L46 and the Belo Monte dam

[plecoboy]

I'd like to see some photo's of Janne's work in Brazil. I think that would be interesting.

[Janne]

Part of my work is to create a breeding program, other is to enforce scientific studies before it's to late, other is to provide with correct information about these species threatened, other is to enforce IBAMA to realize what they once stated etc. Natives living at the river is really angry on everyone, dosn't matter if your are a scientist or a "smuggler" making it difficult for researchers. For everyone of these people within all these organisations illegal activities is a problem, for my self is no problem at all and I have no problem with any authoritys. And it's not just that they take 50 H. zebra in a bag and smuggle them to another country... if fishes was the only thing they smuggled in Latin america it would be a very small problem.

The morality, I can only chose between 2 standpoints: Either is all illegal trade of all animals ok "because we save them" ? or it's not ok at all, if thinking different I would not be better than the Brazilian government. If accepting that certain species from a certain area is smuggled out the more accepted will other illegal species also be for very many people... people with knowledge is limited and people without knowledge is unlimited.

Janne

[apistomaster]

Janne,

I truly commend you on the work you are doing and I fully believe that fish smugglers make it more difficult.
It is a real accomplishment that you have been able to get some concession from the Brazilian authorities to be able to do the work you are doing but their participation should be much greater and not mere confined to the few catfish species you can work on.
Brazil is not some minor 3rd world country lacking the resources to have developed a better plan to utilize the hydroelectric potential that exists in the Rio Xingu drainage. The could easily design the project in such a way as to mitigate the environmental impact of these projects just as other developed countries do.
I cannot accept any responsible planning and mitigation of the environmental impacts have been done as things stand today.
While I have not done the research I would need to do to verify this, I believe the Brazilian government is probably getting World Bank funding assistance to finance this project. If what I believe is true, then I also place blame on the world Bank for not attaching environmental protection stipulations to their funding contributions.

[Janne]

I truly commend you on the work you are doing and I fully believe that fish smugglers make it more difficult.

Not for me, for all others including the people living there... think longer, the social problems in a quite poor area where the criminality is higher than New York... or Sao Paulo.

It is a real accomplishment that you have been able to get some concession from the Brazilian authorities to be able to do the work you are doing but their participation should be much greater and not mere confined to the few catfish species you can work on.

Yes they should, but the problem is not that they don't want... the problem is the laws and the bureaucracy. My work with breeding has nothing to do with what I want them to do at Rio xingu, that is 2 different things but one of them push the other.

Brazil is not some minor 3rd world country lacking the resources to have developed a better plan to utilize the hydroelectric potential that exists in the Rio Xingu drainage. The could easily design the project in such a way as to mitigate the environmental impact of these projects just as other developed countries do.

No they are not, but like most countries in these part of the world they are selling out their own resources to foreign countries... read "USA, Europe and a small part China (that seams to like Africa better). What you mean with other countries I have no idea, are they better?

I cannot accept any responsible planning and mitigation of the environmental impacts have been done as things stand today.

Nor me either.

While I have not done the research I would need to do to verify this, I believe the Brazilian government is probably getting World Bank funding assistance to finance this project. If what I believe is true, then I also place blame on the world Bank for not attaching environmental protection stipulations to their funding contributions.

Funding, your bank, my bank and many other including some Brazilian bank's is founding, most company involved or that will be involved have their own statements and goodwill to "save the nature" and you can see that in newspapers, comercial on television etc.

The World bank has their own rules, they are not allowed to borrow out money to projects threaten the nature... quite funny.

No one really wants that Rio xingu will be dammed, not IBAMA, not SEMA and absolutely not the people that lives there, the government want... old dream I think.

Janne

[MatsP]

Just in case anyone here ISN'T a facebook friend of mine, there is a group on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5 ... 355&ref=nf

It's called "Y Ikatu Xingu campaign : Save the good waters of Xingu River".

It's not very active, but I think it's better to join this one than to add a new one... ;)

It is nowhere near the level of what Janne is doing - but it's better than to JUST sit and cry in a corner.

--
Mats

[apistomaster]

MatsP.

I received your invitation from facebook to join the Rio Xingu group and acted on it today.
I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Janne,

I am referring to Countries like my own, Canada and at least the wealthier European countries when I am including developed Countries with stronger environmental and species protection laws which are enforced when a conceived Hydroelectric project is proposed.

[Janne]

I am referring to Countries like my own, Canada and at least the wealthier European countries when I am including developed Countries with stronger environmental and species protection laws which are enforced when a conceived Hydroelectric project is proposed.

There are no differencies, to be more frank... Brazil has stronger environmental protection than these above. Maybe Canada could be compared with Brazil but absolutely not the other.

Janne

[apistomaster]

Janne,

I think we agree about the capacity Brazil needs to do more about REAL environmental protection regulations but Brazil still lacks the political will to make this a higher priority.

I have almost all the catfish I want so as long as Brazil still has liberal regulations about exporting their wild Discus at least one of my primary fish interests are not in jeopardy of becoming restricted exports. Actually I already have enough wild S. haraldi so my plans for expansion into wild Tefe or Red Spotted Green Discus this year will be from another Country, Peru, so Brazil doesn't concern me me much. Green Discus are much more demanding of water conditions than S. haraldi but they will breed given the proper care. The range of Symphysodon is vast and the populations hare in no danger unlike the plecos save for the peculiar Rio Xingu's race of yellowish S. haraldi but they are not a color form I care to try to breed. I am happy to have some Alenquers which have paired and begun their preliminary pre-spawn behaviors but it is likely that the Xingu yellow S. haraldi will also be victims of the complected projects. While not easily bred, S. haraldi are the easiest of all wild Discus species to breed. The Green Discus will be much less forgiving but still doable. I have given up on my dreams to breed Heckel Discus. They are almost never bred successfully except for hybrids with S. haraldi when their choices of mates have been restricted. I do not want any hybrid Discus anyway. I want to breed the species and local color forms in pure lines to preserve their uniqueness.
I sold my adult group of 10 adult Heckel Discus a year ago. They were my 3rd serious attempt to breed them and I have concluded that they are too difficult to breed to warrant further investment of my time and resources.

I never put all my eggs into the Brazilian Pleco basket. My relationship with wild Discus breeding goes back over 4 decades.
My involvement with the small Brazilian plecos represents only 6 of those years. I made a lot of progress with the few Loricaridae species projects which I took on but the mysteries surrounding wild Discus breeding are more complicated than those necessary to learn when it comes to breeding small Brazilian Pleco species.

I also try to keep a few core species of popular Apistogramma species going. My decision to diversify helps protect me somewhat from the capricious nature of Pleco market demand.

[Janne]

I think we agree about the capacity Brazil needs to do more about REAL environmental protection regulations but Brazil still lacks the political will to make this a higher priority.

Do you compare with USA?

Janne

[Birger]

Or Canada...we put on a good front but take a walk through the oil sands projects or some of our own hydro electric projects yipes they are scary... big money! I find it hard to criticize with these things going on. We (Canada) are no different. This is global.

[apistomaster]

Both Canada and the USA has plenty of examples of poor environmental management. But I am in the Pacific NW where Salmon and Sea Run Steelhead populations are under Federal Court orders to comply with the regulations meant to protect them even if it comes with other costs which are high to commercial agriculture, commercial fisheries, manufacturing or shipping interests. In British Columbia, Canada, they follow similarly stringent environmental regulations mainly in place to protect native populations of Salmonids but many other animals and plants which are determined to be endangered by commercial or governmental agencies(RE:Army Corp of Engineers) interests have prevailed over those interests.

Both regions are centers for the production of aluminum, the same purpose as the Belo Monte Hydroelectric projects, but we somehow manage to have both. It wasn't always this way and for that reason much damage has been done and major mitigation projects were emplaced. Since we are talking about fish, here, all supplemental hatchery fish have their adipose fins clipped prior to release. Therefore, when a fin clipped fish is caught it may be kept. If the adipose is present that means it is a native wild fish and those must be released. There has been an on-going discussion about removing some Hydroelectric Dams but for the most part those are still in the legal/political arenas but some dams on some rivers on the west side of the Cascade Mountain Range have been removed from The coastal states of WA, OR and CA. Getting any dam removed is a big deal and is a difficult thing to accomplish but it and has happened.

I am not as well informed about the Oil Shale extraction projects in Canada but in the USA they have been quite successfully hampered,reduced in scope or shut down through various court and administrative restrictions which simply imposed conditions so onerous and expensive to cause many operations to terminate.

[Mike_Noren]

Not really, but instead to sit on my ass and complain I do something.

2004 when Ibama put H. zebra on the endangered list they also stated that within 4 years a conservation program would be started for this part of Rio xingu classified as Nature reserve. They have not done this and now I fight with the court here in Brazil to enforce to do what they have said should have been done, I work in corporation with the federal university, the development department in Para and SEMA the nature department in Para together with a private company because someone has to put up some money too, making able to create a project for these species in one way or another

That is excellent Janne and I commend you on it.

Mike,
You make a complex question easy and if everything was so easy I would be very happy, you know other countries is no better either... there are politic, laws, regulations both federal and local and bureaucracy like elsewhere in the world.

I don't think it's very complex. All you had to say to answer my questions was "Poaching is not the problem in itself, the problem is the government and the fact that they have difficulty telling our licensed captive breeding programme from unlicensed poachers."

Either is all illegal trade of all animals ok "because we save them" ? or it's not ok at all, if thinking different I would not be better than the Brazilian government.

From a legal viewpoint that is true, and especially from the viewpoint of someone setting up a local captive breeding facility and is being hassled by authorities, but from a conservation viewpoint it is not. From a conservation viewpoint trade in species from the Big Bend is either completely irrelevant, regardless of whether it is legal or not, as the trade is not even a contributing factor in their very likely demise, or even a good thing, as it raises awareness that these species exist and improves the chances that they'll at least be maintained in captivity.

As for the World Bank and their environmental record, it seems they rely on hiring "sympathetic" consultants for the environmental impact assessment, exactly like the Xingu consortium did, allowing them to pretend that their projects are enviromentally friendly. I recommend this article written by Tyson Roberts:
http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/s ... -hydropowe

[apistomaster]

"Fluvacide".
I like that term. Pretty much sums up all that is going on in the drainage we've been discussing.

[Jools]

It should not fall to an under supported individual from another country.

It shouldn't but it has. Remember, John Muir was a Scotsman.

Jools

[Jools]

I am referring to Countries like my own, Canada and at least the wealthier European countries when I am including developed Countries with stronger environmental and species protection laws which are enforced when a conceived Hydroelectric project is proposed.

Larry,

You might want to look up Scotland's recently approved mega pylons plan. Not many species affected here as we managed to wipe most of them out when we deforested 80% of Scotland 100's of years ago.

Jools

[Mike_Noren]

"Fluvicide".
I like that term. Pretty much sums up all that is going on in the drainage we've been discussing.

Agreed, it's an excellent article, and the parallels between that project and the Xingu project are striking. Most of the false claims Roberts cover in his little factboxes ("no migrating fish in tropical rivers", "improved fisheries in the dammed area", "mitigation efforts will retain diversity" etc etc) are also present in the Xingu discussion (and EIA).

@jools: Everything which lives in northern europe are, due to the ice age, species which has managed to spread there in the last few thousand years, meaning they're all opportunists with vast distributions. Also the scouring of the ice means there's very little sedimentation. The situation is completely different in ancient tropical rivers, and comparing dams in northern europe to dams in the tropics is comparing apples to oranges. There is a nice passage about that in the Roberts article I posted.

[Shane]

There are no differencies, to be more frank... Brazil has stronger environmental protection than these above. Maybe Canada could be compared with Brazil but absolutely not the other.

No differences? Janne, I am not sure where you are going with this. There is a big difference between looking at the laws a country has on the books and how, or even if, they are actually enforced. Please point out to me the Canadian (or US or European for that matter) city that matches Rio de Janeiro in terms of its pollution index. Compare Canada's, the US', or European highly regulated logging industries to the free for all deforestization that is taking place in Brazil.
I think this quote sums it up,
"Despite favorable laws, promising institutional arrangements, and external funding, the government has not, on the whole, been effective in controlling damage to the environment. This failure is only in small measure because of the opposition of anti-environmental groups. In greater part, it can be attributed to the traditional separation between official rhetoric and actual practice in Brazil."
http://countrystudies.us/brazil/25.htm

"Between 2002 and 2006, an area of the Amazon Rainforest equivalent in size to the State of South Carolina was completely deforested for the purposes of raising cattle and woodlogging. By 2020, at least 50% of the species resident in Brazil may become extinct."
Wikipedia

You think 50% of Canada's (or the US or European) species will be extinct before 2020? Comparing Brazil's protection of its natural resources, in practice not on paper, to developed countries is ridiculous. Brazil is equally as famous for its incredible biodiversity as it is for destroying that biodiversity at the fastest speeds ever witnessed.

-Shane

[Janne]

I don't think it's very complex. All you had to say to answer my questions was "Poaching is not the problem in itself, the problem is the government and the fact that they have difficulty telling our licensed captive breeding programme from unlicensed poachers."

The government fund parts of the projects, the problem is the law that need to be changed becuse it prevent private interest to corporate in any kind of conservation/breeding projects... and to change a law is complicated. The conservation program and the fact that the big bend should be classified as Nature reserve by IBAMA 2004 has to be proven legally in the court, If IBAMA not can be forced to act they must change the law.

No differences? Janne, I am not sure where you are going with this. There is a big difference between looking at the laws a country has on the books and how, or even if, they are actually enforced.

The difference is that in the Latin american countries they are more primitive and in our countries we just make things in a nicer way so it not looks so bad, the result is often the same.

Compare Canada's, the US', or European highly regulated logging industries to the free for all deforestization that is taking place in Brazil.

Brazil has more untouched forest than all these countries together (I don't know if I should include Canada), Sweden and probably the whole Europe has only 1% untouched forest, USA, I don't have the number in my head but it is not somany percent untouched forest.

"Despite favorable laws, promising institutional arrangements, and external funding, the government has not, on the whole, been effective in controlling damage to the environment. This failure is only in small measure because of the opposition of anti-environmental groups. In greater part, it can be attributed to the traditional separation between official rhetoric and actual practice in Brazil."
http://countrystudies.us/brazil/25.htm
"Between 2002 and 2006, an area of the Amazon Rainforest equivalent in size to the State of South Carolina was completely deforested for the purposes of raising cattle and woodlogging. By 2020, at least 50% of the species resident in Brazil may become extinct."
Wikipedia

Agree.

Janne

[Bas Pels]

Compare Canada's, the US', or European highly regulated logging industries to the free for all deforestization that is taking place in Brazil.

Brazil has more untouched forest than all these countries together (I don't know if I should include Canada), Sweden and probably the whole Europe has only 1% untouched forest, USA, I don't have the number in my head but it is not somany percent untouched forest.

The situation in northern Europe (Sweden, Norway, Finland) might be better, but basically you will be right. I don't think we have any place in NL not turned 10 times or more in the last 1000 years

But what I'm thinking in matters like this is, please, Brasil, don't make the errors Europeans made

We spend a lot, an awfull lot, of money to keep the last bits we have, to go to better places then our own

The amazon forest is an unmapped teasure room, and it is a shame to burn it down, or as the Xingu dam will do, float it

[apistomaster]

The USA and Canada(and I am most familiar with British Columbia) made many serious mistakes managing their forests and watersheds in the past. It was only in the late 1960's that the USA enacted strong laws like the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act. They were all opposed vehemently in the beginning but are now enforced vigorously.

One could argue a country as developed and developing as Brazil should be cut some slack but one could also argue that the body of evidence from the experience of the USA and European Countries took time accumulate but eventually, steps to begin correcting mistakes were taken. Brazil could be given it's chance to learn for themselves. However, to do that seems to me to put it bluntly, stupid. Brazil is in a good position to take into account the lessons learned elsewhere and can design policies which head off the most egregious errors made by other countries in the industrial age now when so much scientific information has become available.
Brazil is in a unique position in history and geography and is by default, a center of biodiversity unmatched by any other country in the world.
I believe it is incumbent on their government to be more responsible since what happens in Amazonia can have unintended consequences which may affect much of the planet. Like it or not they are the controlling stewards of the Amazonian Rainforest.
Reforestation of a rainforest is a much more complicated process than reforestation of a boreal, temperate zone forest. And one cannot separate the waters from the trees in an ecosystem that is as complex as that of Amazonia.

To put it another way, as someone else wrote in a related thread, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Janne]

But what I'm thinking in matters like this is, please, Brasil, don't make the errors Europeans made

And stop compare the rest of the world with Brazil, no one benefits from destructive criticism from foreign countries that already have devastated their own countries, it doesn't helps to say that one type of forest is ok to devastate and another is not... use constructive criticism instead.

Janne

[apistomaster]

But what I'm thinking in matters like this is, please, Brasil, don't make the errors Europeans made

And stop compare the rest of the world with Brazil, no one benefits from destructive criticism from foreign countries that already have devastated their own countries, it doesn't helps to say that one type of forest is ok to devastate and another is not... use constructive criticism instead.

Janne

We could substitute any country in the world at a similar state of development and wealth but the criticisms would still be valid.
This is no longer a planet where we can afford not to criticize any country's environmental policies which are extremely harmful.
Brazil doesn't deserve any less or more criticism than any other country which acts without regard to having meaningful conservation laws and enforcement. We could just as easily be beating up the countries in the Mekong River system which are also building hydroelectric projects which will guarantee the extinction of it's unique giant catfish. It has become a time when everything has global ramifications.

[Janne]

We could substitute any country in the world at a similar state of development and wealth but the criticisms would still be valid. This is no longer a planet where we can afford not to criticize any country's environmental policies which are extremely harmful. Brazil doesn't deserve any less or more criticism than any other country which acts without regard to having meaningful conservation laws and enforcement. We could just as easily be beating up the countries in the Mekong River system which are also building hydroelectric projects which will guarantee the extinction of it's unique giant catfish. It has become a time when everything has global ramifications.

Ok, let me put it like this instead: have all this criticism had any success concerning the Belo Monte project? Is it better to make something constructive when there are some time left to do something at all? Everyone knows how destructive we are as humans... all over the world we destroy a part of the nature every day, sitting on a forum and only discuss how bad everyone else are is not so constructive in my world. Discuss something you can do to help... to make a difference etc. that is constructive.

Janne

[apistomaster]

I guess we could lobby our Congressmen and the president to consider invading Brazil next instead of Iran.
Only a few non-Brazilians are being allowed to be in your position, Janne, where you are actually there doing what you are allowed.
The rest of us can only practice our rhetorical skills from a distance.
The only options we have from the outside is figure out ways to get the fish out of harms way but that topic is verboten here.

[Mike_Noren]

Ok, let me put it like this instead: have all this criticism had any success concerning the Belo Monte project?

Brazil is presently not getting any criticism at all from europe simply because it is completely unknown to the rank and file members of the environmental organizations here that some 70 dams are planned in the amazon, that about 1/3rd of the amazon will be converted to soy bean plantation, or what all of this means in terms of lost species. The reason they haven't heard about it is partly the myopic focus on global warming, but also because organizations like WWF apparently feel that foreign pressure will only strengthen the resolve of the brazilian government.

So the question actually is: has the LACK of international pressure had any success concerning the Belo Monte dam?

It's pretty obvious the answer to that question is a resounding 'no'.

[Janne]

The only options we have from the outside is figure out ways to get the fish out of harms way but that topic is verboten here.

You missunderstand, it's not forbidden to become active in organisations working against Brazilian development plans or other countries devastating projects, support different NGO's, local organisations that have really difficult to finance their work against governments etc. Everything that helps to prevent or make better within these countries bad things happens... and to support illegal acting like smuggling out animals is not to support them. Everyone can be active in their own way and possibility to do something.

Brazil is presently not getting any criticism at all from europe simply because it is completely unknown to the rank and file members of the environmental organizations here that some 70 dams are planned in the amazon, that about 1/3rd of the amazon will be converted to soy bean plantation, or what all of this means in terms of lost species.

It's not unknown, all the worlds NGO's are active here in Brazil and knows all about the Brazilian plans for the Amazonas.

But, why do you think there are no pressure from foreign countries authorities? If Brazilian go ahead with their plans means a lot of money and income for our "modern countries"... big business is more important than the environment.

The reason they haven't heard about it is partly the myopic focus on global warming, but also because organizations like WWF apparently feel that foreign pressure will only strengthen the resolve of the brazilian government.

This I agree with some parts, not that they not heard about it but that part about focus... focus on global warming have uptaken to much of their time and money and other problems have been put aside.

Janne

[Mike_Noren]

It's not unknown, all the worlds NGO's are active here in Brazil and knows all about the Brazilian plans for the Amazonas.

Yes, it still is unknown to the public and the local members here in europe. A year ago when I started mailing every organization I could think of, absolutely no one knew anything and I got only replies along the lines of "thank you for your concern but what the hell are you talking about". Including from the WWF, which I knew were active in Brazil.

focus on global warming have uptaken to much of their time and money and other problems have been put aside.

The one good thing about the Copenhagen fiasco is that it once again is possible to care about other issues than global warming.
It is only now, this month, that some news about the projects in the amazon have started reaching the public here. Whether that will translate into pressure remains to be seen.

[Janne]

Yes, it still is unknown to the public and the local members here in europe. A year ago when I started mailing every organization I could think of, absolutely no one knew anything and I got only replies along the lines of "thank you for your concern but what the hell are you talking about". Including from the WWF, which I knew were active in Brazil.

You are probably right, you asked me to publish an article in a Swedish newspaper at that time, they may had printed the article but next day everything would be forgotten and not interesting anymore... they prefer to write about what celibrities are doing on their freetime and how the dress, their makeup etc. and no one criticize them for publish such crap when it's so many other important things to write about happens in this world.

WWF must be completely aware of what is happening here, they have been knowing this at least 20 years now... they maybe not have the total biodiversity clear and think it's just a few fishes and some people to move, I don't know because so far none of them have had any success here. The one that have had success to delay so many projects in Brazil is IBAMA, but even for them life is not easy...

Why don't NGO's like WWF, International Rivers or CI for example send out a bulletine to the world press?
Can we suspect other interest behind the silence?

Janne

[apistomaster]

Janne,

You are very right about the large wildlife NGO and their cousins from Greenpeace to all the others not playing any significant role in attempting to at least bring the subject project and others like have failed to help raise the world's public conscience to become aware of the plans to construct many hydroelectric projects throughout Amazonia.
Sometimes the importance of the Amazon rain forest is given more credit for the stabilization of the climate and contributing to using up our excess CO2 and producing O2 than it actually does but they also seem much slower to attempt to save that rain forest than they are to pit their small Zodiacs against Japanese whaling ships.

The UN isn't much help either. It often seems like the status quo of the 196 or so sovereign nations amount to the Balkanization of the planet where what is really needed is a unified approach to managing the planet as a whole. I think we(as in the collective earth's inhabitants) need to have a central planetary government made up of the various states as Canada is one nation of individual provinces, the USA is a a group of 50 States and the EU is made up of its various member countries.
It will never happen in my lifetime but few people understand that the biosphere is made up of a layer hardly thicker than the water on one's body just after turning off the shower. No body politic is prepared to think globally about the global problems of the exceedingly thin veneer of life on the earth.
Our problems are so much more than just the projects to be built in the Rio Xingu drainage. We, myself included allow, ourselves to take our parochial interests as being so important but this piecemeal approach to managing global threats to our biosphere aren't nearly as high on any agenda as they should be.
We will have so much recorded long after it has become too late to save so much which needs to be saved.

[Shane]

We could substitute any country in the world at a similar state of development and wealth but the criticisms would still be valid.
This is no longer a planet where we can afford not to criticize any country's environmental policies which are extremely harmful.
Brazil doesn't deserve any less or more criticism than any other country which acts without regard to having meaningful conservation laws and enforcement. We could just as easily be beating up the countries in the Mekong River system which are also building hydroelectric projects which will guarantee the extinction of it's unique giant catfish. It has become a time when everything has global ramifications.

Very well said! And yes, if we were on a cichlid forum everyone would be beating up Uganda for their (non)management of Lake Victoria. The extinction of the ngege (small cichlids) has been noted as "the greatest mass extinction of vertebrates in recorded human history." Let that thought sink in a bit...

Environmental concerns, other than global warming, just are not getting a lot of play right now and very, very few aid programs address the environment. Donor countries, in Africa especially, are focused on more immediate life and death concerns. Namely food and HIV/AIDS. The US is providing $360 million a year in Uganda to treat Ugandans with HIV/AIDS. Not a dollar of funding, to my knowledge, is provided to help protect the lake.

-Shane