Introduction

The Pantanal is considered one of the key wetlands of tropical South America. According to a conservation assessment by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Biodiversity Support Program, the Pantanal is “globally outstanding” (rank 1 of 4) in terms of biological distinctiveness, “vulnerable” (rank 3 of 5) in terms of conservation, and of “highest priority” (rank 1 of 4) in regional priorities for conservation action (Olson et al. 1998). In 1998, the Brazilian Federal Constitution conferred upon the Pantanal the specific status of National Patrimony, although only about 5% of the area is under protection. In 1993, Pantanal National Park and, in 2002, the private reserve SESC Pantanal were declared Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention of Wetlands. Furthermore, since 2000, the National Park of the Pantanal and three Private Reserves of National Patrimony (RPPNs), Acurizal, Penha, and Dorochê, and later SESC Pantanal and Fazenda Rio Negro have been declared as Biosphere Reserves.

Most of the non-protected area is used by cattle ranchers for traditional low density cattle ranching, but there are also attempts to develop some ranches for ecotourism. This type of management has maintained the Pantanal as a stage of a near-pristine wetland ecosystem. However, in recent years, the increasing rate of destruction of its natural vegetation cover has become a major source of concern. Machado et al. (2011), in a study carried out by Conservation International and Flora and Fauna International, estimated that 13.6% of the natural vegetation coverage of the Pantanal had been removed. A WWF report (2010) indicated that, in 2008, 20,265 km2 (13.4%) of the natural vegetation inside the Pantanal had been modified. According to a note, published on June 7, 2010 by the Brazilian Environmental Organization (IBAMA), the Pantanal lost 4,412 km2 of its natural vegetation cover between 2002 and 2008, mostly by deforestation of non-flooded areas for pasture plantation and, in Mato Grosso do Sul, due to charcoal production for iron smelting.

In interviews, ranchers of the Pantanal of Poconé have pointed out the accelerated invasion of their grasslands by woody vegetation over the last several decades. They recalled that during their childhood the ranches consisted of much larger open grass lands. Several reasons for this invasion have been given, including overgrazing and global climate change, but our analysis shows that it reflects a coincidence of hydrological, socio-economic, legal, and political factors. The invasion of woody plants into natural or man-made grasslands has economic consequences for cattle ranches and ecological consequences for their flora and fauna, in addition to altering the esthetic appearance of the landscape.

Ranchers have asserted their right to clear of woody species as a prerequisite for maintaining the sound economic basis of traditional low-density cattle ranching. They have also argued that this traditional style of ranching maintains habitat diversity, which is being placed at risk by the quickly advancing invasive woody species. However, for many environmentalists, pasture clearing is a “Trojan horse” that finally leads to deforestation of the Pantanal, destruction of its habitat diversity, and thus a loss of the ecosystem’s multiple functions, including the diversity of its natural species.

The invasion of wetlands by exotic woody species is a worldwide phenomenon. Well known examples are the spread of the South American catclaw mimosa (Mimosa pigra) in the wetlands of Africa, Asia, Pacific Islands, and Australia (Braithwaite et al. 1989), the Brazilian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) in the Everglades (Ferriter 1997), and the Australian paperbark tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia) in the Everglades and in Puerto Rican wetlands (Serbesoff-King 2003; Pratt et al. 2005). These species form extended monospecific stands that eliminate native species and modify habitat conditions, therefore requiring strong efforts to ensure their control.

In the Pantanal, native species invade pasture areas, from which they were eliminated decades ago or by long lasting floods, drought, and fire, or by the pasture clearing activities of the ranchers. The effects of this invasion are similar to those of exotic shrub species. The native shrubs develop large, monospecific communities that eliminate herbaceous communities, diminish habitat diversity for animals, and negatively affect landscape beauty. Maintenance of habitat diversity, associated species diversity, and landscape aesthetics, however, are strong arguments for the protection of the Pantanal, not only because of their intrinsic values but also because they are major drivers of ecotourism and related economic activities.

Here, we summarize the ecological information concerning the Pantanal, describe the region’s historic development and its current socio-economic situation, and analyze the legal aspects of pasture clearing. This synopsis serves as a theoretical basis for further field studies. It should also stimulate a broad discussion among scientists, environmentalists, ranchers and other interest groups in the Pantanal, as well as those governmental organizations directly or indirectly involved in the region and responsible for the formulation, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws.

Study site

The Pantanal is a seasonally flooded wetland with pronounced annual wet and dry periods. It covers an area of about 160,000 km2, of which 140,000 km2 belong to the Brazilian states of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul, 15,000 km2 to Bolivia and 5,000 km2 to Paraguay. During the Quaternary, the region passed through dry and wet periods. Intensive erosion in the uplands during dry glacial periods led to the deposition by the major tributaries of large sediment cones inside the Pantanal depression, as shown by studies on the largest sediment cone of the Taquarí River (Short and Blair 1986; Ab’Saber 1988; Irion et al. 2011) (Fig. 1). Also, during the Holocene, the Pantanal was subjected to different climatic episodes, the consequences of which are not yet fully understood (Assine and Soares 2004): 40,000–8,000 years bp, cool and dry; 8,000–3,500 years bp, hot and humid; 3,500–1,500 years bp, hot and dry; and 1,500–present, hot and humid (Iriondo and Garcia 1993; Stevaux 2000). Today, the climate is hot and humid, with well pronounced dry and wet periods. The climatic instability accounts for the large physiological plasticity of the many organisms colonizing the Pantanal, including woody species.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Map of the study area

Full size image

Among the factors triggering ecological processes inside the Pantanal, the annual flood pulse is of foremost importance. Its impacts are described by the Flood Pulse Concept (Junk et al. 1989; Junk and Wantzen 2004; Junk 2005), specific aspects of which were summarized in a recent book about the Pantanal (Junk et al. 2011). The annual water-level fluctuations in the Pantanal are shown in Fig. 2, which illustrates the considerable climatic instability that gave rise to the region’s multi-annual wet and dry periods.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Annual water level fluctuations of the Paraguay River at Ladário from 1900 to 2010 (data according to DNAEE). Filled circle maxima; open circle minima

Full size image

Fire is the second factor that affects the flora and fauna of the Pantanal, mainly during the dry period. Fires can occur naturally or are set by humans. They lead to a set-back of the woody vegetation, which requires decades or even centuries to recover. Many woody species tolerate flooding, but they are hardly fire resistant (Nunes da Cunha and Junk 2004). When fires run out of control, they can also have dramatic impact on wildlife and livestock (Ferraz de Lima et al. 2011). The use of fire for pasture management is controlled by the Brazilian Environmental Agency (IBAMA) and strong efforts are made to combat wild fires (laws 4.771/65, 6.938/81 and 3.179/99). Even so, fire frequency is rising, as shown for the years 2007–2010 (Fig. 3). There are no records about relating changes in fire frequency to various cultural episodes.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Fire frequency, precipitation and water level fluctuation in the Pantanal. Precipitation data for Cuiabá from Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia (INMET), water level data for Ladario from Agência Nacional de Águas (ANA), and number of fires from Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE), for the period of 2007–2010 from satellite NOAA-15

Full size image

Human impact is the third factor, or better, group of factors, affecting the Pantanal. Humans influence the ecosystem directly and indirectly at all levels, e.g., by changing the hydrology, sediment load and water quality of the Pantanal’s tributaries and modifying vegetation cover and animal populations of the area. The management practices of the ranchers are only one of the multiple human influences on the system, albeit an important one.

A preliminary ecological classification of Pantanal habitats according to hydrological, physical, chemical, and botanical parameters indicates three large groups: permanent terrestrial habitats, permanent aquatic ones, and those in the Aquatic Terrestrial Transition Zone (ATTZ) (Nunes da Cunha and Junk 2011). These habitats are colonized by about 2,000 species of higher plants, of which more than 750 species are woody plants (Junk et al. 2006). Our knowledge about the ecological requirements, growth rates, and reproduction strategies of woody plants, while still insufficient, allows their division into three groups: the first is made up of plants that prefer habitats at the lower part of the flood gradient and are thus flooded for long periods (up to 6 months per year). In the second group are plants preferring dry habitats that become flooded only during extreme floods and only for a few days or weeks. Plants in the third group are able to colonize all of the forested habitats found throughout the flood gradient. An analysis of habitat preferences of 76 woody species in the Pantanal of Poconé showed 18 species preferring wet conditions, 45 species dry conditions, and 22 species occurring along nearly the entire gradient (Nunes da Cunha and Junk 1999) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Distribution of 85 tree species in the Pantanal of Poconé according to their preference along the flood gradient. T terrestrial habitats normally not subjected to inundation, I habitats inundated during short periods (<2 months), A habitats with a pronounced aquatic phase (up to 6 months). Arrows indicate the presumed direction of species expansion from the center of maximum density (according to Nunes da Cunha and Junk 1999)

Full size image

The distribution of the woody vegetation in the Pantanal is the result of a very dynamic process that is triggered by the multi-annual periods of wet years and dry years. The elimination of woody communities can be fast, e.g., by fire, but recovery can be a slow, long-lasting process extending over decades, during which the communities pass through several seral stages. In many cases it is not clear whether an invasive community is in a seral stage or the final stage of forest succession. For the Pantanal ranchers, “invasive species” are all native or exotic species that invade their pastures. In many cases, the native invaders occupy habitats from which they were eliminated by periodically occurring unfavorable conditions, or by human activity. Species better adapted to wet conditions, such as Vochysia divergens (cambará), spread into surrounding grasslands during wet periods but are eliminated during long-lasting dry periods because of reduced seed production and minimal resistance against fire (Nunes da Cunha and Junk 2004). Figure 5 shows the results of a cluster analysis of 20 cambará plots according to number of trees and stem diameter as a measure of tree age. There is a clear distinction between a group of plots with old forests, established before the multi-annual dry period of 1963–1973, with low numbers of trees and high stem diameter, and those of young forests, established later, when wetter conditions dominated, in which there are high numbers of trees and low stem diameter.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Top dendrogram of a multivariate analysis showing the different groups in 20 plots of Vochysia divergens communities, based on stem diameter (cophenetic correlation 0.95%). Bottom mean stem diameter + standard deviation, basal area, and number of stems per plot of 20 stands of Vochysia divergens. The numbers 8 and 7 correspond to old stands, the numbers 3, 1, 11, and 9 to stands of intermediate age, and the remaining plots to young stands, as separated by multivariate analysis of stem diameter (according to Nunes da Cunha and Junk 2004)

Full size image

Drought-adapted species such as Curatella americana (lixeira) invade the grasslands of higher-lying areas. However, especially problematic are those species with a large tolerance of flooding and drought, as their habitat requirements are similar such that they compete for space at the middle reach of the flood gradient. Their relative success depends both on the occurrence of nearby founder populations and on their reproduction and dispersal strategies. Due to the relatively slow growth of woody species, invasion starts slowly but then accelerates as the number of individuals increases. Once established, the population dominates the area for decades, until it is eliminated by another, large-scale disturbance. The fact that there are many native invasive species with similar ecological requirements makes their control difficult, because the elimination of one species provides space for the invasion of several others. The most common native invasive species in the Pantanal of Poconé are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 The most common invasive woody species of the Pantanal of Poconé, the level of aggressivity, and the methods of control
Full size table

The history of habitat management in the Pantanal

Artificial earth mounds (aterros de bugre) and other archeological evidence show that the Europeans settled in an area that had already been modified to some extent by indigenous people, but little is known about their habitat management. This is due to the low interest of European settlers in traditional management methods of the indigenous nations, mainly Guatós, Paiaguás and Mbayá-Guaicurú, but also to the fact that constructions built by the indigenous people were of loam and wood and were quickly destroyed by the flooding and droughts characteristic of the area’s tropical climate.

Humans arrived in the Pantanal at least 8,000 years bp and entered the Pantanal about 5,000 years bp (Ab’Saber 1988; Oliveira 1999; Peixoto et al. 1999; Schmitz et al. 2001). Reports of early European colonists point to fishermen, hunters, and gatherers, who used different fruit trees, wild rice (Oryza latifolia), and aquatic and terrestrial animals for food, including aquatic mollusks, as shown by the many shells in the artificial earth-mounts (Oliveira 1996; Herberts 1998). Most of the local names of the Pantanal’s habitats, plants, and animals are of indigenous origin, reflecting the fact that the pre-Columbian people had a profound knowledge of their environment and extensive expertise in the location and use of the region’s natural resources. The enrichment of the earth mounds and higher-lying natural habitats (capões and cordilheiras) with useful plants, mainly the palm tree acuri (Scheelea phalerata), illustrates the long-term strategies that were used in occupying the area.

Ethnological studies have shown that, in the past, indigenous people living in savanna areas, such as the Caiapó of the Paraná/Tocantins/Araguaia region, used fire to stimulate the growth of fresh grass, which in turn attracted game animals while also controlling weeds and encouraging the growth of useful plants (Posey 1986). The name “Caiapó” means “man who brings fire in his hands” and reflects the ability of this people to manage their territory with fire. Certainly, people living inside the Pantanal used similar methods, with effects on flora and fauna. With the arrival of the Europeans, the indigenous population was decimated by diseases, wars, and slave raids, and, after 1750, indigenous management practices were gradually replaced by European cattle ranching. The ranches were very large, and the specific races of cattle and horses that developed (tucura cattle and Pantanal horse) were well adapted to floodplain conditions and able to use natural pastures (Pott et al. 1989; Abreu et al. 2001; Santos et al. 2002, 2011). Pasture clearing with axes, machetes, hoes, and fire was restricted to areas around farm houses, with cattle-grazing helping to control the growth of woody plants. Useful trees (timber, fruits, medicinal compounds) and trees of aesthetic value were cultivated and slowly modified the appearance of the landscape. Forests on elevated sites (capoes, cordilheiras, levees) and along drainage channels (landis) were kept intact and provided refuge to cattle and game animals during floods and droughts. These processes developed slowly over large areas of the Pantanal, gradually forming the famous “parkland landscape” that is appreciated today.

Experiments in which cattle were excluded from four small pasture areas without woody vegetation located at Fazenda Ipiranga, at the head of the Transpantaneira road, showed that after 15 years the pasture was dominated by invasive woody species (Fig. 6). This result demonstrates that the actual vegetation cover over large parts of the Pantanal depends on management by ranchers and their cattle. With the availability of new technologies during the last several decades, new methods of pasture clearing have been implemented. Legal restrictions, however, have led to a situation in which pasture clearing has become confused with illegal deforestation, thus creating serious problems for the ranchers with the governmental environmental agency IBAMA, as discussed below.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Fenced plot in a man-made pasture area after 10 years of protection against grazing. Several tree species have become successfully established, including Vochysia divergens (Cambará)

Full size image

The current socio-economic situation

In the 1950s, the Brazilian government began to build its new capital, Brasília, transferring the ministries from Rio de Janeiro to the geographic center of the country. This decision led to the economic development of the Cerrado region, including the Pantanal. Several large development programs were established, with the following of direct or indirect importance for the Pantanal: Intermunicipal Consortium for the Development of the Pantanal (CIDEPAN), Program for the Development of the Pantanal (PRODEPAN), Program for the Development of the Cerrado (POLOCENTRO), National Alcohol Program (PROÁLCOOL), Program of the Development of the Grande Dourados (PRODEGRAN), Study of the Integrated Development of the Upper Paraguay Basin (EDIBAP), Program of the Development of the Northeast (POLONOROESTE), Program of the Agricultural Development of the State of Mato Grosso (PRODEAGRO), National Program of the Environment (PNMA) with the sub-program Conservation Plan of the Upper Paraguai Basin (PCBAP). These programs upgraded the region’s infrastructure and stimulated the economic development of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul. Inside the Pantanal, access to the formerly isolated ranches was improved, including the installation of electricity and telephone—a process that is still ongoing. The economic development is reflected by the rapid increase of the population of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul, from 522,044 in 1950 to 5,484,146 in 2010, with most of this increase concentrated in the urban centers. Indeed, during the same period, the rural population increased from 344,214 to 904,107 but as a percentage of the total population it decreased, from 65.9 to 16.5% (SIDRA 2011). Data on the development of the population inside the Pantanal are not available.

During the last multi-annual period of low floods, from 1963 to 1973, the cattle stock inside the Pantanal doubled from about 3 million to about 6 million animals because of the availability of large native pasture areas that became available at the lower end of the flood gradient (Pott 1994). Until the beginning of the 1970s, about 90% of the cattle stock of the area, covered by the states of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul and corresponding to 6% of Brazilian cattle stock (Abreu et al. 2001; Silva et al. 2001), lived within the Pantanal’s boundaries, Dramatic losses of cattle at the beginning of the multi-annual cycle of high floods in 1974 forced many ranches to the edge of bankruptcy. In 1985, the Pantanal cattle stock was 11.9% lower, but that of the surrounding uplands 66% higher than before. The number of ranches in the Pantanal decreased from 4,339 in 1975 to 3,970 in 1985 (Rosa et al. 2007). In 2004, the cattle stock of the Pantanal, about 3.8 million animals, represented only ~7% of the stocks of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul and ~2% of the 204 million animals comprising the total stock of Brazil (IBGE 2007).

The rapid economic development of the uplands around the Pantanal attracted the interest of many pantaneiros, who moved to the quickly growing urban centers. In the Pantanal of Poconé, this process was accelerated in the 1980s by a new gold rush, which led to a profound restructuring of Pantanal society. Formerly, large ranches were isolated socio-economic units that consisted of the rancher, his family, and a large number of laborers and their families. Today, the ranches are occupied by a small number of workers, mostly males, whose families live in the urban centers of the upland. Often, ranchers and/or their wives have additional activities or jobs in the cities, visiting their ranches only sporadically. During the gold rush, the economic and political power of the ranchers shifted to the “newly rich,” that is, the owners of gold mines and mining equipment, merchants, etc., most of whom had emigrated from southern Brazil and therefore lacked any cultural connection to the Pantanal, its values, or its traditions. The transition from individually owned gold mines to gold mining industries, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, drastically reduced the number of people employed by the mining sector of Poconé (Callil and Junk 2011), but it did not reverse the socio-economic situation of the ranches in the Pantanal. However, the rapid expansion of high-density cattle production on artificial pastures in the cerrado uplands around the Pantanal has resulted in intense competition with the traditional low-density cattle ranching inside the Pantanal.

The juristic situation

The original Brazilian Forest Code from the 1930s provided no specific management rules for the Pantanal. The ranchers applied traditional management methods according to knowledge acquired over two and a half centuries. These methods were sustainable because they maintained habitat diversity and its effects, including biodiversity. The large development projects established in the 1960s and 1970s required the creation of an organization to supervise occupation of the area and restrict human impact on the environment throughout the national territory. In 1967, the Federal Agency for Forest Development (IBDF) was founded. Its functions were transferred to IBAMA in 1989.

In 1965, a new version of the Forest Code was promulgated by law nr. 4771. It regulates the protection and use of forests, with the aim of protecting their soils and water as well as the stability of timber markets. Notably, this law also established the Areas of Permanent Protection (APPs). Following the publication of law nr. 6938/81, native forests became juristic environmental entities with their own intrinsic value independent of their uses. The use of APPs, whether public or private, is restricted in order to preserve water resources, landscape, geological stability, biodiversity, and the gene flux of fauna and flora, as well as to protect the soil and safeguard the well-being of human populations. In 2002, the National Environmental Council clarified the geographic extent of APPs and confirmed the protected areas along streams and small rivers, provided by law nr. 7803/89, are their width during maximum flood. These areas are fully protected.

However, the application of this rule to the Pantanal and other large Brazilian floodplains is problematic, as shown by Vieira (2000) for the Amazon River floodplain. According to the Brazilian Constitution, article 225, paragraph 4, the Pantanal is declared a National Heritage Area and the use of its resources must follow the laws to ensure the protection of the environment. But the Pantanal, and many other large floodplains, have been colonized for centuries, by traditional human populations. Shores of large rivers are often the best places for human settlements, because the natural levees are often the highest places in the river–floodplain system, diminishing the flood risk and allowing permanent access to flowing water and providing transport facilities for boats. At their highest water level, the entire floodplains are inundated and must therefore be considered as APPs, which cannot be colonized by humans. But, of course, the removal of thousands of traditional people from these areas is neither viable nor advisable, because they play an important role in the use and sustainable management of these vast areas.

Several recent initiatives have been aimed at adapting the legislation regulating pasture clearing to the specific conditions of the Pantanal, without placing at risk the environmental protection of the APPs that is mandated by the law. A workshop organized in 2006 by the Research Center of the Pantanal (CPP) of the University of Mato Grosso summarized the arguments of scientists and pantaneiros. Although CONAMA did not react, the government of the state of Mato Grosso included large parts of the conclusions in its proposal, the Law of the Management of the Pantanal. This proposal was intensively discussed by all stakeholders and included in law nr. 8830, in 2008. There are, however, several open questions that remain to be resolved before pasture clearing becomes an efficient tool for pasture management in the Pantanal.

The formulation and implementation of laws to guarantee the sustainable management of a complex biome such as the Pantanal is hindered by insufficient knowledge of its large number of habitats, their organisms, and their functions and interactions. During the last several years, scientists have made strong efforts to close these gaps. A preliminary classification of major habitats was elaborated based on hydrology, soil and water chemistry, and species composition of plant communities (Nunes da Cunha and Junk 2011). This classification subdivides the complex habitat pattern into easily discernable units and can already be used by state governments in the formulation of decrees that address these key habitats in a very specific manner. The Geographic Information System (GIS) allows the delineation of these habitats within the ranches. Moreover, the fact that the classification also uses popular local names for most habitats facilitates its use in negotiations between the different stakeholders.

Discussion and recommendations

Our analysis shows that the actual vegetation cover in large areas of the Pantanal is the result of the management by traditional ranchers over two and a half centuries. It must be realized that these areas are not a natural but a cultural landscape. The denomination of large parts of the Pantanal as a cultural landscape is not negative. On the contrary, worldwide, carefully managed cultural landscapes are known for their habitat diversity and scenic beauty and are considered as important refuges for many plant and animal species. Some of them, such as the Keoladeo National Park in India (Gopal 1991; Pimbert and Gujja 1997), the high-mountain meadows in the European Alps, and many peat swamps in northern Europe, are under protection and carefully managed to maintain their specific characteristics and biodiversity (Vos and Meeskes 1999).

However, this positive relationship between humans and environment can easily be destroyed by the advancement of new technologies in combination with economic pressure. Europe has been facing these problem for decades. For instance, abandonment of managed wetlands, changes in hydrology, and eutrophication of peat-bogs and fens led to the advancement of trees, e.g., white birch (Betula pubescens), willow (Salix spp.), and alder (Alnus spp.) increasing evapotranspiration and decreasing habitat and species diversity (Fossati and Patou 1989; Jensen and Schrautzer 1999). The relationship between habitat and species diversity has been stressed by Ritchie and Olff (1999). In Scandinavian semi-natural grasslands, a mosaic habitat structure of forested and open areas increased the total number of species (Lindborg and Eriksson 2004). Mechanical removal and control by sheep in protected areas is financed by the local governments. Grazing by primitive cattle and horse races and native ungulates, sometimes in combination with mechanical control, is becoming an important management tool also in some European national parks to avoid the spread of forests into valuable open areas maintaining habitat and species diversity (Hofmann 2003).

In South America, the Pantanal is of specific cultural value as one of the very few examples of the sustainable management of a tropical ecosystem by European immigrants. For instance, without the permanent intervention of the ranchers, most of the open grasslands, the single-tree savannas of Tabebuia heptaphylla (piuval) and Tabebuia aurea (paratudal), and part of the termite savannas along the Transpantaneira park road would revert in a few decades to scrubland dominated by cambará, pombeiro, and other invasive woody species. As a result, traditional low-density cattle ranching would become economically unviable. Game animals that favor open grasslands, such as the marsh deer (Blastocerus dichotomus), pampas deer (Ozotocerus bezoarticus) (Tomas et al. 2011), giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla), and emu (Rhea americana), would leave the area.

The alternative to traditional low-density cattle ranching is intensification of beef production. Some ranchers increase the carrying capacity for cattle by illegal deforestation. Others substitute the native herbaceous vegetation by exotic grasses, such as Brachiaria spp. In some areas, this has raised the density to one cow per hectare (Mourão et al. 2002). Agro-industrial alternatives to cattle ranching are practiced in parts of the wetlands of the Araguaia River at Bananal Island, at the lower Guaporé River, and in the savannas of Roraima, which are being transformed into paddy rice plantations. Both approaches are ecologically not acceptable for the Pantanal because they lead not only to the destruction of habitat and species diversity but also to the multiple non-commercial benefits that the Pantanal provides for the entire region and for society.

To reach a compromise between the requirements of the ranchers and the actions needed to ensure environmental protection, a general master plan for the sustainable management of the Pantanal’s habitats is required, one that includes total protection in some areas but also pasture management in exchange for forest protection in others. The preliminary habitat classification provided by Nunes da Cunha and Junk (2011) can be used to determine key habitats for permanent protection and others for low- to medium-impact management.

It could be argued that natural control agents such as wild fires and large populations of native ungulates could control the advance of woody vegetation. But as already mentioned, wild fires pose serious threats to livestock and humans and must be combated, and unlike African wetlands, there are no large ungulate populations in the Pantanal that would be able to control the woody vegetation.

Today, the total protected area of the Pantanal consists of only 450,000 ha of state and federal conservation units and 280,000 ha of private reserves, corresponding to about 5% of the area (Tomas et al. 2011). We agree with Lourival et al. (2009) that this area should be increased at least to about 20%, including corridors for species exchange with the upland. However, does the simple expansion of the protected area fulfil the requirements of a modern policy of environmental protection? An analysis of existing reserves, core areas of the Cerrado-Pantanal Priority Setting Workshop (CP-PSW), biosphere reserves, and core + corridors CP-PSW led to the conclusion “non of the four conservation scenarios met preferred areal targets for protection of habitats, nor did any protect all 17 biodiversity surrogates” (Lourival et al. 2009). Furthermore, we call attention to the fact that none of the scenarios designed to increase protected areas consider major environmental changes in the Pantanal, which are still to come and which are triggered from outside. For example, during the last 30 years, changes in the sediment load of the Taquarí River have modified the hydrology of 11,000 km2 inside the Pantanal (Fig. 1), with dramatic consequences for the ecological conditions of the affected area. Similar changes will happen in the future, to differing extents, along most other major rivers draining into the Pantanal, because of large-scale agricultural activities and the presence of hydroelectric power plants in the respective catchments. This will considerably reduce the value of national parks in the affected areas. These arguments show that there is no alternative to an agreement with the ranchers, who own most of the Pantanal, that will guarantee wetland-friendly sustainable management.