Threatened species management plans: real rescue tools or pure appearance?
The conservation of biodiversity has long been recognized by society as urgent. At the time, it was possible to establish as a legal obligation both the elaboration of catalogues of more threatened species in each autonomous community, and the strict protection of them through management plans. The Management Plans are, therefore, a legal requirement and a basic and essential instrument for the conservation of listed species. However, there are very few threatened species that enjoy a management plan - it is a way of saying -. For example, of the 145 species of vertebrates classified in the CAPV, only 13 have a management plan. But can we say that a species is exempt from disappearing under its management plan?Out of a few very nice exceptions that have had a clear success, few really achieve their goal.
It must be recognized that if species are in categories of very serious threat and in extreme situations, a management plan may be insufficient or arrive late. The question is why on other occasions, although the species is in less threatened categories, the plans are not effective enough. Perhaps what impedes the genuine goal of saving our natural heritage from our threat is the difficulty -- or playing to be god-- of managing as something difficult. However, it should be asked whether in some cases, although in a few cases, disappointment or political needs do not make many of the celebrations of ecological piric victories.
The money destined for the conservation of biodiversity has always been limited, but today, when the authorities care more about the markets than the human and cultural and natural heritage of their countries, the money is even more limited. That is why it is especially painful (for society) and shameful (for responsible administrations) the waste or bad investment of this very limited budget.
Many have the feeling that management plans often have a different goal than we think: they are a matter of appearance. Evidently, if this were so, once the political party has been announced (after the ecological groups run up) and picked up on the scoreboard, it matters little if management is really effective or not. But it seems that no one (no policy) controls or does not worry about the results of the plans. We also have the feeling that people who have several management plans in hand, when making decisions, look more at the political needs than the available scientific knowledge. For example, even if it seems a lie, it is not strange that scientists abandon their opinion and experience and that responsible technicians perform actions to improve the habitat or to introduce individuals without having the necessary information about the habitat, ecology or genetics of the species to manage. On the contrary, the protagonism that is not given to scientists is, often, proud of the politicians. How many times have we seen a politician launch a prisoner eagle or release European visons? It seems a good action for the benefit of such propaganda. But this type of activities (transfers, reinstatements… and even additions!) questions scientific communities.
Recent studies show that many times (media) it is large and that the funds (results) are scarce. Although in some very specific cases it is essential measures, in most cases it has not been valued if it is the best option for the species. On the contrary, tourist benefits are usually analyzed in detail. It is no coincidence that these types of measures are adopted with mediatic or spectacular species, with large mammals or gallant predators. Has anyone seen a politician reintroducing small spiders? It is indifferent for the scientific community to show, undoubtedly, that the repopulation of rivers with salmon does not serve for the recovery of the species, while the prohibition of fishing and the restoration of the health of the river. The politicians, and apparently the responsible technicians and managers, pay more attention to the opinion of the fishermen.
Another good example is the southern ranita ( Hyla meridionalis ), considered a endangered species in the Basque Catalogue of Threatened Species. In 1999, the CAPV population of this frog lived in a single nucleus, which was also endangered due to the construction of an industrial estate. The current pressure of the ecologists and the media forced to approve the management plan of the frog. However, before conducting investigations or taking preventive measures, the polygon was built in the same way. At the same time, and without studies that guaranteed suitability in this case, 16 pools were created that would constitute the breeding habitat of amphibian, which would actually replace. Thousands of specimens were transferred to them. At present only 3 of the 16 wells created live a stable population. That is to say: At the age of 14 the frog has not been declassified thanks to the management plan, but it continues depending on its origin zone, now converted into concrete pond, but in the industrial estate Neinor, in San Sebastian.
Making a rather evil interpretation, the management plan only served to brighten the ecologists, while allowing the construction of an industrial estate that would destroy the original frog habitat. That is, the management plan, rather than to ensure the survival of the population, has served not to link its condemnation with the real cause (the polygon). But for many others it will be proud that a kind of amphibian has a management plan, since the important thing (politically) is not whether the animals die or not, but when they die. Of course, many other species, such as the Mediterranean horseshoe bats, which are more unknown than the aforementioned frog, but much more threatened, have no management plans.
Zu idazle
Zientzia aldizkaria
