A biodiversity Vision for the upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion

Unsustainable hunting

Different sectors of the population conduct different types of hunting. In the three countries, there is a strong cultural tradition of hunting that is practiced during spare time, usually on weekends. Sport hunting is practiced by people living in cities who have financial means. Rural people who live near the forests hunt not only for sport or cultural reasons, but because they may need to obtain meat. The same is true for the lowly paid employees of logging companies who complement their diet with bush-meat they hunt during the weekend in logging areas where they are employed. Rural residents also hunt animals they consider pests, usually because of damage they may cause to domestic animals. For example, jaguars, pumas, and other carnivores are hunted because they may attack livestock (Schiaffino 2000, Pereira Leite Pitman 2002). Snakes are exterminated because a few species represent a danger for humans and domestic animals.

There is also some well-organized illegal hunting to supply bush-meat to local markets, such as in Brazil where there are restaurants that offer bush-meat as special dishes. Bush-meat is also used for preparing processed and dried meat.

Some indigenous communities still practice subsistence hunting (e.g., the Aché in Paraguay and some Mbya communities in Paraguay and Misiones). However, even traditional hunting practices are currently unsustainable in light of the relatively high human population densities in most areas of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest, the small size of the forest fragments¹⁰, and the low density of game animals found throughout most of the ecoregion¹¹.

The root causes of environmental degradation

• 
  High population growth rates (due to both high birth and immigration rates), high rates of illiteracy, and high rates of infant mortality—social indicators that constitute critical components of the socio-economic and environmental crisis of the Upper Paraná Ecoregion (Laclau 1994, SEPA 2000).
  
• 
  The low value that most people place on the native forest, which has been historically seen as an impediment to development (Laclau 1994, Hodge et al 1997).
  
• 
  Lack of law enforcement capacity due to fragile government institutions, lack of training of state officials, inefficient use of resources (Cinto & Bertolini in press), or simply due to widespread corruption.
  
• 
  The lack of public awareness about the ecological problems in the ecoregion (Laclau 1994) due to lack of environmental education. This situation is exacerbated by the high rates of illiteracy in the three countries.
  
• 
  The lack of economic alternatives and knowledge of sustainable use practices (Holz & Placci in press, Colcombet & Noseda 2000).
  
• 
  The deep economic crisis of the region along with some political instability.
  

Most of these root causes can be traced to an inequitable economic system that has concentrated land and resources in the hands of a few and has marginalized a large proportion of the population, depriving them of their most basic needs. While it is not the objective of this Biodiversity Vision to solve the social and economic problems of the ecoregion, we must take them into account when planning a conservation strategy for the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest ecoregion.

in Brazil, the Iguazú National Park in Argentina, the Urugua-í Provincial Park, and eight other smaller private and provincial reserves account for a continuous protected area of 340,800 ha, that serves as a large and resilient reservoir for the biodiversity of the ecoregion.

Figure 2. Location of the Atlantic Forests Global 200 Ecoregion in South America

Figure 3. The 15 Ecoregions of the Atlantic Forests Global 200 Ecoregion Complex

Figure 5. The Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion

Figure 6. The Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion Overlaps Extensively with the Upper Paraná Rivers and Streams Global 200 Ecoregion

Figure 7. The Process of Destruction of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest

Modified from Holz & Placci in press.

Figure 8. Land Tenure Patterns in Different Parts of the Ecoregion




Modified from Laclau (1994) for Brazil and Argentina, and SEPA (2000) for Paraguay.

Figure 9a. Protected Areas of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest

Figure 9b. Protected Areas of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest (Enlarged Tri-national Area)

Table 1. Protected Areas of the Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest Ecoregion