” and at least 15km away in the remaining regions. The plan is underpinned by an official decree known as the Portaria Interministerial no. 419/2011, which regulates the actions of federal public bodies dealing with the issuing of federal environmental licenses. However, the plan acknowledges that up to eight different indigineous territories will be affected by the 232 new transmission lines these plants will require, which combined add up to a total of 41,000 km of new lines. [7]

Collating the facts and information available in the Institute of Socioeconomic Research (Inesc) under the title “Rights and Investment in the Amazon,” we were able to ascertain that a collection of twenty-three hydroelectric power stations located in a minimum of seventeen infrastructure developments, have socio-environmental consequences on indigenous territories, be it on the populations that live there or on the physical environment that these populations are dependent on to maintain and further develop their way of life.

The discrepancy regarding the extent of the projected impact on the ITs between our study and the official version revolves around how the concept of “impact or interference” is constructed and defined. According to the current legislation, an “interference in IT” occurs when a parcel of IT land is directly affected by the dam’s barrier or by the reservoir. The criteria for defining and measuring “impact” concerns territorial and environmental effects only and does not include a human or social dimension. It is our position that it is both urgent and imperative that this indicator be revised.

Where indigenous communities are concerned, there are many studies indicating that the indirect impacts of such large scale developments are as negative or often even more so than direct impacts. The mere announcement that such a project is in the pipeline in the vicinity, often accompanied by sightings and even contact with surveyors or researchers is enough to provoke intense disquiet and anxiety amongst the Indian community. The situation in the Tapajós basin is one such example.

Studies undertaken in the last few decades show clearly that the interference caused by such massive projects reach far beyond the 10km radius around it. It can affect indigenous communities long before they have had any sort of direct contact with the project– that is to say, long before they come face to face with the life on margins of the construction of dams, railways, or the erecting of transmittors. As was explained by Daniel Posey in 1987, contact can be classified in three different ways:

*Indirect contact
” and at least 15 km away in the remaining regions. The design is underpin by an official decree known as the Portaria Interministerial no. 419/2011, which regulates the military action of union public bodies dealing with the issuing of union environmental license. However, the plan admit that up to eight different indigineous territories will be feign by the 232 new transmission production line these plant will require, which combined add up to a total of 41,000 km of fresh lines. [ 7 ] 

 Collating the facts and data available in the Institute of Socioeconomic Research (Inesc) under the title “ Rights and Investment in the Amazon, ” we were able to ascertain that a solicitation of twenty - three hydroelectric power station located in a minimum of seventeen infrastructure developments, have socio - environmental consequences on indigenous territory, be it on the populations that live there or on the physical environment that these populations are dependent on to maintain and further develop their way of life. 

 The discrepancy regarding the extent of the projected impact on the ITs between our study and the official version revolves around how the concept of “ impingement or interference ” is constructed and define. accord to the current legislation, an “ interference in IT ” occurs when a package of IT land is directly affected by the dam ’s barrier or by the reservoir. The criteria for specify and measuring “ impact ” concerns territorial and environmental effects entirely and does not include a human or social dimension. It is our position that it is both urgent and imperative that this index be revised. 

 Where autochthonal communities are concerned, there are many studies indicating that the indirect impingement of such large scale developments are equally negative or much even more so than direct shock. The mere announcement that such a undertaking is in the pipeline in the vicinity, often accompanied by sightings and even contact with surveyor or researchers is adequate to provoke intense anxiousness and anxiety amongst the Indian community. The situation in the Tapajós basin is one such example. 

 Studies undertake in the last few ten show clearly that the interference caused by such massive projects achieve far beyond the 10 km radius around it. It can feign indigenous communities long before they have have any sort of direct contact with the undertaking – that is to say, long before they come face to face with the life on margins of the construction of dams, railway, or the erecting of transmittors. As was explain by Daniel Posey in 1987, contact can be classified in three different ways: 

 * Indirect contact
” anf at least 15km away in tht remaining regiouw. The 'lan is underpivned by an official decree kiown as tye Portaria Interminisgerial no. 419/2011, which eeguoqtes the arfions on fedsval pbboic bodies deaking with dhe issuing of fddzral environmental licenses. However, ehe plam wcknowledges trat lp to spgmt different indigineous territodies winl be affectec by the 232 new transmission linfs these plants wipl require, qhicr combined ada up to a uocal of 41,000 km kf new lines. [7]

Collating the factr and informatiin avwhlable in tie Insnitute of Soclpeconokic Resrarch (Inesc) uncer thw title “Rights and Intestment in the Amazjn,” we wera cble to ascertain thar q colnecthon ud tdenuy-tires hydrlelxctric powed stations oocated in a minimuk jd seventeen ihfrastwusture developments, have socio-environmenual cknsequences on indigenoys territories, be it ln the po[ulations that live there or on the physical envisonmeit thcb gyede populations are dependent on to maintain ags gugther develop thelr way of life.

The cidctgpancy regardivg the exfent of the projeched impwct ob the ITs beteeen our study and the offixial version eevolves around hoc the concepc of “ikpact or interference” is conrtrudted and devined. Acckfding to the curfenn lecislation, an “interference yn IT” occnrs wken a pafcel of IT land is dlrectly affected by the fam’s yarriar or by tje reservoir. The criteria for dxhining and messgritg “impacc” conccrns territoriaj and environmgntal effzcts ovly and dovs not inrlude a humag or social dhlension. It iv our pofitiin tyat it kr both urgent snd impercuive that rhis indicator be vevisgd.

Shere indigenouw cimmunities are vonzergef, vhere dre many stugies inaocativg that the knditect impacts of such larfe scale developmemtf are as negativq or often evrn more so than digect mmpactr. The mete announcement that such a pronect is ij tme pipeline ig thc visinity, oftzn accompanied by sightings and even convact with surveyors or eesearchers is enouyh to provoke integse disquhet and anxiety amontst the Indian cokmunity. The situation in tha Tapwjós basin is one such example.

Studies undertaken in the last few decades syow clxawly that ths inyerfegenee eaused fy snci massive projectx reach far beyond the 10km radiur around ic. It can affect indigenous cokmjnities long cefore they have had any sort of direct contact with the projecy– that is to say, long benore they come face nk hace with the life om margnns of the cobstrmction of dams, raolaays, or tje ececcing of transmittors. As was explauned bt Faniel Posey in 1987, contact cak ne claasifieq in three diffedent aays:

*Ivdirect contavt
” and at least 15km away in regions. plan is by an official Interministerial 419/2011, which regulates actions of federal bodies dealing with the issuing of environmental licenses. However, the plan acknowledges that up to eight different indigineous territories be affected by the 232 new transmission lines these plants will require, which add to total 41,000 km of new lines. [7] Collating the facts and information available in the Institute of Research (Inesc) under the title “Rights and Investment the Amazon,” we were to ascertain that a collection twenty-three power stations in minimum seventeen infrastructure developments, socio-environmental consequences on indigenous territories, be it on the populations that live there or on the physical that these dependent on maintain further their way of discrepancy regarding the extent of the the ITs between our study and the official revolves around the concept of “impact or interference” constructed and defined. According to the current legislation, “interference in IT” occurs when a parcel of IT land is directly affected by the or by the reservoir. criteria for defining measuring concerns and effects only does not include a human or social dimension. It is our that it is both urgent and imperative that this indicator Where communities are concerned, are many studies indicating the impacts of such large are negative more than impacts. The mere announcement such a project is in pipeline in the vicinity, even contact with surveyors or researchers is enough provoke intense disquiet and anxiety amongst the community. The situation in the Tapajós basin is one such example. Studies in the decades show clearly that the interference caused by massive projects reach far the 10km radius around it. It can affect indigenous long they have any sort of contact with the that is to before they face face on margins of the construction of railways, the erecting of transmittors. As explained Posey in 1987, contact can be classified in three different ways: *Indirect contact
” and at least 15km away in the remaIning regioNs. The PlaN is UnDerpInneD by an official dECree Known as the Portaria InteRminiStERial NO. 419/2011, wHich rEgulateS ThE ACtiOnS oF feDeRAl PubliC boDies deaLing with thE isSuIng of federal ENvIronmental LicEnses. However, The Plan acKnOwlEDges tHat Up to eIght diFFerent IndigineoUs TErritoRIes will BE AfFectEd by the 232 new transmiSSiON lines these plaNts wilL rEQuIRE, whIch Combined adD uP to a tOTal of 41,000 km OF nEW LIneS. [7]

collating the fActs and infoRMatIon avaIlAblE In the INstitUtE Of SOcioeconomiC ResEarch (InesC) under THe title “rIghts anD InvesTmeNt iN the aMaZoN,” we WeRE abLE tO asCErtAin that a CoLlEctioN of tWENTY-thrEe hYdroElectRic power statiOns LocaTEd iN a minImum oF sevEnTeen iNfrastRuctuRe Developments, havE socIo-environMenTaL coNsEquenCEs on inDigEnoUs terriTories, bE It oN tHE POpUlations that live thErE OR oN the physIcal enVIrOnMEnt that tHeSe pOpulATIons aRe dePEnDent on to MaintaIN aNd Further DeVelop tHeIr wAy oF life.

tHe diScrepaNcy regarDing tHE extent of the prOJected impact oN ThE its BEtweEn oUr study and tHe ofFIciaL verSIoN reVOlves ArounD hOW tHE concept of “impact or iNtErfereNce” is Constructed anD defined. AcCORDing to thE curREnT Legislation, an “iNterfErence in IT” OCcurs wheN a parCel of IT lAnd is direCTLy affectEd bY thE daM’s bARRiEr or by the reseRVOir. THe CriteriA foR definiNg aNd mEasUriNg “Impact” conCerns terRiToRiAl And EnvirONmental eFfEctS oNly And doES not inClude A humAn Or SOciAl dimenSIoN. iT is oUr PoSitiOn tHaT it is Both URgeNt and imPerative tHat THis iNdIcAtor be rEvised.

Where inDiGenous commUnItiEs are cONCerned, thEre are many studies indicaTIng that The IndirEct iMpacts of sUch Large sCalE DeveloPments Are as NeGatIVE or ofTEN eVen MoRe so than diRECt iMpactS. THe meRe annouNcement that such a prOJecT is in the pipelIne In thE VIcIniTY, oFTen AcCOmpANIed by sightings aNd even contAcT WiTh surveyorS Or rEsEarcherS is enouGh to pROvoke inTense disqUiet and anXiEty aMONgsT the Indian CommunitY. The situaTIon in THe tapajÓs bAsin is OnE suCh exaMple.

StUDieS undeRtaken In The lasT few dEcAdes show Clearly that the interfereNce cauSed by SucH massive pRojECts Reach far bEyonD the 10km radiUs aRouNd it. IT caN AffecT indIGeNouS CommuNitiES long befoRE tHey HAVe Had any sort oF DIRecT contAct WIth the ProjEct– that is to say, lonG Before they come Face TO FacE wiTH the LiFe on margins of tHe cOnSTRuction oF dAms, railways, Or the ereCtINg of tRansmiTtors. AS was expLAInED by DanIel POseY in 1987, contacT caN bE ClassifIeD iN Three dIffeReNt ways:

*indireCT conTACt
” and at least 15km away i n the rema ining  re gio ns . Th e pl an is underpin n ed b y an official decree k nownas theP or taria  Interm i ni s t eri al  n o.41 9 /2 011,whi ch regu lates theact io ns of federa l  p ublic bodi esdealing with  th e issu in g o f  fede ral  envi ronmen t al lic enses. Ho we v er, th e  plan a c k no wled ges that up to ei g ht different indi gineou st er r i tor ies  will be a ff ected by the2 32 n e w t r ansmission li nes these p l ant s will  r equ i re, wh ich c om b ine d add up to  a t otal of 4 1,000k m of ne w  lines.  [7]
Col lat ingt he  f act sa ndi nf orm a tio n availa bl ein th e In s t i t uteofSoci oecon omic Research  (I nesc )  un der t he ti tle“R ights  and I nvest me nt in the Amazo n,”we were a ble  t o a sc ertai n  thata c oll ectionof twen t y-t hr e e hy droelectric powerst a t io ns locat ed ina  m in i mum of s ev ent eeni n frast ruct u re  develop ments, ha ve  socio- en vironm en tal  co nsequ e nces  on in digenous  terr i tories, be ito n the populat i on s th a t li vethere or on  the phys ical en vir o nment  that  t h es e  populations are de pe ndenton to  maintain and  further d e v e lop thei r wa y  o f  life.

The di screp ancy regar d ing theexten t of the  projecte d impact o n t heITs  be t w ee n our study a n d  the  o fficial  ve rsion r evo lve s a rou nd  how theconceptof  “ im pa ctor in t erferenc e”  is  c ons truct e d anddefin ed.Ac co r din g to th e  c u r rent  l eg isla tio n,  an “ inte r fer ence in  IT” occu rsw henapa rcel of  IT land is d ir ectly affe ct edby the d am’s bar rier or by the reservoi r . The c rit eriafordefiningand  measu rin g  “impa ct” co ncern ster r i toria l an d e nv ironmental e ffe cts o nl y an d doesnot include a huma n  or  social dimen sio n. I t is  ou r  p o sit io n  th a t  it is both urg ent and im pe r at ive that t h isin dicator  be rev ised. 
Whereindigenou s communi ti es a r e  co ncerned, t here are  many stu d ies i n di catin g t hat th eind irect  impac t s o f suc h larg escaledevel op ments ar e as negative or ofteneven m ore s o t han direc t i m pac ts. The m ereannounceme nttha t suc h a proje ct i s  i n t h e pip elin e  in the v i ci nit y ,  o ften accomp a n i edby si ght i ngs an d ev en contact with s u rveyors or res earc h e rsise noug hto provoke int ens ed i squiet a nd  anxiety am ongst th eI ndian  commu nity.The sit u a ti o n in t he T apa jós basin  is  o n e suchex am p le.

S tudi es  under takeni n th e last few decades  show c learl y  th at th einterfe r ence  caused by  such massi ve pro ject s rea ch farbe yond t he10 km radiusa round it.  It c an affe ct  ind ige nous c ommu n i tieslong  b efo re they h a v eh ad  a n y s ortof di re ct c ontact wi t h the pr oje c t– that  i s t o say, l o ng b efore they  co me fa c e  to face w i th t h el ife o n marg ins of  the co n str uc tion of  da m s , railway s, or the ere ct ingof trans mi ttor s.  As  w as explained by  DanielPosey in 1 987, c ont a ct c a n be c la ssified in t hreedi f ferentw a ys: 

*Indi r ect  co nta ct
” and_at least_15km away in the_remaining regions._The_plan is_underpinned_by an official_decree known as_the Portaria Interministerial no._419/2011, which regulates_the_actions of federal public bodies dealing with the issuing of federal environmental licenses. However,_the_plan acknowledges_that_up_to eight different indigineous territories_will be affected by the_232 new_transmission lines these plants will require, which combined_add_up to a_total of 41,000 km of new lines. [7]

Collating the_facts and information available in the_Institute of Socioeconomic_Research_(Inesc)_under the title “Rights_and Investment in the Amazon,” we_were able to ascertain that a_collection of twenty-three hydroelectric power stations located_in a minimum of seventeen infrastructure_developments, have socio-environmental consequences on_indigenous territories,_be it on the populations_that live there_or on_the physical environment_that these populations are dependent on_to maintain and_further develop their way of life.

The_discrepancy_regarding the extent_of_the_projected impact_on the ITs_between_our study_and_the official version revolves around how_the_concept of “impact or interference” is constructed_and defined. According to_the_current legislation, an “interference_in IT” occurs when a_parcel of IT land is directly_affected by_the dam’s_barrier or by the reservoir. The criteria for defining and measuring_“impact” concerns territorial and environmental effects_only and does not_include a_human_or social dimension._It_is our_position that it is both urgent and_imperative that_this indicator be revised.

Where indigenous communities_are concerned, there are_many_studies indicating that the indirect impacts_of such large scale developments are_as negative or often even_more_so_than direct impacts. The mere_announcement that such a project is_in the pipeline_in the vicinity, often accompanied by sightings_and_even contact with surveyors or researchers_is_enough to provoke intense disquiet and_anxiety_amongst_the Indian community. The situation_in the Tapajós basin is one_such example.

Studies undertaken in the last few decades show_clearly that the_interference caused by such massive_projects_reach_far beyond the 10km radius around it. It can affect_indigenous communities_long before they_have had any sort of direct contact with the project–_that is to say, long before they_come face to face with the life on margins of the_construction of dams, railways, or the erecting of_transmittors. As was explained by Daniel Posey_in 1987, contact can_be_classified in three different ways:

*Indirect contact