Futures for Amazonia and Turkey - A response to Damocracy

Damocracy

Creating scenarios for these people is difficult for me because I have only the information presented in the documentary and what a google search can provide. Without having done any fieldwork or in depth research I automatically feel out of water about making predictions about something that I know next to nothing about.
However, I could see how sometimes a novice’s viewpoint could be enlightening, like a child asking an adult “why do the lights turn on?” and unless that adult is an electrician (in this case I am non-electrician adult), they would only have a simple answer such as “because mommy paid the bills” and then they would be left with a reflection into their basic assumptions (money makes the lights work, not electricity).  

So while I of course fully support the endeavors of the affected people in the documentary, imaging how things can pan out is difficult with so little information. If I were to create a scenario, I would want to know what the basic assumptions of each faction so that I could more skillfully play with the possible futures. As such, the following may seem poorly constructed. I will be following a model provided to try and create 4 scenarios for the future of the people in Brazil and Turkey who face the threat of these mega dams.

For drivers or compelling influences I tried to think of everyone that would be affected by the dams being built. This includes the indigenous populations, the companies building the dams, the government who would presumably see profit from the dams, and any NGO or international organization that is interested in human rights, environmental protection, or wildlife protection. In the case of the Ilisu dam, other agencies could also be drivers such as those that protect historical sites. When thinking about these people that are invested for or against the dam, I have to take into consideration their motivations for the building or destruction of the dam.

Inevitable events, assuming that nothing changes, is that in these areas in Brazil and Turkey will become flooded. This means that people’s homes will be destroyed and they will have to move. The ecosystem in that area and all areas down the river will also be adversely affected. In the amazon, those that live further down the river will lose their livelihood on fish even if their homes are not directly destroyed. An ancient village, one that has stood since the beginning of civilization will be destroyed in Turkey. There will be a loss of biodiversity and the benefits of the dam will not even really begin for 43 years due to the CO2 and other damages that are not calculated into the cost of building the dam.

I think the main uncertainty involving these dams is whether or not all of those against the dams (indigenous people, NGOs, etc.) will be able to stop it. As of right now it seems as if the dams are going to be built regardless of their resistance, however, in the past these very same efforts have been thwarted due to international outcry. This time that is not the case. As far the benefits or the need to build the dams I am unsure. Does Brazil really need this mega dam to produce more power in order to do something else? Or are they just doing it to do it? And by do it I mean make money.

Other uncertainties could be the full extent of the impact on the environment, it could be less or worse than predicted. The impact could be very far reaching or only affect local populations, the true cost of the dam can only be calculated after the damages are totaled up. There are also risk calculations that go into the building dam, such as the likelihood that it could break (much like the calculations that go into building nuclear reactor plants). Brazil could experience an extremely rainy season causing more water than usual that overwhelms the dam and causes it give to way, but the chance for that to happen is small.

Scenario 1: Worst case

All attempts to stop the building of the dams fail. The Belo Monte and Ilisu dams are built and the resulting flooding destroys everything it is project to destroy, tons of CO2 are added to the atmosphere, thousands of people are forced to relocate with their homes destroyed, and the government and corporations finally begin to make their money. The Brazilian government could then possibly have more money to work on other social problems rather than environmental problems. For example, access to adequate health care. However, invaluable species are lost the balance of the ecosystem flounders. Populations of local animals die and people are unable to sustain themselves. In addition to mass extinction of rare and undiscovered species, people die and suffer heavy losses from the lack of food. The Brazilian government turns a blind eye and a deaf ear (as they already seem to be) to the cries of their people because they are only a small percentage of the total population and do not factor into their Cost-Benefit Analysis.

In this scenario it is assumed that there is one way the dams can impact the environment and surrounding areas. There is no room for compromise or different styles of building dams.

Scenario 2: The opposite

The indigenous people, NGOs, other parties against the dams are successful and all claims to human rights, environmental rights, and wildlife protections are upheld. The resistance of these dams is upheld as a shining example of what people must do to resist the machinations of governments and corporations. The people continue to live happily in their homes while elsewhere fossil fuels are depended upon more heavily due to the dam not coming through. The degradation to the environment continues per usual.

In this scenario it is assumed that the cessation of the dams is the most desirable outcome. That things like history and human rights should be protected at all costs. Others may see flaws in that.

Scenario 3: Alternative energy and conservation

The resistance to the building of the dams is ultimately successful, however, the success is attributable to a campaign by an NGO for an alternate energy source and conservation plan that will cut back drastically on government expenditures. While not receiving much support at first, it gains traction as the indigenous people see that it will help satisfy the energy needs that the government is seeming to need to fulfill, while also protect their rivers and their way of life. Both governments (Turkey and Brazil) compromise to plans crafted for their particular environments (ex. wind turbines would probably work better in Turkey) and everyone gets to keep their free flowing rivers although they may have to deal with side effects from the other kinds of energy.

Scenario 4: Resistance fails in the worst way possible

On the legal front, the resistance ultimately fails and the building of the dams continues as planned. Unable to accept this fate, a group of people from Hasankeyf set out with the mission to destroy the dam. They mount a stealth operation in which they dismantle some part that is essential to the functioning of dam but that no one would notice it missing. In doing so they realize that they cannot prevent the fate of what will happen to their town, but they can at least give mega dams a horrible name, potentially giving momentum to future movements. Once the dam is built it is declared good to go and is turned on. It runs will for the first couple of weeks but soon the faulty part gives out and the entire dam gives way. The resulting destruction was uncalculated for but in the following politicizing/publicizing/media-cizing of the event, dams are branded as unsafe and due to the environmental damages, no means of clean energy.