Yesterday, a large public forum took place at the University of Cáceres (UNEMAT). Around 300 to 400 people gathered to discuss a topic that is currently moving the region: the planned expansion of the Estação Ecológica Taiamã south of Cáceres, one of the strictest protected areas in the Pantanal.

The debate was highly emotional and split participants into two clear camps:

• Government institutions & local students, strongly advocating to expand the reserve by four to five times its current size.

• Local actors, especially cattle ranchers (about 25% of the proposed new park area is seasonally used as pasture), local fishing-tourism companies and some traditional fishermen, who feel their livelihoods and traditions are under threat.

Why the Debate is So Complex

At first glance, one might think: expanding a protected area should make everyone working in ecotourism like us, jump out of pure joy. But the reality is far more complicated.

1. Existing Protection Status
Much of the land under discussion is already subject to decrees that prohibit fishing and other extractive activities. Many therefore ask: why do we need an additional national park – especially when the main argument presented is the protection of fish stocks?

2. Loss of Access
The Estação Ecológica Taiamã falls under the strictest category of Brazilian protected areas. Access is tightly restricted, mostly limited to research. For Pantaneiros – traditional fishermen and some cattle farmers – this could mean expropriation (with compensation) and permanent displacement.

3. Role of Cattle Ranching
Traditional cattle ranching in the Pantanal has, unlike intensive agriculture, so far had comparatively few direct negative impacts. Because of seasonal flooding, soy cultivation or other large-scale monocultures are almost impossible here. For centuries, cattle have grazed on natural pastures in, in a way similar to alpine farming in Europe, with very little harm to the local fauna. Some even argue that cattle grazing reduces dry vegetation and thus helps prevent fires.
We work closely with a Pantaneiro farm ourselves and can say with confidence: many of these ranchers are among the strongest nature conservationists that we know.

4. Fire Management
Local farmers usually respond immediately when a fire breaks out – they are there on the ground. Whether state institutions would be able to fight fires as quickly and effectively remains uncertain. On the other hand, it could be argued that with fewer farms in the area, fewer agricultural accidents (e.g., electrical short circuits) could spark fires in the first place.

Ecotourism: Between Hope and Legal Grey Zones

Some Brazilian protected areas are among the most restrictive in the world. Unlike many positive examples in Africa and North America, some parks here are completely sealed off. Visitors, tourists, even locals – all are kept out. Only researchers have access. This is unfortunate, because in many other countries it has long been recognized that ecotourism revenues are a cornerstone of conservation funding.

For us, as a company that works 100% in ecotourism, one thing is clear: conservation only makes sense if it goes hand in hand with sustainable use. Why protect nature if no one is allowed to see it?

But even now, there are legal uncertainties:

• Officially, access is tightly regulated.

• In practice, there is often a grey area.

• We are advised to say we are “in transfer” if stopped at inspections inside of the park. The reason: the Paraguay River, which flows through the existing reserve, is an official waterway and cannot be closed.

As a result, boat-based jaguar safaris are already taking place in practice – a type of tourism that Cáceres urgently needs. The city depends on greater international visibility, more income for local families, and on raising awareness of the extraordinary ecosystem right at people’s doorstep.

Political Polarization

What troubles us most: the debate followed Brazil’s familiar political lines – left versus right, state versus private interests. Unfortunately, there were moments of disrespect and even personal insults. Yet what is truly needed now is constructive dialogue. Conservation can only succeed if local people are part of the process.

Still, the forum itself was an important first step. We hope that many of the concerns and open questions raised will be taken into account as the process moves forward.

Our Conclusion

We see both sides:

• Yes, an expansion can make ecological sense.

• But it must not result in Pantaneiros, who have lived here for generations, being displaced.

If ecotourism can be established as an official part of the management of the expanded park, much will be gained. Only then can nature be preserved while also being experienced – by locals, by visitors, and ultimately for the long-term protection of the Pantanal.

One thing is certain: the Pantanal can only be protected if Pantaneiros also have a future in it. Instead of removing them from their land, we need to bring income opportunities to them – and ecotourism is the best way to achieve that.