Chileans celebrated on June 10, 2014, when the government of Chile scrapped a $10 billion project to build five dams in Patagonia’s Aysén region. Proposed by an Italian-Chilean energy conglomerate, the massive hydroelectric project—called HidroAysén—would have dammed the Baker and Pascua Rivers, flooded 15,000 acres of ranches and natural reserves, and required building 1,200 miles of electric lines through private land and pristine, protected areas. Chileans have called this the biggest environmental victory the country has ever seen.
Read Terry Odendahl’s blog about the movement against HidroAysén.
We talked with with Peter Hartmann, director of Aisén Filial of the Comité Nacional Pro Defensa de La Fauna y Flora, about HidroAysén’s defeat. Global Greengrants supported Hartmann’s group with two Greengrants to investigate HidroAysén’s potential impact, coordinate with other organizations to strategize opposition to the dams, and educate local people and government officials.
Why was an Italian-Chilean conglomerate proposing the HidroAysén dams?
Three companies control 90 percent of the country’s electricity. Together, they were saying that without HidroAysén, Chile would have to develop nuclear and coal energy, and everything would go to hell. We were able to show that renewable energy and small improvements to energy efficiency could generate the same amount of energy as HidroAysén. We also showed that this energy wasn’t going to benefit Chileans; it would have gone to transnational mining companies.
Some claim that supplying energy to the mining industry would actually increase the quality of life for all Chileans. What is your response?
Chile is a mining country. Pinochet led a military coup against Allende and denationalized copper mining. So now only 30 percent of copper mining is Chilean; the rest is owned by transnational companies that leave nothing in the country. The raw materials go overseas. The profits go overseas.
The mining companies are extremely influential. They essentially dictate government policy and pay for political campaigns. But only 1.5 percent of jobs in Chile are directly with the mines. For an industry this large, that is using so much energy, water, and resources—and leaving behind so much contamination—that isn’t much.
Creating a positive vision for Aysén’s future was key to defeating HidroAysén. Can you explain?
The citizen-led movement created a collective, long-term vision for the region. We thought, “What if we created something like a biosphere reserve, in which people could work and have a local economy?” We decided to call it a “Reserve of Life” or Aysén Reserva de Viva. And people liked that because what is greater or more important than life?
Reserve of Life means:
- Valuing what is our own
- Having regional pride
- Prioritizing organic ranching
- Identifying more sustainable forms of fishing (versus problematic salmon aquaculture)
- Growing eco-tourism (similar to New Zealand)
Having a positive campaign organized around the defense of something greater, something better, was really important to defeating HidroAysén. Some people accused us of being utopian. But we’re not. Reserve of Life isn’t just an idea, it’s an actual place.
How did you convince people that HidroAysén was bad for Chile?
Our stance is that the project isn’t compatible with Aysén being a Reserve of Life. In other words, we want sustainable development with the participation of the people of Aysén—not a project that comes from outside and destroys the region’s best qualities.
So we always tried to maintain a positive ethical campaign that really showed alternatives. We didn’t say “no to dams.” We said, “We want a Patagonia without dams.”
What are some of the ways you and other groups tried to stop HidroAysén?
When the regional government approved the project in 2011, civil society groups and activists moved. We tried to tie this thing down in every possible way. We mobilized citizens, led marches, worked with the government’s environmental institutions, presented technical observations, used legal strategies. There was work done to put political pressure on the government and present ethical arguments. And of course, there was a heavy communications campaign.
What role did Global Greengrants funding play in HidroAysén’s defeat?
There was a phase when small organizations and larger NGOs had good funding. At that time, Global Greengrants supported smaller, more local groups that were just starting up. It was useful for the campaign to have these groups. And then when financial crisis hit, foundations cut their funding to the larger, older groups in half. Some of those groups turned to Global Greengrants to save them. Global Greengrants was a lifesaver that helped keep them and the campaign afloat.
How has the struggle and victory impact the environmental movement?
There was a “before” and “after” with this campaign. Before, energy decisions were made behind closed doors. Now, they are much more transparent and open to public. We saw this even just a few weeks back: The government presented a draft of its energy policy, which, much to our surprise, incorporated a lot of the movement’s proposals.
In 2011, it really helped to catalyze and mobilize citizens who were discontent with government. It opened the door for many social movements and changed the political landscape in Chile. There were the first large-scale marches in Chile against the government in 20 years. They started as students marching against HidroAysen. When students’ realized this was powerful political tool, they started to raise issue of the cost of education and the right to education. There were massive marches, and it became part of the current government’s policy.
With respect to environmental movement, the struggle put environmental issues back in the public consciousness. Now the question is: How is the environmental movement going to capitalize on this? The movement is still quite divided. How will they come together to keep moving forward on these issues? We need to take advantage of the greater political consciousness around the environment that we have now.
Chilean policy is also much more participatory now. A couple of decades ago, a large project like HidroAysén would have been presented to the government, and then it would have been done. This phase has come to an end. There’s much more citizen involvement now. It shows the power the citizenry has. Now, after having stopped Alumysa [an aluminum smelter] and HidroAysén, we’ve shown that citizens have the power to stop a project, and that you have to keep fighting these things to the bitter end.