Conserving the Pantanal:
The rise of sustainable development in the Pantanal of Brazil
Bradley Bartlett
Edgar Alex Garcia
Mary La France
Alexander Latzka
Meredith Palmer
Apollonya Porcelli
Introduction
All over the world, there have been recent dramatic changes in how people interact with the environment. Environmental movements and political agendas seeking to achieve sustainability utilize various approaches and achieve differing levels of success. What determines the technique used and its results varies from case to case. Especially in developing nations, any plan seeking conservation must incorporate economic and political necessities. Such is the case in the Pantanal wetland of Brazil, where there has been a rise in sustainable development as an alternative to conventional development that destroys the environment. In the Pantanal, a diverse and rich set of natural, cultural, and economic resources is dependent on the success of these sustainable development plans. Thusly, this paper offers an analysis of these approaches with a discussion for future possibilities.
Extending across western Brazil into Bolivia and Paraguay over an area of 140,000 km2, the Pantanal is the largest wetland in the world(Gottgens et al 2001)! Like all wetlands, it significantly influences the regional hydrology by sustaining the Paraguay River’s flow year-round and temporarily storing immense amounts of water (Gottgens et al 2001). In addition, the Pantanal is a mosaic of many different biomes, including Amazon rainforest, Cerrado, Chaco, and AtlanticForest (Harris et al 2005). This diversity makes up an assortment of sixteen different vegetation classes, which support diverse, abundant fauna (Harris et al 2005). It provides habitat to more than 650 species of birds (Gottgens et al 2001), highlighted by the endangered hyacinth macaw, one of 117 threatened species in the area (Harris et al 2005). Additionally, the Pantanal is home to about 124 mammal, 41 amphibian, 177 reptile (Harris et al 2005), and more than 400 fish species, which all make up abundant wildlife (Gottgens et al 2001). This spectacular richness of flora and fauna coupled with major hydrological influence make the Pantanal an extremely valuable ecosystem.
Despite its valuable resources, the Pantanal continues to be threatened by conventional development and by misguided, poorly designed, and/or ineffectively implemented sustainable development plans.
Dominant perspectives regarding use of the Pantanal
The main interests concerning this rich ecosystem include those in favor of developing the area for industrial or agricultural purposes and those who fear that development would threaten a valuable environment. Broadly, these interest groups can be classified into industries that favorconventional development and local communities and environmental activists who condemn development.
Generally, developing the Pantanal with conventional methods is attractive because it provides surefire ways to stimulate an impoverished economy. Specifically, many developments could help combat the drastic inequality that exists in Brazil (Roberts 2008). Adhering to the framework of trickle-down economics, this sort of development would do so by opening up areas with valuable natural resources for capital investment to provide higher income and jobs for more people. In doing so, it would enable a larger portion of the population to receive better education, and subsequently learn to care for the environment (Bartlett 2007). In the long run, the major challenge to the future conservation of the Pantanal has been the lack of a socioeconomic model that allows for the coupling of its future conservation with its economic uses (Harris et al. 2005). Political leaders have incentives to push for developments because the idea of giving the people more money and jobs, as opposed to protecting the environment, tends to win more favorable amongst Brazilian civil society (Roberts 2008).Therefore, development, from this perspective, is desirable as a way to boost the economy in the region and create stability.
One instance of developing for economics’ sake is the case of the Hidrovia project. The Pantanal-ParaguayRiver Basin plays a large role in the economy by providing water transportation for commercial industries (Swarts 2000). In the late 1980’s, the La Plata Basin countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) proposed a large project that would transform the Paraguay River into a deep, straight channel, making it easier for large ships to navigate during low-water months (Swarts 2000).It would have facilitated cheaper year-round transport of goods throughout South America and to the Pacific Ocean for international trade, enabling more efficient globalization of Brazil’s economy. It would have also helped legitimize MERCOSUR, a free trade agreement aimed at integrating the economies of the La PlataBasin countries (Harris et al 2005). Due to its extreme scope and serious consequences, the project was ultimately abandoned, but the same perspective is contributing to many much smaller river channelization projects, in what Frederick Swarts (2000) refers to as a “tyranny of small decisions.”
Another pro-development point of view is that of agro-industry. Due to an increase in competition in the market for beef and other cattle products, the Pantanal is increasingly becoming subject to intensive agricultural practices (Swarts 2000). Unlike the original, cultural ranching style of the Pantaneiros, this new technique is much more energy consumptive and unsustainable, using significant amounts of fertilizer, herbicides, and even changes in grass species (Harris et al 2005). The changing practices are due to a desire for ranchers, typically non-native ranchers who buy the land from native Pantaneiros, to earn a better income (Trent 2008). In essence, the pro-development perspective is the idea that economic stability is a necessity, which is more important than environmental luxuries.
Obviously, intensive agriculture and hydrological changes like Hidrovia have drastic effects on the Pantanal ecosystem, so there is significant backlash. The conflicting interest groups, those against development, are made up mainly of local communities and NGOs. Local groups especially have always workedagainst development in the region, but sometimes against each other in their causes. These communities include the indigenous tribal peoples, other subsistence communities of fishermen and ranchers, and the Pantaneiros, a group that practices largely sustainable ranching and traces their ancestry to the first colonists (Safford 2004). Leaders of local coalitions worked with bringing these indigenous groups together, mediating communication between tribes to facilitate collaboration to work against the destruction of the ecosystem that they rely on for survival (Safford 2004). One such leader was Marcos Terena of the Terena tribe, who founded the first indigenous political movement in Brazil in 1997 called the Union of Indigenous Nations. His efforts in spearheading collaborative initiatives between tribes has gained a space for Indigenous knowledge and concerns in the local state governments, Brazilian federal government, and the United Nations (Safford 2004). Among local NGOs there has been the belief that local people must be included in the formation of programs that directly affect them and their environment (Safford 2004). A collective sensitivity towards these oppressed local groups grew in the surrounding states of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul in the early 1980’s. Therefore, the government and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), typical supporters of the development projects, realized that collaboration and compromises were more desirable than outright development for public image and overall efficacy (Safford 2004). This cooperation helped direct the river basin research initiatives by bringing local and regional knowledge into the process (Jongman & Padovani 2006). While this strategy did get developers and locals to interact more with NGOs, it was difficult to organize any long-term cooperation and to convince everyone involved that their participation does provide the best solutions (Jongman & Padovani 2006).
One issue regarding the inclusion of the voices of these local actors has been the difficulty finding a consensus on management strategy due to varying interests. Agricultural federations, ranching associations, and cooperatives of local commercial fishers, being the extractive sectors, see the strict conservation often advocated for by environmental NGOs as prohibitive and limiting to their abilities. Poor subsistence communities in this area have not been noted to desire a complete moratorium on development either (Safford 2004). Rather, these groups would prefer more sustainable systems of extraction and economic activity, although their opinions as to how this goal may be reached tend to differ. The growing awareness and sensitivity towards the views of local actors lead to the inclusion of local concerns in the formation of Programa Pantanal (Safford 2004). This program is a management system that was developed to palliate tensions between various social groups who had differing interests regarding the use of the regions’ rich natural resources (IDB).
Over seventy NGOs were involved in voicing the interests of local communities who actively resisted development in the Pantanal. One of the main NGOs involved was Both ENDS, which provided a networking service to environmental organizations across the globe (Both ENDS 2008). Together with Rios Vivos, or the Living Rivers Coalition, these local empowering NGOs encourage sustainable management of South American waterways (Rios Vivos 2004). Other important NGOs include the Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, WWF, UNESCO and Ecotropica (Nature Conservancy 2008). Conservation International is working to create a biodiversity corridor of protected areas in the Pantanal (Harris et al 2004). Similarly, The Nature Conservancy and Ecotropica partnered to purchase 148,000 acres of critical land on the borders of PantanalNational Park and converted these properties into private preserves (Nature Conservancy 2008). In doing so, large tracts of land were preserved and local ownership was used to manage smaller portions of the reserve. Since the PantanalNational Park occupies only about one percent of the Brazilian Pantanal (Swarts 2000), it is necessary to have additional government strategies for its conservation. These strategies would involve private efforts toward conservation. During the past decade the Conservancy has been playing an essential role in helping local institutions to assess, manage, and monitor the PantanalNational Park (Nature Conservancy 2008). More recently, the Conservancy has established valuable partnerships with UNESCO, WWF and the Brazilian environmental agency, IBAMA, for the conservation of the Natural World Heritage Sites in the Pantanal (Nature Conservancy 2008). To guarantee the long-term sustainability of the Pantanal, the Conservancy has also launched the Great Rivers Alliance– a public-private partnership for restoring watersheds and influencing agriculture development (Nature Conservancy 2008). These environmentally based efforts, which often build social capital between local, regional, and national stakeholders, help the government to efficiently manage the development conflict using shared visions, information, and solutions. It is evident that there is extreme contrast in ideas within and between interest groups, but that does not mean solutions are impossible; they simply will require innovative governance regimes to produce socially desired outcomes.
History of Government and Governance in the Pantanal
Prior to the early 1920’s, only the indigenous semi-nomadic Indian nations and, closer to modern times, the Pantaneiros, inhabited the Pantanal. They lived there sustainably, depending on the region’s resources for survival (Carteret al 2004). With increasing growth came encroachment by private companies. In the 1930s, Brazil aspired to become a “global superpower at any expense” (Drummond 2006), including that of its vast natural resources. Therefore it passively allowed companies to sacrifice environmental resources in lieu of economic growth (Da Silva 2003). Ranchers, Indian nations, and the state and federal governments were, for a long time, the only significant stakeholders in the region (Da Silva 2003). In the 1950s, however, the federal government began to actively practice developmentalism, and in doing so endorsed agro-industrial expansion and economicgrowth. Consequently, proponents of agriculture, transport, modern cattle-ranching, hydroelectric energy, mining, tourism, and commercial fishing eventually became the significant stakeholders in the Pantanal and Brazil (Carter et al 2004). The newactors in the Pantanal drove the Brazilian government to seek development at first.
Nonetheless, progress was made in the subsequent decades. In 1967, the Brazilian Institute for Forest Development was created. Itwas the first federal agency devoted to conservation and immediately began establishing eleven new national parks and nine new biological preserves (Drummond 2006). In the 1980s, the public became aware of their country’s environmental issues and put pressure on the government. No longer able to resist the public outcry, the government drafted a new Constitution which mandated public Environmental Impact Statements (Silveiria 1997). Nevertheless, Brazil, in order to drive growth, adopted free-market idealism and implemented several programs designed to boost the economy. MERCOSUR was one such measure, which helped construct the threat of Hidrovia (Bucher 1995). This project has garnered much attention from NGOs and international organizations, finally getting the Pantanal the recognition it deserves and driving the current conservation movement.
At the same time, the environmental movement that had begun in the U.S. finally reached Brazilin full force. The Amazon and the Pantanal became well known internationally during this time, though the Pantanal to a lesser extent. Collectively NGOs and international organizations defeated Hidrovia, sparking the drive toward sustainable development in Brazil. Many more NGOs took up the fight against the unsustainable forces in the Pantanal, pushing the Brazilian government to take counter-measures. Some such changes are Brazil’s participation in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) (Peck 2001), and environmental impact statements (EISs). Some examples of MEA’s that Brazil signed on to were theBasel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes,the Montreal Protocol on the Protection of the Ozone Layer, and the Biodiversity and Climate Change conventions(Silveiria 1997).The government also began passing legislation aimed at curbing environmentally destructive practices. For example, in 1981 it passed its own National Environmental Policy Act, modeled after the United States’ act of the same name. Finally, the government solidified its new stance on sustainability of its threatened biodiversity when it designated the Pantanal a “national treasure” in its most recent constitution (Silveiria 1997).
Current approaches to Pantanal management
Currently, the Pantanal has three national parks, five state parks, two environmental protection areas, and an ecological station (Harris et al 2005). Yet these areas only encompass 2.5% of the UpperParaguayRiver Basin (Harris et al 2005). Recently, though, the government sponsored the Cerrado-Pantanal Conservation Priority-Setting Workshop, which addressed the need for a more extensive and connected protected area system (Harris et al 2005). In 1997,the Ministry of the Environment set up the Program for the Sustainable Development of the Pantanal (Programa Pantanal),to improve the sustainability of resource usage in the basin. Components of the program include research and measures directly related to protected areas, urban environments, sustainable economic activities, and the management of hydrographic basins (IDB). The program was designed through collaboration between federal and state governments to include local and global concerns over the status of the Pantanal (IDB). Similarly, Brazilian Agenda 21, the National Sustainable Development Strategy, was developed in the 1990s. It was a social pact: a guide to policymaking for the government, and not actual policy (Stratos Inc. 2004). Nevertheless, it began the search for balance between economic growth, social equity, and environmental preservation. It finally reached a consensus among major sectors at the state, market, and civil society levels to define priority actions, discussimplementation mechanisms, and commit to implementation (Stratos Inc. 2004). Other government initiatives include the 1998 Law of Environmental Crimes that established a series of infractions against the environment, some of which were vetoed shortly after the law’s inception. Others included the Amazon Deforestation Control, and the Ecological Value-Added Tax, which is a fiscal compensation mechanism that rewards local governments that protect areas from conventional development (Stratos Inc. 2004). Additionally, in the market, there has been a trend of “eco”-tourism in the Pantanal: an industry that presumes to promote sustainability, but is typically completely false, unjust, or ineffective in conservation. Another type of conservation mechanism occurring is the start-up of flagship species projects, which support environmental conservation and education, based on specific populations. Two examples that have had some success are the Hyacinth Macaw Project and the Jaguar Conservation Fund (Harris et al 2005). Despite the progress made by the government, the goal of sustainability is still far out of reach. Rarely does a well-intentioned project or law get precedence over the economic integrity of the country or a region.
Possibilities for future successful policy approaches
Although the policies and institutions affecting the Pantanal have become largely more democratic and sustainable in recent years, they fall short in many important areas. Simple alterations in the policies and institutions that have already been introduced could help save the Pantanal ecosystem in the long term by achieving true sustainable development. The breakdown of prescriptions can fall under the categories of fear, love, and money.
Fear-based policies typically utilize regulation from a state authority. The problem with these policies in the Pantanal is that they are frequently not enforced or monitored and no one is delegated responsibility. For example, the aforementioned Brazilian National Agenda 21 was not even a law; it was a set of principles to guide policy-making. Furthermore, it contained only one mention of either monitoring or responsibility. Instead, it assumed that every sector would take partial responsibility, but no one did because they would not be held accountable (Stratos Inc. 2004). To counter this, the government needs to refine policies like Agenda 21 so that they are legally binding, so that its regulations are strictly enforced, and so that its progress can be monitored. Additionally, the principles of enforcement, monitoring, and responsibility should be applied universally, and not just to these ‘administrative rationalist’ (Dryzek 2005) “fear” policies.