[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l Tocantins-Araguaia Hidrovia
Enough rope to hang himself
Source: Estado de São Paulo by Washington Novaes, August 7, 1998
The Ministry of Transport has announced that the environmental impact study
for the Central-Western Multimodal Corridor, better known as the
Araguaia-Tocantins Hidrovia, is ready. The minister took advantage of the
occasion to pitilessly thrash, in a newspaper, those environmentalists he
calls "green terrorists", that "predatory species that uses the naivete of
well-intentioned people to preserve oligarchies." And, he proclaimed,
triumphantly, "We have an efficient weapon to unmask them, called an
Environmental Impact Study".
The minister should be more cautious. Less arrogant. He might just find
enough rope to hang himself. After all, three hidrovia projects in his
portfolio are suspended by Federal Court order, exactly because their
environmental impact studies, produced more to hide than to reveal/resolve
problems, were, without any doubt, inconsistent - to not use stronger
words. And they did not respect the indigenous rights ensured in the
Constitution.
The Pantanal part of the Paraguay-Paraná hidrovia has been suspended since
October of last year, due to a civil action by the Attorney General's
office. The project had already been ripped apart by a study by a group of
scientists which showed, among many other problems, the danger that 40% of
the Pantanal could dry out if the dredging works on the Paraguay River went
ahead. Another study, by a coalition of NGOs, showed that, if half of the
money destined for the hidrovia weere invested in ecotourism infrastructure
in the Pantanal, several times more profits would be generated than by
increasing soy production (the principal motive for the hidrovia project),
also creating many more jobs, with higher salaries, better return on
investment. Kaput.
The Teles Pires-Tapajós was also suspended by the courts, in the same
month, because the environmental impact study, in order to escape the
requirement of a license by Congress, hid the fact that it would cross
areas of the Munduruku indigenous people; the study was divided in two
parts, one upstream and the other downstream from the indigenous areas, as
if they did not exist! The Rio das Mortes stretch of the Araguaia-Tocantins
has been suspended, since June, 1997, for the same reasons; disrespect for
the rights of the Xavante Indians.
If this were not enough, the minister carefully forgot that the
environmental impact study for this last hidrovia is its second - because
the first, literally demolished in a public hearing in the Environment
Commission of the Chamber of Deputies, was rejected by Ibama and by the
licensing organs of the states of the basin, because of its weak content.
"It cannot even be considered a study", declared one of the public organs.
It in fact cannot, with only $200,000 destined to study all the complex
economic, social, and environmental questions in a hydrographic basin of 2
million sq. km., nearly 25% of Brazilian territory. For this reason, the
study "forgot" many things:
* It did not say what would be done with the 2.5 million cubic meters of
sediments to be dredged to create a navigable channel;
* It did not say what would be done with the material resulting from
explosions of 204,000 cubic meters of rocks and outcroppings, nor the
consequences of these explosions on the river fauna;
* It did not acknowledge the existence of indigenous areas along the
hidrovia, nor the existence of a national park, the Ilha do Bananal;
* Did not mention the inexistence of a road system feeding the hidrovia,
nor the impacts of its eventual implantation;
* Did not mention that there is no system for grain storage along the
hidrovia - the soy is planted in the high water period of the Araguaia
River and harvested when the channel is no longer navigable, during the dry
season (July to November);
* Predicted a potential cargo of 30 million tons per year of grains for the
hidrovia, even though it expressly admitted there is no important
production pole along its trajectory;
* Put aside for "complementary studies" (inexistent) the examination of the
greater part of impacts on flora, fauna, ciliar vegetation, riverine
populations, etc;
* Ignored the impacts of high-density transport on tourism in the region,
which receives hundreds of thousands of people during the tourist season;
* Ignored prior studies by Valec, which was a company of the Transport
Ministry, showing the lack of competitivity of the hidrovia compared with
the railroad, in economic, social, and environmental terms (studies which a
representative of Ahitar, a company of the ministry, in a public discussion
in Goiânia, called, and later denied having called, "false" and said
"President Sarney had hidden the data which favored the hidrovia");
* Analyzed the hidrovia panorama of other countries copying old reports,
without trying to bring them up to date - and, for this reason, registered
in 1996 that "when the link between the Rhine and Danube enters into
operation in 1985..." Also, it forgot to say that the hidrovia option is
being abandoned in many countries (France has just given up on the
Rhine-Rhône channel) because of environmental problems.
In fact, the Araguaia-Tocantins hidrovia follows the policy of "done
deals", ever sense prototype studies for this type of navigation were
carried out - then turned over to a navigation company, before the hidrovia
project was approved and without an environmental impact study approved.
Until today, money is being set aside in the federal budget ($45 million
this year) and the project is considered a priority (part of "Brazil in
Action"), even while it is suspended by court order and the EIA has not
been approved. Ignoring even the most obvious warnings, then-minister
Odacir Klein and governor Siqueira Campos went to see ships in Xamboiá when
a port was inaugurated there (June, 1995), but the prototype soy barge
convoy ran aground on the dry bed of the Araguaia and only appeared four
days later.
There are many reasons for caution in this area - which have to do with the
Constitution, the laws that regulate the licensing of this type of project,
indigenous rights and the pocketbook of the Brazilian taxpayer, who should
not have scarce resources applied in initiatives which, at the moment, are
illegal. It would be better if the Transport minister paid attention to
these points, instead of exorcizing environmentalists - who have done
exactly what should be the government's responsibility; work so that
legislation is complied with. If he does not, he runs the risk of another
embarassment when the public sees the new EIA-RIMA, in the indispensible
public audiences which proceed the licensing process. It may not be
approved.
As for "predatory species" and "serving oligarchies", how about that of
soy? And that of construction companies?
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Glenn Switkes, Director, Latin America Program,
International Rivers Network
1847 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, California 94703-1576, USA
Tel. (510) 848 1155 Fax (510) 848 1008
http://www.irn.org
South America:
Tel/Fax/Message: +55 65 791 1313
email: glen@nutecnet.com.br
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*