567
18.3.2 Analysis from the Perspective of Driving ForcesPressures- States–Impacts and Responses Model
Analyzing the set of interrelated factors in the PVE from the perspective of the
Driving Forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model, it can be said that
the environmental problems described in the PVE by Anguiano-Cuevas et al. (2015)
have been the result of agri-environmental policies (e.g. subsidies for the purchase
of chemicals for agriculture, lack of training for farmers, lack of support in the programs) poorly designed that promote activities that put pressure on the PVE (e.g.
agriculture, use of agrochemicals, continental contribution of pollutants) and alter
their state (PVE trophic conditions) causing impacts on the ecosystem services (e.g.
blooms of toxic phytoplankton, mortality of fish and birds, anoxia in the ecosystem,
succession of species, changes in the overall functionality of the PVE, etc.).
This contrasts with the purpose of environmental policies established by the
LMA for the study area, where in its designation of uses between LMAs (No. 61
and 65), the full functionality of the ecosystem was not considered in relation to the
influence of the micro basin where these LMAs are located. It can be perceived that
in reality there is an incompatibility of uses between both LMAs, given their proximity, due to the fact that in a natural manner the effects derived from activities in
the upper part of the basin are manifested in the lower part and these effects are
contrary to the objective of the Protection Policy established in the POETEC (POEC
2012). This has been previously described by SEMARNAT (2006), who points out
that altering the basic environmental structure and functions in one of the ecosystem
that forms the environmental system due to a project or a poorly design activity, can
produce environmental impacts on the rest of the coastal ecosystems with which
ecologically is linked, affecting the whole environmental system and the economic
activities that take place inside.
From the perspective of this referred scenario, and given that the PVE is not an
isolated system, but it is in continue interaction with other ecosystems, it is desirable that the protection policies established in the PROETSLC to be materialized,
e.g. the statement of ANP (Ortiz-Nielsen 2014), which is essential to provide legal
certainty in the protection of ecosystems. As noted above, economic development
can provide protection for the environment and replace human activities that could
threat the environment with other more sustainable, that confer benefits both the
social and the coastal system (PVE) (OECD 2001; Yáñez-Arancibia et al. 2013,
2014).
That is, if the current trend continues, it could lead to the deterioration of the
PVE making the restoration or rehabilitation unaffordable and irreversible. In this
sense, the response would be the participative management to integrate the economic aspect (WMU) to the ecosystem and biodiversity protection in the decisionmaking process. In this order of ideas Fig. 18.4 graphically represent the information
analyzed from the DPSIR perspective.
18 Implementation of a Wildlife Management Unit as a Sustainable Support Measure…
18.3.2 Analysis from the Perspective of Driving ForcesPressures- States–Impacts and Responses Model
Analyzing the set of interrelated factors in the PVE from the perspective of the
Driving Forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model, it can be said that
the environmental problems described in the PVE by Anguiano-Cuevas et al. (2015)
have been the result of agri-environmental policies (e.g. subsidies for the purchase
of chemicals for agriculture, lack of training for farmers, lack of support in the programs) poorly designed that promote activities that put pressure on the PVE (e.g.
agriculture, use of agrochemicals, continental contribution of pollutants) and alter
their state (PVE trophic conditions) causing impacts on the ecosystem services (e.g.
blooms of toxic phytoplankton, mortality of fish and birds, anoxia in the ecosystem,
succession of species, changes in the overall functionality of the PVE, etc.).
This contrasts with the purpose of environmental policies established by the
LMA for the study area, where in its designation of uses between LMAs (No. 61
and 65), the full functionality of the ecosystem was not considered in relation to the
influence of the micro basin where these LMAs are located. It can be perceived that
in reality there is an incompatibility of uses between both LMAs, given their proximity, due to the fact that in a natural manner the effects derived from activities in
the upper part of the basin are manifested in the lower part and these effects are
contrary to the objective of the Protection Policy established in the POETEC (POEC
2012). This has been previously described by SEMARNAT (2006), who points out
that altering the basic environmental structure and functions in one of the ecosystem
that forms the environmental system due to a project or a poorly design activity, can
produce environmental impacts on the rest of the coastal ecosystems with which
ecologically is linked, affecting the whole environmental system and the economic
activities that take place inside.
From the perspective of this referred scenario, and given that the PVE is not an
isolated system, but it is in continue interaction with other ecosystems, it is desirable that the protection policies established in the PROETSLC to be materialized,
e.g. the statement of ANP (Ortiz-Nielsen 2014), which is essential to provide legal
certainty in the protection of ecosystems. As noted above, economic development
can provide protection for the environment and replace human activities that could
threat the environment with other more sustainable, that confer benefits both the
social and the coastal system (PVE) (OECD 2001; Yáñez-Arancibia et al. 2013,
2014).
That is, if the current trend continues, it could lead to the deterioration of the
PVE making the restoration or rehabilitation unaffordable and irreversible. In this
sense, the response would be the participative management to integrate the economic aspect (WMU) to the ecosystem and biodiversity protection in the decisionmaking process. In this order of ideas Fig. 18.4 graphically represent the information
analyzed from the DPSIR perspective.
18 Implementation of a Wildlife Management Unit as a Sustainable Support Measure…