Chilean Democracy, Anno 2008

On Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008 in Valdivia, capital of the Rivers Region in Southern Chile, 21 citizens, including the mayor of the municipality of Panguipulli, Alejandro Kohler, and environmental lawyer Vladimir Riesco, were arrested by the military police. This took place during a “citizens participation” consultation for the approval of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report presented by Chilean energy company Colbún (of the financial conglomerate, Matte), as its plans to build a dam in the San Pedro River are very controversial and criticized by those arrested. The arrestees were not guilty of anything more than voicing opinions in opposition to the proposed projects. The arrests were ordered by the provincial governor, Ivan Flores. The consultations took place behind locked doors at the offices of COREMA (the regional environmental commission) on avenue Yungay in the Seminario building, heavily guarded by the military police performing security checks, registering and accompanying everyone who entered the building, videotaping everything, and only allowing a select few individuals into the overcrowded boardroom. A representative of the Parlamento de Koz Koz (a Mapuche organization in Panguipulli) was physically pushed out of the room, as it was too full, while at the same time, a representative of Colbún, was allowed to enter, as were the press, the mayor and the environmental lawyer. She finally did manage to enter, and read aloud a letter written by the organization, stating their opposition to the project, which caused a discussion between Riesco and a COREMA lawyer, which others joined, after which they were removed by the military police. Others, such as the evaluating environmental technicians from the municipality of Panguipulli, environmentalists and Mapuche representatives, remained locked out outside, and when a few tried to get in, they were immediately detained by police forces and carried off to the police station. There were three busloads of police forces securing the building, far outnumbering the citizens. The intention of such an event is to allow citizens to participate in the evaluation of projects proposed by companies that will affect their communities and surroundings. The EIA mechanism is intended to promote the democratic processes of informed consultation and participation.


According to the CONAMA website (Chile’s National Environmental Commission), citizen participation and access to environmental information are part of the 1994 Environmental Law (no. 19.300). The site further states that the CONAMA has promoted civil society participation in environmental management, as it is also considered a priority of the Concertación government, as formulated in their principles of co-responsibility, as a democratic mechanism. Under the Presidential Instructive on Citizen Participation (of December 2000), the public sector must generated the information required by its citizens, and citizen participation is a contribution to collaboration and mutual respect between the State and the citizenry, in order to strengthen civil society and achieve more legitimacy for public policy. The site further mentions social capital, relationships of trust, solidarity and cooperation, transparency, respect, equal opportunities and incorporating the citizenry in the elaboration and evaluation of environmental plans, projects, policies and norms. The CONAMA considers sustainable development as a national goal. Therefore, they are aiming to “perfect” the mechanisms and amplify the spaces of participation and the right to information, so that the citizenry can contribute to decisions taken concerning the protection of the environment. This was apparently forgotten at the COREMA in Valdivia on October 22nd. Since 1997, one of the principle instruments applied by the CONAMA, as required under the Environmental Law is the EIA system. This system is designed to evaluate the design and execution of projects or activities conducted in the country, according to environmental and sustainability requirements. Any company, such as Colbun in this case, proposing an industrial megaproject, must submit an EIA report to the CONAMA, based on the EIA norms. They normally receive a two-year period to perform the studies necessary to write the report. Colbun had been granted two extentions for the deadline for which they were to submit it. Thereafter, CONAMA publishes the report and the general public has only 60 days to respond to and evaluate the report. The environmental law presents an inequality in that it obviously favours the companies over the public opinion in allowing them more time to complete their reports (in this case, Colbón was allotted two extensions) to submit their reports, and the citizens hardly receive any time at all to respond, nor do they have the same amount of resources to do so. Their feedback is supposed to inform the environmental commission’s decision on whether or not to approve the project. The final decision to approve or reject the plan is made at the end of this period, at the regional office (COREMA), as occurred in Valdivia on October 22nd. The meeting is supposed to be open to the public (which it was not on October 22nd). The approval is won by a majority vote by the board members of the COREMA. In June 2008, Colbún submitted a report that had received 125 observations made by diverse civil society, and public institutions, to which Colbún responded by retracting it, and promised to submit a second report within the very short time frame of three weeks. The “citizen participation” thus proves to be merely a discourse, as in practice the public building was locked shut, and the only elected authority of the municipality of Panguipulli, the mayor Alejandro Kohler, was not allowed to express his opinion on the matter. The decision to approve the project seems to come from above, the centralized and authoritarian State in Santiago. The approval is won by a majority vote by the board members of the COREMA. The board on the 22nd included ten regional ministerial secretaries, four regional counsillors, the governors of Valdivia and Ranco, and the executive secretary of COREMA, as well as the regional governor, Ivan Flores. In June 2008, Colbún submitted a report that had received 125 observations made by diverse civil society, and public institutions, to which Colbún responded by retracting it, and promised to submit a second report within the very short time frame of three weeks.

The plan proposed by Colbún to build a dam in the San Pedro River will affect two municipalities, Los Lagos and Panguipulli. The municipality of Los Lagos had signed their approval of the project on September 5th, 2008, as Colbún has promised to build a lakeside resort and a bus terminal as compensation for any negative impacts generated by the construction of the dam, as written in the third addendum to the EIA. In the recent (October 26, 2008) elections, the mayor was not reelected: the people are not pleased with a mayor who negotiates away the area’s national resources. The municipality of Panguipulli, however, especially the mayor and six of the seven deputy mayors, as well as the director of the National Tourism Service (SERNAM) had made their opposition to the project very publically clear since the beginning. Letters were written and sent to the COREMA evaluating the plan, and rejecting it altogether. In general, the project is rejected due to environmental and sustainability concerns, it will affect nearby Mapuche communities and because it is not deemed favourable to the development of tourism, which is the development strategy of the municipality of Panguipulli since 2000, and it was declared a Zone of Touristic Interest in 2008. Tourism in the area is mainly based on small-scale, locally owned and operated ecotourism outfits. Colbún’s EIA does not include a socio-economic evaluation of the area that considers this industry or the priorities of the Mapuche communities, nor does it include a mitigation or compensation plan. Furthermore, seismological considerations are not included, as the area contains a geological fault to which the Chaitén volcano belongs, a volcano that was previously dormant for thousands of years until its multiple eruptions in May of 2008. Furthermore, the EIA only considers the 12 kilometres of the river that the dam will directly affect, and not the entire surrounding region that will be indirectly affected by the project. The dam will consist of a 56-metre wall that will capture millions of litres of water and in the case of an earthquake or volcanic eruption; the dam could crumble and pose a serious threat to the towns downriver. The San Pedro River becomes the Calle Calle River, on its way to the sea, one of Valdivia’s landmarks. The effects on the Calle Calle were not included in the report, and Valdivia was not included in the citizen participation to evaluate the project.

It was Alejandro Kohler, Vladimir Riesco and two doctors from Panguipulli who had made it into the meeting at the COREMA and voiced their opinions in opposition of the projects. Their objections during the meeting centred on the many irregularities of the EIA and important information that has been kept from the public about the project, such as rare fish species in the San Pedro River that will be affected by the dam, and the union of the reservoir with lake Riñihue. The COREMA kept refusing them the word, so they started to speak anyway. This was the only reason for their arrests: they spoke out of turn, a turn they had never received, because they were in opposition. Before the start of the meeting, half of the board members were in opposition to the plans. Two days before the meeting, the COREMA had threatened the regional ministerial secretaries that if they did not approve the project, they would lose their jobs. After many hours of discussion, and the governor having called the military police to have the opponents removed from the room and arrested, the votes were 16 to 1 in favour, and one abstained. The project was approved.

This incident has sparked the debate about the state of democracy in Chile once again. Furthermore, a wide public discussion has ensued concerning the EIA process and the type of development that this form of industrialization implies, as well as a discussion on the political power of market forces, reinforcing authoritarian practices in order to extinguish the voices of the citizenry. Protests have taken place in Valdivia, and will most likely mark the beginning of a long conflict over the San Pedro dam. This project is one of three hydroelectric megaprojects for the Rivers Region. There are plans to build seven hydroelectric plants, resulting in the generation of 10% of Chile’s electric consumption, which would drastically alter the economic makeup of the region. One of Chile’s major natural assets is water, and the State is aiming to exploit it to its fullest, so that hydropower will form the major source of energy for the nation. At the same time, the opposition to hydroelectric projects has been the fiercest. At least 25 projects currently in progress, completed, or being planned are found from the first region in the north, down to Aysén, in southern Patagonia. There are at least 10 (multi)national energy companies involved in the installation of these mega-projects throughout Chile. The rights to water were separated from land and privatized in 1982 by the Pinochet regime. In 2006, these rights were further liberalized and have been auctioned off to the highest bidders, which in the Rivers Region meant the sale to the corporate energy companies ENDESA of Spain, SN Power of Norway, and Colbún.

There is a majority opposition to the projects by the locals. However, the energy companies are employing strategies and tactics to convince the locals of the benefits of their projects. One of the tactics employed by the companies is having asados (barbeques) with the people, talking about all the great things their projects will bring them. They have withheld crucial information from the public, they occupy the media to spread propaganda and hold secret meetings with certain individuals behind closed doors, they promise to build roads, cellular phone and internet infrastructure, computers for the schools and jobs for the unemployed. These types of promises are well-known strategies of companies such as Colbún, ENDESA and SN Power to obtain a majority support for their projects and convince the people of their good will. They pretend to be socially responsible, but corporate companies are not social organizations that have experience in rural development. They are capitalist enterprises that wish to take advantage of the lack of implementation of Chilean and international law that protects the rights of the local population and environment. Their sole purpose to generate cheap energy and maximize profits. For a company with that much economic power to offer to pay for a road, equipment for the fire department, computers for the school, internet and cellphone connections is very little. It is an insult to the intelligence of the local people. In reality, the company will install all that is necessary for the construction of the plants. After that, the people will be left to their own devices once again. They are employing the manipulation of the media and the rumour network of the small towns, making the people believe that all are in favour of their projects which is not only good for their corporate image in the Chilean media, but convinces the affected populations that they have no other choice but to support the projects, so that they may receive benefits in the process of negotiation. They are also publicizing their false success stories of "participation" in order to pretend to live up to the "corporate social responsibility" mandate. Therefore, the people are left to turn to alternative forms of communication, in order to inform and publicize their disagreement with the proposed plans and the company's presence in their communities. The civil society organizations in opposition to the megaprojects are made up of local citizens, dozens of Mapuche comunidades and local tourism enterprises and organizations. These are local citizens concerned about their environment and communities and prepared to defend their rights to live in a zone free of interventions by megaprojects. They are concerned about the manner in which the energy company executives are intervening in the area, especially in the unauthorized entrance into indigenous territory and private property; the intimidation of Mapuche leaders, the threatening of people that do not want to cooperate; the bribing of local businessmen to support the projects, the bribing of local and non-local Mapuche who are portrayed as leaders by the company in their reports; but do not actually have any legitimacy or representation within the communities, in order to convince the rest of the community to support the projects; the collection of signatures under false pretences to support the projects, such as having participants in a “development” workshop sign a blank document with their social security numbers, supposedly attesting to their participation; or signatures for the receipt of food aid.

Colbún is not only planning a dam for the San Pedro, but also the third dam in the megaproject started on the Bío Bío River by ENDESA in 1994. The controversial Pangue (457 MW) and Ralco (690 MW) dams built there required the displacement of indigenous communities. The Ralco dam was highly publicized and sparked a national debate on dams and development, and the relationship between the State and indigenous peoples. Having the dam approved required several political manipulations and abuses of power by the Frei Ruiz-Tagle government (1994-2000), who had shares in both ENDESA and the construction company, BESALCO. Frei`s attitude suggested that anyone who did not agree with the government on Ralco, had to go. The Ralco dam would be constructed “Si o Si”. Despite all the protests from countless citizens, institutions, civil society organisations, and every level of government, the construction of the dam continued relentlessly. The National Indigenous Development Corporation (CONADI) had declared the Ralco project as “illegal”, as the Indigenous Law not only requires informed consent, but also equivalent compensation for their lands, requiring the approval of CONADI. Neither was deemed sufficient by CONADI’s indigenous council. However, CONADI was incapable of holding its own under the political force of the Frei government, who had forced two consecutive indigenous directors of the CONADI who did not approve of the land exchanges to resign. The politics of the government were very clear: the land exchanges were to be approved. When the CONAMA rejected the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) mainly due to the social implications, ENDESA wrote an “addendum”, which was also rejected. It was finally the second “addendum”, which actually included a relocation plan for the Pewenche, which was approved, despite repeated protests by the CONADI. The final addendum to the original EIA report included a 10-year commitment of financial support, housing, electricity, schools, technical farming assistance, and medical centres. However, a lot of these have not materialized to date. These types of failed interventions are all too common in Chile today, especially concerning its original peoples. There is no doubt that the energy sector means big business. In Chile, Pinochet’s 1982 Electricity Law continues to ensure that investors will prosper. The CNE (National Energy Commission) fixes the base costs of electricity according to the construction and operational costs of the plants, maintaining a determined level of profit. Due to this amazing amount of State support, a company can construct a very inefficient, expensive project, and the costs will only be borne by the consumers. Thus, the inefficiency of Ralco was convenient and profitable for ENDESA, although it caused inflation in electricity on the national level. However, during the Ralco conflict, an aggressive media campaign was launched to sway Chilean public opinion in favour of the dam, focused on the ‘need for Ralco’s power to support industrial development’ in a period of economic recession.

The US$ 500 million, 360 MW “Angostura Project” Colbún is now proposing for the Bío Bío will again necessitate the displacement of 45 families, many of which had already been relocated for the Pangue dam. The EIA states that the dam would flood 640 hectares, creating an 16 kilometer reservoir along the Bio Bio, and 5 kilometers along the Huequecura River. The inundation would not only require relocations, it would also mean the disappearance of sacred Pehuenche sites. Colbún is employing tactics similar to ENDESA for the Pangue and Ralco dams, as Colbún has already bought land destined for the relocation sites, and has brought the people there to have a look, before the EIA has been approved by the CONAMA, making it seem as if the dam’s construction is a matter of fact. Locals criticize the project and are in opposition, however they have received very little media attention, and are actually tired out from the decade-long Ralco conflict. Contradictorily, the Chilean government stated before the Organization of American States (OAS) in 2004 that it would not allow anymore megaprojects in the Alto Bío Bío area in the future. Locals are urging the state to keep this promise, and hope to share their objections with CONAMA, who is about to decide on the approval of the project. In 2006, Colbun partnered up with ENDESA to form HidroAysén, for the megaproject (2750 MW) they are planning for the Baker and Pascua Rivers in Aysen, Chile’s XIth Region. The project would also require the construction of a transmission line almost 1600 kilometers long. The project’s construction is projected to be conducted from 2008 to 2012. There is enormous opposition to this project, uniting big business such as the salmon farmers, local landowners, operators of local fishing lodges and other small-scale tourism enterprises, and U.S. entrepreneur and conservationist Douglas Tompkins. The protest is highly publicized, although the opponents claim that HydroAysén has not been transparent about their plans. The opposition is concerned about the flooding of 93 billion hectares, its ecological repercussions and the conversion of the small town of Cochrane into a booming industrial hub. They also fear that the dams on the Baker and the Pascua will only be the start of the damming of every river in Patagonia. Additionally, there is concern for the loss of international (eco)tourists visiting the region. Government officials claim that if they do not dam the Baker and the Pascua, which would generate 20% of the country’s energy needs, the only alternative will be nuclear power. HydroAysén’s EIA report is expected in 2008. Tompkins has repeatedly opposed the industrialization of Patagonia. Consecutive governments have tried to delegitimize his conservationist efforts, naming him a communist, terrorist, Zionist cult leader and interventionist preventing foreign investment. The irony of Chile’s liberal climate for foreign investment is shown when it welcomes those companies that want to extract the country’s natural resources, but is hostile towards those that want to invest their fortunes in conserving them.

Foreigners are not the only critics of Chilean policies. Many Chileans oppose industrial megaprojects, such as mining, forestry, cellulose, salmon farming, and hydroelectric plants. They feel that this type of development is out of control, that there is no true consideration for future generations. They fear the loss of biodiversity and natural resources, whose Chile’s economy has always depended upon. Due to all of these environmental conflicts in Chile and the State’s tendency to favour large private companies, many Chileans question the meaning of the “sustainable development” discourse. Cynics criticize EIAs as “only a formality”, as industrial projects tend to be approved in Chile, no matter what the social and environmental consequences. Political decisions have far reaching impacts in democratic processes, such as the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Ralco case showed that EIAs can reinforce a political decision and uphold its discourse, instead of ensuring a democratic and informed process in practice, that in principle, they are supposed to uphold. Through financing of reports and subsequent ownership of the information, interest groups retain control over their use. Even researchers come to be removed from their own conclusions in ways that are quite alarming. The corrupt EIA process in Chile is a manifestation of the authoritarian culture where dialogue is not practiced, where decisions are taken by a small group of politically and economically powerful elite, and the local peoples, in this case original peoples, are not heard. Energy, thus, being of “national interest” goes above all. This idea is recognized and conformed to by the political structure that imposes this discourse. The institutionalization of this legitimacy is effectively manifested in the institutions that facilitate the attitude of the State towards local peoples and the private sector, and the clear disposition towards economic development without considering the social and environmental costs. The large majority of the private companies that implement hydroelectric, geothermal, biofuel or mining projects in Chile are of from outside the region, such as Spain, Norway, Germany, Italy, England, Switzerland, Canada, and Australia. It all revolves around making money for their CEOs, and maybe a little GDP for Chile. Meanwhile, energy costs within Chile skyrocket, so that not only the local citizens have to live with the negative effects of these projects, they also get the short end of the stick in the actual resulting product. Thus, there is a general discontent, distrust, and disbelief that the “system” will work for them. Especially concerning environmental laws and institutions have lost the respect of the people, as they adhere to corporate pressure, not only in hydroelectric megaprojects, but also in other forms of industrialisation such as mining, forestry, cellulose and salmon farming. To the locals being affected by such megaprojects, the beautiful discourse of “transparency” and “participation” are nothing but that: just empty words. It is definitely not the reality for most of the citizens of Chile.



More Information:

(videos)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cbuKmAhGNg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXud4SkjjoY&feature=related

http://www.dailymotion.com/giubergia/video/12033537

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBst6cogiwQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJLDd8kcKxg&feature=related

(articles)
http://www.valdivianoticias.cl/info.asp?Ob=1&Id=23168
http://www.riosanpedro.cl/?page_id=52
http://www.valdivianoticias.cl/info.asp?Ob=1&Id=22882

http://www.lanacion.cl/prontus_noticias/site/artic/20070617/pags/20070617200658.html
http://www.unpo.org/content/view/8795/236/
http://www.mapuexpress.net/?act=news&id=2961
http://mapuexpress.net/?act=news&id=2940
http://nomasrepresas.blogspot.com/2008/06/reportaje-canal13-hallazgos.html

http://www.mapuexpress.net/?act=news&id=3408&PHPSESSID=872a34a3893c87a13df058a6c865b3c6
http://www.mapuexpress.net/?act=news&id=3402&PHPSESSID=872a34a3893c87a13df058a6c865b3c6

http://panguipullisustentable.blogspot.com/
http://www.luisemiliorecabarren.cl/?q=node/1146
http://www.elciudadano.cl/2008/10/22/en-la-de-los-rioscolbun-atenta-contra-estrategia-de-desarrollo-regional-ciudadana/
http://www.elciudadano.cl/2008/10/23/corema-de-los-rios-vale-callampa-por-aprobar-hidroelectrica-de-colbun/
http://resistenciapatagona.blogspot.com/

Coñaripe, Chile

Coñaripe, situated to the north of lake Calafquen, near the Villarrica National Park, which was declared a UNESCO sight in 1999, in the XIVth region in Southern Chile. The environment of a large part of the seven lakes region will be seriously affected and its sustainability will be threatened by the plans of a foreign energy company, SN Power, to build a series of hydroelectric plants, in a hydroelectric megaproject.

In the Mapuche language, Mapudungun, ‘Mapu’ means earth, or land, and ‘che’ means people; they are the people of the land. This linguistic symbolism signals the historic importance of land and its resources to the Mapuche people, and it is an integral and significant part of their existence to this day. Yet, it has also been the cause of most of their grief and strife. Most anthropologists and observers recognize the integral role the land and the environment play in the Mapuche culture. The valley in which Coñaripe is located has always been Mapuche land. The Mapuche originally populated the mountain ranges of Challupén, Traitraico y Pucura. Throughout history, they have been resettled and their land has been reduced significantly, so that they now live on a handful of reserves in and around Coñaripe. Now SN Power´s plan threatens to further reduce their living space and ability to survive, displacing them even further.

If this project will be effectuated, flora, fauna and the local people will no longer be able to survive as they currently do. Water will diverted from flowing its natural course through this area, and inundate other parts of the region. One of the rivers that will be largerly affected is the Llancahue, which presently provides water to the surrounding flora, fauna and people alike for their survival, as well as there sustenance needs such as sustainable fishing, a sustainable energy source, and sustainable tourism such as hotsprings, rafting and trekking. This form of income will be lost if the plans go through. This will further affect the local businesses in the region who profit indirectly from tourism. This area does not currently have any other industry that can provide employment. Therefore, if the plans for the hydroelectric megaproject by SN Power take effect, the livelihoods of approximately 1400 people (30 families and communities) will be threatened, as well as causing unforeseeable consequences for the ecosystem, surrounding region, and mountains, not to mention the pollution the construction will cause.

Currently, the energy company holds an agreement with the Ministry of Economy, Promotion and Reconstruction, so that it may perform ´studies´ in the next two years. These ´studies´ commenced on October 22nd of this year, on indigenous lands, without permission of the inhabitants, which is in contradiction with Chile´s 1993 Indigenous Law. Leaders of the Antimilla community, part of the Round table Pellaifa Newen, are willing to talk and defend their rights. But they have been victims of acts of force by SN Power, as the installation of materials and machinery for exploration sites without permission from the community forced them to take physical action to make the company withdraw its materials and leave the unauthorized sites. The affected communities will continue to raise awareness and conduct protests locally.

However, due to the ethnic and socio-economic politics in Chile, their voices are not being heard, their protest is not being headed. This situation has long historical premises, and indigenous rights have repeatedly been negated in the quest for industrialization and capitalist expansion. The most recent example was the prolific and polemic Pangue and Ralco dams built on the Bio Bio river in the XVIIth region from 1997-2004, comissioned by ENDESA. (see previous post)Approximately 92 Mapuche families were relocated away from their ancestral lands, burial grounds and sacred sites, which were inundated due to the damming of the river. The Mapuche comunities in Coñaripe fear that they will also see a similar fate, as the actions of the energy company have shown absolute disregard for their lands, customs and the Indigenous law to date. This is why we feel it is imperative that this project does take any physical shape. Experience has taught us that once construction has commenced and investments have been made, the power of capital will overrule any human or environmental right. Taking away their water will be literally taking away their last drop of life.

The Ralco Dam Conflict

After the Enron scandal in 2001, when it was revealed that Enron’s reported financial condition was sustained mostly by institutionalised, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud, the world awoke to corporate greed. Enron has since become a popular symbol of wilful corporate fraud and corruption. Did this awakening to corporate greed arise because it involved leaders of the world’s ‘most powerful’ nation? Or was it because it involved enormous amounts of money? Or because many ordinary citizens had been duped of their lifesavings and their jobs? In any case, the Enron scandal was far from unique in being an exemplary case of capitalism gone wrong. The greed for more and more capital accumulation has had far-reaching and negative impacts throughout the world. More and more activists are keen on exposing wrongfully acquired capital or capitalist interests that fuelled the destruction of societies and the environment.

Such a case that was exposed was the construction of the Ralco dam in Chile, for which an indigenous group was relocated and a protest ensued, supported by international human rights and environmental organisations. Unfortunately, the protests were not strong enough to overcome the power of the wealthy elite, and the building of the dam continued relentlessly. Chile is often named one of the most democratic countries in Latin America. How can a democratic government allow for this to happen?

Unfortunately, I can only conclude that this dam was constructed for the economic interests of the powerful elite, and that this process was far from democratic. Such processes leave me feeling uneasy, as not only are those whose lives are most affected the ones that are most excluded, but it is derived from a one-track development teleology that does not have any consideration for what people on the ground really want and need. The reality of a ‘minority group’ is thus the opposite pole to the reality of a technocratic, powerful elite, and the tensions between these poles result in conflicts such as the one surrounding Ralco in Chile.

The Empresa Nacional de Energia (ENDESA) and various actors of the Chilean state manipulated contradictory laws which allowed the rights of the Mapuche-Pehuenche to be repressed for a project that is in the end unviable economically and ecologically, as the area has seen severe droughts in the past ten years. Furthermore, the project depletes the possibility of achieving sustainable development, as a balance in the three dimensions – social, economic and ecological – were not taken into account in the plans.

In the early nineties, a land conflict developed in Chile, between the Mapuche-Pehuenche and the Spanish energy consortium ENDESA, as it had plans for an industrial mega-project consisting of six hydroelectric dams on the Upper Bío Bío River (Keijzer et 1992: 69; Wilson and Allaway 2001: 4). The conflict was at its height during the construction of the second dam, the Ralco dam, from 1997-2002, and received worldwide attention due to protests by environmental and human rights activists, and therefore is the most famous land conflict in Chile (Skjævestad 2006: 14).

The first dam, Pangue, was constructed from 1992-1997. This project had been approved by President Aylwin, before his administration had formed the National Corporation for Indigenous Development, (CONADI) and the National Environmental Commission (CONAMA). Both these institutions had declared the Ralco dam as illegal, initially, according to their respective laws (Haughney 2006: 125; Wilson and Allaway 2001: 6; Aylwin 2002: 15). Construction on the Ralco dam commenced in 1997, although a plan for the relocation of the Mapuche-Pehuenche living in the area was not even considered when ENDESA first announced that they would construct another dam (Wilson and Allaway 2001: 6). The reservoir on the Bío Bío River created by ENDESA’s dams covers an area of approximately 3,467 hectares in the VIIIth region (Nixon 2003). It has inundated the communities Wupuca-Ralco and Ralco-Lepoy and lands of approximately 600 people, amounting to 92 Mapuche-Pehuenche extended families, who were relocated higher up in the Andes to make way for ‘progress’ (Haughney 2006: 125; Palacios and Du Roy 2003: 24).

ENDESA, named “one of the most powerful Chilean private companies” saw the Bío Bío river as a means to produce cheap energy (Palacios and Du Roy 2003: 25). ENDESA is the former national energy enterprise, and now a privatised energy company from Spain who monopolises the energy sector in Chile (Haughney 2006; Malmborg 1999). Since the Pangue dam had negative impacts, protests were instigated upon its completion in order to stop the building of Ralco, the second and largest dam. Despite the highly controversial and highly profiled conflict, ENDESA continued construction until its completion in 2004 (Palacios and Du Roy 2003: 24).

The Concertación de Partidos por la Democracia is a coalition of democratic parties formed in the 1990s, and under President Eduardo Frei, promoted the projects as a matter of national security (so that they are not dependent on gas imports from Argentina) and national development (in terms of GDP). Yet the privatisation of ENDESA, and thus the President’s, members of his family and other political elites’ shares in the company raises questions about the legitimacy of this claim (Wilson and Allaway 2001: 6; Palacios and Du Roy 2003: 35; and Aylwin 2003: 15). The Frei administration played an enormous role in ensuring that the Ralco project would be approved. The approximately 20 independent assessments and reports by CONADI, CONAMA, human rights groups and anthropologists all denounced the project for its disregard for the environment and the lack of consultation with those Pehuenche that were to be displaced. The indigenous law not only requires informed consent, but also equivalent compensation for their lands, neither of which CONADI deemed sufficient in the permutas (relocation contracts). These reports were repressed by ENDESA, and the government fired two consecutive indigenous leaders of CONADI who did not support the project, after which he appointed a non-indigenous leader whose political affiliations supported the project, as well as forcing CONAMA to re-write their assessment of the Ralco dam so that they would approve it (Aylwin 2003: 14-15; Haughney 2006: 110 and Johnston and Garcia-Downing 2003: 4-5). Furthermore, an aggressive media campaign was launched to sway Chilean public opinion in favour of the dam, focussed on the “need for Ralco’s power to support industrial development” in a period of economic recession (Aylwin 2002: 10). This would further promote the invisibility of the Mapuche-Pehuenche, the ‘Chileans’ whose lives were to be directly, completely and irrevocably affected by the construction of the dam.

“The Mapuche population of 1.2 million accounts for approximately ten per cent of Chile’s total population and together with the 200 000 living in Argentina, Mapuche constitute the third largest indigenous people in South-America” (Nesti 2002: 2). In the Mapuche language, Mapudungun, ‘Mapu’ means earth, or land, and ‘che’ means people; they are the people of the land. Pehuenche, in turn, means people of the Pehuen, the pine tree which provided nuts for their subsistence (Haughney 2006: 102; Nesti 2002). This linguistic symbolism signals the historic importance of land and its resources to the Mapuche people, and it is an integral and significant part of their existence to this day. Yet, it has also been the cause of most of their grief and strife. Most anthropologists and observers recognise the integral role the land and the environment play in the Pehuenche culture (Malmborg 1999; Palacios and Du Roy 2003; Nesti 2002). Due to their relative isolation before 1992, when the construction of the Pangue dam commenced, their culture and society evolved and revolved around subsistence, and this isolation, in turn, allowed for a preservation of their culture and livelihood (Keijzer et al. 1992). It is argued that their world view is based on their relationship with the earth and nature, as they have always used medicinal plants from the area and invoked the ancestors for their religious and medicinal ceremonies (Malmborg 1999; Nesti 2002; Wilson and Allaway 2001). The lands which were flooded contained ancient and modern burial sites, sacred sites, as well as over 70 archaeological sites, not to mention, it formed the habitat for over 70 endangered species. The Alto Bío Bío area is estimated to have been occupied by the Pehuenche since the year 1200, and their historical settlements, burial sites and religious sites are now underwater in the reservoir created by the Ralco dam (Nixon 2003 and Estrada 2004).

Neoliberalism consumed the continent of Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s like a fever. Especially Chile, under the military dictatorship of Pinochet, was praised for its far-reaching privatisation and liberalisation of services, such as energy. Thus, neoliberal reforms and privatisation policies implemented during the Pinochet regime allowed for ENDESA’s monopoly over Chile’s energy production and distribution, which is echoed by the fact that ENDESA’s owners held “strong liaisons to the Pinochet regime” (Nordbø 2001: 5-6; Haughney 2006: 101).

Liberalisation also allowed for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), so that powerful actors outside of Chile also had control over the project, although the Chilean government had to camp with the internal conflict and protests. The World Bank and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) funded the Pangue dam, along with Canada’s Export Development Corporation, the Swedish Agency for International Technical and Economic Co-operation and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Wilson and Allaway 2001; Nordbø 2001; and Aylwin 2002). They were initially to fund the Ralco dam, but when international attention was drawn to the conflict, public opinion and litigations persuaded them to withdraw their support, and thus their funding (Skjævestad 2006). ENDESA was able to secure other sources, however, and the project continued.

The usurpation of Mapuche lands has created conflicts between the Mapuche and the state for several hundred years; however, the laws that allowed for this have historically favoured the interests of the Chilean state and its mestizo population (Keijzer et al. 1992: 4 and 7; Azócar et al. 2005). Land reform policies installed during the Pinochet period had reduced the Pehuenche land and organised them in a number of reserves and communities, and required the registration of individual land titles, contrary to the collective practices of the Pehuenche in the past (Haughney 2006). Due to the individual property titles, construction of the dam was possible. If the indigenous law recognised customary law in terms of collective land rights, ENDESA would not have been able to buy the land, for it allowed ENDESA to make individual contracts with the Pehuenche for their relocation, so that they did not legally need the consent of the entire community.

The Ley Indígena of 1993, however, requires that the entire community be consulted, and that they give their consent before a project is approved that will impact their lands, homes and subsistence (Malmborg 1999 and Haughney 2006: 135). The Environmental law of 1997 requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be conducted before such projects are approved. The Electricity law of 1982 does, however, allows the sale of indigenous land if it is to benefit the Chilean society as a whole, in terms of energy supply. The courts have ruled in favour of Pinochet’s electricity law in all cases, subsuming the later laws, which were meant to be a priority of the government since 1993 (Haughney 2006: 131 and Aylwin 1998). However, Nancy Yáñez, a Chilean Lawyer, demonstrates the two-way tension between the laws:

The electricity law…stipulates that industrial projects for the generation and transmission of energy benefit the entire society and therefore should have priority over the rights of individual property owners. Article 24 of the Constitution also allows the state to expropriate private property for reasons of national interest or public good. Yet…the indigenous law declares that indigenous lands should be protected for “reasons of national interest”…The courts should apply the following criteria to decide: the more recent law has precedence over earlier law, and a special law takes precedence over a general law…the indigenous law took precedence by virtue of being both a special law and the more recent one (Haughney 2006: 128).

Simultaneously, Pinochet’s Counter-Terrorism Act of 1973 provides for the prosecution of illicit acts intended to terrorise the population. The provisions of the Act modify some aspects of criminal procedure, permitting some elements of secrecy in the pre-trial investigation phase, eliminating preventative measures other than pre-trial detention, and increasing sentences (Parra-Jerez 1999: 3; Skjævestad 2006: 49; Haughney 2006: 151; and Stavenhagen 2003). Unfortunately, the activists protesting against the dam have been detained without trial on account of the Act, and thus portrayed as ‘terrorists’ in the media as well. Furthermore, protests and demonstrations have been met with military and police violence, arrests and the deportation of foreigners, as Chilean law stipulates that foreigners may not interfere with internal politics (Haughney 2006: 130; Stavenhagen 2003). After the protests, however, the Pehuenche continually endured harassment in their homes by their neighbours who supported the project and wanted to relocate, and by the military police. The Pehuenche who refused to leave their lands were threatened, blackmailed and terrorised into doing so, and different uses of force were inflicted: physical, economic, and psychological (Haughney 2006: 121).

Although he had personal economic interests in the project, President Frei promoted Ralco in the name of Chile’s national ‘development’. “According to the ENDESA study, the poverty of the indigenous communities is considered evidence of cultural disintegration and even of an inferior culture in the process of yielding to a supposedly modern and `superior’ culture. This characterisation of the Mapuche culture as an `obstacle to progress’ has been echoed by the noted Chilean historian Sergio Villalobos” (Haughney 2006: 112). The assumption of inevitability of their integration into the dominant Chilean culture echoes the nationalistic assimilation policies of the Pinochet era, in which the Mapuche language and other cultural expressions were repressed (Skjævestad 2006: 9). Since the original plans had not even considered their existence in the area, and the relocation plan was only devised after pressure from human rights organisations, it is clear that ENDESA’s objectives, as well as the Chilean state’s, were purely economic. Furthermore, the idea that ENDESA and the state know what is best for the Pehuenche echoes a modernisation and colonisation logic which is now considered an ethnocentric discourse at best, and imperialist domination at worst.

Since 1997, especially the Pehuenche women protested against the Ralco dam, organised under the banner Mapu Domuche Newen (Women with the Strength of the Earth), and headed by the now famous sisters Nicolasa and Berta Quintreman, who formed a protest and claimed they would not leave their lands behind alive. They received several international human rights prizes for their struggle against the dam. This has, in turn, spurred on popular support for their cause in Chile. However, this occurred at a time when construction was nearly completed (Fletcher 2001: 40).

The Pehuenche and other contesters of the projects went to the courts to fight for their rights, but after long trials and delays, the claims were finally overthrown by congress. The protests conducted by the Pehuenche who refused to be relocated, or whom wanted to reverse the permutas because they had signed them without knowing the extent of their contents, were supported by international environmental and human rights groups. During all the protests, legal battles and international outcry, the construction of the dam continued almost relentlessly, albeit a short period when the hearing of the Quintremann sisters made the courts rule a halt to construction, but a higher appeal by ENDESA in congress reversed the process (Haughney 2006).

ENDESA persuaded some of the Pehuenche families to sign the permutas by offering them jobs in the construction of the dam, and alternative land elsewhere, as well as monetary compensation. However, there has been criticism that these measures were not sufficiently executed. ENDESA representatives only offered these packages for a short period of time, letting the Pehuenche believe that they would be relocated either way, by saying that the government had already approved the project, which was not true at the time. Therefore, those that accepted the offers did so under false pretences, and felt pressured to do so (Nixon 2003).

This process led to tensions within the communities, between those choosing to relocate and those protesting against the dam. Eventually, most of the families signed the permutas, and left the remaining eight resisting families in conflict with their neighbours and family members. Thus, the Ralco communities were divided and fragmented during the course of the conflict (Malmborg 1999). Some Pehuenche chose to relocate in order to receive jobs offered in the construction of the dam. Others were adamant never to leave their lands, due to its cultural, spiritual and economic significance. Still others were uncertain, and thought they had no choice, their insecurity motivating them to sign the permutas, without actually knowing its stipulations, nor what their rights actually were or how to defend them (Malmborg 1999).

Environmental activists lamented the loss of an ecosystem, its biodiversity, and the endangered species. Led by the Grupo de Accion del Bío Bío (GABB), a coalition of individuals and organisations protested the construction of the dam, and wanted to protect the ecosystem of the river and the surrounding forests, as the reservoir would create irreversible damage (Aylwin 2002 and Nixon 2003). The Chilean Mapuche movement was brought together for the marches and demonstrations, but thereafter they returned to their respective regions and protests. However, Mapuche “organisations disagreed among themselves over tactics, strategies, and goals. These divisions continued throughout the protest campaign, preventing the Mapuche movement form uniting to demand collective rights and allowing the government to dictate the terms of the conflict” (Haughney 2006: 131). Observers have suggested that ENDESA and the government exploited this phenomenon as a “Divide and Rule” strategy (Malmborg 1999).

Unfortunately, one can only conclude that the Ralco dam was constructed for the economic interests of the powerful elite, and that this process was far from democratic. Not only are those whose lives are most affected the ones that are the most excluded, but it is derived from a one-track development teleology that does not have any consideration for what people on the ground really want and need. The reality of a ‘minority group’ is thus the opposite pole to the reality of a technocratic, powerful elite, and the tensions between these poles result in conflicts such as the one surrounding Ralco in Chile.

This conflict is another example of the way in which global changes have local effects. The neoliberal model often generates negative consequences for small or marginal groups in Latin America. This is why it is important that macro policy is informed by micro reality. How a state treats its ‘minorities’ reveals how democratic that state truly is. Democracy is overridden when pressure, blackmail and corrupt practices force interest groups and institutions – such as CONADI and CONAMA – to adhere to the higher hand (the President and the National government, because their interests were represented by ENDESA).

Land conflicts mainly arise due to a conflict in laws, and in the case of indigenous rights, there is a conflict between the imposed laws of the dominant system and the customary law of the original population. Individual rights can contradict collective rights and vice versa. In the case of Ralco, individual property titles were exploited, which negate collective land titles of the indigenous population. These property titles were thus manipulated by ENDESA so that the Pehuenche could only fight for their collective rights via the legal system. However, the legal system favoured individual titles and did not recognise their customary law, which is based on collective rights. The Chilean legal system was thus foreign to the Pehuenche way of life, and therefore the individual land titles were the legal crux through which ENDESA was able to rob them of their livelihoods.

The livelihood consequences for the Mapuche-Pehuenche when they were relocated from the Ralco valley were not considered by ENDESA in the planning stage, which resulted in the conflict. The environment and their lands were not just of material value to the Pehuenche, it was of cultural and spiritual importance as well. Furthermore, the weaknesses in their five forms of capital and their lack of access allowed ENDESA to manipulate them so that they would agree to relocate. The strategies employed by ENDESA to coerce the Pehuenche to move forced them to be individually strategic instead of recognising their collective way of life. This way of life was by no means strategic, they lived with relatively little interference from the outside world until ENDESA began construction of the dams. They were not prepared to negotiate nor were they aware of their rights when ENDESA came with many empty promises so that they would leave their lands behind. The Pehuenche who signed the agreements did not seem to know that they had any other choice. The Pehuenche lacked access to the five forms of capital when they were induced into Chilean society, which turned them into five dimensions of poverty and dependence after their relocation.

Thus, the Ralco conflict is a classic example of how macro policies produce undesired and negative effects in the micro context, and how the tension between the macro and the micro level is induced by capitalist greed. There was a hegemonic attitude that said “you can’t stop progress”, so that you may as well accept things as they are; for the ‘greater good’. The Mapuche were seen as ‘externalities’ of economic development, as obstructions for development, although this type of large-scale industrial development actually had detrimental effects on their livelihood.

Therefore, the Ralco project decreased the possibility of achieving sustainable development for Chile, as a balance in the three dimensions – social, economic and ecological – were not taken into account in the plans. In the case of Ralco, among many, macro policies favoured the economic benefits over the ecological and social impacts on the micro level, which makes the Ralco dam unsustainable within this three-dimensional framework. Furthermore, considering that the Pehuenche were not consulted before the construction of the dam began, the dam is most likely not conducive to their cultural worldview, if they had been informed of all the negative impacts it would bring to their environment and their livelihood. Thus, the use of energy is a prime example of the gap between macro and micro, between ‘development’ and sustainability, between ‘progress’ and ‘livelihood’.

To achieve the ideal of balance between the three pillars, (economic, social and ecological) (of sustainable development would require a compromise. A compromise in their values, as one may not be more valuable than the other. Therefore, the actors involved must compromise their own interests on the basis of equality with the other parties involved. The present development model itself is unsustainable, and therefore sustainability is not possible in the current system. Sustainability must represent an alternative approach altogether, not one that takes place within the development paradigm.

Energy: At What Cost?

The correlation between climate change and the burning of fossil fuels has been acknowledged widely for decades. The concern about global warming has led to heated debates about the use of fossil fuels to provide energy, and whether there are feasible alternatives. Renewable energy sources, efficiency and nuclear energy are all presented as low-carbon possibilities, yet agreement on their implementation varies and remains contested. The thirst for oil brings about geopolitical, socio-economic and environmental repercussions. Nuclear energy with all its risks cannot possibly be the best alternative. The political will to implement environmentally friendly, sustainable and renewable forms of energy is presently insufficient, despite the IPCC and the Uppsala Protocol. What remains largely uncontested, yet lurks beneath the surface of these debates is the need for energy itself. The claim that the demand for energy will continue to rise with economic growth and population growth therefore seems indisputable. Do we really need so much energy? The current negative effects of energy use in its different forms must force us to reconsider whether it is desirable to use energy at all for the future. If our need were in demise, our main energy problems would accordingly be solved. The socio-economic, geopolitical, health and environmental costs of energy far exceed our need for energy, and it is our need for energy that needs to be curtailed in order to solve our energy problems and ultimately, achieve sustainability for the future.

The war in Iraq is a recurrent example of negative effects that our thirst for oil brings with it. It is the umpteenth war fought in order to secure oil, and this pattern will continue as oil’s scarcity rises. Price volatility and depletion of oil fuel political uncertainty, yet oil itself fuels so many aspects of life and economy, including transportation, airline travel, agriculture, habitat, urban planning, industry which is why its access has had such a high determining factor in world politics for many decades. Not only is war fought to gain access to oil, oil is necessary for war. As fossil fuels are neither politically, nor economically, nor environmentally desirable, nuclear power is presented as a replacement for oil.

As if Chernobyl was not enough warning, nuclear energy is now once again on the table as a recommended alternative to oil as a source of energy, as it is deemed commercially viable, and economically competitive. Not only are such disasters as Chernobyl a warning, it is the epitome of human destruction our species could cause this earth and ourselves. In this case accidental, the same type of energy can be harnessed for purposeful destruction, as we are reminded by Hiroshima. This reminder was present throughout the cold war, and the fear of nuclear warfare caused countless negative effects in the socio-economic and political spheres, throughout the world. In order to look to the future, plan for the future, and involve ‘future generations’ in an ideal of sustainability, we must learn from the past.

Alarmingly, an increasing number of studies conclude that nuclear energy should be an important part of the strategies towards sustainable energy development, which influence policy such as the OECD’s IEA ‘sustainable development vision scenario’. The focus on carbon emission decrease causes the negative environmental impacts of nuclear waste to disappear into a blind spot. The mere fact that nuclear energy is suggested to be a sustainable source of energy clearly negates the multidimensional aspect of sustainability, which considers environmental, social and economic effects. Furthermore, the health risks accompanying nuclear production and radioactive waste are disastrous at worst: infertility, leukaemia, cancers, diseases, native malformations, death etc. The problem with radioactive waste is that it may not actually become a visible problem until centuries into the future. Therefore, the thought of creating more nuclear energy completely disregards future generations, which is an imperative aspect of any discussion concerning sustainable development.

Whether or not we need energy to survive as a human species seems like a moot point, yet it is certainly the magnitude of energy that we ‘need’ that should be questioned. It is argued that energy is one of the basic human needs; however, the majority of energy is employed in the production of mainly luxury goods and services. This luxury is needed due to our concept of comfort. Energy efficiency not only requires technology, but a fair amount of awareness. Awareness that the earth’s resources are finite, and an awareness that we consume much more than we actually need.

Renewable energy sources have been identified for decades, yet their implementation is problematic. First of all, the political will is lacking when it comes to the implementation of solar energy, as PV panels are not economically viable in the short term. When economic considerations are prioritized above environmental considerations, innovation and sustainability are blocked. Furthermore, certain renewables may not be ecologically sound alternatives. Sustainability is therefore not only a question of technological advance and innovation; it is a matter of political will, and transcending ‘Not In My Backyard ' attitudes.

For example, wind energy is a clean, environmentally friendly, renewable and sustainable form of energy, yet for a number of social and economic reasons, actual construction of wind turbines remains very slow. Many people protest the implementation of wind turbines due to their sight and sound, which are predominantly aesthetic and the sound is certainly no more than any urban centre.

Solar PV systems seem to be the most feasible option, despite their initial price, in terms of sustainability as well as implementation. Solar systems are used more and more in development projects, to increase self-sufficiency as well as sustainability, so that using distributed renewable energy resources will foster local independence from world markets, and create economic, social, and political stability.

In agricultural sectors, biofuels can be considered a sustainable option, albeit they are used on a small scale, such as using cattle manure or plant oils that are produced naturally anyway. On a large scale, biofuels are discouraged as an alternative, as it would require a lot of land, significant energy as inputs, and competes with food by diverting land and water resources, and defeats the purpose of environmental sustainability due to soil degradation, biodiversity loss and the fact that it is not carbon-neutral .

Hydro power is also presented as a carbon-neutral alternative, and it is renewable, however it is not an environmentally benign power source. According to new studies, the amount of greenhouse gases generated by hydropower can be greater than the amount of greenhouse gases produced by a fossil fuel power of the same strength, and increases threats such as erosion, landslides, change of sedimentation, loss of fresh water and biodiversity loss, nor is it socially benign! The implementation of dams has led to the displacement of millions of marginalized and indigenous populations worldwide, such as the Three Gorges Dam in China, The Narmada Dam in India, etc.

Therefore, renewable energies (wind, sun, water, biomass) are harmless to air pollution but face severe limits of feasibility for the world-scale development. True alternative energy sources are often unnoticed and certainly not recognized as plausible solutions to global energy problems. This is due to their small scale and locally-based character. Yet it is precise these two characteristics that make them sustainable, as transport is eliminated and self-sufficiency, and thus independence is increased. The smaller the scale, the greater the energy efficiency can be. Self-sufficiency also implies a limitation to energy use levels, so that they fulfil basic human needs but do not exceed sustainable levels for luxury items and superfluous behaviour.

The possibility of using clean, sustainable and environmentally friendly forms of renewable energy has been around for decades, if not centuries. Yet, the political will to resort to locally-based solutions seems to be lacking. Is it because they do not contribute to the national or global economy? Large-scale schemes are often the solution, (such as the quest for oil, hydro-electric dams etc.) as this contributes to industry, trade and political power, or is it just a matter of economics?

As with most sustainability issues, the interrelation between economics and politics forms the main stumbling block to achieving sustainable energy use. The economic dimension is prioritized above the social and environmental dimensions when energy policy is made, albeit a few exceptions.

The environmental and social costs are at present not included in the pricing of fuel or electricity. These costs are often referred to as ‘externalities’, yet have been known for decades, leading me to wonder when these costs will be internalized in energy policies. Inevitably, the negative social and environmental consequences of our energy use far outweigh any economic cost we may impose on energy sources. Therefore, putting a monetary price tag on the earth and on our survival cannot possibly answer to our ethics as a human species. Being confronted with our own behaviour is one of the hardest tasks we have as a species, yet it is not impossible. The ability to see the consequences of our own actions does not require superhuman abilities; it is rather the prerequisite for our survival and that of the planet. War is the most extreme cost that our ‘need’ for energy can bring. Not only is it traumatic for those directly involved, it threatens our global political security and is disastrous for both the local and the regional socio-economic and environmental stability.

Politics are a human creation, as are economics and energy production and use. These inventions have led to large scale changes in the ecology of this planet, and therefore the welfare of our species as well as every other species. Let us not forget that we have the ability to reinvent our social reality if we choose, which will in turn affect our planet, our natural habitat.

A reduction in the world’s population will not necessarily lead to an improvement in the global environment. The world needs to behave sustainably before the numbers can make a difference. If the world is overpopulated with overconsuming capitalists who do not consider the future of their grandchildren, then overpopulation is indeed a problem. Even if the numbers of these people were to decrease, we would still exceed the so-called ‘carrying capacity’. However, if the world was to have the same population, but of people living according to the sustainability concept, overpopulation would no longer be a problem for the environment.

Instead of reducing emissions by using less fossil fuels, the wealthy elite are seeking to replace oil and coal as energy sources with other risky sources such as nuclear power. Furthermore, over-consumption is apparently easy for people to signal as an environmental problem, but for the majority it remains extremely difficult to consequently act accordingly. It is confronting to realize that the only way to make a true difference in the world is if we change our own behaviour, for this has consequences for the environment as well as the poor and oppressed populations worldwide. The importance of environmentally friendly, renewable and sustainable energy use is recognized globally, yet reducing automobile usage or other forms of energy consumption has not been addressed effectively to date. Actions are often only undertaken if there is an economic gain or possibility. This is typical of the economic analysis, using the cost/benefit relationship, wherein social and environmental consequences are not considered.

To achieve the ideal of balance between the three pillars of sustainable development (economic, ecological, social), would require a compromise. A compromise in their values, as one may not be more valuable than the other. Therefore, the actors involved must compromise their own interests on the basis of equality with the other parties involved. In line with Wolfgang Sachs, among others, the present development model itself is unsustainable, and therefore sustainability is not possible in the current system. Sustainability must represent an alternative approach altogether, not one that takes place within the development paradigm.