[NB: the process that led to the licensing for the execution of this project, offers evidence of how not to go about conducting study aiming at the establishment of an enterprise of this size; this is not sustainable development]
Designed to generate 28 MW, it will cause the flooding of 2,200 hectares affecting 19 km of the "rio de Sangue" (river of blood) Juruena River basin (MT); this latter, a tributary of the important Amazonian river Tapajós.
The environmental impact assessment (EIA) was marked by serious errors and failures as for example the fact that all the studies of mammals, herpetofauna, and birds and fish fauna of the environmental impact assessment have been made, in record time, by a single professional without specialization.
The minutes filled with Portuguese errors, show that the issues raised were not registered, answered or were answered incorrectly.
When asked if the fish were going to get up the River to procreate, the minutes of the hearings points, for example, that they "adapt to the new reality, but only 5 (five) migratory species were identified and that the place where the plant is being built will not affect much their migratory route."
Whole stretches of the EIA were copied from a doctoral dissertation easily found on the internet without even a mention of the author.
Tte study was based on just a trip to the field in June to analyze the biotic environment during the dry season and another in
October for remarks during the rainy season .
The study was completed in November, even before the peak of the rainy season, which occurs in the months of December, January, February, and March in this region of Mato Grosso.
The report was completed in nine months, tight time to gather bibliography, perform field research, studying the hydrological cycle, interviewing people and systematize information.
In public hearings related to work, the EIA was introduced as a result of the work of a year.
[My conclusion: environmental degradation caused by hydroeletric plants in the Amazon, as well as the necessary Environmental Impact Assessment that must be performed before their instalations have not, so far, been taken seriously by the Brazilian governamental authorities]
The environmental impact assessment (EIA) was marked by serious errors and failures as for example the fact that all the studies of mammals, herpetofauna, and birds and fish fauna of the environmental impact assessment have been made, in record time, by a single professional without specialization.
The minutes filled with Portuguese errors, show that the issues raised were not registered, answered or were answered incorrectly.
When asked if the fish were going to get up the River to procreate, the minutes of the hearings points, for example, that they "adapt to the new reality, but only 5 (five) migratory species were identified and that the place where the plant is being built will not affect much their migratory route."
Whole stretches of the EIA were copied from a doctoral dissertation easily found on the internet without even a mention of the author.
Tte study was based on just a trip to the field in June to analyze the biotic environment during the dry season and another in
October for remarks during the rainy season .
The study was completed in November, even before the peak of the rainy season, which occurs in the months of December, January, February, and March in this region of Mato Grosso.
The report was completed in nine months, tight time to gather bibliography, perform field research, studying the hydrological cycle, interviewing people and systematize information.
In public hearings related to work, the EIA was introduced as a result of the work of a year.
[My conclusion: environmental degradation caused by hydroeletric plants in the Amazon, as well as the necessary Environmental Impact Assessment that must be performed before their instalations have not, so far, been taken seriously by the Brazilian governamental authorities]
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário