humpering or even preventing the conservation of the target species of these documents. 


Author Biography

Enrico Bernard, Laboratório de Ciência Aplicada à Conservação da BiodiversidadeDepto. de Zoologia - Universidade Federal de Pernambuco

Quiropterologia e Conservação da Biodiversidade

References

Ananda J, Herath G. The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. Forest Policy and Economics, 5(1):13-26, 2003.

Ban NC, Picard CR, Vincent AC. Comparing and integrating community‐based and science‐based approaches to prioritizing marine areas for protection. Conservation Biology, 23(4):899-910, 2009.

Bragança D. “O passivo fundiário é só a ponta do iceberg”, afirma Vizentin. O Eco, 03 set. 2013. Disponível em: < http://www.oeco.org.br/reportagens/27548-o-passivo-fundiario-e-so-a-ponta-do-iceberg-afirma-vizentin/ >. Acesso em: 14/12/2017.

Brasil. 2013. Portaria MMA/ICMBio nº 200, de 1º de Julho de 2013. Diário Oficial da União. <https://www.icmbio.gov.br/cepsul/images/stories/legislacao/Portaria/2016/p_icmbio_200_2013_pan_herpetofauna_mataatl%C3%A2ntica_nordestina.pdf>. Acesso em: 14/12/2020.

Brasil. 2014. Portaria MMA/ICMBio nº 32, 27 de Março de 2014a. Diário Oficial da União. <https://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/images/stories/docs-pan/pan-pequenos-felinos/1-ciclo/pan-pequenos-felinos-portaria-aprovacao.pdf>. Acesso em: 14/12/2020.

Brasil. 2014. Portaria MMA/ICMBio nº 56, 22 de Maio de 2014b. Diário Oficial da União. <https://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/images/stories/o-que-somos/Port_56.pdf>. Acesso em: 14/12/2020.

Brasil. 1981. Lei nº 6.938, de 31 de agosto de 1981. Diário Oficial da União. <http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l6938.htm>. Acesso em: 14/12/2020.

Brasil. 2016. Portaria ICMBio nº 38, de 03 de maio de 2016. Diário Oficial da União. <https://ava.icmbio.gov.br/cepsul/images/stories/legislacao/Portaria/2016/p_icmbio_38_2016_pan_herpetofauna_ne.pdf>. Acesso em: 14/12/2020.

CBD NBSAPs. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). Disponível em: <https://www.cbd.int/nbsap/>. Acesso em 06/08/2020.

Chow TE, Sadler R. The consensus of local stakeholders and outside experts in suitability modeling for future camp development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(1): 9-19. 2010.

Cress JJ et al. A comparative approach to assess drivers of success in mammalian conservation recovery programs. Conservation Biology, 30(4):694-705. 2016.

Driscoll DA, Bode M, Bradstock RA, Keith DA, Penman TD, Price OF. Resolving future fire management conflicts using multicriteria decision making. Conservation Biology, 30(1):196-205. 2016.

Duke JM, Aull-Hyde R. Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecological Economics, 42(1):131-145. 2002.

EPANB - Estratégia e Plano de Ação Nacionais para a Biodiversidade 2016-2020. Ministério do Meio Ambiente – MMA, Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas – SBF. 2017. Disponível em: < https://www.mma.gov.br/images/arquivo/80049/EPANB/EPANB_PORT.pdf> Acesso em: 06/08/2020

Game ET, Kareiva P, Possingham HP. Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting. Conservation Biology, 27(3): 480-485. 2013.

Goepel K. AHP Excel Template Version. < http://bpmsg.com/category/ahp/>. Acesso em: 06/08/2020.

Govindan K, Diabat A, Shankar KM. Analyzing the drivers of green manufacturing with fuzzy approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96:182-193. 2015.

Gregory R, Long G, Colligan M, Geiger JG, Laser M. When experts disagree (and better science won’t help much): using structured deliberations to support endangered species recovery planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 105:30-43. 2012.

Gregory R., Long G. Using structured decision making to help implement a precautionary approach to endangered species management. Risk Analysis, 29(4):518-532. 2009.

Haddad NM, et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Science Advances, 1(2): e1500052. 2015.

IBAMA. Plano de Ação para a Conservação do Mutum-do-sudeste Crax blumenbachii. Série Espécies Ameaçadas, Volume 1. 2004 < http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/faunabrasileira/plano-de-acao-nacional-lista/2730-plano-de-acao-nacional-para-a-conservacao-do-mutum-do-sudeste>. Acesso em: 06/08/2020.

Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio). 2018. Guia para Gestão de Planos de Ação Nacional para a Conservação das Espécies Ameaçadas de Extinção – PAN ELABORE - MONITORE – AVALIE. ICMBio. Brasília: ICMBio. 160p.

Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio). 2014. Sumário Executivo do Plano de Ação Nacional para a Conservação do Tatu-bola. < http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/faunabrasileira/plano-de-acao-nacional-lista/4808-plano-de-acao-nacional-para-conservacao-do-tatu-bola >. Acesso em: 06/08/2020.

Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio). 2020. Planos de Ação Nacional. <http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/faunabrasileira/planos-de-acao-nacional>. Acesso em: 06/08/2020.

Brasil. 2018. Instrução Normativa MMA/ICMBio nº 21, de 18 de dezembro de 2018. Diário Oficial da União. < https://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/images/stories/docs-plano-de-acao-ARQUIVO/00-saiba-mais/01_-_IN_ICMBIO_N%C2%BA_21_DE_18_DE_DEZ_DE_2018.pdf>. Acesso em: 14/12/2020.

IUCN/SSC. 2008. Strategic Planning for Species Conservation: A Handbook. Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission. 104p.

Jacobs MH, Vaske, Sijtsma MT. Predictive potential of wildlife value orientations for acceptability of management interventions. Journal for Nature Conservation, 22(4):377-383, 2014.

Juras IAGM. Breves comentários sobre a base constitucional da proteção da biodiversidade. in Conservação da biodiversidade: legislação e políticas públicas. Brasília: Câmara dos Deputados, 131, 2011.

Kubit OE, Pluhar C, de Graff JV. A model for prioritizing sites and reclamation methods at abandoned mines. Environmental Earth Sciences, 73(12):7915-7931. 2015.

McShane TO, et al. Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation, 144(3):966-972. 2011.

Mukherjee N, Zabala A, Huge J, Nyumba TO, Esmail BA, Sutherland WJ. Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision‐making. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1):54-63. 2018.

Pegurier E. 2015. Angela Kuczach: “Precisamos das UCs para existir”. O Eco, 03 fev. 2015. Disponível em: <http://www.oeco.org.br/reportagens/28904-angela-kuczach-precisamos-das-ucs-para-existir/>. Acesso em: 06/08/2020.

Redpath SM, et al. Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(2):100-109. 2013.

Rossetto M, et al. Multi-criteria decision-making for fisheries management: A case study of Mediterranean demersal fisheries. Marine Policy, 53:83-93. 2015.

Saaty TL. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European journal of operational research, 48(1): 9-26. 1990.

Sarkii S, et al. Are national biodiversity strategies and action plans appropriate for building responsibilities for mainstreaming biodiversity across policy sectors? The case of Finland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59(8):1377-1396. 2015.

Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation biology, 5(1):18-32. 1991.

Sipahi S, Timor M. The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: an overview of applications. Management Decision, 48(5):775-808. 2010.

Subramanian N, Ramanathan R. A review of applications of Analytic Hierarchy Process in operations management. International Journal of Production Economics, 138(2):215-241. 2012.

Zabala A, Sandbrook C, Mukherjee N. When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research. Conservation Biology, 32(5):1185-1194. 2018.

Yavuz F, Baycan T. Use of swot and analytic hierarchy process integration as a participatory decision making tool in watershed management. Procedia Technology, 8:134-143. 2013.

Published

02/06/2021

Issue

Section

Fluxo contínuo

Most read articles by the same author(s)