HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE LETTERS SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
From
the Franklin River to the Chalillo Dam
Energy
and Repressive Politics in Central America
by
Toni Solo
Dissident
Voice
November 11, 2003
Twenty
years ago a bitter environmental conflict over the Franklin dam in Tasmania
ended with a victory for environmentalists concerned about preventing needless
destruction of their country's ecosystem. Now people in another British
ex-colony, Belize, are also fighting a controversial hydroelectric project, the
Chalillo dam, against the Canadian multinational company Fortis. The dam fits
into the controversial regional Plan Puebla Panama aimed at neo-liberal style
economic integration in the Central American isthmus. The contrast between the
Franklin dam in Australia and the record of hydroelectric projects in Central
America is sharp and opportune.
Decisions
taken now about energy policy in Central America will irrevocably affect the
region's future development. Opponents of the vertically imposed Plan Puebla
Panama are often derided as ignorant anarchist opponents of any economic
development in the region. In fact, even the World Bank has recognized that
environmental concerns and poverty reduction are inextricably linked. In 1995
Kenneth Newcombe, Chief of Global Environment Coordination at the World Bank
said, "Our aim has always been to abolish poverty. Now we understand that
solving poverty and protecting the environment go hand in hand." It is a
shame that 1995 insight has been lost along the way somewhere. [1]
Lack
of democracy means irrational energy solutions
In
most of Central America, electricity demand is likely to increase steadily at
between 5%-6% per year, needing billions of dollars of investment. Honduras
alone expects to need to spend US$140 million per year over the next decade,
for example. But who is taking the decisions about that investment in a region
where governments are weak, notoriously undemocratic, often repressive and
generally corrupt? The Central American Electrical Interconnection System
(SIEPAC) now being installed was agreed with hardly any consultation with the
peoples of Mexico and Central America.
Regional
governing elites strike deals with multilateral lending organizations and
transnational corporations on programs that clearly prejudice the best
interests of local people financially, environmentally and politically. Local
people incur higher levels of national debt for services which will cost them
more both in terms of capital investment and in end-user charges in years to
come. Their environment will be irreversibly damaged. Many indigenous groups
will suffer. Genuine democratic participation in planning processes is not even
considered.
That
was the reality in Australia too until twenty years ago a coalition of
environmentalists blockaded the dam construction on a tributary of the Franklin
River in Tasmania, Australia's last wild river. They were fighting the
country's Hydro Electric Commission, a giant state entity habitually accustomed
to getting its own way. The environmental coalition was lucky to get television
coverage. They used it effectively to get across to people in Australia the
extent of the environmental loss the Franklin dam project implied.
In
June 1980, 10,000 protestors marched through Tasmania's capital, Hobart. In
response, the state government tried to argue for a less damaging dam project
that would still have drowned much of the wilderness area. Through July 1980
the conflict sharpened. Organized labor supported the dam. But protestors
undercut pro-dam propaganda with an effective information campaign showing
viable energy options that offered better employment prospects and substantial
capital savings.
A
compromise referendum to break the deadlock in December 1981 offered voters a
choice between two dams. More than a third of voters spoiled their ballot
papers writing on them "NO DAMS". By November 1982, over 2500 people
were helping to physically blockade the dam protesting the Australian federal
government's decision not to intervene and stop construction. Local opinion
polls showed people two to one against the dam. A total of 1217 people were
arrested during the blockade. In June 1983 a newly elected Labour government
won a court decision and the dam was stopped.
Central
America's dismal record: Chixoy and El Cajón
Central
America has more than its fair share of similarly conflictive hydroelectric
projects but the political conditions are very different. In Guatemala, the
Chixoy hydroelectric program was controversial from the start. Begun in 1975,
it was run by German, Swiss and US companies with money from the World Bank and
the Italian government.
Around
the time when thousands were marching in Hobart, Tasmania, in 1980, the
Guatemalan army murdered 70 indigenous women and over 100 children near Chixoy.
Between 1980 and 1982 a total of over 400 Maya Achi people were massacred in
separate incidents during attempts to secure justice for their communities,
affected by the dam. On top of that human cost, the dam has been an expensive
failure, overunning its original cost projection of US$270 million by over five
times. In the early 1990s 45% of Guatemala's national debt derived from the
Chixoy dam project.
Other
hydroelectric projects causing conflict in the region in recent years have
included the Bayano and Tabasará dams in Panama, the Usumacinte and Chapparal
Frontera dams in Mexico and the Patuca and El Tigre dams in Honduras. Honduras
has perhaps the most emblematic hydroelectric project in the region, the El
Cajón dam, about 150 kilometres northwest of the capital Tegucigalpa. Protected
by an army base at its entrance, the huge dam was finished in 1985 with over
US$700 million from the World Bank and the Inter American Development Bank.
Honduras
is still paying off those loans now. For five years the dam's four huge
turbines supplied nearly three quarters of the country's electricity and even
generated a small amount of foreign exchange through sales of power exported to
neighbouring countries. But the project quickly developed major engineering
problems, massive water filtration and chronic environmental deterioration in
the adjacent countryside.
As
the dam failed, by 1995 the country was losing around US$20 million a month in
lost industrial production. The government had to make repeated requests for
additional finance to the international financial institutions, who paid up
rather than see the project fail completely. Even for government bureaucrats,
the environmentalist climate change message was already sinking in.
Decreased
rainfall, compounded by aggravated erosion when the rains did arrive,
accelerated deforestation, filling the dam's reservoir with sediment. The dam
managers did well to avoid catastrophic failure during Hurricane Mitch in 1998.
Describing the El Cajon basin this year the Sustainable Development Unit of the
Organization of American States writes, "The basin presents a generalized
erosion process, signifying irrecoverable loss of nutrients due to the
overexploitation of natural resources. In its turn this causes negative effects
on the flora, wildlife, water quality and fish population." [2]
These
large dams provoke soil erosion that results from deforestation caused by the
overall impact of the dam's construction. This soil erosion begins
sedimentation processes that start to affect the dam's performance within a few
years. Below the dam, clear unsedimented flowing water tends to accelerate
erosion. But the main problem is the ambient deforestation.
The
combination of these major civil engineering projects with widespread illegal
logging in fragile biospheres devastates the environment and accelerates
climate change. A fundamental cause of this process is weak or absent
government regulation, an endemic phenomenon in Central America made more acute
by arrogant know-all neo-liberal bureaucrats in the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund and the Inter-American Development Bank. Exactly
these factors have jeopardised the important Rio Platano Biosphere, again in
Honduras, and the Bosawas natural reserve in Nicaragua. But Rio Platano and
Bosawas, like the Macal River Valley in Belize, are typical of vulnerable
environmental areas throughout the isthmus.
The
neglected factor is sustainability. As Fred Pearce of the World Wildlife Fund
writes, " Sustainable development need not require the total cessation of
dam building. But it will require detailed assessment of the environmental and
social impacts in advance, and in particular a clear understanding of the
benefits of freshwater ecosystems, including wetlands and groundwaters, and
their dependence on hydrological flows."
Pearce
contends that dams disrupt downstream flows sustaining fisheries and fertile
soils. He points out that large dam reservoirs can generate as much or more
greenhouse gases than fossil fuel power plants. As they grow old they become
significantly less efficient, more costly to maintain and run risks of
catastrophic failure as climate change causes extremes of rainfall and drought.
El Cajón in Honduras is a perfect example of this syndrome. Pearce also notes
the negative affects of badly designed hydro-power projects on rural
communities, often forced out of fertile valley regions into less fertile
highlands. [3]
While
it may be true currently that Central American governments are tending to
reduce reliance on poorly planned hydro-power, that may not necessarily be good
news. Governments are trapped between the need to guarantee future power needs
and the limited options allowed them by IMF, World Bank and Inter American
Development Bank policies. These bodies have promoted the bogus benefits of
"free-market" policies and privatisation for over twenty years.
Inherently
hopeless anyway for the poor majority in Central America, these policies offer
no help to countries faced with the accumulating effects of regional climate
change. In terms of energy policy, climate change provokes uncertainty among
regional policy makers about further development of hydro-electric projects.
Factors exacerbating their uncertainty are repeated droughts affecting
agricultural production, higher incidence of forest fires, and increased
displacement of populations abandoning agricultral areas rendered arid and
unsustainable.
Of
all the countries in the region Costa Rica is the best placed to develop a
genuinely sustainable energy policy. It has conserved its environment and
resisted pressure to privatize its state utilities. This fact and the country's
relatively low level of foreign debt leaves the government more options in
terms of infrastructure investment to meet its growing energy needs.
In
neighbouring countries, high indebtedness, public sector cutbacks as a result
of structural adjustment programs and privatization of state owned public
utilities, mean that governments are unable to invest in energy infrastructure.
So investment decisions favor the wishes and needs of multilateral lenders and
corporate private investors. These decisions are not taken democratically.
Decision
makers typically ignore the wishes and interests of local people. Renewable
options like wind, tidal and solar power generation get low priority when they
are considered at all. Only lip service is paid to the sustainability of
hydro-power projects - leaving the way open for yet more loans for
inappropriate giant hydroelectric schemes and yet more debt, as happened in
Honduras with El Cajón and in Guatemala with Chixoy. This mix is self-evidently
disastrous for people in Central America.
The
recipe for irrational decision-making is clearly present in the case of the
Chalillo dam in Belize. Electricity generation and distribution in the country
is controlled by Belize Electricity Limited (BEL). BEL buys about 85% of the
country`s electrical energy from Mexico`s national power company the Comision
Federal de Electricidad (CFE) and the Canadian owned Belize Electricity Company
Limited (BECOL), a subsidiary of Fortis Incorporated. Currently BECOL owns the
only hydroelectric plant in Belize, the 25MW (megawatt) Mollejon dam. BEL
generates the country's remaining power requirement from diesel-burning thermal
plants.
For
the last five years, Fortis has been trying to build a dam at Chalillo in the
Macal River Valley in Maya mountains. The dam will provide an additional 5.3 MW
of generating capacity with some estimates suggesting a possible generating
capacity of up to 9MW. The Chalillo Dam will flood 1,100 hectares of virgin
jungle, destroying habitat for wildlife including rare jaguar, tapirs in danger
of extinction, and the Morelet crocodile. The project might also damage the
world's largest coral reef after the Great Barrier reef in Australia, as well
as Mayan archeological sites.
The
Belize Alliance of Conservation NGO's, has been trying to block Fortis from
completing the dam. They argue that the devastating environmental effects will
provoke an irreversible ecological catastrophe. Belize fits the pattern of
other impoverished Central American countries with a feeble government
dominated by domestic and foreign business interests. Frequently, national
governments in the region are unable to afford an Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) on this kind of project, leaving it in the hands of agencies
who often have a conflict of interest. That was the case in Chalillo.
It
was in the interests of AMEC, the Canadian company who carried out the EIA, for
the project to go ahead. So evidence against the project was left out or played
down. Even AMEC's information on the geology of the rocks beneath the dam was
found to be misleading. Canada's Probe International discovered that core
samples indicating sandstone and shale were misrepresented as indicating
granite. Information about geological fault lines was fudged too, omitting to
mention possible risks to the structural integrity of the dam.
Compounding
its omissions, AMEC's report also discounted input from eminent conservation
advisers. A senior scientist who worked on the British Natural History Museum's
authoritative ecological report on the dam proposal, Lt. Colonel Alistair
Rogers, wrote: "It is absolutely clear that constructing a dam at Chalillo
would cause major, irreversible, negative environmental impacts of national and
international significance -- and that no effective mitigation measures would
be possible." [4]
Studies
on the dam's effects are incomplete. Most independent studies indicate the dam
is not economically viable. Several have indicated that electricity prices will
rise as a result of the Chalillo dam. Roger Sant, President of US energy
multinational AES Global Power and also Chairman of the Board of World Wildlife
Fund-US, has acknowledged concerns about the environmental impacts and
described the project as "not economically feasible". [5]
Still, Fortis and the Belizean government intend to go ahead.
In
August this year court action in Britain, the former colonial power, for an
injunction to halt work on the dam failed. The final decision on the dam's
future now rests in London with the British Privy Council's Judicial Committee,
an arcane, unrepresentative appointed body inherited from feudal times.
Comprised of senior judges from British Commonwealth countries and judges from
the UK parliament's House of Lords, the Committee provides a final appeal court
for member countries of the British Commonwealth that choose to accept its
authority. [6] A public announcement of their judgment is
expected in January 2004.
An
inseparable trio: business, energy, politics
In
July this year, the Second Meso-American Forum against Dams "For the
Peoples' Water and Life" took place, appropriately, in Honduras. The 150
delegates noted in a statement that around 500 hydroelectric projects exist in
the region "the proliferation of hydroelectric projects in our countries
is not due to the energy needs of our peoples but responds to the need to set
up the necessary infrastructure to develop the neo-liberal economic model
through the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), the various Free Trade
agreements on a continental level, the Puebla-Panama Plan and the Colombia
Plan, among others."
The
Chalillo dam is a relatively small project. But it encapsulates everything that
is wrong with energy policy decision making in Central America. The contrast
with the Franklin dam experience in Australia is instructive. Chalillo is yet
another example of how the needs of the majority in Central America are trodden
underfoot. The main components are always multinational corporations and weak
governments using undemocratic decision making processes approved by the main
international financial institutions. As a result, sustainable development in
Central America is as much on the verge of extinction as the Belizean tapirs.
Toni
Solo is an activist based in Central America. Contact:- tonisolo52@yahoo.com
* Robert
Zoellick and "Wise Blood": The Hazel Motes Approach to International
Trade
* Authentic
Americans: US Martyrs Pose Questions for John Negroponte
* CAFTA Thumb
Screws: The Nuts and Bolts of "Free Trade" Extortion
* Trashing
Free Software – More Neo-Lib Flim-Flam
* Coming Soon
to the United States? Plan Condor, the Sequel
* How Do
You Like Your Elections - Fixed and Murky?
* Colombia:
The War on Terror as Waged by Outlaws: Interview with Caitriona Ruane
* Terrorists,
Their Friends and the Bogota 3
* Neo-liberal Nicaragua: Neo Banana Republic
1)
"Lights Out in Honduras", James Gollin November 1995, www.planeta.com
2)
Unit for Sustainable Development and Environment - Organization of American
States, report issued this year 2003
3)
WWF INTERNATIONAL Research Paper "Dams and Floods" Fred Pearce June
2001
4)
Probe International, Letter to AMEC Urging Retraction of Faulty Environmental
Assessment, February 21, 2002, www.probeinternational.org
5)
Tropical Education Centre Press release. August 9th, 1999, www.belizezoo.org/zoo/zoo.html