Damocracy

Here are four scenarios regarding the future of dam projects in Brazil and Turkey, specifically those featured in “Damocracy”. These projects would submerge the homes of many natives and locals in both countries, as well as valuable historical sites, and have a net negative impact on climate change. These scenarios are derived from four possible (but generalized) outcomes, from which more specific reasoning is derived: completion of the dam, temporary cancellation or postponement of construction, permanent cancellation of the project, or modification of the hydroelectric project. These outcomes are constructed such that they could apply to either or both of the cases featured in the documentary. Enter scenario one: the project continues to completion. This scenario assumes that the government pushes ahead with the dam projects and sees them completed. There could be several motivating factors: the government has invested a large sum of money in the project, which it does not want to see wasted; the political establishment would also want to see a short-term economic pay-off that could help them in elections. In order for this scenario to come about, the government would have to hire security forces to protect the project, or secretively speed up construction to such a pace that protesters would not have time to organize a meaningful resistance; the former seems more likely. The resulting flood would force the displacement of thousands of natives or locals. Given media attention to these projects, it seems likely that there would be international condemnation, and possibly some symbolic punitive measures against the nation in question. More uncertain outcomes regard the international community’s handling of the fallout, how much aid would be given to those displaced, and whether the displaced peoples could remain as intact societal groups. Enter scenario two: the project is halted, but without assurances against future activity, this pause is assumed to be temporary. Motivations for the government might be similar, but it has decided that local and global resistance have rendered the project untenable, or it has been hindered by another legal challenge. One certainty here is that, if the pause turns out to be long-term, locals and protesters would organize to dismantle what has been constructed. However, the dispute is not concluded, but postponed. The primary uncertainty here is how long the government and/or developers might wait to begin construction again. Enter scenario three: the project is canceled permanently. Locals and international protesters would have used every peaceful means at their disposal to counter the dam project: they would organize large groups to dig channels through its earthen foundation; they would obstruct workers’ access to the site, or even camp out on the site itself; they would draw in news media, to attest how the locals were not fairly consulted, and to draw attention to the project’s dubious legality. All these tactics combined would cost time and money for the project; combined with greater public attention and international opposition, the government could decide that the potential political fallout exceeds any benefits the dam might bring, and scuttle the project with assurances against future plans. In this scenario, for the time being at least, the state of affairs for people living near the rivers would remain unchanged. Also, if this scenario came about, it seems likely that other controversial hydroelectric projects in the region would be opposed and face cancellation; this would be a significant setback from the perspective of hydroelectric companies. Enter scenario four: in response to the strong opposition of local groups and global organizations, the government decides to give a bit, and consult with local groups in planning a less damaging project. While they would recognize the local interests, the government would not want to waste their investment completely, and so would be willing to adapt the project. Either that, or a third party comes in and proposes such a middle road in an attempt to satisfy all interests. I must admit that I am on less solid footing with this scenario, as I am not an engineer or energy expert; I really have no idea if a hydroelectric energy development could generate a usable amount of power without flooding substantial land area. If it is possible, then I think this scenario would be an ideal outcome. Which do I think is most likely at present? Number two seems most likely to me, if only because politicians like to kick the can down the road without making future commitments. Eventually, though, it would probably conclude with one of the other scenarios, since those portray actual end-games for the dispute in question.