Hammock failed - right in the middle of a paragraph of a rather dull political paper - and as I suddenly sat there on the tile floor, 3 feet below where I started, I contemplated "what the hell am I supposed to be doing here anyway?" (then I went and nursed my bruised right cheek).
This morning I had a meeting with the director of the NGO that I am working with. I am brainstorming (with his consultation, on ways to tweak my survey to include recent information I gained regarding a political shift in Brazil. There is a national law that protects areas with certain characteristics (within 30M of a river, 40% slope or more, at the crest of a hill). This law extends to all areas of the country, indiscriminate of their particular topography. From what you can see in my photos of the local topography, this area is very mountainous with many streams and rivers. Therefore, much of the land in Minas Gerais falls into the category of a permanent protection area and therefore can not (by law) be cultivated. However, it is widely known in Minas Gerais that many people break this law, and some people believe that they "must" break this law for survival. Therefore, there is a movement to change this law, and it is backed by many farmers (large and small scale) and by an influential Senator. Of course, this is opposed by many environmentalists.
Brazil gets much international attention when it comes to their domestic environmental policy, (especially in the last few years with the acceptance of the "theory" of Global Climate Change). I am here to contribute to the NGO's efforts in conservation and economic development in Brazil. However, these two things can sometimes be opposing goals (which is what I sat on the floor contemplating)... Which "side" is the right one? How do you find the middle ground? (and last but not least) What can I do to contribute to both sides (the needs of the people and the need for conservation of biodiversity in a valuable fragmented ecosystem)?
I believe that in order to have a successful conservation plan, you must take care of the basic needs of the people. With declining coffee prices, families are struggling for survival and therefore they will do whatever is needed to take care of their farms and families. Eucalyptus could be a viable option for them and the conservation efforts - IF it is managed carefully. Forest corridor programs are not being widely discussed in this area except for by the director of the NGO. He is beginning to promote the use of Eucalyptus for establishing corridors and is having mixed reviews. Some are concerned that corridors in general can promote the (re-) introduction of Jaguars, which are feared as they could kill valuable cattle. The only success that the director sees is in promoting economically useful corridors - which for now consists of Eucalyptus or natural forest in a "payment for environmental services" situation. Therefore, I believe it would be useful to promote corridors with Eucalyptus and native forest. A "mixing" of economic development and conservation efforts... but there is much research to be done first, as this is a bit different than what I set out to do. Changing sides or compromising?
So, off I go - finish the paper, fix the hammock, start on another paper (this time hopefully without injury). ~ Ate mas! (Until more!)
