The Commission on Indigenous Affairs of the Brazilian Association of Anthropology (ABA) publicly states its profound concern as to the precipitous manner with which discussions and official guidance is being conducted regarding the projected Belo Monte hydroelectric plant, including contravening technical studies and established legal proceedings.

 

A commission of scholars and specialists in different disciplines, after conducting highly detailed field studies, reached the conclusion that the impacts on the indigenous peoples of the region would not be limited by any means to the so called “directly affected area”, but could serially impact environmental resources and the conditions for life and well being of other indigenous lands situated outside of that strict boundary. In the indigenous Lands Paquiçamba, Arara da Volta Grande/Maia, Juruna Km17, Apyterewa, Araweté, Koatinemo, Kararaô, Arara, Cachoeira Seca and Trincheira Bacajá live diverse collectivities whose modes of life and cultures could receive negative impacts, not mentioned are the indigenous peoples in the cities and the isolated indigenous peoples. Even more serious is that, even at present, not a single one of these impacts are adequately dimensioned (see document compiled by Panel of Specialists, with the support of the Fundação Viver, Produzir e Preservar (FVPP) of Altamira, the Instituto Sócio Ambiental (ISA), International Rivers, the WWF, FASE and Rede de Justiça Ambiental: English Link to International Rivers page on Belo Monte with Executive Summary of Report by Specialists: http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/latin-america/amazon-basin/xingu-river/independent-review-highlights-true-costs-belo-monte-dam

Full report in Portuguese- http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/Belo%20Monte%20pareceres%20IBAMA_online%20(3).pdf).

 

The technical studies conducted by specialists of FUNAI itself resulted in an opinion (technical opinion n^o. 21 – Analysis of the Indigenous Component of the Environmental Impact Studies, of 30 September of 2009) that bind the viability of the project to the compliance with, among others, three basic conditions: a) that a minimum flow be defined (“ecological hydrograph”) that guarantees the survival of the fish, chelonian life and the navigability of vessels of the indigenous peoples who live there; 2) that studies be presented on the anticipated impact on the Rio Bacajá, on the banks of which live the Xikrin people, who possibly would suffer grave alterations (in need of better analysis); 3) that there be established effective guarantees by which continuing impacts of anthropogenic pressure on the indigenous  lands would be controlled. According to the Environmental Impact Study, at least 96,000 persons would be attracted to the region, which would aggravate the pressure on natural resources of the Terras Indigenas (TI – Indigenous Land) – which is already critical in the region due to the other projects envisioned, such as the paving of the Transamazonian highway BR-163 and construction of the electrical transmission lines from Tucuruí to Jurupari. The population increase introduced by the enterprise would also affect the indigenous communities because it would incentivize a constant augmentation of illegal fishing and hunting, of logging exploitation and mining, of invasions of Indigenous Lands and transmission of diseases.

 

FUNAI (National Foundation for Indigenous Affairs), supposedly based on these arguments, by means of a summary document of 13 lines, dated 14/10/2009 and sent to the president of IBAMA, strangely signed off on a matter of such importance by its substitute president, issued an opinion favorable to viability of the project. Without the necessary integration of organs and public policies, where the responsibility of FUNAI to assume an active function to coordinate, to inspect and set norms, and not just of sending technical information, the execution of the project runs the risk of not mitigating the damaging effects of the enterprise and not fulfilling the conditions of safeguarding of indigenous interests. That positioning, of relinquishing its prerogative as official indigenous agency, in reality became secondary, and quasi innocuous to the constant defeasances in the Technical Opinion (in annex) as for insufficiency of the studies on the impacts of the works on the indigenous lands, as well as those on the isolated indigenous peoples and also on the residents of Altamira. More serious yet is that, contrary to the cited Opinion, which aggregates several annexes with indigenous demands for clarifications and alterations in the project, recommending explicitly the hearing of the indigenous communities, the document 302/FUNAI considers already fulfilled those dispositives necessary as regards such hearings.

 

Here, we should highlight two points essential to this question. First, it is fundamental to observe that conduct and decisions relative to the UHE of Belo Monte are non-compliant in legal terms set forth in Convention 169, amply observed at the international level and already incorporated by Brazilian legislation – that the affected populations be adequately informed regarding the enterprise and all its consequences, demanding that they be consulted in advance and according to proceedings legitimate and of assured probity.

 

One statement by cacique Raoni, on 14/10/2009, evidences that the indispensable dialogue and interlocution on the subject remains entirely insufficient, because this leader demands the presence of the authorities to inform and to discuss the project. In case to the contrary, he warns, the Kayapó are going to proceed to close ferry services crossing the Xingu river, with the interruption of transit on MT-322 (old BR-80), between the municipalities of Matupé and São José do Xingu (MT). On 26/10 a demonstration in repudiation of the positioning by the FUNAI was announced by the Kayapó leaders, calling for the convening of a large assembly at the headwaters of the Xingu river.

 

The understandable resistance of the indigenous peoples, who are even now ignored as part of the planning and decision making process, could result in large scale conflicts, as the lives of the indigenous peoples themselves and governmental employees could be at risk, as well as the patrimony and the security of third parties could also be severely impacted. New defamatory campaigns against the rights of the indigenous peoples could feed deplorable circumstances resulting from haste, omission and non-compliance with applicable legal norms.

 

Second, the conceptualization of “area of impact” cannot be restricted to its technical component, ignoring the socio-cultural variables. The definition of an area of “direct impact”, made exclusively by engineers and specialists mobilized by institutions interested in the enterprise, are not able, in any manner, to substitute for an evaluation absent, of a sociological and anthropological nature, of the consequences that the project would cause for the populations that live in the region, and not only in a strip as so restricted. Demanded are detailed investigations regarding the environmental and sociocultural conditions, present and future, which would affect the wellbeing and the destiny of the populations established in the region.

 

It is fitting to alert public opinion and the highest authorities in the Brazilian government to the precipitousness with which approval of the project has been conducted, within an equivocal strategy and without attention to the legal dispositives. To proceed in this way would be to configure a social situation explosive and difficult to control, the enterprise may cause ecological and cultural consequences both malign and irreversible.

 

Rio de Janeiro, 31 October of 2009

 

João Pacheco de Oliveira

Coordinator of the Commission for Indigenous Affairs/CAI/ABA