Evaluating the official achievement of Aichi Target 11 for West African countries: A twofold challenge of accuracy and catching-up.

Autor: Failler P; Centre for Blue Governance, Faculty of Business and Law, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth P01 3DE, United Kingdom., Touron-Gardic G; Centre for Blue Governance, Faculty of Business and Law, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth P01 3DE, United Kingdom. Electronic address: gregoire.touron-gardic@port.ac.uk., Traoré MS; Marine Protected Areas Network of West Africa (RAMPAO), Sacred Heart 3, Dakar, Senegal., Phang SC; Centre for Blue Governance, Faculty of Business and Law, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth P01 3DE, United Kingdom.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: The Science of the total environment [Sci Total Environ] 2020 Jan 01; Vol. 698, pp. 134284. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 Sep 04.
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134284
Abstrakt: Since Aichi Target 11 imposes 10% of national protected marine surface by 2020, the least developed countries have particularly shortcomings towards this goal, this article evaluates the progress of seven West African countries. We compared the area reportedly protected sites from two different sources, the world database on protected areas (WDPA) - which is the official tool to monitor the Aichi 11 Achievements - and the West African Marine Protected Area Network, which conducted a comprehensive survey in collaboration with the national institutions in charge of MPAs. Overall, the countries included in this study are unlikely to achieve the Aichi target. Comparing WDPA protected area figures against database created directly from national data showed large discrepancies. According to national data, Mauritania (3.71%) and Guinea-Bissau (2.15%) had the highest protected areas. Senegal had 1.61% of his EEZ under protection, while other countries had <1%. The difference between WDPA and national data was high with Guinea-Bissau already at 10% of EEZ protected areas status according to the WDPA. WDPA overestimated 5935 km 2 of MPAs, corresponding to 41% of the actual total area. Possible explanations for the differences include: countries not transmitting information or doing so incorrectly; methodological transformations of data are inducing errors; and multiple MPA statutes leading to double counting of protected areas. This study also shows that for these countries, to achieve Aichi Target 11, large offshore MPAs are the only viable option, and therefore identifies potential sites, that should be considered in addition to conservation of coastal zones. However, their viability may be constrained due to oil activities and lucrative fishing. The increasingly anthropized littoral zone offers less space favourable to MPAs, while 138,723 km 2 still need to be covered in these countries to reach 10% of marine protected area.
(Crown Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: