L46 and the Belo Monte dam

[matthewfaulkner]

I'm sure IBAMA are doing everything in their power to get the dam project stopped.

The president of IBAMA, Curt Trennopohl, doesn't seem to think so ;)

[racoll]

The president of IBAMA, Curt Trennopohl, doesn't seem to think so ;)

I wasn't so much talking about the suits in charge, rather the employees "on the ground".

[MatsP]

Also, I suspect nearly all Hypancistrus zebra collected in Brazil goes to people who are collecting plecos like stamps - "I haven't got one of those, I want it".

--
Mats

[Cristoffer Forssander]

Humans are really a world wide problem... I'm sad to be a part of it...

[bsmith]

I really think it sucks that human intrusion is causing this problem but when I remember that 99.99% of all species that once existed on our planet are now extinct and that humans (this differs between people and depends on your religious beliefs but I believe we have been here for about 500,000 years so I'll use that #) have only been here for roughly .01% of the time the earth has been around it doesn't sting quite as bad.

[racoll]

humans have only been here for roughly .01% of the time the earth has been around it doesn't sting quite as bad.

Sure, humans can't put an end to life or evolution on earth. We will come to an end, and new organisms will certainly evolve.

However, what we are doing is making the rest of our species' existence on the planet as difficult and as miserable an experience as possible.

It's not the planet that will suffer with all this, it's us!

[bsmith]

humans have only been here for roughly .01% of the time the earth has been around it doesn't sting quite as bad.

Sure, humans can't put an end to life or evolution on earth. We will come to an end, and new organisms will certainly evolve.

However, what we are doing is making the rest of our species' existence on the planet as difficult and as miserable an experience as possible.

It's not the planet that will suffer with all this, it's us!

I couldn't agree with you more. What I was just trying to convey is that everything comes to an end with or without us speeding the process up. It is just way for me to not get melancholy when I read about stuff like this.

[panaque]

I really think it sucks that human intrusion is causing this problem but when I remember that 99.99% of all species that once existed on our planet are now extinct and that humans (this differs between people and depends on your religious beliefs but I believe we have been here for about 500,000 years so I'll use that #) have only been here for roughly .01% of the time the earth has been around it doesn't sting quite as bad.

This is the kind of argument that is spread by the same people that deny human-induced climate change (usually with sponsorship from the oil industry) to justify exploitation of resources at the expense of ecosystems. By the same token, 99.9% of all humans that have ever lived are now dead. Does that mean we shouldn't make such a fuss about murder and manslaughter?
It's a silly argument and I hear it all too often, even from the mouths of intelligent people who should know better than to regurgitate this kind of propaganda.
No offense meant to bsmith.

[Jools]

Great discussion, but it might be time to pull this back to the dam and the Xingu?

[TwoTankAmin]

Unfortuantely, this project will never be stopped by environmental concerns.

Brazil court refuses to stop work on Amazon dam

(AFP) – 1 day ago (i.e. Nov 11, 2011)

BRASILIA — A federal court on Wednesday rejected an appeal for suspending construction of Brazil's controversial $11 billion Belo Monte hydroelectric dam in the heart of the Amazon until after indigenous people have been consulted.

The court, based in Brasilia, upheld a legislative decree that authorized construction, which is opposed by environmentalists and Amazon Indian tribes who say the dam will cause massive destruction of fauna and flora in the area.

Maria do Carmo Cardoso, a court judge, held that while the indigenous communities are entitled to being consulted, the law does not say that this must be done before approval of the work.

"The consultations are not binding, they are merely informative," she added in remarks carried by the state Brazil agency.

Authorities of the western Para state, who back the call for suspending the work until after the indigenous communities have been consulted, announced that the court ruling would be appealed in the federal Supreme Court.

Last month more than 400 activists occupied the site of what would be the third biggest dam in the world -- after China's Three Gorges dam and the Itaipu dam on the border of Brazil and Paraguay.

Construction of the Belo Monte dam -- which would produce more than 11,000 megawatts, or about 11 percent of Brazil's current installed capacity -- has been the subject of legal wrangling for decades.

The project also has drawn international criticism, including from Oscar-winning movie director James Cameron of "Avatar" fame, who said rainforest indigenous tribes could turn to violence to block dam construction.

But President Dilma Rousseff's government has insisted the project should be allowed to go ahead, making it the centerpiece of government efforts to boost energy production in the rapidly growing economy.

The project is expected to employ 20,000 people directly in construction, flood an area of 500 square kilometers (200 square miles) along the Xingu river and displace 16,000 persons.

The government had pledged to minimize the environmental and social impact of the dam and asserted that no traditional indigenous land was to be affected.

[HaakonH]

Update

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/c ... p?sid=4626

Haakon

[Mike_Noren]

Update

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/c ... p?sid=4626

Haakon

From the article:
Judge Martins has now ruled that work can go ahead as Norte Energia have satisfied him that the construction would not hinder or block the fishermen's work. He also believed that the work would not have a serious impact on the habitat of the ornamental fish species that the fishermen depend on, while the environmental impact of the project would not be known until it has been completed, dismissing studies into the dam's potential effects on the river's wildlife as merely forecasts of what could happen.

HAHAHAHA! So, to recap: the company says that running the entire river in a cement tube for 60 kilometers and drying out the entire habitat of these fishes, will not stop the fishermen from collecting the fish, and that the fish will go extinct is not grounds for stopping work because we don't know until they're extinct that they'll go extinct.

I wonder how much they paid him?

I think we all knew they'd overturn and overrule the judgment, the project is worth tens of billions of dollars and some pesky fish species aren't going to stop that, but I did expect them to put in a little effort and think up some plausible-sounding technicality, not simply deny reality.

[apistomaster]

I believe this project was already as good as done when conceived in a shower of money.
Science and environmental protection were never going to even be given any chances to mitigate any adverse effects.
Brazil is doing the same thing that was done in the USA during the dam build heydays of the past. Especially dams on rivers necessary for the Pacific Salmon and Sea Run Rainbow Trout. Only once the fish were heading for extinction did the GA force any remediation and mitigation strategies but the best results are still a fraction of the sizes of runs when the rivers were free flowing. The fish are now 90 to 95 per cent hatchery bred. These interbreed with the residual wild fish populations further reducing the original genetic diversity. Without these human interventions these fish would be extinct by now.
Where energy and money are at stake all other considerations are not very important.

[Mike_Noren]

Where energy and money are at stake all other considerations are not very important.

It really depends. Here in europe something like this simply couldn't happen, there'd be an enormous shitstorm about it and heads would roll. In the US it could happen, but only after a long legal process and lots of concessions from the electricity company to protect biodiversity. Heck, even the IMF, which isn't known for its environmental friendliness, has it in its statutes that it can not support projects which threaten biodiversity.

In Brazil a judge replaces the precautionary principle ("don't do anything which might cause harm") with some sort of irrational skepticism ("we wont know for sure if it causes harm until we've done it") and dozens if not hundreds of species go extinct.

Even if Brazil doesn't have species protection laws, the project is in clear breach of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, which is a binding treaty and whic Brazil has signed. But no one seems to care.

[apistomaster]

During the 1930s through as late as the 1970's here in the USA we built dams with woefully deficient considerations about their environmental impacts.

I am comparing this period of rapid development in Brazil to the similar stage the USA went through.

In time we in the USA became more concerned. I am saying that Brazil is only repeating the similar mistakes we made in the USA and as it becomes more developed they will also probably adopt a more mature approach
such as now exists in the USA and in Europe but it will come too little and too late for many species just as it has here in the USA.

[grokefish]

Interesting that it is such an Iconic fish that is in jeopardy don't you think?

[MatsP]

The iconic fish makes it more obvious to us aquarists.

But there is also a huge difference between the Rio Xingu and European/North American rivers: The biodiversity is much greater. The Rio Xingu has more species than there are Freshwater species in Europe!

--
Mats

[powerfulpumpkins]

I find it so sad that an iconic fish such as the L46 is under such serious threat because of this. Some have said it wouldnt happen in Europe. In europe alot is said about the environment and bio diversity but here is a classic example I have had involvement in.
I will keep it quick because its not fish related but shows some of the realities.
I live in Derby UK and an ex tannery / landfill has a planning proposal for a waste incinerator. Part way through planning they found a colony of what are known as common lizards - the only colony in the city. They are considered a priority species and have a degree of legal protection but even though this is the case the developer was aloud to catch and translocate the lizards on the site TWICE - first before the planning application was even considered and after the developer appealed after their application failed they were able to catch them again before once again having to open up the translocation site but what I have uncovered is that the developer or the site owner has never had to provide ANY proof that the colony has survived this translocation - no proof what so ever !
It just goes to show that even here in Europe species with a level of protection have no real defence so what hope do the fish of the Xingu have !

[Mike_Noren]

Sorry, but there's a big difference between relocating a small population of a common and widespread species such as Zootoca vivipara, and completely wiping out dozens of species without any effort to save them.

[powerfulpumpkins]

No mike your ignoring what I was highlighting - it wasnt the fact they were relocating a species in my case a lizard it was the fact that having done so nobody was made accountable for their actions - irespective of how "common" it may be considered. That was my point if there is no accoutability in development then what hope has any wildlife got be it something in Europe or a little black and white fish in a river in Brazil? imagine if the Brazillian government turn around tomorrow and said ok we will translocate the L46 Zebra Plecos and then in a years time as aquarists we ask for proof that the translocation didnt impact on the species and the government said - we dont have to do any follow up survey work. Something doesnt have to be rare to be important !

[Mike_Noren]

No mike your ignoring what I was highlighting - it wasnt the fact they were relocating a species in my case a lizard it was the fact that having done so nobody was made accountable for their actions - irespective of how "common" it may be considered.

You're equating a construction company spending time and money translocating a few individuals belonging to the possibly most common and widespread lizard in europe, to Electronorte totally and callously ignoring that their project will cause the complete global extinction of dozens or hundreds of entire species. There is no similarity.

[racoll]

I think what Mike is getting at, and correct me if i'm wrong, is that if entire species were threatened with extinction in the UK, then the mitigation for that would be commensurate to the rarity or global importance of the species concerned. It would just simply not be allowed to happen.

As an example: if a developer wants to build on the habitat of the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis) in the UK, then there are an entirely different set of rules from that of Z. vivipara, and licences need to be sought from Natural England. They are not at all easy to get in the first place, and one of the conditions are that post-translocation monitoring MUST be carried out. They are therefore highly protected, much more so than Z. vivipara, who's habitat is not protected and it is only illegal to directly kill.

Note that L. agilis is not even that rare on a Europe-wide scale either, but it is very limited in its UK distibution and therefore important locally.

I have to agree with Mike in that the two comparisons are not really equal.

[powerfulpumpkins]

Forgive me Mike and Racoll but I dont work on your principle that its somehow ok because there are plenty more elsewhere. For my cities local biodiversity that particular species is rare as it is found nowhere else (its noted to be declining nationally) - I just wanted to show that even here in the UK development places biodiversity at risk. I dont for a moment suggest that its the same as building a giant dam and destroying all of that Brazilian biodiversity - that itself disgusts me I just wanted to show that even here is a eerr well regulated country wildlife - however rare or common is at risk and if thats the case here what hope is there for wildlife in global wildlife hot spots like Brazil.
I dont know what the answer is to the dam project - well I do - it must be stopped but how !

[racoll]

Rather depressing update: http://amazonwatch.org/news/2012/0119-b ... dents-away

[apistomaster]

It's all over but the flooding.

[powerfulpumpkins]

Shocking totally shocking !

[Taratron]

When people say 'you must move with the times,' what they really mean is 'you must do it my way.'

[plecoboy]

So which species are at immediate risk? Upstream or downstream species?

[MatsP]

So which species are at immediate risk? Upstream or downstream species?

The first problem will probably be silt/sediment from the building project itself. They will also build a temporary dam to allow the machines to work on the base of the river, which will affect flow.

Downstream are more vulnerable than upstream - close upstream are more likely to be affected then further upstream.

--
Mats

[Mike_Noren]

So which species are at immediate risk? Upstream or downstream species?

With this first dam in the Xingu - there will be several more - all species in the vicinity of the dam (because their habitat will simply cease to exist) plus all species living in the Big Bend/Volta Grande (because the flow during the dry season will be so low the river is effectively reduced to a series of stagnant puddles).

As for an estimate of which species that is... knock yourself out(pdf).
The paper is not exhaustive - the area has not been fully explored and numerous undescribed species are known to occur in the area.
To the best of my knowledge there exist no newer paper on the subject; there is an independent expert review(pdf) from 2009 but they have no list of affected species and appear to conflate local extinction and global extinction.
Also there as far as I know exist no estimate at all for other aquatic organisms (molluscs, crustaceans, insects, mosses...), most of which are even less studied than the fish.