Communication of Local Welfare

178 Park Miravalles became part of a renewable energy corridor of the Guanacaste province, the only in the world within a 15 km radius” (Interview 3J, 2013).

Besides the solar park, located at the Miravalles Generation Center this corridor includes the Miravalles geothermal production center, the wind park Guanacaste and the hydroelectric plant Arenal. According to the solar park managers, the project has a demonstrative and educative purpose. First, it allows to study the behavior of the technology on larger scales, and second to attract numerous visitors from diverse population groups (e.g. students, politicians, national, and foreigners) (Interview 3J, 2013).

179 were echoed on a global level when the WCD launched the principles stating the strategic priorities on dams’ development. These principles became a main guideline for networks of environmentalists, grass-root organizations, and citizens nationally and abroad, including the work of the Costa Rican Ecologist Federation (FECON). ¹⁶⁴

Even though the objectives and priorities of the WCD were broadly accepted, their policy recommendations and guidelines were less welcome by financial institutions and interest groups, such as the World Bank itself and the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). An aspect of major controversy was the principle of indigenous prior consultation, which “would mean that basically no dam could be built”.¹⁶⁵ According to the principle, “all countries should be guided by the concept of free, prior and informed consent, regardless of whether it has already been enacted into law.” (WCD, 2000, p. 219).

In fact, the right of consultation was already stipulated in international conventions and legislation ratified by Costa Rica. They include jurisprudence from the Organization of American States (OAS), such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights ratified by Costa Rica in 1970.¹⁶⁶ Likewise, the International Labor Organization Convention (ILO Convention 169) ratified by Costa Rica in 1994 stipulates the right of consultation (Sacchi, 2002; Carls & Haffar, 2010).

As contradictory as it may seem, in the same year the WCD principles were launched (i.e. 2000) the ICE revived the Boruca dam proposal (i.e. 1500 MW) in spite of its history of controversy.

A conflict mediation process was extended in the following years. On a national level, the projected was supported by the government, the Energy Planning Sector and the ICE on the basis of national welfare to supply energy demand and local welfare for the communities through the generation of employment and tourism potential (Sacchi, 2002).

On the local level, however, the Boruca HP in the Térraba River was also associated with severe negative effects. Among them, Carls & Haffar (2010) remark the dam will flood approximately 25000 hectares, including parts of three indigenous reserves, as well as roads infrastructures in another four reserves. The total population affected by the project was 6704, moreover it would be necessary to relocate about 2500 indigenous people, flood areas containing archeological vestiges, expropriate and provide payments for land and relocate communication routes.

164 The principles include gaining public acceptance; comprehensive options assessment; addressing existing dams; sustaining rivers and livelihoods; recognizing entitlements and sharing benefits; ensuring compliance; and sharing rivers for peace, development and security (WCD, 2000)

165 The Era of WCD belongs to the past. (2011-2012). Retrieved January 2014, from

http://www.tcsr-icold.com/Detail/49

166 “Ilegalidades del Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Diquís”, La Nación, 14.07.2011.; “El Diquís, frente a la jurisprudencia de la Corte IDH”, La Nación, 01.11.2012.

180 These impacts, together with effects on water, flora and fauna, especially in the Terraba-Sierpe wetland (considered a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention) not only mobilized indigenous groups claiming their traditions and livelihoods with the land, but also environmental organizations such as the FECON (Sacchi, 2005; Carls & Haffar, 2010). The aspect that produced the greatest resistance to the Boruca dam was community displacement, mainly groups belonging to the indigenous brunca - Rey Curré community, in addition to environmental concerns (Sacchi, 2005).

Altogether, the lack of success or inappropriateness of the conflict management techniques used by the ICE, thereby resulted in a decline of the WB and the IDB to finance the project in 2005.

In consequence, the ICE dropped the idea as originally planned and commenced a progressive downscale towards smaller options. In 2006, the Diquís Dam Project (631 MW), was chosen by the ICE as the hydroelectric alternative that considers the importance of the socio-environmental impacts (Carls & Haffar, 2010).

The option of the Diquís HP dam will flood 6800 hectares 6800 hectares, less than a third part of the Boruca HP option. Still, near 10% of the flooding area of the Diquís HP are indigenous territories (610 hectares), but no indigenous population would be displaced (Carls & Haffar, 2010, p. 117). The impacts projected include near 1100 persons (no indigenous) relocated, flood of archeological sites, as well as ecological implications to the Térraba-Sierpe wetland, among other affectations in the river uses, road infrastructure and productive activities, but in a lower magnitude than the Boruca HP.¹⁶⁷

When the government declared the Diquís HP of “national convenience and public interest”, in 2008, this announcement was strongly opposed by environmental organizations, eco-lodges, nearby communities and indigenous communities who claimed their right for consultation.

Since then, the Diquís HP conflict and mediation was underlined by an increasing national and international pressure against the dam. Main concerns were grounded on the lack of prior indigenous consultation, given the affectation of 10% of indigenous territories. The indigenous people of Costa Rica demanded the protection of the ILO Convention 169.¹⁶⁸

These conflictual processes have delayed the government approval of the Diquís HP. Project developers at the ICE and private investors blame the government for the delay in the case of the Diquís, as well as in other projects. According to them, slow progress of electricity projects is due to the lack of clarity in the national energy policy and guidelines, as well as for not attending the socioeconomic demands of the communities (Interview 1Q; Interview 5Q, 2013).

167 “El Diquís sustituye el gran proyecto Boruca” La Nación, 21.12.2008.

168 “Ilegalidades del Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Diquís”, La Nación, 14.07.2011.; “El Diquís, frente a la jurisprudencia de la Corte IDH”, La Nación, 01.11.2012.

181 In interviews during 2013, officials at environmental planning, economic engineering and other planning departments at the ICE stated that they are guided by the highest standards (Interview 4L, 2013), thus could not understand the opposition from hosting communities, not only towards the projects, but also towards the institute and its employees (Interview 5Q; Interview 4C, 2013). Interviewees repeatedly made reference to this change in attitudes compared to the past and claim that compensations are never enough to affected populations: “The communities want the ICE to solve all their problems even though this is the government’s job” (Interviews 1F, 2013).

In the period 2010-2014, legitimation problems continued affecting hydroelectric projects, either large dams or smaller RORs. The concentration of several RORs in the same watershed has been increasing the awareness among communities and based-root organizations concerned about their environmental impacts and competing uses of water at local level (Municipalidad de Buenos Aires, 2013; Municipalidad de Perez Zeledón, 2013). Consequently, in 2013 the two municipal councils declared a moratorium to hydroelectric dams in their counties until there is a planning proposal or a project to secure water provisions for human consumption.

Environmental organizations, such as FECON and Co-ecoceiba, have been using WCD reports and other research from international networks (e.g. International Rivers) to support their arguments and taking position on the side of affected communities. According to them “the projects are imposed, therefore communities are reluctant” (Interview 2J, 2013). Environmental organizations have a clear position regarding hydroelectric projects and have been advocating for other alternative renewable sources, such as solar, biomass, wind and hydrogen.

Nevertheless, they do not have further commitments with one technology in specific.

On the other hand, conflictual processes from electricity projects at community level created synergies between communal based groups with ecological concerns and environmental organizations with distributive approaches that have been increasing over time. One example is the organization of national forums since 2001, becoming a regular meeting point to exchange experiences between communities from the North and South of the country (Interview 2J, 2013).

In summary, drivers from local welfare communication started to play a role in decisions of electricity investors since early stages. Is at the project site where the hosting communities are directly affected by social and ecological impacts, affecting their livelihoods positively or negatively. This is exemplified by the reversal and slowdown on decisions of several RORs and new dams that raised awareness from environmentalist and grass-root organizations from a local sustainability perspective.

182 Since the 1990s, hydroelectricity legitimation suffered intensively what path dependency theory outlines as (degenerating) side effects from decisions. In fact, local welfare communication started reversing self-reinforcing mechanisms of hydroelectricity legitimation based on national welfare communication and of hydroelectricity efficiency based on scale economies.

Meanwhile, from the perspective of the government, the Energy Planning Sector and the multilateral financing organizations, hydroelectricity remained a legitimate source to satisfy growing electricity demands and reduce poverty. These contradictory perspectives are also explained in the section on political power mechanisms.