Despite their disruption, can dams help the organisation work towards ending poverty while keeping carbon emissions down?

* Howard Schneider for the Washington Post
* Guardian Weekly, Tuesday 14 May 2013

The World Bank is making a major push to develop large-scale hydropower, something it had all but abandoned a decade ago but now sees as crucial to resolving the tension between economic development and the drive to tame carbon use.

Major hydropower projects in Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia, Nepal and elsewhere  all of a scale dubbed “transformational” to the regions involved  are part of the bank’s fundraising drive among wealthy nations. Bank lending for hydropower has scaled up in recent years, and officials expect the trend to continue.

Such projects were shunned in the 1990s, in part because they can be disruptive to communities and ecosystems. But the World Bank is opening the taps for dams and related infrastructure as its president, Jim Yong Kim, tries to resolve a quandary at the bank’s core: how to eliminate poverty while adding as little as possible to carbon emissions.

“Large hydro is a very big part of the solution for Africa and south Asia and south-east Asia … I fundamentally believe we have to be involved,” said Rachel Kyte, the bank’s vice-president for sustainable development and an influential voice among Kim’s top staff members. The earlier move out of hydro “was the wrong message … That was then. This is now. We are back.”

Indigenous Himba protest against Orokawe dam and human rights violations, 2013 (Photo © Earth Peoples)

It is a controversial stance. The bank backed out of large-scale hydropower because of the steep trade-offs involved. Big dams produce lots of cheap, clean electricity, but they often uproot villages and destroy the livelihoods of the people the institution is supposed to help. A 2009 World Bank review of hydropower noted the “overwhelming environmental and social risks” that had to be addressed but also concluded that Africa and Asia’s vast and largely undeveloped hydropower potential was key to providing dependable electricity to the hundreds of millions of people who remain without it.

“What’s the one issue that’s holding back development in the poorest countries? It’s energy. There’s just no question,” Kim said in an interview.

Advocacy groups remain sceptical, arguing that large projects, such as Congo’s long-debated network of dams around Inga Falls, may be of more benefit to mining companies or industries in neighbouring countries than poor communities.

“It is the old idea of a silver bullet that can modernise whole economies,” said Peter Bosshard, policy director of International Rivers, a group that has organised opposition to the bank’s evolving hydro policy and argued for smaller projects designed around communities rather than mega-dams meant to export power throughout a region.

“Turning back to hydro is being anything but a progressive climate bank,” said Justin Guay, a Sierra Club spokesman on climate and energy issues. “There needs to be a clear shift from large, centralised projects.”

The major nations that support the World Bank, however, have been pushing it to identify such projects  complex undertakings that might happen only if an international organisation is involved in sorting out the financing, overseeing the performance and navigating the politics.

The move toward big hydro comes amid Kim’s stark warning that global warming will leave the next generation with an “unrecognisable planet”. That dire prediction, however, has left him struggling for how best to respond and frustrated by some of the bank’s inherent limitations.

In his speeches, Kim talks passionately about the bank’s ability to “catalyse” and “leverage” the world to action by mobilising money and ideas, and he says he is hunting for ideas “equal to the challenge” of curbing carbon use. He has criticised the “small bore” thinking he says has hobbled progress on the issue.

However, the bank remains in the business of financing traditional fossil-fuel plants, including those that use the dirtiest form of coal, as well as cleaner but carbon-based natural gas infrastructures.

Among the projects likely to cross Kim’s desk in coming months, for example, is a 600-MW power plant in Kosovo that would be fired by lignite coal, the bottom of the barrel when it comes to carbon emissions.

The plant has strong backing from the United States, the World Bank’s major shareholder. It also meshes with one of the bank’s other long-standing imperatives: give countries what they ask for. The institution has 188 members to keep happy and can go only so far in trying to impose its judgment over that of local officials. Kim, who in his younger days demonstrated against World Bank-enforced “orthodoxy” in economic policy, now may be hard-pressed to enforce an energy orthodoxy of his own.

Kosovo’s domestic supplies of lignite are ample enough to free the country from imported fuel. Kim said there is little question Kosovo needs more electricity, and the new plant will allow an older, more polluting facility to be shut down.

“I would just love to never sign a coal project,” Kim said. “We understand it is much, much dirtier, but … we have 188 members … We have to be fair in balancing the needs of poor countries … with this other bigger goal of tackling climate change.”

The bank is working on other ideas. Kim said he is considering how the bank might get involved in creating a more effective world market for carbon, allowing countries that invest in renewable energy or “climate friendly” agriculture to be paid for their carbon savings by industries that need to use fossil fuels. Existing carbon markets have been plagued with volatile pricing  Europe’s cost of carbon has basically collapsed  or rules that prevent carbon trading with developing countries.

“We’ve got to figure out a way to establish a stable price of carbon,” Kim said. “Everybody knows that.”

He has also staked hope for climate progress on developments in agriculture.

Hydropower projects, however, seem notably inside what Kim says is the bank’s sweet spot  complex, high-impact, green and requiring the sort of joint public and private financing Kim says the bank can attract.

The massive hydropower potential of the Congo river, estimated at about 40,000MW, is such a target. Its development is on a list of top world infrastructure priorities prepared by the World Bank and other development agencies for the Group of 20 major economic powers.

Two smaller dams on the river have been plagued by poor performance and are being rehabilitated with World Bank assistance. A third being planned would represent a quantum jump  a 4,800MW, $12bn giant that would move an entire region off carbon-based electricity.

The African Development Bank has begun negotiations over the financing, and the World Bank is ready to step in with tens of millions of dollars in technical-planning help.

“In an ideal world, we start building in 2016. By 2020, we switch on the lights,” said Hela Cheikhrouhou, energy and environment director for the African Development Bank.

It is the sort of project that the World Bank had stayed away from for many years  not least because of instability in the country. But as the country tries to move beyond its civil war and the region intensifies its quest for the power to fuel economic growth, the bank seems ready to move. Kim will visit Congo this month for a discussion about development in fragile and war-torn states.

Kyte, the World Bank vice president, said the Inga project will be high on the agenda.

“People have been looking at the Inga dam for as long as I have been in the development business,” she said. “The question is: Did the stars align? Did you have a government in place? Did people want to do it? Are there investors interested? Do you have the ability to do the technical work? The stars are aligned now. Let’s go.”

BY Katy Migiro

Photo by Survival International

Half a million Kenyans and Ethiopians are likely to be displaced, go hungry and face conflict due to a controversial dam linked to a forcible resettlement programme ‘bankrolled’ by British taxpayers, the lobby group Survival International said on Monday.

The Gibe III hydropower dam, due for completion in 2014, is being built on the Omo River in southern Ethiopia. It will reduce the flow of water to farmers and pastoralists living downstream, including those 600 kilometres to the south in Kenya, where the river flows into Lake Turkana, the world’s largest desert lake.

The British government’s Department for International Development (DFID) is one of many international donors funding Ethiopia’s Protection of Basic Services (PBS) programme, which subsidises basic services and local government salaries. This includes areas where people are being relocated to make way for the dam, part of a wider programme to resettle people into designated villages – known as villagisation – begun in 2010.

Survival argues that the forced resettlment of thousands of tribal people could not be carried out without the DFID-funded PBS programme.

“UK money is bankrolling the destruction of some of the best-known pastoralist peoples in Africa,” Stephen Corry, director of Survival said in a statement. “The UK government is renowned for only paying lip service to human rights obligations where tribal peoples are concerned. When it comes to human rights in Ethiopia, DFID’s many commitments are worthless.”

It is not the first time that the PBS programme has come under fire.

Last year, the London-based law firm Leigh Day began legal action against DfID on behalf of an Ethiopian man, known as Mr O, who claims he suffered severe abuse under the villagisation programme.

DFID visited the Lower Omo, where it heard reports of rape and intimidation, but it has not been able to substantiate the claims.

Survival International cites three recent reports by Oxford University, International Rivers and the Africa Resources Working Group to support its case.

The Africa Resources Working Group report warns of “an impending human rights and ecological catastrophe” and a “very real threat of mass starvation and armed conflict in the border region.”

The International Rivers report says that those who lose their homes and livelihoods are “likely to seek out resources on their neighbours’ lands in the Kenya-Ethiopia-Sudan borderlands.”

“Well armed, primed by past grudges and often divided by support from different state and local governments, these conflicts can be expected to be bloody and persistent,” it said.

The Ethiopian government is planning to use the water to develop large-scale irrigation schemes, create jobs and generate huge amounts of electricity to power the region.

Bacre Waly Ndiaye, the Director Human Rights Council and Special Procedures Division Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Conference

BERLIN, 15 April 2013:



Bacre Waly Ndiaye, the Director Human Rights Council and Special Procedures Division Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Conference reminded everyone about the history of the United Nations battle for human rights in his opening address to mark the 20th Anniversary of the Vienna World Conference “Vienna + 20″, which hosted by the Human Rights Forum Menschenrechte und das Deutsche Institut für Menschenrechte in Berlin.


Vienna + 20
HUMAN RIGHTS ARE INDIVISIBLE


Opening address by Bacre Waly Ndiaye
Director Human Rights Council and Special Procedures Division
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Berlin, 15 April 2013

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for the opportunity to journey back into the past, and to measure the distance we have covered since the Vienna World conference on human rights, 20 years ago.

It is also an occasion for me to recall and pay homage to Stéphane Hessel, for whom it is my heart-felt and painful duty to replace at this podium.

A diplomat, writer, member of the French Resistance and survivor of the Buchenwald concentration camp, Stéphane Hessel was an inspiring and beloved example of humility, clarity, perception and depth, and I believe I speak for many of the people in this room when I say that I sorely miss his presence among us today.

I met Stéphane Hessel in Strasbourg in January 1993, at a cross-regional preparatory meeting for the Vienna conference which was being held under the auspices of the Council of Europe. It was barely six months before the conference was due to take place, and the general assumption was that it was going to be a failure. A failure so terrible that it might even lead to a roll-back of human rights protection around the world.

Despite the efforts of some leaders, including former US President Jimmy Carter, there were many disagreements on the agenda. Like the 1968 Tehran conference, 25 years before Vienna, it seemed that the delegations would break apart into blocs, each grasping tightly onto their highly fortified positions — the Western countries favouring the primacy, or exclusivity, of civil and political rights; the East bloc and many developing nations arguing for economic and social rights above all.

In addition, there was a bloc of countries pushing for what they called “third generation” human rights; these spanned a number of variously defined group rights and collective rights. And there was another sizeable group of countries who vigorously argued that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was in some deep sense the product of a specifically Western culture, possibly imposed by colonial powers, and that in reality human rights should be understood to vary according to the characteristics and traditions of different cultures, so as to accommodate the peoples that were not around the table in 1948.

These were some very deep, very sharp differences — potentially irreconcilable. Moreover, as many of you here today will recall, the world was undergoing a series of tectonic shifts at that time, and some of them seemed extremely ominous.

The collapse of the Berlin Wall had created a global surge of hope, and indeed it was the main factor that had inspired the Vienna conference to be called in the first place. It had seemed to be the right moment for a new world to review its agenda for human rights, from basic principles to implementation.

But at the same time, the cannons were rumbling just next door, in the former Yugoslavia. There were charnel houses and killing fields less than a day’s drive from the conference rooms where our meeting was to take place.

It was in this difficult, conflicted period — the run-up to what promised to be a very trying conference — that I met Stéphane Hessel on a bus. We were both on our way to the Palais de l’Europe, in Strasbourg. I had no inkling that he was an Ambassador, or that he had worked at the UN during the process of writing the Universal Declaration, or that he was in fact one of the leading figures in our modern human rights landscape. What I knew from the start was that he was friendly, funny, humble, with a sharp mind and no pretensions whatsoever. He was in his mid 70s, though he looked far younger, and he could recite the entire Universal Declaration by heart. Over dinner, poetry spooled out of him. He was both a learned man and completely devoid of ego. It was a joy and a never ending lesson of life to be in his company.

It turned out that Stéphane Hessel had been asked to chair the discussion on the relationship between human rights, development and democracy at that preparatory conference in Strasbourg. And I, who was then the UN Special Rapporteur on summary executions, had been invited to preside the commission on the protection of human rights and development. So we did have quite a lot of work to do in common together with President Mary Robinson of Ireland who volunteered to be the rapporteur of the cross regional Strasbourg conference.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As our working relationship blossomed, we watched the larger process of developing consensus in Vienna unfold. Just a few weeks before the Vienna conference, Ibrahima Fall, the Secretary-General of the conference, still had quite literally hundreds of parentheses on his draft document for consensus. But gradually those parentheses fell away, and were replaced by agreement.

The key point, I now believe, was acceptance of what became almost a magic formula: the universality, indivisibility and interrelatedness of all human rights. This was the single factor that was most responsible for crafting the agreement that ultimately emerged. It allowed a number of States that had been resisting the entire notion of economic and social rights – because they saw them as a laundry-list of aspirations rather than rights intrinsic to human dignity and freedom – to take these economic and social rights on board, and it really anchored them within our discussions.

For example, the right to development. Several delegations would essentially get up and leave the room if a discussion of the right to development was tabled. There was a very binary mindset: either political rights, OR economic rights. But if you phrased this as indivisibility — as an inter-related and inter-dependant constellation of human rights, each of them a meaningful contribution to enjoyment of the others — those same delegations would stay in the room.

The debate regarding the alleged cultural specificities of human rights was resolved in a manner that to me seemed to strongly recall the legacy of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which had been adopted in 1981. Ibrahima Fall was indeed a member of the drafting Committee of the African Charter. The African Charter states that ”civil and political rights cannot be dissociated from economic, social and cultural rights in their conception as well as universality “ and makes liberal reference to the primordial importance of rights and freedoms in traditional African cultures. It seeks, in its article 29, to preserve and reinforce Africa’s positive cultural values. (One example of those values would be the traditional freedom accorded to griots to criticize without risk of reprisals the conduct of the powerful. This in a sense prepares the way for freedom of expression and information).

This approach — of working with positive traditional values to strengthen attachment to the rights laid down in the Universal Declaration — was a particularly interesting one, given that African countries could not easily be suspected of seeking a colonial domination over other regions. As I’ve noted, in the run-up to Vienna a number of countries were asserting that human rights varied according to national and regional characteristics. These were countries which had not been present in 1948, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, because they did not at that time yet exist. The underlying notion was that criticism of your government for its failure to respect individual liberty and dignity was a kind of betrayal, a form of cultural imperialism, so that such critics were somehow working in the service of foreign, possibly colonial, interests.

I had myself an experience of this kind and had to confront the then President of Benin, Mathieu Kerekou, while leading an Amnesty International delegation.

Of course all countries are not the same, and all voices must, naturally, be heard. But these cultural specificities in no way erode the universality of human rights. Indeed aspiration to equality of all human beings, in dignity and rights inspired the fight against colonialism and doctrines of racial or cultural superiority. And the formula that ultimately created consensus on this point was: you choose your path, but the goal is something we hold in common. Your specificity will influence your way to advance towards the common goal, but that goal — of human dignity and human freedom, via the specific human rights elucidated in the International Bill of Rights — is something we share.

This inclusive approach, which wraps in the resilience and flexibility of every culture’s traditions to strengthen a common goal, has since then been used many times, to shield the International Bill of Rights from various specious attempts to alter its integrity with claims of cultural or religious singularity.
And so the Vienna Declaration became one of the strongest human rights documents of the past century. It emphasized that human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and took the key notion of universality a step further by committing States to the promotion and protection of all human rights “regardless of their political, economic, and cultural systems.”
Dear Participants,
What emerged from Vienna was powerful new recognition of women’s rights as human rights. The Declaration called for universal ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the integration of women’s rights into all UN activities. It recommended adoption of the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women and endorsed the creation of a Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women.
Today, denial of rights to women — including sexual violence and domestic violence, subjects that had always been conceived as private crimes rather than human rights issues — are the subject of detailed reports by all the world’s governments in the course of the remarkable Universal Periodic Review, and this concerted global scrutiny of a long-neglected subject is just one of the many achievements of Vienna.
Mindful of the horrific abuse that continued in Bosnia, the Vienna conference was particularly vocal regarding impunity. Thus just one month after, the first ad hoc international criminal tribunal since Nuremberg was established, the Vienna Declaration encouraged the International Law Commission to push on with its work on establishing a permanent international criminal court.
A number of you in this room work closely on cases before the European Court of Human Rights, and you will understand the importance of this process.
The Vienna Declaration also amplified treaty implementation and their international and national monitoring. For instance, the Optional Protocols to the CAT, to CEDAW and to the ICESCR provide very important tools for the implementation of treaty bodies obligations; so is the expansion of special procedures to all sets of rights. It also called for new momentum in developing national human rights institutions. The thrust here was to “bring human rights home”.
This meant recognizing that human rights are not abstract words on an international treaty, but very real and practical rights to which every child, woman and man in every country are entitled.
They are also not limited to legal cases before the courts, but cut transversally across professions such as education, medicine and more.
National human rights institutions such as the German Institute of Human Rights — which was, I believe, set up following Vienna — are best placed to embed human rights into their home territory.
Vienna also acknowledged the crucial importance of civil society organizations. An unprecedented 800 NGOs were present, and they contributed with striking energy to the proceedings and to the mobilization of public opinion worldwide for a positive outcome of the Vienna Conferences.
Some of them are with us today in this room, as part of the German Human Rights Forum that was established following Vienna, and now counts 48 members.
But today we are seeing human rights NGOs under attack in several countries as “foreign agents” who face surveillance and even unacceptable reprisal. And I wonder, if Vienna were to be restaged today, whether they would be accorded as much prominence and respect as they were in 1993.
Women, children, persons with disabilities, indigenous people, representatives of minorities and migrants: individuals from all these groups testified to their experience at Vienna, and their concerns are reflected in the Declaration and Programme of Action. This laid the foundation for further development of international legal standards, their subsequent codification and establishment of means to encourage implementation.
Dear Friends,
It was also in Vienna that, upon an initiative from Amnesty International, NGOs pushed very hard for the creation of a High Commissioner for Human Rights. This was an old, blue-sky notion that had always seemed far too politically divisive and far-fetched to function. Most at the preparatory conference in Strasbourg thought it completely unrealistic. For one thing, how could the East bloc, the West and developing nations ever agree on who would become High Commissioner?

But the remarkable consensus that emerged, day after day, at the Vienna conference, made it possible for the idea of a High Commissioner to be accepted, too.

So as we discuss the legacy of the Vienna World Conference, we do also need to look at everything the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has achieved, because in a very real sense, OHCHR is the child of the Vienna Conference.

The post of High Commissioner was created to ensure that an independent, authoritative voice would speak out against human rights violations wherever they occur; to coordinate and supports the work of a range of different bodies; and to bring the weight of the United Nations to the work of supporting human rights for all.

With only two field presences in 1993, OHCHR now operates in 58 countries, and these field offices have increasingly played a human rights protection role — which is the ultimate aim of OHCHR — through their direct interventions, advocacy, monitoring, and contribution to legislative and policy reforms.

OHCHR has also become the focal point for commissions of inquiry and fact-finding missions into violations of human rights and humanitarian law, whether through mandates of the Human Rights Council, the Security Council, the Secretary-General or upon the High Commissioner’s own initiative.

In addition to ensuring that human rights promotion and protection has become an integral feature of the UN’s peacekeeping and peace building, OHCHR has endeavoured to be increasingly responsive to crises, with a rapid response capability. The Office deploys staff for human rights monitoring or assessments in cases of deteriorating human rights situations, and recently has participated in UN responses to humanitarian crises such as the Haiti earthquake in 2010. These crisis response activities are increasingly contributing to the fight against impunity, and have been paving the way for international criminal investigations opened by the ICC.
In order to play a key role in UN efforts in the most critical situations, OHCHR must continue to expand its crisis capabilities, and explore new opportunities to engage effectively. In the late 90s it became a key member of the UN prevention and early warning framework team. The recent establishment of the UN Operations and Crisis Centre is an opportunity to provide more early-warning and crisis-related human rights information to senior decision-makers. But becoming a more systematic, operational and predictable actor in humanitarian and human rights crisis response remains a challenge.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Alongside the Office of the High Commissioner, the entire human rights system of the UN has grown stronger since Vienna.
The Human Rights Council began its work in 2006, replacing the Commission on Human Rights. The Council has gained credibility for its brave and steadfast positions in the face of controversy. It has adopted approximately 456 resolutions which address a wide range of issues, some of them very sensitive — such as the protection of human rights on the Internet — and others serving to create a consensus on thorny issues such as “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief.”
In particular, the Human Rights Council has been notable for its successful management of the unique and remarkable Universal Periodic Review. This process — which examines every UN Member State’s human rights record without exception — requires governments to take charge of assessing and challenging each other’s detailed submissions regarding human rights measures in a number of specific topics, including women’s rights, domestic violence and gender-based discrimination. Other stake-holders, including non-governmental organizations, UN country teams, Treaty body experts and Special Rapporteurs, may also be involved in these Universal Periodic Reviews, and I can assure you that it is often a very powerful process.
During its first cycle, which ended in 2011, the Universal Periodic Review examined every UN Member State’s human rights record without exception, and it is now embarked on a second cycle. Implicit in this cycle is the need for every country to make progress regarding a number of benchmarks and recommendations that arose during the first round. Noting that the entire UPR procedure is also webcast — and thus available not only live but also permanently via the Internet — I think there can be no person in this room who does not appreciate what a ground-breaking process the UPR really is, and its potential for creating real advances in human rights in countries across the globe.
In June 1993, there were just 26 Special Procedures with thematic or country-based mandates. Today there are 48 separate mandates with 72 experts appointed by the Council. This combination of independence, expertise and UN-bestowed authority is a powerful one.
The human rights treaty bodies have also grown in number and weight. Two major new international treaties – on Persons with Disabilities and Disappearance – and nine important substantive and procedural Optional Protocols have been adopted since Vienna. In 1993, the seven treaties and protocols had received 742 ratifications by States. That number has grown to 2010 ratifications of 18 treaties and protocols.
Dear Participants
If we were to gather again in Vienna today, would we have a better text, or would the final declaration fall back from our 1993 commitments?

The global context was ominous in 1993, and it is ominous again now.

I refer not only to the upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa over the past two years, and to the crisis in the Sahel, but also to the painful global financial and economic crises and threats to the environment that make Vienna’s focus on economic, social and cultural rights especially relevant. Migrants, minorities and indigenous peoples remain the most vulnerable; the low ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is a matter of great concern.

In addition, terrorism and counter-terrorism have created a situation that seems to once more call into question rights we had thought were agreed on for good. I refer of course to acts of forced disappearance, arbitrary detention, and torture which pull us back to practises unbefitting of mankind.
There has been significant progress since Vienna in tackling impunity for international crimes. In particular, ad hoc tribunals such as those for Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Cambodia, but also the establishment of the International Criminal Court — the world’s first permanent tribunal with powers to prosecute suspected perpetrators of international crimes.
Yet here too, we still have a long way to go. The ICC can only become involved if the State concerned is among the 122 State Parties to the Rome Statute, or if a situation is referred to it by the Security Council. Two important situations – Darfur in 2008, and Libya in 2011 — have been referred, but the Security Council has so far failed with regard to Syria, despite OHCHR’s repeated reports of widespread or systematic crimes and violations.
Despite some truly inspiring advances in combating impunity and ensuring accountability both internationally and at the national level, far too many people with command responsibility continue to escape justice following gross human rights violations. Since Vienna, hundreds of thousands of people have died in genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia Herzegovina. The Palestinian territories are still occupied. Massive violations have occurred in Iraq and Sri Lanka. And war crimes continue to be committed in numerous internal conflicts, including those in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Syria and Sudan.
Moreover, despite tremendous progress, there continues to be some resistance within the UN and the international community regarding the priority that needs to be given to human rights issues. The economic context affects the UN as a whole, but has particular impact on OHCHR, which has since its inception been financially fragile. For many years, limited funding to OHCHR (we painfully moved from 1% to 3% of the UN regular budget) revealed unwillingness to support a strong human rights mandate, and this problem may re-emerge.
Many other challenges will face us in coming years. The spectre of discrimination and prejudice continues to fall across entire communities, creating obstacles to free choice, twisting lives, inciting hate and violence on the basis of perceived differences in birth or belief. Thus, because of spurious assertions based on national, ethnic or racial origin or religion, Muslim, Jews, Roma, Christians and indigenous people live, in various regions, under the threat of violence, and are prevented from playing full roles in their society.
Another example of such prejudice is the problem of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Recently there has been significant movement, including the first formal UN debate on the issue, which took place in March 2012 at the Human Rights Council. The atmosphere at the outset was tense and some States walked out rather than engage in discussion. There was also a walk out at the Durban Review conference against Racism and Xenophobia in 2008. But different States were involved and the very fact that there was a structured, formal debate among States was in itself a step forward.
Yet another thorny topic that will require sustained attention in years to come is helping companies and corporations to develop human rights agendas. Important economic actors, both transnational and national, need to understand the nature and legal protection of economic, social and cultural rights; the right to health; the right to housing; and, the right to water. We will also need to provide training and support for partners engaged in the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights, including NGOs, judges, lawyers, and national human rights institutions, as well as civil servants and regulators.
In fact, in a more general sense, translating States’ human rights commitments into reality is perhaps the single most important challenge of our time, following a long period devoted more to standard-setting. The demand on OHCHR’s field offices for technical assistance has increased steadily, and national human rights institutions can also play a crucial role. We also need to enhance the United Nations’ ability to improve the human rights of all. And this means we must also continue striving to mainstream human rights throughout the UN system, particularly in terms of the UN’s development agenda. This mainstreaming has been something of a challenging process, to date, but as part of drawing up post 2015 goals, we have seen some significant advances, including on 30 September 2010 when, under the leadership of High Commissioner Navi Pillay, 16 UN agencies agreed on a joint declaration on the human rights of migrants in irregular situation. Human rights are now much more widely regarded as indispensible assets, and, indeed, as the foundations, of a global partnership for development.

Dear Participants,

As we embark today on an agenda that promises to be rich with insight and practical advice, it seems to me I can do no better than to urge all of you to honour the memory of Stéphane Hessel, by striving for a world in which his vision of human freedom and dignity can be realized in the spirit of article 28 of the UDHR. All of us, I believe, are convinced that this world can only come about if there is greater accountability, the complete elimination of discrimination and prejudice, a more equitable allocation of resources, and a globalized freedom from want and from fear. Laws and international bodies are a necessary baseline, but the real work is to strengthen the “girdle of brotherly hands”, and of equally sisterly hands to make human rights, at last, a reality for all.

Thank you.

by Damien Gillis

A legal challenge underway by a BC First Nation may hold the last, best hope in the battle to protect Canada’s resources, environment and democracy from the Canada-China trade deal, known as FIPPA (Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement). But they need the public’s support in order to see their costly court case through.

The Hupacasath First Nation from Vancouver Island is heading to court this month in an attempt to block the controversial trade deal by asserting its infringement on the nation’s tile and rights. The Hupacasath’s representatives argue their constitutional rights to consultation have been violated by the deal and the manner in which it is being brought in. FIPPA would have a detrimental effect on this and other nations’ title and rights, as it entrenches the rights of Chinese investors above and beyond Canada’s First Nations and citizens.

FIPPA would mean Canada’s environmental laws and the concerns of the public are trumped by access to resources for Chinese companies -for a 31 year period once it’s ratified.

For instance, for the Hupacasath, a proposed coal port in nearby Port Alberni would be built by Compliance Energy, a Chinese company, thus, receive special protections from environmental or public health concerns. The same applies to logging, mines, private hydro projects, roads and any other Chinese-driven industrial development “promoted and protected” by FIPPA. Inevitable oil spills from tankers destined for China would also impact the Hupacasath and other nations’ traditional way of life on the land and water.

To help fund their $150,000 legal bills, the Hupacasath are running a crowd-funding initiative, which you can support at https://leadnow.netdonor.net/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1694&ea.campaign.id=18069

The United Nations Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business welcomes information at any time, as per its working methods. Simply send the information to this email address and it is forwarded to the Working Group members for their consideration.

Information about the UN Working Group

Additional background information and information on how to engage in the work of the Working Group is available on the following pages.

Information about Sessions of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises:
Click Here

General Information about United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights.

You can read reports of the Working Group here:
REPORTS

The Working Group is currently drafting a report to the General Assembly with a focus on indigenous peoples. Further information is available here, in the context of the open consultation that the Working Group held on 14 February on this subject:

Click here for pdf

The Working Group has further made a call for inputs on the next Forum on Business and Human Rights, you can find information on the Forum webpage (link above).

Information on registration for WG events and the Forum is posted in due course on the WG website, including modalities for registration, also for organisations that do not have ECOSOC status.

Please note that sessions of the Working Group are closed meetings, aside from specific scheduled open consultations that are duly indicated on the website approximately one month prior to each session.

Fuente: Mi Diario EFE

La Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) inició sendas causas ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (Corte IDH) por presunta violación de estos derechos fundamentales en Honduras y Panamá, informó hoy en un comunicado.

La causa iniciada contra Panamá responde, según la CIDH, al “incumplimiento” por parte del Estado panameño de “su obligación” de proveer a los pueblos indígenas guna de Madungandi y emberá de Bayano de “un procedimiento adecuado y efectivo para el acceso a su territorio ancestral”.

Además, el comunicado del organismo autónomo de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) también denuncia que no se haya obtenido una respuesta “frente a las múltiples denuncias de injerencias por parte de terceros en los territorios y recursos naturales” de estos grupos indígenas.

“Desde la perspectiva del derecho a la igualdad y no discriminación, la secuencia de violaciones cometidas en perjuicio de estos dos pueblos indígenas constituyen una manifestación de discriminación”, indicó la CIDH.

El caso se envió a la Corte IDH el 26 de febrero de 2013 porque la comisión consideró que el Estado no cumplió con las recomendaciones contenidas en su informe de fondo sobre el caso, en el que instó a concluir “prontamente” el proceso de formalización, delimitación y demarcación física de los territorios de estos dos pueblos.

Por otra parte, la causa iniciada contra Honduras también responde a cuestiones territoriales, en este caso por la “omisión de protección”, a juicio de la CIDH, del territorio ancestral de la comunidad garífuna de Triunfo de la Cruz “frente a la ocupación y despojo por parte de terceros”.

Esto ha provocado y mantenido a la comunidad en una “situación de conflicto permanente por las acciones de terceros” en su territorio, según la CIDH.

A eso se suma la venta de tierras comunitarias por parte de autoridades estatales, que constituyó “una afectación del territorio ancestral” y dio lugar a “presiones, amenazas, e incluso el asesinato y detención de líderes y autoridades comunitarias”.

Fuente: La Prensa/ Por: JUAN MANUEL DÍAZ C.

DENUNCIA. Los indígenas reclaman por la expropiación e inundación de sus territorios ancestrales, para la construcción de la hidroeléctrica Bayano.

Un nuevo proceso internacional contra el Estado panameño fue enviado a la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (Corte IDH) por “el incumplimiento de su obligación de proveer a los pueblos indígenas Guna de Madugandí y Emberá de Bayano un procedimiento efectivo para el acceso a su territorio ancestral, y por falta de respuesta a las múltiples denuncias de injerencia dentro de sus territorios por terceros”, tras la construcción de la hidroeléctrica de Bayano en 1969.

Este fue remitido a la Corte IDH por la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) el 26 de febrero pasado, basado en una denuncia presentada contra Panamá por el incumplimiento del pago de indemnizaciones económicas tras el despojo e inundación de territorios en 1969 para la construcción de la hidroeléctrica de Bayano.

La denuncia fue presentada en 2000 por el International Human Rights Law Clinic of the Washington College of Law, el Centro de Asistencia Legal Popular (Cealp) y la Asociación Napguana, debido al incumplimiento del pago de la totalidad de las indemnizaciones a los indígenas por la salida e inundación de sus tierras ancestrales.
Según la CIDH, el Estado panameño incurrió en la falta de reconocimiento, titulación y demarcación durante un largo período de tiempo de las tierras otorgadas al pueblo indígena Guna de Madungandí y Emberá de Bayano.

En sus consideraciones, la CIDH asegura que Panamá no atendió sus recomendaciones de concluir prontamente el proceso de formalización, delimitación y demarcación de sus territorios, y cumplir con otorgarles una pronta y justa indemnización por el traslado, reasentamiento e inundación de sus tierras.

La CIDH sostiene que tampoco se cumplió con los reparos individuales y colectivos a los indígenas por violaciones de sus derechos humanos y trato discriminatorio.

En 2001, los grupos indígenas llegaron a un acuerdo con el gobierno del entonces presidente Ernesto Pérez Balladares, pero un año más tarde este fue suspendido y hasta ahora las autoridades no les han dado respuestas.

SEM INTERVENÇÃO PÚBLICA, AS COMPENSAÇÕES FINANCEIRAS DA USINA DE BELO MONTE
DESAGREGAM AS ALDEIAS DA REGIÃO

Willian Vieira

Para ir de Altamira à aldeia Paquiçamba são duas horas de caminhonete por uma rota lamacenta que só ganha asfalto quando ladeada pelos canteiros da usina de Belo Monte. De barco levaria oito horas. Graças a uma carona, após oito dias na cidade, Marino Juruna é recebido por seus índios. Em silêncio. Traz em seu poder só um galão de gasolina. Nada de material de construção, nenhuma notícia de avanço nas negociações pela ansiada indenização da Norte Energia. “A aldeia não é mais a mesma”, diz o cacique, enquanto abre a janela da recém-construída casa com cinco cômodos, sofá e televisão e aponta para as antenas parabólicas e telhados que desalojaram li palha dos casebres.



Poços artesianos, um engenho de farinha e placas de energia solar surgem no horizonte, tudo comprado com recursos do consórcio construtor da usina. Os últimos quilômetros da estrada, antes intrafegáveis, ganharam uma cobertura de pedra, obtida na marra” após bloqueio no canteiro, diz Juruna. “É o lado bom da coisa. E eles não dão nem metade do que agente pede.”



Das palavras do cacique emerge um dos maiores efeitos da obra: um jogo de negociações entre indígenas e empresas, fruto de um modus operandi duvidoso e da ausência da Funai, que transformaram Paquiçamba, uma das poucas comunidades diretamente afetadas, no retrato fiel do impacto cultural e socioeconômico de Belo Monte. A aldeia não é mais a mesma”, repete Juruna. Até o começo de 2011, quando a obra começou, havia 37 famílias sob sua liderança. Hoje são nove. As outras se dividiram em três novas aldeias, cada qual com seu cacique. “Esses recursos causaram desunião. Muitos pensam que a liderança está desviando recursos, ouvem que a outra aldeia tem mais objetos, que podemos conseguir mais.” Juruna suspira. “Já botei meu cargo à disposição. Ninguém quer.”



O caso não é único. Foram criadas 15 aldeias em dois anos. As 19 existentes em 2010 viraram 34 em 2012. Outras estão prestes a nascer. Uma “proliferação de aldeias” que o indigenista Antonio Carlos Magalhães atribui ao Programa Emergencial, acordo assinado entre a Funai e a Norte Energia, em 2010, para fornecer compensações aos indígenas enquanto as medidas do Projeto Básico Ambiental (PRA), emaranhado de contrapartidas que vai de ações de desenvolvimento nas aldeias ao saneamento de Altamira, não estivessem prontas, mas que virou eufemismo para uma mesada de 30 mil reais paga aos índios por dois anos, até setembro de 2012.



O documento garante o ‘‘fortalecimento institucional” da Funai, a “promoção do etnodesenvolvimento” e a “proteção das terras indígenas”. A fundação receberia infraestrutura, e os índios, “sem prejuízo de sua identidade”, participariam de reuniões, sem “a necessidade de estarem na cidade”.



O auxílio ao órgão público foi temporário. 



As terras indígenas estão vulneráveis. E os índios, cada vez mais dependentes. Daí as lanchas seguirem rumo às aldeias com colchões, televisores c quinquilharias e voltarem para vendê-los por preços ínfimos. Como um escambo moderno, o processo “deslocou a atenção dos índios do questionamento sobre a barragem para o consumo”, diz Magalhães. As aldeias deixaram seus roçados e se acostumaram à dependência alimentar. Lideranças jovens passaram a criar aldeias de olho nos repasses. O resultado foi perda de identidade cultural. Epicentro da construção da mais ambiciosa obra do Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento (PAC), Altamira, maior município brasileiro em extensão, virou um misto de balcão de negócios e ponto de peregrinação de índios em busca de demandas materiais. Em turnos, eles batem ponto no prédio da Funai, na sede do Ministério Público ou onde houver uma autoridade. Mas visitam, sobretudo, o número 1.482 da Avenida João Pessoa, à beira do Xingu, sede de um escritório da Norte Energia dedicado às “questões indígenas”. Nas paredes, fotos de índios. Nas cadeiras, índios sentados. São 30 atendimentos diários. A explicação é óbvia: o governo e o consórcio querem terminar a usina. Os índios, melhorar de vida. A Funai não tem estrutura para intermediar. Assim, as nebulosas negociações entre as partes seguem sua rotina.



“A gente fazia uma lista e entregava na Norte Energia. Aí buscava no escritório. Comida, combustível, motor”, diz José Carlos Arara, homem de expressão glacial e líder da aldeia Terrawagã. ‘‘Eles prometeram 27 casas, pista, antena de celular. Nada.” Para chegar a Altamira e exigir seus “direitos”, Arara leva seis horas de barco e dorme em uma rede na Casa do índio, improvisado albergue para as diversas etnias. Como ele, dezenas dividem os quartos da casa. Alguns gastam dias de barco e vêm para estadias de quase um mês, quando fazem o périplo de sempre: compram mantimentos, participam de reuniões e passam horas no escritório da empresa. “Acabou o tempo da gente. Neste ano, não plantei um pé de mandioca, Essa é a vida do índio hoje.”



São 4 da tarde na sede da Funai em Altamira. índios mais velhos fumam tabaco em compridos cachimbos, enquanto jovens conversam em suas línguas, e crianças fogem do tédio com risadas. Dentro, em uma sala com ar-condicionado, está Estella Libardi de Souza, a coordenadora regional da fundação. “O fortalecimento institucional nunca ocorreu”, frisa. A ideia do termo seria fortalecer a Funai para que esta pudesse fiscalizar e tentar reduzir o impacto da obra. “O consórcio doou cinco voadeiras e vários carros e bancou a contratação de mais de 20 funcionários”, diz. Mas, com o fim do prazo, os empregados foram desligados. “Voltamos à estaca zero. Temos oito carros e só um motorista. E nenhum condutor para as lanchas.” Algumas aldeias distantes não recebem visita há um ano. “O plano previa postos de vigilância, bases para fiscalizar as terras. Hoje temos um funcionário para dar conta de 6 milhões de hectares” O Parecer Técnico 21, de 2009, que alertava para o impacto sobre os índios, foi ignorado por todos. “Disputas internas alimentadas por esses recursos estão esfacelando as comunidades”, diz a coordenadora. “Para a empresa, é mais barato dar dinheiro aos caciques do que investir em projetos.”



A leitura das atas das reuniões entre lideranças indígenas e a Norte Energiaé autoexplicativa. Em uma delas, de 31 de outubro de 2012, dias após a invasão do sítio Pimental, quando mais de cem índios paralisaram as obras para exigir o cumprimento das contrapartidas, o tom é de um leilão. Inês Marques, funcionária da empresa, apresenta “o cronograma de entrega dos kits de informática e voadeiras tratado nas reuniões de 9 e 10 de julho” índios exigem veículos. “Se eles não forem entregues, voltaremos à obra!” A funcionária pede desculpas e mais tempo. Os índios reivindicam a reforma da estrada, técnicos para operar os computadores doados, uma pista de pouso. A empresa promete rediscutir os pedidos na próxima reunião.



A promotora Thais Santi aponta para uma pequena área amarela no mapa da região do Xingu, na parede de sua sala, no Ministério Público Federal de Altamira. “Essa aldeia nem sequer tem estrada. Mas ganharam uma Hilux da Norte Energia, no nome de um índio sem habilitação, que bateu o carro em um poste, com crianças dentro, no carnaval.” Ela balança a cabeça. :‘É um assistencia-íismo funesto que está acabando com a capacidade de reivindicação dos índios. Eles perderam a confiança na Funai e vão à empresa resolver as demandas. Quando não conseguem, invadem o canteiro ”



O Ministério Público investiga a situação patrimonial de algumas lideranças. Um índio chegou a sacar 100 mil reais na boca do caixa. Mas o que mais preocupa a promotora é um novo capítulo do processo, Aconselhadas por advogados, as comunidades criaram associações para gerir os recursos sozinhas e negociar diretamente com empresas a serviço da Norte Energia. ‘‘São milhões de reais nas mãos dos índios”, alerta a promotora. “Houve um prejuízo para os índios qLie não tem volta. Precisamos agora proibir qualquer contato direto da empresa com os indígenas” Em última instância, diz Thais Santi, a responsabilidade é do Estado. “O dinheiro para a obra vem de um banco público. A obra é federal. Mas o governo não fez seu papel ” Belo Monte será a terceira maior hidrelétrica do mundo e custará 29 bilhões de reais, dos quais 22,5 bilhões via BNDES. É o maior empréstimo de sua história.



Cerca de 5 mil índios de dez etnias e graus diversos de contato com os brancos povoam a região do Médio Xingu. Muitos só voltaram a constituir aldeias nos anos 1990, em um processo que começou com as incursões evangelizadoras no século XVII, seguiu com a invasão de seringueiros cem anos atrás e ganhou força com a Rodovia Transamazônica. Com Belo Monte, o último boom emergiu. Sua genealogia remonta aos anos 1970, quando a ditadura quis construir uma série de megalomaníacas hidrelétricas na região do Rio Xingu. Os estudos de viabilidade atravessaram os anos 1990, a Eletrobras aliou-se à Eletronorte e, em 2005, o Congresso autorizou o Executivo a erguer Belo Monte, em troca de contrapartidas ambientais. Isso antes de as consultas aos índios darem resultado, apontam alguns críticos. “O que deveria ter sido feito é a realização de consultas prévias e o respeito do governo aos direitos indígenas, em vez de jogá-los como reféns das empresas”, afirma o antropólogo Stephen Baines, da UnB.



Em 2007, o governo incluiu a obra no PAC e buscou derrubar na Justiça os impedimentos à licença ambiental. Queria evitar o desabastecimento em um país onde o consumo anual de energia crescia acima do PIB. Em 2009. o Ibama aceitou o EIA-RI-MA, o estudo de impacto. Para liberar a licença prévia, exigiu o cumprimento de 40 condicionantes. A licença foi dada em abril de 2010. E um consórcio formado por grandes empreiteiras, fundos de pensão e pela Eletrobras deu início às obras em 2011, embora parte das condicionantes esteja “em andamento”. A Norte Energia afirma que “a execução do PBA caminha na mesma velocidade das obras da usina”.



Especialistas em energia sustentam que, a despeito dos deslizes sociais, Belo Monte é uma obra importante para o desenvolvimento do País e uma opção ecologicamente mais defensável do que usinas térmicas a gás, óleo ou carvão. A hidrelétrica no Xingu terá capacidade instalada de 11.200 MW e energia assegurada de 4.600 M W médios. Foi projetada para não ter grandes reservatórios e funcionar a fio d’água, o que reduz o tamanho das áreas alagadas e o impacto ecológico, embora represente menor segurança de fornecimento: sem reservatório, não há como armazenar água para os períodos de seca. Uma vitória dos movimentos ambientais que não apaga a desastrada política de varejo com os índios.



Sob uma árvore à beira do Xingu, a poucos metros do escritório para “assuntos indígenas” da Norte Energia, três índios debatem. “Eles não vão enrolar a gente”, diz Cláudio Curuaia, da Associação dos índios Citadinos, que representa 200 moradores de áreas de risco a ser reassentados. Criada há pouco, a associação não entrou na partilha de benesses do consórcio. “Os índios das aldeias ganharam 21 picapes, lanchas com motor, computador e filmadora. E nós?” Curuaia aponta para uma Mitsubishi L200 em frente ao escritório. “Até o Léo arrumou carro no nome dele.”



Léo (Jair Xipaia) desce da caminhonete e senta em um boteco acompanhado de duas lideranças. Aos 26 anos, o líder da aldeia Cojomin é o mais presente nas reuniões com o consórcio. “Queremos só o que é nosso,” Ele vive na cidade, estuda Direito na faculdade, vai pouco à aldeia. “Quase perdi o cargo de cacique porque disseram que peguei o recurso e gastei. Rodrigo Valério de Souza, da aldeia Kwruatxe, teve menos sorte. “Perdi o cargo ontem.” A causa, diz, foram acusações incentivadas pelo consórcio. “Tinha coisas de que a gente precisava, gerador, lona, espingarda, então eu vendia o combustível e comprava. Daí foram falar mal de mim, eu não tava facilitando pra eles.” O colega interrompe. “A Nesa joga as pessoas umas contra as outras”, diz Kwazady Xipaia, 23 anos e expressão de ancião. “Se houve mau uso do recurso é porque não teve orientação. Teve aldeia que torrou os 30 mil em comida, o que ninguém diz é que essa lista foi só para calar o.s índios, Porque projetos de desenvolvimento, para dar autonomia, não teve. Nas visitas, os técnicos mostraram desenhos de engenhos, plantações. Nada aconteceu.”



Nas negociações sem registro formal, ocorridas no escritório da empresa e em visitas do consórcio diretamente nas aldeias, a tônica do processo c menos clara e mais eficaz, diz Marcelo Salazar, coordenador técnico do instituto Socioambiental (ISA). Salazar cruza as mãos e desfia a genealogia da negociação. “Ao perceber que os índios se organizavam, a empresa saiu distribuindo cesta básica.” Isso antes de o consórcio sair do papel. “Mas os índios ficaram espertos.” É quando teria entrado em ação a linha de frente da desagregação. Figuras ligadas a consultorias teriam sido contratadas para abordar as lideranças e debelar as demandas com dinheiro pequeno.



O nome que surge é Antenor Bastos. “Ele prometeu casas”, diz um cacique. “O Antenor vai dar pista”, diz outro. Juruna garante: “Ele vinha toda semana, dormia aqui. A lista de compras, eu levava direto pra ele”. Bastos, um senhor de seus 70 anos, foi “coordenador de assuntos indígenas” da Norte Energia até janeiro, quando “se afastou por problemas do coração” diz o assessor da empresa. “Ele dormia nas aldeias, comia com eles, era uma figura. Quando os índios invadiam, ligavam para o celular dele pra negociar. Ele entendia os índios. No lugar dele há agora um ex-funcionário da Funai.



Dias atrás, um suposto caso de espionagem tensionou ainda mais as relações. Segundo Antonia Melo, do Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre, um funcionário do consórcio foi flagrado em uma reunião da entidade com uma câmera escondida. Ele teria gravado um vídeo no qual afirmou receber 5 mil reais por mês para acompanhar as reuniões e relatá-las aos dirigentes da empresa. O consórcio nega.



É no último andar do prédio de concreto branco de três pavimentos bem guardado por seguranças e altas grades, sede local da Norte Energia, que o diretor de assuntos institucionais da empresa, João Pimentel, 1,94 metro e voz firme, chega com fartes apertos de mão. Pede para o gravador ser desligado. E dispara: “Os índios já custaram quase 80 milhões de reais”. O assessor de imprensa corrige: “Foram 97 milhões”. Pimentel elenca os feitos da empresa: a casa de apoio aos Caiapós, engenhos de farinha, poços, carros doados às prefeituras, a reforma na escola. E a mesada?



Pimentel franze o cenho. “Havia certa expectativa. A maneira de dar uma acalmada neles foi o plano emergencial” O executivo lembra o bloqueio dos Jurunas ao canteiro. Os índios afirmavam que as obras haviam toldado as águas e atrapalhado a pesca ornamental. Exigiam respostas e dinheiro. “Essa pesca é biopirataria”, diz. “Mas, enfim, fomos lá. A água não estava turva, mas pagamos a compensação. Eles ficaram felizes” E as obras continuaram. “Nós não somos uma mãezona” diz. “E que todos acham que o índio deve viver num outro mundo. Você foi às aldeias? Viu as parabólicas? As casas? Eles querem isso tanto quanto a gente”.



Belo Monte enfrenta outras pressões. Há dias a Justiça Federal, a pedido do MPF, determinou que a Norte Energia pode ser multada em 500 mil reais por dia, se não comprovar a adoção das medidas compensatórias. Dias depois, o Ibama a notificou com base em um parecer que constatou pendências na execução dos programas ambientais. A empresa não concluiu o cadastro das famílias afetadas, não fez as obras de saneamento, não, reassentou as comunidades desapropriadas, diz o documento. Por outro lado, na segunda-feira 18. a Justiça do Pará expediu um interdito proibitório contra o Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens e o Movimento Xingu Vivo. Pela decisão, as entidades ficam proibidas de fazer qualquer ação qne interfira na obra. Enquanto a briga cresce na Justiça, as obras seguem. A primeira turbina deve entrar em funcionamento em 2015.



Alheio a tudo, imerso no calor sufocante de uma tarde de sol no meio da roça de mandioca, o ex-cacique Manoel Junina, 70 anos, segura sua enxada e sorri. “Esses cabras não querem trabalhar. Aí vem essa gente, dá um dinheirinho e bota tudo pra brigar. Vê se eu brigo com alguém?” Na casa do ancião, a cem metros da roça. a família discorda. “Antes, a gente se reunia, irmãos de aldeias diferentes, pra decidir como se posicionar”, diz Eliete Juruna. “Aí eles começaram a fazer reuniões com as lideranças em separado. Foi a estratégia da Norte Energia, dar dinheiro aqui e ali. E agente caiu. Estamos nas mãos deles.” •



Há cerca de um ano os servidores da Polícia Federal de Altamira encaminharam um ofícío a chefia. Não seria possível viver na cidade se não fossem tomadas médicas urgentes. Ameaçavam até se exonerar. O documento, endossado pela associação do setor, chegou ao Ministério da Justiça e denunciava a”sitiação realmente crítica”. Não era de violência que reclamavam os funcionários, e sim do custo de vida. Apelidaca de “Angola Brasileira”, em referênca aos preços do país africano assolado pela doença do petróleo, Altamira sofre com Belo Monte.



Se antes da obra, até 2010, a cidade tinha 99 mil habitantes, hoje são 150 mil. Só nos canteros há 21 mil, de peões a executivos com suas camisas sociais e caminhonetes em fila nos restaurantes. Aqui não há taxímetro: entrar num táxi já custa 15 reais. Nos postos, a gasolina sai por 3.5 reais o litro (em São Paulo custa de 2.6 a 2.9 reais). Em um restaurante mediano, um prato morde 15 reais. Nos melhores, 80. Inflação é termo corrente. Todos têm um índice a dar. “Os alimentos subiram 200%”. diz o taxista a caminho do mercado. “Coisa de louco”. Mesmo.

“

Todos querem sair daqui. O custo de vida é irreal”, diz um agente da PF que pede anonimato. Quando o policial veio para Altamira, em 2010, alugou uma casa com dois quartos por mil reais.

“

Um ano depois, o cara me pediu 4.5 mil.” Ele vendeu sua casa em um condomínio fechado em Natal e comprou um terreno aqui por 60 mil reais, em uma rua de barro sem saneamento. Outros policiais vivem em uma república. Suas famílias não puderam vir por causa do custo de vida.



“Muitos proprietários deixaram suas casas para alugar. É o caos para alguns e uma mina de outro para outros”, contemporiza Artémis Cardoso, gerente de imobiliária. O aumentofoi de 200%. em média, diz. “Aqui é um paradoxo. A gente aluga casas de 5 mil em ruas de barro onde falta luz todo dia. Não falta gente atrás.” Uma loja de material de construção recém-aberta tem filas à porta. Ruas de barro “asgam adeiras com loteamentos de casas de três andares. No centro há sete farmácias em um quarteirão. Só em 2012 foram abertas 400 empresas na cidade, três vezes mais que em 2010.



Altamira é o paroxismo do Brasil que cresce sem infraestrutura. Não houve plano para preparar a cidade. As medidas compensatórias previstas pelo Ibarra. por entraves burocráticos, falta de kncw-how da prefeitura ou descaso do empresariado, em parte não saíram do papel. Não há água encanada nem saneamento básico. As poucas vias receberam asfalto, mas milhares de caminhonetes hoje dividem espaço com dezenas de ônibus vindos dos canteiros em engarrafamentos às 6 da tarde. Faltam escola e hospital. E falta luz - até na sede da Norte Erergia.



Atualmente, faltam até prostíbulos. Antes de Belo Monte, havia um só na região. Em dois anos, o número saltou para sete. com programas a 200 reais. Em 2013. após denúncia da presença de menores, todos fecharam. “Agora é só com agenciacor”. diz o taxista. “E tá mais caro. viu?”teamentos de casas de três andares. No centro há sete farmácias em um quarteirão.