It is here that Daniela Silva cries out, “Belo Monte is dead!”, as she lays down a poster handwritten with the same message.

Daniela’s family is among the more than 14,000 people displaced by the construction of the hydropower plant, which has violently disrupted the local ecosystem.

They were resettled in small, newly built houses known as ‘ruquis’ (a colloquial term for ‘collective urban resettlements’) far from the river they had lived alongside and no longer within walking distance of Altamira city center.

“Before, there was a really strong sense of community,” says Dani, as she is known locally. “When we were little girls, we played together in the streets, and the community took care of us while our parents went out to work or fish in the river.

“We belonged to the river, to the forest. We were happy. We were rich.”

The Belo Monte dam represents the extractivism that has dominated Brazilian politics, on the Left and the Right, for decades. Altamira and its community were forever changed between 2011 and 2013, when 45,000 workers came to construct it.

The families lost their jobs. The canoes were left without water. The communities could no longer fish. The islands flooded, and trees drowned and died, leaving a desolate landscape.

“Before I had a live river. Now I have a dead lake,” said Raimundo Berro Grosso, another member of the community, in a quote included in journalist Eliane Brum’s recent book about the Amazon, ’Banzeiro òkòtó’.

‘Pushed into misery’

We contacted Norte Energia, the company that operates the Belo Monte dam, to ask it to comment on an earlier version of this article, but it did not respond.

The construction of the ‘Belo Monster’, as it is known locally, unleashed a socio-environmental catastrophe whose consequences are still difficult to comprehend. It destroyed the habitat of a vast area known as Volta Grande do Xingu, and the lives and futures of the communities on its banks.

Dani’s father lost his job as a brickmaker. One of her brothers was shot in the back and killed when the police stormed the house of his friend, who was accused of dealing drugs, and another brother became depressed and died by suicide.

“Now we are poor. To be poor is to not be able to choose. To be poor is to beg for gasoline to go to the city center. It is to need money to buy a mango in the supermarket,” she continues.

Standing in front of the abandoned lot where her home once stood, Dani is overcome by tears.

“Belo Monte pushed the people into misery. It ripped us out of our homes, and it didn’t give us any tools to rebuild our lives,” she says. “That can never be replaced. Being poor, being miserable, is to not remember where we came from.”

Hundreds of families like Dani’s were torn apart by Belo Monte, which was conceived during the country’s military dictatorship from 1965 to 1985. It was designed as part of a project that initially involved a system of up to eight dams throughout the rivers of the lower Brazilian Amazon.

The same period also led to the overexploitation of the jungle and the construction of the Trans-Amazonian highway, which became the needle in an enormous syringe used for massive, systemic extraction of the resources of the tropical forest, which today is in ruins.

But in the 1980s, Belo Monte generated great opposition among Indigenous and riverside communities, and its funding was withdrawn by the World Bank as a result. The project was revived 20 years later with funding from Brazil’s public national development bank, and although it was still opposed by many, this time construction progressed, promoted by successive governments of the then-ruling Brazilian Workers’ Party.

The hydroelectric power plant was inaugurated twice: once by President Dilma Rousseff in May 2016, when the first turbine began operating, and again by President Jair Bolsonaro in November 2019, when the last turbine began and the plant became fully operational.

During the low rainfall season, only one of the 18 turbines is functioning – due to changes in the design of the dam which now operates following the seasonal variation of river flow – demonstrating the hubris of a project that is failing to produce the 11,000 megawatts of “clean sustainable energy” still advertised on signs around Altamira.

A feminist fight

Since the project was first announced in the 1980s, a series of female activists in Altamira – including Mónica Brito, Antonia Melo, Francineide Ferreira and Raimunda Gomes – have led the charge against it. These women inspired Dani, who, in the words of Eliane Brum, “invents herself as a warrior”.

The jungle is often compared to a violated woman’s body. It corresponds to the predatory conceptions of the Amazon shared by many Brazilians, particularly Bolsonaro and his followers.

Brum affirms this idea: “Being a woman is being a Xingu violated by Belo Monte. It is being a burned tree when the smoke covers the Amazonian sun to hide the horror of the crime.”

Dani’s fight fits squarely into this powerful image of the disaster in the Amazon basin. We are rapidly approaching a point of no return: some scientists predict that when the Amazon’s deforestation reaches 20-25%, much of the tropical forest will be turned into an immense savannah.

Against this dire threat, Dani is putting her body on the line. She participates in several anti-deforestation initiatives and works to strengthen civil society to confront the landowners who drive their trucks through Altamira, which the Belo Monte devastated and turned into the most violent city in all of Brazil.

Dani is aware that her fight for Altamira is also a fight for the Amazon, and for the entire planet, whose future is being destroyed on a daily basis.

“Fighting for the Amazon today is not an isolated fight. Defending the Amazon, the jungle, is defending life,” she says. “We are not here preventing the development that they talk about.

“When they build a hydropower plant in a sacred river like the Xingu, it is not only the Xingu that dies, along with the people, but it has a domino effect. It falls, it falls, it falls […] and poof.”

Pablo Albarenga is an Uruguayan journalist who works with indigenous peoples of the Amazon.

Francesc Badia i Dalmases is a Mexican journalist, a film producer, and the founder and director of democraciaAbierta, the Latin American associate section of openDemocracy.net, London. A political analyst, an author, and a publisher, Francesc specializes in geopolitics and international affairs. Francesc is a regular contributor to international newspapers like El País or The Guardian, a Pulitzer Center grantee, and was awarded the Gabo Prize in 2021 for his work in the Amazon. Follow him on Twitter: @fbadiad Instagram: francescbadiaidalmases3

This article appeared originally in Open Democracy – https://www.opendemocracy.net/

Costing 30 billion reais (US$ 7.7 billion), Belo Monte is important not only for the scale of its construction but also the scope of opposition to it. The project was first proposed in the 1970s, and ever since then, local indigenous communities, civil society and even global celebrities have engaged in numerous acts of direct and indirect action against it.

While previous incarnations had been canceled, Belo Monte is now in the final stages of construction and already provides 11,233 megawatts of energy to 60 million Brazilians across the country. When complete, it will be the largest hydroelectric power plant in the Amazon and the fourth largest in the world.

A ‘Sustainable’ Project?

The dam is to be operated by the Norte Energia consortium (formed of a number of state electrical utilities) and is heavily funded by the Brazilian state development bank, BNDES. The project’s supporters, including the governments of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party) that held office between 2003 and 2011, have justified its construction on environmental grounds.

They describe Belo Monte as a “sustainable” project, linking it to wider policies of climate change mitigation and a transition away from fossil fuels. The assertions of the sustainability of hydropower are not only seen in Brazil but can be found across the globe – with large dams presented as part of wider sustainable development agendas.

With hydropower representing 16.4% of total global installed energy capacity, hydroelectric dams are a significant part of efforts to reduce carbon emissions. More than 2,000 such projects are currently funded via the Clean Development Mechanism of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol – second only to wind power by number of individual projects.

While this provides mega-dams with an environmental seal of approval, it overlooks their numerous impacts. As a result, dams funded by the CDM are contested across the globe, with popular opposition movements highlighting the impacts of these projects and challenging their asserted sustainability.

Beautiful Hill, to Beautiful Monster

Those standing against Belo Monte have highlighted its social and environmental impacts. An influx of 100,000 construction and service workers has transformed the nearby city of Altamira, for instance.

Hundreds of workers – unable to find employment – took to sleeping on the streets. Drug traffickers also moved in and crime and violence soared in the city. The murder rate in Altamira increased by 147% during the years of Belo Monte construction, with it becoming the deadliest city on earth in 2015.

In 2013, police raided a building near the construction site to find 15 women, held against their will and forced into sex work. Researchers later found that the peak hours of visits to their building – and others – coincided with the payday of those working on Belo Monte (Beautiful Hill). In light of this social trauma, opposition actors gave the project a new moniker: Belo Monstro, meaning “Beautiful Monster”.

The construction of Belo Monte is further linked to increasing patterns of deforestation in the region. In 2011, deforestation in Brazil was highest in the area around Belo Monte, with the dam not only deforesting the immediate area but stimulating further encroachment.

In building roads to carry both people and equipment, the project has opened up the wider area of rainforest to encroachment and illegal deforestation. Greenpeace has linked illegal deforestation in indigenous reserves – more than 200 km away – to the construction of the project, with the wood later sold to those building the dam.

Brazil’s past success in reversing deforestation rates became a key part of the country’s environmental movement. Yet recently deforestation has increased once again, leading to widespread international criticism. With increasing awareness of the problem, the links between hydropower and the loss of the Amazon rainforest challenge the continued viability of Belo Monte and similar projects.

Big Dams, Big Problems

While the Clean Development Mechanism focuses on the reduction of carbon emissions, it overlooks other greenhouse gases emitted by hydropower. Large dams effectively emit significant quantities of methane for instance, released by the decomposition of plants and trees below the reservoir’s surface. While methane does not stay in the atmosphere for as long as carbon dioxide (only persisting for up to 12 years), its warming potential is far higher.

Belo Monte has been linked to these methane emissions by numerous opposition actors. Further research has found that the vegetation rotting in the reservoirs of dams across the globe may emit a million tons of greenhouse gases per year. As a result, it is claimed that these projects are – in fact – making a net contribution to climate change.

Far from providing a sustainable, renewable energy solution in a climate-changed world, Belo Monte is instead cast as exacerbating the problem that it is meant to solve.

Belo Monte is just one of many dams across the globe that have been justified – and funded – as sustainable pursuits. Yet, this conflates the ends with the means.

Hydroelectricity may appear relatively “clean” but the process in which a mega-dam is built is far from it. The environmental credentials of these projects remain contested, with Belo Monte providing just one example of how the sustainability label may finally be slipping.

Ed Atkins is a senior teaching associate at School of Geographical Sciences in University of Bristol

This article was originally published in The Conversation. Read the original article here: https://theconversation.com/belo-monte-there-is-nothing-green-or-sustainable-about-these-mega-dams-98025

They are reoccupying the riverbanks along the dam’s 200-square-mile reservoir. Belo Monte is the third largest hydroelectric project in the world.

As of February 2017, there were over 100 people occupying the reservoir. They have publicly declared that they are in the process of resettling the area.

The Xingu River is a 1,200-mile tributary of the Amazon River and is at the heart of the lives and homes of thousands of indigenous and various forest-dwelling communities.

The reoccupation action started after a November 2016 meeting when hundreds of locals assembled in the northern Amazonian city of Altamira (news is often slow to travel outside of Brazil). Altamira served as a staging area during the dam’s construction.

At the meeting, local fisherman known as “river people” (ribeirinhos) and indigenous communities condemned Norte Energia, the consortium behind the multibillion-dollar dam project for what they claim is an unsuccessful compensation scheme and a failure to listen to their concerns.

Norte Energia has strenuously denied claims of a failed compensation scheme.

Crews finished construction of the dam and filled the reservoir in 2015, though turbines are still being built. In total, the Belo Monte complex has displaced about 20,000 people, according to estimates by global nonprofits such as International Rivers. The Brazilian advocacy group Xingu Vivo has put the number much higher, at over 50,000.

In the first two years of construction Altamira’s population surged to well over 100,000 and millions of dollars poured into the city, but the city now has seen a spike in joblessness and violence. A month after construction ended, 20,000 workers were laid off, and the economy in Altamira fell 52 percent, according to local reports on the news site Amazônia.

More than 800 people attended the November public assembly, organized by the public prosecutor’s office of Altamira, which addressed the social and environmental impacts of the 11,000-megawatt dam.

Representatives of Norte Energia and IBAMA were present. IBAMA is Brazil’s environmental authority and the licensing body of the project. It maintains a permanent channel of conversation with FUNAI (Brazil’s Indian Affairs Department) for any matters related to indigenous people.

There were also organizations supporting communities adversely affected by the dam. They included the Socio-Environmental Institute (ISA), the local advocacy group Xingu Vivo, and the Brazilian Society for the Progress of Science (SBPC), among others.

The ISA is a Brazilian nonprofit civil society organization that works on socially responsible solutions to environmental challenges.

During the meeting, a group representing over 300 families of ribeirinhos displaced by Belo Monte announced that its members intended to resettle along the shores of the reservoir. They also announced the formation of a “river peoples’ committee” to fight against Norte Energia and lobby for adequate compensation.

“Norte Energia will try and divide us, but we must resist,” said Gilmar Gomes, a representative of the ribeirinhos’ committee.

Change in Stature

Local ribeirinho families, some of which now occupy the Belo Monte reservoir, are known as “river people” because they live along the rivers and survive largely by fishing.

They have a shared history going back more than 100 years when the rubber boom opened up Brazil’s Amazonian interior to settlers that included their parents and grandparents.

Over time, they have developed their own unique customs and means of living. Until recently, being called a ribeirinho was a pejorative term, and it was used as a slur.

Crucially, they are now recognized as a social group with a specific way of life. Before, they were simply seen as fishermen, explains Ana de Francisco, 34, an anthropologist contracted by ISA who researches ribeirinho communities.

“[Now] that is just an economic term,” de Francesco said. She explained that reducing them to mere “fishermen” is a way to deny their history. “It says nothing about their way of life,” she added. Now, ribeirinhos are working to reclaim the term, as well as the river, rebuilding homes along the shores of the reservoir.

Future Plans

Thousands of families affected by the dam have been compensated and relocated. But many – including anthropologists, health experts and lawyers who have accompanied the process – argue that compensation was incomplete or non-existent.

There have also issues at the federal level with the basic functions of the project. Since 2014, Belo Monte has had its operating license suspended several times by Brazil’s environmental authority, IBAMA, for failing to comply with its agreed-to compensation scheme.

Norte Energia has been accused of using only 28 percent of the resources set aside to compensate those affected by the dam, according to the ISA.

In response to a request for comment on the ribeirinho committee and resettlement process Norte Energia said it remains in contact with community leaders.

“On a semi-annual basis, the company reports its activities in the socio-environmental area to IBAMA,” the company said in an emailed statement. However, Norte Energia did not comment specifically on the reoccupation or the ribeirinhos’ committee.

For the ribeirinhos, returning to their old way of life will present huge challenges; since the river was dammed, fish stocks have plummeted.

“This is going to take years, many years,” ISA’s de Francisco said. “It will take at least five years for the fish to come back … they are going back to a lake, to a totally new environment. So they will have to adapt. The question of how they will divide themselves on the land, how they will reconnect as neighbors and they will produce is a big question.”

Hydropower’s Impact

Hydropower makes up about 80 percent of Brazil’s energy production, according to the International Energy Agency. Though it is often touted as a green solution to energy concerns, the scientific community largely sees it as an environmentally and socially damaging way to generate energy.

It can significantly impact natural habitats, land use and homes in the area of the dam. Though the number displaced by Belo Monte pales in comparison to the Three Gorges Dam in China, the world’s largest – which displaced over 1.2 million people – it has had a devastating impact on the local ecosystem of this remote jungle region and the people that depend on it.

The construction of the dam has also come at a time when changing weather patters appear to be impinging on the livelihoods of people in the region. Ribeirinhos report hotter and drier seasons, which affect the river’s fish populations they rely on.

Recent scientific research on the Xingu River points to climate change as a possible cause. Brazil-based biologist Cristian Costa Carneira confirmed the changes in a recent interview. Carneira, who researches aquatic fauna, is part of an ongoing study under the auspices of the Federal University of Pará that measures the effects of manmade climate change on the Xingu River in Pará.

“We are seeing extremes in weather that are very abnormal,” said Carneira.

Separately, Norte Energia is in the first year of a required six-year study to measure the environmental and social impacts of Belo Monte and to determine if indigenous and fishing communities can continue to live downriver from the dam. There isn’t any published research yet because it is an ongoing study.

Lives Forever Changed

At the November ribeirinho meeting in Altamira, the scientific advocacy organization SBPC gave a 400-page report they produced on the dam’s social impact to the public prosecutor. Based on three months of field research, it claims that Norte Energia has effectively ended the ribeirinhos’ way of life and means of subsistence.

The report states: “With the forced displacement of the ribeirinho communities, they lost their territory, access to the natural environment and resources that they relied on for their livelihood and income, which means that they were robbed of the conditions that guaranteed their social and cultural reproduction … When they were displaced they began to buy practically all foodstuffs, living in a situation (of) food insecurity.”

The report also points out that the ribeirinhos were dealt a first blow when their homes were destroyed and then a second one with the chaotic implementation of its compensation scheme. The report called on the company to immediately change its course and implement a compensation scheme that follows the report’s guidelines.

A major issue stressed in the guidelines for the company to respect is the International Labor Organisation’s convention of “self-recognition” of traditional peoples, of which Brazil is a signatory.

Norte Energia was accused of using a “divide and conquer” strategy to move them out of their homes before they were flooded. They were dealt with individually and given “all or nothing” ultimatums before being resettled to neighborhoods on the outskirts of Altamira or onto inadequate alternative land, according to the study.

Others were moved onto their neighbors’ land, or next to mega-ranches, which could sow conflict in an region that is already beset with land-related violence and land theft. Land rights in Brazil’s interior have often been acquired through “grilhagem” – the falsification of land titles.

Meanwhile others that were displaced did not have the necessary documentation to receive any compensation at all.

The report also called on the company to provide the financial means for them to rebuild their homes in order to return to their way of life, while assuring they have access to essential public services.

“This council should have been formed years ago, even before Belo Monte was built,” said Thais Santi of the public prosecutor’s office in Altamira, who is providing legal assistance for the case. One of the first steps necessary to move things forward, Santi explained, is for IBAMA to recognize the council.

Background:

Fearnside, Philip M. (2017). Brazil’s Belo Monte Dam: Lessons of an Amazonian resource struggle. Die Erde. Geographical Society of Berlin.

International Energy Outlook 2016. U.S. Energy Information Administration.

End of Belo Monte works highlights unemployment in southwestern Pará, Amazônia, June 30, 2016

Belo Monte becomes reality, but chaos in the city of the plant is forever, Folha de S.Paulo, March 20, 2016

Juruna block Transamazon to collect projects for Belo Monte, Amazônia, June 30, 2016

Documentary shows impacts of Belo Monte Hydroelectric plant for local population, Agência Brasil, October 10, 2016

Murder of Brazil official marks new low in war on Amazon environmentalists, The Guardian, October 24, 2016

This article appeared originally in Mongabay – https://news.mongabay.com

But the indigenous population along the Xingu River is increasingly concerned about their fate, as the dam comes with a high potential for environmental degradation and the establishment of new communities on their land.

Brazil’s 2011-2020 energy-expansion plan is decisively dependent upon output from Brazil’s large hydroelectric dams, and the Belo Monte Dam is projected to bring about a 22 million home surplus once the Brazilian government completes the project. [i] 

It views the dam as a vital and legitimate development project, one that is projected to sustain economic growth as demands for dependable water sources, power generation and irrigation systems increase.[ii]

However, the dam is charged with threatening the religion and culture of the Xingu Indians, or the set of belief that they deem essential to their civilization, and even worse, their very existence.

To all of the Xingu natives, except the Kayapo and Suya tribes, the river signifies the “house of God,” which is now vulnerable to destruction with the arrival of the dam. The symbolic ritual of exchanging water between tribes for the indigenous people denotes a communal relationship and the interconnectedness of the earth, water, and mankind.

In this culture, water therefore both represents and facilitates social unity, an aspect of life that the government cannot replace through simple compensation.[iii]

The dam’s construction will require a diversion of the Xingu River, which will create a lasting drought on the “Big Bend” part of the river.[iv] The drought will severely inhibit agricultural practices, as severe droughts can be expected to augment the flammability of forests and thus increase the risk of losing crops and livestock.[v]

This can be expected to affect the natives’ economies and their ability to survive. Usually the main powerhouse of dams is placed at the base, allowing the water to come out of the turbines and follow in a path down to the river. However, in the Belo Monte Dam “most of the river’s flow will be detoured from the main reservoir through a series of canals interlinking five dammed tributary streams, leaving the ‘Big Bend’ of the Xingu River below the dam with only a tiny fraction of its normal annual flow.”[vi]

As a result, the Juruna and Arara indigenous tribes that live nearby in the Paquicamba and Arara regions, located near the ‘Big Bend,’ will encounter extreme difficulty in finding clean water sources. They will ultimately suffer from a deficiency of food and the spread of diseases due to the lack of water.[vii]

The Belo Monte Dam follows similar projects with correspondingly negative implications for indigenous communities in Brazil. In 1989, the Balbina hydroelectric plant flooded nearby villages and contaminated the only vital water source in the area.

In referencing the incident, an Al Jazeera article from May 17 notes that the Balbina hydroelectric plant “drowned fauna, flora and contaminated fresh water supplies, resulting in food and health problems.” The flood displaced eight Atroari indigenous villages along the Uatuma River, but only two of the Atroari villages were ever relocated.[viii]

In a comparable case during April of 2002, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) financed the Cana Brava dam on the Tocantins River in the Amazon that flooded the region inherited by the Avás-Canoeiros indigenous population.

The project developer has yet to negotiate compensation and relocation with the people in a transparent way. Over 1,000 families were affected by the flooding but according to the Avás-Canoeiros people, fewer than 300 inhabitants were offered relocation and compensation entirely.[ix]

Experts anticipate that the Belo Monte Dam project will bring further detrimental effects to the Xingu inhabitants.[x] The Belo Monte Dam requires the excavation of two large canals, which will flood the surrounding forest area, thereby displacing fifty thousand Xingu Indians within the Altamira community.[xi]

Government officials have legitimized the dam’s construction by claiming that upon the completion of the project the natives will have plenty of fishing as well as more than enough water that is required for traveling along the Xingu River.[xii]

The statement, however, fails to accurately portray the negative impacts a flood would have on the region’s flora and fauna, which is critical to the Xingu natives’ survival, nor does it mention the spread of diseases or the fact that a large number of tribes would be left homeless.[xiii]

The Brazilian government tried justifying the harmful impacts of the Belo Monte Dam with compensation and resettlement for the Xingu natives. However, past offers of reimbursements by the government have failed to adequately compensate the indigenous for their losses.

Additionally, two indigenous groups currently reside alongside the dam and its central powerhouse, an area known as “the dry stretch,” but the government’s environmental study failed to identify their reserves as “directly impacted,” thus negating the groups’ rights to consultation and compensation.

The Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States (OAS-ICHB) claimed that the insufficient examination and repayment schemes violate the international accords, an agreement to which Brazil is a signatory.[xiv]

Brazil’s 1988 constitution initially required congressional approval of any dams threatening indigenous land, which necessitated changes in the original designs of Belo Monte to avoid flooding the Xingu natives’ reserves. Upstream dams were not even considered by the government in its designs for Belo Monte,[xv] which is significant as upstream dams can cause permanent flooding.[xvi]

However, in 2005 the government began demonstrating considerably less consideration for the people of Xingu when the senate abruptly approved the Belo Monte Dam “under an ‘urgent, super-urgent’ regime.” This decision did not include the prior consultation of the Xingu Indians as required by the Brazilian constitution.[xvii]

A video depicting the Drop of Water Movement was posted online on November 16, 2011, in attempts to involve more Brazilian citizens in the construction plans of the Belo Monte Dam. In response, close to a thousand indigenous people from the Amazon region participated in a week long protest outside the Brazilian Congress to express their grievances regarding human rights violations, including the lack of consultation in the Belo Monte Dam project, especially concerning land titles.[xviii]

When lobbying for the Guarani-Kaiowa tribe’s land, the son of the tribe’s former chief Valmir Gomes stated, “we’ve gone through many difficulties, and I can’t even walk in the cities because of the risks,” and “we need the demarcation so that we can freely walk on our own lands.”[xix]  Such statements underscore the indigenous’ need for land titles so they do not have to live in fear.

Between June 15 and June 23 of 2012, the People’s Summit took place in Rio de Janeiro with 15,000 people in attendance, including many indigenous groups that engaged in various forms of performance art to express themselves. [xx] A number of attendees expressed the indigenous groups’ frustrations at the controversial construction of government-backed dams.[xxi]

According to an Al Jazeera article published on June 22, a young delegate from Canada representing the Indigenous Environmental Network named Ta’Kaiya who attended the People’s Summit said, “the development – the drilling, mining and damming – is affecting everyone, our communities and the Earth, our home and the only planet we have.”[xxii]

Threats to the Xingu Indians mount as the government attempts to continue construction on the Belo Monte Dam project through investment programs such as Brasil em Ação and the Program to Accelerate Growth.[xxiii]

As previously explained, the Brazilian government is going forth with the construction of the Belo Monte Dam to further its energy expansion, but according to the non-profit organization Amazon Watch, during the region’s dry season, the dam is only able to utilize 39 percent of its total capacity, resulting in the sure devastation of the Xingu natives’ lives, culture, and natural habitat at the hands of this energy-inefficient dam installation. [xxiv]

Amazon Watch has suggested “retrofitting existing hydroelectric infrastructure” as a sustainable alternative to the Belo Monte Dam, a prospect that would be both energy efficient and non-threatening to the Xingu Indians.

The government might start improve the efficiency of pre-existing dams by “[reducing] the startling amount of energy lost during transmission, [replacing] energy-inefficient household products, and [updating] old and dialing generators.”[xxv] Retrofitting the Belo Monte Dam would be a worthy alternative and may ultimately prove critical to the survival of the Xingu natives.
 
Citations:

This analysis was prepared by Stacey Berger, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

[i] “Belo Monte Dam: A Spearhead for Brazil’s Dam-Building Attack on the Amazon?” Monga Bay, March 23, 2012. Accessed June 19, 2012. http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0323-fearnside_op-ed_belo_monte.html.
 
[ii] Brody, Thyra. “Damming Brazil.” E-Research: A Journal of Undergraduate Work 3.1 (2012). Accessed June 19, 2012. http://journals.chapman.edu/ojs/index.php/e-Research/article/view/308/602.
 
[iii] Brody, Thyra. “Damming Brazil.” E-Research: A Journal of Undergraduate Work 3.1 (2012). Accessed June 19, 2012. http://journals.chapman.edu/ojs/index.php/e-Research/article/view/308/602.

[iv] Amazon Watch. “Stop the Belo Monte Monster Dam.” Accessed June 19, 2012. http://amazonwatch.org/work/belo-monte-dam.
 
[v] Li, Wenhong, Fu Rong, Negron Juarez Robinson I., and Fernandes Katia. “Observed Change of the Standardized Precipitation Index, its Potential Cause and Implications to Future Climate Change in the Amazon Region.” The Royal Society 363. 1498 (2008): 1767-1772. Accessed June 19, 2012. Doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.0022.
 
[vi] “Belo Monte Dam: A Spearhead for Brazil’s Dam-Building Attack on the Amazon?” Monga Bay, March 23, 2012. Accessed June 19, 2012. http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0323-fearnside_op-ed_belo_monte.html.
 
[vii] Amazon Watch. “Stop the Belo Monte Monster Dam.” Accessed June 19, 2012. http://amazonwatch.org/work/belo-monte-dam.
 
[viii] “Belo Monte: Brazil’s Damned Democracy.” Al Jazeera, May 17, 2012. Accessed June 19,2012. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/2012515144822206262.html.
 
[ix] Bank Information Center. “Cana Brava Hydroelectric Project.” Last modified June 25, 2012. http://www.bicusa.org/en/Project.6.aspx.
 
[x] “Belo Monte: Brazil’s Damned Democracy.” Al Jazeera, May 17, 2012. Accessed June 19,2012. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/2012515144822206262.html.
 
[xi] Amazon Watch. “Stop the Belo Monte Monster Dam.” Accessed June 19, 2012. http://amazonwatch.org/work/belo-monte-dam.
 
[xii] “Belo Monte: Brazil’s Damned Democracy.” Al Jazeera, May 17, 2012. Accessed June 19,2012. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/2012515144822206262.html.
 
[xiii] Brody, Thyra. “Damming Brazil.” E-Research: A Journal of Undergraduate Work 3.1 (2012). Accessed June 19, 2012. http://journals.chapman.edu/ojs/index.php/e-Research/article/view/308/602.

[xiv] “Belo Monte Dam: A Spearhead for Brazil’s Dam-Building Attack on the Amazon?” Monga Bay, March 23, 2012. Accessed June 19, 2012. http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0323-fearnside_op-ed_belo_monte.html.
 
[xv] “Belo Monte Dam: A Spearhead for Brazil’s Dam-Building Attack on the Amazon?” Monga Bay, March 23, 2012. Accessed June 19, 2012. http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0323-fearnside_op-ed_belo_monte.html.
 
[xvi] Brody, Thyra. “Damming Brazil.” E-Research: A Journal of Undergraduate Work 3.1 (2012). Accessed June 19, 2012. http://journals.chapman.edu/ojs/index.php/e-Research/article/view/308/602.

[xvii] “Belo Monte Dam: A Spearhead for Brazil’s Dam-Building Attack on the Amazon?” Monga Bay, March 23, 2012. Accessed June 19, 2012. http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0323-fearnside_op-ed_belo_monte.html.
 
[xviii] “Belo Monte: Brazil’s Damned Democracy.” Al Jazeera, May 17, 2012. Accessed June19,2012. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/2012515144822206262.html.
 
[xix] Sibaja, Marco. “Brazil’s Indigenous Awa Tribe at Risk.” The Huffington Post, June 6, 2012. Accessed June 19, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/brazils-indigeneous-awa-tribe_n_1574374.html
 
[xx] Rio+20 Portal. “People’s Summit for Social and Environmental Justice in Defense of the Commons.” Accessed June 19, 2012. http://rio20.net/en/events/peoples-summit-for-social-and-environmental-justice/
 
[xxi] The Associated Press. “People’s Summit: an Alternative to UN Convention.” Herald Online, June 21, 2012. Accessed June 26, 2012. http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/06/21/4063339/peoples-summit-an-alternative.html
 
[xxii] Nallu, Preethi. “Alternative voices from Rio+20.” Al Jazeera, June 23, 2012. Accessed June 24, 2012. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/06/2012622175745190650.html
 
[xxiii] Amazon Watch. “Stop the Belo Monte Monster Dam.” Accessed June 19, 2012. http://amazonwatch.org/work/belo-monte-dam.
 
[xxiv] “Belo Monte Dam: A Spearhead for Brazil’s Dam-Building Attack on the Amazon?” Monga Bay, March 23, 2012. Accessed June 19, 2012. http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0323-fearnside_op-ed_belo_monte.html.
 
[xxv] “Belo Monte: Brazil’s Damned Democracy.” Al Jazeera, May 17, 2012. Accessed June19,2012. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/2012515144822206262.html.

He ruled in favor of a fisheries group which argued that the Belo Monte dam would affect local fish stocks and could harm indigenous families who make a living from fishing.

The government says the dam is crucial to meeting growing energy needs.

Judge Martins barred the Norte Energia company behind the project from “building a port, using explosives, installing dikes, building canals and any other infrastructure work that would interfere with the natural flow of the Xingu river, thereby affecting local fish stocks”.

He said the building of canals and dikes could have negative repercussions for river communities living off small-scale fishing.

The judge said building work currently underway on accommodation blocks for the project’s many workers could continue as it would not interfere with the flow of the river.

The consortium behind the project is expected to appeal against the decision.

In June, the Brazilian environment agency backed the construction, dismissing concerns by environmentalists and indigenous groups who argue that it will harm the world’s largest tropical rainforest and displace tens of thousands of people.

The agency, Ibama, said the dam had been subjected to “robust analysis” of its impact on the environment.

The 11,000-megawatt dam would be the third biggest in the world – after the Three Gorges in China and Itaipu, which is jointly run by Brazil and Paraguay.

Judge Murdered

A senior Brazilian police officer has been arrested on suspicion of ordering the murder of a judge who investigated police corruption.

Lt Col Claudio Luiz de Oliveira was detained in Rio de Janeiro, and arrest orders have been issues for at least six other policemen in the city.

Prosecutors say Col Oliveira ordered the killing to cover up another murder that his officers were accused of.

Judge Patricia Acioli was shot 21 times as she was leaving her home in August.

She had made a name for herself with a tough stance on police corruption, handing out heavy sentences in a number of cases.

Hours before she was killed, she had issued arrest warrants for a group of officers under Col Oliveira’s command in connection with the death of an 18-year-old.

Diego Beliene died in a clash with police in Sao Gonçalo, a city across the bay from Rio. Police officers on the scene said the teenager had resisted arrest, but investigators have since said he may have been murdered.

Prosecutors say Col Oliveira was hoping to put an end to her investigation.

However, prosecutors do not believe he was aware that the judge had issued arrest warrants for some of his men over the teenager’s death.

Mercopress

A construction site will be the first order of business: housing for workers, mess halls, offices, a medical center, warehouses, repair shops – all in all, a small city to house thousands of workers.

The consortium says that all heavy machinery will tested before it is used to ensure that it meets environmental standards with regard to emission levels.

Meanwhile, Norte Energia also announced that Vale, one of the world’s largest mining companies, will join the consortium with a 9% participation.

At the same time further shifts in consortium shareholders are expected following the announcement that construction firms Cetenco, Contern, Queiroz Galvão, Mendes Júnior and Serveng will be leaving.

In other news from Belo Monte, a court in the state of Pará (where the dam is located) has ruled that the construction will not invade or affect indigenous areas.

The decision was a blow to environment activists who have filed numerous lawsuits to halt the construction claiming that it will cause irreparable damage to local Indian communities.

The motion in this case was filed by the social assistance group linked to the Catholic Church, Cimi (Conselho Indigenista Missionário), that works directly with the Indians.

Foreign Trade Surges

Brazilian exports during the first half of this year are up 31.6%, compared to the same period in 2010, powered by strong performances in May and June.

In June exports reached a historical high for the month of US$ 23.692 billion, up 38.6%, compared to June 2010. With imports in June at US$ 19.262 billion, up 29.9%, compared to June 2010, the June trade surplus was US$ 4.43 billion, the highest monthly total for the year. The June trade surplus was up a significant 95.4%, compared to the surplus in June 2010.

Brazil’s foreign trade surplus for the year up to June is now US$ 12.985 billion, up 64.7%, compared to the same period last year.

According to Tatiana Lacerda Prazeres at the Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade, the “good moment,” is due to a record surge in exports of three product categories: raw material or commodities (“produtos básicos”) – iron ore, coffee beans, crude petroleum, soybeans and meats, which rose 44%; semi-manufactured products: gold and iron items, soy products, sugar, leather and animal skins, which rose 29.7%; and manufactured products: fuel oil, plastics and vehicles, which rose 19.1%.

Ms Prazeres points out that during the 124 working days between January and the end of June, Brazilian exports to all regions were up with the highlight being Asia where there was an increase of 37.9%, compared to the same period in 2010, with exports going from US$ 24.386 billion (2010), to US$ 33.909 billion (2011).

China paid US$ 20 billion for Brazilian imports between January and June this year, an increase of 47.6%, compared to the same period last year.

And in the first half of this year, China imported 16.9% of all Brazilian exports, compared to 15.1% during the same period in 2010. China is now Brazil’s biggest trade partner.

Brazilian exports to Latin America and the Caribbean were up 24%, to over US$ 26.5 billion; up 31.4% to over US$ 25.5 billion to the European Union in the first half of this year.

The United States was the second biggest importer of Brazilian goods in the first half of 2011, with US$ 11.753 billion, up 29.4%, followed by Argentina with US$ 10.439, up 32.6%.

Wind Power

State-owned power company UTE from Uruguay moved closer to linking with Brazil’s Eletrobrás for wind projects after its board gave the go-ahead to explore a partnership.

“Recharge” an alternative energy publication that last year revealed UTE had begun preliminary talks with the Brazilian utility over jointly investing in wind farms in the region.

UTE’s board has now sanctioned the partnership in principle and authorized an analysis of a tie-up, which could see projects developed with Eletrobrás in Uruguay and elsewhere.

Eletrobrás is aggressively seeking to establish itself internationally, with a goal of securing 10% of revenues from outside Brazil by 2020.

UTE has also announced plans for a 100 MW facility as part of its goal of building up to 300 MW of wind capacity by 2015. No further details of the project were given.

Alongside its own initiatives, UTE has run tenders for 150 MW worth of wind power and is planning a second round for the same capacity.

It aims to bring the wind capacity in operation in Uruguay to at least 500 MW by 2015.

ABr

Upon receiving complaints concerning the dam’s construction, the IACHR requested that Brazil halt construction until Brasília meets existing environmental standards and implements measures to protect the local indigenous population.

The Brazilian government responded sharply to the IACHR’s request, acting as if it was eager to acknowledge itself as the world’s most perfected banana republic. President Dilma Rousseff immediately broke off formal relations with the body by recalling Ruy Casaes, Brazil’s ambassador to the Organization of American States, and halting its annual US$ 800,000 contribution to the IACHR.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the criticism “unjustifiable,” and Senator Flexa Ribeiro, the president of the Senate Subcommittee overseeing the dam, argued that “The request is absurd. It even threatens Brazilian sovereignty.” (1)

The Brazilian government defended its construction project in a 52-page statement, and work on the facilities continues despite the IACHR’s motion to temporarily freeze the project.
 
The repercussions are enormous and could extend far beyond the issues ostensibly at play. Brazil is an ascending world power with enormous economic prospects due to recent fossil fuel discoveries, agricultural production, and bounteous mineral extraction sites.  However, the recent decision may affect Brazil’s ability to play the “prestige” card in its campaign to acquire a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. 

Additionally, after the country’s decision to rebuke the IACHR, we must now reconsider the extent of the gravities Brazil may bring to its flag. We must also reassess its overall capacity to resolve disputes, contribute to peacekeeping missions, allocate resources, aspire for regional leadership, and plead the case for Latin American participation in a number of international financial organizations.

A Legacy of Controversy

The gargantuan US$ 17 billion Belo Monte hydroelectric facility has been a source of controversy ever since construction was initially proposed in 1975. Indigenous and environmental groups have rallied repeatedly against the expected destructive impact of the dam. The project will flood nearly 200 square miles along the Xingu River in the Amazon, while displacing an estimated 50,000 people.

In addition to the anticipated disastrous consequences that will befall the 24 indigenous tribes and thousands of other Brazilian citizens located along the river, the dam will pose a menacing danger to the biodiversity of the area.

The region surrounding the dam houses at least four times the biodiversity as the entire continent of Europe, with many plants and animals being unique to the region. However, the hydroelectric project is predicted to bring about the devastating disappearance of approximately 1,000 species. (2)

Due to the enormity of the likely damage to the immediate area, several environmental and indigenous groups have rallied against the dam. FUNAI, the National Indian Foundation of Brazil, and Amazon Watch, which works to protect the Amazon as well as indigenous rights, have been fighting the proposed construction site for years.

The involvement of celebrities, including the vocalist Sting and director James Cameron, has proven beneficial by attracting a good deal of publicity to the movement. Various opposition groups have joined forces and formed the Xingu Alive Forever Movement, a coalition of international and Brazilian human rights, indigenous, and environmental organizations.

Several legal initiatives preceded the IACHR’s request to Brasília, which is only the latest attempt to stave off the expected wave of destruction likely to be caused by the dam. For instance, the Brazilian Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office in Pará had several lawsuits against the dam, with environmental and indigenous groups arguing that the dam fails to meet certain mandated requirements governing health, safety, environmental, and human rights standards.

One of these lawsuits met with success this past February, when Federal Judge Desterro blocked construction of the dam based on findings that 29 environmental conditions had not been met. (3) However, the success of the opposition movement proved to be short-lived, as a regional court overturned Judge Desterro’s decision to suspend the project.

Involvement of the IACHR

In light of the Brazilian government’s continued disregard for the petitioners’ complaints, the Xingu Alive Forever Movement filed a motion to seek relief from the IACHR in November 2010. Upon receiving this initiative, which alleged that the dam’s ongoing construction is resulting in tangible human rights violations, the IACHR investigated the details concerning the project. The Commission concluded that the dam indeed fringed upon international human rights standards.

On April 1st, the IACHR requested that Brazil “immediately suspend the licensing process for the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Plant project and stop any construction work from moving forward until certain minimum conditions are met.” (4)

These “minimum conditions” include measures to protect the affected indigenous populations, provide vital information in indigenous languages, and consult with affected groups about the dam’s predicted negative impact. If Brazil fails to adopt these recommended measures, the country could stand trial in the Inter-American Court.

Economic Goals Take Precedence

The Brazilian government argues that construction of the dam is necessary for national development. As one of the most extreme nations in the world in terms of its skewed distribution of wealth, rapid economic growth was one of the most important issues for former President Lula and his successor, President Rousseff, to tackle.

Once completed, the dam will be the third largest in the world, after the Three Gorges hydropower plant in China and the Brazil-Paraguay Itaipu dam. Incontestably, the dam would be economically beneficial to this distant frontier region, an area that has yet to feel the impact of Brazil’s recent economic success.

The dam is projected to provide thousands of construction jobs and eventually supply electricity to 23 million homes. Furthermore, the dam should be able to satisfy demands for clean and renewable energy sources. (5) The huge hydroelectric plant is therefore one of the most important components making up President Rousseff’s economic growth program.

Yet while Belo Monte is designed to meet these goals regarding economic growth, it is in fact detrimental to tens of thousands of people. Economic growth does not justify the damage this dam will bring in its wake. The Belo Monte dam would destroy an area the size of Chicago, washing away the livelihoods of thousands of Amazonian peoples.

Even more disconcerting, this project is only the first of as many as seventy dams scheduled for construction in the region. (6) No amount of economic “progress” can excuse the staggering degree of transformation that these hydroelectric power facilities could bring about in their destructive aftermath.  As Antonio Melo, the Coordinator of the Xingu Alive Forever Movement, argues:

“Our leaders no longer can use economic ‘development’ as an excuse to ignore human rights and to push for projects of destruction and death to our natural heritage and to the peoples of Amazon, as is the case of Belo Monte.” (7)

Brazil’s recent actions may represent a huge disappointment to many of those who have tenacious faith in the country’s future. It is a nation that shows the promise of a great power fully capable of beginning on a path where it can confront and eventually challenge the influence of the United States.

The recent decision to ignore the request of the IACHR, however, casts Brazil as a candidate to be Latin America’s chump nation of the year. In its blatant flouting of the Inter-American Commission, Brazilian authorities are expressing almost no angst over inflicting crippling damage to the system of human rights protection in the Americas.

The hemisphere’s well-developed tradition of human rights protection began with the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. This document is the oldest international human rights proclamation in the world, even predating the U.N.’s Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court are the two venerable judicial bodies charged with ensuring that these rights remain protected throughout the hemisphere. The history of these two bodies dates back to the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights, which specified their powers and duties while simultaneously redefining the human rights that American nations collectively agreed to safeguard. (8)

Brazil’s dismissive rejection of the IACHR request is therefore a rebuke not only to the judicial body of the IACHR but also represents a lethal blow to the hemisphere’s entire international human rights system.

By ratifying the American Convention on Human Rights, Brazil agreed to respect the rights outlined in the Convention. Brazil needs to comply not only with the commitment it has made to protect its own citizens’ rights but also with the obligation it has undertaken to the international community.

It should honor its pledges to its neighbors and the region in general. The national government cannot simply overlook the rights of the Brazilian people or capriciously refuse to comply with international human rights standards simply because they interfere with projects for economic growth.

It is alarming to think that Brazil, now a formidable regional leader, is prepared to disregard its commitment to the hemisphere’s human rights code merely because it is convenient for the government to do so.

Furthermore, not only is Brazil undermining the stability of this hemispheric body, it is also threatening the nation’s extraordinary opportunity to make a qualitative leap into a new era of growth and leadership.

It is not too much to ask that Brazil, while still “thinking big,” adhere to accepted international standards that will set an example for the region.
 
Notes:

(1) Mari Hayman. “Brazil Breaks Relations With Human Rights Commission Over Belo Monte Dam.” Latin American News Dispatch. 3 May 2011. http://latindispatch.com/2011/05/03/brazil-breaks-relations-with-human-rights-commission-over-belo-monte-dam/

(2) “New rights challenge to Belo Monte dam in Brazil.” The Guardian. 12 April 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/12/belo-monte-dam-work-suspended

(3) “Brazil furious with Human Rights Commission decision cuts all relations.” Merco Press. 30 April 2011. http://en.mercopress.com/2011/04/30/brazil-furious-with-human-rights-commission-decision-cuts-all-relations

(4) “Precautionary Measures Granted by the Commission during 2011.” PM 382/10 – Indigenous Communities of the Xingu River Basin, Pará, Brazil. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. http://www.cidh.oas.org/medidas/2011.eng.htm

(5) Hayman. “Brazil Breaks Relations With Human Rights Commission Over Belo Monte Dam.”

(6) Margaret Swink. “Brazil Rebukes Human Rights Court, Continues Work on Mega-Dam.” 8 April 2011. http://news.change.org/stories/brazil-rebukes-human-rights-court-continues-work-on-mega-dam

(7) “Organization of American States Requests Immediate Suspension of Belo Monte Dam in the Brazilian Amazon.” Amazon Watch. 5 April 2011. http://amazonwatch.org/news/2011/0405-oas-requests-immediate-suspension-of-belo-monte-dam

(8) Organization of American States, American Convention on Human Rights, “Pact of San Jose”, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36510.html

Larry Birns is the director and Katie Soltis is a research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) – www.coha.org. The organization is a think tank established in 1975 to discuss and promote inter-American relationship. Email: coha@coha.org.

The OAS request was in response to a denouncement in November 2010 by a group of organizations (Movimento Xingu Vivo Para Sempre, Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira – COIAB, Prelazia do Xingu, Conselho Indígena Missionário – CIMI, Sociedade Paraense de Defesa dos Direitos Humanos (SDDH), Justiça Global and the Associação Interamericana para a Defesa do Ambiente – AIDA”) alarmed at the fate of indigenous communities and riverside dwellers who, they claim, were not consulted appropriately by the authorities regarding the consequences of the Belo Monte project.

According to the OAS, its objective in issuing the request for suspension was to protect members of indigenous communities who live in the area where Belo Monte is supposed to be built. The OAS suggested that no construction be done until such time as all affected indigenous communities were notified, that environmental impact studies be made public and that “vigorous and broad” measures be adopted in order to protect human life, especially the Indians, ensuring that they were safe from disease and epidemics.

In January 2011, the Brazilian Environmental Protection Institute (Ibama) issued authorization for work to begin on a construction site and connecting roads (other licenses, for the actual construction of Belo Monte and its future operation, have not been issued).

If built, Belo Monte will be the largest totally Brazilian dam (Itaipu is binational) and the third largest in the world (behind Three Gorges in China and Itaipu). It will have installed top generating capacity of 11,200 megawatts and a reservoir of 516 square kilometers.

There are currently ten lawsuits against the construction of Belo Monte. According to Ubiratan Cazetta, a federal prosecutor in Pará, who is also a vice president of the National Association of Federal Prosecutors, “There is no doubt that Belo Monte will reach the Supreme Court eventually. There are questions regarding the legitimacy of the authorization by Congress in July 2005, permitting the executive branch to “make use of the hydroelectric potential at Belo Monte,” in light of the fact that ten indigenous peoples have lands there. B

Brazil’s constitution, in Article 231, states clearly that such authorization can only occur after public hearings with the indigenous communities affected, declared Cazetta.

Another Pará prosecutor, Felício Pontes Jr, points out that the vote in Congress zipped through in less than 15 days. “It was a rush job. There was no debate…because the government is afraid of an open discussion with the public.”

According to Pontes Jr., it seems there is “something rotten that cannot become known to the public,” in the case of the Belo Monte project. Pontes is emphatic in claiming that the public audiences that took place under the auspices of the Ibama, in the municipalities of Brasil Novo, Vitória do Xingu, Altamira and Belém (all of them in Pará), attended by some 6,000 people, in 2009 and 2010, were invalid. He says that pursuant to the constitution the public hearings must take place before any vote in Congress.

Cazetta, on the other hand, goes on to say he fears the rush to build at Belo Monte is just part of a government strategy to create a fait accompli, in which case the question of constitutionality would be a mere exercise in academic theory.

On Tuesday, April 5, the Brazilian Foreign Ministry (Itamaraty) issued an official response to the OAS request for suspension of Belo Monte. The note said the Brazilian government received the request with perplexity, and considered the suggestions in it “precipitated and unjustifiable.”

In a five-paragraph note, the Itamaraty goes over the history of the Belo Monte project. It emphasizes that in 2005 the Congress authorized tender offers for the construction based on technical studies of economic and environmental impacts. The note also points out that the Indian Foundation (FUNAI) and the Environmental Protection Institute (Ibama) were consulted.

The note concludes saying “…the Brazilian government is well aware of the socio-environmental challenges that projects like Belo Monte encompass. For that reason, with absolute rigor, the necessary norms are being followed to ensure that the construction takes into consideration all social and environmental aspects. Brazil is acting in an effective and diligent manner in response to the needs of the Belo Monte project.”

The Brazilian government argues the dam is crucial for development and will create jobs, as well as provide electricity to 23 million homes.

It has long been a source of controversy, with bidding halted three times before the state-owned Companhia Hidro Elétrica do São Francisco was awarded the contract last year.

The singer Sting and film director James Cameron have joined environmentalists in their campaign against the project.

They say the 6km dam will threaten the survival of a number of indigenous groups and could make some 50,000 people homeless, as 500 sq km of land would be flooded.

ABr

Belo Monte, which would be the world’s third-largest hydroelectric dam, has sparked protests in Brazil and abroad over its impact on the environment and native Indian tribes in the region.

A federal judge last week ordered construction to be suspended on the grounds that the necessary environmental provisions had not been met.

The Norte Energia consortium building the dam is led by Brazilian state-controlled power utility Eletrobrás. Building costs are estimated to be over US$ 16 billion.

The Belo Monte Dam is to be built on the Xingu River. Its energy generation is calculated to be 11,233 Megawatts (MW), which would make it the second largest hydroelectric dam in Brazil and the third largest in the world, after the Three Gorges Dam (China) and Itaipu Dam (Brazil-Paraguay).

Long a source of controversy the bidding process was halted three times. Celebrities such as the singer Sting and film director James Cameron have joined environmentalists in their campaign against the project.

They say the 6 km dam will threaten the survival of a number of indigenous groups and could make some 50,000 people homeless, as 500 sq km of land would be flooded.

Mercopress

Environmental and social organizations oppose the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant, which they believe will have disastrous consequences for the region around the town of Altamira in the Amazonian state of Pará.

The contract gives the consortium of 18 firms and investment and pension funds the right to exploit for 35 years the energy potential of the plant, set on the Xingu river.

The facility is scheduled to begin operating by 2015, becoming the third-largest of its kind in the world, while the construction will generate around 20,000 jobs, according to the Brazilian Mining and Energy Ministry.

The government stressed that the original project has been changed to ease its environmental impact, and that the dam associated with the plant has been reduced by 60% so that it does not require flooding areas currently held by indigenous communities.

Despite such assurances, the ceremony attracted protests from a small group of demonstrators gathered outside the presidential palace in Brasília. On their placards, protesters changed the name from Belo Monte (Beautiful Hill) to Belo Monstro (Beautiful Monster) as a satire against the plant.

Demonstrators issued a letter signed by 56 religious, social and environmental organizations including the Roman Catholic Church. The text says the plant will be a “death sentence” for the Xingu River and will displace “thousands of people from their homes.”

“International agreements are being violated, like Convention 169 of the World Labor Organization, the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Convention on Biological Diversity,” the letter charges.

It notes that the plant is the object of 15 lawsuits that contest the construction permit issued by the Environment Ministry.

The plant, with a capacity to generate 11,233 megawatts, is expected to cost an estimated US$ 11 billion and is the biggest project of Lula’s infrastructure-based growth acceleration program. But indigenous communities vowed earlier this year to wage “war” on the plant if it is built.

“Belo Monte will dry 100 kilometers of the Xingu, a river which holds three times as many species as the whole of Europe and which feeds thousands of people,” warned Raul Silva Telles of the non- governmental organization Instituto Socioambiental. “In this area there are two indigenous tribes that feed on the river, drink from the river, bathe in the river and sail through the river”.

Mercopress