In northern El Salvador a dam is being built on the Torola River. The Torola is one of the largest rivers in the country, located in an area in the department of San Miguel known as El Chaparral. The El Chaparral Dam began construction earlier this year and is slated to take 50 months to complete. When finished, it will function as a 65.4MW hydroelectric plant, providing electricity to 200,000 families in the region.

Unfortunately the development of this hydroelectric plant will result in massive flooding in the El Chaparral region. Indigenous habitat, wildlife, and agriculture will be destroyed and local citizens will be displaced and forced to relocate.

On Wednesday, July 22^nd citizens of San Antonio del Mosco, San Luis de La Reina, and Sesori participated in protests against the construction of the dam. Two hundred people demanded that President Funes end the construction project. Óscar Luna, the Human Rights Ombudsman for the area was present and signaled to the government and local populations that he was “open to the two parties meeting and looking for a solution to the problem.”

The project was initiated before President Funes’ election and is being financed through a $156 million loan from the Banco Centroamericano de Integración Económica (BCIE) and $56 million from the Salvadoran government. Many believe the hesitation to stop the project springs from the government’s current fiscal inability to repay the $156 million loan.

Others criticize Funes’ support as a political play, stemming from campaign contributions he received from Nicolás Salume, president of Executive Hydroelectric Commission of the Lempa River (CEL). CEL is the autonomous state-owned electricity company of El Salvador and the developer of the Chaparral Dam.

Voices on the Border reports that proponents of the dam, such as Ministry of Environment (MARN) official Hermán Rosa Chávez, claim:

“…the dam is in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol and has the potential to provide electricity to two hundred thousand families in El Salvador. Other touted benefits would include new economic opportunities in agriculture, fishing, and tourism.”

But many locals are hesitant to believe such sublime rhetoric. History in the region would indicate that benefits would go straight into the pockets of the government and large corporate investors, not the people. Those who will lose land were assured by contractors and government officials that they will be compensated and provided a place to live. Parish priest José Antonio Confesor, of the community of San Antonio del Mosco, claims the majority of his town does not support the construction. Others say they were deceived by CEL concerning the purchase of lands.

According to MARN’s technical summary, the project was designed by Intertechne Consultores Associados, a Brazilian firm, along with the help of consultants from J-Power, a Japanese company. In October 2008, Italian construction firm Astaldi, announced they had won the $220 million contract to build the dam.

The dam is part of a sweeping effort by the Salvadoran government to reduce their energy deficit, diversify, and find cleaner sources of energy. Because of El Salvador’s small geographic size alternative energy initiatives were historically difficult to implement and only minimally beneficial. El Salvador does not have ample farmland to support ethanol production on a large independent scale. Hydroelectric plants in the past have done little for the indigenous population as these groups did not significantly need additional sources of energy. Displaced communities subsequently lost homes and desperately needed farmland without any compensation. In the 1950’s many of these disgruntled farmers joined guerilla movements against the government.

Proponents of the dam argue that increased generating capacity is necessary to attract investment and keep businesses functioning. Opponents argue that the shortfall is overstated and that the country’s energy needs could be met more cheaply and effectively through conservation efforts.

Voices on the Border reports:

“Projects such as El Chaparral are not necessarily built with the Salvadoran population in mind. The government’s more immediate concerns in the energy sector is producing energy that can be exported abroad. This exporting of energy may indeed be beneficial for the economic situation of El Salvador in some ways, but it also deepens international debt since El Chaparral and similar projects are being financed by international loans.”

The struggle of development versus environment is a universal one. Progress and industrialization create casualties that permeate many aspects of a nation. Some, like El Chaparral, are more pronounced than others. But the ongoing debate of what is right for a nation is not as simple as the powerful versus the powerless. Growing pains are an indelible part of the evolution of a country.

In the mid-1960s 550 Native Americans of the Allegany Seneca Tribe were forced out of their homes to make way for a 179 foot dam sponsored by the U.S. government. Last year the Three Gorges Dam, the largest electricity generating plant in the world, was completed along the Yangtze River in Hubei China. An estimated 1.24 million people were forcibly displaced. The consequences of these developments are apparent. But the ongoing benefits become more and more difficult to quantify each year.

In Central America, a representative for COPINH, an organization that supports the empowerment of indigenous peoples, had the following to say:

“This development was not designed for us.  They want to move us off our lands in order to build the dams. We will be displaced. The electricity is not for our communities, it is for the big companies. If they wanted to generate electricity for our communities, they would do so in other ways, not with these mega projects. Our children and our grandchildren will inherit nothing if we lose our lands. And we would be foolish to think that the government would take care of us. On the contrary, the government is trying to get rid of indigenous people by displacing us.

They want us to stop farming and go to work in their factories. If there are new jobs like these, they may help some people for a while, but what happens in the long term if we give up our land? What will our children do?”

If there are more intelligent and thoughtful ways to address El Salvador’s energy issues then I hope the government can recognize and support them. Hopefully there are examples other than the U.S. and China that they can look to.

Flooding in the Lempa River in 2008