Movimentos sociais fazem ato de apoio à atuação do MPF no caso Belo Monte

Representantes do Movimento das Mulheres Trabalhadoras de Altamira Campo e Cidade (MMTA-CC), do Movimento de Mulheres do Campo e da Cidade (MMCC), da Sociedade Paraense de Direitos Humanos (SDDH) e da Prezalia do Xingu vão entregar hoje às 15 horas ao Ministério Público Federal (MPF) pedido de atuação da instituição contra irregularidades na licença expedida esta semana pelo Ibama que autoriza o início das obras da hidrelétrica de Belo Monte.

O ato dos movimentos sociais será uma demonstração de apoio ao MPF na polêmica criada na última quarta-feira pela Advocacia-Geral da União, que criticou o trabalho dos procuradores da República contra irregularidades em projetos hidrelétricos no norte do país (veja resposta oficial do MPF em http://tinyurl.com/resposta-do-MPF-a-AGU).

Também em apoio ao MPF, os movimentos sociais solicitaram à Justiça Federal que sejam incluídos como co-autores dos processos judiciais que a Procuradoria da República no Pará move no caso Belo Monte.

Assunto: Ato de movimentos sociais em apoio à atuação do MPF no caso Belo Monte

Data: Nesta sexta-feira, 05 de fevereiro, às 15 horas

Local: Sede do MPF em Belém, na rua Domingos Marreiros, 690 – Umarizal

(entre Generalíssimo e 14 de março)

Assessoria de Comunicação

Procuradoria da República no Pará

Atendimento à imprensa: Helena Palmquist, Murilo Hildebrand Abreu e Pollyanna Gomes

Telefones: (91) 3299.0148 / 0177 / 0141 /(91) 8403.9943 / (91) 8212.9526

ascom@prpa.mpf.gov.br

Twitter: @MPF_PA

Categories PA

Nota do Conselho Indigenista Missionário contra construção da Usina Hidrelétrica de Belo Monte

O Conselho Indigenista Missionário vem a público manifestar sua indignação frente  à concessão, pelo IBAMA, da licença prévia que permitirá o leilão para construção e exploração da Usina Hidrelétrica de Belo Monte, no Rio Xingu, município de Altamira/PA.

Na opinião do Cimi, este é um projeto autoritário, oriundo ainda do período dos governos da ditadura militar e que, desde então, sofre oposição dos movimentos sociais, dos povos indígenas, ribeirinhos, ambientalistas, cientistas, especialistas em energia hidráulica e da população em geral da região do Rio Xingu. Todos estes segmentos são unânimes em dizer que esta obra é inviável em função de seus impactos sociais, econômicos, culturais, ambientais. Além disso, a navegabilidade das águas nos trechos de vazão reduzida será inviabilizada, comprometendo a sustentabilidade de povos indígenas e ribeirinhos que dependem do rio para viver.

No que se refere à capacidade energética de Belo Monte, o governo vem sustentando a versão falaciosa segundo a qual seriam gerados 11.223 MW, quando todos os estudos demonstram que a geração média será de 4.428 MW devido à variação da vazão das águas entre o período das cheias e das secas.

O Cimi se soma às vozes que ecoam na Amazônia, nas demais regiões do Brasil e no exterior contrárias à construção deste empreendimento porque, além dos impactos acima referidos, ele tem como objetivo primeiro a geração de energia para as empresas mineradoras que exploram ferro, alumínio, bauxita, manganês e outros minérios na região amazônica. Estes segmentos econômicos saqueiam os recursos de nosso país, os exportam e deixam aqui no Brasil apenas a terra devastada.

O Cimi também repudia o modo como esse projeto vem sendo apresentado pelo governo do presidente Lula, de maneira autoritária, sem participação da população. Além disso, os estudos de impacto ambiental e de viabilidade socioeconômica foram realizados apenas para atender formalidades e não para apontar com seriedade sua viabilidade. O próprio Ibama, ao conceder a licença prévia, alegou nas suas conclusões técnicas que algumas questões não puderam ser analisadas com profundidade, dentre elas o componente indígena e as contribuições das audiências públicas e que, portanto, não concluiu sua análise a contento.

Na avaliação do Cimi, é também descabida e inaceitável a reação, transmitida em nota pública, da Advocacia-Geral da União contra possíveis iniciativas de procuradores do Ministério Público Federal. Tal reação constitui-se numa clara manifestação de intransigência e tentativa de intimidação a procuradores que, por ventura e necessidade jurídica, venham legitimamente a ingressar com ações judiciais contra as obras de Belo Monte.

Por fim, nos solidarizamos com todas aquelas comunidades que sofrem a imposição deste desastroso projeto e conclamamos aos movimentos sociais, populares, ambientais, indígena e indigenista a continuarmos firmes e unidos na luta contra Belo Monte.

Brasília, 04 de fevereiro de 2010

Conselho Indigenista Missionário

Categories PA

Belo Monte “Pharonic project and generator of death” Special interview with Dom Erwin Kräutler

(originally posted on IHU Online on 17 december 2009)

"I know how much sweat these people poured and how much time they spent to build their homes. I say again: these are brick houses, not shacks or stilt platforms! Now these people will be forcibly uprooted from their homes and moved to where?", asks Dom Erwin Kräutler in an interview to IHU On-Line, conducted via e-mail. The Bishop of Altamira, a municipality located in the middle of the Amazon forest in Pará, describes the support that the Church has given the people to fight against the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam and also what happened after the meeting with Lula in September this year. "There is no shortage of options and no lack of leading scientists that present alternatives. But they are immediately silenced and even ridiculed when they talk about solar or wind power", he notes.

Dom Erwin also examined the blackout that occurred in November. "Until today, were not disclosed the real reasons that caused the blackout. But the occurrence of a system failure or even irresponsibility in the maintenance does not justify building a giant dam, with unforeseeable consequences, harmful to the peoples of the Xingu region and the environment. " When asked how Marina Silva and Lula have acted in relation to the Belo Monte, Dom Erwin is vehement: "Marina Silva disappointed me. I never thought that she would submit so tranquilly to the dictates of her candidacy for president. "

the interview:

IHU On-Line – What is the support that you have received from the Church in the struggle against hydroelectric Belo Monte?

Don Erwin — I am bishop of the Church that is in the Xingu. The "my" church (not in the possessive, but of belonging!) Is this, who is, here and now, in the Amazon. It is not only part of the Church throughout the world, but it also remains the Church with all its features: one, holy, catholic and apostolic. And this local Church is now faced with tremendous challenges. I have not the least doubt:  I am receiving the support of the Church in the Xingu, the People of God who live here and walk, struggle and pray, it unites and celebrates, is engaged in a just and fraternal society, believes that "another world is possible" , which for us coincides with the dream of Jesus: the kingdom of God. Yes, I feel that this Church in the Xingu supports its bishop when he assumes the defense of people who live here against a megalomaniac and pharaonic project that promises to generate energy, but in fact will generate death.

The Church in Pará and Amapá (II North Regional CNBB) has stated unequivocally at its 32nd Pastoral Regional Assembly (26 – August 28, 2009) in an “Open Letter” which expressly says: "At this moment, we witness with great concern the procedures around the projected construction of the Hydroeletric plant of Belo Monte.. One more major enterprise does not take into account the real concerns of the population and only stirs up the ambition of those who preach a development that will certainly be passenger and destructive. (. ..). What development is this that unscrupulously destroys the habitat of people and families, flora and fauna? This mega project, if implemented, will leave thousands of "life projects" bulldozed by compulsory displacement of many families from their homes and from their lands. (…) the Indigenous peoples and traditional communities for centuries persecuted and decimated, will receive the fatal blow losing their territory and natural resources – and especially the beloved land of their rites and myths, where they buried their ancestors. Our ears resonate with the cry of a Kayapo Indian, ‘What will become of our children! "

Already in the Document of the Ninth Meeting of Bishops of the Amazon (Manaus, 11 to 13 September 2007)" Missionary Disciples  in the Amazon" protests: "The great projects are decided outside the Amazon, attending to interests that do not benefit the Amazonians. There are projects of the government and enterprises with transnational capital. It is necessary to analyze the consequences of these projects: the social and ecological imbalance, deforestation, climate change etc.. " (n. 24)

I also know that the CNBB (National Conference of Bishops of Brazil, its presidency and the Permanent Council, has always supported me and our commitment in favor of indigenous peoples in the Xingu, of the riverine peoples and people in general that inhabit the city of Altamira and other neighboring cities that will be fatally affected by this project.

IHU On-Line – What reactions did you have after the meeting with Lula, who at the time, said that nothing would be done "down our throat?’

Don Erwin – President Lula invited me for one more audience, which was due to have occurred between November 25 and 27. I waited every day to be called, but on Nov.26, around 9pm, I was informed that the President was traveling to Venezuela and unfortunately not been able to find a window in his schedule to receive me. The promise of " not to push the project down the throats of anyone" the President did not have the permission of his energy sector has not altered its strategies.

After the meeting with President Lula on 22 July 2009 I had another opportunity to talk with government representatives, this time in Altamira, on the occasion of the already notorious policed public hearings. Again, I absolutely invite representatives of social movements of Altamira, but the doctors returned to parade the same litany of advantages and benefits that no longer convinces anyone. They explained that they defended the viability of Belo Monte in purely technical terms and, so cornered, they admitted that the problems are situated in the social and environmental dimension. Who among us did not know that? Still, it was good to hear that they agree that such problems exist. Then questions began to flow, none of them obtaining a convincing answer. The doctors come with vague promises or remain calm when going into details, or, say that everything has a solution, but do not reveal what kind of solution that will be.

Worse, suddenly they lose their temper and react with an arrogance and prepotency we never expected of members of the current government and bring to mind the days of Military Dictatorship. They say openly that we can do what we please: "The project will go on!". The cynicism of statements like these seems insurmountable. The gentlemen Walter Cardinal and Adhemar Palocci are convinced of their role in relation to this nefarious project and want to move like a steamroller over us all. I do not know if the President of the Republic really realizes the dictatorial onslaught by his first echelon. I pray to God that our president gets real and gives up the execution of this project. Otherwise, he will go down in history as the great predator of the Amazon and the gravedigger of the indigenous peoples  and riverine peoples the Xingu.

We can see with great anguish that, for these sectors of government, the office of the President and the minister of Mines and Energy, the project is decided. So all the pressure upon the IBAMA is considered "tiresome" for failing to conclude their studies to issue the expected preliminary license for a construction of the Hydroeletric dam of Belo Monte. One gets the distinct impression that these ministries and sectors of government are not interested in a detailed, thorough and responsible assessment by the competent body. Pressure upon IBAMA is the order of the day. No more "obstacles and trinkets"! Long ago at a banquet given by the Governor of Mato Grosso, Blairo Maggi, the largest individual soy grower in the country and winner of the "Golden Chainsaw" trophy for his contribution to deforestation of the country, President Lula himself was left carrying a compromising declaration.

He identified the indigenous peoples, the quilombolas, the environmentalists and even the Federal Prosecutor as "obstacles" to progress. Also considered "trinkets" articles of environmental legislation, because these legal parameters would be hobbling the development of the country. Therefore, the order is to ignore or at least not give much importance to social and environmental impacts. Otherwise, the country would be doomed to stagnation. It may even be that the president later regret what was said off the cuff, but the media had already reported the gaffe and the government sectors have seized this presidential statement in chorus declared the highest authority in the country.

Nevertheless, we do not stop, and continue to draw the attention of society to the irreversible social and environmental effects that the project, if implemented, will cause. I realize that in Altamira and the surrounding municipalities, only a part of the entrepreneurs and traders defend the project because they think a lot of money will flood the place, forgetting, however, that one-third of Altamira goes under, and Vitória do Xingu will become a ghost town because they will lose the port that supplies Altamira and the entire region of the Transamazonica. The tributaries of the Xingu River in the municipalities Senador Jose Porfirio and Porto de Moz will dry up or be reduced to mere trickles of water, making navigation and fishing impossible, which sustains these people and family farms on the banks of those rivers.

Altamira is now bordering on 100 thousand inhabitants. More than thirty thousand people will be forcibly removed from their homes that will remain underwater, in exchange for promises of a better life. The Eletrobrás technicians, however, do not know where they will house all these families. And the experiences of other projects smaller than Belo Monte teach us that the promises do not materialize. President Lula himself told me at the hearing that I had with him on 22 July 2009, "the great debt of Brazil in relation to those affected by dams, has not been paid”. Will it be that from now on, everything will change? Will it be that, suddenly, all promises will be honored, and families uprooted from their homes will be transferred to mansions built for them in an agreeable place? The Government still today does not know to where all these people will be removed. In addition, they dramatically underestimate the population that will be directly affected by this disgrace.

A few days ago, in an interview with Jornal do Brazil (13.12.09), the president of IBAMA, Roberto Messias Franco, mentioned my name and agreed with me " he has a legitimate concern: what if more people come, poor people, with the construction? You are right to want a welfare plan for these people”.  Then he said, "the nearly 12 million people who live there, in stilt houses, on borders of streams, without basic sanitation, should be resettled in better conditions than those of today. President Lula makes a point of saying that people can not be torn out of place, but relocated a place where life could be better.. It will require new neighborhoods, new cities, with assistance, homes, structure. However, the president of IBAMA is terribly wrong when he speaks of "houses on stilts". There exist "some" houses of this type on the banks of the Igarapé Altamira and along the Acioly Ernesto Estrada, but the streets (always in terms of streets, not of housing!) in the area to be flooded, according to studies made by the Government (EIA / RIMA), are lined with homes, the overwhelming majority of them two story masonry houses. I felt a tightness in my heart during the procession of the Immaculate Conception held last December 8. We walked through streets whose days are numbered if the project becomes reality.

There are not only 12 thousand people. I ask the president of IBAMA to send his staff to update the census of those directly affected. I know how much sweat these people poured and the time they spent to build their homes. I say once again: these are brick houses, not shacks or huts on stilts! Now these people will be forcibly uprooted from their homes and moved to where? President Lula does not explain "where life can be better", he only promises "new neighborhoods, new cities, with assistance, homes, structure”. Will it be that Lula dreams of a tropical Shangri-La for these people that will be affected by the disaster of Belo Monte, does he want to recuperate the lost paradise or cause to emerge from the repressed waters of the Xingu a submerged Atlantis. Déjà vu! This movie we already know from the Itaipu dam, and even more since Tucuruí and the disastrous Balbina! Who gives the guarantee so that the presidential promises materialize? When the lake submerges a third of the city of Altamira, President Lula and his staff now will already have their cushy pensions and will wash their hands because they do not have to provide tribute or satisfaction to those who will at that time govern Brazil. And will it be that a future government will honor the commitment made by President Lula of resettling these people "where life can be better? The future Amazon generation will condemn to the inferno those who caused all this misery and irreversibly devastated this beautiful region. But the arrogant   energy sector of the Government is unwilling to hear the outcry from the people. Damn those against the dam! Well according to that ancient Arab proverb: The dogs bark and the caravan passes!

IHU On-Line – Some criticisms have been made that only the environmentalists are against it, but do not present alternatives for energy production in the country. What options do we have to generate energy, without being based on the construction of hydroelectric dams in the Amazon?

Don Erwin – There are many options and lack leading scientists that present alternatives. But they are immediately silenced and even ridicule when they talk about solar or wind power. A few days ago, Fantástico, da Rede Globo, presented new technologies that the Japanese invented for large scale solar energy generation. The problem is that none of the alternatives interest the construction companies which are eager to apply their know-how and run all their machinery strictly to build power plants, the traditional model, with barriers, huge cement walls, dikes and derivation canals. This is what they know how do and make astronomical profits. Nothing is important about the consequences for the peoples of the region and the environment. That is why they shamelessly pressure IBAMA to immediately release the license. There is great invoicing pressure.

IHU On-Line – Were there repercussions from the blackout, which occurred last week, on the argument in favor of construction of the Belo Monte? Does the blackout reinforce the motivations of the government?

Don Erwin – Naturally, for the defenders of the project, the blackout was welcome. They were delighted when the media published the news that some states in the south and southeast were without power for hours. Only today were the real reasons that caused the blackout revealed. But the occurrence of a system failure or even irresponsibility in maintenance does not justify a gigantic construction, with unforeseeable consequences, harmful to the peoples of the region of the Xingu and to the environment.

IHU On-Line – Marina Silva said that "there is no escaping the energy use of the Xingu River. Analyzing also Lula’s position on the enterprise, as you see these ways of looking at the rivers of the Amazon?

Don Erwin – – Marina Silva disappointed me. I never thought that she would submit so tranquilly to the dictates of her candidacy for president. I never thought she would relinquish her conviction to defend the environment against insane projects and inexcusable omissions in their viability studies. Marina speaks as a candidate of the Green Party and, as such, should just assume the defense of the "Green of the Forests"! The statement "there is no escaping the energy use of the Xingu river" is the same old saw that we are tired of hearing from the mouth of the intransigent government technocrats. Worse, by repeating this refrain, Marina capitulates before the ideals that made her a respected voice and reference at the national and international levels in dealing with defense of the Amazon. It is no longer the Marina that I met and hosted in Altamira on the day that they killed Sister Dorothy! Marina has betrayed her vanguard mission for the people of the forest. What does she hope to achieve with this change in her vision? Some votes from those who even now remain in opposition to her?

IHU On-Line – What is the strength and the limits of social pressure against Belo Monte? Can the decision, in your opinion, on the construction still be reversed?

Don Erwin – Of course it can be reversed! And that’s what we hope! That finally all this seductive discourse by the government and mining and dam companies be demystified. The sword of Damocles is hanging over the Xingu and its people, hanging by a very slender thread. But like the legend told by the Roman writer Horace does not end in tragedy because the slender thread resisted, likewise we hope that sanity wins out over insanity, and Xingu continues to  "live forever".

IHU On-Line – What is the role of indigenous peoples in the fight against Belo Monte?

Don Erwin – One thing is certain: the indigenous peoples will not give up. They may be beaten to the shame of the present Government, but they will never give up. They have other parameters in evaluating the projects. For them, the river is sacred, and the subject of the story is the people, not a um project invented by "whites", who regard the land, the jungle and river as raw materials for doing business. The slogan of the neo-liberal capitalist is "no land, no forests, no river outside of the market!" while the indigenous peoples from the depth of their ancient wisdom, cry out: "All the land, the jungle and the river for Life and Peace." Two projects are in confrontation: one in favor of life, another for the business at any price.

This tells me that in the context of the Program for Acceleration of Growth (PAC), the indigenous peoples are suffering one more phase of anti – indigenism, this time starting from the highest levels of government. I recall at least two highly shameful episodes. The Minister of Mines and Energy Edison Lobao refers to the Indians with a term so discriminatory that is the envy of the Nazi regime against the Jewish people. The Minister soiled the international image of Brazil. He calls the indigenous peoples and their allies "demonic forces"! When the "scandal of the parabolic" the respected jurist and diplomat Rubens Ricupero, Secretary of the Treasury in 1994, inadvertently revealed " off the record" nothing incriminating some details of the Real Plan, had to resign. Minister Lobao was not "off the record", but loud and clear for Brazil and the whole world to hear and know what he thought of indigenous peoples. Yet he remains in office. I understand that, according to the Citizen Constitution [The Federal Constitution of Brazil]  of 1988, the minister should be prosecuted for racial discrimination.

O other case was perpetrated by Funai, which should protect the interests and concerns of the indigenous peoples. He preferred to assume the role of Judas in the matter of Belo Monte. He will go down in history as a traitor of the indigenous peoples of the Xingu! The Funai is the successor of the Service for Protection of the Indian (SPI), conceived and created in 1910, the great defender of indigenous peoples, Marechal Cândido Mariano da Silva Rondon. It was closed in 1967 due to international protests over the carnage promoted in Indian villages by the SPI and under its benevolent gaze. Funai, the current indigenous agency of the Government, the successor to the SPI, also closes his eyes to a projected disaster. As the SPI covered its ears to the cries of tortured Indians of the last century and therefore was shut down, the 21^st century Funai does not want to bother with the cry of these people. Before serves the interests of dam and mining companies than ever will care about the indigenous peoples, or about the riverine peoples or about families from the lowlands of Altamira who will be forcibly evicted from their homes, or the flora or fauna of the Xingu. Without the slightest scruple they repeat King Louis XV of France (1710-1774): "apres moi le deluge” (After me the deluge).

One more chapter in the resistance to the Belo Monte project was written on December 1^st. The Attorney General’s Office asked for a debate between the Federal Government and the people who will be most affected if the project becomes reality. Dozens of indigenous riparian and representatives of social movements of Altamira faced a long and tiring journey to the capital in order to participate in the discussions, coordinated by Dr. Deborah Duprat, Deputy Attorney General’s Office. And there was no surprise of those who came from afar: the representatives of major organs of the Federal Government simply did not attend the public hearing. Neither the National Foundation for Indigenous Affairs (FUNAI) nor the National Agency of Electrical Energy (Aneel), and, worse still, not even the Brazilian Electric Power Company (Eletrobrás) found it necessary to do this. Antonia Melo, recently honored by the OAB-Pará with Jose Carlos Castro award in recognition of their human dignity and the environment in the Amazon, complained on behalf of all: "Today, once again, they did not want to hear the people. They did not want to debate with the people. It’s a shame the arbitrariness with which they are dealing with our people!" Even so, the leaders delivered documents in which, once again, they repudiated the construction of the dam and hydroelectric plant of Belo Monte and say they will not give up the fight, waving – God forbid it happen! – Even with the possibility of bloodshed in defense of the river. What scares me in this whole episode is the brutal determination of government to simply ignore these people for who it was not just a stroll to Brasilia and put representatives of indigenous peoples the riverine peoples, the people of Altamira “on ice”. Through an anti-democratic attitude like this, it is clear they are trying to kill us through exhaustion. But they won’t succeed!

And the Indians protested in a letter dated December 1, 2009 that is striking because of its strong message. It is the ultimate indigenous cry to a government apparently insensate. Anyone who reads the last paragraph of this letter is sad because of the annoying coldness of the Government, but the sadness is transformed and indignation and outrage against those responsible for an insane project they want to put into play without pity and compassion, costs what it costs:

"We the Indigenous peoples, will no longer sit with any government official to talk about UHE Belo Monte, for we have spoken too long, and this cost 20 years of our history. If the Brazilian government wants to build the Belo Monte in the arbitrary way, as it is being proposed, that is the sole responsibility of this government and its representatives and of the justice system what is going to happen with the executors of this work, with the workers, with indigenous peoples. The Xingu River could turn into a river of blood. That is our message. That Brazil and the world are aware of what can happen in the future if the Brazilian government does not respect our rights as indigenous peoples in Brazil”.

***

International Rivers

http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/blog/glenn-switkes/dam-slaves

Categories PA

MPF responde nota da Advocacia-Geral da União sobre caso Belo Monte

Procuradores da República no Pará defendem trabalho que MPF realizou em relação ao projeto hidrelétrico

O Ministério Público Federal (MPF) no Pará divulgou nesta quarta-feira, 3 de fevereiro, texto em resposta à nota pública em que a Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU) afirma que poderá recorrer ao Conselho Nacional do Ministério Público e ajuizar ações de improbidade contra os responsáveis pelo ajuizamento das ações referentes à Usina de Belo Monte. Veja a íntegra da resposta do MPF:

"A pretexto de posicionar-se quanto ao licenciamento prévio concedido para a Usina Hidrelétrica de Belo Monte, a Advocacia-Geral da União divulgou nota pública em que aponta desvio de conduta na atuação do Ministério Público Federal no Estado do Pará.

Tais críticas, em tom ácido, parecem desprezar que um Estado democrático não se constrói com base na coerção, direta ou velada, provenha ela de onde vier.

O embate de ideias e o debate quanto à extensão da proteção constitucional ao meio ambiente e ao patrimônio público, bem como a obrigação do Estado brasileiro de proteger minorias étnicas e sociais são temas que não se amoldam a discursos fáceis ou a arroubos de estilo.

Desde 1997, o MPF vem acompanhando e abertamente discutindo as várias questões sociais, ambientais e patrimoniais que se inserem no complexo projeto da Hidrelétrica de Belo Monte e sobre elas nunca se furtou ao cumprimento de suas funções.

Ao contrário do que faz parecer a nota divulgada pela Advocacia-Geral da União, nenhum juízo de valor definitivo foi externado pelos membros do MPF, quer quanto ao comportamento de servidores públicos federais, quer quanto ao teor da recém-divulgada licença de instalação concedida pelo Ibama.  E mais, a posição até aqui externada não se baseia em “postura preconceituosa, precipitada e desprovida de análise técnica e jurídica consistente”, e, sim, no desenrolar de uma análise impessoal, objetiva e cuidadosa, resultado do acompanhamento por quase treze anos de inúmeras discussões que vem sendo travadas e da qual participaram diversos membros do MPF e suas instâncias internas de coordenação e revisão.  Não há, então, nem mesmo resquício da quebra da impessoalidade e da isenção que se exige dos agentes públicos.

Tal constatação, todavia, não afasta alguns fatos concretos:

1 – em diversas oportunidades, quer em juízo, quer administrativamente, o MPF deixou claro que vários vícios procedimentais estavam sendo praticados (tais como a realização meramente formal de audiências públicas, que, na forma como conduzidas, obrigariam um ribeirinho atingido pela obra a se deslocar de 200 a 255 quilômetros para falar por, no máximo, três minutos) e que tais erros implicariam na nulidade da licença que viesse a ser concedida;

2 – ainda durante a fase de análise do licenciamento, o MPF sustentou (e continua a fazê-lo) que estudos que seriam necessários para a análise prévia não poderiam ser postergados e, portanto, se era obrigação, por exemplo, estudar os impactos da obra sobre a população ribeirinha como um dos elementos do diagnóstico do Estudo Prévio de Impacto Ambiental, não poderia a licença prévia transformar tal obrigação em condicionante, jogando para o futuro aquilo que era obrigação do passado.

Estes dois exemplos demonstram, claramente, que não há açodamento e que as conclusões iniciais não se construíram em horas, mas, sim, em anos de acompanhamento de um processo que envolve bem mais do que o marketing oficial ou a vontade soberana de quem quer que seja.

É necessário, dentre outros temas, que o Estado brasileiro assuma quais os dados reais desta obra, tais como seu custo (se R$ 9,6 bilhões, como declarado no licenciamento, ou algo entre R$ 22 bilhões e R$ 30 bilhões como se anuncia agora), sua capacidade de produção de energia (já que a propaganda oficial insiste em divulgar 11 mil megawatts, deixando de anunciar que tal produção ocorrerá em apenas poucos meses de alguns anos e que estima-se uma produção efetiva de energia não superior a 4 mil megawatts), que condicionam a viabilidade econômico-financeira da obra e os impactos de tais decisões sobre o modelo de desenvolvimento sustentável que se pretende implantar.

É necessário que a sociedade brasileira efetivamente veja suas instituições públicas funcionando, com o MPF exercendo sua função de fiscal da atividade estatal, com o Ibama velando por um licenciamento adequado e com a AGU atuando na defesa do Estado brasileiro, todos de forma responsável, sem incidir no risco da prematura condenação quanto às críticas aos atos administrativos.

A crítica e o debate franco não deveriam, ainda hoje, causar tanto desconforto em quem ocupa funções públicas e deve estar aberto a ouvir a sociedade e a cumprir a obrigação da transparência e do respeito à ordem jurídica à coisa pública.

Ao MPF a crítica é bem-vinda, será sempre considerada, mas não resultará no abandono de suas obrigações e no cumprimento de seu papel, com lealdade e sem arrogância."

Assessoria de Comunicação

Procuradoria da República no Pará

Categories PA