Controversial Hydropower: Who

Is Behind the Scene?

Term Paper

EDS 305 Development Theory and Policy

December 5, 2012, UMB

Kateryna Byelova

Controversial Hydropower: Who Is Behind theScene?

Contents:

1. Introduction

2. “Environment-development”

2.1 “Contradiction-interdependence dialectic”

2.2 Ecofeminism: maldevelopment, environment and

social inclusion

3. Global Hydropower Industry

3.1 Main actors: Governments, financiers,

international financial institutions

3.2 “Development-development”: economic growth vs. social costs

3.3 “Environment-environment”: clean energy vs.

environmental costs

4. Case: Tucurui Dam in Brazil

4.1 Environmental impacts

4.2 Social impacts

4.3 “Behind the scene”: benefiting stakeholders

4.3.1 Funding

4.3.2 Legal framework

4.3.3 Construction firms

2

4.3.4 Foreign interests

4.4 Discussion

5. Conclusion

6. Reference list

1. IntroductionHydropower energy has strong positive sides such as

contributing to economic and social development on national and

global level and providing clean energy alternative to fossil

fuels. However, these perceived benefits may be contested by the

social and environmental costs hydropower can involve as well,

such as negative impacts on people`s livelihoods mainly through

involuntary resettlement and displacement, and adverse effects

on local ecosystems and biodiversity. Thus, human well-being and

environmental issues may question the necessity of implementing

certain hydropower projects, particularly large and highly

controversial ones, such as, for example, Tucurui dam in Brazil.

This paper attempts to explore who might “stand behind the

scene” in hydropower on the global, national and local level, as

well as to analyze its main controversies, such as “environment-

development” interconnection, “environment-environment” and

“development-development” conflicts. Particularly, it begins

with the relevant theoretical background such as “contradiction-

interdependence dialectic” of Shanmugaratnam and ecofeministic

ideas of Vandana Shiva about maldevelopment, environment and

social inclusion, which appear through the paper as the main

context. Then, it gives overview on the main actors of the

global hydropower industry, such as governments, financiers and

3

international financial institutions, proceeding with focusing

on major contradictions of hydropower on the global level, such

as economic growth vs. social costs and clean energy vs.

environmental costs. Finally, through the case of Tucurui dam,

it discusses hydropower on the national and local level,

critically assessing main environmental and social costs of the

project and trying to reveal its main benefiting stakeholders.

2.“Environment-Development”

2.1 “Contradiction-Interdependence Dialectic”

One cannot regard separately the fields of environment and

development as they are closely interrelated and influence on

each other. Professor Nadarajah Shanmugaratnam is among those

supporting and promoting this close interconnection and

interdependence. At the same time, there are a lot of

contradictions in the environment-development field.

Shanmugaratnam was among the first scholars who brought it into

the terms of “contradiction-interdenedence dialectic” shifting

from political economy to eco-political economy.

The starting point of this dialectic is that appropriation

of nature through labour processes is vital for human survival.

In its turn it affects ecological systems causing sometimes

environmental crisis. Within capitalist system, which is

dominant in neoliberalism and which is driven by appropriation

of surplus value for further accumulation, there is a

contradiction between the needs of the capital and the needs of

4

daily and intergenerational labour power who depend on the

environment for their subsistence (Kjosavik & Vedeld, 2011).

The main contradictions may be expressed in the four

following forms: (1) between capitalisation and conservation of

nature; (2) between capital accumulation and reproduction of

society and human habitat; (3) barriers to accumulation from

self-expanding logic of the capital itself and emerging of other

barriers through pro-environment protests; (4)

internationalisation of these contradictions through global

environmental pollution and relocation of environment- damaging

production to developing countries (Kjosavik & Vedeld, 2011).

2.2 Ecofeminism: Maldevelopment, Environment and

Social Inclusion

As Vandana Shiva puts it in Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and

Development development is equivalent to maldevelopment or merely

“economic growth” which doesn`t take into consideration the

feminine, the conservation and the ecological principle. To her,

patriarchal way of development regards productivity only from

technological advancements` and gaining highest profits`

perspective which leads to the conflict between long term

survival options for the vast majority of people and short term

over-production and over-consumption for the benefit of minority

(Shiva, 1989).

Also, she regards modern science as a patriarchal project,

based on reductionism. By excluding women` expertise together

with ecological and holistic knowledge which respects nature, it

leads to social exclusion not only of women, but of the other

5

traditionally marginalised groups as well, such as peasants and

indigenous communities. To Shiva, feminine principle is based on

inclusiveness and ignoring it is the root of deprivation and

ecological crisis. Thus, maldevelopment, to her, should be

recovered, first of all, through combined women`s and ecology

movements (Shiva, 1989).

3. Global Hydropower Industry

3.1 Main actors: Governments, Financiers, International

Financial Institutions

After economic downturn in 1990s, global investments into

hydropower infrastructure have boosted. Governments and

financiers have been strongly lobbying hydropower as playing a

key role in “green growth” policies, putting that large dams are

one of the best options to achieve sustainable development in a

triple way: economic growth, environmental protection and social

inclusion. UN Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development and

G-20 Summit which involve multiple stakeholders, called again in

2012 for a transition from a fossil fuel-based economy and thus

bringing large-scale hydropower market back into focus.

However, the roles of hydropower financiers have changed.

Today national governments that have enough capital to construct

their own dams, together with playing a central role in regional

and international markets, finance most new hydropower projects.

Countries of BRICS are particularly visible on this arena. For

example, Chinese state-owned company Sinohydro is the largest

dam builder in the world (International Rivers, 2012). Apart of being

6

responsible for 65% of all hydropower projects within China, it

is also responsible for 132 hydropower projects overseas. India

and Brazil also emerge as leading financiers of dams`

construction and play the strongest role in regional markets (The

Association for International Water Studies, 2012).

Consequently, the roles of traditional lenders in the

hydropower sector i.e. multilateral financial institutions such

as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the International

Finance Corporation etc., have been increasingly shifting from

direct financial to technical and policy support. Today they

might be regarded as knowledge brokers in this area of

development, more partcipating through technical expertise,

know-how and other forms of knowledge-based assistance (World

Bank, 2011). However, it still happens by means of giving

financial loans. So, though their role as main hydropower

projects financiers might have decreased globally they are still

considerably involved in them but just through another area of

development finance.

3.2 “Development-Development”: Economic Growth vs. Social Costs

One of the main social benefits of hydropower is that it

supplies energy for the people. Partly it is true, but, at the

same time, most of the dams, particularly the large ones, are

built to meet industrial demand in much higher extent than

residential. Consequently, electricity load for industrial users

far outweighs that of residential sector, making it more

secondary goal of dams` construction. These industrial users are

7

usually energy-intensive industries, such as e.g. aluminium

production, ferro-nickel, ferro-silicon smelting, tin, zinc,

steel production, copper extraction. Aluminium is a particularly

energy-intensive product as it has the highest electricity

consumption per ton (14,800 kWh) and requires the highest

percentage of electricity (76%) of the all energy to produce one

ton (World Bank Data, 2012).

As to average residential consumption per year (as of 2011),

such countries as the USA, China, Brazil consume the most

hydropower electricity in general, while Iceland and Norway

have the highest hydropower electricity demands per household,

where most of residential electricity load (around 60%) goes to

heating. In contrast, an Ethiopian household consumes in average

46 kWh electricity per year (Gapminder, 2012).

Nevertheless, the hydropower dams do provide electricity for

the needs of people, despite of its secondary role as to

industry.

Also, the more hydropower dams are constructed, the cheaper

prices for electricity might become for the residents.

Additionaly, hydropower projects might improve situation on the

job market by creating new vacancies. By this financial welfare

of the people on individual level and the employment rates in

general might be improved contributing to the economic growth on

the naional and global level. And it might serve for the better.

At the same time, the social consequences, particularly of

the large dams, can be also devastating. The hydropower industry

has constructed around 50,000 dams across the world by the end

of 20th century (The Association for International Water Studies, 2012). The

world`s largest dams such as the Three Gorges Dam in China and

Tucurui Dam in Brazil might have damaged or completely destroyed8

livelihoods of many people by flooding great amounts of

farmlands, productive wetlands, forests, fisheries. According to

World Comission on Dams, around 40-80 million people were

displaced from their lands in the past 60 years (International Rivers,

2012). Their lives might have worsened in many ways, culturally,

economically and psychologically. Millions, particularly in the

tropics, have suffered from health problems caused by spreading

diseases exacerbated by dams. Apart of direct impact by flooding

reservoirs, millions more might have been impacted by

infrastructure accompanying large dams, such as power lines,

roads, canals, irrigation schemes etc. The communities sometimes

regarded as marginalized and most vulnerable ones, such as

indigenous people and peasants, are considered to be the ones

who particularly feel the impacts (International Comission on Large

Dams, 1999).

Referring to Shanmugaratnam`s dialectic, one may see that by

appropriation of nature, here the rivers, for creating the

surplus value, a contradiction arises between the needs of the

capital, here the industries and the needs of daily labour

power, here local popultation. This contradiction might be

particularly visible in the second form mentioned by

Shanmugaratnam i.e. between capital accumulation and

reproduction of society and human habitat. The people directly

and indirectly affected by hydropower development, are dependent

on the environment for their subsistence and livelihoods and

this might express existing interdependence between environment

and development within the dialectic.

Also, the main rationale for hydropower investors might

derive from economic benefits from electricity and, first of

all, for the industries. Part of the population is also get9

provided with electricity for residential needs and with the

jobs. On the one hand, it might be good for development as it

meets one of its goals – economic growth. On the other hand, it

might sacrifice other development pillars, meaning social costs

often particularly for the marginalised and vulnerable groups in

this context. Industrial development doesn`t always mean that

the whole society benefits from it and develops in a broader

sense, particularly in the long term. Focusing solely on

economic growth may turn to maldevelopment, as put by Vandana

Shiva. Thus, this can serve as one of the evidences of

“development-development” conflict.

3.3 “Environment-Environment”: Clean Energy vs.

Environmental Costs

Another main perceived benefit of the hydropower is that the

energy it provides is clean and green, particularly in contrast

to fossil fuels. At the same time, there exists a practice of

greenwashing i.e. overestimating the positive sides for

environment and underestimating or ignoring negative ones in

order, for example, to push forward a new hydropower project

which might be highly controversial. However, apart of their

potential environmental benefits hydropower dams might cause a

lot of damaging consequences as well.

First, as all of us are connected through watersheds, which

include land, water, all plants, animals and humans in it with

all the infrastructure added. What happens in the one part of

the watershed because of the dam construction, influences

10

ecological processes both upstream and downstream (Ledec &

Quintero, 2003). Such factors as water quantity and quality may

be first of all affected. Consequently it influences the

livelihoods of people.

Second, large dams might cause adverse impacts on biological

diversity by flooding land, species` isolation, habitats`

fragmentation, interruption of nutrients` exchange between

ecosystems and cutting off migration rutes. They reduce flow of

water and sediments to habitats downstream, and change rivers`

estuaries which are home for the world`s fish species. For

example, baiji dolphin completely extincted in the Yangtze River

after the Three Gorges Dam construction (International Comission on

Large Dams, 1999).

Third, the impacts from dams might increase ecosystems`

vulnerability to other threats, such as climate change though

this concept itself is highly disputable. Rivers play central

role in soil deposition that drives carbon sequestration. When

dams significantly change rivers` inundation cycles, they reduce

soils` and biomass ability to capture carbon. Additionaly, dams

can be significant sources of methane, one of the main

greenhouse gases. Particularly in the tropics, water in dam

reservoirs emits more methane gas, mainly because of biological

materials decomposition (Ledec & Quintero, 2003).

Also, in the light of hydropower greenwashing other

renewable energy sources may be disregarded. However, they can

be a better alternative to hydropower projects which are often

higly controversial. Renewable sources, such as wind, solar,

geothermal energy etc., are considered to be more socially and

environmentally friendly. Additionally, they could be more

relevant to contemporary realities working as more efficient and11

innovative substitution to, perhaps, slightly old-fashioned

hydropower. Unfortunately, investments in these markets are

still considered to be more greenfield while the major focus and

broader engagement worldwide is in more traditional hydropower.

Thus, from the above mentioned may derive “environment-

environment” conflict meaning that hydropower can be regarded as

both environmentally friendly and damaging source of energy at

the same time. Referring to Shiva, it might be important not to

reduct the environmental impacts of hydropower only to green and

clean ones i.e. doing greenwashing in order to implement the

project by cost of nature to achieve productivity and high

profits. Also, one might regard potentially valuable ecological

and holistic knowledge about nature which traditionally

marginalised groups, such as peasants and indigenous communities

might held, mentioned by Shiva. However, one might not be too

romantic or simplistic about it, as their voices do not always

offer the best solutions to be adopted.

4. Case: Tucurui Dam in Brazil

The Tucurui Dam is a massive concrete gravity dam on the

Tocantins River in the state of Para in the Eastern Brazil. The

initial aim of constructing the dam was to provide the town of

Belem and the surrounding region with the electricity.

Ultimately, the focus of the project changed in favour of mining

and metallurgical industries which are energy intensive. So,

mainly the industrial interests catalized the construction of

Tucurui Hydropower Complex. In this context, Tucurui is

considered to be a part of the major development projects in the

12

region, such as the Transamazon Highway, Steel Complex, the

Greater Carajas Mining Project, the PA-150 Highway, big ranching

and farming projects run by the private sector etc. (Fearnside,

1999, 2001; La Rovere, 2002)

4.1 Environmental Impacts

Regarding environmental costs, construction of Tucurui dam

resulted in significant forest loss which leaded to damage of

natural ecosystems and contributed into greenhouse gas

emissions. It also heavily affected aquatic ecosystems by

blocking migration of fish and by creating anoxic environments.

Vegetation decay in the flooded reservoir created anoxic water

which corrodes turbines and releases methane providing

conditions for mercury methylation. At the same time, some

mitigation measures were taken such as establishing of 24

archaeological salvages in the submergence area, faunal salvage

(with 284,000 animals from the beginning) and gene bank (with

different tree species collected in the submergence area in 28

2.4-ha parcels on an island in the reservoir near the dam)

(Fearnside, 2001).

However, these mitigation measures did not meet proper

maintenance. For instance, about faunal salvage it was written

the following: “Even those captured and moved were not saved for

long. One problem is the stressed and debilitated state of the

animals when released. Another is that relocated animals enter

into competition with animal populations already present in the

area where they are released. In the case of Tucurui, the

additional lease on life given by being “saved” by the Curupira

13

Project in the 1984 was even more ephemeral: a report of a 1986

field survey by Eletronorte indicates that all of the nature

reserves created for the rescued fauna had been invaded by

loggers and hunters (Monosowski, 1990, p. 33; Fearnside, 2001,

p. 387)”. Supporting of gene bank was not better too: “Only a

small part of one parcel received any maintenance. The

headquarters of the area served mainly as a picnic spot for

high-level employees from the Eletronorte compound at Tucuruı

´and as a stop for reception of visitors being shown

environmental activities in the area” (Fearnside, 2001, p. 388).

As to Environmental Impact Assessment, the environmental

studies of the dam were quiet shallow icluding only its

immediate effects and not taking into account long-run impact on

the environment and local population. Additionaly, no studies

were conducted about accompanying dam`s infrastructure such as

roads and transmission lines (La Rovere, 2002).

4.2 Social ImpactsSocial impacts played played little role in the initial

decision about building the Tucuruı Dam. At the same time social

and economic life of the region was adversely affected in direct

and indirect way.

A total of 33 000 people had to be displaced because of

direct and indirect effects of dam construction. Eletronorte

assisted them with cash payments but in most cases they were

undervalued and delayed. Additionally, a large number of

employment related migrants moved to the area. It resulted in

overpopulation leading to pressure on economic and social

infrastructure, poverty growth, social tensions between re-

14

settled people and migrants. Displaced people also provoked more

deforestation (Fearnside, 1999). The resettlement process itself

underestimated the numbers of people to be relocated and it

didn`t consider livelihood patterns of the families e.g.

riverbank communities were replaced inland and extractive

communities were put in lands which require farming (La Rovere

2002).

The downstream communities also faced adverse impacts on

their livelihoods, though mostly indirect ones. It affected

negatively their trading activities because of shipping

problems, farming activities and fisheries due to water quality

and quantity changes. Before dam construction fishery was

flourishing being a main source of cash income and of animal

protein for the river dwellers. Fish consumption was in average

49 kg per person per year. Dam caused 60% drop in the fishcatch

per unit effort and number of fishermen also fell drastically.

Additionaly, freshwater shrimp harvests decreased by 66%

(Fearnside, 2001). Despite all these negative effects,

downstream residents were excluded from Electronorte`s

evaluations of population being affected as they considered only

people experiencing direct effects.

Impacts on health of local people were also negative. The

population increase in the area boosted vector transmitted

diseases such as malaria, schistosomiasis etc. together with

increased level of alcoholism, sexually transmitted diseases and

AIDS (La Rovere, 2002). Also, high mercury levels in the Tucurui

reservoir put community`s health at risk of neurological damage

(Fearnside, 2001).

Tucurui hydropower complex also had negative effects on

indigenous peoples of the region as it partly flooded Parakana,15

Pucurui and Montanha indigenous reserves and its transmission

lines cut trough others as well (Fearnside, 1999). Although

these indigenous communities were paid small amount of

compensation, for them it can`t really substitute the loss of

their land also because they have special spiritual and cultural

links to it. Additionally, the tribes lack experience of dealing

with money that resulted in spending their funds for purposes

not ensuring their continuous well-being.

4.3 “Behind the scene”: benefiting stakeholders

4.3.1 Funding

The Tucurui project was funded mainly by the Electronorte budget

which is half private half state-owned company.Also it was

supplemented by loans from foreign sources and transfers from

Brazilian governmental institutions. Foreign creditors constituted

around 55% of total project costs and among them were the following:

Bank of America, National Bank of Canada, Banque de L’Union

Europeenne, Crocker National Bank and a consortium of French

banks . As to Brazilian sources, they were: Eletrobrás, Banco do

Brasil, Caixa Econômica Federal, BNH, FINAME resources for

equipment acquisition (Fearnside, 1999).

4.3.2 The legal framework

The legal framework of electricity sector in Brazil included a

state-owned company Eletrobrás ( Centrais Elétricas Brasileiras S/A)

and its four regional utilities. Eletronorte was one of these four and

served as a public power services` subsidiary of Eletrobrás. Being

established in 1973, nowadays it covers about 60% of the

16

Brazil`s land area, including all legal Amazonia and such states

as Acre, Amapá, Amazonas, Maranhão, Mato Grosso, Pará, Rondônia,

Roraima and Tocantins (La Rovere, 2002).

4.3.3 Construction firms

About construction firms, initially four of them competed in

tenders and bidding: Camargo Corrêa, Mendes Júnior, Andrade

Gutierrez and C.R. Almeida. The bidding process included a

technical proposal followed by a commercial proposal together

with corresponding prices for construction. The technical

proposal was based on Eletronorte`s requirements. Camargo Corrêa

construction company became the winner of the bidding process by

having presented the best technical proposal for the lowest

price. The price, however, included only civil works, without

expences for project engineering and electric equipment

(Fearnside, 1999, 2001; La Rovere, 2002).

The principal owner of Camargo Corrêa, Sebastia˜o Camargo,

became one of the Brazilian billionaires in the short run after

Tucurui contract. As was put in ref the increase in number of rich

people in Brazil and Latin America in general may be associated

with an “extraordinary wave of capitalist energy” in the region.

Probably, it was not a coincidence that majority of Brazilian

billionaires in 1992 were the construction firms` owners dealing

with main public works in Amazonia such as Tucuruı´ Dam, Balbina

Dam and North–South Railway (Fearnside, 1999, 2001; La Rovere,

2002).

It may be explained by extremely high profiatability of the

contracts administrating these construction projects. For

example, for Tucurui the profit were estimated as about US$500

million, representing 10% of the total project cost and not17

taking into account the interest. This profit resulted mainly

from the administrative fees accompanying every step of the

project. Additionally, metallic silica plant near the Tucurui

town, being a “preferential client” of the dam and using its

energy at the subsidized rates, became an extra source of

finacial return (Fearnside, 1999, 2001; La Rovere, 2002).

.

4.3.4 Foreign interests

It can be put that the construction of Tucurui was

influenced a lot by foreign intersets. The decision to build the

dam was not even made in Brazil. It happened in Japan after

negotiations between the Brazilian Minister of Mines and

Energy, Shigiaki Ueki, and a group of companies from the

Government of Japan. Japanese interests were specifically to

supply power to the ALBRA´ S and ALUMAR aluminum smelters which

they owned (Fearnside, 1999, 2001; La Rovere, 2002).

France also had interests in the Tucurui project. Most of the

dam turbines were purchased from Neyrpic of Grenoble and

Creusot-Loire of Le Creusot in the form of “supply credits”. It

resulted in US$3 billion debt to France which had been never

paid back. Some of the Brazilian most rich and powerful men were

charged of corruption in relation to this, however, it had been

never properly investigated afterwards. Also, in 1976 and 1977,

French industries and financial institutions gave financial

support to Tucuruí, but with the condition for Brazil to buy a

considerable amount of goods and services from France

(Fearnside, 1999, 2001; La Rovere, 2002).

Iron and manganese smelters in the region are also worth

mentioning, as they are highly dependent on the electricity

from Tucurui. Here a number of US multinational companies, such18

as US Steel through Meridional and Union Carbide through Codim

have become involved (Fearnside, 1999, 2001; La Rovere, 2002).

The Canada`s transnational aluminium producer Alcan also

expressed much interest in the Tucurui, mainly due to the fact

of mining companies` nationalisation in Guyana, where Alcan had

its bauxite mine (Fearnside, 1999, 2001; La Rovere, 2002).

So, apart of supplying energy, Tucuruí Hydropower Complex

played a key role in the metallurgical and mining complex in

Eastern Amazonia.

4.4 Discussion

Among main justifications of Tucurui developers was

economical and social progress of the country in general.

Together with ensuring national energy security, it was supposed

to provide cheaper prices for electricity and create additional

jobs for Brazilian people providing industrial and economic

growth. However, most of the power from Tucurui goes not to the

private consumers but for supplying metallurgic and mining

industries in the region. Thus, in pursuit of national economic

goals, it damaged local ecosystem and by this sacrificed

livelihoods of local poorest, most vulnerable and traditionally

marginalised people. Together with environmetal impacts the

project’s social costs are substantial.

The Tucurui`s high controversy is mainly the result of poor

scientific research on all stages of project implementation,

particularly concerning environmental impacts, and lack of

public consultation together with quiet high level of secrecy

about many aspects of the project, particularly regarding social

impacts, in order to favour interests of particular

19

stakeholders, which due to Tucurui increased their wealth up to

billions in some cases. Decision-making was influenced mainly

by construction firms and foreign financial interests, both on

the construction stage and in the use of electricity afterwards.

Social and environmental costs were not considered in the proper

way. As a result, local ecosystem and population such as mainly

small farmers and indigenous communities became so called

externalities of the project or the victims of development.

Thus “development-development” conflict might be

particularly visible here. On the one hand, there is economic

growth, on the other – sacrificed environment and livelihoods of

many local people. It could be clear that local and regional

development might not be measured only by economic indicators

but rather take into account other significant social variables

such as well-being of communities over time in the areas

directly affected by the project. Also, these communities might

be included and participate in the process of development on the

equal basis.

Most importantly, one might also not forget our

“environment-development” interdependence. It could work for the

better if all developers would have deep understanding of human-

nature or environment-development inseparability. In regard to

Shiva, we might not reduce environment to the economic/dominant

point of view without thinking about reproducing nature. As long

as we`ll be always dependent on nature because we are all part

of it, our capability to achieve greater freedom and well-being

for both current and future generations is in direct dependence

on the well-being of our environment. So, Tucurui Dam might

provide valuable lessons for similar by controversy hydropower

projects e.g. Belo Monte.20

5.ConclusionAs to the main actors “standing behind the scene” in the

global hydropower industry, they are governments, financiers and

international financial institutions. National governments,

particularly of the BRICS countries, tend to play a central role

in regional and international markets and finance most new

hydropower projects. International financial institutions

shifted from direct financing to the knowledge-based area of

development finance.

About main contradictions, in regard to “development-

development” conflict, the main rationale for hydropower

investors might derive from economic benefits from electricity

and, first of all, for the industries. Part of the population is

also get provided with electricity for residential needs and

with the jobs. On the one hand, it might be good for development

as it meets one of its goals – economic growth. On the other

hand, it might sacrifice other development pillars, meaning

social costs often particularly for the marginalised and

vulnerable groups.

In the context of “environment-environment” controversy,

hydropower can be regarded as both environmentally friendly and

damaging source of energy at the same time. It might be

important not to reduct the environmental impacts of hydropower

only to green and clean ones i.e. doing greenwashing in order to

implement the project by cost of nature to achieve productivity

and high profits.

Regarding the case of Tucurui dam, decision-making in the

project was influenced mainly by construction firms and foreign

financial interests, both on the construction stage and in the

21

use of electricity afterwards which was mostly for supplying

metallurgic and mining industries in the region. Social and

environmental costs were not considered in the proper way. As a

result – sacrificed environment and livelihoods of many local

people, mainly small farmers and indigenous communities, which

are interconnected and interdependent through “environment-

development” context.

Reference list:

1. Fearnside, P.M. (2001) Environmental Impacts of Brazil’sTucurui Dam: Unlearned Lessons for Hydroelectric Developmentin Amazonia. \\ Environmental Management Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 377–396. http://libra.msra.cn/Publication/39684502/environmental-impacts-of-brazil-s-tucuru-dam-unlearned-lessons-for-hydroelectric-development-in Access date: 25.11.2012

2. Fearnside, P.M. (1999) Social Impacts of Brazil’s Tucurui Dam \\ Environmental Management 24(4), pp. 219-244. http://www.academia.edu/1188801/Social_impacts_of_Brazils_Tucurui_Dam Access date: 25.11.2012

3. International Comission on Large Dams. (1999) Benefits and concernsabout dams. http://www.swissdams.ch/Committee/Dossiers/BandC/Benefits_of_and_Concerns_about_Dams.pdf Access date: 16.11.2012

4. Gapminder. (2012) http://www.gapminder.org/ Access date: 16.11.2012

5. International Rivers. (2012) “Sinohydro Projects Overseas”. http://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/sinohydro-projects-overseas-3580 Access date: 20.10.2012

6. Kjosavik, D.J. & Vedeld, P. (2011) The Political Economy of Environment and Development in a Globalised World: Exploring the Frontiers –

22

Essays in honour of Nadarajah Shanmugaratnam, Trondheim: TapirAcademic Press.

7. Ledec , G. & Quintero, J. D. (2003) ‘Good Dams and Bad Dams: Environmental Criteria for Site Selection of Hydroelectric Projects‘ Latin America and Caribbean Region Sustainable Development Working Paper 16 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/LACEXT/Resources/258553-1123250606139/Good_and_Bad_Dams_WP16.pdf Access date: 16.11.2012

8. La Rovere, E.L. Mendes, F.E. (2002) WCD Case Study. Tucurui Hydropower Complex Brazil. Prepared for the World Commission on Dams (WCD). Final Report. November. – 196 p. http://www.acendebrasil.com.br/archives/files/csbrmain.pdf Access date: 25.11.2012

9. Shiva, V. (1989) Staying alive: Women, Ecology and Development, London:Zed Books.

10. The Association for International Water Studies http://fivas.org/ENGLISH.aspx Access date: 16.11.2012

11. World Bank. (2011) “Transformation Through Infrastructure: World Bank Group Infrastructure Strategy Update”. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINFRA/Resources/Transformationthroughinfrastructure.pdf Access date: 20.10.2012

12. World Bank Data. (2012) “Electricity production from hydroelectric sources (% of total)”. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.HYRO.ZS Access date: 22.10.2012

23

24