This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/americas/7153078.stm

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Brazil dam given court go-ahead Brazil hunger strike bishop worse
(about 10 hours later)
Brazil's Supreme Court has annulled a ruling halting the diversion of South America's fourth largest river, despite a hunger strike by a Catholic bishop. A Brazilian bishop who has been on hunger strike for more than three weeks has been admitted to hospital after he lost consciousness.
Bishop Luiz Flavio Cappio has been fasting for 23 days to protest against the project on the Sao Francisco river. Luiz Flavio Cappio has been fasting for 23 days in protest at an irrigation project involving the diversion of South America's fourth largest river.
The government says the plan will bring water to more than 12 million people in one of Brazil's driest regions. On Wednesday Brazil's Supreme Court annulled a ruling halting the plan.
Environmental activists say the project would badly affect biodiversity and possibly the navigability of the river. Bishop Cappio and other protesters say it will damage the environment and serve only the interests of the rich.
The Brazilian government says more than 12 million people will benefit from the project on the Sao Francisco river.
A lower court had originally suspended work over alleged irregularities in the approval of the $2bn (£1bn) project.A lower court had originally suspended work over alleged irregularities in the approval of the $2bn (£1bn) project.
But the Supreme Court's elected to overturn that ruling by a margin of six votes to three. But the Supreme Court overturned that ruling by a margin of six votes to three.
Hunger strike Vatican talks
The most immediate impact of the latest court decision is to intensify the dilemma for the government surrounding Bishop Cappio's hunger strike, says the BBC's Gary Duffy, in Sao Paulo. Bishop Cappio, 61 - a prominent opponent of the scheme - began his hunger strike on 27 November.
The bishop has been on hunger strike since November 27 Water from the river would be used to irrigate north-eastern Brazil
Bishop Cappio - a prominent opponent of the scheme - began his hunger strike on 27 November.
Both the Vatican and the Brazilian Council of Bishops have been in negotiations with the bishop in an attempt to end his protest, citing his own safety as a factor.Both the Vatican and the Brazilian Council of Bishops have been in negotiations with the bishop in an attempt to end his protest, citing his own safety as a factor.
The bishop, 61, is said to be losing weight and developing health problems because of his hunger strike. He was said to be developing health problems.
But he maintains that the project will only benefit big business. A Church spokesman, Roberto Malvezzi, told the Associated Press news agency that Bishop Cappio had passed out on hearing about the Supreme Court decision.
He was revived but hours later slipped into semi-consciousness, Mr Malvezzi added.
Damage limitationDamage limitation
The most immediate impact of the latest court decision is to intensify the dilemma for the government over the hunger strike, says the BBC's Gary Duffy in Sao Paulo.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is a keen supporter of the project, which would bring water through 700km (435 miles) of canals to people and farmers in the north-eastern region of the country, where he was born.Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is a keen supporter of the project, which would bring water through 700km (435 miles) of canals to people and farmers in the north-eastern region of the country, where he was born.
The Supreme Court decided that the scheme would not cause irreversible environmental damage, and could therefore proceed. Environmental activists say the project would badly affect biodiversity and possibly the navigability of the river.
The Supreme Court disagreed and said the project could proceed.
But the court did not rule on the alleged irregularities in the project's approval process, and work on the dam can only go ahead until the court decides on the merits of the case at a later date.But the court did not rule on the alleged irregularities in the project's approval process, and work on the dam can only go ahead until the court decides on the merits of the case at a later date.
If the court decides against the plan, it could be shelved for a second time.If the court decides against the plan, it could be shelved for a second time.