The Madeira Dams: Impacts and Actions in Bolivian Territory | Amazon Watch
Amazon Watch

The Madeira Dams: Impacts and Actions in Bolivian Territory

September 4, 2009 | Campaign Update

Jirau and Santo Antonio promise to cost much more than the stated financial value of their construction: deforestation, disease, damage to fish populations, just to name a few. These and other costs, however, will not be paid only by Brazilians; Bolivians will also bear the costs of these mega-projects.

By: Thais Iervolino, Amazonia.org.br

Translated by: Sérgio Veloso dos Santos Júnior

Energy. The theme, always present in the Brazilian government’s plans, is gaining strength and importance, especially nowadays as the search for alternatives to energy sources that promote global warming is increasing. To move towards greener energy Brazil is, according to specialists, erroneously opting to build dams, primarily in the Amazon, a region with most of the world’s rivers.

An example is the Madeira River Complex in the state of Rondônia which, with its two hydroelectric plants – Jirau and Santo Antonio – promises to cost much more than the financial payout for their construction: impacts will include increased deforestation and disease, expulsion of riverine communities, the destruction of fish stocks and, as a consequence, the devastation of indigenous communities that depend on fish to survive. These and other costs, however, won’t be paid by Brazilians only. Bolivia will also bear the costs of this mega-project, regarded by many as one of the greatest disasters in the world.

Impacts

According to Evelyn Mamani, a lawyer from the Bolivian Forum on Environment and Development (FOBOMADE), even though the Brazilian government has insisted that there will be no negative impacts in Bolivian territory, the dams will seriously affect the neighbouring country. “The Madeira technical commission – led by the Ministry of Environment of our country – demonstrated in two bi-national meetings that there have been serious mistakes in evaluating the impacts of both dams, which in fact extend into both Bolivia and Peru”, asserts Mamani.

Among the negative consequences the dams will bring to Bolivia, three categories were the focus of studies: hydraulic impacts (related to water levels and flooding risk); fish and fishing groups; and water quality and mercury contamination. According to Jorge Molina, who is in charge of the study to analyze the hydraulic impacts of the Jirau dam, there will be a “super-elevation” of the water level at the bi-national zone of the Madeira River basin, comprised of the shared border between Brazil and Bolivia. When considering sediment accumulation – where river sediments are deposited at the bottom of the river – the water levels in the bi-national zone could in fact rise by up to 6 meters beyond their projected elevation.

“This issue is so serious that the Brazilian government and its Ministry of Mines and Energy have hired experts to analyze the issue. The experts, without performing any further analysis and producing only technical opinions, have said there will be no sedimentation. To provide this kind of opinion, in our view, is to provide a political opinion. Because, should they declare that there will be sedimentation, the project would be placed in jeopardy”, says Molina.

Molina explains that the results of a rising river will increase the risk of flooding: “The natural flow of the river can reach a maximum of 38 to 40 thousand cubic meters per second. With the construction of the dam the same flow will rise one to two meters. This means that the risk of flooding is increased”.

Another consequence is the loss of potential energy generated by the dams. “To generate hydroelectric energy two things are required: one is the river’s flow, the other is the height of its fall. To increase the water levels at the bi-national zone the fall [within the dams’ turbines] will be reduced, therefore the potential energy will also be reduced”, says the researcher.

It is estimated that 80% of Bolivian Amazonian fish are migratory and that some species with important commercial and subsistence value could be affected. “Among the possible impacts is the gradual reduction in fish stocks, which could affect at least 16 thousand Bolivian families currently subsisting on this resource”, said Paul Van Damme, from the FaunAgua Association, another author of studies on the impacts of dams in Bolivia.

According to Marc Pouilly, a researcher of aquatic ecology and author of the study on the dams’ impacts on water quality, impacts on the health of local populations are of greatest concern, especially as relates to mercury poisoning. “This is the most worrisome issue because, in the case of the dams, a great part of the mercury won’t be eliminated. The dams will intensify the process that transforms mercury into its most toxic variety: methyl-mercury. Up to now there have been no steps taken to mitigate to this kind of contamination. It is a very serious and vicious form of poisoning and until today we have not been able to quantify its effects on the environment and on people”, he explains.

According to Pouilly, at this time it is hard to quantify the direct impacts of the dams. “The most likely case is that the impact studies carried out are not sufficient to analyze all the risks. An objective analysis of the economic, social and environmental consequences of such a project has to deal with more worrisome themes, such as flooding, mercury, the emission of greenhouse gas, diseases, etc.”

Brazil & Bolivia: Just talk

Due to the impacts projected in these studies, Bolivia has asked for clarification from the Brazilian government. “Brazil shows good intentions in its willingness to talk about the impacts and reach an agreement. However, when this meeting was held (October 2008) – and we were there – the Brazilian government only listened to what was brought to light and neglected to reach any decision,” explains Evelyn.

“I am not sure if it is intentional, but this meeting was attended by members of government organs such as IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) and ANA (National Water Agency), neither of which could reach any decision or express any kind of opinion. We met in the circumstances we are describing, arguing against omissions and technical mistakes and, in response, we were informed that our concerns would be passed on to the decision makers,” states the lawyer.

Molina, who was also at the meeting, said there was no discussion. “The Bolivian delegation presented its observations and questions, which could not be answered by the Brazilians. It was simply, yet again, the kind of Brazilian discourse which claims that the dams will not have any impact on Bolivia and that we have no choice but to believe that.”

On the other hand, the Bolivian government has yet to lodge formal protests. According to the spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, this issue is still being discussed. Molina argues that the Bolivian government, for several reasons, does not have a unified position. “There are those who want to defend the people’s rights and ensure the country does not suffer negative impacts from another country’s project. But there are others willing to negotiate. Both positions exist within the Bolivian government and for this reason we have ceased our research.”

Protests

While the Brazilian and Bolivian governments talk, the work on Jirau and Santo Antonio dams is being carried out without any further analysis of its impacts. To stop these impacts from occurring, Bolivian organizations have held a number of meetings to discuss the topic. “Representatives of several segments of society and government were invited to our meetings, and the documents produced in these meetings were published and made known,” explains Evelyn.

The last event, called the “International Symposium on Assessment of Environmental Impacts of Large Dams in Tropical Regions: The Case of the Madeira River”, was held in La Paz on May 19th and 20th. Its final declaration concludes that “the hydroelectric projects on the Madeira River will have socio-environmental impacts beyond Brazilian borders, the magnitude and extent of which have not yet been evaluated or even considered by those responsible for the projects. Bolivia was arbitrarily excluded from the studies on impacts to be caused by the Jirau and Santo Antonio dams, which makes the studies biased and incomplete.”

After meetings with the Brazilian government and several gatherings to discuss the issue, Evelyn explains that the organizations are opting for other strategies. “We are reaching a point at which domestic and international legal actions will show better results than the political conversations we have had thus far. These conversations result in unsatisfactory agreements and never resolve any issues. Thus, we are going to focus on a legal and juridical strategy, internally and externally, because we believe we are in a situation in which the state responsible for damages is the other [Brazil] and we cannot let this state get away without assuming their responsibility”, says Evelyn.

In December 2007, indigenous and rural workers’ organizations and ecologists from the Northern Bolivian Amazon filed a request for an injunction against the construction of the Madeira River Complex, stating that this work is an “imminent attack by the Lula government on the rights and freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

The request raises the argument that Brazil has violated basic principles of international relations, including maintaining good neighborly relations between states, applying the precautionary principle (a country should not adopt policies with the potential to harm another country), allowing equitable participation (countries that share the same river basin should jointly discuss new developments in the basin) and equitable usage of water resources (states have shared sovereignty over water resources).

The activists’ new target is the International Court in The Hague, where they hope to have their case heard. “There are several lapses of responsibility here, not only based on environmental claims, but based also on signed human rights treaties. According to these treaties the responsibility for any impacts and for the systematic violation of human rights guarantees is in the hands of Brazil, because Brazil is the owner and beneficiary of the project. They have not tried, since the beginning, to reduce these possible impacts,” says the lawyer.

She goes on: “We know that the Madeira River, in Bolivia, is vital for the survival of indigenous people, including those living in isolation. We do not want to reach the point at which the impacts of the projects are so severe that the resulting problems can not be resolved with any amount of money. We want a proper solution, in which states can leverage their resources based on respect, on compliance with national standards, and on international agreements, and do not leave the negative impacts unaddressed. This project poses an imminent risk for the extermination of indigenous people; this is practically genocide.”

PLEASE SHARE

Short URL

Donate

Amazon Watch is building on more than 25 years of radical and effective solidarity with Indigenous peoples across the Amazon Basin.

DONATE NOW

TAKE ACTION

Defend Amazonian Earth Defenders!

TAKE ACTION

Stay Informed

Receive the Eye on the Amazon in your Inbox! We'll never share your info with anyone else, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Subscribe