Local residents are trying in several Latin American countries — from the Papagayo River in Mexico to the Baker River in southern Chile — to stop major hydroelectric projects.

- : Photo Stock

Across the region there are more than a thousand dams measuring 15 meters tall or more, generating 10 percent of the electricity consumed. Governments, backed by transnational corporations, plan to build more in order to rely less on increasingly costly petroleum, which for now is the main source of energy.

The hydroenergy debate is intense. Although it is valued as a clean and renewable source of electricity that also permits regulation of water use, it is also criticized for its serious social and environmental impacts, arising from the displacement of people and habitat for the creation of reservoirs.

A referendum in Guatemala this month halted construction of three hydroelectric facilities in the Río Hondo community, located on a nature reserve in the country's east. Promoted by the government and by local, Italian and Canadian companies, the project costs were estimated at 100 million dollars.

Guatemala's Constitution Court validated the referendum results on Apr. 4. Voters rejected the hydroelectric project that would flood 6,000 hectares and threaten the livelihood of 20,000 people.

In the wake of the court's resolution, the companies have been forced to reformulate their project with new environmental and socioeconomic studies, and will have to submit it once again to a popular referendum.

“The Court's decision renews the citizenry's faith in the institutions, and shows that there are still decent people in this country,” Magali Rey, director of the environmental group Madre Selva, told Tierramérica.

In Mexico, the Vicente Fox government has been trying unsuccessfully for two years to finalize the Parota project, a giant dam costing 850 million dollars in the southern state of Guerrero. It would displace some 25,000 people, according to the impoverished peasant farmers in the area, who have maintained roadblocks on the access routes to their community to prevent progress on construction.

The non-governmental Latin American Water Tribunal resolved in March that the Mexican project on the heavy flowing Papagayo River “should be suspended, given that it does not show benefits for the local population, nor does it contribute to regional development or protection of the environment and natural resources.”

The ruling, which is not binding, indicated that Mexican authorities, in their zeal to see the dam finished, have engaged in deliberate actions to divide the peasant communities.

Meanwhile, Brazil, one of the world's leaders in the number of hydroelectric dams (around 600), is far from conflict-free when it comes to this matter.

Environmentalists and other activists question the intentions of the Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva government in starting operation of two hydroelectric plants on the Madeira River, one of the main tributaries of the Amazon River.

President Lula says the plans take into strict consideration any related environmental or social problems. But there are about 100 non-governmental organizations, united in the Rio Madeira Vivo movement, that challenge the government's assurances and promise to fight the dams.

“We believe that the two plants will not be built, (because) their economic viability has not been proved,” Glenn Switkes, Latin America director for the U.S.-based International Rivers Network, told Tierramérica.

Furthermore, the reservoir of the dams would affect “an area of great biodiversity, with 600 species of fish and more than 700 species of birds; and the impact on fisherfolk would be enormous because catfish, the species of greatest commercial value, migrate 4,000 kilometers from the Amazon River to the Madeira reproduce, and the dams would impede that cycle,” Switkes said.

The project would also hurt the farmers, who plant on “flatlands that are seasonally flooded, because the dams would reduce the deposit of nutrients in the soil,” he added.

Luiz Pereira, executive secretary of the private Institute for the Strategic Development of the Electrical Sector, said in a Tierramérica interview that dams are preferable to polluting sources of electricity, like thermoelectric plants, which run on fossil fuels. He said Brazil is working to increase its energy supply because beginning in 2008 there is no guarantee it will keep up with demand.

Nevertheless, he called for “serious” consideration of the environmental impacts, balancing the country's energy needs and the negative effects of the dams. “We must listen to the affected populations,” Pereira said.

Until the 1970s, the construction of dams did not face major challenges, but now even the World Bank, one of the main funders of hydroenergy, recognizes that the quality of life of most of the displaced population does not improve with relocation.

Each year an estimated four million people around the world have to leave their homes because of the construction of dams.

Opposition to hydroelectric projects in Latin America has been going on for decades, but the conflicts are increasingly bitter. The people whose homes are threatened warn — as they are in the Parota project in Mexico — that they are willing to die in order to prevent their land from being flooded and to avoid displacement.

In Chile, another mega-project is on tenterhooks. Environmental groups created a coalition to oppose the plan to build four hydroelectric plants in the Patagonian region, promoted by the Spanish energy transnational Endesa and requiring an investment of three billion dollars.

The dams would be built beginning in 2008 on the Baker River, the heaviest flowing river in Chile, and Pascua River, flooding 10,000 hectares and destroying marshland and habitat of endangered species, says the coalition.

In Central America, alarms have been sounding since the announcement of an agreement this month by the Honduran and Salvadoran governments to build the Tigre dam on tributaries of the Lempa River, in the river basin the two countries share.

The project would cost around 600 million dollars, generate 1,000 megawatts and create some 4,500 jobs, officials say. But it also promises to be a source of intense social conflict.

Indigenous peoples and environmentalists have begun to speak out against the project, as have several lawmakers, raising arguments about sovereignty. The binational plan emerged after the two Central American neighbors delineated their definitive border, putting an end to old disputes.

“The project should be analyzed with utmost caution; the preliminary information is very vague,” Juan Almendares, director of the Honduran environmental group Madre Tierra, told Tierramérica.

“Initial reports indicate that at least 82 villages will be flooded, and I feel we are not only giving up our land, but also ceding our sovereignty to a project that we don't know who would benefit most,” Marvin Ponce, legislative deputy for the Honduran leftist Democratic Unification party, told Tierramérica.