REVIEW Aquaculture expansion in Brazilian freshwaters against the Aichi Biodiversity Targets Dilermando Pereira Lima Junior, André Lincoln Barroso Magalhães, Fernando Mayer Pelicice, Jean Ricardo Simões Vitule, Valter M. Azevedo-Santos, Mário Luı́s Orsi, Daniel Simberloff, Angelo Antônio Agostinho Received: 24 May 2017 / Revised: 9 November 2017 / Accepted: 12 December 2017 / Published online: 6 January 2018 Abstract The Convention on Biological Diversity proposed the Aichi Biodiversity Targets to improve conservation policies and to balance economic development, social welfare, and the maintenance of biodiversity/ecosystem services. Brazil is a signatory of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and is the most diverse country in terms of freshwater fish, but its national policies have supported the development of unsustainable commercial and ornamental aquaculture, which has led to serious disturbances to inland ecosystems and natural resources. We analyzed the development of Brazilian aquaculture to show how current aquaculture expansion conflicts with all 20 Aichi Targets. This case suggests that Brazil and many other megadiverse developing countries will not meet international conservation targets, stressing the need for new strategies, such as the environmental management system, to improve biodiversity conservation. Keywords Biodiversity conservation � Blue revolution � Convention on Biological Diversity � Environmental management system � Megadiversity � Non-native invasive species INTRODUCTION Brazil contains extraordinary aquatic biodiversity, dis- tributed in various biomes, ecoregions, Ramsar sites, and conservation hotspots (Vitule et al. 2012; Pelicice et al. 2017). This rich natural patrimony has enabled the country to play a central role in international debates, serving as an important negotiator to advance international conservation goals (Scarano et al. 2012). In 2010, during the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, Nagoya Protocol), for example, Brazil and 192 other countries established the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, proposing 20 targets to reduce biodiversity loss on a global scale—the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (www.cbd.int). Seven years after the CBD, however, national policies worldwide have conflicted with conservation goals and agreements (Joppa et al. 2013; Titensor et al. 2014; Di Marco et al. 2015). Following this international scenario, Brazil has implemented a series of policies to prioritize short-term economic development (Fearnside 2016; Peli- cice et al. 2017); the expansion of the aquaculture industry is one instance (e.g., Bueno et al. 2015). Such policies call into question Brazil’s commitment to meeting international agreements, because unsustainable aquaculture (e.g., commercial and ornamental) has great potential to damage aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services (Diana 2009; Vitule et al. 2014; Pelicice et al. 2017). Brazil is not a special case, as several Latin American countries have relied on harmful practices to achieve development, including Mexico, Costa Rica, and Colombia, among oth- ers (Ochoa-Ochoa et al. 2017; Pelicice et al. 2017). This scenario suggests that megadiverse developing countries will not meet some international conservation targets, and the Brazilian case may serve as model (e.g., Frehse et al. 2016; Pelicice et al. 2017) to understand the interaction between national development strategies and international conservation agreements. To explore this problem, we analyze the interaction between the recent and current expansion of Brazilian aquaculture and the Aichi Targets to show potential con- flicts and encourage discussions. We demonstrate how some components of aquaculture expansion (i.e., massive use of non-native species, poor management/absence of an environmental management system, aquaculture in public waters, and law revision in favor of unsustainable � Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017 www.kva.se/en 123 Ambio 2018, 47:427–440 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-1001-z http://www.cbd.int http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s13280-017-1001-z&domain=pdf http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s13280-017-1001-z&domain=pdf environmental conditions) conflict with all 20 Aichi Tar- gets. Finally, we then suggest ways to develop sustainable and responsible aquaculture in Brazil, using the Aichi Targets as a framework. METHODS We conducted an extensive and intensive literature survey of aquaculture development and impacts in Brazil and Latin America. This information was used to investigate conflicts between aquaculture expansion and each Aichi Biodiversity Target. In addition, using the Aichi Targets as a background and baseline framework, we indicated mea- sures that could minimize conflicts and make aquaculture more sustainable (see Table 1). Aquaculture expansion and environmental conflicts: An overview Globally, aquaculture production has grown significantly over the past 30 years. In 2014, total production was 73.8 million tons, yielding US$ 160.2 billion (FAO 2016). In developing nations, in particular, fish production by aqua- culture activities has increased steadily for several decades (FAO 2016). Brazil has followed this trend. In recent years, federal investments were around US $1.32 billion (Plano Safra da Aquicultura; www.mpa.gov.br), aimed at launching aqua- culture facilities in public waters, especially in hydroelec- tric impoundments (Bueno et al. 2015). Currently, Brazil is among the top 25 aquaculture producers in the world, with an annual yield of around 562.2 thousand tons, of which 84% (i.e., 474.3 thousand tons) come from inland waters (FAO 2016). National aquaculture yielded R$ 3 billion (ca. US $ 0.81 billion) in 2013, with an increase of 52% over the past 12 years. Ornamental aquaculture has grown 20% annually, concentrated mainly in the southeastern region. The main center is located in Muriaé, Minas Gerais State, responsible for more than 80% of the ornamental fishes entering the Brazilian domestic market, employing about 15 000 people and producing around 10 million freshwater aquarium fish per year (Magalhães and Jacobi 2013). The growth of Brazilian aquaculture entails a series of underexplored environmental problems because the activ- ity does not follow sustainability principles and an envi- ronmental management system (EMS—EPA 2017; Pelicice et al. 2017). The so-called ‘‘Brazilian Blue Revolution’’ has neglected basic social and environmental issues, jeopardizing its own current and future development (Vitule et al. 2012, 2014; Magalhães and Jacobi 2013; Lima-Junior et al. 2014; Coelho and Henry 2017; Pelicice et al. 2014, 2017). In short, aquaculture expansion is supported by the following components: (i) production is largely based on non-native species, some with high invasive potential such as species of carp, tilapia, and ornamental poeciliids and cichlids; (ii) aquaculture stations are rife with poor management practices or ignore steps of the EMS practices (i.e., Plan, Do, Check, Act); (iii) fish farms, particularly cage aquaculture, are planned to occur primarily in hydroelectric reservoirs, conflicting with other uses (e.g., water supply) and facilitating biological inva- sions; (iv) policy-makers have proposed or revised laws to stimulate the aquaculture industry, weakening environ- mental protection. In the next sections, we analyze these four components to explain how Brazilian aquaculture expansion conflicts with all 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets (Table 1, Fig. 1). Prioritizing non-native species Although Neotropical fish diversity could yield economi- cally viable species (Valladão et al. 2016; Saint-Paul 2017; but see Occhi et al. 2017), Brazilian aquaculture is based on non-native species, including many intracountry extralimital artificial expansions, and hybrids (Lima et al. 2016; Magalhães and Jacobi 2017). For instance, the Ministry of Fishing and Aquaculture (MFA—incorporated by Ministry of Agriculture) allowed importation of 501 non-native species for the ornamental trade (MFA 2012); most part of them are already farmed in Brazilian orna- mental aquaculture. In 2015, Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus (Fig. 2a) alone 150 accounted for 219 329 tons, which corresponded to 45.4% of total fish production (IBGE 2016). The prominence of tilapia is due to several factors, such as high market demand, a complete techno- logical package, and economic return to the farmer (Pe- droza-Filho et al. 2014a, 2015). Other species frequently raised include non-native common carp Cyprinus carpio, rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, guppies/mollies Poe- cilia spp., swordtails and platies Xiphophorus spp., and goldfish Carassius auratus (Fig. 2b), in addition to several hybrids (Hashimoto et al. 2012; Magalhães and Jacobi 2017; Occhi et al. 2017). Neotropical species cultivated outside their native range are also common, such as piau Megaleporinus macrocephalus and the ornamental oscar Astronotus ocellatus (Lima et al. 2016). Not surprisingly, commercial and ornamental aquaculture has been the main vector promoting fish introductions across Brazil (Britton and Orsi 2012; Ortega et al. 2015; Frehse et al. 2016; Magalhães and Jacobi 2017). Impacts from these non-native species include negative effects on water and habitat quality, interactions with native organisms, and the emergence of diseases (Canonico et al. 2005; Diana 2009; Vitule et al. 2009; Cucherousset and Olden 2011; Córdova-Tapia et al. 2015; Deines et al. 428 Ambio 2018, 47:427–440 123 � Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017 www.kva.se/en http://www.mpa.gov.br Table 1 Summary of all 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets and conflicts and recommended solutions associated with the expansion of commercial and ornamental aquaculture in Brazil. Key references provide further information and examples about each topic Aichi Targets Conflicts Solutions Key references Target 1. Educate people about biodiversity Brazilian commercial and ornamental aquaculture is based on non-native species, and there is no specific action to educate people about risks of introductions. People are largely unaware of the issue, and the official incentive to develop unsustainable aquaculture will cause more misunderstandings Regionalization of aquaculture (use of native species from local river basins) Vitule et al. (2009), Pelicice et al. (2014, 2017), Azevedo-Santos et al. (2015), Magalhães and Jacobi (2017) and Occhi et al. (2017) Target 2. Biodiversity valuation for national and local development Aquaculture based on non-native species can create jobs and income in the short term, but it demands large governmental subsidies and does not consider social and environmental costs over long time scales. Current policies do not consider Brazilian biodiversity as a path to alleviate poverty in the long run Regionalization of aquaculture to create local jobs and increase food security Agostinho et al. (2007), Britton and Orsi (2012), Mace et al. (2012) and Deines et al. (2016) Target 3. Ceasing incentives to harmful activities The government has provided US$ 1.32 billion to launch aquaculture, which has been historically based on unsustainable practices, with strong impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning Governmental support to develop research on native species and Environmental Management System (EMS). Financial support to implement sustainable technologies on farms Klinger and Naylor (2012), Bueno et al. (2015), Vitule et al. (2015) and Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura (www.mpa.gov.br) Target 4. Implement plans for sustainable production Brazilian commercial and ornamental aquaculture has been largely unsustainable, and current policies do not promote better practices and sustainability principles. Attempts to naturalize non-native fishes and to create aquaculture parks in reservoirs indicate that policies are not concerned with sustainable production National aquaculture plans based on regionalization and EMS practices Australia Productivity Commission (2004), Azevedo-Santos et al. (2011), Klinger and Naylor (2012), Garcia et al. (2014), Vitule et al. (2014), and David et al. (2015) Target 5. Slow down or cease habitat loss Aquaculture has affected important and vulnerable riparian ecosystems, such as estuaries, wetlands and streams, promoting deforestation and environmental degradation. Cage aquaculture in reservoirs has affected important ecosystem services such as water quality. The growth of the activity will cause further losses National aquaculture plans based on regionalization and EMS practices. Implementation of sustainability certification Starling et al. (2002), Figueredo and Giani (2005), Bush et al. (2013), Rosa et al. (2013) and Pelicice et al. (2017) Target 6. Sustainable use of fisheries resources Contrary to common sense, the expansion of commercial and ornamental aquaculture does not relieve pressure on wild stocks. For example, inland fisheries and aquaculture produce different and complementary goods. In addition, the activity causes many impacts on ecosystems and wild populations Official support to develop small- scale aquaculture based on multiple native species, integrated with other activities (e.g., agriculture) Naylor et al. (2000), Agostinho et al. (2007), Diana (2009) and Watson et al. (2014) Ambio 2018, 47:427–440 429 � Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017 www.kva.se/en 123 http://www.mpa.gov.br Table 1 continued Aichi Targets Conflicts Solutions Key references Target 7. Sustainable management of aquaculture Current policies to develop aquaculture are based on financial resources, concession of areas, and law revision. There is no parallel effort to establish principles of sustainability, such as the use of native species and the adoption of sound management (i.e., EMS) to reduce eutrophication and pollution National aquaculture plans based on regionalization and EMS practices. Permission to farm non-native species only in stringently closed systems. Follow Aichi Biodiversity Targets to develop sustainable policies Klinger and Naylor (2012), Bush et al. (2013), Pelicice et al. (2014), Bueno et al. (2015) and Jones et al. (2015) Target 8. Pollution control Commercial aquaculture is a leading cause of eutrophication. The growth of the activity, mainly in public waters, will affect water quality and conflict with other uses of freshwater resources Adoption of EMS practices; Apply the polluter-pays principle Agostinho et al. (1999), O’Bryen and Lee (2003), Figueredo and Giani (2005) and Montanhini Neto et al. (2015) Target 9. Control and eradication of alien species The country has done very little to control and eradicate non-native aquatic organisms. The plan to develop national aquaculture with non-native species illustrates that current policies neglect risks and costs of biological invasions National aquaculture plans based on regionalization, EMS practices. Risk analysis and thorough surveys to define target non-native species for aquaculture. Permission to farm non-native species only in stringently closed systems Naylor et al. (2001), Cucherousset and Olden (2011), Britton and Orsi (2012), Vitule et al. (2012, 2014), Azevedo-Santos et al. (2015), Ortega et al. (2015), Frehse et al. (2016) and Pelicice et al. (2017) Target 10. Minimize impacts on coral reefs and vulnerable ecosystems Commercial aquaculture has also developed over coastal areas, mainly to raise non-native shrimp and oysters. Expansion of the aquaculture industry will affect vulnerable ecosystems such as coral reefs, estuaries, and mangroves National aquaculture plans based on regionalization and EMS practices. Implementation of areas with ecological or economic priority Diana (2009) and Lima et al. (2016) Target 11. Establish systems of protected areas Environmental laws that protect natural ecosystems have been revised to foster aquaculture. This includes naturalization of non- native fishes, creation of aquaculture parks, and incentives to develop ornamental aquaculture. Activities that promote biological invasions threaten the integrity of adjacent protected areas Implement areas with ecological or economic priority. Apply the polluter-pay principle to raise funds to establish marine and freshwater protected areas Azevedo-Santos et al. (2011), Lima- Junior et al. (2014), Pelicice et al. (2014), Padial et al. (2017) and Pelicice et al. (2017) Target 12. Prevent the extinction of threatened species The development of unsustainable aquaculture negatively affects conservation strategies. Aquaculture causes several impacts on ecosystems (e.g., species invasions, eutrophication, emergence of diseases, habitat destruction), worsening the conservation status of endangered species and accelerating the loss of biodiversity National aquaculture plans based on regionalization, EMS and BMPs. Implement areas with ecological or economic priority. Implement marine and freshwater protected areas Agostinho et al. (1999), Naylor et al. (2000); Canonico et al. (2005), Casal (2006), Diana (2009), Magalhães and Jacobi (2013, 2017), Occhi et al. (2017) and Pelicice et al. (2017) 430 Ambio 2018, 47:427–440 123 � Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017 www.kva.se/en Table 1 continued Aichi Targets Conflicts Solutions Key references Target 13. Preservation of genetic diversity Brazilian commercial and ornamental aquaculture has developed, raised, and disseminated different hybrids and transgenic organisms across the country, with no concern about genetic diversity and potential impacts on wild stocks (i.e., genetic erosion). In addition, aquaculture activities affect wild populations in multiple ways and, consequently, decrease genetic diversity National aquaculture plans based on regionalization, EMS. Implement areas with ecological or economic priority. Implement marine and freshwater protected areas. Permission to farm non-native species, hybrids, and transgenic organisms only in stringently closed systems Hashimoto et al. (2012), Magalhães and Jacobi (2013, 2017), Alves et al. (2014), Occhi et al. (2017) and Pelicice et al. (2017) Target 14. Conservation of ecosystems that provide essential services Aquatic ecosystems provide vital services (e.g., biodiversity, water quality, food security) that are degraded by unsustainable aquaculture. Cages in reservoirs directly affect ecosystem functioning and reduce water quality for human consumption— affecting poor and vulnerable traditional communities (e.g., fishermen, rural and indigenous people) National aquaculture plans based on regionalization, EMS and BMPs. Implement areas with ecological or economic priority. Implement marine and freshwater protected areas. Aquaculture as a small-scale complementary activity Figueredo and Giani (2005), Starling et al. (2002), Agostinho et al. (2007) and Pelicice et al. (2017) Target 15. Restoration of degraded ecosystems to mitigate climate change The functioning of most aquatic ecosystems in Brazil is already disturbed by various human activities (e.g., dams, overfishing, agribusiness); expansion of unsustainable commercial and ornamental aquaculture will exacerbate this scenario. It will decrease the effectiveness of conservation plans designed to restore degraded ecosystems (i.e., eutrophication) and to control carbon emissions (i.e., deforestation of riparian zones) National aquaculture plans based on EMS and BMPs. Apply the polluter-pays principle to raise funds to support habitat restoration Agostinho et al. (2005), Magalhães et al. (2011) and Pelicice et al. (2017) Target 16. Fair and equitable access to genetic resources The federal incentive to develop unsustainable commercial and ornamental aquaculture with non- native species conflicts with legitimate concerns about the perpetuation, access, and equitable sharing of natural and genetic resources National aquaculture plans based on regionalization Pelicice et al. (2014, 2017) and Vitule et al. (2012, 2014) Target 17. Develop an updated national biodiversity strategy Changes in legislation to boost commercial and ornamental aquaculture undervalue biodiversity and its services in favor of economic activities. Even if there were an updated national biodiversity strategy (there is none), aquaculture expansion would be an obstacle Follow the Aichi Biodiversity Targets to develop sustainable policies Scarano et al. (2012), Pelicice et al. (2014, 2017), Vitule et al. (2012, 2014, 2015), Governo de Tocantins (2016) and Governo de Mato Grosso (2017) Ambio 2018, 47:427–440 431 � Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017 www.kva.se/en 123 2016; Zhang et al. 2017). Aquaculture with non-native species conflicts directly with Aichi Target 9 (prevention, control, or eradication of non-native species), but the activity is in disagreement with most Aichi Targets (Fig. 1, Table 1). It is recognized that only a few introduced species become invasive, pestiferous, or harmful (Tens Rule— Williamson and Fitter 1996). However, the Tens Rule is one of the hypotheses with the least empirical support among all invasion hypotheses (Jeschke et al. 2012). We must bear in mind that negative impacts from aquatic invaders are more difficult to detect, especially because aquatic species are not easily observed/monitored, often experience time lags, engender indirect effects, and interact synergistically with other anthropogenic disturbances (Vi- tule et al. 2009; Braga et al. 2017). For aquatic inland ecosystems, therefore, the Tens Rule may cause confusion among stakeholders and the public, leading them to underestimate the real risks of biological invasions (Jarić and Cvijanović 2012). In addition, freshwater ecosystems are the most heavily invaded ecosystems in the world, subjected to massive propagule pressure, suffering from multiple disturbances caused by non-native species (Pyšek et al. 2010). Fish escapes, poor management, and the absence of an environmental management system (EMS) A main strategy of the Brazilian government is to increase fish production in public areas, particularly cage aquacul- ture in hydroelectric reservoirs (Valadão Flores and Ped- roza Filho 2014; Bueno et al. 2015; Lima et al. 2016). However, cages do not ensure safe confinement, since accidental escapes and deliberate releases are routine in Brazil (Azevedo-Santos et al. 2011; Britton and Orsi 2012) and elsewhere (Naylor et al. 2005; Jensen et al. 2010; Sepúlveda et al. 2013; Thorvaldsen et al. 2015). Because Brazilian aquaculture is extensively based on non-native species, the installation of new aquaculture facilities will increase propagule pressure and cause massive releases of non-native organisms into aquatic ecosystems (Frehse et al. 2016; Lima et al. 2016)—a process already underway (Azevedo-Santos et al. 2011; Ortega et al. 2015; Frehse et al. 2016; Magalhães and Jacobi 2017; Pelicice et al. 2017). In addition, aquaculture is based on poor management practices and does not follow EMS steps, which has caused additional disturbances (Agostinho et al. 2007; Magalhães and Jacobi 2017). For example, the activity has been Table 1 continued Aichi Targets Conflicts Solutions Key references Target 18. Valuation of traditional knowledge Traditional fishermen have been strongly encouraged to abandon existing fishing activities to become fish farmers. In addition, the incentive to cultivate non-native species across the country ignores local ecological knowledge (LEK)—usually based on small- scale sustainable practices and the use of native biota National aquaculture plans based on regionalization. Aquaculture as a small-scale complementary activity Agostinho et al. (2007) and Hallwass et al. (2013) Target 19. Advance knowledge on biodiversity (values, functioning, and trends) Biodiversity assessments and monitoring are not preceding or following the expansion of commercial and ornamental aquaculture. In addition, there is little effort to advance regional aquaculture with local native species National aquaculture plans based on regionalization Pelicice et al. (2014, 2017) and Azevedo-Santos et al. (2015) Target 20. Financial resources to implement the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 While current policies focus US$ 1.32 billion on developing especially commercial aquaculture, the National Fund for the Environment invested, over its entire history (1989–2014), ca. US$ 0.06 billion in environmental/conservation projects. Aquaculture and other unsustainable activities (e.g., agribusiness) are prioritized over the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity Follow the Aichi Biodiversity Targets to develop sustainable policies Scarano et al. (2012), Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura (www.mpa. gov.br), Fundo Nacional do Meio Ambiente (www.mma.gov.) and Pelicice et al. (2017) 432 Ambio 2018, 47:427–440 123 � Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017 www.kva.se/en http://www.mpa.gov.br http://www.mpa.gov.br http://www.mma.gov responsible for the construction of ponds in riparian zones (i.e., Preservation Areas) (Fig. 2c), pollution of streams and rivers, eutrophication (Fig. 2d), secondary introductions (Fig. 2e), spread of pathogens and parasites, biotic homogenization, and extensive aggregation of organisms (Table 2). Ponds in riparian areas disturb aquatic biodi- versity by affecting riparian buffer zones and other aquatic habitats (Fig. 2c), e.g., streams, wetlands, estuaries, and mangroves (Diana 2009; Magalhães and Jacobi 2017; Pelicice et al. 2017). These problems are commonplace in aquaculture because instruction, planning, and regular inspections are weak in Brazil (Magalhães and Jacobi 2017; Pelicice et al. 2017). This is particularly troubling if we consider that aquaculture with non-native species has reached megadiverse regions, such as the Tocantins River and Pantanal wetlands (Lima et al. 2016). Owing to poor compliance with basic sustainability principles, poor management practices, and the absence of an EMS Cycle, the expansion of Brazilian aquaculture conflicts with several Aichi Targets (Table 1, Fig. 1). Tar- gets 7 and 8 specifically mandate sustainable management or an EMS for aquaculture and pollution control, i.e., two aspects neglected by current development. Aquaculture parks in reservoirs More than 200 parks have been mapped in hydroelectric reservoirs to develop small- and large-scale fish farms (Fig. 2f) (Lima et al. 2016). Because river regulation and reservoirs facilitate the establishment and spread of non- native organisms pre-adapted to lentic conditions (Havel et al. 2005; Johnson et al. 2008; Liew et al. 2016), impoundments will experience mass invasion events. Many Brazilian river basins (e.g., Tocantins, São Fran- cisco, Paraná) are now a series of large reservoirs (Agos- tinho et al. 2016), offering conditions for invaders. Furthermore, no law regulates the transit of cages, boats, and fish fry among reservoirs/aquaculture parks, which will enhance primary and secondary introductions, e.g., the highly invasive golden mussel Limnoperna fortunei (Fig. 2e) and the macrophyte Hydrilla verticillata, toxic algae like Microcystis, and aggressive pathogens like Ichthyophthirius multifiliis (Table 2). If this were to hap- pen, biotic homogenization (Petesse and Petrere Jr. 2012; Daga et al. 2015) may take place on a continental scale, including facilitative interactions and invasional meltdown (Simberloff and Von Holle 1999; Braga et al. 2017). Fig. 1 Direct conflicts (connections) between components of commercial and ornamental aquaculture expansion (colored boxes) and all 20 of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Table 1 presents further information Ambio 2018, 47:427–440 433 � Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017 www.kva.se/en 123 Expansion of aquaculture in reservoirs will conflict with other uses of freshwater resources. An example is the degradation of water quality for human consumption, because cage aquaculture enhances eutrophication pro- cesses (Figueredo and Giani 2005; Zhang et al. 2017) (Table 1, Fig. 2c–d). It is important to emphasize that Brazilian legislation restricts aquaculture development to 1% of reservoir surface area, and studies will determine the areas destined to become aquaculture parks (Bueno et al. 2015). There is, however, no consensus on whether this area suffices to maintain water quality. Some studies, for example, show that aquaculture parks did not affect water quality (e.g., Montanhini Neto et al. 2015), while others argue that the limit proposed by law cannot prevent eutrophication (e.g., David et al. 2015). In addition, fish escapes may cause successful introductions that may con- tribute to eutrophication by releasing nutrients into the water column, e.g., tilapias (Starling et al. 2002). Fig. 2 Examples of disturbances associated with commercial and ornamental aquaculture in Brazil: a introduction of non-native species (Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus); b introduction of ornamental non-native species (Goldfish Carassius auratus—red cap oranda variety); c construction of ornamental ponds in riparian zones; d eutrophication caused by cage aquaculture; e secondary introductions (golden mussel Limnoperna fortunei); f aquaculture parks in hydroelectric reservoirs 434 Ambio 2018, 47:427–440 123 � Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017 www.kva.se/en Aquaculture parks can also release large loads of contam- inants such as antibiotics, which may cause the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi (Cabello 2006). All these problems cannot be overlooked, because sev- eral hydroelectric reservoirs are sources of drinkable water; in addition, several Brazilian regions with high economic development have faced severe water crises recently (e.g., Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo; Vitule et al. 2015), while others have intrinsic water deficits (e.g., Brazilian semi-arid regions). Aquaculture expansion, at this time, will conflict with policies aimed at preserving and restoring freshwater resources and further emphasizes the conflict between the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and aquaculture incentives (Table 1, Fig. 1). Table 2 Examples of secondary introductions associated with com- mercial and ornamental aquaculture in Brazil Species Causes of introduction Plankton Kellicottia bostoniensis Unintended release with target species Mesocyclops ogunnus Unintended release with target species Macrophyte Azolla cf. microphylla Unintended release with target species; contaminated cages Ceratophyllum demersum Unintended release Egeria densa Unintended release Egeria najas Unintended release Eichhornia crassipes Unintended release Hydrilla verticillata Unintended release with target species; contaminated cages Limnophila sessiliflora Unintended release with target species; contaminated cages Pistia stratiotes Unintended release Salvinia auriculata Unintended release; contaminated cages Protozoa Ichthyophthirius multifiliis Unintended release with target species Trichodina reticulata Unintended release with target species Cnidaria Cordylophora caspia Unintended release Craspedacusta sowerbii Unintended release with target species Platyhelminthes Bothriocephalus acheilognathi Contaminated stocks Cichlidogyrus sclerosus Contaminated stocks Cichlidogyrus tilapiae Contaminated stocks Diphyllobothrium latum Contaminated stocks Nematoda Camallus cotti Contaminated stocks Annelida Barbronia weberi Contaminated stocks Crustaceans Argulus spp. Contaminated stocks Daphnia lumholtzi Unintended release with target species Daphnia magna Unintended release with target species Daphnia similis Unintended release with target species Dilocarcinus pagei Unintended release with target species Lamproglena monodi Contaminated stocks Lernaea cyprinacea Contaminated stocks Macrobrachium amazonicum Unintended release with target species Macrobrachium jelskii Unintended release Table 2 continued Species Causes of introduction Macrobrachium rosenbergii Unintended release Mesocyclops ogunnus Contaminated stocks Procambarus clarkii Unintended release Uca rapax Unintended release with target species Mollusks Biomphalaria spp. Unintended release with target species Corbicula fluminalis Unintended release with target species Corbicula fluminea Unintended release with target species Corbicula largillierti Unintended release with target species Helisoma duryi Unintended release with target species Limnoperna fortunei Unintended release with target species; contaminated cages Melanoides tuberculata Unintended release with target species; contaminated cages Physa acuta Unintended release with target species. Pomacea diffusa Unintended release with target species; contaminated cages Pomacea spp. Unintended release with target species; contaminated cages Fish Amatitlania nigrofasciata Unintended release Astronotus ocellatus Unintended release Knodus moenkhausii Unintended release with target species Phalloceros sp. Unintended release with target species Poecilia latipinna Unintended release Poecilia reticulata Unintended release with target species Poecilia sphenops Unintended release Poecilia velifera Unintended release Poecilia vivipara Unintended release with target species Tanichthys albonubes Unintended release Amphibian Lithobates catesbeianus Unintended release with target species Ambio 2018, 47:427–440 435 � Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017 www.kva.se/en 123 Revising laws to launch aquaculture The Brazilian government, in its various spheres, has revised laws to foster agribusiness activities (Fearnside 2016; Tollefson 2016), and similar efforts have been applied to aquaculture (Pelicice et al. 2017). For instance, Proposed Law #5989 of 2009 intends to ‘‘naturalize’’ non-native fishes by decree (Pelicice et al. 2014). The main objective of this law, partially approved by the Brazilian Congress, is to allow rearing of non-native fishes in federal waters—including highly invasive species such as bighead carp Aristichthys nobilis, grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella, common carp Cyprinus carpio, silver carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix, and Nile tilapia O. niloticus. It is worth noting that the same strategy was pursued in Colombia (Colombia, 2015). Approval of Proposed Law #5989 of 2009 will cause the spread of non-native fishes across the country through deliberate and accidental releases, especially O. niloticus, which is preferred by farmers. Another example is the modification of Resolution #413 of 2009 to accelerate the licensing process for aquaculture parks (Lima-Junior et al. 2014). According to the new resolution, licenses would be granted within 4 months, a period insufficient to conduct high-quality assessments and impact studies. Other contro- versial measures are state initiatives to allow the farming of non-native tilapia in regions of the Amazon River basin (Padial et al. 2017) and the Araguaia–Tocantins river basin (Governo de Tocantins 2016). Another state regulation (Normative Instruction of São Paulo Fisheries Institute) will allow the production of more than 50 non-native species, including the Asian pangasiid catfish Pangasianodon hypophthalmus, in São Paulo State (São Paulo 2016). The same wave of law revision has favored ornamental aqua- culture: normative instructions (#16 and #21, both of 2014) allowed the capture and rearing of 2000 ornamental fish species from the Amazon basin and have facilitated their transport across Brazil (Vitule et al. 2014). More recently, Mato Grosso State, mid-west region, approved a decree allowing tilapia aquaculture in cages (Governo de Mato Grosso 2017), threatening biodiversity hotspots such as the Pantanal floodplain. These revisions and incentives conflict directly with almost all Aichi Biodiversity Targets (Fig. 1), especially Targets 3 and 4, which call for an end to harmful activities and the implementation of sustainable production, respec- tively (Table 1). Sustainable aquaculture We recognize the importance of aquaculture for food security and income (Pant et al. 2014; Moura et al. 2016). In Brazil, unfortunately, aquaculture has proven difficult or unsuccessful in many southeastern basins, causing species invasion, loss of freshwater resources, and social disruption (Agostinho et al. 2007; Britton and Orsi 2012; Ortega et al. 2015; Forneck et al. 2016; Magalhães and Jacobi 2017; Pelicice et al. 2017). Even economic viability is ques- tionable when farmers do not receive adequate instruction (particularly when fishers are converted to farmers), the domestic market is not able to consume the production, and external markets face difficulties owing to non-tariff bar- riers (Pedroza-Filho et al. 2014b; Valadão Flores and Pedroza Filho 2014). Commercial and ornamental aqua- culture could lead to more solid socioeconomic develop- ment if implemented under sustainability principles (Klinger and Naylor 2012; Jones et al. 2015; Pelicice et al. 2017). There is an urgent need for collaboration among the aquaculture industry, conservation scientists, and policy- makers to build a more sustainable approach (Azevedo- Santos et al. 2017). The Aichi Biodiversity Targets may provide important guidance for policy-makers by priori- tizing ecosystem functioning and biodiversity together with human development. A rigorous and multi-scale planning process is needed to revise current policies and practices. It should be based on detailed, unbiased scientific assessments that weigh social, economic, and environmental dimensions equally, consid- ering different temporal/spatial scales and regional aspects (i.e., native species, regional markets, traditional commu- nities) (Jones et al. 2015). This process would identify costs and benefits, winners and losers (Deines et al. 2016), as well as conflicts between Aichi Targets and aquaculture components (Fig. 1). A ‘‘win–win strategy’’ for aquaculture development must follow two basic assumptions: (i) a process of ‘‘regionalization’’ and (ii) a stringent and mandatory Environmental Management System (EMS) (Table 1). Aquaculture regionalization consists of employing spe- cies that are native to the focus region (i.e., native to river basin). This measure agrees with most Aichi Biodiversity Targets. We have some candidate species like the giant arapaima Arapaima gigas, discus fish Symphysodon aequifasciata, streaked prochilod Prochilodus lineatus, pacu Piaractus mesopotamicus, and red pacu Piaractus brachypomus—species cultivated in other parts of the world (Lin et al. 2013) and even in some regions of Brazil where there are restrictions on raising alien species. The use of native species would benefit native biodiversity and aquaculture. For example, (i) people would understand the value of local biodiversity (Target 1), while (ii) native biodiversity would be integrated into national and local development plans (Target 2), alleviating poverty and 436 Ambio 2018, 47:427–440 123 � Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017 www.kva.se/en fostering regional economies and local income. In addition, (iii) the prevention, control, and eradication of non-native species (Target 9) would be facilitated, since propagule pressure would decrease. Another positive result is the diversification of the food production chain, increasing the resilience of local markets (see Troell et al. 2014). Parallel to regionalization, a stringent Ecological Mon- itoring System (EMS: Plan, Do, Check, Act) would serve to organize the activity. EMS is a series of practices directed to reduce environmental impacts from human activities (EPA 2017—https://www.epa.gov/ems). Thus, EMS would help implement sustainable aquaculture with attenuated ecological impacts (Target 4, 8), decrease habitat loss and pollution (Target 5), and improve control of non-native species (Target 9). Because aquaculture is a business, governmental and market regulations may help establish sustainable standards. For example, the National Environmental Law #6938 of 1981 that enacts the Polluter- Pays Principle could be used to raise funds for conservation (Target 11), to support research, or to implement envi- ronmentally friendly technologies. Furthermore, sustain- ability certification could be used to encourage good practices on farms (Bush et al. 2013). Non-native species should be restricted to specific activities (e.g., research, public aquaria, stringent confine- ment), but these practices should be minimized. Permission to use non-native species should follow a rigorous risk analysis and intensive surveillance (Vitule et al. 2009; Pelicice et al. 2017). In addition, permission should con- sider basic conditions: (i) non-native species should never be farmed in priority areas for conservation, nor in neighboring areas; (ii) production should occur in ‘‘closed systems’’ with sound management to prevent escapes and pathogen releases (Brengballe 2015); (iii) effluent waters should be treated; (iv) ponds should not be built in riparian areas; (v) wire screens and filters should be installed in ponds to avoid fish escapes; (vi) governmental inspection and environmental education should be mandatory for the aquaculture chain (e.g., Azevedo-Santos et al. 2015). These recommendations are needed to regulate aquaculture activities and to maintain the integrity of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the country. Here, we do not advo- cate a new form of xenophobia, but the application of Prevention and Precautionary Principles, both recognized by International and Brazilian laws (Sampaio et al. 2015). The expansion of aquaculture in Brazil reveals the conflict between national policies of developing countries and international conservation objectives. The CBD and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets are concerned with the persistence of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being, but developing countries have relied on unsustainable activities that erode their freshwater ecosystems and biodiversity (Pelicice et al. 2017). CONCLUSION Aquaculture development in freshwater ecosystems of Brazil is clearly against Aichi Biodiversity Targets, because the activity has neglected sustainability principles, threatening the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosys- tems. Brazil is a signatory of the Aichi Targets, so the time is ripe for Brazil and other megadiverse developing coun- tries to set consistent policies consonant with international agreements. Concerning the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, we are only three years away from the closing date. Acknowledgements We thank Edson Kiyoshi Okada for providing the photo and anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions on the manuscript. André L. B. Magalhães and Valter M. Azevedo-Santos received CAPES scholarships, and Dilermando P. Lima Jr, Fernando M. Pelicice, Jean R. S. Vitule, and Angelo A. Agostinho received CNPq research grants. REFERENCES Agostinho, A.A., L.C. Gomes, H.I. Suzuki, and H.F. Júlio-Jr. 1999. Riscos da implantação de cultivos de espécies exóticas em tanques-redes em reservatórios do Rio Iguaçu. Cadernos da Biodiversidade 2: 1–9. Agostinho, A.A., S.M. Thomaz, and L.C. Gomes. 2005. Conservation of the biodiversity of Brazil’s inland waters. Conservation Biology 19: 646–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005. 00701.x. Agostinho, A.A., L.C. Gomes, and F.M. Pelicice. 2007. Ecologia e manejo de recursos pesqueiros em reservatórios do Brasil. Maringá: EDUEM. Agostinho, A.A., L.C. Gomes, N.C.L. Santos, J.C.G. Ortega, and F.M. Pelicice. 2016. Fish assemblages in neotropical reservoirs: Colonization patterns, impacts and management. Fisheries Research 173: 26–36. Alves, A.L., E.S. Varela, G.V. Moro, and L.N.G. Kirschnik. 2014. Riscos genéticos da produção de hı́bridos de peixes nativos. Palmas: Embrapa Pesca e Aquicultura. Australia Productivity Commission. 2004. Assessing environmental regulatory arrangements for aquaculture. Melbourne, VIC: Productivity Commission. Azevedo-Santos, V.M., O. Rigolin-Sá, and F.M. Pelicice. 2011. Growing, losing or introducing? Cage aquaculture as a vector for the introduction of non-native fish in Furnas Reservoir, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology 9: 915–919. https://doi. org/10.1590/S1679-62252011000400024. Azevedo-Santos, V.M., F.M. Pelicice, D.P. Lima-Junior, A.L.B. Magalhães, M.L. Orsi, J.R.S. Vitule, and A.A. Agostinho. 2015. How to avoid fish introductions in Brazil: Education and information as alternatives. Natureza & Conservação 13: 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2015.06.002. Azevedo-Santos, V.M., P.M. Fearnside, C.S. Oliveira, A.A. Padial, F.M. Pelicice, D.P. Lima-Junior, D. Simberloff, T.E. Lovejoy, et al. 2017. Removing the abyss between conservation science and policy decision in Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 26: 1745–1752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1316-x. Braga, R.R., L. Gómez-Aparicio, T. Heger, J.R.S. Vitule, and J.M. Jeschke. 2017. Structuring evidence for invasional meltdown: Broad support but with biased and gaps. Biological Invasions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1582-2. Ambio 2018, 47:427–440 437 � Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017 www.kva.se/en 123 https://www.epa.gov/ems https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00701.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00701.x https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-62252011000400024 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-62252011000400024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2015.06.002 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1316-x https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1582-2 Brengballe, J. 2015. A guide to recirculation aquaculture. http://www. fao.org/3/a-i4626e.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2017. Britton, J.R., and M.L. Orsi. 2012. Non-native fish in aquaculture and sport fishing in Brazil: Economic benefits versus risks to fish diversity in the upper River Paraná Basin. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 22: 555–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11160-012-9254-x. Bueno, G.W., A. Ostrensky, C. Canzi, F.T. de Matos, and R. Roubach. 2015. Implementation of aquaculture parks in Federal Government waters in Brazil. Reviews in Aquaculture 7: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12045. Bush, S.R., B. Belton, D. Hall, P. Vandergeest, F.J. Murray, S. Ponte, P. Oosterveer, M.S. Islan, et al. 2013. Certify sustainable aquaculture? Science 341: 1067–1068. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1237314. Cabello, F.C. 2006. Heavy use of prophylactic antibiotics in aquaculture: A growing problem for human and animal health and for environment. Environmental Microbiology 8: 1137–1144. Canonico, G.C., A. Arthington, J.K. McCrary, and M.L. Thieme. 2005. The effects of introduced tilapias on native biodiversity. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15: 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.699. Casal, C.M.V. 2006. Global documentation of fish introductions: The growing crisis and recommendations for action. Biological Invasions 8: 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-005-0231-3. Coelho, P.N., and R. Henry. 2017. The small foreigner: New laws will promote the introduction of non-native zooplankton in Brazilian aquatic environments. Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia 29: e7. https://doi.org/10.1590/s2179-975x0717. Colombia, 2015. Resulución 2287 de 2015. Autoridad Nacional de Acuicultura y Pesca:Por la cual se declaran unas especies de peces como domesticadas para el desarrollo de la acuicultura y se dictan otras disposiciones. http://legal.legis.com.co/ document?obra=legcol&document=legcol_ 14790d1a48434c769e252071249e97d4. Córdova-Tapia, F., M. Contreras, and L. Zambrano. 2015. Trophic niche overlap between native and non-native fishes. Hydrobi- ologia 746: 291–301. Cucherousset, J., and J.D. Olden. 2011. Ecological impacts of non- native freshwater fishes. Fisheries 36: 215–230. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03632415.2011.574578. Daga, V.S., F. Skóra, A.A. Padial, V. Abilhoa, E.A. Gubiani, and J.R.S. Vitule. 2015. Homogenization dynamics of the fish assemblages in Neotropical reservoirs: Comparing the roles of introduced species and their vectors. Hydrobiologia 746: 327–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-2032-0. David, G.S., E.D. Carvalho, D. Lemos, A.N. Silveira, and M. Dall’Aglio-Sobrinho. 2015. Ecological carrying capacity for intensive tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) cage aquaculture in a large hydroelectrical reservoir in Southeastern Brazil. Aquacul- ture Engineering 66: 30–40. Deines, A.M., M.E. Wittmann, J.M. Deines, and D.M. Lodge. 2016. Tradeoffs among ecosystem services associated with global tilapia introductions. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquacul- ture 24: 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2015. 1115466. Diana, J.S. 2009. Aquaculture production and biodiversity conserva- tion. BioScience 59: 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59. 1.7. Di Marco, M., S.H.M. Butchart, P. Visconti, G.M. Buchanan, G.F. Ficetola, and C. Rondinini. 2015. Synergies and trade-offs in achieving global biodiversity targets. Conservation Biology 30: 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12559. EPA. 2017. Guide to developing and Environmental Management System—Plan. http://faostat3.fao.org/. Accessed 26 Oct 2017. FAO. 2016. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture: Contribut- ing to food security and nutrition for all. Rome: FAO. Fearnside, P.M. 2016. Brazilian politics threaten environmental policies. Science 353: 746–748. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. aag0254. Figueredo, C.C., and A. Giani. 2005. Ecological interaction between Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus, L.) and the phytoplanktonic community of the Furnas Reservoir (Brazil). Freshwater Biology 50: 1391–1403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01407. x. Forneck, S.C., F.M. Dutra, C.E. Zacarkim, and A.M. Cunico. 2016. Invasion risks by non-native freshwater fishes due to aquaculture activity in a neotropical stream. Hydrobiologia 773: 193–205. Frehse, F.A., R.R. Braga, G.A. Nocera, and J.R.S. Vitule. 2016. Non- native species and invasion biology in a megadiverse country: Scientometric analysis and ecological interactions in Brazil. Biological Invasions 18: 3713–3725. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10530-016-1260-9. Garcia, F., J.M. Kimpara, W.C. Valenti, and L.A. Ambrosio. 2014. Emergy assessment of tilapia cage farming in a hydroelectric reservoir. Ecological Engineering 68: 72–79. Governo de Mato Grosso. 2017. Diário Oficial do Estado de Mato Grosso: Decreto 1190/2017. https://www.legisweb.com.br/ legislacao/?id=350177. Accessed 26 Oct 2017. Governo de Tocantins. 2016. Alteração da Resolução COEMA/TO No 27, de 22 de Novembro de 2011. https://www.legisweb.com. br/legislacao/?id=172017. Accessed 26 Oct 2017. Hallwass, G., P.L. Lopes, A.A. Juras, and R.A.M. Silvano. 2013. Fishers’ knowledge identifies environmental changes and fish abundance trends in impounded tropical rivers. Ecological Applications 23: 392–407. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-0429.1. Hashimoto, D.T., J.A. Senhorini, F. Foresti, and F. Porto-Foresti. 2012. Interspecific fish hybrids in Brazil: Management of genetic resources for sustainable use. Reviews in Aquaculture 4: 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-5131.2012.01067.x. Havel, J.E., C.E. Lee, and J. Vander Zanden. 2005. Do reservoirs facilitate invasions into landscapes? BioScience 55: 518–525. IBGE. 2016. Produção da pecuária municipal. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. Jarić, L., and G. Cvijanović. 2012. The tens rule in invasion biology: Measure of a true impact or our lack of knowledge and understanding. Environmental Management 50: 979–981. Jensen, Ø., T. Dempster, E.B. Thorstad, I. Uglem, and A. Fredheim. 2010. Escapes of fishes from Norwegian sea-cage aquaculture: Cause, consequences and prevention. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 1: 71–83. https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00008. Jeschke, J.M., L. Gómez Aparicio, S. Haider, T. Heger, C.J. Lortie, P. Pyšek, and D.L. Strayer. 2012. Support for major hypotheses in invasion biology isuneven and declining. NeoBiota 14: 1–20. Johnson, P.T., J.D. Olden, and M.J. Vander Zanden. 2008. Dam invaders: Impoundments facilitate biological invasions into freshwaters. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 357–363. https://doi.org/10.1890/070156. Jones, A.C., A. Mead, M.J. Kaiser, M.C.V. Austen, A.W. Adrian, N.A. Auchterlonie, K.D. Black, L.C. Blow, et al. 2015. Prioritization of knowledge needs for sustainable aquaculture: A national and global perspective. Fish and Fisheries 16: 668–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12086. Joppa, L.N., P. Visconti, C.N. Jenkins, and S.L. Pimm. 2013. Achieving the convention on biological diversity’s goals for plant conservation. Science 341: 1100–1103. https://doi.org/10. 1126/science.1241706. Klinger, D., and R. Naylor. 2012. Searching for solutions in aquaculture: Charting a sustainable course. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37: 247–276. https://doi.org/10. 1146/annurev-environ-021111-161531. 438 Ambio 2018, 47:427–440 123 � Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017 www.kva.se/en http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4626e.pdf http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4626e.pdf https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-012-9254-x https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-012-9254-x https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12045 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1237314 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1237314 https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.699 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-005-0231-3 https://doi.org/10.1590/s2179-975x0717 http://legal.legis.com.co/document%3fobra%3dlegcol%26document%3dlegcol_14790d1a48434c769e252071249e97d4 http://legal.legis.com.co/document%3fobra%3dlegcol%26document%3dlegcol_14790d1a48434c769e252071249e97d4 http://legal.legis.com.co/document%3fobra%3dlegcol%26document%3dlegcol_14790d1a48434c769e252071249e97d4 https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2011.574578 https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2011.574578 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-2032-0 https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2015.1115466 https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2015.1115466 https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.1.7 https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.1.7 https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12559 http://faostat3.fao.org/ https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag0254 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag0254 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01407.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01407.x https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1260-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1260-9 https://www.legisweb.com.br/legislacao/?id=350177 https://www.legisweb.com.br/legislacao/?id=350177 https://www.legisweb.com.br/legislacao/?id=172017 https://www.legisweb.com.br/legislacao/?id=172017 https://doi.org/10.1890/12-0429.1 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-5131.2012.01067.x https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00008 https://doi.org/10.1890/070156 https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12086 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241706 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241706 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-021111-161531 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-021111-161531 Liew, J.H., H.H. Tan, and D.C.J. Yeo. 2016. Dammed rivers: Impoundments facilitate fish invasions. Freshwater Biology 61: 1421–1429. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12781. Lima, L.B., F.J.M. Oliveira, H.C. Giacomini, and D.P. Lima-Junior. 2016. Expansion of aquaculture parks and the increasing risk of non-native species invasions in Brazil. Reviews in Aquaculture. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12150. Lima-Junior, D.P., L.B. Lima, J.R.S. Vitule, M.L. Orsi, and V.M. Azevedo-Santos. 2014. Modificação das diretrizes do CONAMA no 413/2009 sobre o licenciamento ambiental da aquicultura: retirando os ‘‘obstáculos normativos’’ para a criação de espécies não nativas em águas continentais brasileiras. Boletim da Associação Brasileira de Limnologia 40: 3–11. Lin, Y., Z. Gao, and A. Zhan. 2013. Introduction and use of non- native species for aquaculture in China: Status, risks and management solutions. Reviews in Aquaculture 7: 28–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12052. Mace, G.M., K. Norris, and A.H. Fitter. 2012. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27: 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree. 2011.08.006. Magalhães, A.L.B., and C.M. Jacobi. 2013. Asian aquarium fishes in a Neotropical biodiversity hotspot: Impeding establishment, spread and impacts. Biological Invasions 15: 2157–2163. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0443-x. Magalhães, A.L.B., and C.M. Jacobi. 2017. Colorful invasion in permissive Neotropical ecosystems: Establishment of ornamen- tal non-native poeciliids of the genera Poecilia/Xiphophorus (Cyprinodontiformes: Poeciliidae) and management alternatives. Neotropical Ichthyology 15: e160094. https://doi.org/10.1590/ 1982-0224-20160094. MFA. 2012. Instrução normativa interministerial no1 de 3 de Janeiro de 2012. Diário Oficial da União 3: 26–42. Montanhini Neto, R., H.R. Nocko, and A. Ostrensky. 2015. Environ- mental characterization and impacts of fish farming in the cascade reservoirs of the Paranapanema river, Brazil. Aquacul- ture Environment Interactions 6: 255–272. Moura, R.S.T., W.C. Valenti, and G.G. Henry-Silva. 2016. Sustain- ability of Nile tilapia net-cage culture in a reservoir in a semi- arid region. Ecological Indicators 66: 574–582. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.052. Naylor, R.L., R.J. Goldburg, and J.H. Primavera. 2000. Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 405: 1017–1024. https://doi.org/10.1038/35016500. Naylor, R.L., S.L. Williams, and D.R. Strong. 2001. Aquaculture—a gateway for exotic species. Science 294: 1655–1656. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.1064875. Naylor, R., K. Hindar, F. Fleming, R. Goldburg, S. Williams, J. Volpe, F. Whoriskey, et al. 2005. Fugitive salmon: Assessing the risks of escaped fish from net-pen aquaculture. BioScience 55: 427–437. O’Bryen, P.J., and C.S. Lee. 2003. Management of aquaculture effluents workshop discussion summary. Aquaculture 226: 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00480-0. Occhi, T.V.T., L.A. Faria, and J.R.S. Vitule. 2017. Native or non- native? That is the question: A complementary discussion to Saint-Paul (2017). Acta of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 5: xii–xvi. Ochoa-Ochoa, L.M., O.A. Flores-Villela, C.A. Rı́os-Muñoz, J. Arroyo-Cabrales, and M. Martı́nez-Gordillo. 2017. Mexico’s ambiguous invasive species plan. Science 355: 1033. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.aam9400. Ortega, J.C.G., H.F. Júlio Jr., L.C. Gomes, and A.A. Agostinho. 2015. Fish farming as the main driver of fish introductions in Neotropical reservoirs. Hydrobiologia 746: 147–158. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-2025-z. Padial, A.A., A.A. Agostinho, V.M. Azevedo-Santos, F.A. Frehse, D.P. Lima-Junior, A.L.B. Magalhães, R.P. Mormul, F.M. Pelicice, et al. 2017. The ‘‘Tilapia Law’’ encouraging non-native fish threatens Amazonian river basins. Biodiversity and Conser- vation 26: 243–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1316-x. Pant, J., B.K. Barman, K. Murshed-E-Jahan, B. Belton, and M. Beveridge. 2014. Can aquaculture benefit the extreme poor? A case study of landless and socially marginalized Adivasi (ethnic) communities in Bangladesh. Aquaculture 418–419: 1–10. Pedroza-Filho, M.X., R.M. Barroso, R.M. Valadão-Flores, and A.P. Silva. 2014a. Diagnóstico da cadeia produtiva da piscicultura no estado de Tocantins. Palmas: EMBRAPA Pesca e Aquicultura. Pedroza-Filho, M.X., R.M. Barroso, and R.M. Valadão Flores. 2014b. Effects of non-tariff barriers on Brazilian fisheries exports to the European Union. Agroalimentaria 20: 35–52. Pedroza-Filho, M.X., R.M. Valadão-Flores, A.O. Rodrigues, and F.P. Rezende. 2015. Análise comparativa de resultados econômicos dos polos piscicultores no segundo trimestre de 2015. Palmas: EMBRAPA Pesca e Aquicultura. Pelicice, F.M., J.R.S. Vitule, D.P. Lima-Junior, M.L. Orsi, and A.A. Agostinho. 2014. Serious new threat to Brazilian freshwater ecosystems: The naturalization of nonnative fish by decree. Conservation Letters 7: 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl. 12029. Pelicice, F.M., V.M. Azevedo-Santos, J.R.S. Vitule, M.L. Orsi, D.P. Lima-Junior, A.L.B. Magalhães, P.S. Pompeu, M. Petrere- Junior, et al. 2017. Neotropical freshwater fishes imperilled by unsustainable policies. Fish and Fisheries 18: 1119–1133. Petesse, M.L., and M. Petrere Jr. 2012. Tendency towards homog- enization in fish assemblages in the cascade reservoir system of the Tietê river basin, Brazil. Ecological Engineering 48: 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.06.033. Pyšek, P., S. Bacher, M. Chytrý, V. Vojtěch, J. Wild, L. Celesti- Grapow, N. Gassó, M. Kenis, et al. 2010. Constrasting patterns in the invasion of European terrestrial and freshwater habitats by alien plants, insects and vertebrates. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19: 317–331. Rosa, R.S., A.C. Aguiar, I.G. Boëchat, and B. Gücker. 2013. Impacts of fish farm pollution on ecosystem structure and function of tropical headwater streams. Environmental Pollution 174: 204–213. Saint-Paul, D. 2017. Native fish species boosting Brazilian’s aqua- culture development. Acta of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 5: 1–9. Sampaio, F.D.F., C.A. Freire, T.V. Sampaio, J.R.S. Vitule, and F.F. Luı́s. 2015. The precautionary principle and its approach to risk analysis and quarantine related to the trade of marine ornamental fish in Brazil. Marine Policy 51: 163–168. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.marpol.2014.08.003. São Paulo. 2016. Instituto de Pesca de São Paulo – Portaria: Dispõe sobre a lista de espécies aquı́colas alóctones, exóticas e hı́bridos cultiváveis no Estado de São Paulo. Scarano, F., A. Guimarães, and J.M. Silva. 2012. Rio ? 20: Lead by example. Nature 486: 25–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/486025a. Sepúlveda, M., I. Arismendi, D. Soto, F. Jara, and F. Faria. 2013. Escaped farmed salmon and trout in Chile: Incidence, impacts and the need for an ecosystem view. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 4: 273–283. https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00089. Simberloff, D., and B. Von Holle. 1999. Positive interactions on nonindigenous species: Invasional meltdown? Biological Inva- sions 1: 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010086329619. Starling, F., X. Lazzaro, C. Cavalcanti, and R. Moreira. 2002. Contribution of omnivorous tilapia to eutrophication of a shallow tropical reservoir: Evidence from a fish kill. Freshwater Ambio 2018, 47:427–440 439 � Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017 www.kva.se/en 123 https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12150 https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12052 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0443-x https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0443-x https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0224-20160094 https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0224-20160094 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.052 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.052 https://doi.org/10.1038/35016500 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1064875 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1064875 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00480-0 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9400 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9400 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-2025-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-2025-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1316-x https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12029 https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12029 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.06.033 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.08.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.08.003 https://doi.org/10.1038/486025a https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00089 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010086329619 Biology 47: 2443–2452. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427. 2002.01013.x. Thorvaldsen, T., I.M. Holmen, and H.K. Moe. 2015. The escape of fish from Norwegian fish farms: Causes, risks and influence of organisational aspects. Marine Policy 55: 33–38. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.01.008. Titensor, D., M. Walpole, S.L.L. Hill, D.G. Boyce, G.L. Britten, N.D. Burgess, S.H.M. Butchart, P.W. Leadley, et al. 2014. A mid-tern analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346: 241–244. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257484. Tollefson, J. 2016. Political upheaval threatens Brazil’s environmen- tal protections. Nature 539: 147–148. https://doi.org/10.1038/ 539147a. Troell, M., R.L. Naylor, M. Metian, M. Beveridge, P.H. Tyedmers, C. Folke, K.W. Arrow, S. Barret, et al. 2014. Does aquaculture add resilience to global food system? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 13257–13263. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1404067111. Valadão Flores, R.M.V., and M.X. Pedroza Filho. 2014. Is the internal market able to accommodate the strong growth projected for Brazilian Aquaculture? Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 4: 407–417. Valladão, G.M.R., S. Umeda, and F. Pilarski. 2016. South American fish for continental aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture. https:// doi.org/10.1111/raq.12164. Vitule, J.R.S., C.A. Freire, and D. Simberloff. 2009. Introduction of non-native freshwater fish can certainly be bad. Fish and Fisheries 10: 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008. 00312.x. Vitule, J.R.S., D.P. Lima-Junior, F.M. Pelicice, M.L. Orsi, and A.A. Agostinho. 2012. Ecology: Preserve Brazil’s aquatic biodiver- sity. Nature 485: 309. https://doi.org/10.1038/485309c. Vitule, J.R.S., F.D.F. Sampaio, and A.L.B. Magalhães. 2014. Aquarium trade: Monitor Brazil’s fish sampling closely. Nature 513: 315. https://doi.org/10.1038/513315d. Vitule, J.R.S., V.M. Azevedo-Santos, V.S. Daga, et al. 2015. Brazil’s drought: Protect biodiversity. Science 347: 1427–1428. https:// doi.org/10.1126/science.347.6229.1427-b. Watson, R.A., D. Zeller, and D. Pauly. 2014. Primary productivity demands of global fishing fleets. Fish and Fisheries 15: 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12013. Williamson, M., and A. Fitter. 1996. The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77: 1661–1666. Zhang, X., X. Mei, and R.D. Gulati. 2017. Effects of omnivorous tilapia on water turbidity and primary production dynamics in shallow lakes: Implication for ecosystem management. Review in Fish Biology and Fisheries 27: 245–254. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11160-016-9458-6. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES Dilermando Pereira Lima Junior (&) is affiliated with the Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Brazil. His research interests include aquaculture, biological invasions, fish ecology and environ- mental policy. Address: Aquatic Ecosystems Ecology and Conservation Laboratory– Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Rodovia MT 100, Km 3.5, Setor Universitário, Pontal do Araguaia, MT CEP 78.698-000, Brazil. e-mail: dilermando.lima@gmail.com André Lincoln Barroso Magalhães is affiliated with the Graduate Program in Technologies for the Sustainable Development – Universidade Federal de São João Del Rei, Brazil. His research interests include biological invasions, fish ecology, conservation biology and environmental policy. Address: Graduate Program in Technologies for the Sustainable Development – Universidade Federal de São João Del Rei, Rodovia MG 443, KM 7, Fazenda do Cadete, Ouro Branco, MG CEP 36.420- 000, Brazil. e-mail: andrebiomagalhaes@gmail.com Fernando Mayer Pelicice is affiliated with Núcleo de Estudos Ambientais at the Universidade Federal de Tocantins, in Porto Nacional, Brazil. His research interests include biological invasions, fish ecology, and ecology. Address: Núcleo de Estudos Ambientais, Universidade Federal de Tocantins, Porto Nacional, TO, Brazil. e-mail: fmpelicice@gmail.com Jean Ricardo Simões Vitule is with the Laboratório de Ecologia e Conservação (LEC) in the Departamento de Engenharia Ambiental, Setor de Tecnologia, at the Universidade Federal do Paraná, in Cur- itiba, Brazil. His research interests include biological invasions, fish ecology, and zoology. Address: Ecology and Conservation Laboratory, Environmental Engineering Department, Technology Sector – Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR CEP 81.531-970, Brazil. e-mail: biovitule@gmail.com Valter M. Azevedo-Santos is affiliated with the Departamento de Zoologia at the Universidade Estadual Paulista ‘‘Júlio de Mesquita Filho,’’ in Botucatu, Brazil. His research interests include fish con- servation and environmental policy. Address: Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Estadual Paulista ‘‘Júlio de Mesquita Filho’’, Campus de Botucatu, Botucatu, SP, Brazil. e-mail: valter.ecologia@gmail.com Mário Luı́s Orsi is affiliated with Fish Ecology and Biological Invasions Laboratory, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, PR, Brazil. His research interests include biological invasions, fish ecology and aquaculture. Address: Fish Ecology and Biological Invasions Laboratory, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, PR CEP 86.057-970, Brazil. e-mail: orsimario68@gmail.com Daniel Simberloff is affiliated with the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Tennessee, in Knoxville. His research interests include biological invasions, entomology, and ecology, island biogeography, and environmental policy. Address: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Univer- sity of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA. e-mail: dsimberloff@utk.edu Angelo Antônio Agostinho is affiliated with Núcleo de Pesquisas em Limnologia, Ictiologia e Aquicultura (NUPELIA), Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Maringá, PR, Brazil. His research interests include biological invasions, fish ecology. Address: Núcleo de Pesquisas em Limnologia, Ictiologia e Aquicul- tura (NUPELIA), Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Colombo, 5790, Maringá, PR CEP 87020-900, Brazil. e-mail: agostinhoa@gmail.com 440 Ambio 2018, 47:427–440 123 � Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2017 www.kva.se/en https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.01013.x https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.01013.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.01.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.01.008 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257484 https://doi.org/10.1038/539147a https://doi.org/10.1038/539147a https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404067111 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404067111 https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12164 https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12164 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00312.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00312.x https://doi.org/10.1038/485309c https://doi.org/10.1038/513315d https://doi.org/10.1126/science.347.6229.1427-b https://doi.org/10.1126/science.347.6229.1427-b https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12013 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-016-9458-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-016-9458-6 Aquaculture expansion in Brazilian freshwaters against the Aichi Biodiversity Targets Abstract Introduction Methods Aquaculture expansion and environmental conflicts: An overview Prioritizing non-native species Fish escapes, poor management, and the absence of an environmental management system (EMS) Aquaculture parks in reservoirs Revising laws to launch aquaculture Sustainable aquaculture Conclusion Acknowledgements References