Slamming the latest Institute of Nature and Forestry report on the Lagoa wetland as “inadequate and misleading," campaigner Anabela Blofeld, from the Alagoas Brancas Group, questions the use of Portugal's organisations that are set up to support and protect nature and the Algarve's varied environment, while in reality they condone and support councils, greedy for rates income - and supermarket chains who view environmental impact assessments as a mild inconvenience.
The wetland that gave Lagoa its name is to be filled-in to make way for yet another supermarket in this town that has become the region's supermarket capital, each vying with its neighbour for business from a council population that does not justify the investment.
Lagoa council, claiming the development plan was ages old and therefore nothing can be done about stopping the bulldozers filling in the bird-rich wetlands, has been obstructive, arrogant and deceptive.
Bird agency SPEA and the normally cooperative Almargem, both have opined that the area should be protected, but have failed to follow up early support.
A keenly awaited report from the ICNF, which is meant ot be Portugal's stalwart defender of the natural environment, could have been written by the developer, with Blofeld asking - is the ICNF acting responsibly?
Blofeld calls for the Ministry of the Environment to reject the ICNF report and writes on behalf of the protest group -
"The Ministry of the Environment has sent us a copy of a report prepared by ICNF on the Alagoas Brancas dated 16 October 2017.
This report can be challenged on several grounds:-
1. We believe that the study on which the report is based is wholly inadequate and does not conform to the instructions of the Ministry. ICNF carried out only one site visit on one day in late Spring.
2. There are several critical factual errors in the report regarding the seasonality of the sweet water, about the behaviour of the birds, and about the number of species which inhabit the site. Consequently the report is wholly misleading.
3. The report states that the seasonality of the site disqualifies it from being important. However, it is its very seasonality which establishes this site as being a temporary Mediterranean pond which has a priority status as a habitat under EU guidelines.
4. In the report there is reference to the water birds being only occasionally visitors, and that this disqualifies the site from being important. How did ICNF arrive at this conclusion? There seems to be a deliberate attempt to ignore the available evidence. ICNF has failed to carry out its own proper study of the site and failed to consult any of the independent experts who have studied the site. For example, the spoonbills with rings which have been sighted did not just happen to be there by chance. These birds were identified and studied over successive seasons by a qualified expert, Dr Manfred Temme.
5. The report fails to recognise that each aquatic site, Alagoas Brancas, rice fields, Lagoa dos Salgados, etc. cannot be considered in isolation. Each habitat is connected to the others and each has its part to play in the ecology of the whole area. This basic understanding of the behaviour of birds is missing from the report.
6. The ecological importance of this site has been acknowledged by various competent authorities such as ALMARGEM, SPEA, QUERCUS, BIRDLAND, Dr. Manfred Temme, and recorded in various publications in Portugal and in Europe. These entities would not wish to risk their professional reputation by supporting a site which has no value. ICNF has ignored the wealth of expert opinion and believes that the site is not important.
7. We believe that the references to a possible alternative man-made site are inappropriate in this report. We feel that these references are intended to make the reader believe that a feasible and acceptable alternative site can be achieved but the report fails to provide any details. There are no details of the ecological requirements for an alternative site or how these requirements could be met. Coincidentally, local council officials had floated the idea of an alternative man-made site as far back as February 2017.
8. We can see nothing in the report to show that ICNF has formally worked with the local council to find a solution which will safeguard the birdlife, as the Ministry instructed, or details of any proposed solution.
We believe that the Ministry should reject the report by ICNF and take immediate steps to prevent any further commercial development of the Alagoas Brancas site until a proper study and report have been completed.
Save the Alagoas Brancas Group
Comments