Sara's Notes  (be sure to scroll down for notes from later dates)
                                                                                                                                         
Back to Sara's Webpage

October 1, 2002


        Possible Plan for Mission 2006 Fauna Group

            For Fauna:

                        Problems:
 loss of species (therefore, loss of biodiversity)

                                               (this is our only concern as the fauna group.  the only problem involving animals is that they are dying off.  these are losses which would not occur if humans were not present in the rainforest--that is, non-indigenous peoples unlike the native tribes in the rainforest which have found a balance with nature)


                        Reasons for this Problem:  1)  Loss of Habitat (deforestation)

                                                                            2)  Loss of Food Sources (either loss of plants as a result of deforestation, or loss of lower order species which are other species' food)

                                                                            3)  Poaching (also to note is the removal of species from the rainforest: for example, the butterflies)

                                                                            4)  Introduction of Non-Indigenous Species (humans introduce other species that completely destroy the balance of nature in the rainforest)

                                                                            5) Introduction of Poisons (pesticides or herbicides used for farming, or just used in the rainforest for various purposes, leaking into air, water, and plant life.)

                                                                            6)  Climate Changes (global warming and acid rain as a result of pollution, erosion as a result of deforestation, or water temperature increase--as a result of pollution--which decreases the amount of oxygen in the air and kills off aquatic life)



                        Solution to the Problem (our project):  Many of these reasons for the loss of species do not have a direct effect on the loss of animals, therefore Fauna as a group should be more concerned with how these problems specifically affect the animal life, and which animals in particular are most threatened.  

                        Fauna Research:  a) if each of these "reasons"is actually a real problem with a significantly negative affect on the rainforest.

                                                           b) what species are most directly and most dangerously affected for each of the "reasons for problem" (note: deforestation can perhaps be seen as the most dangerous threat because virtually all species are affected)

                                                            *also to be considered is if there is an encroachment of the Amazon river area (population problems, towns being built, etc.) similar to the encroachment of the "tree" part of the rainforest.  Find out if it's a real problem, and in what way, and to what extent.



                        As far as monitoring goes....

                          
1) Focus--Our focus should be on monitoring the population numbers of those species found to be most affected, or "endangered".  watch and monitor the animals most threatened (this will allow us to see if the population is recovering, and therefore if our strategies are effective)

                           2) General--We also need some sort of very general view of the health of the animal population numbers.  This very broad monitoring will serve both as an alert for drastic, unnatural population changes, as well as a source for information and discovery.

                           How do we do this monitoring?  We currently do not know at all what any of the common monitoring practices are for any habitat, much less the rainforest.  Once we do research to learn this, then we can adapt the monitoring practices to become more effective for our purposes of monitoring in the rainforest.



October 22, 2002


                The meeting held yesterday afternoon following the official class took place in the Terrascope Lounge.  The people present were one representative from each of the groups.  Though unclear, the point of the meeting seemed to be to get the project organized into some better way that would make it suitable for the final presentation.  Some people wanted to completely reorganize/rename the groups, while others simply wanted (to my understanding) to place the groups under larger "groups".  The latter idea seemed to stem from the fact that many threats to the rainforest, or at least many parts of the Mission 2006 problem seemed to coincide with more than one group, and by combining some groups, a more effective solution could be found more quickly.

                It was this idea that seemed to make the most sense.  My idea as to what the meeting should have been and/or seemed to be about was to organize the teams or make up larger teams in such a way that the work done by the individual teams could be put into a format more suitable for presentation.  That is, each team has a specific task to do, but the final presentation cannot simply be each team presenting "what they found".  Thus, the larger subdivisions will bring together the common elements and findings of each team to blend them into the total "solution" or "strategy for a solution" as described in the Mission 2006 mission statement.  But that's just what I thought....

                Anyway, at some point (amidst much heated discussion and hot chocolate) it was decided that each representative should briefly describe the main goals of the team.  This took much longer than it should have, most definitely because there was more heated discussion and circular arguments following each team report (actually, all except for fauna--though I don't know if that's a good thing because we're not controversial or lacking in any way, or a bad thing because no one really cares what our team does.... : )  I could only stay for an hour of the meeting (I don't know how long it lasted) and that only took me up to group 6.  But here are my notes on the groups, as I understood them:

                Team 1&2:  Legal, Political, Public Relations, and Data Management's concerns/goals
                                       -public education
                                       -paying indigenous peoples to go into the cities and raise awareness (might they have immunity problems?)
                                       -getting Brazilian government involved
                                       -other companies buying rainforest land (and taking care of it...to compensate for pollution they cause...Coca Cola does this)
                                       -stuff like Kyoto, except companies instead of countries, promote such existing programs (this is where it got hazy...)

                Team 3: Flora's concerns/goals
                                       -deforestation (this report was very hard to follow, as it almost immediately turned into random discussion)


                Team 4: Fauna's concerns/goals (this is what I said)
                                       -We're focusing on the health of the ecosystem, based on the idea that the rainforest would be healthy if humans weren't there (excepting native peoples)
                                       -We've basically left it up to the other groups to take care of the human factors, our concern is only with the fauna, and how we can basically use the animals to give us information about ecosystem health
                                       -we're choosing indicator species (species that are easy to monitor and offer significant information about fauna/rainforest health) such as bats, amphibians, caiman, and jaguars (I described a bit how each was an indicator species)
                                       -as far as the highly endangered species are concerned, there's not much we can do except try to promote existing groups that help endangered species...look for charismatic mega-fauna (it was a new big phrase that I learned, so I had to use it) that will get the public interested, like the panda did for China
               
                Team 5: Land's concerns/goals
                                       -Chemical composition of the soil: what's there, what needs to be there
                                       -Land use: mining, etc. and how that affects chemical composition
                                       -how they need to work with Flora
                                       -monitoring: basic soil tests, erosion tests on a large scale using satellites

                Team 6: Water's concerns/goals
                                       -mines: mercury, from gold mining, old mines
                                       -deforestation, and how that affects the water
                                       -viability of transportation on rivers

            Those are all the notes I have for now, but I do plan on getting the rest of the notes from the meeting (in fact, now that I think of it, minutes from the meeting are going to be sent out, which makes this useless, except that you'll get a bit of my bias on the whole thing.....)  From what I could tell, the rest of the meeting was going to try to make up the larger groups, and then send out an email saying that each person had to sign up for one of the mailing lists for a larger group.




October 30, 2002

  Possible final presentation format;

            Policy Debate Style

                Introduction

                   
                    Statement of why the Amazon is important.  Not emotional, rather objective.
                    Summary of "what is Mission 2006"
               
                Inherency:
                   
                    Our proposal is completely unique.  I.E. in the status quo there exists no similar policy to our own
                
                Harms (Characterization)
                   
                    List of the top six threats to hte Amazon:
                        Threat 1:
                            If the threat is something like, Mining companies, briefly list the importance or positive aspects of these companies' existence so as not to offend members of the audience
                            objectively outline the main concerns in this area.  Cite facts, statistics, impacts (long term and short term)
                        Follow this pattern for threats 2, 3, 4, etc.
               
                Plan (for preservation and monitoring of the Amazon)
                       
                        Here we describe Mission 2006's comprehensive strategy for monitoring and preserving the Amazon and combatting the harms cited above.
                                i. Logistics, legality, timeframe, etc.
                                ii.  funding, enforcement, etc.
                                iii. describe our strategy as it pertains to each one of the harms listed above.
              
                Solvency
;
               
                        Now we move on to offer evidence proving why our harms-specific strategies will be effective.  Examples of evidence include citation of specific reports, empirical examples of effectiveness, a "case study" say in Brazil, etc.
                                i. prove the logistics of the plan are feasible
                                ii provide evidence of the effectiveness of our monitoring strategy
                                iii  prove the effectiveness of the plan as it relates to each individual harm (go through, one by one) this will take a while...
                                iv  case study as evidence of the effectiveness of our proposal
                                v  why our strategy will be effective on a grand scale (for preserving the Amazon as a whole) because of the positive results of our case study (i.e. prove our case study was conducted on a representative area of the rainforest and why it serves as a useful model for preservation elsewhere
               
                Pre-empts
               
                        Here we attempt to pre-emptively answer some of the likely questions which will be asked after our presentation. (we will not explicitly  indicate this is what we are doing, of course.)  if we can answer some of these concerns before the judges have the opportun
                                Examples:
                                    Will the Brazilian government support/want to pass your proposal?
                                     How  will the plan impact South American economies?
                                     How expensive is the proposal/
                                     Isn't this being done already?
                                    What about the indigenous people?
                Conclusion
                      
                         Going back to the importance of the Amazon, the realistic potential of Mission 2006, begin the question/answer phase of the presentation.


Back to Top