Damming

 the  Rainforest:  
The  Social  and  Environmental  Costs  of  
Hydropower  in  the  Amazon

Justin  Calles
Anthropology  11SC
11  October  2010  
ABSTRACT

  Recent  large-­‐scale  dam  proposals  in  the  Amazon  rainforest  prompt  analysis  of  how  tropical  

dams  affect  the  environment  and  rainforest  societies.    In  addition  to  being  massively  expensive,  

dams  unleash  a  plethora  of  environmental  problems,  including  unexpectedly  high  amounts  of  

greenhouse  gas  emissions.    They  also  have  histories  of  disturbing  indigenous  societies  and  severely  

harming  non-­‐indigenous  peasant  communities  in  ways  that  only  exacerbate  deforestation.    Seeing  

hydropower  in  the  tropics  as  a  “green”  source  of  energy  must  be  stopped  in  order  to  halt  

hydropower’s  destructive  progress.

INTRODUCTION

  Dams  that  have  been  operating  for  decades—including  the  Tucuruí  Dam  and  Curuá-­‐Una  

Dam,  which  this  paper  will  focus  on—  provide  a  trove  of  information  about  how  dams  operate  in  a  

tropical  rainforest  environment.    Hydroelectric  dams  require  the  Olooding  of  the  river  upstream  

from  the  dam,  creating  a  reservoir  that  destroys  habitats,  displaces  communities,  creates  

counterproductive  silt  build-­‐up,  disrupts  Oish  migration,  

and  threatens  indigenous  reservations  (La  Rovere  2000:  

50-­‐51,  113-­‐120).    Considerable  local  environmental  

degradation  also  comes  from  pollutants  released  during  

the  construction  process.    Increased  settling  to  the  dam  

area  after  construction  leads  to  deforestation  and  

increased  pressure  on  neighboring  indigenous  reserves.

  The  less  obvious  but  possibly  more  potently  

devastating  environmental  consequence  of  rainforest  

dams  is  the  large  amount  of  methane  they  are  capable  of  

emitting  into  the  atmosphere.    Decomposing  organic  

matter  within  a  rainforest  dam’s  reservoir  produces  

methane,  and  releases  into  the  atmosphere  through  

bubbling,  diffusion,  turbine  and  spillway  emissions,  and   Fig.  1.  The  Tambopata  River,  relatively  close  to  the  
location  of  the  proposed  Inambari  Dam  (D.  Schwartz).

1
from  the  river  downstream  (Fearnside  2005:  675;  Guérin  2006:  1).    Because  of  the  tendency  of  

rainforest  reservoirs  to  have  large  drawdown  zones,  they  are  capable  of  perpetually  producing  and  

emitting  methane.    Furthermore,  considering  the  carbon  dioxide  equivalents  of  these  methane  

emissions,  studies  have  revealed  that  Amazonian  dams  emit  more  greenhouse  gases  than  would  

have  been  emitted  from  similarly  productive  burning  of  fossil  fuels  (Fearnside  2005:  686).    

BACKGROUND

  Proposals  for  new  hydroelectric  dams  in  the  Amazon  Basin  has  experienced  a  considerable  

resurgence  in  the  past  decade,  due  mostly  to  Brazil’s  growing  demand  for  energy,  which  has  called  

for  the  planning  of  new  multi-­‐billion-­‐dollar  projects  that  can  provide  many  thousands  of  megawatts  

of  power.    This  echoes  the  hydroelectricity  boom  from  1969  to  1979,  when  hydroelectric  output  

tripled,  helping  bring  hydroelectricity  to  the  point  of  producing  84%  of  Brazil’s  electricity  by  2007  

(Barrow  1988:  67;  World  Nuclear  Assn.  2010).    The  proposed  2000  megawatt  (MW)  Inambari  Dam  

is  one  such  example.    Estimated  to  cost  US$4  billion,  the  Inambari  Dam  would  be  located  in  the  

buffer  zone  of  Peru’s  Bahuaja-­‐Sonene  National  Park  and  would  be  built  primarily  to  power  far-­‐away  

Brazilian  urban  centers.    It  would  also  Olood  400  square  kilometers—including  the  village  of  

Inambari  at  the  conOluence  of  Rio  Madre  de  Dios  and  Rio  Inambari  as  well  a  portion  of  the  newly  

built  Inter-­‐Oceanic  Highway—and  it  would  displace  over  3,200  locals  (Barrera-­‐Hernández  2009).    

  Similar  projects  in  varying  degrees  of  size,  governmental  approval,  and  construction  

progress  exist  throughout  the  Amazon  region,  most  notably  including  the  recently  approved  Belo  

Monte  Dam  on  Brazil’s  Xingu  River  and  the  Rio  Madiera  hydroelectric  complex  at  the  border  of  

Brazil,  Peru,  and  Bolivia.    Hydroelectric  dams  such  as  these  are  touted  as  “non-­‐polluting”  sources  of  

electricity  that  can  provide  much-­‐needed  employment  and  infrastructure  for  sparsely  inhabited  

regions  (Giles  2006:  524;  Fearnside  1999:  492).    It  is  easy  for  a  citizen  of  the  developed  North,  

inOluenced  by  romantic  notions  of  the  ingenuity  and  efOiciency  of  Hoover  Dam  and  the  Tennessee  

Valley  Authority,    to  see  hydroelectric  dams  in  the  Amazon  as  approaches  to  producing  energy  that  

are  both  conservation-­‐minded  and  economically  stimulating.    Two  decades  of  evidence,  however,  

points  in  the  opposite  direction.    Not  only  have  hydroelectric  projects  in  Amazon  provided  only  

2
minimal  employment  relative  to  their  massive  costs,  the  various  environmental  costs  of  rainforest  

dams  dispel  any  idea  that  they  are  “non-­‐polluting.”    Furthermore,  indigenous  groups  suffer  directly  

and  indirectly  from  the  introduction  of  dams  near  their  lands.

HYPOTHESES

  Using  established  case  studies  of  existing  Amazonian  dams  of  varying  size  and  age,  this  

paper  will  provide  evidence  for  the  environmental  and  ecological  destruction,  methane  emissions,  

and  detrimental  effects  to  Amazonian  communities  caused  by  dams.    The  goal  of  this  case  study  

synthesis  is  to  reverse  any  misconceptions  about  the  effect  tropical  rain  forest  dams  have  on  their  

local  environment  and  on  global  greenhouse  gas  emissions.  This  paper’s  primary  hypotheses  about  

Amazonian  dams  are  as  follows:

1. River  disruption  and  Olooding  in  the  Amazon  caused  by  the  construction  of  dams  and  Oilling  

of  reservoirs  have  endangered  local  ecosystems;

2. Dam  projects  fail  to  help  their  surrounding  regions  socially  or  economically  because  they  

involve  the  costly  relocation  of  communities  and  don’t  themselves  provide  enough  

employment  to  make  a  considerable  local  impact  from  a  development  perspective;

3. Dam  projects  jeopardize  or  directly  Olood  indigenous  reserves,  irreversibly  endangering  

indigenous  peoples’  livelihoods,  cultures,  and  chances  for  survival;

4. The  carbon  dioxide  and  methane  released  from  hydropower  projects  produce  more  potent  

greenhouse  gas  effects  than  from  burning  fossil  fuels.

METHODS

  As  mentioned,  this  paper  will  primarily  use  case  study  Oinding  from  the  Tucurí  Dam  on  the  

Tocantins  River  in  eastern  part  of  the  Amazonian  state  of  Pará,  Brazil  and  the  Curuá-­‐Una  Dam  on  the  

Curuá-­‐Una  River  in  western  Pará,  Brazil.    Tucuruí  Dam  opened  in  1984  and  Curuá-­‐Una  was  

completed  in  1977,  so  the  dams  have  been  operating  long  enough  for  data  to  be  collected.    Their  

built  capacities  and  reservoir  sizes  differ  considerably,  allowing  for  more  variety  of  research  

Oindings:  Tucuri  has  a  3,960  MW  installed  capacity  with  a  2,430  km2  reservoir  surface  area  and  

Curuá-­‐Una  has  a  64  MW  installed  capacity  with  a  65  km2  reservoir  reservoir  surface  area.    Other  

3
dams  will  be  brieOly  considered  for  comparison,  including  the  Petit  Saut  Dam  in  French  Guiana  and  

Balbina  and  Samuel  Dams  in  Brazil.      

  The  Tucuruí  case  studies  will  provide  information  about  local  environmental  concerns  as  

well  as  the  effect  the  dam  project  had  on  indigenous  and  non-­‐indigenous  communities.    Studies  on  

Curuá-­‐Una  will  allow  for  a  more  detailed  explanation  of  methane  and  carbon  dioxide  emissions  

from  Amazonian  dams  which  can  be  extrapolated  to  larger  dams  like  Tucuruí  and  future  dam  

projects  throughout  the  tropical  rainforest.

  Finally,  these  Oindings  will  provide  a  basis  for  assessing  how  proposed  future  Amazonian  

dam  projects  may  affect  the  environment  and  human  populations.    This  paper  will  conclude  with  

recommendations  for  assessing  future  projects  and  will  attempt  to  suggest  alternatives  to  

hydropower  in  the  Amazon.

Fig.  2.  Map  of  Tucuruí  and  Curuá-­Una  Dams  (Google  Maps).
FINDINGS

Environmental  impacts  (Tucuruí  Dam)

  Although  Tucuruí  Dam  is  not  located  in  a  biological  “hotspot”  such  as  that  of  the  transitional  

elevation  rainforest  regions  of  southeast  Peru,  it  is  still  within  the  humid  Amazon  rain  forest,  

4
 allowing  the  region  to  support  incredible  amounts  of  biodiversity.    Prior  to  Olooding,  the  region  

contained  particularly  rich  populations  of  Brazil  Nut  trees  and  lianas  (Barrow  1988:  73).    

Unfortunately,  because  of  inadequate  assessments  of  the  Olora  and  fauna  prior  to  the  construction  of  

dam,  due  to  both  the  sheer  volume  to  species  to  catalog  and  to  insufOicient  resources  allocated  for  

such  assessment,  the  full  effect  of  wildlife  loss  will  remain  unknown.    How  manatees,  river  dolphins,  

Amazon  dolphins,  turtles,  and  caimans  have  fared  within  the  river  will  remain  undocumented,  but  

there  is  little  doubt  that    their  populations  will  suffer  with  altered  breeding  habitats,  stunted  

migratory  routes,  and  higher  hydrogen  sulphide  content  in  water  containing  decomposing  organic  

matter  (Barrow  1988:  73).

  As  is  typical  with  large  tropical  rain  

forest  dams,  the  area  upstream  from  Tucuruí  

Dam’s  reservoir  was  far  from  being  fully  

deforested  prior  to  inundation  easier.    In  the  case  

of  Tucuruí,  some  chemical  defoliants  (350  drums  

of  PCP)  were  used  to  clear  vegetation,  some  of  

which  leaked  into  the  environment,  leading  to  

Fig.  3.  Tucuruí,  before  and  after  (NASA/International  Rivers).   reported  human  and  livestock  deaths  (Barrow  

1998:  70).    Furthermore,  this  is  considerable  risk  

chemical  environmental  pollution  from  nearby  

aluminum  plants  that  Tucuruí  directly  powers  

(building  dams  to  help  power  destructive  mining  

activities  is  common  in  the  Brazilian  Amazon).    

Finally,  an  especially  potent  form  of  

environmental  destruction  comes  from  increased  

Fig.  4.  Deforestation  observed  from  above  (D.  Schwartz).  
settlement  that  is  encouraged  around  the  

Tucuruí  reservoir  area.    Figure  3  illustrates  the  deforestation  that  occurred  within  the  ten  years  

after  starting  construction  of  the  dam;  the  red  on  the  left  image  indicates  intact  forest,  the  green  and  

5
parallel  lines  on  the  right  signify  deforestation  patterns.      Deforestation  caused  by  increased  human  

pressure  unsurprisingly  causes  loss  of  habitat  and  increased  erosion  (see  Oigure  4  for  deforestation  

observed  close-­‐up)  (La  Rovere  2000:  50).  

Indigenous  and  non-­indigenous  communities  (Tucuruí  Dam)

  The  Parakanã  are  the  primary  indigenous  group  to  focus  on  when  assessing  how  Tucuruí  

has  affected  indigenous  populations.    The  Tucuruí  reservoir  Olooded  38,700  hectares  of  Parakanã  

land,  so  Brazil’s  Indian  agency,  FUNAI,  was  contracted  to  aid  in  the  resettlement  process.    The  strain  

of  persistent  and  inadequate  resettlement  eventually  caused  parts  of  the  group  to  split  up,  causing  a  

breakdown  of  long-­‐standing  social  relationships.    After  years  of  poorly  orchestrated  resettlement,  

the  Parakanã  protested  for  more  services  and  eventually  received  from  more  aid  from  FUNAI  for  

community  development,  which  included  schooling  and  health  centers  (La  Rovere  2000:  xvi).    

Although  FUNAI’s  aid  program  failed  to  involve  the  Parakanã  themselves  in  the  decision-­‐making  

process  and  used  an  aid  model  based  more  on  assimilation  than  cultural  preservation,  FUNAI’s  aid  

helped  increase  the  size  and  health  of  the  Parakanã.    

  Still,  community  development  aid  came  only  to  the  Parakanã  after  they  threatened  to  block  

the  Trans-­‐Amazonian  Highway  and  blow  bridges.    Protest  by  indigenous  groups  is  among  the  Oirst  

reactions  to  dam  proposals;  it  was,  after  all,  to  protest  Amazonian  dams  that  anthropologist  Darrell  

Posey  famously  brought  Payakan  of  the  Kayapó  to  Florida.    After  a  gathering  in  Altamira  in  1989,  

building  of  Amazonian  dams  became  an  issue  of  both  environmental  concern  and  international  

human  rights  (Forline  2010:  29).

  Outside  of  indigenous  land,  the  Tucuri  

Dam  caused  170  km  of  federal  highway,  ten  

schools,  and  thirteen  villages  to  be  submerged  

(La  Rovene  2000:  79).    An  estimated  35,000  

people  were  estimated  to  have  been  displaced,  

whose  problems  were  exacerbated  by  the  rural  

settlement  to  the  region,  which  increased  by   Fig.  5.  Road-­building;  often  accompanies  dams  (J.  Calles).  

6
400%  after  the  reservoir  Oilled  and  was  encouraged  by  newly  built  highways  (see  Oigure  5  )  (La  

Rovene  2000:  79).    According  the  World  Commission  on  Dams  case  study  of  Tucuruí,  he  vastly  

underestimated  relocation  efforts  unexpectedly  resulted  in  resettlement  in  inadequate  areas,  high  

rates  of  land  abandonment,  breakdown  of  social  and  economic  organization  (La  Rovene  2000:  

129-­‐30).    Finally,  the  longer-­‐term  jobs  created  by  construction  of  the  dam  (mostly  in  the  associated  

aluminum  plants)  number  no  more  than  a  few  thousand;  with  the  Oinal  cost  of  the  dam  at  US$8  

billion,  each  job  created  is  estimated  to  have  cost  the  Brazilian  government  US$2.4  million  

(Fearnside  1999:  492).

Greenhouse  gas  emissions  (Curuá-­Una  Dam)

  Because  of  the  tendency  of  Amazonian  and  other  

tropical  rivers  to  Olood  annually  in  accordance  with  dry  and  

wet  seasons,  tropical  dam  reservoirs  have  large  drawdown  

zones  relative  to  non-­‐tropical  dam  reservoirs.    The  

drawdown  zone  is  the  area  around  a  reservoir  that  is  

exposed  during  the  dry,  low-­‐water  season  and  underwater  

during  the  wet,  higher-­‐water  season  (see  Oigure  6).    Curuá-­‐

Una  dam  has  a  drawdown  zone  that  is  48%  the  size  of  the  

total  surface  area  of  the  reservoir—this  large  drawdown  

zone  size  is  typical  of  reservoirs  for  large  Amazonian  dams  

producing  10  MW  or  more  (Fearnside  2005:  679-­‐81).    

Fig.  6.  Annually  variable  river  depths  such  as  
shown  here  contribute  to  relatively  large  
Tucuruí,  for  example,  has  a  drawdown  zone  64%  the  size  of  
drawdown  zones  (J.  Calles).  
total  reservoir  area,  and  the  percentages  for  Balbina  and  

Samuel  dams  are  51%  and  66%,  respectively  (Fearnside  2005:  680).    The  drawdown  zone  mudOlats  

studied  at  Curuá-­‐Una  grew  considerable  amounts  of  soft  vegetation  in  the  low-­‐water  season  that  

later  became  submerged  in  the  high-­‐water  season.    The  decay  of  these  macrophytes  decay  in  the  

anaerobic  Olood  conditions  releases  methane,  wahich  builds  up  within  the  reservoir  until  it  released  

into  the  atmosphere  by  bubbling,  diffusion,  turbines,  spillways,  and  downstream  turbulence,  the  last  

7
   Table  1.  CO2-­equivalent  methane  emissions  from  Curuá-­Una  Dam  in  1990  (Fearnside  2005:  686).  

three  methods  releasing  the  vast  majority  of  the  methane  (Farrèr  2007:  6-­‐8).    Because  the  

reservoirs  constantly  Olood  and  re-­‐Olood,  the  methane  production  could  continue  indeOinitely.

  Methane  is  an  especially  undesirable  emission  because  it  is  21  times  more  potent  than  

carbon  dioxide,  giving  it  7.6  times  more  impact  on  global  warming  than  carbon  dioxide(Fearnside  

2005:  681).    When  the  methane  emissions  measured  13  years  after  the  Oilling  of  the  Curuá-­‐Una  

reservoir  are  converted  to  equivalent  carbon  dioxide  emissions,  it  becomes  clear  that  the  net  carbon  

emissions  from  Curuá-­‐Una  actually  exceed  what  would  have  been  released  if  the  same  amount  of  

energy  produced  at  Curuá-­‐Una  during  that  time  was  produced  with  the  burning  of  fossil  fuels.    

Table  1  lists  these  carbon-­‐equivalent  emissions,  adds  carbon  emissions  from  aerobic  decay  of  forest  

biomass  (such  as  from  trees  left  to  decay  above  the  reservoir’s  water  line),  and  takes  into  account  

ecosystem  Oluxes.    Whereas  burning  fossil  fuels  would  have  emitted  about  40,000  tonnes  CO2-­‐

equivalent  carbon,  the  dam  produced  about  140,000  tonnes.    Fearnside’s  analysis  concludes  that  3.6  

times  more  carbon  was  released  from  Curuá-­‐Una  than  would  have  been  released  from  fossil  fuels;  

8
 he  estimates  that  in  the  same  year  Tucuruí  emitted  1.8–2.6  times,  Balbina  emitted  11.6  times,  and  

Samuel  emitted  22.6  times  what  would  have  been  emitted  from  fossil  fuels  (Fearnside  2005:  687).    

  Similar  effects  have  been  observed  at  other  tropical  reservoirs  from  separate  research,  

though  there  is  variation  in  how  much  methane  is  released  due  to  the  uncertain  nature  of  

measuring  methane  release  (Guérin  2006:  5-­‐6).    One  thing  remains  certain,  however:  at  Amazonian  

dams  of  varying  size,  age,  and  location,  methane  emission  is  a  potent  yet  overlooked  constant  factor.

CONCLUSIONS

  These  case  studies  make  it  clear  that  

hydroelectric  dams  in  the  Amazon  rain  forest  are  

destructive  to  the  forest,  the  human  societies  living  

around  the  dam  and  reservoir,  and  to  the  global  climate  

situation  from  the  dams’  devastating  greenhouse  gas  

emissions.    From  a  conservation  perspective,  the  loss  of  

Olora  and  fauna  from  large  dam  projects  threaten  

biodiversity  and  the  greenhouse  gas  emissions  are  

inexcusable  (see  Oigure  7).    From  a  development  

perspective,  indigenous  communities  have  to  Oight  to  

receive  adequate  aid,  and  even  that  aid  is  aimed  at  

Fig.  7.  Forests  surrounding  this  one  are  under   assimilation  rather  than  cultural  preservation.    Perhaps  
threat  by  Peruvian  dam  proposals  (J.  Calles).  
the  increased  pressure  the  international  community  has  

placed  on  Brazil  in  the  past  two  decades  for  protecting  indigenous  lands  has  put  indigenous  groups  

in  slightly  better  position  to  survive  after  a  dam  project.    They  may  not  fare  as  poorly  as  

hypothesized,  but  increased  assimilative  forces  will  fundamentally  alter  indigenous  communities.  

Greater  social  and  economic  devastation  seems  to  afOlict  non-­‐indigenous  peasant  communities  who  

do  not  get  the  degree  of  federal  protection  and  aid  as  indigenous  groups  do.    Large  dam  projects  

displace  tens  of  thousands  of  people  and  attract  rural  settlement,  exacerbating  deforestation  as  well  

9
as  social  unrest.    Finally,  the  sheer  cost  of  the  dams  compared  to  the  relatively  few  jobs  they  produce  

render  them  poor  development  projects.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  What  the  developed  world  must  first  do  is  fervently  resist  the  greenwashing  of  hydropower  in  

tropical  areas.    Prior  evidence  makes  it  painfully  clear  that  hydroelectric  dams  in  the  Amazon  help  

neither  conservation  efforts  nor  efforts  for  development,  “sustainable”  or  otherwise.    A  bad  public  image  

of  Amazonian  hydropower  could  discourage  investment  and,  if  strong  enough,  affect  governmental  

policies  in  Brazil,  Peru,  and  other  Amazonian  nations.    It  is  too  late  to  stop  the  construction  of  Belo  Monte  

Dam,  but  enough  forces  against  future  dams  may  halt  plans  for  constructing  the  Rio  Madiera  complex  

and  the  Inambari  Dam  in  Peru,  located  near  one  of  the  world’s  greatest  hotspots  of  biodiversity.    And  for  

existing  dams  and  those  slated  for  construction,  community  development  efforts  for  indigenous  

communities  must  not  be  overlooked.    In  order  for  them  to  succeed,  they  must  involve  the  indigenous  

communities  directly  in  the  decision-­‐making  process  and  must  not  assume  that  assimilative  practices  

are  the  best  option  for  the  groups.    Governments  will  have  to  put  considerable  resources  into  making  

relocation  as  smooth  as  possible  for  non-­‐indigenous  communities  as  well,  since  poor  relocation  efforts  

only  lead  to  slash-­‐and-­‐burn  deforestation.

  But  the  question  remains,  how  will  Brazil  satisfy  its  constantly  growing  demand  for  electricity?    

A  study  by  WWF-­‐Brazil  claims  that  by  2020  Brazil  could  cut  its  expected  demand  for  electricity  by  40%  

by  investments  in  energy  efficiency—equivalent  to  14  Belo  Monte  Dams  (Yan  2010:  11).    While  such  

investments  should  definitely  be  encouraged,  implementation  to  that  degree  could  hardly  be  realistically  

expected.    Brazil  must  turn  to  other  forms  of  energy  as  well,  including  wind,  for  which  Brazil’s  7,400-­‐km  

windy  coastline  has  great  potential.    Most  realistically,  perhaps,  and  with  a  nod  to  Gaia-­‐theorist  James  

Lovelock,  would  be  the  development  of  nuclear  power.    Technology  exists  to  produce  large  amounts  of  

electricity  from  nuclear  with  relatively  low  safety  and  environmental  risks.    Although  nuclear  has  stalled  

in  Brazil  in  the  past  due  to  shaky  economic  factors,  funds  diverted  from  hydropower  projects  could  ease  

nuclear’s  safe  and  effective  expansion  (World  Nuclear  Assn.  2010).    The  risks  inherent  with  nuclear  

power  cannot  match  the  destructive  capabilities  of  expansion  of  large-­‐scale  hydropower.    

10
 Bibliography

Abril,  Gwenaël,  et  al.  “Carbon  Dioxide  and  Methane  Emissions  and  the  Carbon  Budget  of  a  10-­‐year  

Old  Tropical  Reservoir  (Petit  Saut,  French  Guiana).”  Global  Biogeochemical  Cycles  19.4  

(2005).  Web.  

Barrera-­‐Hernández,  Lila.  “Hydroelectric  Energy  in  the  Peruvian  Amazon:  The  Inambari  Puzzle.”  

Americas  Quarterly.  17  Dec.  2009.  Web.  31  Aug.  2010.  <http://www.americasquarterly.org/

inambari-­‐puzzle-­‐barrera>.  

Barrow,  Chris.  “The  Impact  of  Hydroelectric  Development  on  the  Amazonian  Environment:  With  

Particular  Reference  to  the  Tucuruí  Project.”  Journal  of  Biogeography  15.1  (1988):  67-­‐78.  

Web.  

Cardoso  Da  Silva,  José  Maria,  et  al.  “The  Fate  of  Amazonian  Areas  of  Endemism.”  Conservation  

Biology  19.3  (2004):  689-­‐94.  Web.  

Elisio  De  Las  Rosa,  J.  “Economics,  Politics,  and  Hydroelectric  Power:  The  Parana  River  Baisn.”  Latin  

American  Research  Review  18.3  (1983):  77-­‐107.  Web.  

Farrèr,  Claudia.  Hydroelectric  Reservoirs  –  the  Carbon  Dioxide  and  Methane  Emissions  of  a  “Carbon  

Free”  Energy  Source.  Swiss  Federal  Institute  of  Technology  Zurich,  21  Dec.  2007.  Web.  

Fearnside,  Philip  M.  “Do  Hydroelectric  Dams  Mitigate  Global  Warming?  The  Case  of  Brazil’s  Curuá-­‐

Una  Dam.”  Migration  and  Adaption  Strategies  for  Global  Change  10  (2005):  675-­‐91.  Web.  

———.  “Social  Impacts  of  Brazil’s  Tucurí  Dam.”  Environmental  Management  24.4  (1999):  483-­‐95.  

Web.  

———.  “Why  Hydropower  Is  Not  Clean  Energy.”  Scitizen.  9  Jan.  2007.  Web.  31  Aug.  2010.  <http://

scitizen.com/future-­‐energies/why-­‐hydropower-­‐is-­‐not-­‐clean-­‐energy_a-­‐14-­‐298.html>.  

———.  “Dams  in  the  Amazon:  Belo  Monte  and  Brazil’s  Hydroelectric  Development  of  the  Xingu  

River  Basin.”  Environmental  Management  38.1  (2006):  16-­‐27.  Web.  

Forline,  Louis,  and  Eneida  Assis.  “For  Whom  the  Turbines  Turn:  Indigenous  Citizens  as  Legitimate  

Stakeholders  in  the  Brazilian  Amazon.”  Social  Participation  in  Water  Governance  and  
 Management:  Critical  and  Global  Perspectives.  Ed.  Kate  A.  Berry  and  Eric  Mollard.  London:  

Earthscan,  2010.  23-­‐44.  Web.

Fraser,  Barbara.  “Peru-­‐Brazil  Dam  Plans  Power  Amazon  Debate.”  EcoAmericas  Feb.  2010:  6-­‐8.  Web.  

Giles,  Jim.  “Methane  Quashes  Green  Credentials  of  Hydropower.”  Nature  (2006):  524-­‐25.  Web.  

Guérin,  Frédéric,  et  al.  “Methane  and  Carbon  Dioxide  Emissions  from  Tropical  Reservoirs:  

Signiricance  of  Downstream  Rivers.”  Geophysical  Research  Letters  33.L21407  (2006).  Web.  

La  Rovere,  E.  L.,  and  F.  E.  Mendes.  WCD  Case  Study:  Tucuruí  Hydropower  Complex.  Rep.  Cape  Town:  

World  Commission  on  Dams,  2000.  Web.  

“Nuclear  Power  in  Brazil.”  World  Nuclear  Association.  11  June  2010.  Web.  31  Aug.  2010.  <http://

www.world-­‐nuclear.org/info/inf95.html>.

Yan,  Katy.  Protecting  Rivers  and  Rights:  The  World  Commission  on  Dams  Recommendations  in  Action.  

Briering  Kit.  Berkeley,  CA:  International  Rivers,  2010.  Web.