Hydroelectric dams now a reality in Brazil

[Janne]

I have written an article Hydroelectric dam constructions in Amazonas that I hope every one that visite PC will read.

This has happen after I wrote the article, the first auction for bidding was the Santo Antonio dam in Rio Madeira which was made December 10 this year and will be construct by a brazilian syndicate, the construction work starts late 2008 and will be finished 2012. In the beginning of next year 2008 will the next auction be hold for the next dam Jirau in Rio Madeira, the constructions are planned to start under 2009 and be finished 2013/14.
No announcement for the auction of the Belo Monte project in Rio Xingu has been made yet but are expected to happen under the first months of 2008.

Remember, I didnt wrote the article to discuss "politic" about wrong or right, that kind of discussions will not contribute anything to what is happen in the Amazoniâ rivers. I hope instead the article will encourage people and societys in our hobby around the world, to discuss how they can show their concerns and support to organisations that can have a positive impact on the future destructions of the nature and these rivers.
The dam's will be buildt and we cant do anything about that, but maybe we can make it less worse then it would be if we didnt do anything at all, despite all...we are quite many aquarist's in the world.

Janne

[racoll]

I wonder if there should be an effort to describe all the L numbers from aquarium trade imports in order to ensure these wonderful creatures are officially remembered with a proper name.

[Mike_Noren]

Interestingly, and possibly significantly, I can't find a list ANYWHERE of which species will be endangered by these dams.

I checked GBIF, and their data from the Xingu is limited to one sampling in 1860, for, apparently "ownership of data reasons", and none of the species which to me most obviously will be casualties (Hypancistrus zebra, Baryancistrus sp. "Gold Nugget", Teleocichla gephyrogramma) are listed as even occurring in Xingu.

The entire Rio Madeira drainage, according to GBIF's list, has a measly 34 species, none of which is endemic. This is an obviously ridiculous underestimate - for comparison, three times more species than that have been recorded from Lake Michigan alone!

I haven't even bothered to look for any list for Tocantins. There wont be one.

But surely someone must have noticed that these dams are being built in rivers with the highest biodiversity in the world?

So I went to CITES. They don't list a single one of the species I consider to be at greatest risk.
OK, but CITES works slowly and ponderously through committee, surely IUCN have these species on their Red List?

Nope. They do not list any of the species whose entire known distribution are to be either flooded or dried out. Not a one.

Can anyone explain to me how a high-profile project such as Lulas plans to turn a full third of the amazon into dams and soy bean plantations can have gone under the radar of every major biodiversity watchdog in the world?

Why are there no reasonably complete lists of which species might be endangered by the dams, or even of what species occur in the affected areas - or if there are any such lists, where are they?

[Janne]

To my knowledge no list's of species occuring in these rivers have been made by IBAMA nor been presented together with their conditions for constructions of the Hydroelectric dam's. I have not seen any list of species occuring in these rivers from any NGO's either (I have not read everything), not more then already known scientic described species and mostly species with a significant value as food for the population.

The latest study for Rio Xingu was made under 2001-2002 where 467 fishspecies was record, they estimated that near 600 fishspecies inhabit the Xingu basin. I have the pdf for them that are interested, pm me if you want a copy.

I think one of the problem to find any complete list of species is the fact, there are much more species occured in the ornamental trade then scientic described or known for the modern science from these rivers. We have many species in our aquariums that not are known for these organisations that are trying to conserve what is left.

Janne

[Mike_Noren]

Maybe I'm a cynical old bastard, but I find it hard to avoid the suspicion that the lack of information is by design.

These are some of the biggest hydropower projects in the world, in biodiversity hotspots - and no-one bothered to even check literature for which species might be affected, but they considered the effect of the dam on GLOBAL WARMING? What kind of joke impact study is that?

Maybe they suspected a thorough investigation would show that the dams to be environmental disasters.

Much better for Lula then to build the dams first and let Brasil and the world discover just how bad they are later, when the damage is done and the kickbacks paid.

[racoll]

Can anyone explain to me how a high-profile project such as Lulas plans to turn a full third of the amazon into dams and soy bean plantations can have gone under the radar of every major biodiversity watchdog in the world?

It seems folk have turned their attention to the climate change issue and are missing other "minor" details.

I wonder if there should be an effort to describe all the L numbers from aquarium trade imports in order to ensure these wonderful creatures are officially remembered with a proper name.

How do people feel about this? I know its far from ideal, but perhaps morally justified seeing as many of them will go extinct.

[bronzefry]

Janne,
You are quite correct. It isn't at all politics. Some people will only see a job. Others will only visualize their house or livlihood disappearing. We think in terms of fish.

I find it ironic that some countries are beginning their "love affair" with dam building, while others have come full circle and are removing them. Where I live, there's talk of removing some dams since they no longer serve a purpose. The factories they once powered are now apartments. Other dams are quite dangerous and near collapse and need to be removed. There just isn't the funding available to remove them. It's a hazard in certain neighborhoods when big rains come. But, these are very small dams in small rivers. It's not the Rio Xingu.

Public works projects tend to be built on the needs of the past, not the future.
Sincerely,
Amanda

[Mike_Noren]

I've tried to contact IUCN and every environmental organization I could think of.
Most, including IUCN, have not responded to my mails; of the responses I've got all have effectively been "We've never heard about this, we'll look in to it".
In at least a few of the replies I get the distinct impression they think I'm a crank.

I don't really blame them. I myself find it hard to believe a project of this magnitude can have passed so completely under the radar. Whoever has been managing the media for the Brazilian government and the developers have done a fantastic job.

However, I also believe that this, sadly, is true:

It seems folk have turned their attention to the climate change issue and are missing other "minor" details.

The environmental movement has always had the flaw that it's unable to deal with more than one issue at a time, and it's always been pathologically poor at picking its fights. A present threat today is more deserving of attention than a potential threat tomorrow, but it wouldn't surprise me if the reason no environmental organization except WWF is protesting this, is that they think hydropower dams are good and will help stop Global Warming.

As for Racolls proposition to speed up description of undescribed species: yes, that's a good idea. From a political and legal and public relations point of view, a species does not exist until it's described, and therefore can not require protection.

[racoll]

Its very easy for us Europeans to get on on our high horses, but we must keep in our minds that we have benefited significantly from development, often at the expense of our native fish fauna.

38% of the 546 currently recognised European fish species are considered "threatened". Even once common species such as the European eel are now considered "critically endangered" due to significant population declines.

We may not think we are personally responsible, but I would imagine most of us have eaten farmed salmon or trout. This industry has had a devastating impact on wild/native salmonid diversity.

Obviously we want to encourage other countries to not make the same mistakes we have with regard to alien stocking programmes, unsustainable water management techniques and pollution etc, but understandably they often feel we are hypocrites who should get our own houses in order before lecturing others.

[Mike_Noren]

True enough, however it should be pointed out that each one of these amazonian rivers are believed to have as many species of fish as the entire continent of Europe.

The issue is that Brazil are damming the most species-rich rivers on the planet, well-known biodiversity hotspots, without taking any precautions to preserve as many species as possible, or even investigating what species are in the area.

[Janne]

As for Racolls proposition to speed up description of undescribed species: yes, that's a good idea. From a political and legal and public relations point of view, a species does not exist until it's described, and therefore can not require protection.

Yes and no, in Brazil are some species protected without to be scientific described. One example is all the stingrays, both described and sp are forbidden to export right now. Thats the easy one just because all is protected in this family. Then the problem in other genus, all plecos except Ancistrus, Peckoltia and Loricaria (maybe one more) are protected and not allowed to export. The problem is that most of them are undescribed and they lack the knowledge, all of these are exported as either Ancistrus sp or Peckoltia sp.
Brazil is not so bad that it can sound when trying to protect their nature, only 180 species of fishes are allowed to export. Other animals from small to big is not allowed to export, if not they are bred.

Obviously we want to encourage other countries to not make the same mistakes we have with regard to alien stocking programmes, unsustainable water management techniques and pollution etc, but understandably they often feel we are hypocrites who should get our own houses in order before lecturing others.

Even if Brazil destroy habitats in the nature they do a lot to protect it, in some cases much more then many other countrys, so of course we are hypocrites when thinking we are better.

It's easy to fall into "politic" discussions but it's not benefiting anyone, instead we could try to put the attention on the real problem...species will get extinct before we even know they exist.
Mike has trying to contact environmental organizations and the feeling of the response was" they think I'm a crank", thats a natural reaction if only one person are trying to say something is wrong here. If instead associations in the hobby all around the world with many thousands of members did the same, they will think this problem have a much larger magnitude then they thought and no one will be taken as a "crank".

They maybe not will have any chance to change the development in Brazil, but they can increase the pressure on the science, raise foundations etc. make steps so it's possbile to investigate these rivers before it's to late.

Janne

[Mike_Noren]

Yes and no, in Brazil are some species protected without to be scientific described.

The blanket protection offered any species of a group is far weaker than specific protection of a named species. Also you're talking about specifically the pet trade, not development, and as I believe you're aware at least some exporters feel that Brazils hard stance on exports of live animals is not due to species protection, but due to a desire to keep undescribed species from becoming known abroad, and to keep species from becoming commercially important enough to hinder development.
Regardless of whether that is true, those laws do not protect the species of Xingu, Madeira etc when these dams are built.

Brazil is not so bad that it can sound when trying to protect their nature

When it comes to environmental protection no country is better than its last decision, and the decision to build these dams defeats any argument that Brazil is good at protecting its natural resources.

Even if Brazil destroy habitats in the nature they do a lot to protect it, in some cases much more then many other countrys, so of course we are hypocrites when thinking we are better.

No, it is NOT hypocritical to protest these dams.

Firstly I do NOT accept personal responsibility for the past stupid decisions by my government. The Brazilian government, on the other hand, is definitely responsible for the present stupid decisions of the brazilian government.

Secondly, I do protest present stupid decisions by my present government, just like I protest these present stupid decisions by the Brazilian government.

Thirdly, the generally good Brazilian track record was largely due to IBAMA, but IBAMA has effectively been replaced by a rubber stamp when it comes to clear-cutting & damming in the Amazon. These dams & plantations are just the beginning.

instead we could try to put the attention on the real problem...species will get extinct before we even know they exist.

It is my impression that the environmental movement is not interested because this story does not fit with the current framework of global warming. The flimsiest and most speculative story tied to global warming is immediately snapped up, but what is IMO shaping up to be the single worst environmental disaster in recorded history is completely ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative.

And that's where we come in - what we can do is raise awareness, in the hope of eventually having this issue registering in the media. I have been sending mails to every environmental organization, media organization, and relevant politician I could think of, and I would ask everyone else to do the same.

[Haavard Stoere]

At present the best thing we could do to meet our energy demands without impacting the environment is to build new and safe nuclear powerplants on a massive scale. Nuclear power is relatively clean, and can produce all the power needed presently and in the near future unntil fusion power becomes possible in 30-50 years. Safety is the biggest issue, but we have come a long way since Chernobyl in that regard. With todays tecnology nuclear powerplants can be build and run very safely indeed. "Tree huggers" like many of us normally don´t embrace nuclear power. That is unfortunate in my opininion. It is certainly unfortunate for the forests and waterways, and those species that live there.

[Janne]

Mike,

Yes of course your are right about protection, a scientific described species can be protected much harder then a sp. And of course no one is better then the last decisions. And I know it's not hypocritical to protest against the dam constructions.
This was only the way to answer that we shouldnt do anything because we are not better, it has nothing to do with the facts what is happen today. For me this is just an excuse to not do anything, why shouldnt we "fishkeepers" care what is happening with the habitats where our fishes come from?

It's like this, sometimes some decisions are made that we not always understand and we cant do anything about that, just think it's stupid. Instead to just let things past our eyes we can do something. I have hard to believe these international organisations that works with conservation and preservations of our nature want any species to be extinct, either it's a fish, bird or mammal. If they dont have all the facts about what species that are endangered from these constructions, how they can protect them? If they are occupaid with the global warming issue or not doesnt matter, someone have to put their attention in other directions.

And that's where we come in - what we can do is raise awareness, in the hope of eventually having this issue registering in the media. I have been sending mails to every environmental organization, media organization, and relevant politician I could think of, and I would ask everyone else to do the same.

I think to have some substance behind the words that associations in the hobby needs to do what you are doing, it's really difficult to get single persons to do the same and if they do...they are so few so they are not noticed. People think like you and me but it's hard to act alone.


Haavard,

I know you mean well but the question here is not if using nuclear powerplants or water powerplants or any other source of energy. That is a another discussion that already have been discussed in Brazil, they took their decissions after that.

Janne

[Bas Pels]

Still I wonder how many hydro electrical dams would be build if birds, instead of fishes, would disapear.

Most people prefer birds over fishes, but I think on this forum it could be the other way around. Thus we are hardly representative - for our own community

[Haavard Stoere]

Haavard,

I know you mean well but the question here is not if using nuclear powerplants or water powerplants or any other source of energy. That is a another discussion that already have been discussed in Brazil, they took their decissions after that.

I knew my post was a bit OT, but nonetheless....
Of course I will wave my banner high, and say no to the damming of Xingu, Iriri and all other waterways both here at home, and elsewere, but we have to change the way we think when it comes to energi demands. Where there is a need for energi, energi will and must be produced. Modern societies needs real quantums of power.

About the species and habitats involved I just feel very, very sad. Thank you for informing us about this tragedy. It is not on local or international news.
Actually I feel a real urge to visit the Xingu, to experience it before it is being partially destroyed.

[KnaveTO]

C.A.R.E.S. Preservation is based on the critical and timely significance of Conservation, our Awareness as hobbyists of the issues involved, and the public Recognition of members, offering Encouragement and Support for those who take part in playing a vital role in ensuring a positive future for species at risk. The purpose of the C.A.R.E.S. Preservation Program is to encourage hobbyists worldwide to devote tank space to one or more species at risk, while forming an information network between aquarists, scientists, and conservationists.

I think we should think about this program now that the dam is being approved. However we need to talk to that agency to get them to agree to put the species at risk of extinction from the dam on their list as is lacking in those species. Find out more at http://www.carespreservation.com and for their species at risk go to http://www.carespreservation.com/priority_list.html

[andywoolloo]

From Mike:

True enough, however it should be pointed out that each one of these amazonian rivers are believed to have as many species of fish as the entire continent of Europe.

The issue is that Brazil are damming the most species-rich rivers on the planet, well-known biodiversity hotspots, without taking any precautions to preserve as many species as possible, or even investigating what species are in the area.

That's so sad and scary. Has it been on the news? Are they really going to decimate entire species of fish?

[Silurus]

Something relevant

[Janne]

Has it been on the news?

Yes, in Brazil...the rest of the world have noticed but no "news".

Are they really going to decimate entire species of fish?

We dont really know how many species will be affected, there are so many species we dont know "exist" because they lack a scientific name and description, some species will for certain get extinct but other species will increase in population.

Janne

[Bas Pels]

We dont really know how many species will be affected, there are so many species we dont know "exist" because they lack a scientific name and description, some species will for certain get extinct but other species will increase in population.

Janne

If you turn a river into a lake, and let all surrounding vegitation rot away, a lot of adaptation is required

So most likely the lakes will kill over 90 % of the aquatic species around - and I'm optimistic

[andywoolloo]

Maybe we can write to national geographic or the Animal Planet?

Maybe if it get's on the news and tv?

And Silurus, the "Ladders of Doom" was so depressing. They found a way for them to get up but not down? And then they were trapped?

If Steve Irwin was alive he would help. I wonder if his wife likes fish? I bet she does?

[Janne]

If you turn a river into a lake, and let all surrounding vegitation rot away, a lot of adaptation is required. So most likely the lakes will kill over 90 % of the aquatic species around - and I'm optimistic

In some cases maybe, there are studies made after they built the Tucurui dam in Rio Tocantins how it affected some species of fishes. I dont know what species existed in this river before the dam but I suppose there are several that dissapeared but some species increased, one of them is Potamotrygon henlei that thrive in the dam and some other species I dont remember right now. But of course a dam construction is devastating for most fish species that are adapted to a fast flowing water habitat.

Janne

[buz]

This is really bad.
One could hope that collectors pull out more of the unknown fish species and place them in there tanks for a breeding programme. Or that local zoos will attempt to protest or help collect some of these rarer species.
With the design of dams does it not require a large pool of water then when the gates are open a long drop to move the turbines? Will this destroy natural vegetation around the dam due to flooding?
My understanding that these fish love flow, with this dam being built will dramatically decrease it when its closed, but when the flood gates are open wont that help?
The biggest problem I see here is all the toxins that are released into the water during constructions. I believe that this will have a worse effect than the actual dams them selves.
Nuclear power is unpredictable, but I can understand why these dams are being built. We are all guilty of using lots of power. We can’t judge this decision unless we have all got solar panels on out roofs and use candles for light.

[Mike_Noren]

With the design of dams does it not require a large pool of water then when the gates are open a long drop to move the turbines? Will this destroy natural vegetation around the dam due to flooding?

The entire countryside for tens of kilometers around above the dam will be drowned. The river downstream of the dam will have drastically reduced flow, to the point of partially drying out during the dry season.
In the dam itself, water level will fluctuate randomly in response to the price of electricity (more water is let through when price is high), so that within a day the level of water may differentiate tens of meters. This will destroy all shallow water vegetation (drowned one day, high and dry and exposed to the scorching sun the next) and all fishes which require shallow habitat or shallow water for breeding. Large hydroelectric dams typically have a dead zone, with virtually no plant or animal life, extending from the highest water mark to perhaps 30 - 60 meters below high water mark.

For some years after the dam is built the vast amounts of rotting vegetation (all that drowned rainforest) will support a superabundance of insect larvae, which will allow some insectivoros species to flourish, but the effect is temporary. As an aside, that rotting vegetation will release enormous amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, in case anyone is thinking hydroelectric dams at least combat global warming. In the long run the only species which will do well are pelagic species which do not require shallow water for breeding - and such species are a small minority; it is almost guaranteed that non-indigenous species (tilapia, cyprinids...) will have to be introduced to support any sizeable fishery in the dam. The vast majority of indigenous species will disappear or have their numbers drastically reduced, and mainly survive (if at all) in small tributaries.

My understanding that these fish love flow, with this dam being built will dramatically decrease it when its closed, but when the flood gates are open wont that help?

Instead of a rainy season with strong flow, and a dry season with lower flow, the flow will be erratic, with more flow when electricity prices are peaking. During the dry season flow will at times be near zero. Basically the river downstream the dam will during dry season be reduced to stagnant puddles.

The biggest problem I see here is all the toxins that are released into the water during constructions. I believe that this will have a worse effect than the actual dams them selves.

No.
Make no mistake: hydroelectric dams equal complete, wholesale, biotope destruction. There is nothing environmentally friendly about hydropower.

We can’t judge this decision unless we have all got solar panels on out roofs and use candles for light.

I disagree. We can judge this on account of Brazil intentionally ignoring and avoiding to investigate the environmental problems these dams will cause; on account of at least one of these dams - the one in Xingu - not even being profitable unless further dams are built; on account that the Brazilian government has refused to even investigate proposed other means of generating the same amount of electricity; on account that no measures have been taken to protect the continued existence of the numerous endemic species of these rivers; on account that no effort has been made to even investigate what species will be impacted, or is even present, in the area.

[racoll]

I wonder how much uproar there would be if six nuclear power stations were to be built in the amazon?

Others may disagree, but I would rather see this than the dams.