Geo

The Amazon biome is the world’s largest freshwater system and an important regulator of regional and global climate (Castello et al., 2013; Stickler et al., 2013), providing critical ecosystem services valued at a minimum of US$30 billion/year (Butler, 2009). Development of hydrologic infrastructure for energy production and transportation threatens to disrupt these functions in many Amazonian watersheds. The full suite of negative impacts associated with dam construction are not known, but among the externalities includes biodiversity loss (Tundisi et al., 2014), fisheries collapse (Anderson, 2013), and the destruction of communities, livelihoods, and cultural resources (e.g., Tundisi 2007). Organisms endangered by the construction of these dams cannot verbalize the traumatic destruction of their ecosystem, but the indigenous people of the Amazon can, and they are currently protesting the construction of the Belo Monte project and others through an "occupy" movement. Local communities, indigenous groups, and national and international NGOs are mobilizing forces to stop the project before irreversible damage ensues (Bermann, 2007; McCormick, 2007).

That said, Brazil and the other South American leaders are moving forward with their development plans to raise regional incomes via the Initiative for the Integration of the Regional Infrastructure of South America (IIRSA). The primary objective of IIRSA is to transform Amazonia into a multi-modal hub that connects roads, waterways, and port facilities to increase grain and mineral exports from South America (Killeen 2007). Under such development programs, the region will also become a major source of hydropower (Figure 1, below).

Indeed, infrastructure investment has created wealth in many parts of the world. A good example is the U.S., where railroads and dams opened the American West and helped accelerate industrial growth. The Amazon Basin already has a dynamic agricultural economy, and the proposed infrastructure investments open the door to a second stage of social and environmental transformation featuring industrial expansion. Although development planners have long targeted Amazonia with infrastructure investments, efforts to date pale before the IIRSA program and related initiatives of its member states. Presently, about 177 hydroelectric plants are either built or under construction throughout the basin, with 241 additional dams planned, and 220 sites inventoried (International Rivers Dams Database 2013). Thus, the development vision entertains as many as 638 hydropower plants capable of generating ~151 GW (Figure 1), or nearly 15 percent of the electricity used for US manufacturing (1051 GW; EIA 2014). Similarly, there are plans to build a basin-spanning highway network of 100,000 km (larger than US Interstate system at 77,000 km), and 20,000 km of waterways (half the 40,000 km in the US).

It is possible that the planned expansion of hydropower, together with improvements in the region’s transportation system, will draw people from the forest into cities, thereby promoting a forest transition, with recovery of the native vegetation where farms and ranches have been abandoned (Mather 1992; Walker 1993). This would be a positive outcome for environment and the economy. Nevertheless, the opposite outcome is as likely, in which a new wave of deforestation exceeds the first one associated with agricultural development enabled by the building of federal highways by the Brazilian government in the 1960s and 1970s (Moran 1981; Smith 1982; Schmink and Wood 1984). The ultimate objective is for the investments in hydropower and transportation networks, in concert with mining and oil extraction, to foster industrialization, which is an economic growth process that has so far eluded the region.

Two polarized discourses have emerged regarding these mega-projects in the Amazon. One of them, pro-development, emphasizes their economic necessity, while the other discourse, contra-destruction, emphatically condemns them as economically wasteful, socially harmful, and environmentally destructive. Despite growing debate about Amazonian mega-project development, research and evidence is still lacking on the potential impacts of the suite of dams and related infrastructure plans. Aside from inflaming debate, the lack of analytical synthesis limits the ability to make judicious decisions.

So what should be done? Should the precautionary principle be followed, since the potential social and environmental impacts are too great? Or is the potential economic growth for Brazil and the other South American Nation’s, and the trickle down benefits for society, too great important to be withheld? Are there other energy alternatives that are less degrading than hydro-power? Do the indigenous people have a right to decide what happens to their ancestral homeland? Or is the Brazilian government in the right by providing power for the majority of their country? What about the right of nature, the fauna and flora without a voice?

Research the pros and cons of these projects in Amazonia and elsewhere. You should use the resources provided in this module, as well as doing your own search. Consider the different sides of the argument from the perspective of stakeholders, those local that may suffer direct impacts, but even distant populations that will likely suffer consequences given climate change and other environmental disruptions: for example (1) indigenous people; (2) citizens of the South American Nations; (3) Policy makers; (4) Flora and Fauna; (5) private capital interests, both regional and international; (6) citizens outside the region.

1. Watch the videos, read the articles, and visit the Dams in Amazonia interactive map.

2. Consider the different sides on the issue, and the perspective from each stakeholder.

3. After, write up a summary of the different positions, as well as your opinion.