Inequality of Food Security and the Aleination of Marginalized 

Populations in Brazil

Access to universal energy is a declared goal by the United Nations (UN) and is an important barrier to break down on the path to overcoming poverty. Today, there are over a billion people without access to electricity, and this affects their livelihoods. The lack of power can affect people in a wide variety of ways; from students being not being able to study at night, the reliance on biomass cooking (which also has potential respiratory health risks), to the lack of vaccinations because refrigeration is not available. (Walsh). Thus, the provision of electricity is a foremost priority for communities. In Brazil, hydroelectricity is a feasible and cheap option, especially with the availability of the Amazonian river network. Dams have played a crucial role in human civilization for years, dating back to third millennium B.C (ICUN 4). Dams were used mostly for irrigation in the past but are now also used to generate hydroelectricity.

Hydroelectricity is a form of renewable energy and is generated from the hydrological cycle, where the dam itself harnesses electricity through kinetic energy. The kinetic energy is created by the movement of water from a higher potential (the top of the dam) to a lower potential energy (the bottom of the dam) (US Environmental). Dam construction has persistently grown through the 1900s but shortly after World War I the perception of dams shifted and the number of dams being built started to increase. Dams were not simply perceived as mechanism to provide electricity and water but became a social construct and symbolic icon for development. The Hoover dam, built in 1936, demonstrates this symbolism:

It is certainly one of the word’s wonders, that sweeping cliff of concrete, those impetuous elevators, the labyrinth of tunnels, the huge power stations. Everything about the dam is marked by immense smooth efficiency beauty that seems peculiarly American (McCully 4)

The Hoover dam held the record for being the world’s largest dam for two decades, with a height of 221m. It was a symbol of “patriotic pride and the conquest of nature by human ingenuity (McCully I).” The radical shift of how dams were being perceived played a significant role in the number of dams being built around the world. It not only provided electricity but also provided water, food, reduced the adverse effects of floods and transformed desert land into flourishing agricultural land, amongst other benefits. All of these positives depicted an independent and sovereign state, in control of their development, which all countries aspired too. Early in the current century, with the level of technological progress achieved, dams were one of the greatest structures engineered by humans and represented development (ICUN 4). The first Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharal Nehru, also depicted awe-struck feelings about the Bhakra dam in India and what it meant to the development of one’s nation:

“What Stupendous, magnificent work- a work only that nation can take up which has faith and boldness![....]Where can be a greater and holier place than this, which we can regard as higher? (McCully 2)”

The construction of dams skyrocketed during the 1950’s and continued through to the 1980’s. Many international organizations such as the World Bank (WB), Inter-American Asian Development Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FOA) and others provided funding for these dam projects. For example, Chile was funded a total of $26.7 billion for an irrigation project. The WB also provided a total of $10 billion dollars which was money specifically earmarked for the construction of 285 dam projects worldwide (McCully 21). Furthermore, many of the constructed dams were considered large dams; a large dam is 15m or higher. These dams started to take up vast space and land. The rivers in the world were starting to get blocked, with a total of 35,000 dams constructed in the 1950’s alone. There were a total of 40,000 dams constructed during the time period (1950-1980). (McCully 3).

These dams were built with the hope of them driving development forward and at the time many engineers stated that dams will bring about sustainable development as water resources could be used in a regulated manner. Furthermore, it was believed it would assist the global south with water scarcity issues, access to potable water for communities falling ill due to contaminated water and also controlled flooding issues, due to greater control of the water sources. Above all, communities would have power and there would be irrigation available for agriculture, thus leading to higher yields in food production (Goldmith et al. 9). According to the Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations (FOA), agriculture land with access to irrigation has a yield which is twofold higher per hectare than agriculture dependent simply on rain for water. Another reason governments opt for hydroelectricity is because of its low cost compared to other sources of energy. For example:

In 1973, the cost per kilowatt of installed generating capacity of hydroelectricity was 300 to 400 dollars; today [1984] it has climbed to 1,000 dollars- but, even at that price, it is still far cheaper than electricity produced by a thermal power plant, let alone by a nuclear reactor (Goldmith et al. 7)

The low cost of hydroelectricity was enough of a justification for many governments to go forward with this form of energy, especially in the global south (Goldsmith et al. 8). A total of 16 percent of agriculture is based on irrigation, resulting in 37 percent of the total global yield (Natural Resources). These are some of the most significant advantages hydroelectric dams have contributed globally and helped with the development of many countries.

Despite the many advantages these dams provide, the disadvantages often outweigh the positives and the economics alone cannot justify the costs on the environment and the social alienation of already marginalized populations. Governments are responsible for the welfare of the citizens, however, the priorities of certain classes and communities are often prioritized over indigenous populations. The drawbacks of the symbolic hydroelectric dams started to surface in the 1980’s. Firstly, dams displaced 40 to 80 million people (McCully 83). When these projects are planned many of these adverse effects are underestimated. For example, the dam on the Rwanda-Zaire border.

The WB and European Development Fund initially estimated that it would displace only 135 people but once the construction was underway the Bankwide review of the project revealed that it had actually displaced 15,000 people. A significant increase by any standard. States are often insensitive to populations that need to relocate due to the construction despite the fact that these areas have been the home to many of these people for years (Goldmith et al. 8). There are indigenous populations who have resided in the constructions sites for centuries, with strong spiritual and ancestral connections to the land (Goldsmith et al. 2). This is one of many devastating social issues caused by the construction of hydroelectric dams.

The BM Dam will be used as a case study to specifically illustrate the extent of the social issues and structural violence imposed on indigenous populations as a consequence of construction. The BM dam was proposed by Electronorte, the government company in charge providing electricity in the northern parts of Brazil, in 1975 (Fernside 19; Bingham 18). This dam is currently under construction in the Xingu River, in the state of Para, in the Amazon. This dam was conceived under the ‘2010 plan’, which was conceived in 1975. This plan included a total of 297 dams, where 79 of them were to be built within the Amazonian regions of the country; 10 million hectares of land would be flooded in order for these projects to take place (Fernside 20). This project, originally planned to be completed by 2010, but has been significantly delayed and is currently suspended, due to the various problems it poses. The problems are wide ranging; from the displacement of the riverine population, the debate of whether the costs incurred on the construction will provide a profitable output, and the likely harm to the biodiversity in the area. Biodiversity is an especially large issue where species are endemic to the river. Over the years, the largest modification done to the proposal was the reduction of the reservoir from 1255km2 to 440km2 (Fernside 20).

There are riverine and indigenous populations that reside in the area who fought and continue to fight, for their rights to the land. Many organisations joined them, such as “Comissao Pro-Indio de Sao Paulo Cultural survival, and the Missionary Indigenous Council (CIMI)”, and also international organizations such as “International Rivers Network (IRN), Living Rivers Coalition (CRV), Socio-Environmental institute (ISA) (Fernside 19).” Many protests have been organized with the indigenous and riverine populations, along with the organizations, to put an end to the construction of the dam. It was successful in delaying the construction and also brought enough attention to the issue that the WB and other internationally recognized organizations such Lloyds of London, Midlands, and Citibank abandoned their funding towards the project (Hoffmann).

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was elected as president of Brazil in 2003. He proposed a program called the Accelerated growth Program (PAC) and its priorities were to invest in big infrastructural development and projects (Diamond 25). One of the major flagship projects listed under the PAC was the BM dam (Diamond 25). The government fully endorsed this project, mostly because it took advantage of Brazil’s gift in natural resources; the river network that allows them to generate hydroelectricity as their main source of power. This form of energy would also provide them with clean energy, which is one of the governments stated goals.

...to achieve some of the fundamental objectives by the Brazilian Federal Constitution, such as the promotion human dignity, national development, eradication of extreme poverty, and the reduction of social and regional inequalities (Jaichand 410)

This is ironic, as their constitution states as one of its main objectives, to eradicate poverty and social and regional inequalities. They are trying to overcome poverty and regional inequalities, but they are displacing the indigenous and riverine communities as a consequence of their efforts. This illustrates the concept of alienation and marginalization of certain portions of the population, in order to provide a better life for separate, more fortunate groups. Despite the protests from the indigenous populations and both local and international organizations, the government designed a propaganda campaign targeting the Brazilian public and the outside world. The aim of the propaganda was to persuade everyone that dam simply provided benefits to the Brazilian and global economy, it did not mention any of the deleterious effects. They suggested that the dam would help in the development of the nation and also be a form of clean energy, creating very little greenhouse gases (GHG) especially when compared to the use of fossil fuels to drive the economy (Diamond 26). However, the campaign completely dismissed any social or environmental impacts the dam would cause. Thus further reinforcing the idea that the rights of indigenous populations (and the riverine communities and culture, traditions and ancestral homes) comes second to that of the government’s economic goals, further alienating these marginalized communities.

To go forward with the construction of the BM dam, the Environmental Impact Agency (EIA) must provide a license for construction. This is a government project and is a flagship project under the PAC, and immense pressure was placed on the EIA to approve and provide the license. And in fact, the EIA did provide it, on the 1st of June, 2011. The report outlining the project was analysed by 40 different international specialists and was considered unsatisfactory due to inaccuracies (Diamond 28). They provided insufficient information on the effects of the following:

sedimentation and water table, did not include the likely effects upon aquatic mammals or the probability of deforestation in the greater region, and blatantly omitted any analysis of the cultural, social, or economic impacts on the communities downstream (Diamond 28)

There were further discrepancies in the calculations and methods. It also overstated the amount of power that the dam was capable of generating and underestimated the number of people affected socially and environmentally by the dam, including the potential health and water security problems that may arise as a result of this dam (Diamond 28). Two senior employees of the environmental agency for the state, IBAMA, spoke up about the harm the BM project will cause and then quit their jobs in 2009 (Diamond 28). This caused an upheaval and large amount of political pressure to take the license to court, which resulted in the license being suspended by Judge Antonio Carlos de Almeida Campelo in April (Diamond 28). The counterparts supporting this project were not able to provide evidence that this project will cause no social harm to the populations residing in the area. However, the government put pressure on Campelos and eventually his “three injunctions against the BM license” were overturned by the higher court. Furthermore, Campelo was forbidden from providing rulings on any further court cases concerning the environment (Diamond 28).

Today, construction of the BM dam in the Xingu River is suspended by the federal court in Altamira, Para. The federal court has also fined Norte Energia and the government 155,000 pounds for not upholding the rights of the communities in the area and not providing them with the necessary safety net (Watts).

A large number of diverse indigenous populations call the Xingu river home. There are 25,000 people from at least 37 different ethnicities that occupy the region of Xingu River which would be effected by the dam (Fernside 16). There are diverse linguistic groups which are drastically different from one another, and this linguistic diversity is also under threat. Diamond et al. further contends:

...Hundreds of riverine communities, about 800 people from Juruna, Xikrin, Arara, Xipaia, Kuruaya, Kayapo and other indigenous ethnicities in the surrounding region will no longer be able to depend on the river for survival. (Diamond et al. 27)

Furthermore, the dam will be also be “fed by two artificial canals which would divert 80% of the Xingu’s flow (Bingham 18).” Two reserves will be will completely lose access to the river as they will be cut off from the Paquicamba and Arara di Maia. This will affect their livelihoods and cause damage to the fisheries, which is a vital food source for these populations. (Diamond 26-27).

“Xingu,” means the “house of God” in the native language to the indigenous communities. What is lost when the environment is only viewed as an economic commodity is the fact that constructing something as destructive as the BM dam causes a lot more than simply the loss of land and livelihoods to the locals. It is more complicated than that; the loss of identity and unique, cultural heritage is also being threatened. All of this threatens the culture and diversity of indigenous communities and that diversity is difficult to commodify. A leader from the indigenous group, Jose Carlos Arara describes what it is to lose one’s home and to be fight for their rights:

Our Ancestors are there inside this land, our blood is inside this land, and we have to pass on this land with the story of our ancestors to our children. We don't want to fight, but we are ready to fight our land if we are threatened. We want to live in our land in peace with all we have there (Diamond et al 29.)

Brazil voted in favour of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007 which “guarantees the right to self-determination, including free, prior, and informed consent, for projects that affect their communities (Diamond 27).” Furthermore, in 1988 the rights of the indigenous groups were stated in the constitution. Article 231 in the constitution states:

... recognized both the cultural and territorial rights of indigenous peoples based on their heritage, establishing their right to permanently live in traditional territories and guaranteeing the exclusive use of natural resources necessary for securing their cultural integrity and physical wellbeing (Diamond 27)

Despite voting in favour of the UNDRIP and stating the rights of the indigenous populations in their constitution, the Brazilian government is not upholding or enforcing these elements if they interfere with government agendas. These rights are continuously neglected. Drawing from Marxism and alienation theory, this persecution by neglect can be perceived as a form of dehumanisation to the communities. The indigenous people’s means of production, which is the river Xingu and the land now being converted into a dam, will be inhabitable and used for the purpose of a capitalist project. The compensation provided to the communities have been either minimal or absent. Also, the provision of various food supplies have increased health risks and malnutrition in these communities (Osava). This can be described as an ethnocide, especially with the neglect of the government after countless protests and warnings about how destructive this will be on the population. This project is not simply alienating communities physically but driving them to alienation culturally and emotionally.

Hydroelectricity is an easy and accessible resource for Brazil to provide power for its nation and is an important component in overcoming poverty and achieving development, though it may only result in an increase in gross domestic product and not an improvement in the overall standard of living of the entire population. It is not worth alienating any indigenous community in order to accomplish economic goals. This is a path that many governments are lured into due to cheap and short term economic options, however this only amplifies the social stratification in the nation. Furthermore, within the a neo-liberal capitalist system it has become easy to commodify nature and view it as a resource available for us to plunder as opposed to a more spiritual and cultural view, as is the case for many of the indigenous populations. Brazil has legally written into their constitution that the rights of indigenous people should be respected. They have also signed on to international campaigns which proclaim similar protections. However, they are not enforced. In such a divided unequal society the power will always be accumulated within the few and dominate many of the economic decisions driving vulnerable indigenous populations to alienation.