The Ríos Vivos Movement[1] rejects the Pöyry company’s expert report as biased and enabling of the strategy for continuing the business that is Hidroituango[2].
In response to the flooding caused by the Hidroituango dam in 2018 in the Cauca river canyon in Antioquia, Colombia, the National Environmental Permitting Authority (ANLA) preventively suspended “all regular activities related to the constructing, filling, and operating phase of the reservoir […] that are not required to attend to the contingency…”[3].
ANLA also ordered an objective and independent expert report regarding the conditions of the project’s stability, in order to have scientific certainty about the risk associated with the integrity of the infrastructure, which could cause serious flooding.
The Pöyry Company submitted a report,[4] the Ríos Vivos Movement expresses the following concerns and denunciations in response:
It is by the industry, for the industry, aimed at ensuring business continuity: Pöyry is recognized internationally as being part of the industry. Throughout its history of several decades, it has participated in and continues to maintain investments in numerous timber and energy projects.
The document justifies the dam’s construction and start of operations despite the risks to communities and territories. At the same time, it discards the possibility of dismantling the project and restoring the site to its original state without any consideration.
It is well known that Pöyry favors the hydroelectric project’s continuation and seeks to influence ANLA in favor of this alternative despite the evidence of the imminent and permanent risks to the lives of thousands of people of both present and future generations, as well as risks of irreparable damage to nature.
It relies on a single source of information, which is incomplete and biased: The report is based exclusively on information from EPM and its allies, as well as insufficient visits[5].
Without listening to the affected communities and instead claiming an ostensible scientific objectivity, the Pöyry company deepens the violence that has accompanied the development of this project. This demonstrates a lack of legitimacy and rigor, as it ignores the findings and reasoning of communities, organizations, oversight entities, and independent experts regarding the problems caused by the project, those responsible, the damage to the population and the environment, and the risks arising from the dam’s operation.
An absence of scientific rigor: The Pöyry document contains technical gaps that are unacceptable for evaluating the true upstream and downstream risks of a “mega dam”, underestimating the danger that the project’s continuation represents for communities and the environment. Although the Pöyry company recognizes the inconsistencies and insufficient information provided in its report, it did not look into, compare, or analyze other sources of technical information.
The report lacks a comprehensive approach, as its analysis is focused on an engineering perspective, without considering other disciplines of modern science or community knowledge about the territory. It disregards the need to address the issues at hand from a cross-disciplinary perspective, as well as the needed dialogue of knowledge. We are not merely victims; we have the right to be heard.
The report fails to record, describe, analyze, and evaluate of the geotechnical processes as problems that affect Hidroituango with technical, scientific rigor, despite the magnitude of the phenomena that are identified. This is demonstrated, for example, by the laxity with which the large-scale cavities that were found were measured, [with the report] indicating that they could be between 70-90 meters high and 45-50 meters in diameter and estimating their volume to be approximately 65,000 m³.
In its evaluation, Pöyry commits a serious methodological error by using terms such as “conceptually adequate” when referring to the measures proposed by EPM. Despite the fact that the resolution that ordered the creation of this report required accuracy, the consultant irregularly forestalls its endorsement on the basis of mere ideas for solutions while remaining silent about their flaws.
Even though the Pöyry report deduces the increase in the magnitude and quantity of the identified phenomena compared with previous years, it takes for granted the suitability of measures to address structural problems related to the “disturbance, decompression and collapse” of the rock mass. Clearly, the irreversible nature of the collapse should have been a starting point for the expert report.
The uncertainty about the shape and collapsed volume of the rock mass, as well as the measures that the owners of the project suggest implementing to attend to this situation, merit a scientific assessment that is absent from the reasoning presented by the Pöyry company.
It is clear that there is an extreme discursive imbalance between the two main options under consideration: the suspension or the continuation of the project. Although the report flags both of these alternatives, it is particularly noteworthy that, of this extensive document’s 427 pages, only one (1) page is dedicated to mentioning and discarding the first scenario. The arguments for doing so lack rigor and ignore the processes of dismantling dams that have already been carried out in other parts of the world.
Particularly concerning is that, in evaluating the problems, the report presents them as unconnected phenomena. Given that this is a case of a complex project with massive social, cultural, and environmental impacts, it is outrageous that the expert report lacks a comprehensive view.
The underestimation of the magnitude and permanence of the risks to the population and the environment: The report addresses social and environmental issues in a brief and extremely restricted way. Although the report recognizes that this is an ongoing, unique, and complex situation, its conclusions would result in a future where communities are forced to live with perpetual risk. Further, it omits the fact that communities have suffered from uncertainty about their lives since the beginning of the project.
The methodology of this expert assessment disregards the systemic nature of the risk. Based on this study and its recommendations, it is not possible to arrive at a clear understanding of the complexity of the current and future situation or of the expected and unexpected effects on the territory. The very notion and proposal of “risk” is reductionist and reactive. Despite ANLA’s requirement, the report limits its recommendation about affected communities to an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) and most notably extends the vulnerability of the project to some areas that border the Caribbean plains. In other words, the population is not considered when it comes to adopting effective preventive measures, such as the elimination of the main source of the danger; rather, they are merely treated as a statistic for the purpose of preparing alerts about more victims being exposed to the project in another extensive territory.
The report endorses costly experimentation: The report reveals that the Hidroituango project experiments with methods at high social, environmental, and economic costs, outside of democratic control and without the consent of the population. This conclusion can be drawn from excerpts such as the following:
“While the original project had a spillway and conduits for turbine water in combination, which had a significant discharge capacity and the possibility of lowering the level of the reservoir, this is no longer the case”.[6]
“The design of the constructed dam is unique and it is the result of the contingency in 2018. The safety of the dam is questionable, especially during unusual and extreme events (for example, earthquakes) and in the long term”.[7]
“This design is unique in the world, especially for such a tall dam. The cement-bentonite wall is the dam’s weakness and requires special attention.”[8]
“In addition, it is assumed that the in-situ geometry of the diaphragm wall differs from the geometry as designed. Panel deviations are documented, as well as the activities to rescue lost clams”.[9]
The cost overruns generated by the activities carried out go beyond the fiscal and technical control that this project merits. This is clear from the way in which the construction company addresses the recurrent and costly supervening situations that were not originally contemplated, such as through affirmations like the following: “In the initial construction phase of the cutoff wall, the grout consumption factor was nearly 4, which means that 300% of the volume of the first panels disappeared in the body of the dam. Thereafter, the overconsumption factor dropped to 1.71 (according to Integral’s response to site visit report no 11), which means that the design volume was exceeded by 71%. Due to these problems that were encountered, it must be assumed that the in-situ geometry of the cutoff wall differs considerably from its design.”[10]
The Hidroituango project is of no use to the public, due to the social and environmental damage it causes. Nor is it feasible in engineering and financial terms. Current and future harms are irreparable and permanent. Maintaining the project would mean acknowledging and accepting the profitability of this danger.
Instilling fear to prevent democratic control: After describing various findings, the Pöyry report reaffirms the existence of project-related risks to the population and to the environment, which have been denounced by our organization and by independent experts since the project’s inception.
Even though it confirms the certainty of the risk, the consultant rules out certain solutions and proposes others that, contrary to its mandate of providing certainty, introduce greater uncertainties. At the same time, it surprisingly calls for disregarding the law and basic elements of any democratic society by indicating that: “Consequently, all possible measures must be taken to be able to start operating the units as soon as possible. In this respect, it is vital and indispensable to avoid any circumstance (legal, contractual, fiscal or constructive) that slows or inhibits the progress of work on the powerhouse, as well as on the related pipelines”[11] (emphasis added).
The report completed by Pöyry, as a result of the ANLA order in 2018 regarding the completion of an objective, clear, and independent expert assessment, does not fulfill the technical, ethical, or legal conditions for decision-making about the future of the Hidroituango project.
Creating danger and spreading fear to win power has been a constant dynamic throughout the imposition of the Hidroituango project. From its beginning, our Movement has denounced the irresponsible acts, rights violations, and serious problems related to the construction of this megaproject, which leaves in its wake enormous and irreparable damage to society and nature. We have warned about the dangers that the continuation and operation of the dam would entail for the population. We have denounced how tragedies are also part of the business. Fear is generated and wielded to dispossess and, as in this case, to impose a reordering of the territories for the sake of economic interests.
In view of the foregoing:
- We reject the use of the Pöyry report as a basis for lifting the preventive suspension measures for the construction and operation of Hidroituango.
- We demand:
- That ANLA contract an independent, objective, and impartial technical/scientific expert opinion that includes, with scientific rigor and the necessary dialogue of knowledge, the option of suspending and dismantling the project. Such a contract must be preceded by the transparent selection of a truly objective and independent interdisciplinary team that includes the participation of the communities up and downstream of the dam.
-
- That those who are called upon to endorse the conclusions of the Pöyry company’s report adopt their positions ethically and responsibly. Creating tragedy and benefitting from it is corruption. Endorsing it is even more so.
-
- That the Colombian State, including the president and the relevant national, departmental, and municipal entities, assume its responsibilities and attend to the situation of risk facing the population urgently, comprehensively, adequately, and with the participation of communities.
-
- That the entities charged with corruption control and prevention be attentive and act promptly as relates to possible misappropriation and loss of public assets related to the construction and operation of Hidroituango.
-
- That all entities refrain from gambling with the lives of communities, as they are doing at present, and that they urgently convene a public panel in which the Pöyry company openly debates the arguments laid out in its report with communities.
We ask society as a whole not to leave us alone in this difficult situation in which we as communities currently find ourselves.
[1] The Ríos Vivos Movement is a second level Colombian organization that brings together seventeen (17) organizations of fisher-people, artisanal miners, farmers, women, campesinos, and youth from the municipalities of the Hidroituango hydroelectric megaproject’s area of influence. These organizations undertake to care for and protect territories and sources of water through local community work, in search of environmental, climate, ecological, water, and food justice in the sub-regions of Northern, Western, and Lower Cauca in Antioquia. Its members work to defend their communities and their territories, which have been affected by the construction of this megaproject since the year 2008.
[2] Hidroituango is the largest hydroelectric megaproject being built in Colombia. It aspires to have an installed capacity of 2,400 mw. Its main sites are located in the municipality of Briceño and include the powerhouse and the spillway. Its construction began in the year 2009, directly affecting 26,000 hectares and indirectly affecting more than 100,000 hectares, with its 225-meter-high wall and damming of the river for 79 kilometers. Its construction gave rise to and exacerbated multiple risk factors and threats for the inhabitants of the territory that have resulted in humanitarian, economic, socio-cultural, environmental, geographic, and demographic crises.
[3] Resolution 0820 dated 1 June 2018 “By which a preventive measure is imposed and other determinations adopted” in relation to the Hidroituango project.
[4] Final report about the Ituango Hydroelectric Plant (REF 1520000083-011B) submitted 29 December 2021.
[5] On page 7, the report states: “The report is based on information provided to Pöyry by EPM or by other companies on behalf of EPM. Pöyry has not verified the correctness or accuracy of this information and makes no representations regarding its correctness or accuracy”.
[6]Page 106 of the Pöyry report.
[7] Page 16 of the Pöyry report.
[8] Page 98 of the Pöyry report.
[9] Page 61 of the Pöyry report.
[10] Page 61 of the Pöyry report
[11]Page 74 of the Pöyry report.