Environmental Science & Policy 73 (2017) 20–28

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science & Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Research Paper

Socio-environmental conflicts on hydropower: The São Luiz do Tapajós

project in Brazil
Christoph Ernst Emil Hessa,* , Eva Fenrichb
a
Water Resources Engineering and Management, Universität Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 7, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
b
Study Centre for Sustainable Development, Esslingen University of Applied Sciences, Kanalstraße 33, 73728 Esslingen, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 15 April 2016 Economic expansion and related resource and infrastructure needs provoke an increase of socio-
Received in revised form 7 February 2017 environmental conflicts worldwide, and methodologies for their comprehensive analysis and
Accepted 14 March 2017 understanding are necessary. The present paper suggests a methodology for the analysis of socio-
Available online 2 April 2017 environmental conflicts on hydropower, developed from a case study on the São Luiz do Tapajós project in
Brazil. On the basis of qualitative semi-structured interviews, a stakeholder definition and conflict
Keywords: analysis were carried out. The analysis shows that at least five different sub-conflicts, each one with its
Socio-environmental conflicts own characteristics, can be distinguished, and that negotiation on many of these conflicts is difficult.
Conflict management
Confrontation processes are therefore likely to occur. The current strategy of conflict treatment falls short
Water resources management
of the situation; instead solutions must be sought looking at the underlying conflict causes. A
Stakeholder processes
Hydropower restructuring of the energy policy and the approach to traditional populations is a necessary precondition
Amazon if robust and comprehensive solutions on the current socio-environmental conflicts on hydropower in
the Amazon were to be found.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Environmental conflicts are, therefore, those involving social

Conflicts on natural resources have been increasing worldwide
during the last decades (Martínez Alier 2007: 334), and Yasmi et al.
(2006) suggest that such conflicts are “ubiquitous”. According to
Nascimento (2001: 88), modern capitalism is characterized by a
structural conflict between the economy, tending to globalization,
and its instrument for realization, the nation state, and the
resolution of this conflict seems to reside in the form of global
expansion of the economy, the politics and the culture. This helps
to understand the underlying dynamics for the increase of conflicts
on natural resources, a sub-category of socio-environmental
conflicts. The socio-environmental concept comprises three dimen-
sions: the bio-physical world and its multiple natural cycles, the
human world and its social structures, and the dynamic and
interdependent relationship between them (Little 2001: 107).
Acselrad (2004: 26) provides a definition of socio-environmental
conflicts:
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: christoph.hess@environmentaljustice.de (C.E.E. Hess),
eva.fenrich@gmail.com (E. Fenrich).
groups with different ways of appropriation, use and significa-
tion of territory, originating when the continuity of the social
forms of appropriation of the environment developed of at least
one group is threatened by undesired impacts – transmitted
through soil, water or living systems – resulting from the
activities of other groups.
According to Kuzdas and Wieck (2014: 181), deficiencies in
governance regimes are often seen as a primary source for complex
water problems, including conflicts. However, Acuña (2015) argues
that this approach does not take into account the underlying
conflict causes and remains therefore superficial. Accordingly,
Wester-Herber (2004: 110) suggests that it might be important to
look at the root of a conflict rather than to the conflict itself.
Following this discussion, the two realms “underlying conflict
causes” and “conflict treatment” of socio-environmental conflicts
can be distinguished (Table 1). This article examines the conflict
over a large hydropower project (São Luiz do Tapajós) in the
Brazilian Amazon, aiming at providing a qualitative methodology
for a structural analysis and understanding of socio-environmental
conflicts on hydropower. It suggests that the conceptualization of
the underlying causes is a necessary first step in conflict analysis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.005
1462-9011/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C.E.E. Hess, E. Fenrich / Environmental Science & Policy 73 (2017) 20–28 21

Table 1
Two realms of socio-environmental conflicts.

Realm Content Examples

1 Underlying conflict causes Unequal access to resources; land use patterns; socio-environmental impacts from interventions or activities; disputes
over environmental knowledge
2 Conflict treatment, handling or Governance schemes; participation processes; institutional and informal schemes for conflict management
management

which defines and clarifies the potential and limits of any conflict
management strategies.
2. A theoretical framework for the analysis of socio-
environmental conflicts
2.1. Analysing underlying causes of socio-environmental conflicts
Building a framework for the classification of socio-environ-
mental conflicts according to their underlying causes, Little (2001)
suggests three categories, which are summarized in Table 2.
However, most socio-environmental conflicts include further
elements. In his theory of human motivation, Maslow (1943)
establishes a “hierarchy of basic needs”, arguing that these can be
briefly summarized as “physiological, safety, love, esteem, and self-
actualization”. Thus, as a socio-environmental conflict may be
driven by (real or perceived) physiological threats to a group of
people, also other needs are at stake. Nascimento (2001: 96–97)
calls attention that the disputed object can be “material or
symbolic, real or unreal”, and that most conflicts involve not only
material goods but also ideas, status and power positions.
Although the objects and causes of the conflict are usually known,
the involved actors may have different perceptions of them: “Its
interpretation and understanding, just as its valorisation, are
different for each of the actors.” Therefore, Martínez Alier (2007:
352–353) distinguishes between conflicts within one system of
valorisation (usually monetary), and conflicts on the system of
valorisation itself, involving an incommensurability of values. The
latter occurs when conflict actors do not agree on how to value one
or more of the disputed objects. This is often the case in socio-
environmental conflicts, as the valorisation of the environment is
difficult and frequently itself a cause of conflict.
Accordingly, the valorisation of territory and environment is in
many cases a central aspect in conflicts on hydropower projects,
additional and closely connected to the bio-physical socio-
environmental impacts. Chan et al. (2012) point out that “many
values or properties of a material ‘thing’ can also have intangible
qualities that are as or more important, and which are deemed
central to identity to a self-defined population or recognized
cultural group.”
Wester-Herber (2004: 113) suggests that identity is closely
linked to environment, what she calls “place-identity”. Such place-
identity was found to be crucial in hydropower conflicts, as for
example by Poma (2013), who argues that the relation with the
territory has very important emotional and symbolic dimensions.
Emotions contribute in a crucial way to the behaviour of actors in a
socio-environmental conflict and to “the conformation and
strengthening of a collective identity”.
Hence, the place identity of an affected group plays a central
role in their perception. Zhouri et al. (2005: 21) see “two
rationalities in confrontation” in the case of conflicts over
hydropower projects:
Two rationalities in confrontation can be highlighted: the one of
the rural communities, who perceive the land as ‘patrimony' of
the family and the community, protected by the ‘collective
memory' and by rules of use and share of the resources; and the
one of the electricity sector, who, from a market perspective,
understands the territory as property and, as such, commodity
[emphasis in original] amenable to monetary valorisation.
Therefore, the incommensurability of values is an important
feature of socio-environmental conflicts in general and conflicts on
hydropower specifically, increasing the cases’ complexity and
setting the framework for possible conflict treatment strategies.
2.2. Cooperation or confrontation? strategies for handling socio-
environmental conflicts
Little (2001: 119) distinguishes between five basic ways to deal
with a conflict: Confrontation, repression, political manipulation,
negotiation/mediation, and cooperation. Ideally, conflicts would be
handled through cooperation. Hon, political manipulation, negoti-
ation/mediation, and cooperation. Ideally, conflicts would be
handled through cooperation. However, this case is rare in reality
if economic, political and social interests are involved. If a conflict
involves issues related to economic bases or identities (real or

Table 2
Categories of socio-environmental conflicts.

Category Explanation Examples

Control over the use of natural Usually on the use of land or water. Emerges when the use of – Mining activities expulses traditional inhabitants from the use of the
resources one group excludes or downgrades the use of one or more area
other groups. – Large scale water withdrawal for industrial use threatens the water
supply of inhabitants and/or farmers

Environmental and social
impacts created by human
and natural activity
Environmental contamination
Exhaustion of natural resources
Degradation of ecosystems (natural cycles are interrupted
or natural phenomena are exacerbated)
Oil spills, intensive use of pesticides, air or water pollution, waste deposits
Loss of biodiversity, exhaustion of groundwater resources, decline of fish
population due to industrial fishing
– Decline of fish population due to dams
– Exacerbation of flood damage due to land use

Use of environmental Conflicts on risk perception, on the use of environmental – Application of genetically modified crops
knowledge knowledge (bio piracy) or on sacred or spiritual sites – Oil exploration, mining or dams affecting indigenous peoples

(adapted from Little 2001: 108).

22 C.E.E. Hess, E. Fenrich / Environmental Science & Policy 73 (2017) 20–28
Fig. 1. (single column): Tapajós River and location of the São Luiz do Tapajós hydropower project (elaborated from OpenStreetMap and its contributors).
perceived risk of dissolution of one group), the possibilities for
cooperation are minimal (Little 2001: 121). As a result, confronta-
tion may occur, which in turn is often responded by repression and
political manipulation.
Negotiation and mediation are strategies of conflict manage-
ment. Bercovitch and Jackson (2001) distinguish between negoti-
ation as a bilateral process and mediation as assisted negotiation
involving an independent third party. Glasl (1999) suggests that
conflict management strategies should be based on the level of
conflict escalation. On lower levels of escalation direct negotiations
or possibly professional chairing are suitable, whereas for higher
escalation levels mediation or even power interventions become
necessary. Yasmi et al. (2006) describe how “conflict escalates as
engagement becomes difficult and actors gradually lose their
flexibility towards their opponents”. They also state that “[t]hose
with ample power are most likely to be able to control resources in
their favor and therefore have little incentive to make con-
cessions”.
Confrontation, although often seen as something to be avoided,
can also have positive effects and may even be necessary to turn
negotiations possible and fruitful. Castro and Nielsen (2001: 231),
writing on co-management agreements with indigenous people,
call attention that some “degree of conflict” may be necessary to
achieve such agreements. Regarding environmental problems,
Martínez Alier (2007: 108) argues that the resolution of a conflict
does not imply the resolution of the problem: “Actually, what is
necessary to advance in the solution of the problem is to exacerbate
it [emphasis in the original].”
In the same way conflict management efforts including
negotiation/mediation have been criticized (Acselrad 2004; Little
2001; Zhouri et al., 2005) if they primarily aim at resolving the
conflict without resolving its causes or “sweep them under the
carpet” (Martínez Alier 2007: 108). Dhiaulhaq et al. (2015), on the
other hand, show a different perspective:
[M]ediation has facilitated the creation of a conductive
environment for multi-stakeholder dialog, built trust among
the conflicting parties, as well as assisted problem solving
processes, resulting in improved relationships, mutually agreed
on solutions and commitment to long-term cooperation and
collective action.
Regarding hydropower in Brazil, the emergence of the
Movement of the Dam Affected People (MAB, acronyms in Portu-
guese) is an example for the positive aspects of confrontation. By
mobilizing and organizing the affected population and articulating
their demands this movement exacerbated conflicts on
 C.E.E. Hess, E. Fenrich / Environmental Science & Policy 73 (2017) 20–28
Fig. 2. (1.5 columns): Example of stakeholder sorting according to their answers on different questions.
hydropower in Brazil. Only on this base further negotiation could
lead to real improvements, as for example the right of collective
negotiation, proper compensation and resettlement programs
(Vainer, 2004).
Summarizing, it can be concluded that negotiation or mediation
of a socio-environmental conflict is desirable if the process has a
realistic potential to lead to innovations which can possibly result
in (at least partial) solutions of the underlying socio-environmen-
tal problems and/or a fairer allocation of benefits and impacts to
stakeholders. Mediation may further be necessary in situations
where otherwise escalating violence can be expected. However,
care has to be taken that processes of negotiation/meditation are
not misused in a way that they lead to the perpetuation or
aggravation of socio-environmental problems or injustices.
3. Study context
The hydropower project São Luiz do Tapajós (SLT) is projected in
the Tapajós River, an 825 km long tributary of the Amazon River.
Fig. 1 shows the Tapajós, indicates its position within Brazil and the
approximate location of the SLT hydropower project near to the
town of Itaituba, in the Brazilian state of Pará.
The Brazilian Amazon1 experienced several economic cycles
throughout the last century. At the end of the 19th century the
region experienced an economic boom with the extraction of
rubber, which went into rapid decline after Asiatic countries
entered the market and later synthetic rubber production was
introduced. In the 1960ies the area became a focus of interest of the
Brazilian government and several attempts to include the Amazon
in the national and international economy were conducted since
then. In the 1970ies the government encouraged immigration from
the northeast of Brazil, where land was scarce and conflicts
1
The term Amazon refers in this article to the Brazilian Amazon region (Legal
Amazon), which includes the territories of the federal states Acre, Amapá,
Amazonas, Mato Grosso, Pará, Rondônia, Roraima, Tocantins and part of Maranhão.
23
frequent. In this context the Amazon was seen as a “spatial escape
for unsolved social conflicts” (Kohlhepp 2002: 37), and the
following colonization led to a rapid increase of deforestation
and social tensions especially with indigenous tribes. The
enforcement of extensive cattle ranches largely failed because
the ecologic conditions were not taken into account properly:
“Instead of poles of growth with impulses for irradiating
development artificially maintained enclaves emerged.” (Kohl-
hepp 2002: 40). In the 1980ies a new cycle, the cycle of mega-
projects (Kohlhepp 2002: 41), began. Large deposits of minerals
were found and their extraction for export came into interest of
national and international capital. This was the beginning of
extractivism (Acuña 2015: 85) in the Brazilian Amazon, and in this
context also the first large hydropower projects emerged.
Hydropower in the Amazon is therefore closely associated with
extractivism, and as will be seen in Section 5 this background is
crucial in order to understand current socio-environmental
conflicts.
Today the Amazon constitutes the hydroelectric frontier for the
future expansion of hydropower in Brazil. Although hydropower is
well developed and accounted for 64% of the country’s electricity
production in 2015 (EPE 2016: 16), only about 38% of its total
estimated potential was already in operation and another 5.6%
under construction in December 2015 (Eletrobras, 2014).
The bulk of the remaining potential, including the most
attractive sites for investors, is located in the Amazon basin. In
2014, the Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME) planned that 30
new large hydropower plants2 with a total capacity of 30,332 MW
should enter into operation until 2023. 91% of this planned
capacity is located in the Amazon, and three plants account for 71%
of it: Belo Monte (11.000 MW), São Luiz do Tapajós (8.040 MW) and
Jatobá (2.338 MW) (MME 2014: 79–80).
2
Large hydropower plants in Brazil are defined as plants with more than 30 MW
installed capacity or a reservoir area greater than 3 km2 (ANEEL 2008: 56).
24 C.E.E. Hess, E. Fenrich / Environmental Science & Policy 73 (2017) 20–28
Fig. 3. (double-column): Result of the stakeholder definition.
These numbers reveal that SLT has had a priority position in the
Brazilian government’s energy planning. If built, it will be the
fourth largest plant in Brazil and the single largest electricity
project after the Belo Monte dam, which is already under
construction in the neighbouring Xingú River basin. SLT is the
biggest out of many planned large hydropower plants in the
Tapajós drainage area. According to the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) of SLT, inventory studies resulted in a total
number of 26 possible large plants with a total installed capacity of
26,408 MW (CNEC 2014a: Volume 1, 43–45). Fearnside (2015a)
calls attention that different projects appeared over the years in
the energy expansion plans of the MME and counted a total
number of 43 large projects. SLT is part of the so called “Tapajós
Complex” (Complexo Tapajós), which consists of five large plants
with a total capacity of 12,589 MW.
Although hydropower is often referred to as “green energy”,
especially large plants are highly controversial due to their large
socio-environmental impacts. In the Brazilian Amazon, these
impacts include: flooding of native forest and its impacts on
biodiversity; decline of fish populations, especially migrating fish
which are of high importance for (subsistence) fishery; negative
impacts on water quality (eutrophication) and related health
concerns for drinking water supply; mobilisation and methylation
of mercury; negative impacts on traditional populations; green-
house gas emissions; and socio-economic impacts on municipali-
ties and communities due to large labour migration and resulting
economic activities (Zhouri, 2011; Sousa Junior and Bermann,
2012; Fearnside, 2015b). Many of these impacts heavily affect local
people, whereas benefits accrue to distant cities, sometimes even
located in other countries. Additionally, according to Fearnside
(2014), the environmental impacts assessments of past projects
showed a systematic tendency to underestimate its impacts.
To understand current conflicts in the area it is further
important that the Tapajós basin is also a focus of the agricultural
frontier (Kohlhepp 2002: 39) for the expansion of soy production
and transport. Several harbours for soy exportation are being
implemented in Itaituba and Santarém. Also, although extensive
cattle ranching initially failed, it is now well established
throughout most of the Brazilian Amazon. Both soy and cattle
ranching constitute major pressures on native forest areas.
This situation leads to tensions between “globalist and localist
perspectives” (Zhouri, 2004), which are aggravated by the
contrasts between the local situation and the scope of planned
projects. A large part of the Tapajós basin’s area is covered with
forest and 65% is formally protected as environmental protection
and indigenous areas (CNEC 2014a: Volume 3, 74). Of special
importance is the presence of traditional populations. Traditional
populations are defined in Brazil as “culturally differentiated
groups, who recognize themselves as such, possess their own
forms of social organization, occupy and use their territories and
natural resources as condition for their cultural, social, religious,
ancestral and economic reproduction, using knowledge, innova-
tions and practices developed and transmitted through tradition.”
(Brazil, 2007). In the scope of this work, two important traditional
 C.E.E. Hess, E. Fenrich / Environmental Science & Policy 73 (2017) 20–28
Table 3
Identified sub-conflicts and their categorization.
No. Sub-conflict Category
1 With directly Control over the use of natural resources
affected
communities
2 With Indigenous Environmental and social impacts created by
People human activity/Use of environmental
(Munduruku) knowledge
3 With traditional Environmental and social impacts created by
riverine human activity
communities
4 On regional socio- – - Labour migration
economic impacts
5 On energy policy – - Who will benefit from the project and from the generated electricity?
a
IoV: Incommensurability of Values.
populations are indigenous peoples and riverine settlers. Several
indigenous tribes live in the extension of the Tapajós basin, out of
which the Munduruku is the most expressive one, with a total
population estimated at 11,630 individuals in 2010 (CNEC 2014a:
General Appendix Vol. 22). Riverine settlers (ribeirinhos) live at the
margins of the rivers in the whole basin and occupy the floodplains
according to seasonal fluctuations. In the past decade, some of
their communities organized successfully to defend themselves
against the threat of growing commercial fishery activities, and
several attempts to develop community-based floodplain man-
agement systems were conducted, especially in the area of
Santarém (McGrath et al., 2008). The economic basis of both the
indigenous people and the riverine settlers is to a large extent
(subsistence) fishery, family- or community-based farming and
local trade.
The licensing process of SLT was cancelled in August 2016 by the
Environmental Agency IBAMA3 due to the interference of the
planned reservoir on indigenous land (see Section 5.2).
4. Stakeholder definition and interviews
Social actors of a socio-environmental conflict can be individu-
als, groups or organizations, and their motivation can include
material or political interests, status (recognition), values, ideolo-
gies and religion (Nascimento 2001: 95). Actors in a conflict are
often referred to as stakeholders. There is however a difference
between these two concepts, as a stakeholder does not necessarily
take an active role, which is implied in the denomination actor.
A general challenge regarding stakeholder definition in a conflict
situation is their heterogeneity. The grouping of large contingents of
people as one stakeholder involves the danger of overriding internal
differences and heterogeneities. On the other hand, a very detailed
separation of groups turns conflict analysis very difficult (if not
impossible) and obscures the existence of collective interests. A
stakeholder definition can therefore never describe the reality in all
3
Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis
4 5
The applied interview questions as well as a list of the interviewed stakeholder
groups can be consulted in the supplement material.
25
Central aspects IoVa
- Resettlement Yes
- Economic survival and autonomy
- Relation with territory
- Economic and cultural survival and autonomy Yes
- Perception, interpretation and valorisation of the nature and rivers
- Recognition on land rights, religious/spiritual values and traditional knowledge
- Consultation (ILO 169)
- Economic and cultural survival and autonomy Yes
No
- Lack of infrastructure
- Increase in crime, diseases, living costs etc.
No
its details, but must rather aim to provide an adequate approxima-
tion for the analysis and handling of the respective conflict.
In this study, a pre-definition of stakeholders was made based on
the review of secondary sources (journalistic and academic articles,
the Environmental Impact Assessment and press releases). Subse-
quently, public representatives of the defined stakeholder groups
were selected as interviewees. An interview form was developed in
order to cover conflict issues which were found in the literature
review. Eleven interviews were conducted during the study.4 In
general, the stakeholder groups opposing the project were more
willing to conduct an interview. The planning consortium did not
answer the interview questions but issued a statement, highlighting
that theyare responsible for the viability studies but not (necessarily)
for the construction of the plant. Individual companies sought for an
interview did not answer.
The interviews were analysed with coding techniques in two
steps. First, the answers to each question were depicted according
to their frequency in vertical bar charts. Subsequently, the
stakeholders were sorted in charts according to their answers to
different questions, as shows the example in Fig. 2.5 The analysis
showed that the answers of the stakeholder representatives
showed a strong correlation with their general position towards
the project. Based on these results, the initial stakeholder
definition was refined and complemented, sorting the stakeholder
groups as follows: In favour (pro), in favour under explicit
conditions (pro with demands), diverse or no clearly articulated
positions (undecided) and opposing the project (contra). Addi-
tionally, the stakeholders were classified according to their level of
involvement: Primary stakeholders are those who actively engage
in the project and the discussion around it. Secondary stakeholders
have strong interests but do not play the same role in the
discussion as primary stakeholders. Tertiary stakeholders, finally,
are those who are affected but essentially stand aside the
discussion so far.6 The result of the stakeholder definition is
illustrated in Fig. 3.
The complete results of the coding can be consulted in the supplement material.
6
Naturally, the involvement of stakeholder groups may change over time.
26 C.E.E. Hess, E. Fenrich / Environmental Science & Policy 73 (2017) 20–28
The applied methodology has proven effective in building a
structural outline of the conflict, revealing major stakeholder
groups as they define themselves, as they are to a large extent
perceived as such in public, and their principal standing towards
the project. However, it is important to have two of its limitations
in mind. Firstly, stakeholder processes are not static but dynamic,
and the stakeholder’s movements and discourses are not always
coherent and clearly perceptible (Nascimento 2001: 95–97). The
study remains therefore on a structural basis and reflects the
situation at the time of its realisation (June–December 2015).
Secondly, the selected interviewees were public representatives,
and their representativeness may vary. In general, it decreases with
increasing heterogeneity. Examples of relatively homogeneous
stakeholder groups in this case study are the Ministry of Mines and
Energy, the Consortium, the Munduruku and the Federal Prosecu-
tion Service. Rather heterogeneous groups are local populations,
the fishermen and riverine settlers. Also, there may be a difference
between the heterogeneity of representative bodies and the people
they actually claim to represent. This applies to the Local
Businessmen Association, the Social Movements and the Trade
Union of Rural Workers. The MAB, for example, claims to represent
all affected people, but its influence is traditionally stronger within
family farmers and rural workers. In the case of the Federal
Government, the Presidency and the Ministry of Mines and Energy
(MME) were both strongly in favour of the project, while the
Ministry of Environment publically expressed some criticism and
was therefore categorised in the group pro with demands.
5. Conflict analysis
The interview analysis revealed a complex conflict situation
where different sub-conflicts can be identified. Table 3 provides a
categorization of these conflicts, their central aspects and the
presence or absence of an incommensurability of values. The
following sub-sections provide an outline of the conflicts.
5.1. Directly affected communities
The directly affected communities are those who will suffer
physical displacement by the project. According to the EIA this will
affect an estimated 1400 inhabitants (CNEC 2014b: 74). They are
the most recognized affected group and a set of compensation
measures is aimed at them. However, many inhabitants may see
their economic survival and autonomy threatened, because the
capture and commercialization of ornamental fish is an important
economic activity (CNEC 2014a: Volume 3, 88). It may furthermore
include a strong emotional component (relation with the territory,
Poma, 2013) and also an element of incommensurability of values:
How can the social cohesion of a grown community be
compensated? Nevertheless, the conflict can be approached with
negotiation, and the conditions are favourable compared to other
large hydropower projects, given the relatively low number of
directly affected people.
5.2. The Munduruku
The first dimension of the conflict with the Munduruku is on the
environmental impacts of the dam, as many of them depend on
fishery, the hunting of other animals and drinking water from the
Tapajós or tributaries, and see their economic and cultural survival
threatened. Its second dimension is about the perception,
interpretation and valorisation of the nature and rivers. Acuña
(2015: 86) calls attention that the cosmology of Amazonian
indigenous tribes and their relationship with nature is fundamen-
tally different than in Western cultures. This implies also a conflict
about the valorisation of knowledge and the perception of risk.
Thirdly, the conflict is on the recognition of land rights and
religious values, as the reservoir would flood indigenous land,
including three Munduruku villages (Fearnside 2015c: 375). In May
2016, the Munduruku land “Sawré Muyby” was officially recog-
nized after a delayed process, and the licensing process of SLT was
subsequently cancelled. Most interviewees who oppose the project
argued that SLT was the reason for the delay, as Art. 231 of the
Brazilian constitution forbids the removal of indigenous groups
from their land. The villages would be removed by the reservoir,
but as long as they were not officially demarcated this did not
constitute a legal obstacle.
The conflict with the Munduruku is to a large extent carried out
over the consultation process. The ILO convention 169, of which
Brazil is signatory, foresees a “free, prior and informed” consulta-
tion of indigenous people in projects affecting their lands. This
consultation can be understood as a negotiation process in order to
prevent or resolve conflicts. The Munduruku claim that no such
process has been realized, whereas the government argues that it
had undertaken many efforts. However, the analysis of the
underlying conflict causes reveals that the main issue for the
Munduruku is not the consultation process itself, but the conflict is
articulated in its scope as indigenous people have recognized
rights here which they can reclaim.
5.3. Traditional riverine communities
This conflict is similar to the conflict with the Munduruku, but
the cultural and values dimension is weaker. As fishery is an
important food source for many riverine settlers, they are one of
the most vulnerable stakeholders throughout the whole river
basin, which is aggravated by the fact that the settlers outside of
the defined areas of impact (the municipalities Itaituba and
Trairão, CNEC 2014a: Volume 2, 247–250) are not recognized as
affected. It also calls attention that this stands in sharp contrast to
the state supported attempts to develop ecosystem-based co-
management systems with their communities as outlined by
McGrath et al. (2008). The conflict also contains elements of
incommensurability of values, albeit weaker than in the case of the
Munduruku. As they do not possess a developed organisational
structure, the conflict with the riverine communities was not very
articulated at the time of this study. It may even not break out,
although the problems pertain, or break out later when negative
impacts after the construction get visible.
5.4. Regional socio-environmental impacts
The conflict on regional socio-economic impacts is of high
importance, because: (i) it affects the majority of the local
population, including the traditional but also the urban popula-
tion; (ii) the effect is aggravated by other projects in the area; (iii)
the conflict cause cannot be tackled by established mitigation
measures in hydropower projects. It is not directly an environ-
mental conflict, but rather about urban infrastructure, increasing
living costs, increase of crime and prostitution etc. Given the local
situation, it will however very likely be a trigger for future socio-
environmental conflicts of the category Control over the use of
natural resources, as the pressure on land, forests, environmental
and indigenous protection areas and natural resources in general
increases as a result of large-scale migration and the lack of income
opportunities.
This conflict is very present in the discourses of the opponents,
but also of the local proponents (categorized in the group “pro with
demands”). For the opponents, the regional socio-economic
impacts will be negative, and they do not see the possibility
how this could be mitigated or compensated. The local proponents,
on the other hand, agree that many negative social impacts can be
 C.E.E. Hess, E. Fenrich / Environmental Science & Policy 73 (2017) 20–28
expected, however they think that the problem can be tackled by
improving the planning and taking the regional necessities better
into account.
Importantly, this conflict does not contain an element of
incommensurability of values, but is a conflict within one system of
valorisation. The local proponents would likely be the primary
negotiation partner of the consortium and the government,
because they show a strong willingness and even desire of
negotiation. A negotiation with the opponents on this topic is more
difficult because of their fundamental opposition. Hence an
element of confrontation (demonstrations, public campaign etc.)
is likely to occur. The scale of this confrontation will be influenced
by the success or failure of the negotiation process with the local
proponents.
5.5. Energy policy
A fifth conflict identified in the discourse of stakeholders is the
conflict on energy policy. It is raised by most opponents arguing
that the present energy policy in Brazil serves only or mainly the
interests of privileged groups. The social movements put most
emphasis on it. Their general argument can be situated within the
context of extractivism in the Amazon (see Section 3): The
hydropower plant would not serve the local population, but
instead mega-projects for resources extraction and/or the cities far
away in the southeast of Brazil.
The representative of the MAB outlined most clearly the
political dimension of this conflict, arguing for a “new popular
energy model”:
This is one of the alternatives. You have to take the dams out of
this capitalist model and include them into a model which
serves the workers, which actually serves the country’s
sovereignty, and not the international capital. This is what
has happened here. They build dams to send energy to mining
and aluminium companies. And this energy is exported, in the
form of commodities, iron, aluminium, which needs a lot of
energy, and we here stay with the problems.
In sharp contrast to this stands the position of the government,
represented by the MME, who answered to the question who will
benefit from the project:
The whole Brazilian population, due to the increase of energy
production, which will provide security for the economic
development by more competitive energy prices. The local
population will also benefit, through measures by the
entrepreneur pertaining to the environmental licensing, and
through governmental programs which will improve their
living conditions.
The conflict on energy policy is not primarily an environmental,
but rather a political conflict, transcending the scope of single
projects. It contains a strong ideological component and is not
resolvable within the scope of SLT. Conflicts on specific projects,
like SLT, may however be triggers for discussions and modification
of the energy policy.
6. Conclusions
The present study shows the complexity of the socio-
environmental conflicts originated by the SLT hydropower project,
which are aggravated by the presence of traditional populations,
implying clashes over productive systems, and by the fact that the
project does not reflect the endogenous development of the area
but is implemented from outside. As discussed in section 3, this
kind of development inducement is coherent with the past decades
of policies aimed at the Amazon, and SLT and other hydropower
27
projects can be understood as a continuation of the cycle of mega-
projects and extractivism, as their energy production is primarily
destined to be exported to other regions of Brazil or, as some
stakeholder representatives suggest, to large mining projects.
While the overall conflict when compared with the nine levels
of escalation proposed by Glasl (1999) is only on the lower levels,
its complexity and the power disequilibrium make negotiations
without mediation highly unlikely to be successful. The challenge
is further aggravated by the fact that different stakeholders’ needs
in regard to the project are distributed throughout very different
levels of Maslow (1943)’s hierarchy of needs and an incommensu-
rability of values is present in three out of five identified sub-
conflicts. While basic needs like food supply or economic needs in
general may be relatively easily compensated, needs linked to a
group’s place or spiritual identity might make compensation
possibilities as a basis for negotiation improbable. The current
conflict treatment strategy followed by the state and the involved
companies, relying on compensation as its central element, falls
therefore short for two reasons: First, in a project of the size of SLT,
it is unlikely that all negative impacts can be compensated, at least
without casting doubt on its profitability. And second, compensa-
tion as such is not able to account for the needs at stake.
Solution must be sought, instead, looking at the underlying
conflict causes. Here, the dispute over energy policy and the
recognition of the economic, cultural and spiritual rights of
traditional populations are central aspects. There is no minimal
consensus on the energy policy between the proponents and the
opponents of the project. For the latter, the current energy policy
serves the interest of economic and political elites, whereas the
local population suffers the impacts. This issue is therefore about a
structural, unequal distribution of benefits and impacts related to
energy production in Brazil. The analysis of the historic context in
the Amazon validates the worries of the opponents. As long as the
government and the involved companies cannot convincingly
argue that their energy policy has substantially changed and aims
now at a fair distribution of benefits and impacts, negotiations and/
or mediations of the conflicts within the project remain necessarily
superficial. The same counts for the recognition of the economic,
cultural and spiritual rights of the traditional populations –
especially the Munduruku, but also the riverine settlers. The
hitherto behaviour of the government and associated companies
towards this issue suggests rather a repetition of past exclusion
patterns.
Only if these underlying causes are tackled, a robust and
comprehensive conflict solution can be found by negotiation on
the different conflicts. That this happens within the suggested
project is unlikely. At the time of this study, the only possible
negotiation partner for the government and the consortium were
the local proponents. Although they were not satisfied with the
project, they expressed clear demands and their willingness to
negotiate. Regarding the opponents, elements of confrontation are
probable if the project should be carried on in the current or a
similar form in the future. As a consequence, political manipula-
tion and repression would likely be applied.
A restructuring of the energy policy and the approach to
traditional populations is therefore a necessary precondition if
robust and comprehensive solutions on the current socio-
environmental conflicts on hydropower in the Amazon were to
be found. This will not solve the existing conflicts, but rather lay the
foundation for possibly fruitful and fair negotiations on the
distribution of benefits and impacts. On this basis, differentiated
treatment strategies for the identified conflicts could be
approached. The existence of incommensurabilities of values,
however, is likely to persist and has to be taken into account from
the beginning in any conflict treatment strategy.
28 C.E.E. Hess, E. Fenrich / Environmental Science & Policy 73 (2017) 20–28
Disclosure statement
The researcher Christoph Hess received a grant by the Hans
Böckler Foundation (HBS) during his master studies. The HBS did
not at any moment in any way influence the research, including the
collection, analysis and interpretation of data, the writing of the
report or the decision to submit the article for publication.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Hans Böckler Foundation for the
grant during the Master studies. We also acknowledge Professor
Wagner Costa Ribeiro from the University of São Paulo and
Professor Silke Wieprecht from the University of Stuttgart for their
support in the research design and analysis. Furthermore, we
would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their very
valuable comments.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2017.03.005.
References
ANEEL (Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica), 2008. Atlas de Energia Elétrica do
Brasil, 3a edição Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica, Brasília.
Acselrad, H., 2004. As práticas espaciais e o campo dos conflitos ambientais. In:
Acselrad, H. (Ed.), Os conflitos ambientais no Brasil. Relume Dumará, Rio de
Janeiro, pp. 13–35 (translated from Portuguese).
Acuña, R.M., 2015. The politics of extractive governance: Indigenous peoples and
socio-environmental conflicts. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2, 85–92. doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.exis.2014.11.007.
Bercovitch, J., Jackson, R., 2001. Negotiation or Mediation? An Exploration of Factors
Affecting the Choice of Conflict Management in International Conflict.
Negotiation J. 17, 59–77. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2001.
tb00227.x.
Brazil, 2007. Decreto No 6.040, De 7 De Fevereiro De 2007. [online] http://www.
planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2007/decreto/d6040.htm
(24.01.2017).
CNEC Worley Parsons, 2014a. Aproveitamento Hidrelétrico (AHE) São Luiz do
Tapajós ?Estudo de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), Vol. 1–25. [online] http://
licenciamento.ibama.gov.br/Hidreletricas/S%C3%A3o%20Luiz%20do%
20Tapajos/EIA_RIMA/ (13.01.2016).
CNEC Worley Parsons, 2014b. Relatório de Impacto Ambiental (RIMA) do AHE São
Luiz do Tapajós. .
Castro, A.P., Nielsen, E., 2001. Indigenous people and co-management: implications
for conflict Management. Environ. Sci. Policy 4, 229–239. doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S1462-9011(01)00022-3.
Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to
better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74, 8–18. doi:http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011.
Dhiaulhaq, A., De Bruyn, T., Gritten, D., 2015. The use and effectiveness of mediation
in forest and land conflict transformation in Southeast Asia: case studies from
Cambodia, Indonesia and Thailand. Environ. Sci. Policy 45, 132–145.
EPE (Empres de Pesquisa Energétrica), 2016. Balanço Energético Nacional 2016: Ano
base 2015. EPE (Empres de Pesquisa Energétrica), Rio de Janeiro.
Eletrobras, 2014. Sistema de Informações do Potencial Hidrelétrico Brasileiro
(SIPOT). [online] http://www.eletrobras.com/elb/data/Pages/
LUMIS21D128D3PTBRIE.htm (26.10.2016).
Fearnside, P.M., 2014. Impacts of Brazil’s Madeira River Dams: Unlearned lessons for
hydroelectric development in Amazonia. Env. Sci. Policy 38, 164–172. doi:http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.11.004.
Fearnside, P.M., 2015a. Amazon dams and waterways: Brazil’s tapajo’s basin plans.
Ambio 44, 426–439. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0642-z.
Fearnside, P.M., 2015b. Hidrelétricas Na Amazônia Impactos Ambientais E Sociais
Na Tomada De Decisões Sobre Grandes Obras, Vol.1. Editora do INPA, Manaus.
Fearnside, P.M., 2015c. Brazil’s São luiz do tapajós dam: the art of cosmetic
environmental impact assessments. Water Altern. 8 (3), 373–396.
Glasl, F., 1999. Confronting Conflict A First-aid Kit for Handling Conflict. Hawthorn
Press.
Kohlhepp, G., 2002. Conflitos de interesse no ordenamento territorial da Amazônia
brasileira. Estudos Avançados 16 (45), 37–61. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/
S0103-40142002000200004 (translated from Portuguese.).
Kuzdas, C., Wieck, A., 2014. Governance scenarios for addressing water conflicts and
climate change impacts. Environ. Sci. Policy 42, 181–196. doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.envsci.2014.06.007.
Little, P.E., 2001. Os conflitos socioambientais: um campo de estudo e de ação
política. In: Bursztyn, M. (Ed.), A Difícil Sustentabilidade Política energética e
conflitos ambientais. Garamond, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 107–122 (translated from
Portuguese).
MME, 2014. Plano Decenal de Expansão de Energia 2023. MME (Ministério de Minas
e Energia), Brasília.
Martínez Alier, J., 2007. O Ecologismo dos Pobres: conflitos ambientais e linguagens
de valoração, 2. Contexto, Edição, São Paulo (translated from Portuguese).
Maslow, A.H., 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50 (4), 370–396.
McGrath, D.G., Cardoso, A., Almeida, O.T., Pezutti, J., 2008. Constructing a policy and
institutional framework for an ecosystem-based approach to managing the
Lower Amazon floodplain. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 10, 677. doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10668-008-9154-3.
Nascimento, E.P., 2001. Os conflitos na sociedade moderna: uma introdução
conceitual. In: Bursztyn, M. (Ed.), A Difícil Sustentabilidade Política energética
e conflitos ambientais. Garamond, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 85–105 (translated from
Portuguese).
Poma, A., 2013. Que précios tienen nuestras raíces? Una propuesta analítica para
comprender los conflictos ambientales. In: Ribeiro, W.C. (Ed.), Conflitos e
Cooperação pela Água na América Latina. Annablume, São Paulo, pp. 265–292
(translated from Spanish).
Sousa Junior, W.C., Bermann, C., 2012. Hydropower –The sustainability dilemma. In:
Samadi-Boroujeni, H. (Ed.), Hydropower –Practice and Application. InTech doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/34242.
Vainer, C.B., 2004. Águas para a vida, não para a morte. Notas para uma história do
Movimento de Atingidos por Barragens no Brasil, In: Acselrad, H., Herculano, A.,
Pádua, J.A. (Eds.), Justiça Ambiental e Cidadania. 2a edição Relume Dumará, Rio
de Janeiro, pp. 185–215 (translated from Portuguese).
Wester-Herber, M., 2004. Underlying concerns in land-use conflicts—the role of
place-identity in risk perception. Environ. Sci. Policy 7, 109–116. doi:http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2003.12.001.
Yasmi, Y., Schanz, H., Salim, A., 2006. Manifestation of conflict escalation in natural
resource management. Environ. Sci. Policy 9, 538–546. doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.envsci.2006.04.003.
Zhouri, A., Laschefski, K., Pereira, D.B., 2005. Desenvolvimento, sustentabilidade e
conflitos socioambientais. In: Zhouri, A. (Ed.), A insustentável leveza da política
ambiental Desenvolvimento e conflitos socioambientais. Autêntica, Belo
Horizonte, pp. 11–24 (translated from Portuguese).
Zhouri, A., 2004. Global–local amazon politics conflicting paradigms in the
rainforest campaign. Theory Culture Soc. 2, 69–89. doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/026327640404213 (SAGE, London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi).
Zhouri, A., 2011. As Tensões do Lugar: hidrelétricas sujeitos e licenciamento
Ambiental. Editora da UFMG, Belo Horizonte.