TRF-1 invalida licença de Belo Monte e desembargador fala em ditadura do governo
Relator Souza Prudente afirma que artigos da Constituição Federal e Convenção 169 não foram cumpridos
Publicado em 14 de agosto de 2012
Por Renato Santana, do CIMI - Os desembargadores da 5ª Turma do Tribunal Regional Federal da 1ª Região (TRF-1), com sede em Brasília, invalidaram, por unanimidade, a licença prévia e de instalação da Usina Hidrelétrica de Belo Monte, no Pará. As obras, portanto, devem ser suspensas.
A notificação deverá chegar para o consórcio Norte Energia, construtor da usina, nas próximas horas e para cada dia de não cumprimento da decisão do TRF-1, a multa estipulada é de R$ 500 mil. O consórcio poderá recorrer da sentença no Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF).
Conforme o relator, desembargador Antônio de Souza Prudente, a determinação da consulta prévia e informada – conforme manda a Constituição Federal e a Convenção 169 da Organização Internacional do Trabalho (OIT) – não foi realizada pelo Congresso Nacional.
“A consulta deve ser prévia, não póstuma. Não podemos aceitar essa ditadura que vemos no Brasil. Faz a obra e pergunta depois. As comunidades indígenas precisam ser ouvidas e respeitadas”, diz o desembargador Souza Prudente durante entrevista coletiva nas dependências do TRF-1.
Sobre a alegação do governo federal de que as oitivas foram feitas, Souza Prudente afirma que a prerrogativa das consultas é do Congresso Nacional, que deveria tê-las realizado antes de votar o decreto legislativo 788, que autorizou o Executivo a construir Belo Monte.
“Não aconteceu isso. A consulta não é mera formalidade: a opinião dos indígenas deveria ser levada em consideração na decisão dos parlamentares. O Congresso só pode autorizar a obra se os indígenas quiserem”, destaca o desembargador, citando o jurista Dalmo Dallari, os artigos da Constituição e da Convenção 169 da Organização Internacional do Trabalho (OIT).
Souza Prudente acrescenta que o Congresso não pode delegar a terceiros a consulta. Desse modo, as realizadas pelo Ibama, Funai e demais órgãos não são válidas. De acordo com o desembargador, tais consultas, inclusive, se limitaram a comunicar a realização do empreendimento. O desembargador diz não ver isenção em consultas feitas por órgãos do governo federal, principal interessado pela obra.
“Existem muitas outras Ações Civis Públicas [contra o processo de construção de Belo Monte] e isso mostra o quanto de erros existe na execução dessa obra. Não podemos aceitar que os indígenas não sejam escutados. Essa ditadura é inadmissível”, frisa o desembargador.
Impactos
Souza Prudente justificou sua posição citando recente pronunciamento do presidente do STF, Carlos Ayres Britto, durante votação da nulidade de títulos dos ocupantes não-índios da Terra Indígena Pataxó Hã-Hã-Hãe, no sul da Bahia: “A terra para o índio é mística, não é uma propriedade que se vende ou troca”.
Com a colocação, o desembargador retornou à Constituição e à Convenção 169 para dizer que ambas defendem essa forma de entender a terra presente no “meio ambiente cultural” dos povos indígenas. “Se este meio ambiente cultural será impactado, os indígenas devem ser ouvidos”, destaca Souza Prudente, lembrando que o ministro do STF Celso de Melo já tinha levado para a Suprema Corte do país a defesa constitucional do meio ambiente cultural.
O governo federal não foi poupado na fala do relator. Para ele, as terras indígenas não foram demarcadas e por isso não é possível saber o tamanho do impacto que a UHE Belo Monte terá. Além disso, qualquer alteração no dito meio ambiente cultural dos indígenas deve ser levada em consideração.
Souza Prudente parafraseou o poeta Vinícius de Morais ao responder perguntas relativas às formas de recorrer que a defesa do consórcio – a Advocacia Geral da União (AGU) – poderá optar: “Espero que os ministros do STF, caso vá para lá, validem a decisão do TRF-1, mas que a justiça seja eterna enquanto dure”.
Belo Monte Dam Suspended by Brazilian Appeals Court
Project was illegally authorized by Congress without prior consultations
with indigenous tribes, judges say
Altamira, Brazil:
A high-level court yesterday suspended construction of the controversial Belo Monte dam project on the Amazon’s Xingu River, citing overwhelming evidence that indigenous people had not been properly consulted prior to government approval of the project.
A group of judges from Brazil's Regional Federal Tribunal (TRF1) upheld an earlier decision that declared the Brazilian Congress’s authorization of the project in 2005 to be illegal. The decision concludes that the Brazilian Constitution and ILO Convention 169, to which Brazil is party, require that Congress can only authorize the use of water resources for hydroelectric projects after an independent assessment of environmental impacts and subsequent consultations with affected indigenous peoples.
The ruling means that Brazilian Congress will have to correct its previous error by organizing consultations on the project’s impacts with affected indigenous peoples of the Xingu River, especially the Juruna, Arara and Xikrin tribes. Their opinions should be considered in a Congressional decision on whether to authorize Belo Monte, and in the meantime the project consortium has been ordered to suspend construction. Project consortium Norte Energia, S.A, led by the parastatal energy company Eletrobras, faces a daily fine of R$500,000, or about US$250,000, if it does not comply with the suspension. The dam consortium is expected to appeal the decision in the Brazilian Supreme Court.
“The court’s decision highlights the urgent need for the Brazilian government and Congress to respect the federal constitution and international agreements on prior consultations with indigenous peoples regarding projects that put their livelihoods and territories at risk. Human rights and environmental protection cannot be subordinated to narrow business interests” stated Federal Judge Souza Prudente, who authored the ruling.
“This latest court ruling vindicates what indigenous people, human rights activists and the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office have been demanding all along. We hope that President Dilma’s Attorney General and the head judge of the federal court (TRF1) will not try to subvert this important decision, as they have done in similar situations in the past,” said Brent Millikan of International Rivers, based in Brasilia.
“This decision reinforces the request made by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in April 2011 to suspend the project due to lack of consultations with indigenous communities. We hope that Norte Energia and the government comply with this decision and respect the rights of indigenous communities,” said Joelson Cavalcante of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), an organization giving legal support to affected communities.
The Brazilian Congress authorized construction of Belo Monte seven years ago without an environmental impact assessment (EIA). A subsequent study - produced by state-owned energy company Eletrobras and three of Brazil’s largest construction companies (Camargo Correa, Andrade Gutierrez, and Odebrecht) - was widely criticized for underestimating socio-environmental impacts, especially on indigenous peoples and other traditional communities living downstream from the huge dam that would divert 80% of the Xingu’s natural flow. The EIA was approved by Brazil’s federal environmental agency (IBAMA) in February 2010 under intense political pressure and over the objections of the agency's own technical staff.
With dam construction racing ahead since June 2011, many of Belo Monte’s forewarned social and environmental consequences are proving real. As a result, indigenous people have become more vocal in their opposition to Belo Monte.
During the United Nations' Rio+20 conference in June, indigenous leaders launched a 21- day occupation of the dam site, protesting against the growing impacts of the project and broken promises by dam-builders. Two weeks later, indigenous communities detained three Norte Energia engineers on tribal lands. Both protests demanded suspension of the project due to non-compliance of mitigation requirementes. Last month, the Federal Public Prosecutors’ Office filed a lawsuit calling for suspension of the Belo Monte’s installation license, given widespread non-compliance with conditions of the project’s environmental licenses. Given this contentious and convoluted history, the long overdue process of consultations with indigenous peoples on Belo Monte is not likely to produce a positive verdict on Belo Monte, from the point of view of indigenous peoples.
Similar conflicts over violations of indigenous rights by dam projects are emerging elsewhere in the Brazilian Amazon. Last week, in another landmark decision led by judge Souza Prudente, a group of judges from the TRF1 , the same court ordered the immediate suspension of one of five large dams planned for the Teles Pires river, a major tributary of the Tapajos river, noting a lack of prior and informed consultations with the Kayabi, Apiakás and Munduruku indigenous peoples affected by the project.
According to Souza Prudente, "the aggression against indigenous peoples in the case of the Teles Pires dam has been even more violent than in Belo Monte. A political decision to proceed with the construction of five large dams along the Teles Pires river was made by the Ministry of Mines and Energy with no effective analysis of impacts on the livelihoods and territories of indigenous peoples. The Sete Quedas rapids on the Teles Pires river are considered sacred by indigenous peoples and are vital for the reproduction of fish that are a staple of their diets. Yet none of this was taken into account in the basin inventory and environmental impact studies. Moreover, the government and Congress simply ignored their obligations to ensure prior and informed consultations with indigenous peoples, as determined by the Federal Constitution and ILO Convention 169".
Late yesterday, the President of the TRF1 announced his intention to overturn the decision of Souza Prudente and other federal judges regarding the Teles Pires hydroproject, marking a growing crisis within Brazil’s judiciary system over the Dilma Rousseff administration’s ambitious dam-building plans in the Amazon.
