Premium
Strengthening the synergies among global biodiversity targets to reconcile conservation and socio‐economic demands
Author(s) -
Vilar Ciro C.,
Magris Rafael A.,
Loyola Rafael,
Joyeux JeanChristophe
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
aquatic conservation: marine and freshwater ecosystems
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.95
H-Index - 77
eISSN - 1099-0755
pISSN - 1052-7613
DOI - 10.1002/aqc.3269
Subject(s) - threatened species , biodiversity , exclusive economic zone , marine protected area , fishing , marine conservation , geography , environmental resource management , scale (ratio) , dilemma , economic cost , marine reserve , environmental planning , natural resource economics , fishery , business , ecology , environmental science , economics , habitat , cartography , biology , philosophy , neoclassical economics , epistemology
Abstract Most of the world's nations adopted the 20 Aichi global biodiversity targets to be met by 2020, including the protection of at least 10% of their coastal and marine areas (Target 11) and the avoidance of extinction of threatened species (Target 12). However, reconciling these biodiversity targets with socio‐economic demands remains a great dilemma for implementing conservation policies. In this paper, Aichi Targets 11 and 12 were simultaneously addressed using Brazil's exclusive economic zone as an example. Priority areas for expanding the current system of marine protected areas within the country's eight marine ecoregions were identified with data on threatened vertebrates under different scenarios. Additionally, the potential effects of major socio‐economic activities (small‑ and large‐scale fishing, seabed mining, and oil and gas exploration) on the representation of conservation features in proposed marine protected areas were explored. Areas selected for expanding marine protected areas solely based on biodiversity data were different (spatial overlap from 62% to 93%) from areas prioritized when socio‐economic features were incorporated into the analysis. The addition of socio‐economic data in the prioritization process substantially decreased opportunity costs and potential conservation conflicts, at the cost of reducing significantly (up to 31%) the coverage of conservation features. Large‑ and small‐scale fisheries act in most of the exclusive economic zone and are the major constraints for protecting high‐priority areas. Nevertheless, there is some spatial mismatch between areas of special relevance for conservation and socio‐economic activities, suggesting an opportunity for reconciling the achievement of biodiversity targets and development goals within the intricate Brazilian seascape by 2020 and beyond.