Negociando consentimiento y derechos indígenas: Geografías legales de la fragmentación en territorio Mapuche-Williche, Futawillimapu, Chile

Understanding Conditioning Factors for Hydroelectric Development in Chile: Bases for Community Acceptance

“…On the other hand, both the construction of the framework and the weighting and validation of Objects of Value require continuous participation by local actors (particularly residents, local authorities, and representatives of local trade associations), given that the objective is to value their visions and interests. This is a major barrier, as the participatory process is not considered reliable by local communities [46,49].…”

“…Information on the present or latent conflicts in the study area offers an opportunity to understand some factors and processes that in some way affect whether or not hydroelectric projects are accepted by the community. Among the sources associated with conflicts surrounding hydroelectric development in the study area are academic studies, media and NGO reports, and social media posts by community groups and activists [27,[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]. These are described in more detail in the Results Section.…”

“…Local communities cannot influence the EAS's decisions regarding project implementation, and their participation is limited to influencing some of the project's characteristics and claiming certain compensation if they are affected [7,24,57]. On the other hand, the ambiguity existing in the Chilean legislation that supports the implementation of free, prior, and informed consent (in the context of ILO Convention 169) has contributed to the fragmentation of local communities and the "commodification" of consent, limiting its practical applicability to protecting the rights of Mapuche-Williche communities and increasing distrust in the participatory process [49]. As reported in [26], in areas where there is conflict over hydroelectric projects, indigenous community leaders have negotiated the indigenous consent established in ILO Convention 169 in exchange for economic benefits.…”

“…In this situation, the community felt deceived and deprived of meaningful participation in the decision making (without an environmental impact study, there is no requirement for a participatory process). Likewise, Kelly [49] indicated that there was confusion about the Pilmaiquén intervention, because the communities had not been informed that two hydroelectric plants were being planned with overlapping areas of influence. The lack of communication and presence in the territory also contributed to distrust in the participatory and evaluation processes.…”

“…Another aspect of the same factor was the secret negotiations conducted by the companies that own the projects with some representatives of the indigenous communities, generating the commercialization of consent and deepening distrust on the part of the communities [49]: "Statkraft, as the current owner of the hydroelectric projects, has contributed significantly to the violation of the rights of the riparian communities, through the deployment of practices aimed at buying the will of the Mapuche people and communities of the Pilmaiquén River basin. These interventions have deteriorated the trust and social fabric in the territories" [53].…”