Mitigating the Negative Impacts of the Belo Monte Dam Complex

In Brazil's modern history, few public works projects have proven to be as publicly and politically divisive as the Belo Monte Dam complex. Potentially the second-largest hydroelectric dam complex in Brazil and one of the world's largest behind the Three Gorges Dam in China and the Brazilian-Paraguayan Itaipu Dam, Belo Monte has inspired widespread protests. The magnitude and nature of its impacts have led indigenous groups, environmental advocates, politicians and local activists alike to rally against the complex’s construction. The controversy, though, is not new. The project's genesis can be traced back to October 1975, when the initial inventário generated enough criticism that the plans were shelved until the 1990s, when Brazil’s economic growth and steady population growth rate of 0.9% necessitated a search for new, more sustainable energy sources.The impending social and environmental impacts of the Belo Monte Dam complex are difficult to overstate. Construction of the complex will entail diverting water from the main dam to the power plant, flooding a total area of 258 sqare miles, 150 of which are inhabited by indigenous groups such as the Juruna and Arara. In total, the dam is expected to displace at least 20,000 people, mainly from the municipalities of Altamira and Vitória do Xingu. Additionally, many other indigenous groups will suffer involuntary displacement due to impacts on one of their primary livelihoods – fishing. The Xingu River contains one of the most diverse and bountiful fish stocks in the world – nearly 600 species of fish, more than three to four times the number of species found in all of Europe. An independent expert review of the costs of the dam concluded that the proposed flow through the area of the Volta Grande means the river "will not be capable of maintaining species diversity," risking the "extinction of hundreds of species.”Another growing concern is the increasing frequency of human rights abuses and deaths related to Belo Monte’s construction. In particular, local indigenous peoples have been affected as “land invaders” such as illegal loggers, migrant workers and land speculators take over. José Batista Gonçalves Afonso, a veteran Amazon human rights lawyer, says he has seen "countless" families forced into exile for fear of being assassinated. He blames the situation on "the state's inefficiency in investigating threats and providing security." To mitigate these concerns, the Brazilian government should offer greater support to threatened indigenous communities. The creation of a special commission tasked with investigating claims of human rights abuses and more support for police and prosecutors would be a start. Establishing regular town hall-style meetings moderated by government officials – during which indigenous communities could voice their concerns – would also be a step in the right direction. If impunity remains the norm in Belo Monte’s surrounding areas, tensions between indigenous communities and “land invaders” will continue to mount and may result in further delays in construction.The issue of compensation must be addressed as well. Norte Energia, the consortium responsible for building the dam, has employed the tactic of "buying off" communities to silence critics. Specifically, the group has set aside 3.9 billion reals for mitigation and compensation payments. According to Amazon Watch, there is a direct correlation between disbursement of these funds and an increase in cultural disintegration, internal divisions, conflict, alcoholism and depression among the affected indigenous groups. The consortium’s provision of food has also had unintended consequences, discouraging indigenous groups from cultivating their own crops and leaving them dependent on handouts for survival.The Brazilian government must take greater care to provide compensation that is both forward-thinking and sensitive to the unique cultural characteristics present among these communities. Blindly throwing money at the problem will certainly lead to eventual socioeconomic deficiencies similar to those experienced by many American Indian communities living on reservations in North America. In this endeavor, the government must balance immediate, short-term interests against those with more longterm effects. And while Norte Energia has helped by constructing fish ladders, a boat-hoist to keep the Xingu River navigable, and homes for 8,000 families (including 700 living in palafitas, or wooden huts on stilts, by the flood-prone riverside in Altamira), significant investments are still needed. Additional efforts must be made to construct schools and health-care facilities, sewage connections and to provide sustainable economic opportunities.The Belo Monte Dam complex raises a host of controversial and complex issues. Economic development, while a natural and rightly sought-after phenomenon for any country, rarely comes without anthropogenic and socioeconomic effects. Balancing the needs of the few against the needs of the many is a complex undertaking, and raises numerous hard-to-tackle questions. In the case of Belo Monte, a question the Brazilian government must ask itself is whether it is doing all it can to minimize the project’s negative social, ecological, and monetary impacts. If not, it must continue to develop a mitigation strategy that incorporates input from each key stakeholder in the project, and that balances short-term gains against the longterm economic development of the country.