In the omnipresent search for economic development and subsequent energy production, hydropower has taken a central in the global energy portfolio. Historical leaders in hydropower have been the United States, India, China, Brazil, Spain, and Canada, although many smaller countries now rely proportionally more on hydropower production (International Commission on Large Dams 2000). While some hydro development rates have been slowed or even halted, the opposite is true for several South American countries, including Chile. Chile’s water management system, like many others in South America, has been an epicenter of social, political, economic and ecological dilemmas for decades. “In the Andes…territorial management and community water use systems…are interwoven with the cultural-political foundations” (Boelens 2013, 235). The many river basins flowing from the Chilean Andes, displayed in figure 2, are no exception to this generalization. Chile has embarked on a hydro development path that continues to emphasize how their “water use systems” are colliding more than they are “interwoven.” This path, familiar to many other countries, is founded on the notion that hydro developments “have been produced and reproduced as signs of prosperity and modernity” (Leaman-Constanzo 2013, 43).
Figure 2. The map of South America to the left depicts each river basin in a different color (R-HydroNET 2016). The map to the right displays each country’s name in addition to significant topographical features including the Andes (Geographic Guide 2016).
Most Chilean rivers are legally and economically controlled by private power. This dominance was created and is maintained by actors both within and outside of the political administration, which have institutionalized the authority of hydropower developers. This transition was largely made possible by the application of neoliberal economic policies during the Pinochet regime and the 1981 Water Code. In considering both the political ecology concepts and more specific hydrosocial cycle dynamics previously discussed, I will emphasize the disconnect between such solidified authority and the social, ecological, economic, and political responsibility it demands. Since the 1990s, various hydro development plans have not only made this disconnect clear, but have also depicted a network of influence used to push past public opposition. This network not only involves Chilean political and non-governmental national and international powers, many of which are centralized in Santiago, but also passive actors. Due to this context, social injustices and ecological consequences of river fragmentation are often not equitably reacted to from a political standpoint as profit motivated interests continue to dictate development decisions.
While Chile’s hydropower portfolio grows however, so do the resistance movements to subsequent proposals. The size and effectiveness of such responses are dependent on many variables, which will be explored here, furthering the complexity surrounding Chilean river management. Chilean rivers have become a battleground where “science and nature and technology and politics become so confused and mixed up as to be impossible to untangle…and are triggering our most personal and deepest emotions” (Latour 2012, para. 17). As such strong emotions combined with public perception and available information largely define resistance responses, the consideration of Chilean perspectives regarding these hydro developments is vital. Although Chile’s privatized water management system and subsequent hydropower conflicts have been analyzed in detail, the continuation of Chilean river development despite social opposition, demands both national and international attention. In light of information as current as April 2016, I inquire as to what project specific factors and trans-regional political ecology dynamics determine the effectiveness of hydropower resistance movements in Chile?
In order to properly analyze Chile’s relationship with hydropower and thus determine what is necessary to alter subsequent perpetuation of social and ecological upheaval, I focused on five case studies, both past and current projects, which have generated resistance movements. Through collecting and interweaving ideas from the first four cases, I developed a more in depth interpretation of the Maipo river hydro development, Alto Maipo. I used the following methodology to reach this point and answer my question, considering the ongoing and thus fluctuating nature of these resistance movements.
Methodology
Theory Review & Historical Context Development
Through compiling and analyzing academic works, I investigated the management of water as a commodity in relation to neoliberal policies and human interactions with its allocation. In realizing the interconnecting social, political, economic, and ecological factors, I decided to use the political ecology theory as a platform on which to interweave and consider this and further research. I then directed my research towards the historical contexts of river developments, specifically hydropower projects and resulting ecological and social patterns. As presenting all possible ecological implications of hydro development would have demanded a separate thesis, I chose to emphasize specifics that are relevant to my case studies below. In light of predominant social patterns, I found it important to establish the hydrosocial cycle in my background to construct a more theoretical context before focusing on specific social resistance movements. Finally, I examined these concepts in regards to their prevalence in Chilean history and river management. I studied five specific ongoing developments in Chile with an emphasis upon the strategies social resistances have and are using.
Conduct and Interoperate Interviews
After building this background knowledge, I travelled to Chile and conducted personal semi-structured interviews for approximately two weeks. Before arriving, I developed sets of questions specific to each interviewees’ knowledge base and language. Interviewees were selected prior to my trip based on their varied backgrounds, expertise, and relationships with river development. I established this variety in order to both generate an inclusive perspective and also corroborate information. I recorded all interviews, with permission, to preserve gathered information and for further reflection. While none of the project developers or their employees were successfully contacted and interviewed, I thoroughly reviewed information provided by their official proposals and websites. Upon returning to the U.S., I translated each interview and interoperated them in the context of all Chilean perspectives I heard, in addition to the academic context I had previously developed.
Reconnaissance and Discourse Analysis
While in Chile, I visited as many impact or potential hydro development sites as possible to better comprehend the scope and implications of each project. I also examined both the national and international discourses presented regarding the various hydropower projects by both the developers and opposition groups. I gathered sources through websites, media outlets, and physical billboards and signs I encountered in Chile.