These five cases expose the ongoing implications of Chile’s neoliberal transition and resulting privatized water management system, weak environmental legislation, and institutionalized preference for hydropower development. The Chilean government’s sacrifices of social and ecological prosperity are interwoven within these layers and illuminated by the above resistance movements. Rocio Gonzalez distills the overarching situation: “We are at a disadvantage in this whole fight, huge disadvantage…we are fighting…the private companies with a shit load of money, and the government who has a shitload of power, and then we are here trying to do something, so it’s crazy.” As the fight for river preservation continues despite these David and Goliath circumstances, establishing effective strategies is crucial for resistance movements. Although the determining factors for effectiveness are based on nuanced social, political, ecological, and economic concepts, they are comparable between some developments. Accounting for Chile’s currently stagnant policies, demanding and receiving governmental intervention for controversial development is unrealistic, and must be made inconsequential. Therefore, resistance strategies ultimately center on demolishing a developments’ financial security by targeting project investors, often indirectly. As the cases above depict, specific strategies needed to compromise a project’s funding vary based on river location, local dependence on flow preservation, legal exploitation, international attention, level of trans-regional support, and sustained momentum. While these tactics have been analyzed in terms of large-scale development, I will now emphasize that hydropower impacts in Chile reach further than many realize.
You are here: Home / Resistance Strategy Inferences