Large Dams

Belo Monte: Hope remains, despite failed promises

When the Belo Monte Dam builders came to this corner of the Brazilian Amazon, they came with the promise of sustainable development, particularly for Altamira, the city closest to the dam.  On a recent visit to that city, it was clear to me that—six years after construction began and one year after beginning operations—Belo Monte has brought anything but. Last  June, Brazil’s Institute of Applied Economics classified Altamira as the most dangerous city in Brazil. According to the study, Altamira’s rapid and disorderly growth over the last six years has had serious implications for crime in the city. In 2000, according to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, Altamira had about 77 thousand residents. With dam construction, that figure soared to 110 thousand last year. The result: Altamira registered the country’s highest homicide rate in 2015, with 105.2 murders per 100 thousand people. A troubling context frames these numbers: Brazil is the most dangerous country in the world for environmental defenders, according to Global Witness. That’s especially true for those who dedicate their lives to defending the Amazon—16 of Brazil’s 49 murders in 2016 were related to protection of the Amazon rainforest. Unsanitary conditions In addition to generalized violence, the other big worry in Altamira is basic sanitation, which involves sources and systems of clean water, as well as waste management. During the last six years, when the dam completely altered the urban and social dynamic of the city, no one bothered to provide an adequate, basic sanitation system. And that’s despite the fact that dam construction and operation were approved on condition of building such a system. The only thing built in Altamira at that time was the massive hydroelectric dam. In April of this year, a Brazilian court ordered the dam’s operations suspended until basic sanitation is adequately provided to the resettlement districts of Altamira. But the company in charge of the dam has refused to comply with the ruling, arguing that it has permission to operate. This clearly demonstrates the government’s inability to avoid the abuses caused by this mega-project and its operating company. Questionable investment The current reality of Belo Monte is aggravated by the fact that a Chinese state-owned company, Grid Brazil Holding, won the auction to take over the second power transmission system to be fed by the dam. The company offered 988 million reales (roughly $300 million USD), which makes me question the previous statements of the Brazilian government that hydroelectric energy is cheap, as well as clean. This investment is worrying because the company has already been fined several times for failing to meet deadlines related to the first power transmission system. Worse still, Chinese companies are known for failing to protect human rights and the environment, which is why the situation in Altamira is likely to become even more complicated. Hope remains Despite this discouraging panorama, the urban population, as well as the indigenous and riverside communities, still have hope that Altamira will one day be a quiet and beautiful city again. I heard many people speak of their desire to return to the days of sitting on chairs in the street talking with neighbors, and bathing in the waters of the Xingu river; the days of collective fishing and parties in the parks. Those people have shown me that we should not be afraid or lose hope. There are many who believe in my work as a defender of the Amazon. It is for them that I will keep fighting. I will work so that institutions, like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, before which our case is pending, hold Brazil accountable for the human rights violations that have occurred from the construction and operation of Belo Monte. And I will ensure that the people affected by Belo Monte get justice and reparations. 

Letter to Argentine legislators on dams in Patagonia

In a letter sent to the Argentine Congress, civil society organizations expressed their concerns about the construction of large dams in Patagonia. The letter outlines recent scientific studies on the impacts of large dams on the environment, the economy, and local communities, and includes information on existing clean energy alternatives. We write out of deep concern for the crossroads facing the Argentine people: protect the immeasurable ecological heritage of Patagonia, or jeopardize Chinese funding for a significant number of infrastructure and energy projects. We understand that this is not a minor issue, and we hope that the Argentine Congress will make use of the Public Hearing on July 20, not only to evaluate in depth the Kirchner-Cepernic Hydroelectric Complex (KCHC), but also to open up a fundamental conversation for Argentina and all of Latin America: on the development of a truly clean, sovereign, and efficient energy model. We take this opportunity to share information on the negative impacts large dams have on the environment and economies of nations, as well as on affected communities; and on existing alternatives that can provide cheaper and more efficient energy. Argentina must not consider itself obliged to alter one of the last pristine areas on the planet, home of the last glacial river that runs freely from mountain peaks to the ocean. There are currently many energy options that are better than hydroelectric dams. Argentina has the opportunity to be a pioneer in the development and implementation of these renewable energy technologies. Worldwide clean energy trends demonstrate this: in 2015, the world added 63 GW of wind energy and 47 GW of solar energy, compared to just 22 GW of energy from large hydropower plants. In some parts of the world, large dams are being dismantled in recognition that their costs outweigh their benefits; and in others, private companies are discarding large dam projects because they are no longer viable or profitable. Furthermore, the United States of America has decided, as a national policy, to oppose any loan, donation, strategy, or policy to support the construction of any large hydroelectric dam. Wind and solar energy are now economically competitive, faster to build and operate, and less vulnerable to a changing climate. In addition, the falling prices of battery storage, accompanied by innovations in smart grid technology, offers ways to resolve the problem of intermittent renewables without the need to construct new large dams. Large hydropower dams are an obsolete technology. They are highly vulnerable to climate change (they can be paralyzed by droughts and may become dangerous in extreme weather events); worsen climate change by destroying carbon sinks and emitting gases from their reservoirs; harm biodiversity and local communities; cost a fortune; and take too long to become operational. Furthermore, the continued promotion of large dams by construction companies—as in the current case linked to Chinese funding—delays the implementation of available and necessary solutions towards the energy transition that our planet needs. 

Spending climate dollars on large dams – a bad idea

During its last board meeting, the Green Climate Fund—charged with financing developing nations’ fight against climate change—approved two projects related to large dams.  That means $136 million will finance large-scale hydropower, contradicting the Fund’s goal of stimulating a low-emission and climate-resilient future. We’ve said it before: large dams are not part of the paradigm shift we need. They worsen climate change and are highly vulnerable to its impacts. They also cause grave economic and socio-environmental problems that make it impossible to label them as sustainable development. dam Projects before the gcf While the two projects will exacerbate climate change, they aren’t the most destructive we’ve seen.  The first is expected to generate 15 MW of electricity in the Solomon Islands, an impoverished Pacific archipelago highly vulnerable to climate change. Planned for the Tina River, the dam will be the country’s first major infrastructure project. Today, the Solomon Islands rely almost entirely on imported diesel to produce energy. It is an unreliable, highly polluting energy source for which residents must pay one of the highest rates in the region. We would have liked to see the Solomon Islands leapfrog toward a more sustainable alternative, avoiding the era of large dams altogether. But we were pleased to see the World Bank’s consultation and engagement processes with local communities, which lend legitimacy to the project. The second project will rehabilitate a dam built in the 1950’s in Tajikistan. The repairs will make the dam more resilient to weather and less subject to accidents. Since it is focused on rehabilitation, the project will not generate the socio-environmental impacts typical of ground-up dam construction. Tajikistan already gets 98 percent of its energy from hydropower, an increasingly unreliable energy source. In fact, during colder months, when more energy is needed, more than 70 percent of the population suffers cutbacks due to the malfunctioning of dams. It’s unreasonable to use climate finance to deepen a country’s energy dependency instead of diversifying its matrix and increasing its climate resiliency.    Our Campaign against large dams When we learned that large dam proposals would come before the Fund, just before the 14th meeting of the Board of Directors, we drafted a letter explaining why large dams are ineligible for climate funding.  Then, in anticipation of the 16th meeting, during which the projects would be discussed, we sent Board Members an informational letter on each of the projects, signed by our closest allies. Finally, during the board meeting, we circulated a statement signed by a coalition of 282 organizations, further strengthening our position against the funding of large dams. We obtained official replies from several members of the Board, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (in charge of the project in Tajikistan), and the Designated National Authority of the Solomon Islands. Delegates from Canada and France requested further discussion of the issue. The problems with large dams received international media attention through articles published in The Guardian and Climate Home. Advancing with Optimism Although financing was ultimately granted to both of the projects, we managed to draw international attention to the contradiction inherent in funding large dams with money designated to combat climate change. Several members of the Green Climate Fund expressed doubts about further promoting large hydropower initiatives. We’re confident they’ll raise their voices when faced with projects far more damaging than those recently approved. Cheaper, more effective, and more environmentally friendly alternatives need the support and momentum the Green Climate Fund can provide. Both solar and wind power, for example, have proved to be more efficient and less costly than large-scale hydropower. Other less-developed technologies, such as geothermal, have largely unexplored potential. As part of a coalition of civil society organizations monitoring the Fund’s decisions, AIDA will continue working to ensure that the recent decision to fund large dams does not become a precedent.

Halting the implementation of large dams in the Americas

Belo Monte Dam must comply with conditions before continuing operations

Last week a federal court in Brazil suspended the operating license of the Belo Monte Dam. Prosecutors said the dam's operating company, Norte Energía, failed to complete basic sanitation works in the city of Altamira, which has been directly affected by the hydroelectric project.  The decision comes in response to a legal appeal filed by the Federal Public Ministry. The sanitation work was a condition for the dam's licensing, authorized by the Brazilian Institute of Environmental Resources (IBAMA), and should have been completed before the reservoir was filled; it was not.  "This is the first time that a federal court has suspended one of Belo Monte's suspensão de segurança, a legal tool that guarantees the dam's operation even though it hasn't completed the conditions required under its operating license. In practice, the decision means that the dam must immediately halt all operations, although the completion of pending work may continue," explained AIDA attorney Marcella Ribeiro.  "Beyond being an issue of sanitation, this judgment represents an important step forward in the fight to force the operating company to adequately comply with the conditions necessary for the dam's operation, which favor affected communities."  "We hope the Brazilian justice system continues to guarantee the protection of the rights of all those affected by  the Belo Monte Dam.”

Letter: Concerning the Green Climate Fund and large hydropower

The 282 undersigned organizations write to express our significant concern regarding the use of GCF resources to support large hydropower, and, in particular, the following proposals in the GCF’s pipeline: (i) Qairokkum Hydropower Rehabilitation, Tajikistan; (ii) Upper Trishuli-1, Nepal; and (iii) Tina River Hydro Project, Solomon Islands.  The GCF can and should help pay for the incremental costs of renewable energy sources, which are often less “bankable” (though less so all the time). However, we wish to highlight that large dams are different from wind, solar and other technologies because they fail to fulfill the GCF Investment Criteria. For example:  (i) Impact potential: Dams emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases, particularly methane, and damage carbon sinks;  (ii) Paradigm shift potential: Large hydro is a non-innovative technology that has not seen significant technical or financial breakthroughs in decades;  (iii) Sustainable development: Dams have high negative co-impacts with regard to the environment, human rights, and economic cost. By interrupting rivers and flooding lands, they irreversibly harm livelihoods and ecosystems. Because they routinely cost double their estimates, large dams stretch government budgets and increase borrowing costs; (iv) Needs of the recipient: Hydropower projects are particularly vulnerable to climate change, and many countries are already alarmingly over-dependent on hydropower (as is the case with Tajikistan and Nepal). GCF should support efforts in these countries to diversify their energy mix, helping them improve their resilience and adaptive capacities; and,  (v) Efficiency and effectiveness: Dams all over the world are losing generation capacity because of climate change-induced droughts.  In addition, each of the dam-related projects in the GCF’s pipeline suffers significant deficiencies:  Qairokkum Hydropower Rehabilitation: This funding proposal is expected at the April board meeting. The board should reject it. The project aims to extend the life of a Soviet-era dam, built in the 1950s. It is not innovative in any way, deepens Tajikistan’s already alarming overdependence on climate-vulnerable hydro, and fails to address critical environmental problems of the original dam, among other concerns.  Upper Trishuli-1: Though not up for consideration at the April board meeting, Upper Trishuli has been in the project pipeline for many months and should be expeditiously removed from it. With more than 30 hydro projects either operating, in construction, or planned on the Trishuli River, the project would have no transformational impact. It faces severe climate and disaster risks, would deepen Nepal’s overdependence on climate-vulnerable hydro, and would have significant impacts on indigenous communities and the environment that have not been adequately studied or addressed. There is also no assessment of the project’s vulnerability to earthquakes, despite the area being highly seismic.  Tina River Hydro Project: Expected at the April board meeting, this 15 MW project is intended to reduce the Solomon Islands’ reliance on imported diesel. The project does not include an assessment of climate vulnerability, threatens a world-class biodiversity hotspot, and is very costly. Meanwhile, Solomon Islands has considerable renewable energy potential that has not been sufficiently studied. These issues and others are detailed in a letter sent previously to the Board. Thank you for your attention to this most important matter. We look forward to working with you and the Secretariat to ensure that the GCF is a transformational institution of the highest social and environmental caliber. That cannot be accomplished if the GCF finances large hydropower. 

Attacks against Guatemalan human rights defenders denounced

Communities and organizations appealed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, urging the State of Guatemala, private businesses, and investors to guarantee the human rights of people and communities affected by large hydroelectric projects. They presented a report, outlining 10 different cases, which documents 273 incidents of threats, criminalization, and attacks against defenders, traditional authorities, journalists, and communities. Criminalization included 103 arrest warrants, imprisonment of 36 defenders, and the murder of 11. Washington, DC, United States.  A coalition of communities and organizations denounced human rights violations against traditional and indigenous communities in Guatemala, at a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Because of their opposition to large hydroelectric projects, the human rights defenders have been threatened, assaulted, treated as criminals, and assassinated. A report presented before the Commission, featuring 10 different cases, notes that various communities confronting these projects have faced rights abuses including violations of their rights to free, prior, informed, and culturally appropriate consultation; self-determination; due process; and life. The report also outlines how those who defend affected people and communities have been victims of threats and aggressions. The most common attacks include arrest warrants (103), assaults resulting in injuries (56), imprisonment (36), detention (25), criminalization (16), and threats (15). There have been 11 documented murders and three conflict-related deaths in communities that oppose these hydroelectric projects. At least 19 companies are linked to hydroelectric projects in Guatemala, of which 55 percent are national, 40 percent are transnational, and five percent are State-owned. The complaints emphasized that it is the duty of the State to guarantee the rights of communities, and of the people who defend them. The obligation to respect human rights also extends to operating companies and project funders. Therefore, the organizations and communities ask the Guatemalan State to: Comprehensively respect the rights of indigenous people, including the rights to self-determination; consultation; and free, prior, informed, and culturally appropriate consent. Ensure the safety of human rights defenders. Include the participation of indigenous communities in the design and implementation of their energy-development policies. They also request the companies involved to: Comply with due diligence in matters of business and human rights. Refrain from taking actions, such as filing lawsuits, that result in criminalization of and attacks on human rights defenders. Publicly recognize the positive and fundamental role of human rights defenders in democracy. The complete report (in Spanish) is available here. Authors Include: Acompañamiento de Austria (ADA); Asamblea Departamental de Pueblos de Huehuetenango (ADH); Asociación de Abogados Mayas de Guatemala; Asociación Indígena Ch`Orti` Nuevo Día; Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA); Business and Human Rights Resource Center; Consejo del Pueblo Maya (CPO) Consejo Mam; Guatemala Human Rights Commission, USA (GHRC); Guatemala Solidarity Network; Microregión de Ixquisis, San Mateo Ixtatán; The Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation (SweFOR); PAYXAIL YAJAW KONOB (Gobierno Ancestral Plurinacional) AKATEKA, CHUJ, POPTI’, Q’ANJOB’AL; International Platform Against Impunity; Protection International; Proyecto Acompañamiento Quebec Guatemala Montréal, Canadá; Resistencia Río Dolores and Unidad de Protección a Defensoras y Defensores de Derechos Humanos (UDEFEGUA). Press contacts: Karen Hudlet, Business and Human Rights Resource Center, [email protected] Rodrigo da Costa Sales, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), [email protected]  

Changing the way we approach large dams

Cigarettes once served to cure cough; lead-based makeup was fashionable; and DDT, a highly toxic insecticide, was used in gardens where children played. At the time, little was known of their grave impacts on health and the environment. These facts may shock us now, but once they were normal. Cigarettes, lead, and DDT were widely believed to be more beneficial than harmful to humanity. Thanks to science, we learned of their serious health and environmental impacts. We’re learning the same now about large dams. A photograph of a dam surrounded by trees is as misleading as the doctor-approved cigarette ads once were. In the last decade, we’ve seen that the damage dams do to communities and ecosystems is far greater than the benefits they provide. Recently, an academic study confirmed something even more worrying: large dams aggravate climate change. At the end of 2016, researchers from Washington State University (WSU) concluded that reservoirs around the world, not just those in tropical areas, generate 1.3 percent of the total greenhouse gases produced by mankind. Dams, they found, are an “underestimated” source of contaminating emissions, particularly methane, a pollutant 34 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. These findings have not yet been properly absorbed. Large dams continue to be funded and promoted as clean energy. Some countries boast nearly 100 percent renewable energy, yet reports show that at least half of that is hydroelectric energy, produced primarily by large dams. Violating human rights Even before WSU’s study was made public, the damage large dams do to communities and the environment was well documented. Dams disrupt traditional lifestyles, and affected communities are forced to adapt to new environmental conditions, such as altered river flow and species migration. Many communities have also been victims of forced displacement and fall into poverty as a result. In the Brazilian Amazon, the Belo Monte Dam provides a prime example of the ways dams cause negative impacts on both people and the environment. At AIDA, we’ve worked hand-in-hand with the indigenous and river communities of the Xingu River Basin, who have seen the trees fall around them, the red earth spread like a stain across their forest, the fish disappear from their rivers, and their small islands submerged. For those living in Altamira, the city nearest the dam, living conditions also worsened significantly, with increased violence, substance abuse, and prostitution.   This story has been repeated thousands of times around the world. According to International Rivers, 57 thousand large dams had been built by 2015, disrupting more than half of the world’s rivers and causing the displacement of at least 40 million people. What can we do?  Although the WSU study may surprise governments and corporations that promote the construction of large dams, for the health of the planet the trend must be stopped. Environmentally friendly alternatives exist, which do not imply the same social, economic and climatic impacts as dams. Hope can be found in the Brazilian Amazon with the Munduruku tribe. Last year, their long fight paid off with the cancellation of a large dam project on the Tapajós River, the sacred waterway on which their lifestyle depends. The decision to cancel the dam was backed with evidence of the impacts dams have on communities and ecosystems, exemplified by the case of Belo Monte. Recently, the Munduruku gathered to discuss and find solutions for the threats they continue to face as development rages in the Amazon. Solutions include the decentralization of energy sources, the promotion of small-scale projects, and solar and geothermal energy, all of which must be accompanied by adequate community-consultation processes. But they must be studied on a case-by-case basis and according to available resources, as what’s best for one community may not be best for another. Funding must carefully evaluate which projects to support, analyzing in detail the potential socio-environmental impacts. It may sound like people are making all the wrong decisions, but now is no time to be discouraged. We have the scientific information we need to care for our planet. Societal changes prove that we can change our actions to prioritize our health. Why can’t we do the same for the health of our planet? In the last several decades, the number of smokers has drastically decreased, we’ve stopped lacing makeup and other products with lead, and DDT has been regulated. In terms of large dams, the solution lies in re-thinking the way we produce energy and prioritizing the preservation of our free-flowing rivers. 

Letter to Green Climate Fund Board and Advisors: Concern regarding the use of GCF resources to support large hydropower

We write to express our concern regarding the use of GCF resources to support large hydropower in general, and in particular the following proposals in the GCF pipeline:   Qairokkum Hydropower Rehabilitation, Tajikistan Upper Trishuli-1, Nepal Tina River Hydro Project, Solomon Islands Large hydropower is a non-innovative, last-century technology with dubious climate mitigation benefits and a long track record of exceedingly high financial, environmental, and social costs. Supporting such proposals would not be consistent with the Fund’s goal, to promote a paradigm shift toward lowemission, climate resilient development, in the context of sustainable development. Further, large hydropower projects would not meet the GCF’s selection criteria related to impact, paradigm shift potential, sustainable development, and efficiency and effectiveness. The reasons why the GCF should not support large hydropower are described in the annex, and briefly summarized here:   Large dams are vulnerable to climate change: more frequent droughts make them inefficient and increased rainfall reduces their lifespan. Large dams exacerbate climate change: considerable amounts of greenhouse gasses, notably methane (30 times more potent than CO2), are emitted from reservoirs; and their construction damages carbon sinks, including forests and rivers. Large dams harm biodiversity, which in turn impairs communities’ capacity to adapt to a changing climate. Large dams can negatively affect local communities by impoverishing them, breaking social networks, and negatively affecting livelihoods and cultures. Large dams can become dangerous: climate change-related extreme weather events and earthquakes can cause dams to fail, jeopardizing lives and property downstream. Large dams are not economical and are ill suited to address urgent energy needs: recent studies clearly demonstrate that large dams typically suffer significant cost and time overruns. Better energy options are widely available and the GCF should play a fundamental role in promoting them.

The Odebrecht Tsunami: can we restore the public trust, or just the money?

(Column originally published in El País) Corruption in Latin American and the Caribbean is no longer news. Some even consider it normal. But this too has a limit. So when we learned of the extent of corruption involved with Brazilian multinational Odebrecht, the news hit like a tsunami: the corporation not only swept away huge piles of money, it also destroyed the public trust. Now we must question whether the more than 100 infrastructure projects involved in the Odebrecht case were really in the public interest, or if they were merely an excuse to pay millions in bribes. The details of this complex and corrupt machinery came to light on December 21. That day the Department of Justice and the US Attorney’s Office published a document in which corporate executives confessed to having paid roughly $788 million in bribes to officials in 11 Latin American countries and Mozambique. According to the document, “between 2001 and 2016, Odebrecht, together with its co-conspirators, knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed with others to corruptly provide hundreds of millions of dollars… for the benefit of foreign officials, foreign political parties, foreign political party officials, and foreign political candidates… in order to obtain and retain business…” It is a confession of actions that completely betray the public trust. The executives implicated dozens of governments, including heads of state (such as Colombian President and Nobel Prize-winner Juan Manuel Santos), ministers, senators, and others who are now being investigated or have been jailed. Indignation is rampant, as are demands for justice. Although it wasn’t possible to access the complete list of projects, public information in each country accounts for the following: Argentina: gas pipelines, water purification projects, potassium extraction, and the burial of the Sarmiento railway, among others. Brazil: hundreds of projects, including extractive industries and the Belo Monte Dam, which since its planning stages has been violating human rights. Colombia: the Ruta del Sol and the navigation of the Magdalena River, the two most important engineering projects in the country. Ecuador: the Manduriacu dam and the Pacific refinery. Although the administration of Rafael Correa has stated that possible bribes occurred before 2007, the US government claims to have evidence of later bribes. Mexico: the Ethylene XXI petrochemical project (the largest in Latin America) and the Los Ramones II Norte gas pipeline. Peru: the North-South Interoceanic Highway, the Alto Piura hydroelectric project, and the Lima electric train. Dominican Republic: the Punta Catalina thermoelectric plant and the Pinalito hydroelectric plant. In all countries, the bribes involve energy or infrastructure projects that were declared essential for development by governments, international agencies, and corporations.  Yet communities and organizations have for decades denounced these same projects for abridging human rights, harming the environment, and aggravating climate change. The majority of their complaints about these projects were ignored. The Belo Monte Dam, for example, began operations despite the fact that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requested a halt to its construction and government protection of the rights of affected indigenous communities. Requests for justice were also repressed, sometimes by the very governments that, according to the evidence, were reportedly given bribes to implement the projects. The situation is all the more serious if we consider that Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for human rights defenders, particularly those who protect the environment and their territory. Faced with unprecedented corruption, it is vital to analyze each of the projects from the Odebrecht case to determine its true public utility. It’s likely that, in many cases, the socio-environmental costs far outweigh the benefits. In such cases, damages must be penalized. The Odebrecht case may be just the tip of the iceberg in a broader regional problem. Each State and corporation on the continent must adopt effective anti-corruption measures and re-evaluate their project planning and implementation processes. One clear lesson from this scandal is that the region needs to strengthen the independent, objective fulfillment of national and international standards for the protection of the environment and human rights. In the case of mega-projects, transparency and the participation of those affected (and those interested in protecting the public interest) must be ensured. Given that, in some cases, the investigation of corruption rests with the administrations implicated in the scandal, independent regional citizen’s oversight should be established to investigate the impacts of the mega-projects, and the best ways to compensate for damages. We must ensure, once and for all, that decision-makers are truly serving the public interest, and not their own pocketbooks. All of us citizens must contribute to making this a reality.  One thing you can do to help is support AIDA – the only regional organization of Latin American experts providing free legal support to secure the wellbeing of people, places, and the planet.