Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-gpt8h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-16T08:00:46.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance of Single- versus Multi-Species Recovery Plans in Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2019

Joyce Rejis Baptista ,
Gaston Andrés Fernandez Giné  and
Alexandre Schiavetti
Joyce Rejis Baptista*
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Conservação da Biodiversidade, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, 45662-900, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil Laboratório de Etnoconservação e Áreas Protegidas (LECAP), Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, 45662-900, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil
Gaston Andrés Fernandez Giné
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Conservação da Biodiversidade, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, 45662-900, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil
Alexandre Schiavetti
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Etnoconservação e Áreas Protegidas (LECAP), Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, 45662-900, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz (UESC), Departamento de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais (DCAA), Rodovia Jorge Amado Km 16, 45662-900, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil Investigador Asociado CESIMAR Cenpat, Chubut, Puerto Madryn, Argentina
*
Author for correspondence: Joyce Rejis Baptista, Email: joycebaptista.bio@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In Brazil, 64 recovery plans are currently focused on single or multiple species. We aimed to evaluate whether there is a difference in effectiveness and efficiency in the implementation of the two types of animal protection plans. We selected 16 plans, eight of each type. In addition, we analysed which of the 12 operational attributes of elaboration and execution contributed to the effectiveness (percentage of completed actions and threat reduction assessment) and efficiency (cost per action completed and cost per threat reduction) of the Brazilian action plans. Some metrics were obtained using questionnaires, while others were from the monitoring data sheets. Mann–Whitney tests and selected generalized additive models indicated that the single-species plans completed a higher percentage of actions, but there were no differences in threat reduction or efficiency metrics between the two action plans. In general, the percentage of completed actions was positively influenced by the coordination centre, time of participation of articulators, number of monitoring meetings, number of articulators, articulators’ exchange rate and rate of exclusion of actions. The results of this plan performance assessment could help participants make adjustments and assist in the design of future plans.

Keywords

speciesconservation planningscience–policy interfaceseffectivenessefficiency

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andrade, MCM (2014) Proposta de Classificação das Ações Monitoradas nos Planos de Ação Nacional para Conservação de Espécies e Ambientes Ameaçados. Minas Gerais, Brazil: ICMBio.Google Scholar
Austin, Z, McVittie, A, McCracken, D, Moxey, A, Moran, D, White, PCL (2015) Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in assessing the cost-effectiveness of biodiversity conservation programmes. Biodiversity Conservation 24: 1359–1375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, PD, Kareiva, P, Fagan, WF, Clark, JA, Hoekstra, JM (2001) How good are endangered species recovery plans?: The effectiveness of recovery plans for endangered species can be improved through incorporation of dynamic, explicit science in the recovery process, such as strongly linking species’ biology to recovery criteria. Bioscience 51: 643–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottrill, MC, Pressey, RL (2012) The effectiveness and evaluation of conservation planning. Conservation Letters 5: 407–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, TM, Mittermeier, RA, da Fonseca, GAB, Gerlach, J, Hoffmann, M, Lamoreux, JF, Mittermeier, CG, Pilgram, JD, Rodrigues, ASL (2006) Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313: 58–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cifuentes, M, Izurieta, A, Faria, HH (2000) Medición de la Efectividad del Manejo de Areas Protegidas. Turrialba, Costa Rica: WWF, IUCN, GTZ.Google Scholar
Clark, JA, Harvey, E (2002) Assessing multi-species recovery plans under the Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications 12:655–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, JA, Hoekstra, JM, Boersma, PD, Kareiva, P (2002) Improving US Endangered Species Act recovery plans: key findings and recommendations of the SCB recovery plan project. Conservation Biology 16: 1510–1519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escobar, H (2016). Budget cap would stifle Brazilian science, critics say. Science [www document]. URL https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/budget-cap-would-stifle-brazilian-science-critics-sayCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandes, L (2017) Relatório Rede BIOMAR 10 anos. São Paulo, Brazil: Bambu Editora e Artes Gráficas.Google Scholar
Fileto-Dias, F, Lugarini, C, Serafini, PP (2014) Avaliação do ‘Plano de Ação Nacional para a Conservação dos Papagaios da Mata Atlântica’ na conservação dessas espécies. Atualidades Ornitológicas 181: 33–45.Google Scholar
Gerber, LR, Schultz, CB (2001) Authorship and the use of biological information in endangered species recovery plans. Conservation Biology 15:1308–1314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, R, Long, G (2009) Using structured decision making to help implement a precautionary approach to endangered species management. Risk Analysis 29: 518–532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groves, CR, Jensen, DB, Valutis, LL, Redford, KH, Shaffer, ML, Scott, JM, Baumgartner, JV, Higgins, JV, Beck, MW, Anderson, MG (2002) Planning for biodiversity conservation: putting conservation science into practice. Bioscience 52: 499–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, Q, Harper, DAT, Ryan, PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Eletrocnica 4: 9.Google Scholar
ICMBio (2012) Procedimentos para a elaboração, aprovação, publicação, implementação, monitoria, avaliação e revisão de planos de ação nacionais para conservação de espécies ameaçadas de extinção ou do patrimônio espeleológico. Instrução Normativa no. 25, de 12 de Abril de 2012. Brasilia, Brazil: ICMBio.Google Scholar
ICMBio (2014) Relatório de Gestão – 2014. Brasilia, Brazil: ICMBio.Google Scholar
ICMBio (2015) Relatório de Gestão – 2015. Brasilia, Brazil: ICMBio.Google Scholar
ICMBio (2017) Relatório de Gestão – 2017. Brasilia, Brazil: ICMBio.Google Scholar
ICMBio (2018) Planos de Ação Nacional [www document]. URL http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/faunabrasileira/planos-de-acao-nacional?option%3Dcom_icmbio_fauna_brasileira&task3DlistaPlanoAcaoGoogle Scholar
IUCN-CMP (2012) Conservation Actions Classification v 2.0 [www document]. URL https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i25GTaEA80HwMvsTiYkdOoXRPWiVPZ5l6KioWx9g2zM/edit#gid%3D874211847Google Scholar
IPÊ (2014) Multiplicando Saberes. Capacitação das instituições participantes do PAN MAMAC para mobilização financeira. DESAFIOS e APRENDIZADOS. Nazaré Paulista, Brazil: Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas.Google Scholar
Jerusalinsky, L, Talebi, M, de Melo, FR (2011) Plano de Ação Nacional para Conservação dos Muriquis. Série Espécies Ameaçadas 11. Brasilia, Brazil: ICMBio.Google Scholar
LaRoe, ET (1993) Implementation of an ecosystem approach to endangered species conservation. Endangered Species Update 10: 3–6.Google Scholar
Laycock, HF, Moran, D, Smart, JCR, Raffaelli, DG, White, PCL (2009) Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of conservation: the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Biological Conservation 142: 3120–3127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laycock, HF, Moran, D, Smart, JCR, Raffaelli, DG, White, PCL (2011) Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation spending. Ecological Economy 70: 1789–1796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laycock, HF, Moran, D, Raffaelli, DG, White, PCL (2013) Biological and operational determinants of the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation programs. Wildlife Research 40: 142–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linares, SFTP (2015) Avaliação dos planos de ação nacionais para a conservação da fauna ameaçada de extinção (unpublished Master’s thesis). Nazaré Paulista, Brazil: Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas.Google Scholar
Lundquist, CJ, Diehl, JM, Harvey, E, Botsford, LW (2002) Factors affecting implementation of recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12: 713–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Male, TD, Bean, MJ (2005) Measuring progress in US endangered species conservation. Ecology Letters 8: 986–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittermeier, RA, Fonseca, GAB, Rylands, AB, Brandon, K (2005) A brief history of biodiversity conservation in Brazil. Conservation Biology 19: 601–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MMA (2014) Portaria no. 444, de 17 de dezembro de 2014. Lista Nacional Oficial de Espécies da Fauna Ameaçadas de Extinção. Diário Oficial da União, Seção 1: 110–130.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2016) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, MG (2009) A pesquisa para a Conservação da Biodiversidade no Brasil: ecologia a partir de um enfoque interdisciplinar (unpublished PhD dissertation). Campinas, Brazil: Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP).Google Scholar
Salafsky, N, Margoluis, R (1999) Threat reduction assessment: a practical and cost effective approach to evaluating conservation and development projects. Conservation Biology 13: 830–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souza, ECA (2017) Uso de Análise Hierárquica de Processos para a definição de preferências e prioridades na tomada de decisões para a conservação da biodiversidade (unpublished Master’s thesis). Recife, Brazil: Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE).Google Scholar
Taylor, MF, Suckling, KF, Rachlinski, JJ (2005) The effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: a quantitative analysis. Bioscience 55: 360–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tear, TH, Scott, JM, Hayward, PH, Griffith, B (1995) Recovery plans and the Endangered Species Act: are criticisms supported by data? Conservation Biology 9: 182–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US FWS (2019a) Recovery plans [www document]. URL https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/pub/speciesRecovery.jsp?sortD=1Google Scholar
US FWS (2019b) Delisting report [www document]. URL https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/delisting-reportGoogle Scholar
van der Loo, M, Turner, D (2017). Gower’s distance. R package version 0.1.2 [www document]. URL https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DgowerGoogle Scholar
Weigand, R Jr, Silva, DC, Oliveira e Silva, D (2011) Metas de Aichi: Situação atual no Brasil. Brasilia, Brazil: IUCN, WWF-BRASIL, IPÊ.Google Scholar
Wood, SN (2011) Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 73(1): 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WWF (2018) Financiamento Público em Meio Ambiente –Balanço da Década e Perspectivas. Brasilia, Brazil: WWF-BRASIL.Google Scholar
Zuur, AF, Ieno, EN, Smith, GM (2007) Analysing Ecological Data. New York, NY, USA, and London, UK: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuur, AF, Ieno, EN, Walker, NJ, Saveliev, AA, Smith, GM (2009) Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R. New York, NY, USA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Rejis Baptista et al. supplementary material

Rejis Baptista et al. supplementary material 1

Download Rejis Baptista et al. supplementary material(File)
File 88.1 KB