Pantanal Conservation Challenges

By Claire Zabel

I read this paper on the unique challenges of conserving the Pantanal, and I thought it raised a few especially interesting points I wanted to share with the group.  Little is known about the Pantanal’s ability to support the growing demand for ecotourism.  Until lately, little attention was paid to the Pantanal’s biota, and that makes tracings any increase or decrease in their numbers especially challenging.   Wetlands are often classified as “ecotones,” the transitional area between two biomes such as forest and grassland.  However, because the Pantanal is so vast, it has an unusually low circumference-to-area ration, and must be viewed as a full, and unusually large ecosystem in itself.  Thus, it may be far less influenced by surrounding ecosystems than other wetlands.  For example, the Everglades and Okavango wetlands are about 10% or less the size of the Pantanal, yet most wetland research has been conducted in them.  Thus, conservation science of the Everglades may prove misleading when applied to the Pantanal. 

This other paper lays out a recent analysis of the state of the Pantanal.  15-20% of the wetland has been deforested.  Although Brazilian and international law supports the conservation of the Pantanal, enforcement is weak and inconsistent. 

Both papers focus on a need for further research, but I’m not sure I believe it.  It seems like the research always says the same things: deforestation, climate change, and invasive species is bad, rich biodiversity is being lost, regulation needs to increase.  Do you feel that way when you read about conservation research?  Like they never admit that the science is clear and it is time for action rather than more studies?