Conservation of precious ecosystems like those found in the Pantanal is definitely an important cause, both to promote biodiversity and to save the environment from total commercialization and deforestation.
When I was panning through Google for more information about the Pantanal, I stumbled upon an article about the residents of the Pantanal and their positions on the conservation efforts. While the people living in the Pantanal undoubtedly
Currently, a case is going on in Brazilian court to determine whether 230 families in the Inácio Barbosa neighborhood should be allowed to build homes in this Pantanal community or should be forced to leave. The conflict is that many of these families are illegally occupying the river banks in this area, which impedes the preservation of nature and the site restoration.
Residents are hesitant to leave, claiming that their families have lived in that area for the past 30 years and have established a community there. For these families, their livelihood is based upon the area, and they do not feel as though the relocation plans are adequate to make up for uprooting them from their homes.
Where do we draw the line about what human occupation is detrimental to the preservation of nature? I've always thought this topic is complex, but reading this article made me think more about the legal complexities of preservation, especially for a region like the Pantanal which has so much private ownership.
Thoughts? Should these 230 families be allowed to stay and use the resources of the Pantanal or leave and find another place to reside so as to not disturb the ecosystem balance in the Pantanal? I haven't formed a definitive opinion yet, so I'd love to hear all of your thoughts!
- Nicole
No comments:
Post a Comment