Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • Joyce Rejis Baptista (a1) (a2), Gaston Andrés Fernandez Giné (a1) and Alexandre Schiavetti (a2) (a3) (a4)

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.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Author for correspondence: Joyce Rejis Baptista, Email: joycebaptista.bio@gmail.com

References

Hide All
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.
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: 13591375.
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: 643649.
Bottrill, MC, Pressey, RL (2012) The effectiveness and evaluation of conservation planning. Conservation Letters 5: 407420.
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: 5861.
Cifuentes, M, Izurieta, A, Faria, HH (2000) Medición de la Efectividad del Manejo de Areas Protegidas. Turrialba, Costa Rica: WWF, IUCN, GTZ.
Clark, JA, Harvey, E (2002) Assessing multi-species recovery plans under the Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications 12:655662.
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: 15101519.
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-say
Fernandes, L (2017) Relatório Rede BIOMAR 10 anos. São Paulo, Brazil: Bambu Editora e Artes Gráficas.
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: 3345.
Gerber, LR, Schultz, CB (2001) Authorship and the use of biological information in endangered species recovery plans. Conservation Biology 15:13081314.
Gregory, R, Long, G (2009) Using structured decision making to help implement a precautionary approach to endangered species management. Risk Analysis 29: 518532.
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: 499512.
Hammer, Q, Harper, DAT, Ryan, PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Eletrocnica 4: 9.
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.
ICMBio (2014) Relatório de Gestão – 2014. Brasilia, Brazil: ICMBio.
ICMBio (2015) Relatório de Gestão – 2015. Brasilia, Brazil: ICMBio.
ICMBio (2017) Relatório de Gestão – 2017. Brasilia, Brazil: ICMBio.
IUCN-CMP (2012) Conservation Actions Classification v 2.0 [www document]. URL https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i25GTaEA80HwMvsTiYkdOoXRPWiVPZ5l6KioWx9g2zM/edit#gid%3D874211847
IPÊ (2014) Multiplicando Saberes. Capacitação das instituições participantes do PAN MAMAC para mobilização financeira. DESAFIOS e APRENDIZADOS. Nazaré Paulista, Brazil: Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas.
Jerusalinsky, L, Talebi, M, de Melo, FR (2011) Plano de Ação Nacional para Conservação dos Muriquis. Série Espécies Ameaçadas 11. Brasilia, Brazil: ICMBio.
LaRoe, ET (1993) Implementation of an ecosystem approach to endangered species conservation. Endangered Species Update 10: 36.
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: 31203127.
Laycock, HF, Moran, D, Smart, JCR, Raffaelli, DG, White, PCL (2011) Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation spending. Ecological Economy 70: 17891796.
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: 142152.
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.
Lundquist, CJ, Diehl, JM, Harvey, E, Botsford, LW (2002) Factors affecting implementation of recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12: 713718.
Male, TD, Bean, MJ (2005) Measuring progress in US endangered species conservation. Ecology Letters 8: 986992.
Mittermeier, RA, Fonseca, GAB, Rylands, AB, Brandon, K (2005) A brief history of biodiversity conservation in Brazil. Conservation Biology 19: 601611.
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: 110130.
R Development Core Team (2016) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
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).
Salafsky, N, Margoluis, R (1999) Threat reduction assessment: a practical and cost effective approach to evaluating conservation and development projects. Conservation Biology 13: 830841.
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).
Taylor, MF, Suckling, KF, Rachlinski, JJ (2005) The effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: a quantitative analysis. Bioscience 55: 360367.
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.
US FWS (2019a) Recovery plans [www document]. URL https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/pub/speciesRecovery.jsp?sortD=1
US FWS (2019b) Delisting report [www document]. URL https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/delisting-report
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=Dgower
Weigand, R Jr, Silva, DC, Oliveira e Silva, D (2011) Metas de Aichi: Situação atual no Brasil. Brasilia, Brazil: IUCN, WWF-BRASIL, IPÊ.
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): 336.
WWF (2018) Financiamento Público em Meio Ambiente –Balanço da Década e Perspectivas. Brasilia, Brazil: WWF-BRASIL.
Zuur, AF, Ieno, EN, Smith, GM (2007) Analysing Ecological Data. New York, NY, USA, and London, UK: Springer.
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.

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Rejis Baptista et al. supplementary material
Rejis Baptista et al. supplementary material 1

 Word (88 KB)
88 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed