Thread by @Luscinia_joshua

A thread to cover some of the major - and I mean seriously, shockingly major - gaps, mistakes and problems with the #environmental impact assessment for Montijo airport in #Portugal.

First up: no #fieldwork. AT ALL. 1/

That's right – the EIA of a major international #airport proposed for the country’s most important #wetland site for #bird #conservation didn’t bother to actually count any #birds.

Instead, they depended on studies already published for other reasons.

How did that work out? 2/

Well, the data on birds feeding in the #intertidal- the largest and most important #habitat in the #SPA- was collected in 2002-3.

In the 17 years since, the #Tagus has changed a lot for birds. Improved #water treatment but drastic increase in #shellfish harvesting. 3/

Forgot to mention! Those counts were from Dec-Mar only!

No data on protected #breeding spp. No autumn #migration, when #birds are most numerous. 🤦

Plus, unequal coverage of the estuary. 4/

Feeding data were therefore available for only 8 of the 28 #species considered by the EIA. 5/

Data on #roosts slightly better: 9 of 28 species covered! 🥳🥳🥳
But important areas in the northeast of the estuary were still omitted.
ce3c.ciencias.ulisboa.pt/research/publi… 6/

Despite relying on #literature, info from Tagus often ignored.

e.g. site fidelity quantified locally for Black-t #Godwit by @TeresaCatry &al doi.org/10.1371/journa…
& for #Sanderling by @PedroLo43221019 &al dx.doi.org/10.7717%2Fpeer…

but EIA cites much older work from north UK. 7/

Not to mention huge no. of #tracking studies, eg
#Spoonbills by @WGLepelaar, #godwits by @GlobalFlyway @NIOZnieuw
Little #Bustard by @jpcampbellsilva

Plus many more spp colour ringed by @_JoseAAlves_ @afonso_dr_rocha @J_Reneerkens & many others 8/

It would therefore have been possible to base the EIA on current, high-quality data on how #birds use the SPA.

Instead, ANA Aeroportos chose to save their money, and @govpt @apambient chose to let them instead of enforcing @EU_ENV law. 9/

Ok, the next one sounds too stupid 🤡 to be true, but I promise this is real 🤣.

The #ornithology in the EIA rests upon a #model of #disturbance from #aircraft takeoff/landing.

Where did they get the data from? 10/

From a study of disturbance by @ecoevoenviro &al.
wildfowl.wwt.org.uk/index.php/wild…

The catch – noise was a 3 second horn blast, which is not very much like an #aeroplane landing. 🤦11/

No complaint with the study itself, but it’s very clearly misapplied!

Based on small flocks of very few spp (see col 4) - not representative of huge flocks & #biodiversity found in the Tagus. 12/

Further, the EIA classifies ≤60dB noise as ‘no disturbance’.

Oddly, the cited paper found ~14% disturbance at this level 🤨. This error shrinks the area affected in the EIA. 🤔🤔

Other studies of chronic traffic noise also show effects at 50-60dB. 13/

The EIA’s own figures for high disturbance (which as explained are underestimated): 246 ha (roosts) and 2,357 ha (feeding areas) - already 18% of the area protected.

The only compensation measure proposed in EIA is creation & mgmt of saltpans- largely used for roosting! 14/

So intertidal feeding areas are to be replaced by areas to sleep, managed by the same people pushing this location for the airport.

If someone from ANA ever invites you to dinner, make sure you eat first – but expect to stay the night! 15/

The location of these new roost sites was based on a 2006 study of a single species, the #Dunlin, which found that most individuals feed & roost w/in 4.5km. doi.org/10.1016/j.bioc…

What about other species? Who knows? Who cares? 🤷‍♂️ Not @apambient nor @govpt 16/

Putting an airport mid-estuary creates noise from planes. The EIA suggests making more noise, eg with gas cannons, & using #falconry, to scare birds from the surrounding estuary & thus reduce the risk of birdstrike.

SPAs are intended to provide refuge from human disturbance. 17/

It’s also plausible that such a zone of high disturbance along the estuary could form a behavioural barrier, preventing birds from moving between habitually used sites.

This effect is not considered in the EIA. 18/

Further, the EIA considers all impacts on #birds to be ‘local’. In fact, these spp are #migratory and impacts would echo throughout the east-Atlantic #flyway @UNEP_AEWA

Therefore, #Montijo airport’s impacts would harm #wildlife across half the world – not just in #Portugal. 19/

As an attempt at #science the EIA is clearly #crap 💩💩💩

But it’s worse than that – a coordinated attempt by @govpt and private business to override the law, the needs of #conservation and the wishes of local people. 20/

It’s 2020. @EUCommission is preparing #EUGreenDeal. #Lisbon, hilariously, is @EU_GreenCapital.

By attempting to force this crazy location, @govpt & @antoniocostapm make themselves look reckless, short-sighted and incompetent. 21/

If Montijo airport goes ahead, the inevitable EU fine will cost #Portugal’s taxpayers €millions – while ANA, @VINCIAirports & others make huge profits at their expense, and the expense of #nature and #wildlife worldwide. 22/thread

@threadreaderapp unroll

A clarification: @peducardoso has pointed out that bird counts were undertaken at the proposed construction site itself. Thanks!

My thread refers to the assessment of impacts on the wider Tagus estuary, in particular the SPA.