[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.5.1″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.5.1″ _module_preset=”default” min_height=”181px”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.5.1″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.5.1″ _module_preset=”default” inline_fonts=”Cormorant Garamond,Molengo,Assistant”]<\/p>\n
Abstract<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n This article briefly examines the urgent need for a re-opening or re-creation of the World Commission on Dams Report issued in 2000. The World Commission on Dams concluded that inclusion and participation are key elements that are needed in hydropower projects. This article looks at four specific situations in Chile, Brazil, China and the United States and discusses how the World Commission on Dams report has been neglected and likely forgotten.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n In the 1990s, a panel of experts was convened to form the World Commission on Dams, which was created to work through issues between supporters and opponents of large hydropower dams. The World Commission on Dams (WCD) conducted a Global Review, assessed different case studies, and took submissions from experts and civil society organizations.<\/span><\/p>\n In 2000, the WCD panel<\/span>issued a report<\/a> which outlined and suggested a new approach to dam development.\u00a0 The WCD proposed a \u201crights and risk<\/em>\u201d approach, which is \u201cbased on the recognition of rights and assessment of risks (particularly rights at risk)<\/em>.\u201d[1]\u00a0 The WCD applied a Normative Development Framework to create this approach, which included the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Declaration on the Right to Development, and the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development. This rights and risk approach is to be utilized in the decision-making process for water and energy development and to make that process participatory and inclusionary. To further enhance the process, the WCD listed five core values: equity, efficiency, participatory decision-making, sustainability, and accountability. These core values \u201c<\/span>provide tests and parameters to foster a new approach decision-making<\/a><\/em>.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n This brief article examines whether the WCD framework has continued to have any utility since the report in 2000 and concludes with the suggestion that it is time to convene another iteration of the WCD.\u00a0 While many of the issues the WCD noted in 2000 continue today, it is clear that the \u201crights and risk\u201d approach has been long forgotten, as evidenced by recent decisions to build dams and, in some cases \u2013 to continue damming rivers that are already in jeopardy.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Continued Themes<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The following situations underscore how the WCD framework and its \u201centry points\u201d have been neglected over the years or largely ignored. The WCD had emphasized in its concluding remarks that each country was to develop the appropriate tools within its own context. While hydropower projects are complex constructions, for this article, the reader can think about their development in three phases: planning, construction, and operational. During all three stages, many countries conduct or say they will conduct Environmental Impact Assessments, but it is clear that true scientific evaluations are lacking, and the public does not have much input.<\/span><\/p>\n As highlighted below, there are ongoing and significant human rights issues that are not appropriately addressed, sometimes not even considered. Human rights instruments are largely ignored, particularly the<\/span>UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples<\/a> (UNDRIP). \u00a0Further, there is a lack of compliance mechanisms and evaluations utilized regarding the safety of large dams or disregard for their upkeep, thereby putting all who live near and around the dam in jeopardy. Generally, it appears there are two main reasons a project is stopped; one is because of financial constraints, and the second is because of an overwhelming response from the public who do not support the project.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n a. Chile<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n In 2014 the Chilean government scrapped plans to construct the<\/span>HidroAysen Dam<\/a> that was to be built in the beautiful Patagonia region on the Baker and Pascua rivers.\u00a0 The construction of HidroAysen would have wreaked environmental destruction in Patagonia. The project would have caused the deforestation of at least 23,000 hectares and would have destroyed<\/span>six national parks, and 11 national reserves<\/a>.\u00a0 The Dam would have also required transmission lines over \u201c<\/span>active volcanoes, over fault lines, and through communities<\/a><\/em>.\u201d The government\u2019s decision to stop with the construction of the Dam was in large part due to one of Chile\u2019s<\/span>largest environmental movements<\/a>, where<\/span>hundreds of people<\/a> (both domestic and international) took part in an eight-year campaign to stop HidroAysen from coming to life.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n During the HidroAysen debacle, one of the other issues raised was the monopoly power that Endesa Chile, a subsidiary company of Endesea and Colbun SA, which belong to the Matte Group, would have gained. These companies at the time would have controlled<\/span>nearly 80% of the power grid<\/a> in Chile. During the Pinochet regime,<\/span>water was privatized<\/a>, and state oversight was reduced, thereby allowing private actors to control the water in Chile.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Despite the failed launch of HidroAysen and the impact that previous projects such as the Pangue and Ralco had on the Pehuenches and their ancestral land, other hydropower projects moved forward in Chile. The Alto Maipo Hydroelectric Project is proposed to be constructed on the Maipo, the main river that flows through the region of Valparaiso and the capital, Santiago.\u00a0 The proposal was submitted in 2008 and had financial and technical setbacks, including contractor disputes and<\/span>irregularities<\/a>. The project resumed in 2018 with<\/span>new contractors in place<\/a>. The project is currently<\/span>estimated to cost 3 billion (US) dollars<\/a>,\u00a0 which is significantly higher than the 2013 estimates, which was around 700 million (US) dollars.\u00a0 The company recently<\/span>declared bankruptcy<\/a> and is looking to restructure so that it can continue financially. The project was approved \u201c<\/span>despite evidence of serious flaws<\/a> in the environmental impact assessment and inadequate consultation.<\/span><\/em>\u201d\u00a0 As discussed below, it is questionable whether any long-term success will be had on a project such as this, particularly when<\/span>climate change<\/a> has made water levels unpredictable.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Of course, the Alto Maipo does not enjoy local support.\u00a0 Farmers and locals rely on the Maipo River Basin for irrigation and drinking water. The project \u201cwould involve a tunnel of 70 kilometers long, which will pump the water from the beds of the most important rivers of San Jose de Maipo,<\/em><\/span>the destruction of glaciers in the precordillera<\/a><\/em>, the regions in the shadows of the Andes mountain range<\/em>.\u201d Water will have to be<\/span>diverted from three other tributaries<\/a>, leaving parts of the Maipo River basin dry.\u00a0 In 2021, a local NGO has filed a complaint with the<\/span>Inter-American Commission on Human Rights<\/a> to safeguard drinking water for Chileans. The Alto Maipo project appears to fly in the face of logic, given current reports of<\/span>Chile\u2019s water crisis<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Studies conducted by<\/span>experts in Chile<\/a> indicate that the country can meet its growing energy needs<\/span>without hydropower<\/a>. Whether or not that advice will be heeded remains to be seen.\u00a0 While the Chilean legislature is reforming decades-old laws which would increase protections for communities and the environment, companies in Chile have continued in their quest to find energy. Recently, a company announced an innovative hydropower plant that uses<\/span>seawater and solar power<\/a> to harness energy in the Atacama Desert. The Atacama is one of the<\/span>oldest deserts on earth<\/a> and has a track record of significant historical value as it has continued to delight archeologists who have uncovered more teeth belonging to the<\/span>megalodon shark<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n b. Brazil<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Brazil was another country mentioned throughout the WCD final report in 2000. One of the dams that were referred to in the report was the<\/span>Tucurui Dam<\/a>.\u00a0 There are two notable points that the WCD highlighted. First, they were unable to determine whether the Tucurui lowered greenhouse gas emissions.[2] Second, the WCD noted that it was not sure whether Tucurui could recover the costs spent, and \u201cit may not have achieved this, in part due to continued subsidies to industrial producers.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Brazil has continued to wet its dam appetite with the construction of several hydropower projects in the Amazon. The<\/span>Amazon is the world\u2019s largest rainforest<\/a>, and within the Amazon Basin are several rivers and tributaries that are the lifeline of the Amazon, aiding in reducing carbon, transporting materials, and providing food security to the Peoples who reside throughout the Amazon. Projected to be one of the five largest dams in the world, the Belo Monte Dam is being constructed on the<\/span>Xingu River<\/a>, which the area surrounding the dam is sacred to many tribal communities. There are<\/span>uncontacted<\/a> tribes in the area vulnerable to diseases from outsiders in their territory. \u00a0The tribal communities have opposed the construction of the Belo Monte since its inception. In 2011,<\/span>a federal judge ruled<\/a> against the Brazilian government, stating that the Arara, Juruna, and Xikrin Kayap\u00f3 tribes were not properly consulted and declared the licenses issued by the government to be illegal. Brazil would have been obligated to incorporate the Arara, Juruna, and Xikrin Kayapo into their decision-making under UNDRIP \u2013 particularly – Article 10 (no forcible removal), Article 18 (decision making), Article 19 and 32 (free, prior, informed consent). The International Labour Organization also declared Brazil violated Convention 169 for not holding consultations with the tribal communities. In subsequent decisions,<\/span>federal judges in Brazil overruled the initial decision<\/a> and allowed the project to proceed. Tribal communities received compensation during construction however, \u201c<\/span>as people were uprooted, there was an unprecedented rise in alcoholism, prostitution, and inter-tribal feuds<\/a><\/em>.\u201d Due to the deteriorating conditions, the Brazilian public prosecutor sued Norte Energia for the<\/span>ethnocide<\/a> of indigenous culture.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In 2015, when the reservoir was filled, more than<\/span>200,000 people were displaced<\/a>, and extensive damage was done to the river ecosystem containing unique fish species. \u00a0The construction of Belo Monte placed a high cost on surrounding communities. The migration of over 100,000 workers into the city of Altamira is alleged to have brought with it<\/span>drug trafficking<\/a> and heavy violence after construction was completed and employment ended. In addition, raw sewage backed up behind the dam, causing a major health crisis. The necessity to carry material back and forth to the construction site also opened up new pathways for illegal deforestation.<\/span>Deforestation impacts major water flows<\/a>, thereby minimizing the positive impact the dam may have in generating energy.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/span>Fishing communities within the area have suffered greatly<\/a>. Their homes were destroyed. The compensation scheme was not implemented appropriately, and with the construction of Belo Monte, fish stocks have plummeted significantly. Norte Energia, the Dam operator, has been accused of not fulfilling its obligations under the compensation scheme. In turn, the displaced people have come back to resettle along the reservoir. \u00a0The inadequacy of the compensation scheme for Belo Monte is not surprising since the WCD emphasized that those living downstream from the Tucurui Dam were not compensated at all, and those impacted by the Ita Dam were not adequately compensated. [4]<\/span><\/p>\n The Volta Grande region is impacted due to water diversion from the Xingu into the Belo Monte Dam complex. In the most recent court case brought against Norte Energia,<\/span>the water may continue to be diverted<\/a> even though it harms fishing communities and the way of life for tribal communities in the region. Brazil would have already been aware of the potential impacts to fish stock as the WCD report noted, \u201cthe partial closing of the river channel by Porto Primavera Dam in Brazil blocked fish migration and diminished upstream fish catch by 80%, affecting livelihoods<\/em>.\u201d[5] In 2016, Norte Energia was fine 10.5 million (US) dollars \u201c<\/span>for the death of 16.2 tonnes of fishstock<\/a><\/em>.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The Belo Monte Dam was projected to produce approximately 11,233 megawatts of energy. The last turbine was placed into the Dam in 2019 and reports indicate that Belo Monte is not producing anywhere near the promised energy output. Norte Energia notified the Brazilian government that due to the low water levels that the Dam was \u201c<\/span>at risk of structural damage<\/em><\/a>\u201d and therefore, the operator would be required to produce even less energy to avoid calamity. Reports indicate that Belo Monte\u2019s construction phase was riddled with \u201c<\/span>patronage networks, kickback schemes<\/a><\/em>,\u201d which stood to make profit from the Dam, as opposed to delivering energy as was promised to taxpayers. Climate change is \u201cshifting rains<\/em>\u201d, which means that less rain could continue to fall in Brazil, thereby jeopardizing projects such as the<\/span>Belo Monte<\/a>.<\/span>China is reportedly interested<\/a> in purchasing a portion of the Belo Monte as they have done with the Sao Manoel Dam.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Despite the sad legacy that Belo Monte has created, Brazil is keeping its eye on the horizon with new projects considered on other rivers in the Amazon basin. While Brazil is the second-largest producer of hydropower globally, China is the world\u2019s top hydropower producer, leading with the most questionable results.<\/span><\/p>\n c. China<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n In the WCD report, two countries were utilized as \u201ccase studies\u201d \u2013 China and India.[6] The WCD indicated that by the end of the 20th\u00a0century that China had already built over 20,000 dams.[7] The world\u2019s largest dam is the Three Gorges Dam built in 1994. In 2020 the public in China expressed fears that the<\/span>Three Gorges Dam would be breached<\/a> as extreme flooding was impacting thousands of people. In 2021, the Three Gorges<\/span>continue to bring about human rights<\/a> concerns. The WCD had noted the level of displacement caused by the Three Gorges.[8] In addition, the WCD highlighted the \u201clack of cultural heritage studies<\/em>\u201d conducted, citing the Three Gorges as an example.[9] Another area of concern highlighted by the WCD was the corruption with the Dam (China sentenced those guilty of embezzlement to death).[10] The Three Gorges Dam provides important lessons for mega-dam projects.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n China now has reportedly has its eyes turned toward the Tibetan Plateau, and dam up the \u201cGreat Bend<\/em>\u201d, which is a remote stretch of the Yarlung Tsangpo, \u201c<\/span>a transboundary river that flows from Tibet into India, where it\u00a0becomes the Brahmaputra, and then into Bangladesh as the Jamuna<\/a><\/em>.\u201d Chinese scientists believe the Great Bend is akin to the Grand Canyon in the United States. \u00a0The area is<\/span>prone to earthquakes and landslides<\/a>. There have been two recorded events, one earthquake in<\/span>1950, which was of an 8.0 magnitude,<\/a> and in 2000, landslides \u201ccaused the formation of a four billion cubic meter barrier lake<\/em>\u201d, which led to \u201c<\/span>catastrophic<\/a><\/em>\u201d flooding and serious property damage.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Geopolitically<\/a>, it is near the disputed border of India and China. Further, the downstream countries, India, Tibet, and Bangladesh are deeply concerned about the environmental impact and the<\/span>water quality<\/a> resulting from the construction. Bangladesh has stated that the diversion of the Brahmaputra could create a \u201c<\/span>life or death<\/a><\/em>\u201d situation for people in Bangladesh. China has ignored the advice of the WCD on cultural heritage and ignored the religious importance of the river to the Tibetans. The \u201c<\/span>river represents the body of the goddess Dorje Phagmo, one of the highest incarnations of Tibetan culture<\/a><\/em>.\u201d The Tibetans claim that they are not consulted on any of these matters, where disruption and exploitation of the environment are against their strict traditions. In 2020 the United States passed legislation, the \u201cTibet Policy and Support Act<\/em>\u201d, which proposed a framework on water security in the region given \u201c<\/span>China\u2019s hydropower ambitions in the region<\/a>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The downstream countries are well within reason to be apprehensive about constructing potential dams in this area. Southeast Asian countries downstream on the Mekong have asked China to share<\/span>hydrological data<\/a>. \u00a0Even though in 2020 China agreed to share the data, it has not done so to the detriment of the Southeast Asian states impacted by water releases, restrictions, and<\/span>hydropeaking<\/a>. Further, in 2017 China did not share any data with India which is considered \u201c<\/span>crucial<\/a><\/em>\u201d to forecast floods in the northern areas. India and China continue a tit-for-tat response in the hydropower hegemony game, where both will lose more than they gain.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Conservationists in China are concerned about the project, particularly the loss of habitat and the changes in the river\u2019s flow.<\/span>Conservationists are calling China to make the area a national park<\/a>, but China has insisted that it will conduct scientific assessments prior to engaging in any construction. Given China\u2019s track record in the dam building business, this<\/span>project should not commence<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n d. United States<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The United States has been on trend to decommission dams, also acknowledged by the WCD,[11] unlike its counterparts in the rest of the world who are looking to build more. However, that should not be interpreted to mean that hydropower dams are not a hotly contested issue in the United States. The events taking place in the Columbia River Basin serve as a cautionary tale about energy and water development.<\/span><\/p>\n The Columbia River Basin is located in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. The Columbia River is known for salmon, is an important fish and wildlife habitat, and has cultural heritage sites belonging to the Northwest tribes. The Columbia River is \u201c<\/span>subject to severe floods<\/a><\/em>\u201d, and that was one of the reasons dams were built along the river. The dams also<\/span>provide power<\/a> as far north as Canada and as far south as California. They are also a source of irrigation for farmers and drinking water for communities.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The Snake River is the largest tributary in the Columbia River. The Snake River is a \u201c<\/span>major migration highway<\/a><\/em>\u201d for salmon and steelhead. The Snake River has four dams subject to scrutiny, anger, and debate. The Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite. These dams have created a catastrophe that can no longer be ignored. The dams have fish passage mechanisms that allow the salmon to move, yet the salmon at a dangerously low level because the dams create<\/span>physical barriers<\/a> and destroy the habitat. In addition, climate change is creating hotter water temperatures, which produces \u201c<\/span>lethal conditions<\/a><\/em>\u201d for the salmon. It is reported that close to<\/span>17 billion (US) dollars<\/a> have been spent to rehabilitate the salmon. \u201c<\/span>