Author(s):
Riccardi, Nicoletta ; Bo, Tiziano ; Bogan, Arthur E. ; Douda, Karel ; Froufe, Elsa ; Gonçalves, Duarte V. ; Lajtner, Jasna ; Modesto, Vanessa ; Moro, Giuseppe A. ; Prié, Vincent ; Sousa, Ronaldo Gomes ; Shumka, Spase ; Teixeira, Amílcar ; Urbańska, Maria ; Varandas, Simone ; Lopes-Lima, Manuel
Date: 2022
Persistent ID: https://hdl.handle.net/1822/86793
Origin: RepositóriUM - Universidade do Minho
Subject(s): Charismatic species; Conservation policies; Extinction risk; Freshwater mussels; Isolation; Restricted distribution; Understudied species
Description
Although biodiversity is considered a value to be protected to avoid the degradation of ecosystem functions, conservation practices ignore the role of many species. Species are not protected according to their degree of risk, but according to their degree of attractiveness. The so-called iconic species are used as flag species to convince the public of the need to protect all species to safeguard biodiversity. In reality, the iconic species gain protection, but it all ends there. The protection of biodiversity is a slogan that does not correspond to reality. In truth, species are protected by following the criteria underlying zoos, where the choice is based on emotional and economic components. Since we need safeguard biodiversity to prevent ecosystems degradation, it is crucial to identify, and possibly correct, the errors of the “conservation system.” Tracing the history that brought a species to the brink of extinction serves to identify the weaknesses. Microcondylaea bonellii was chosen as an example since its conservation status was incorrectly assessed and this resulted in a lack of adequate legislative protection. Ironically, the species is protected against the only threat that does not seem to have any importance at all (exploitation), but it receives no protection against real threats (habitat degradation, fragmentation, pollution). The European legislative instrument for the protection of species, the Habitats Directive, grants adequate protection only to a few “priority” species, the others are left to their fate. This is in contrast to the declared aims: the ecological principles that promoted the formulation of the Habitats Directive are not translated into practice. There is a wide debate on this issue to avoid repeating these flaws/errors in the new and ambitious EU’s biodiversity strategy for 2030. The contribution of this chapter is to provide evidence of the current malfunction, because learning from past mistakes is necessary to progress.
