ALBERT

Description: 〈p〉Publication date: December 2019〈/p〉 〈p〉〈b〉Source:〈/b〉 World Development, Volume 124〈/p〉 〈p〉Author(s): Grant Alan Burrier, Philip Hultquist〈/p〉 〈div xml:lang="en"〉 〈h5〉Abstract〈/h5〉 〈div〉〈p〉Hydroelectric power is the world’s largest source of renewable energy. It can encourage economic development while reducing carbon emissions, but large hydroelectric projects have serious social and environmental consequences. Democratic Developmental and Ecological Modernization theorists counseled the adoption of new regulations and institutions to increase citizen participation and socioenvironmental protection. Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and public audiences are considered best practice, but do these new protections and procedures alter government behavior when it makes critical development decisions? We argue scholars have paid too little attention to how bureaucratic hierarchies and weak cross-agency harmonization weaken environmental regimes. To highlight these issues, we provide an in-depth case study of hydroelectric dam construction in India, a country simultaneously confronting widespread underdevelopment and an energy matrix overwhelmingly reliant on carbon-based sources. Our multi-method analysis includes: innovative ArcGIS techniques to create an original database of large hydroelectric projects, field research, and a longitudinal analysis of three distinct periods of dam construction. We find the Indian government gradually shifted from large, multipurpose impoundment dams to smaller run-of-the-river (ROR) projects. ROR dams maintain a smaller footprint by requiring less flooding, but they are less efficient and versatile. Facing greater constitutional protections, concerns about resettlement costs, and past social mobilization, the Indian government is prioritizing smaller projects in remote locations to mitigate the social consequences of dam projects. Nevertheless, environmental concerns have been perfunctory. No fish ladders, exposed riverbeds, compromised waterflow regimes, and minimal riparian rehabilitation mean the environmental consequences of ROR dams remain extremely severe. These findings can be attributed to bureaucratic hierarchies, which limit the power of environmental agencies. Additionally, EIAs have been largely cursory and public audiences have not tangibly improved environmental outcomes because civil society generally prioritizes the social impacts of projects. In conclusion, our study finds India is better reconciling economic development with greater social protection and inclusion. The continued negative environmental externalities of contemporary hydroelectric projects highlight significant space for improving environmental protection.〈/p〉〈/div〉 〈/div〉