MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, December 22nd 2024 - 18:21 UTC

 

 

Chilean controversial Patagonia mega-dam project to be appealed at Supreme Court

Sunday, October 9th 2011 - 07:20 UTC
Full article 5 comments
Patricio Rodrigo, the executive secretary of Patagonia Sin Represas Patricio Rodrigo, the executive secretary of Patagonia Sin Represas

A Chilean appeals court in Puerto Montt voted 3 to 1 to reject seven lawsuits brought against the proposed controversial HidroAysén hydroelectric mega-dam approved by the Chilean government on May 9 of this year.

The lawsuits questioned the legality of the environmental review process conducted by the government, citing procedural irregularities and alleged conflicts of interest.

As soon as the latest ruling was made public, Patagonia Sin Represas, a citizen’s group opposed to the project, said that the Puerto Montt appeals court decision will now be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The now 10 billion dollars project is a joint venture between Chilean energy company Colbún and the majority Spanish owned Endesa energy company, a part of Enel. HidroAysén would install five dams on two of Chile’s largest rivers, the Baker and Pascua rivers in southern Region XI known as Aysén.

The project also includes, as a separate entity, 1.243 miles of transmission lines to carry the energy generated by the dams to central and northern Chile.

HidroAysén is the largest dam project ever proposed in Chile.

Proponents say it is critical for meeting the nation’s future energy needs, while critics say it is a dinosaur, completely unnecessary and designed to consolidate 85% of the Chilean central grid energy production into the hands of the two companies.

They add that the environmental impact would be tremendous - flooding virgin forests, endangering the survival of the huemul deer (Chile’s national emblem), and creating a 1,243 mile scar the length of the country.

The appeal process began on June 20 when the Puerto Montt appeals court accepted seven petitions challenging the government’s approval of the dam construction and issued an injunction to stop all work on the project.

The dissenting vote in the 2 to 1 decision was cast by Judge Hernán Cristoso. Cristoso told El Mercurio that “parts of the project violated the guarantees of the right to life and physical integrity, as well as equality before the law, and the right to live in a pollution-free environment.”

“The Regional Environmental Commission at the time should have ordered an immediate Consolidated Evaluation Report (ICE), rejecting the project, so that a new proposal could be submitted that followed environmental regulations and protected national parks” Cristoso said.
Although polls show that HidroAysén is rejected by 74% of all Chileans, government officials insist it is necessary to meet the nation’s future energy needs.

Opponents include Senate president Sen. Guido Girardi and conservative regional Sen. Antonio Horvath, who were among the plaintiffs in the lawsuits filed with the Puerto Montt appeals court.

Patricio Rodrigo, the executive secretary of Patagonia Sin Represas, opposed to the project, said Friday that the Puerto Montt appeals court decision will now be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Ecological Action, another environmental group opposed to the project, met with other environmental groups Friday in Plaza Italia, in the centre of Santiago, to show respect for the verdict, but to call for new protests, the first of which scheduled for October 15.

Luis Mariano Rendón, leader of Ecological Action, told La Tercera that ”the citizens are the ones that should decide what happens and what doesn’t happen in Patagonia … a decision must be made by Chile’s people through a plebiscite....we are seeing a great crisis in our society; we have a political system that has little popular support or legitimacy, and this same political system is not able to resolve the huge problems our country is facing. We believe this is a common denominator of all the social fights now occurring in Chile. It is the demand for institutional changes that will permit citizens to make decisions about their country.”

The government’s green lighting of the dam project last May caused a huge uproar among citizen and environmental groups, leading to many large protests that helped set the stage for the current protests against Chile’s educational system led by students.

By Anna Pope – The Santiago Times

Top Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • GeoffWard2

    I think that this region of Chile should:
    revert to the Dark Ages,
    turn its back on electricity,
    close down the coal mines in the region (”the right to live in a pollution-free environment.”), and
    follow the path of Ecuador - refusing the development of roads in favour of country paths.

    Perhaps more:
    It could become a separate country,
    a little bit of the pre-human world, if all people were also removed.

    Then we could all go on trekking holidays there, using donkeys as necessary.

    We would be observers of the world as it was before the Ice Age; people would pay big bucks to be extras in the real life version of Pre-Era do Gelo 4.
    A real-life Disneyland of Dreams.
    Hell, we could even introduce some dinosaurs!

    Or we could recognise that ALL the people of Chile need electricity or the benefits of the use of electricity.
    It costs REAL money to hand out Free Compulsory Education to everybody
    You can't spend it if you can't earn it.

    Oct 09th, 2011 - 01:52 pm 0
  • ManRod

    Let's don't mix things, Geoff... The region we are talking about (South Chile, XI and XII Region = 233 million km2) is the size of the UK , but there are less than 250k people living all over there (like the city of Swansea).

    So it's very sure, that the project does not have the intention to provide the local population with electricity, nor does the relation “benefit/adversity” stand in a healthy balance.
    The local ones surely have their requirements fullfilled (been there).
    So it's about providing electricity to OUR central region, with electric lines which will be build over thousands of km...

    The region we are talking about is a world heritage in regarding to nature, I guess you have not been there to understand, what it would mean to interfere in these dimensions in an almost untouched enviroment.

    If we centralists do require more energy, we should find a solution ourselves in our region. We don't wanna be a Mexico City, a monster who soaks the “life juice” of the whole country to sustain itself...

    Oct 10th, 2011 - 03:32 pm 0
  • GeoffWard2

    Hi, Man.
    Yes, a bit of parody, but I am totally aware of all you say.
    I know that the electricity AND the coal will be transported north; and I know there is a solar energy programme in the central region itself. I wish ALL non-polluting energy programmes a long life. I know some are 'worse' than others, and the downside of polluting energy use can be global warming, extreme weathers and fundimental societal change; whilst clean energy can change to river-flows, and besmirch the visual environment with lakes, windmills and solar panels.

    My key point is that a whole country is a whole country, and some bits will be better for energy than others, other bits will be better for fish, and yet other bits will be better for copper ore. Each bit must play its part in the interests of ALL the people of Chile.

    And my central conclusion remains:
    It costs REAL money to hand out Free Compulsory Education to everybody.
    You can't spend it if you can't earn it.

    Oct 10th, 2011 - 10:25 pm 0
Read all comments

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!