Transposition of the São Francisco River – The Amazon
1.1– Transposition of the São Francisco River – the imposition of the Project on the country, in disregard of environmental licensing, of the involvement of society, of the basin states, and the Basin Committee. It refuses to discuss the impact of the project on Minas Gerais and to consider less environmentally disruptive and safer alternatives for supplying water to the Northeast. It refuses to respond to the numerous inquiries submitted by various universities and institutions, making it clear that it is a political matter, without technical foundation.– The Amazon – in terms of risk for the Planet, the destruction of the Amazon is so serious, that it can only be compared with the Greenhouse Effect. The lack of interest in the protection and good use of its natural resources in the country on the part of the Lula Government was demonstrated by the deforestation of 26,000 km2 of forest, between 2003 and 2004. Its attitude provided an opportunity to strengthen calls for the ending of Brazilian sovereignty over the Amazon. The destruction of the forest represents the extinction of vegetable and animal species unknown to science and increases the chances of Brazil’s joining the group of countries most responsible for the Greenhouse Effect, alongside the US.
2nd Copasa
Sewage treatment – Incentive and omission in the canalization of streams
2.1 – Sewage treatment – according to statistics provided by Copasa, the company has a concession to collect sewage in only 10% of the districts where the concession has a water supply, which demonstrates the low priority given to the issue. In the areas where it has a concession, it advises that it treats only 32% of the sewage collected, which makes even clearer the lack of priority given to the question.Historically the company has prioritized the exploitation of water supplies, which is economically profitable, without any clear policy, timescales or targets for the treatment of sewage. Monitoring of the quality of the water in Minas Gerais shows the presence of extremely high levels of bacteria.
2.2 – Incentive and omission in the process of canalization of streams - Copasa financed 75% of the cost of local council works on the canalization of streams, an environmentally incorrect measure, abandoned in countries with an advanced sense of environmental responsibility, which excludes urban streams, degrading them even further. The company claims that the canalization measure was adopted by the councils and Copam which grants the environmental license.This argument is unacceptable, inasmuch as those responsible for financing an undertaking are also responsible for what happens to the money, principally when this is public money. In addition to this, Copasa is part of Copam, the body which grants the licenses and in this Forum it could clearly assume a position contrary to canalization, which it has not done.The situation is even worse, because in Neves, for example, the greater part of the stream was canalized without an environmental license and in Vespasiano the same thing happened with various tributaries of the Sujo stream.
3rd Frigorífico Norte de Minas (Grupo Salermo)
Pollution of the Mucuri River and contamination of underground soil and waterBased in Carlos Chagas, the company never fulfilled its environmental commitments to Copam and continued to pump industrial and domestic waster of a highly polluting nature into the Mucuri river. It has similarly never assumed responsibility for the correct disposal of its solid effluents. The company is currently paralyzed, but the installations were rented out and the Group continues to operate. It also appeared on the Dirty List of 2004. 4th and 5th Sementes Van Ass e Agrosun / Fazenda São Geraldo
Water pollution and contamination of soil.
The excessive and indiscriminate use of agrochemicals and fertilizers in the state and the historic indifference of the agricultural sector to the correct and responsible use of natural resources, are represented in the Dirty List of 2005 by these two companies. Situated in the Uberabinha river basin, which supplies Uberlandia, the two companies occupy an area of over 2,000 hectares and do not have an environmental license, discharging their liquid waste into the river basin. They carry out their work in meadowland in the Triângulo Mineiro, where the “covoais” are found, an ecosystem which, according to studies by the Federal University of Uberlandia, occurs only in this region.
Included due to the Usina de Barra Grande, constructed on the Pelotas river, on the border of the states of Sta. Catarina and Paraná. The company responsible for the Eia-Rima, Engevix, reduced the area of primary forest cover from 2,077 hectares to 702 hectares. It treated an area of forest in an advanced state of recovery as if it were scrub, reducing it from 2,158 hectares to 860 hectares and an area of forest in a medium and initial stage of growth was treated like scrubland, and reduced from 2,415 to 830 hectares. In addition to this, it failed to mention the presence of natural fields present in an area of 1,000 hectares. It omitted to cite the presence of a rare fragment of pine tree forest with a high degree of genetic biodiversity. All these factors will probably lead to the projects becoming unviable.A judicial decision, recently overruled, prevented the closure of the locks, which, however, could occur at any moment, as the justification for the decision was the same as it has always been: you cannot render unviable a project which has already cost millions of reais. It thus represents a “consummated policy”, and one more environmental crime against the country.As is widely known to the public, due to disrespect for the environmental laws and the seriousness of the issue, Baesa was included as one the of the highlights of the Dirty List of 2005.
