• Agro
  • Civil Society
  • Disinformation
  • Exploitation & Control
  • Forests & Land Use
  • Geopolitics
  • Indigenous & Traditional Communities
  • Oil
  • Research
  • Violence
  • Water & Sanitation
  • Stakeholders

Ordem de aumento da vazĂŁo visava mitigar impactos ambientais

Crédito: Governo Federal/PAC/via O eco

8 Feb 21

Ibama caves in to pressure from Belo Monte dam and goes back to liberating minimum flow to the Xingu River

After a power struggle between shareholders of the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Plant, the Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME) and environmental agency Ibama, Norte Energia, the concessionaire responsible for the project, may once again release a lower volume of water from its reservoir for the stretch known as Volta Grande do Xingu, in Pará state, according to the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo. Under pressure, the regulating agency did not maintain the decision, in force until February 10th, which made the hydroelectric plant provisionally increase the amount of water destined to the Xingu River, aiming at mitigating the environmental impacts on the riverside populations caused by the dam.

The difference between the new flow agreed upon and the one previously demanded by Ibama is big: in March, the plant will make 4,000 cubic meters per second; the authorities were asking for 14,200 m³/s. The reason is the already notorious information that “there are no conditions to maintain life in the river”, as the article says, with the adoption of the measures defended by Norte Energia.

Norte Energia signed an Environmental Commitment Term, in which the company commits to implement 15 new measures of environmental compensation, inspection and support to the local population - an investment of R$ 157.5 million reais over three years. The text also requires the concessionaire to present, until December 31, 2021, complementary studies on the river’s flow and environmental quality.

After the news, the Federal Public Prosecution (MPF) of Pará requested Ibama to provide technical data to support what it qualified as a “sudden change” in the flow of the plant. According to a note from the MPF, the agency wants answers about “the technical choice for adopting mitigation measures instead of adopting measures to prevent impacts, such as those already adopted by Ibama, with the definition of higher average flows”.

Sources
Link successfully copied!