IBAMA admits extinctions Belo Monte

Discussion on just about any fish related topic!
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 2870
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 9:11 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

IBAMA admits extinctions Belo Monte

Post by Lisachromis » Wed May 22, 2013 6:29 pm

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ambi ... 5536.shtml

Translation per google below:
IBAMA admits extinctions Belo Monte

the Report Location

"Four or five fish species have the potential to extinguish, but we assume that risk. For the whole of the Amazon, would do much more harm to build 25 power plants than the hydroelectric plant of Belo Monte," says the biologist Antonio Hernandes, IBAMA.

Coordinator electricity infrastructure of the environmental agency, Hernandez told the Leaf in response to criticism by a group of ichthyologists, fish biologists, the environmental impact study that made ​​possible the subsequent licensing and plant auction.

Among other problems, these scientists point to malpractice in the identification of species native to the stretch of the Xingu River that receive the plant.

The animals have been erroneously equated the fish that exist only in other watersheds. Underestimates Thus, the presence of species in Xingú have not gained scientific name.

Also complain that there was negligence on the record of specimens in museums, which can disrupt the study of species diversity when their habitat is altered or even gone. And they claim that the actual number of fish at risk of disappearing can be much larger than four or five.

IBAMA, however, disagrees.

"Critical Analysis"

The ichthyologists sign a chapter of a critical analysis of the environmental impact study for Belo Monte. Among them is Paul Buckup, the National Museum of UFRJ (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro).

"From my point of view, the main problem is that you can not check the IDs of fish, which is critical in a fauna in which almost half of the species have not been described.'s Like acquit or convict a person without presenting material evidence the crime, "he says.

Buckup remember that number the specimens, and associate them accurately to the site where they were collected, is the "basic premise accepted by scientists" for studies on biodiversity. Hernandes, IBAMA says that the material "was not thrown away," having been filed, according to him, the Emilio Goeldi Museum of Pará in Belém

"It's a minor problem. There are things more severe impact study, because copies sent here to the museum," says Flavio Cesar Thadeo of Lima, the Museum of Zoology researcher at USP who also participated in the analysis.

A list of 14 species recorded in the study of the plant, for example, five would actually animals that not occur in the Amazon have been recorded in places as far away as Bahia, Uruguay and Argentina. The other place outside of the Xingu basin, raising strong suspicions of misidentification.

For Lima, one of the most serious problems is that the impact study does not call attention to two species already included in the national list of species at risk of extinction, pacu-capybara and charismatic husky-zebra, success among hobbyists (read text below).

"They only exist in the Volta Grande do Xingu," says ichthyologist, referring to the area that will be affected by the plant. Hernandes replies: "We do not know if these species are only really there."

For the official IBAMA, it is likely that "90% of the species' only the Volta Grande are in similar environments in Iriri, which are protected as a counterpart to the impact of Belo Monte.

Is not what the researchers say. "I do not know which size of our ignorance, but I know she is pretty big," says Lima. "We have a program of survey of the species prior to any work in the next three or four years, then they will try to prove it," says Hernandez.

Post Reply

Return to “General Fish Topics”