Home | About | Donate

Backers of Honduran Dam Opposed by Murdered Activist Withdraw Funding


Backers of Honduran Dam Opposed by Murdered Activist Withdraw Funding

Nina Lakhani, The Guardian

The international funders behind the hydroelectric dam opposed by murdered Honduran environmentalist Berta Cáceres are withdrawing from the project, the Guardian can reveal.

Three financial institutions had pledged loans worth $44m for the Agua Zarca dam on the Gualcarque river, which is considered sacred by the Lenca people and which Caceres campaigned against before her death.


The economics must have changed, ethics never enter into the big plans in this world.


It may seem that way in the USA, but believe it or not, some banks and businesses do have a code of ethics.

The project, which was a run-of-river project with a very small dam with almost no inundation or river impacts and it would replace oil-powered electric generation. It would have been an environmental plus.
But the the wishes of the local people should dictate whether it was built or not and their veto has to be respected.


Now, if the bankster, Chinese billionaire, would pull out of the Nicaraguan canal! Connecting the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea will displace indigenous people who have been living peacefully for centuries. We the People of Earth want local commerce and manufacturing - no more damn polluting shipping, moving slave-wage, gmo product! Damn the Mother Earth ignorance of greedsters! Organic fair trade means a sustainable paradise for our children.


Not to mention expose the Caribbean Sea and eventually the Atlantic Ocean to invasion by non-native species from the Pacific, and vice-versa — quite aside from the invasion of parts of Nicaragua by two-legged parasites from other regions of the globe.


Damn, I vaguely remember reading that it was a huge dam that would have inundated a very large area and displaced thousands of indigenous people — that's why opposition was so intense.  I suppose it depends on whose news – or alternative "facts" – one wants to believe . . .


I'm a civil engineer and I looked the project up. It was a small scale hydro power project on a small river - only 21 megawatts (compared to 1000's of MW for a large dam). The main impact would have been much-reduced river flow between the intake and the powerhouse a few km downstream whenever it was operating - but enough flow would have been maintained to protect the river ecology.

The indigenous people's main objection was that the river was important for religious reasons so that no disturbance was allowed - along with a well-founded distrust of white people - especially when they aggressively push the project on them without public participation - and then even kill people over it.

The region's tribal residents have the right to the final say on the project - but from a purely technical and environmental standpoint, their opposition was misguided.


With the way Global Warming is progressing, and the resulting sea-level rise, maybe they won't have to do anything about building a new canal through Nicaragua. Maybe a gap in the isthmus will develop in a few more decades by itself with no digging necessary.


yeah, like the song says, ♪♪gimme money; that's all i want!♪♪


Thank you for the clarification!  Maybe the impact could have been reduced even further by moving the power plant closer to the dam – but then the difference in elevation would have been less, so less 'head' to power the turbines.  Not quite 'A tempest in a Teapot', but close.