Firstly, the trees. Brazil and to a lesser extent countries like Chile are well-known for their forests, but sadly the most impressive endemic trees are endangered. In Brazil, the national 'pau de Brasil' tree is a much-photographed rarity in the Rio botanic gardens. In Chile, the alerce has been logged almost to extinction, monkey puzzle trees that used to cover vast tracts of land have been reduced to a handful of national parks, and there are only an estimated 124,000 Chilean palms (featured on the country's independence declaration) left in the wild. A similar situation seems to exist with famous animals and birds like the macaw or jaguar: despite being national symbols that Brazil for one likes to project to foreigners. We have seen some pretty shocking treatment of wildlife even in protected areas across the continent. I'm not by any means saying this is widespread, but by Iguazu falls in Argentina we saw people poking an armadillo with a stick, a kid hitting a coati with a branch, and in Tierra del Fuego a boy picking up a gosling while his parents filmed him for a minute or more, while the geese were going crazy honking with alarm. There is also a huge problem with rubbish. In the same campsite in Tierra del Fuego, families holding barbecues left behind coke bottles and reams of toilet paper lying in the grass, while the gosling-tormenting devil left behind his crisp packet after dropping the bird (I could have killed his parents). It's heartbreaking to see rural towns in almost every country we've visited surrounded by slow-decaying strings of old plastic bags.
It seems to me that national parks, with trails for families to enjoy and information on wildlife and why it's important are the best tools for conservation, as well as bringing in much-needed revenue. The park rangers in such places are great, and have been almost universally long-suffering in my persistent questioning about birds. Some (bless them) have even spent time writing down the Latin names of trees I've photographed. All good so far. But most seem desperately understaffed. To give an example: in Los Alerces, Perito Moreno and Tierra del Fuego parks in Argentina, as well as Conguillio, Alerce Andino and Vicente Perez Rosales in Chile, there are only been a few walking trails, despite hundreds and hundreds of hectares of park. In many parks, trails have been shut with fallen trees even though it's the summer holidays. And in most, the trails are there-and-back rather than a more satisfying circular walk. In Chile you can't get a map of even the well-known parks in tourist offices, you have to go to a CONAF forestry commission office (not an easy task). Parque Pumalin in Patagonia, which was created by American conservationist and founder of North Face Doug Tompkins, has now gained national park status, but remains privately owned. CONAF lack the resources to staff it.
This seems crazy to me, and you'd think that Chile for one would realise it. Torres del Paine national park must be a huge revenue generator for them. The park charges foreigners £25 to get in, and it gets more popular every year - around 150,000 people visited in 2012. The trails are incredible, there are mountain refuges at five locations where you can buy anything from toilet roll to a bottle of merlot and a 4-course meal, and there is no litter anywhere! This park alone must subsidise the rest, but why not try harder to turn more into major tourist destinations? Charge more for entry! Four of the parks we've been to have been free, and others with between £1-3 entry fees that wouldn't cover the ranger's salary that collects them (in one we were the first visitors that day). Foreigners will pay through the nose for the chance to walk up volcanoes, see glaciers, and possibly catch sight of a puma. Yet some French tourists we met said that the Chilean tourist board promotes the country in France for its cheese!
So in short, I think that with more resources for national parks - more maps, more trails open, more leaflets on flora and fauna, and more widely available - wildlife and trees would be better protected. More money could come in via much higher entry fees, which could also be used for international promotion. Parks wouldn't have to allow damaging activities like logging and building dams, which many in Chile do at the moment, presumably to bring funds in. And tourism (well-managed, obviously) is a much more sustainable resource than copper-mining, nitrate production, and even many types of forestry. I think that in a related way, having more of the countryside better protected might help people realise that dropping litter is bad. But on that front I would also advocate high fines for offenders and banning plastic bags in supermarkets (which one in Argentina had recently done). But that's for another rant.
No comments:
Post a Comment