4.3 Article

Making space for indigenous law in state-led decisions about hydropower dams: Lessons from environmental assessments in Canada and Brazil

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/reel.12432

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. University of Victoria Centre for Global Studies
  2. University of Victoria Faculty of Law
  3. Centre for Global Studies at the University of Victoria
  4. Centre for International Governance Innovation
  5. Law Foundation of British Columbia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The article examines the environmental impact assessment of hydropower dams as an opportunity for applying indigenous laws. It compares the decision-making processes of Site C (Canada) and Belo Monte (Brazil) dams and concludes that environmental justice for indigenous peoples in environmental decision making of projects with large impacts requires recognizing and creating institutional spaces for implementing indigenous laws.
The article examines the environmental impact assessment of hydropower dams as an opportunity for applying indigenous laws. Although indigenous laws of affected communities exist and have guided the management of land and natural resources for millennia, they have not yet occupied a significant place in state-led decision making. Consequently, decisions to approve dams, based on state laws and officials' discretionary power, affect indigenous peoples in distinct and profound ways. The analysis is based on the comparison between two decision-making processes-Site C (Canada) and Belo Monte (Brazil) dams. The methodology includes the application of principles from the environmental justice literature, the analysis of interviews, case law and legislation. The article concludes that environmental justice for indigenous peoples in environmental decision making of projects with significant impacts, such as large dams, requires recognizing and making institutional spaces for implementing indigenous laws.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available