Energy Research & Social Science 54 (2019) 224–235

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Research & Social Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss

Original research article

Megawatts mask impacts: Small hydropower and knowledge politics in the T

Puelwillimapu, Southern Chile
Sarah Kellya,b,
⁎

a
Centro de Investigación para la Gestión Integrada del Riesgo de Desastres (CIGIDEN) CONICYT/FONDAP/15110017, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Edificio
Hernán Briones, 3er Piso, Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago, Chile
b
Department of Anthropology, Dartmouth College, Silsby Hall, Hanover, NH, 03755, United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Internationally, high head diversion small hydropower is being developed in mountainous regions. In contrast to
Small hydropower the history of large reservoir hydropower’s well-documented social and environmental impacts, scholarship is
Indigenous rights only beginning to examine the impacts of small hydropower in river basins around the world. While a number of
Renewable energy articles globally emphasize the principle ecological impacts of small hydropower, few articles examine the social
Collaborative research
impacts, and fewer still draw from ethnographic or collaborative inquiry with affected peoples. Through an
Ethnography
ethnographic, collaborative research approach with Mapuche-Williche Indigenous leaders in the Puelwillimapu
Water
Territory of southern Chile, I interrogate how the interrelated social and environmental impacts of small hy-
dropower cited in Environmental Assessments compare with those lived and perceived by affected Mapuche-
Wiliche communities. Small hydropower development targets areas of cultural significance in Mapuche territory,
generating considerable conflict. Additionally, knowledge politics shape and obscure small hydropower’s im-
pacts. Analyzing two case studies, I argue that judging a small hydropower project’s size by megawatts can mask
significant impacts. The current trend to design environmental regulation for small hydropower based on
megawatts is shortsighted, infringing upon Indigenous rights. In Chile, harmful projects are being developed
without consulting Mapuche-Williche people. Small hydropower’s impacts are expressed in not only ecological
fragmentation, but also in the fragmentation of social relationships and ancestral knowledge recognition. Thus,
this article seeks to expand our notion of what counts as an impact to include those that Indigenous communities
identify as important. In conclusion, I provide recommendations for improving small hydropower regulation and
Indigenous Consultation for hydropower. Reflecting on an interdisciplinary and collaborative approach, this
paper contributes methodologically to the field of energy and social sciences.

1. Introduction renewable energy. Today, primarily ‘small’ hydropower is being built

In the foothills of the Andean mountains of southern Chile, new
waterfalls spring from mountain sides during the winter months as the
heavy rains accumulate. Water abundance in winter months sharply
contrasts the growing water scarcity and variable rainfall of summer
months, prompted primarily by climate change [1], and exacerbated by
human intervention.1 Over the last ten years, Puelwillimapu Mapuche-
Williche Territory of southern Chile, among other mountainous regions
around the world, became a new location for the global transition to
quickly throughout southern Chile.2 Projects are sited in historically
dispossessed and contemporary Mapuche territory, provoking conflicts
regarding the impacts of these installations.
In this paper, I draw from 22 months of ethnographic and institu-
tional research anchored in a collaborative research methodology with
a Mapuche-Williche territorial alliance, the Alianza Territorial
Puelwillimapu. One vein of our collaborative research documented the
interrelated social and environmental impacts of small hydro, guided
by the ancestral knowledge of Mapuche-Williche leaders. Research

Correspondence address: Centro de Investigación para la Gestión Integrada del Riesgo de Desastres, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Edificio Hernán
⁎

Briones, 3er Piso, Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860 Macul, Santiago, Chile.
E-mail address: sarah.kelly@cigiden.cl.
1
The following abbreviations are used in this paper: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); Megawatts (MW); Environmental Impact Study (EIS,
Spanish acronym for all Chilean institutions); Declaration of Environmental Impact (DIA); Environmental Assessment Service (SEA); US Dollars (USD); International
Labor Organization (ILO); and Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR).
2
This definition varies by country. In Chile, small hydro projects are called ‘minicentrales hidroeléctricas’ and are legally defined as generating 20 MW or less.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.04.014
Received 19 September 2018; Received in revised form 10 April 2019; Accepted 18 April 2019
Available online 08 May 2019
2214-6296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Kelly
findings align with those of scholars such as Roué and Nakashima [2],
who state that Cree Indigenous observations of hydropower impacts in
settled James Bay, Canada, reveal “an essential fact: the holistic nature
of impacts and the indissoluble link between the social and environ-
mental dimensions” (p. 340). Empirically, this article problematizes
how small hydro is currently regulated, while simultaneously seeking to
expand our notion of what counts as an impact to include those that
Indigenous communities, in particular ancestral leaders, voice as im-
portant.
Below I present two arguments regarding small hydro’s impacts.
First, I argue that for small hydropower, megawatts (MW) are an in-
sufficient single indicator for the interacting variables involving place,
infrastructure, and decision-making that engender interconnected en-
vironmental and social impacts. Internationally, small hydropower
definitions vary, but the growing consensus is between 1–10 MW [3,4].
While broadly megawatts may approximate degree of impacts, small
hydro projects generating around 1 MW or greater can have dis-
proportionate impacts. Designing regulation for hydropower such as
Environmental Assessments on megawatts alone, as is common practice
in Chile and internationally, allows adverse development projects to
pass as low-impact renewable energy options. Second, I suggest that the
concept of fragmentation offers a way to trace those interrelated im-
pacts. Small hydro generates fragmentation not only ecologically, as
documented in the literature [5,3,6]; it also creates divisions in social
relationships and ancestral knowledge recognition. A common concept
in ecology, fragmentation refers to the process through which larger
connective areas are broken into smaller units, such as the ongoing
fragmentation southern Chile’s temperate rainforest [7]. Additionally,
knowledge politics in Environmental Assessments shape and obscure
small hydro’s impacts. Regardless of installed capacity, small hydro can
produce significant impacts due to its tendency to fragment across
ecological, social, and ancestral realms.
2. Existing research on small hydropower’s trajectory: the need
for in-depth qualitative inquiry on impacts
Minimal evidence supports small hydro’s current development
trend, whereby private actors and government agencies promote small
hydropower as an eco-friendly alternative to large hydropower [8]. The
division between small and large hydro is somewhat arbitrary and in-
consistent across nation-states [3,9,4]. In practice, small hydro can be
drastically different, or quite similar to large hydro. ‘Small’ hydropower
water infrastructures include traditional reservoirs, weir designs, or in-
stream turbines [10]. Installed electricity capacity (MW) does influence
hydropower’s impacts, but it is not equivalent to the physical size of the
hydropower plant (the generating house) nor the size of the water in-
frastructure installation [11]. Megawatts do not necessarily reflect
whether a project feeds a high voltage electricity line or a less intrusive
line for rural electrification, variables that also inform the degree of
impacts.
As a renewable energy source, small hydro projects are embedded
within shifting political economic configurations that influence their
implementation. In places like southwestern China, growing in-
dustrialization distances small hydro from sustainability tenants as
electricity sales increase, developing into larger privatized efforts [12].
Chinese institutional and economic arrangements for small hydro are
stimulating overdevelopment [13]. Despite provoking significant en-
vironmental damage, small hydro development continues, due to
aligned private sector growth and government development goals [14].
In Mexico, small hydro’s swift implementation is bolstered by the pri-
vatization of electricity development [15].
Environmentally, a number of variables in small hydro design in-
fluence environmental and social impacts. Recent review articles on
small hydro highlight that a key distinction is whether a project diverts
a portion of river water from the natural river course [3], and if so, how
much water is diverted for what length of the river [4]. As Gleick [11]
225
Energy Research & Social Science 54 (2019) 224–235
found early on, environmental costs are arguably more influenced by
plant size and water infrastructure design than megawatts. Further-
more, multiple small diversion projects in the same river basin produce
impacts greater than the impacts of each project individually
[16,17,11,18,19,94]. Habitat fragmentation and degradation can also
increase with multiple projects [5,20]. Cascade designs incite major
transformations; consecutive projects alter a greater length of a river
and affect local populations and ecology [21,13].
Recent qualitative studies agree that small hydropower alters cul-
tural water management practices [22,13,23–25]. In Thailand, Fung
et al. [22] examine the implementation of small reservoir dams, finding
that the irrigation benefits are divided by the installation – upstream
users benefit, downstream users suffer. They also find this design leads
to overall improved flood control in that geographic setting. Broadly,
studies indicate that small hydro catalyzes changes that are multiple
and deep-reaching.
Across diverse landscapes, scholars document uneven benefits
[12,22,24,26]. An ethnographic approach by Ptak [27] in China finds that
unevenly distributed socio-economic benefits do not reach marginal popu-
lations, although access to communication via rural electrification improves
wage labor opportunities. Hennig et al. [21] establish that increased road
access supports economic development in China, but cascade design leads
to rivers drying for extended lengths. In British Columbia, Shaw et al. [28]
note that a lack of regulation for small run-of-river installations unevenly
distributes risks for local communities, such as diminished water quality
and wildlife habitat. In Tanzania, Ahlborg and Sjöstedt [29] document that
a small hydro-powered rural electrification program operated by a non-
governmental organization is creating positive changes, for example sup-
porting local business development such as grain mills. As part of the global
need for better understanding of renewable energy development in In-
digenous territories [30], ethnographic and collaborative research with In-
digenous peoples among other affected populations is needed to compare
how small hydro’s interwoven social and environmental impacts are lived
and experienced.
3. Theoretical framework and research methodology
3.1. Environmental assessment knowledge politics in Indigenous territories
Knowledge politics are often embroiled in hydropower conflicts,
such as the “green authoritative knowledge” produced by the World
Bank in the 1990s to justify hydropower installations in the Mekong
[31]. Recently, Hess and Fenrich [32] discuss knowledge politics for a
conflictive large hydropower project in Brazil, where Munduruku In-
digenous people’s knowledge of sacred sites and risks was overlooked.
Discussing energy and state politics, Bridge et al. [33] pose two im-
portant, related questions: what knowledges are informing energy de-
cisions?, and what happens with alternative forms of knowledge and
values that are being overlooked for more dominant, scientific knowl-
edges? (p. 8).
Unequal power dynamics in Indigenous knowledge recognition
prompt academic researchers to agree that Indigenous peoples’ sub-
stantial participation is needed to determine impacts and project miti-
gation measures in their territories [34–37]. Since the 1990s, civil so-
ciety and regulatory efforts worldwide sought to incorporate
Indigenous knowledge more substantially in assessments for develop-
ment projects [38]. Assessments are typically labeled Environmental
Impact Assessments or Social Impact Assessments.3
3
Systematic Social Impact Assessments (SIA) are not mandated in Chile,
however individual projects can involve SIAs when connected to international
company policies, international financing conditions, or extreme conflict,
among other factors. For example, mining company Anglo American Chile uses
a methodology called the SEAT (Socio-Economic Assessment Toolbox) which
reportedly involves Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of Indigenous peoples.
S. Kelly Energy Research & Social Science 54 (2019) 224–235

It is important to note that Indigenous knowledge as a category does Table 1

not refer to a distinct knowledge system, but rather a diversity in ways Environmental Assessment for Hydropower Projects in Chile.
of knowing [40]. Ethically, Indigenous people and researchers agree
that Indigenous people should guide and define the terms of what
knowledge is shared [40–42]. In collaborations with First Nations, re-
searchers highlight that it is important to set clear terms and expecta-
tions for how knowledge is mobilized, and what forms of Indigenous
knowledge are included [42]. Although Indigenous knowledge is a
difficult category to bound [43], international treaty protects the
knowledge and customs of Indigenous people, such as International
Labor Organization’s (ILO) Convention 169 ratified by Chile in 2008.
While Environmental Impact Assessments evolved to more com-
prehensively consider environmental, social, and economic concerns in
environmental management [44], significant barriers to inclusion re-
main. As with any state metric system that makes a certain reality le-
gible in order to be governed and ordered by state law, these metrics
are uniform throughout national territorial space [35,45]. Uniform
metrics and the technical discourse of Environmental Assessments
systematically overlook many characteristics of diverse territories [35].
Western science also plays a critical role in the dominant institutional
framework, posing conceptual and communication barriers for In-
digenous knowledges [46]. Ultimately, relations of power dictate the
terms for how Indigenous knowledge is recognized [35].
Another inherent contradiction exists for Environmental
Assessments conducted in Indigenous territories. Assessment protocols
use categories that assume a division between the environment and the
social [2]. This stands in contrast to Indigenous worldviews that are not
premised on these divisions [2] but instead are relational [41,47].
Fragments of Indigenous knowledge systems are often brought into
assessment processes according to managerial decisions [46]. These
decision-making [51]. By reviewing what is “environmentally re-
insights are relevant to the renewable energy transition. Further re-
levant”, the assessment process introduces “the environment in a
search is needed to ask: how is Indigenous knowledge being recognized
fragmented and technified way” ([52], p. 319). In Chile, the same
in these processes, and in what ways does Indigenous knowledge re-
companies proposing projects also commission assessment studies,
frame the scope of impacts?
often submitting baseline studies with notable omissions and ques-
For example, since ILO Convention 169 is codified through Chile’s
tionable science ([52], see Table 1). Scholars conclude that Chile’s
existing laws [48], shortcomings in environmental law limit the re-
neoliberal institutions condition scientific knowledge production, un-
cognition of Mapuche territorial rights. In the Chilean Environmental
dermining the scientific validity in assessments [51,52]. In practice,
Assessment design, Indigenous people are often excluded from influ-
knowledge politics influence how impacts are defined and assessed.
encing decision-making. Citizen Participation and Indigenous Con-
sultation that formally involve local communities in decision-making
occur after a company determines project dimensions including loca- 3.2. Research approach and methods
tion and submits the project for review [49,50]. In the Chilean General
Environmental Framework Law (Law 19.300), small hydro projects I conducted 22 months of ethnographic and institutional inquiry
generating less than 3 MWs are not required to formally submit a study through a collaborative research approach with the Alianza Territorial
for the two-tiered Environmental Assessment process. For projects Puelwillimapu, hereafter the Alianza. The Alianza is comprised of an-
generating over three megawatts, hydropower companies decide whe- cestral and legally-recognized Mapuche-Williche leaders in the
ther to submit a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS) or a lesser De- Puelwillimapu Territory, including communities throughout the wa-
claration of Environmental Impact (DIA) following criteria established tershed. Research was guided by a Community-Based Participatory
in Law 19.300 (Table 1).4 Consequently, projects that produce 3 MWs Research Methodology (CBPR). CBPR is understood as collaborative
or less are not required to conduct Citizen Participation or Indigenous and community-oriented research that addresses needs identified by
Consultation (Table 1). Additionally, neither Law 19.300 nor the Chi- community members [53,54]. I made a methodological commitment to
lean Water Code (1981) provide an adequate mechanism for assessing thinking with the situated perspectives [55] of the Alianza in their
the cumulative impacts of hydropower projects in one river basin.5 territory. Our research approach required methodological innovation to
Scientific knowledge is also contentious in Chilean Environmental answer shared research questions on impacts (What are the impacts of
Assessments, where it forms part of the Chilean state’s technical ap- small hydropower?; How are they conceived in Mapuche-Williche
proach to prioritize rules that effectively limit local participation in cosmovision?; and, How do they compare to those reported in the En-
vironmental Assessment process?).
4
To answer these questions, I proposed that the most effective and
See Erlewein [90] and Baker [91] for discussion of similar regulatory ethically appropriate approach was collaborative research rooted in
loophole in India resulting in significant environmental impacts.
5 ethnographic study. Ethnographic inquiry offers a critical tool for
Art. 2 h bis of Law 19.300 recognizes that an environmental impact can be
studying local realities in the global energy transition [56,57] through
greater than the sum of each individual impact (Synergic Effect), however this
principle is not applied to hydro projects that do not enter assessment (3 MW or an in-depth study of daily life vis-à-vis observation and shared experi-
less). It can, and occasionally is applied when the same company proposes ence [58]. Situated ethnographic research of energy transitions ac-
multiple projects. The 1981 Chilean Water Code includes water users group counts for the interdependence of historical, cultural, and ecological
(Juntas de Vigilancia, Art. 263) but this measure does not allow for planning realms [59]. An ethnographic approach guided by affected people ar-
small hydro projects or assessing cumulative impacts before they are built. guably holds greater potential for documenting and verifying impacts,

226
S. Kelly
in particular with Indigenous territories.
Methods evolved to include participant observation, semi-struc-
tured interviews (N = 87), river transects (N = 4), Trawun (traditional
form of meeting), participatory mapmaking, document analysis, and
territorial history workshops (N = 8). Certain methods like transects
provided critical insight for framing hydro impacts. Trawun are tradi-
tional meetings of the Mapuche people where collective decisions are
made; they are structured according to Mapuche-Williche territorial
order. In the Puelwilimapu, Trawun participation varies to involve be-
tween 5–100 people and includes a diversity of age and gender. As
collaboration evolved, we began to regularly conduct participatory
mapmaking in Trawun as an iterative, reflexive activity.
Similar to how Escobar [60], p. x–xii) explains the relationship
between ethnographic research and theory when working collectively
with social movements, the Alianza’s knowledge production framed the
research and writing process. For example, their cosmovision guided
terms we used in analysis and writing, such as the phrases spiritual
territory and physical territory [61]. Cosmovision, which means life-vi-
sion or philosophy of the world, refers to fundamentally different or-
ientations in life held by Indigenous people, orientations that have been
subverted and overlooked by colonialism [62]. Per our research
agreement, this article is sole-authored, and a collaboratively written
article is forthcoming. Through the collaboration, I wrote an inter-
disciplinary report in Spanish with a Chilean lawyer and a natural re-
source engineer analyzing research findings in terms of Indigenous
rights recognition [63]. Collective writing in Trawun provided metho-
dological space to define the terms and limits of the study.
Independently, I conducted an institutional study, which allowed
me to analyze how conflicts, rights, and impacts were addressed by
state agencies. Through interviews, document analysis, and participant
observation, I followed how small hydro permissions are granted, and
how conflicts are resolved. I reviewed documents in the Environmental
Assessment for reported impacts and project details. I conducted
snowball sampling to interview industry employees and governmental
actors (n = 39, N = 87) in the capital Santiago and in the southern Ríos
(Rivers) region (Puelwillimapu Territory). Snowball sampling allowed
me to access a broader range of actors who would have been difficult to
identify otherwise [64]. Combined, this research approach flexibly re-
sponded to the dynamic, at times chaotic, process of small hydro de-
velopment in southern Chile.
4. Case studies in the Puelwillimapu
4.1. Territorial context
In 2008, Chile’s Nonconventional Renewable Energy Law (Law
20.257) encouraged renewable energy generation through a quota ap-
plied to all electricity sales.6 Nonconventional Renewable Energy gen-
erators are legally defined to include: geothermal energy, wind, solar,
biomass, tidal, small hydropower (20 MW or less), and cogeneration. In
2013, Law 20/25 (20.698) was passed, introducing a public auction
mechanism in addition to doubling the renewable energy quota from
10% to 20% by 2020.7 Small hydro development in particular was
catalyzed by a commitment of then president Michelle Bachelet
(2014–18) to build 100 small hydro projects during her presidency.
Energy projects are financed, built, and operated by the private sector.
A considerable amount of finance for small hydro originates
6 8
Electricity traders, distribution companies, and generators are required to
certify that at least 10% of the energy traded comes from nonconventional
renewable energy [96].
7
As of August 2018, renewable energy made up 19% of Chile’s national grid
(22,960 MW). Of that, 9% was solar, 6% wind, 2% small hydropower (20 MW
or less), and 2% biomass [92]. In Chile small hydropower is called ‘minicentrales
hidroelectricas.’
227
Energy Research & Social Science 54 (2019) 224–235
internationally from Italian, Spanish, Norwegian and French groups.8
Nearly all small hydro projects are built for connection with Chile’s
Central Interconnected System for sale via electricity markets.
Today, many rivers and streams in the Puelwillimapu Territory are
slated for hydropower development. While conducting ethnographic
research, I learned that Mapuche-Wiliche people consider the
Puelwillimapu Territory to be an integral living being connected by
waterways; rivers, among other nonhumans, are also living beings. In
Mapuzungun, a spoken language of the Mapuche people, the Bueno
River is called Wenuleufu. Ancestral leaders explain that Puelwillimapu
territory is known as the watershed of Wenuleufu. Wenuleufu means
“River Above”, and it refers to the Milky Way; in Mapuche-Williche
cosmovision, Wenuleufu is a path taken by spirits [65].
During our mapping exercises in Trawun, leaders articulated that
Mapuche geography is oriented East to West, as the sun rises and sets, and
as the water flows from the mountains out to the sea. It is not oriented
North-South, like Chilean state cartography. When I observed leaders dia-
logue with Chilean state officials, they explained that water’s spiritual daily
cycle flows from the mountains to the ocean via rivers and then returns to
the mountains again. On multiple occasions leaders narrated that they op-
posed hydropower projects because of the threat posed to this spiritual
cycle. Critically, in Mapuche geography, impacts from a development pro-
ject not only affect downstream, but also upstream.
I concentrated research in a subwatershed of the Bueno River, where
steep rivers flow down from the Andean foothills into Lakes Maihue and
Ranco (see Fig. 1). The zone around the lakes is mountainous with volcanic
cones [66]. Ranco Lake’s surface area is 410 km2; Lake Maihue, which feeds
Ranco Lake, is 46 km2 [66]. Bueno River begins at the mouth of Lake
Ranco; it is the fifth longest river in the country at 15,124 km2. The whole
Bueno watershed covers a total area of 3300 km2, including part of the
higher Andean mountain range that forms the border with Argentina.
Chile’s temperate rainforest in this region is internationally re-
cognized as a biodiversity hotspot as a result of the species diversity and
significant presence of endemic species [7]. While some private and
public conservation efforts exist in the territory, economic development
and climatic change are diminishing biodiversity. The Ranco watershed
is primarily temperate native rainforest [67]. The majority of the wa-
tershed is rain-fed. Increased change in land-use amplifies fragmenta-
tion of native forest habitat [7].
In southern Chile, many sites slated for small hydro are places of
spiritual and socio-cultural importance to Mapuche-Williche people. Places
of cultural significance are orally passed down through generations.9 Sites
correspond to ceremonies that continue to be practiced today. These sites
are located in the water bodies and native forest of the Puelwillimapu,
where Newen exist (see Table 2). Sites include Menoko, Trayenko, rivers,
forest, and specific hills among other places. When water present in these
places is significantly altered, the communication possible between Ma-
puche-Williche people and their ancestors is also altered.
Within the Maihue-Ranco watershed, productive activities include
farming, livestock, hunting, apiculture, forestry, tourism, conservation
of biodiversity in private areas and hydropower generation [72,73].
Many Mapuche families practice a set of livelihood activities that in-
clude rain-fed agriculture, livestock, hunting, and apiculture, along
with tourism and artisanal crafts. In terms of socio-cultural data on
Mapuche residents in the territory, numbers vary in official reports,
with a dramatic shift from the 2002 to the 2017 census.10 The majority
of land-use is suitable for forestry or conservation [66].
Interview on December 22, 2016.
9
Trawun with the Alianza Territorial Puelwillimapu. November 2017.
10
Data on Indigenous peoples in Chile has been questioned [95], and locally
communities observe that Mapuche populations are probably higher than of-
ficial records. In 2017, the total population in Futrono was 14,655 with 41%
Indigenous population and in Ranco the total was 9,896 with 60% Indigenous
population. Indigenous was 97–98% Mapuche population.
S. Kelly
Fig. 1. Map of Case Studies in the Puelwillimapu Territory (Valdés Negroni, 2019).
Table 2
Terms in Mapuzgun Related to Places of Cultural Significance.
Menoko: A spring of freshwater water or marsh-like area with abundant vegetation
where ancestors are believed to circulate and medicinal plants are found [68].
Trayenko: Waterfall or running water, however it refers to the idea that there is a
Ngen Trayenko, a spirit guardian that cares for the waterfall or other water source
such as a stream [69,68].
Newen: Strength or vital energy [70]. Newen Mapu (natural forces in a territory) are
understood to exist within an ample, integral territory ([71], p. 35).
Itrofilmogen: All life in its integrity, without fragmentation [93]. Many translate it
colloquially to biodiversity.
4.2. Hydropower development in the Puelwillimapu
Over the last ten years, fourteen hydropower projects proposed in
the Maihue-Ranco watershed reached the Environmental Assessment
(some only sent a letter of pertinence). Thirteen are considered small
hydro projects (generating 20 MW or less), with the one exception
being the desisted Maqueo project (proposed 400 MW). To date, only 5
small hydro projects are operating, generating less than 10 MW total:
Las Flores, Doña Hilda, HidroRiñinahue, HidroMuchi y Pichilonco. All
proposed projects feed into Chile’s central transmission system. Projects
are not part of programs to extend rural electrification as documented
in other regions like China [12]. Given that projects largely do not in-
clude local economic benefits such as lowered electricity costs or
business development, here I focus on project impacts in two case
studies, Las Flores on Quimán River and HidroRiñinahue on the Riñi-
nahue River (Table 3). I selected these two case studies based on
available data, relevance to research collaborators, and presence of
conflicts involving project impacts. Comparatively, they illustrate how
place, infrastructure design, decision-making process, and project de-
velopment influence impacts.
4.3. The amplification of minicentral Las Flores: small project, major
impacts
In 2011, the company Hydrowac y Compañía Ltda. sent a letter of
228
Energy Research & Social Science 54 (2019) 224–235
pertinence to the Environmental Assessment Agency (SEA) regarding its
proposed project. Since it claimed to generate less than 3 MWs, the
project proceeded without formal Environmental Assessment.
Following an investment of 6 million USD, the project began operating
in 2015. That same year, the company sent another letter of pertinence
regarding its proposed amplification from generating 2.2 MW to an
increased 4.4 MW (Table 3). Citizen pressure and SEA review required
the company to conduct a Declaration of Environmental Impact (DIA).
Since the project entered as a DIA, only Citizen Participation occurred.
By amplifying after initially building a project under 3 MW, the com-
pany sidestepped a more thorough review and the possibility for an
Indigenous Consultation.
Later in 2016, the company, now called Hidroeléctrica Las Flores
S.A., submitted the DIA, which proposed to add another turbine with an
additional investment of 2.6 million USD. After more than a year and
two additional addenda (resubmissions of project information due to
insufficient information and unreported impacts), the project was ap-
proved on October 13, 2017. In the human baseline study of the DIA,
the company claimed that: “the use of water resources of Quimán River
does not have any effect on nearby communities” based on observation
and six interviews with local people (author’s translation, [74], p. 6).
The report claimed no Indigenous communities or areas of cultural
importance existed in the area affected by the project (p. 28). Because
the company submitted their project in two phases, locals reflected that
they felt tricked and disempowered from meaningful participation in
decision-making.
Quimán River falls quickly down from the Andean mountains to
Ranco Lake’s northern shore (Fig. 2). It is an alpine-fed river with the
ideal ‘high head’ design for small hydropower. Installed near the top of
the watershed, Las Flores operates as a reservoir dam, provoking sig-
nificant environmental, and ultimately social damage downstream.
Below the dam impoundment, Quimán River now completely dries in
summer months when seasonal drought is most severe.
Through ethnographic and institutional research, I compared how
construction and operation impacts were reported. Construction for Las
Flores was inadequately executed, affecting air quality and native
S. Kelly Energy Research & Social Science 54 (2019) 224–235

forest. During construction, nearby residents described that air quality

was very poor; the construction site blew constant dust down the hill-
side. A number of older people, particularly families living within a few

Project operating; lingering social

administrative conflict ongoing hundred meters from the construction, reported difficulty breathing.
The noise of the construction and traffic of large trucks on an unpaved
Amplification approved but

divisions and discontent

municipal road was invasive. As one man observed in the DIA for the
project’s amplification: “Our fragile road does not support the con-
Status of Conflict

tinuous traffic of trucks” (author’s translation; [75]). Another observed

that their road broke in a number of points during construction.
Road construction, in addition to deforestation for infrastructure,
fractured native temperate rainforest. The poor construction triggered
landslides, significantly altering the riparian habitat downstream from
the dam. As a result, a private access road for landholders was un-
passable for nearly a year. Native trees and boulders fell to the river
$8.6 Million

below, reportedly destabilized by project construction above. One re-

Unknown

sident observed in the DIA: “There is a visual contamination in our

USD
Cost

Pumol Valley, they changed the native forest for a horrible clear-cut”
(translation by author, n.p., [75]).
Physically, the Quimán River is fragmented. The whole width of the
Initially 2.2 MW dam with reservoir using .9 m3/s of water; amplified

river channel is obstructed by a large concrete installation which, due

.839 MW in run-of-river diversion project using 2.0 m3/s of water
4.4 MW project with infrastructure design for 1.95 m3/s of water

to its height, acts more similarly to a reservoir dam than a diversion

that allows water to pass (Fig. 3). One Ministry of Energy employee who
visited the site commented that the project looked like a 50 MW hy-
dropower installation.11 Sernapesca, the Chilean Agency for Fish and
Aquaculture, observed in the DIA that the project is not operating as a
run-of-river project. By altering natural streamflow, aquatic species and
habitat can be affected, which in turn influences sediment transport,
temperature of water, nutrient cycling, water quality, and river geo-
morphology [5,76]. Furthermore, allegations exist that the minimal
System Design and MW Generated

ecological flows are not being met by the company.

At one point during collaborative research, the affected community
of Pumol Alto invited me to discuss the impacts of the Las Flores hy-
dropower project.12 Multiple generations of residents emphasized the
same point while the mate tea circled the group – their relationship to
the river changed drastically, diminishing quality of life. A sense of loss
and sorrow was palpable in the room. As the river began to dry, salmon
that used to run the river no longer came, old fishing holes are now
empty. The community lost their swimming holes and are witnessing
the disappearance of plants, Lahuen, they use for medicine and food.
Throughout field work, residents expressed concern about future
risks. Site location, coupled with poor construction practices, increase
approval for Declaration of Environmental Impact for amplification
Operating. Entered via letter of pertinence; submitted and received

environmental change. The hillside where the pipe is situated is visibly

eroded after being deforested during installation (Fig. 4). Locals ob-
serve that its stability seems questionable in an area prone to earth-
quakes and volcanic activity. Long-term access to potable water is also
seen to be threatened by rapid hydropower development in the area.
After examining the hydrological report produced for Las Flores
Operating. Entered via letter of pertinence

[77], it is not surprising that water availability was underestimated.

Without fluviometric stations in the Quimán River to measure average
Status in Environmental Assessment

monthly river flows for the company’s baseline studies, consulting hy-
drologist Parot [77] used the data available for the nearby River Ni-
lahue for calculation. Nilahue is located to the north-west of Ranco
Lake, and it is a more sizeable river. In terms of rainfall data, the data
used in these calculations was from the General Water Directorate’s
(DGA) 1991 study. Over the last ten years locals observed substantial
decline of rainfall during summer months, suggesting that older data
sets are no longer representative of rainfall in southern Chile.
Fragmentation incited by the project not only affects the environ-
ment, it extends to spiritual territory. In the human base study for Las
Flores, the company and SEA deliberate about whether one Menoko, a
Minicentral Las Flores
Case Study Projects.

water spring and site of cultural significance, is within the project’s area
Hidro-Riñinahue

of influence. In their review of the DIA, the SEA [75] requested more
Project
Table 3

11
Interview conducted on November 14, 2016.
12
Ethnographic field notebook, August 26, 2016.

229
S. Kelly Energy Research & Social Science 54 (2019) 224–235

Fig. 2. Map of Las Flores Site Design (Valdés-Negroni, 2019).

Fig. 3. Las Flores Reservoir on the Quimán River (waterflow pictured to the far left of the dam is the amount released from the dam per second; Photo by Author).

information regarding impacts on the Menoko. Citing two additional biodiversity, and the loss of Lahuen, plant medicine, threatening spiri-
interviews with Indigenous leaders, the company concluded that the tual equilibrium.13 Observations indicate interconnected social, en-
Menoko could not be clearly identified in proximity to the river and thus vironmental, and spiritual impacts that were not contemplated during
was not affected [75]. Yet on the Quimán River, flowing water connects assessment.
these sites of cultural significance for Mapuche-Williche people, linking
physical and spiritual territory. Through collaborative research, I
4.4. HidroRiñinahue: the importance of project location
learned the most important site for Mapuche-Williche ancestral leaders
is the place where the two rivers meet (Quimán Chico and the Quimán
On the eastern side of Lake Ranco, another small hydro project
River), a site that is flooded by the Las Flores reservoir. Loss of med-
provokes significant impacts while generating less than one megawatt
icinal plants is a noteworthy impact in the flooded site, along the ri-
parian corridor downstream from the project, and in the deforested
areas. The degradation of riparian habitat means the loss of Itrofilmogen, 13
Trawun with the Alianza Territorial Puelwillimapu. November 2017.

230
S. Kelly
Fig. 4. Photo of the Las Flores Penstock (Photo by Author).
of electricity. HidroRiñinahue’s construction and operation are less in-
vasive than the Las Flores project. Since an amplification has not (yet)
occurred and no Environmental Assessment was conducted, less in-
formation is available for the project. However, the project is con-
sidered threatening due to its water diversion above a sacred waterfall,
Trayenko. Water is returned to Riñinahue River downstream from the
waterfall, thus the project reduces the water flowing through the wa-
terfall. On May 5th, 2014, HidroRiñinahue submitted a letter of perti-
nence to the SEA. The letter presented a proposed small hydro project
with an installed capacity of 0.839 MW and a river flow of 2.0 M3/s
from the Riñinahue River. Construction began at the end of 2015. After
more than a year of construction, in 2016 it entered a year-long phase
of tests, and it is currently in operation [78]. By virtue of its location,
HidroRiñinahue generates socio-cultural impacts that do not correlate
to the number of megawatts generated.
Compared to Las Flores, which generates more electricity with less
water, HidroRiñinahue uses more water to generate less electricity; the
incline is not as steep. Riñinahue River comes out of the foothills to the
north-east of the Ranco watershed (Fig. 5). Riñinahue Valley holds
many ponds and wetlands; I repeatedly heard local people report
wetlands are diminishing each year, particularly in summer months.
Given seasonal scarcity and minimal baseline data, the hydropower
project’s extent of impacts on the waterfall and surrounding area are
unknown. Diminishing the flow of the waterfall is considered harmful
to the tourism industry. Consejo Ciudadano (a citizen council) of the
town Lago Ranco began to organize against the hydropower project in
2015 because they perceived that diminishing the waterfall would af-
fect the tourism circuit around the lake. Construction impacts were not
as noteworthy for the project. Ethnographically, I observed local un-
certainty and frustration due to minimal transparency, as well as in-
creased tensions in park-community relationships (the project is built
within a private conservation area, Parque Futangue).
Impacts for HidroRiñinahue are particularly noteworthy in spiritual
territory, reflecting Puelwillimapu geography. The particularity of a
place, here a Trayenko that is a site of cultural significance, offers cri-
tical contextual information for understanding the magnitude of cul-
tural and spiritual impacts. During a transect walk, a traditional healer
and resident of Riñinahue described the Ngen Ko spirit guardian of
water, that is threatened by the hydroelectric project. She shared that it
is growing more difficult to find Lahuen due to the increased drying of
231
Energy Research & Social Science 54 (2019) 224–235
the wetlands on her land. Her statement indicates the importance of
place in framing cultural impacts:
“All of the Valley of Riñinahue, I have heard elders say, is a great
Ngen Ko, a great spring of water, and this spring of water feeds all
that you see here. This young forest, those hills. This is like a Kultrun
(drum), and this great Ngen Ko this great strength of water, of life, of
existence, of fertility, is what sustains all of us here.”14
In Mapuche-Williche cosmovision, all of the Puelwillimapu territory
is a living organism and Rininhaue is the stomach, where the waters
gather. Physical and spiritual flows of water in this area are believed to
be part of a fragile equilibrium, an equilibrium the healer needs to
fulfill her territorial role.
Controversially, HidroRiñinahue is located within a private con-
servation area, Parque Futangue, that is designed to protect biodi-
versity. Parque Futangue is approximately 12,500 ha in land cover,
nestled in the foothills of the Andes [67]. Moreno et al. [67] conducted
a botanical transact walk study of the park’s vascular flora species and
found 295 species, 85% of which were native. This level of plant di-
versity is equivalent in ecological diversity to a number of national
parks in southern Chile, including Parque Vicente Valdés in the Lakes
Region (ibid). Locals worry about the precedence of allowing a private
conservation area to build hydro projects within its park boundaries,
both for biodiversity and for public participation in decision-making.
5. Discussion: fragmentation, knowledge politics, and territory
By most standards, the Flores hydropower installation demonstrates
that a 3 MW project can provoke significant negative social and en-
vironmental impacts. HidroRiñinahue, on the other hand, is a less in-
vasive water infrastructure installation that primarily threatens spiri-
tual territory. Collaborative research on these two projects highlights
social and spiritual impacts of hydropower which are deeply connected
to place. Thus, while data on the ecological impacts of small hydro is
less robust, Mapuche-Williche knowledge signals interrelated, sub-
stantial impacts that may be verified scientifically later on.
In the Puelwillimapu territory, small hydro produces fragmentation
environmentally, socially, and spiritually (Table 4). With climate
14
Transect conducted on January 6th, 2017. Translation by author.
S. Kelly Energy Research & Social Science 54 (2019) 224–235

Fig. 5. Map of HidroRiñinahue (Valdés-Negroni, 2019).

threatens the customs and practices of the Mapuche-Williche people, which

Table 4
Impacts Associated with Small Hydro Development Phases.15
are protected by ILO Convention 169. One indicator for local people is
Lahuen, plant medicine, which are disappearing and degrading with the
Scoping:
•
changes in the Quimán River, and with climate change. In this case, we see
Arrival of consultors to conduct prefeasibility studies of human and ecological
communities generating social divisions
an institutionalized imbalance in the recognition of scientific versus
• Emotional suffering including uncertainty, anxiety, fear, confusion Indigenous knowledge. Use of unreliable scientific data helps to explain
• Deforestation why the water was over-allocated in Quimán River.
• Increased traffic
Construction:
Since the Chilean state holds minimal resources to enforce en-

• Forest cuts for the road, transmission line, and associated infrastructure.
vironmental regulation and private companies are responsible for self-
• Changes to the sedimentation process in water courses. This includes movement
of large volumes of earth in these works, which can affect rivers and streams,
reporting project details, the 3 MW cutoff is ineffective for environ-
mental protection related to project impacts. Additionally, it is based on
depending on how residuals are dealt with and the level of experience of the the false assumption that small hydro is benign below the 3 MW
company
•
threshold. Without adequate regulation or providing benefits like rural
Increasing traffic on local roads in trucks, autos, and machines
• Noise pollution and dust pollution
electrification, factors including construction practices, baseline data,
• Altering the river flow during the installation and itinerant infrastructure such as transmission lines and access roads
• Potential for landslides and impacts on local transportation strongly influence social and environmental impacts. Not only is the
Operation: location of a project important in shaping impacts, the physical and the
• Changing the properties of water: water quality, temperature, level of oxygen and
level of turbidity
cultural geographies of the affected place condition impacts. Moreover,
• Impacts in the presence and flow of fish, along with other plant and animal
aquatic species
a range of domestic and international actors chart the course of small
hydro development through private investment and development.
• Fragmentation of land habitat such as native forest, primarily through road and
transmission lines
Private sector and environmental officials struggle to recognize

•
Mapuche-Williche sites of cultural significance, proving that the Chilean
Fragmentation of aquatic habitat: drying or lowering levels of the river, also
impacting life on the edges of river, such as Lahuen, medicinal plants
state lacks a clear methodology for recognizing Indigenous knowledge and
• Cumulative impacts of two or more hydropower projects together can create
synergic or more amplified impacts than each project separately.
peoples in a coherent way. Local knowledge and potential cultural harm
must be accounted for in regulatory frameworks governing small hydro
• Degradation and fragmentation of spiritual and physical territory development in Indigenous territories. Collaborative research indicates that
consultation with Mapuche-Williche people should occur at the scale of
territory, and not be decided by private actors with interest in hydropower
change, southern Chile is experiencing what is called double exposure
development. International treaties like ILO Convention 169 protect re-
[79] – exposure to extractive economies that depend on natural re-
cognition of ancestral forms of representation, but ancestral representation
sources such as water, and exposure to variable and decreased rainfall
is not respected during hydro development. In Mapuche territory, all hy-
that produces droughts in summer months [1]. If small hydro continues
dropower infrastructure installations should undergo Environmental
at the same rate with poor construction and management practices, it
Assessment and be required to conduct an Indigenous Consultation.
will exacerbate the rapid loss of native temperate rainforest in southern
Achieving these changes requires changing Chile’s General Environmental
Chile.
Framework Law 19.300.
Fragmenting rivers also means fragmenting social relationships and
ceremonial practice. Small hydro’s socio-cultural and spiritual damage
6. Conclusion

15
Informed by field research and [4]. Small hydropower’s spatial tendency of fragmentation across

232
S. Kelly
overlapping ecological, social, and spiritual realms is precipitated by
intersecting dynamics between infrastructure, place, regulation, and
knowledge politics. As these case studies in Mapuche-Williche territory
demonstrate, impacts depend on cultural and spiritual connections to
place, such as relationships to rivers, mountains, forest, and territory,
that are intrinsically connected to physical environments. Mapuche-
Williche people and their way of knowing are marginalized in the
Environmental Assessment process despite raising concerns that expand
our understanding of what constitutes an impact. Indigenous knowl-
edges provide holistic insight for environmental management that
could strengthen energy governance [80] if Indigenous people are
meaningfully consulted.
In Chile, and internationally, small hydropower should be more
adequately regulated. Indigenous rights recognition is limited by loose
regulation. Significant destruction is inflicted in Mapuche territories
with high biodiversity. Findings suggest that Chile should change en-
vironmental law to require that all small hydropower projects enter the
Environmental Assessment process as comprehensive Environmental
Impact Studies and ensure Free, Prior and Informed Consent for
Indigenous people regarding all hydropower projects in their territory.
Beyond considering megawatts, other factors to consider in
Environmental Assessments include: the size of the plant, the type of
installed water infrastructure, use of a high voltage transmission line,
and the length of diversion. Ecologically, assessments should include
flow alteration, habitat connectivity, inundation area, and cumulative
impacts (Cuoto & Olden, 2018). For comprehensively water manage-
ment, small hydropower development must be part of a coordinated
river basin management approach [13,4].
Megawatts are incapable of measuring how small hydropower in-
tervenes in diverse cultural and physical geographies. Hydropower
generating 1 MW or greater can produce disproportionate impacts. To
further interrogate hydropower’s relationship between megawatts and
impacts, scholars could compare plants of various installed capacities
and identify the specific factors in plant design, construction, operation,
and transmission in addition to installed capacity that influence their
impacts. Future research should investigate relationships between so-
cial and environmental changes produced by small hydro development,
and aspects of project design including water infrastructure, forms of
electricity distribution, and river basin management. At the watershed
scale, ecological impacts of small hydro also require more research
[84]. In Chile, as well as internationally, research should explore small
hydropower’s relationship to large hydropower [81] and small hydro-
power’s interactions with climate change. Gaps in our understanding of
small hydropower align with what Liverman [82] identifies as a need
for well-designed comparative studies on climate mitigation policy that
include the voices of affected communities.
In energy transformations, interdisciplinary research can attend to
multiple, intersecting changes that do not adhere to disciplinary di-
vides. This research responds to calls for innovative interdisciplinary
research in the energy social sciences [83]. Ethnographic observation
provides insight on interwoven social and environmental impacts,
contextualizing place, culture, and power dynamics. Here, a colla-
borative research approach problematizes knowledge politics in small
hydropower development. Mapuche-Williche knowledge indicates that
small hydropower impacts pose significant harm, while scientific
knowledge is privileged without a strong empirical foundation. To
understand emergent energy systems and the cultural and environ-
mental change they can provoke, more ethnographic and collaborative
research in and alongside Indigenous communities is needed. Ulti-
mately, the uneven costs and benefits of the renewable energy transi-
tion must be contextualized in place with affected peoples.
Acknowledgements
This research is indebted to the collaboration of the Alianza
Territorial Puelwillimapu. I am also grateful for the collaboration of
233
Energy Research & Social Science 54 (2019) 224–235
José Miguel Valdéz Negroni, who made the maps and provided in-
valuable support as a research assistant. Grant Gutierrez, Dr. Francisco
Molina, and Dr. Lucero Radonic provided important comments on
drafts. A profound thank you to my dissertation committee for their
support and comments on an earlier version of this work: Advisor Dr.
Carl Bauer and committee members Drs. Jeffrey Banister, Diana
Liverman, and Sallie Marston. This work received funding from the
Fulbright Scholarship, Inter-American Grassroots Development
Fellowship, PEO International, Conference for Latin Americanist
Geographers, Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, and the
University of Arizona’s Carson Scholars program and Climate
Assessment of the Southwest.
References
[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, V.R. Barros, C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken,
M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, et al., Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, (2014).
[2] M. Roué, D. Nakashima, Knowledge and foresight: the predictive capacity of tra-
ditional knowledge applied to environmental assessment, Int. Soc. Sci. J. 54 (173)
(2002) 337–347.
[3] T.B. Couto, J.D. Olden, Global proliferation of small hydropower plants–science and
policy, Front. Ecol. Environ. 16 (2) (2018) 91–100.
[4] S. Kelly-Richards, N. Silber-Coats, A. Crootof, D. Tecklin, C. Bauer, Governing the
transition to renewable energy: a review of impacts and policy issues in the small
hydropower boom, Energy Policy 101 (2017) 251–264.
[5] E.P. Anderson, C.M. Pringle, M.C. Freeman, Quantifying the extent of river frag-
mentation by hydropower dams in the Sarapiqui River Basin, Costa Rica, Aquat.
Conserv. Mar. Freshwater Ecosyst. 18 (4) (2008) 408–417.
[6] K. Lange, P. Meier, C. Trautwein, M. Schmid, C.T. Robinson, C. Weber, J. Brodersen,
Basin‐scale effects of small hydropower on biodiversity dynamics, Front. Ecol.
Environ. (2018).
[7] C. Echeverría, D. Coomes, J. Salas, J.M. Rey-Benayas, A. Lara, A. Newton, Rapid
deforestation and fragmentation of Chilean temperate forests, Biol. Conserv. 130 (4)
(2006) 481–494.
[8] M. Premalatha, Tabassum-Abbasi, T. Abbasi, S.A. Abbasi, A critical view on the eco-
friendliness of small hydroelectric installations, Sci. Total Environ. 481 (2014)
638–643, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.047.
[9] D. Egré, J.C. Milewski, The diversity of hydropower projects, Energy Policy 30 (14)
(2002) 1225–1230.
[10] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Hydropower, IPCC Special
Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, Cambridge
University Press, 2011.
[11] P.H. Gleick, Environmental consequences of hydroelectric development: the role of
facility size and type, Energy 17 (8) (1992) 735–747.
[12] T. Harlan, Rural utility to low-carbon industry: small hydropower and the in-
dustrialization of renewable energy in China, Geoforum 95 (2018) 59–69.
[13] T. Hennig, T. Harlan, Shades of green energy: geographies of small hydropower in
Yunnan, China and the challenges of over-development, Global Environ. Change 49
(2018) 116–128.
[14] J.H. Wang, S.W. Tseng, H. Zheng, The paradox of small hydropower: local gov-
ernment and environmental governance in China, J. Dev. Stud. 51 (11) (2015)
1475–1487.
[15] N. Silber-Coats, Clean energy and water conflicts: contested narratives of small
hydropower in Mexico’s Sierra Madre Oriental, Water Altern. 10 (2) (2017)
578–601.
[16] T.H. Bakken, H. Sundt, A. akon Ruud, A. Harby, Development of small versus large
hydropower in Norway–comparison of environmental impacts, Energy Procedia 20
(2012) 185–199.
[17] Ş. Başkaya, E. Başkaya, A. Sari, The principal negative environmental impacts of
small hydropower plants in Turkey, Afr. J. Agric. Res. 6 (14) (2011) 3284–3290.
[18] K.M. Kibler, D.D. Tullos, Cumulative biophysical impact of small and large hydro-
power development in Nu River, China, Water Resour. Res. 49 (6) (2013)
3104–3118.
[19] J. Kirchherr, H. Pohlner, K.J. Charles, Cleaning up the big muddy: a meta-synthesis
of the research on the social impact of dams, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 60 (2016)
115–125.
[20] T.H. Bakken, A.G. Aase, D. Hagen, H. Sundt, D.N. Barton, P. Lujala, Demonstrating a
new framework for the comparison of environmental impacts from small- and large-
scale hydropower and wind power projects, J. Environ. Manage. 140 (0) (2014)
93–101, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.050.
[21] T. Hennig, W. Wang, Y. Feng, X. Ou, D. He, Review of Yunnan’s hydropower de-
velopment. Comparing small and large hydropower projects regarding their en-
vironmental implications and socio-economic consequences, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 27 (2013) 585–595.
[22] Z. Fung, T. Pomun, K.J. Charles, J. Kirchherr, Mapping the social impacts of small
dams: the case of Thailand’s Ing River basin, Ambio (2018) 1–12.
[23] S. Jumani, S. Rao, S. Machado, A. Prakash, Big concerns with small projects:
evaluating the socio-ecological impacts of small hydropower projects in India,
S. Kelly
Ambio 46 (4) (2017) 500–511.
[24] D. Kumar, S.S. Katoch, Harnessing ‘water tower’ into ‘power tower’: a small hy-
dropower development study from an Indian prefecture in western Himalayas,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 39 (2014) 87–101.
[25] A.K. Sharma, N.S. Thakur, Assessing the impact of small hydropower projects in
Jammu and Kashmir: a study from north-western Himalayan region of India,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 80 (2017) 679–693.
[26] T. Ptak, Dams and development: understanding hydropower in far western Yunnan
Province, China, Focus Geogr. 57 (2) (2014) 43–53.
[27] T. Ptak, Towards an ethnography of small hydropower in China: rural electrifica-
tion, socioeconomic development and furtive hydroscapes, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 48
(2019) 116–130.
[28] K. Shaw, S.D. Hill, A.D. Boyd, L. Monk, J. Reid, E.F. Einsiedel, Conflicted or con-
structive? Exploring community responses to new energy developments in Canada,
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 8 (2015) 41–51.
[29] H. Ahlborg, M. Sjöstedt, Small-scale hydropower in Africa: socio-technical designs
for renewable energy in Tanzanian villages, Energy Res. Soc. Sc. 5 (2015) 20–33.
[30] K. Hanna, E. McGuigan, B. Noble, J. Parkins, An analysis of the state of impact
assessment research for low carbon power production: building a better under-
standing of information and knowledge gaps, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 50 (2019)
116–128.
[31] M. Goldman, The birth of a discipline: producing authoritative green knowledge,
World Bank-style, Ethnography 2 (2) (2001) 191–217.
[32] C.E.E. Hess, E. Fenrich, Socio-environmental conflicts on hydropower: the São Luiz
do Tapajós project in Brazil, Environ. Sci. Policy 73 (2017) 20–28.
[33] G. Bridge, B. Özkaynak, E. Turhan, Energy infrastructure and the fate of the nation:
introduction to special issue, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 16 (7) (2018).
[34] A.L. Booth, N.W. Skelton, Improving first nations’ participation in environmental
assessment processes: recommendations from the field, Impact Assess. Project
Appraisal 29 (1) (2011) 49–58.
[35] M.B. Lane, H. Ross, A.P. Dale, R.E. Rickson, Sacred land, mineral wealth, and
biodiversity at coronation Hill, Northern Australia: indigenous knowledge and SIA,
Impact Assess. Project Appraisal 21 (2) (2003) 89–98.
[36] D.C. Baker, J.N. McLelland, Evaluating the effectiveness of British Columbia’s en-
vironmental assessment process for first nations’ participation in mining develop-
ment, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 23 (5) (2003) 581–603.
[37] C. O’Faircheallaigh, Effectiveness in social impact assessment: aboriginal peoples
and resource development in Australia, Impact Assess. Project Appraisal 27 (2)
(2009) 95–110.
[38] M.G. Stevenson, Indigenous knowledge in environmental assessment, Arctic (1996)
278–291.
[40] M. Battiste, J. Youngblood, Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage: A
Global Challenge, UBC Press, 2000.
[41] L.T. Smith, Decolonising Methodologies, Research and Indigenous Peoples London:
Zed Books Ltd, 1999.
[42] N.J. Reo, K.P. Whyte, D. McGregor, M.A. Smith, J.F. Jenkins, Factors that support
indigenous involvement in multi-actor environmental stewardship, AlterNative: Int.
J. Indigenous Peoples 13 (2) (2017) 58–68.
[43] A. Agrawal, Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge,
Dev. Change 26 (3) (1995) 413–439.
[44] A. Morrison-Saunders, T.B. Fischer, What is wrong with EIA and SEA anyway? A
sceptic’s perspective on sustainability assessment, Tools, Techniques and
Approaches for Sustainability: Collected Writings in Environmental Assessment
Policy and Management, (2010), pp. 221–241.
[45] J.C. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human
Condition Have Failed, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1998.
[46] S.C. Ellis, Meaningful consideration? A review of traditional knowledge in en-
vironmental decision making, Arctic (2005) 66–77.
[47] S.S. Wilson, Research as Ceremony: Articulating an Indigenous Research Paradigm
Doctoral dissertation, Monash University, 2004.
[48] S.O. Montt, M.A. Matta, Una visión panorámica al Convenio OIT 169 y su
implementación en Chile, Estudios Públicos 121 (2011) 133–212.
[49] D. Tecklin, C. Bauer, M. Prieto, Making environmental law for the market: the
emergence, character, and implications of Chile’s environmental regime, Environ.
Polit. 20 (6) (2011) 879–898.
[50] C. Sepúlveda, P. Villarroel, Swans, conflicts, and resonance: local movements and
the reform of Chilean environmental institutions, Latin Am. Perspect. 39 (4) (2012)
181–200.
[51] J. Barandiarán, The authority of rules in Chile’s contentious environmental politics,
Environmen. Polit. 25 (6) (2016) 1013–1033.
[52] M. Tironi, J. Barandiarán, 15 Neoliberalism as political technology: expertise, en-
ergy, and democracy in Chile, Beyond Imported Magic: Essays on Science,
Technology, and Society in Latin America, (2014), p. 305.
[53] D. Austin, Confronting environmental challenges on the US–Mexico border: long-
term community-based research and community service learning in a binational
partnership, J. Community Pract. 18 (2–3) (2010) 361–395.
[54] K. Strand, S. Marullo, N. Cutforth, R. Stoecker, P. Donohue, Principles of Best
practice for community-based research, Michigan J. Community Serv. Learn. 9 (3)
(2003) 5–15.
[55] L. Radonic, S. Kelly-Richards, Pipes and praxis: a methodological contribution to
the urban political ecology of water, J. Polit. Ecol. 22 (1) (2015) 389–409.
234
Energy Research & Social Science 54 (2019) 224–235
[56] M. Espig, K. de Rijke, Unconventional gas developments and the politics of risk and
knowledge in Australia, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 20 (2016) 82–90.
[57] J. Smith, M.M. High, Exploring the anthropology of energy: ethnography, energy
and ethics, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 30 (2017) 1–6.
[58] J. Goodman, J.P. Marshall, Problems of methodology and method in climate and
energy research: socialising climate change? Energy Res. Soc. Sc. 45 (2018) 1–11.
[59] M. Sarrica, M. Richter, S. Thomas, I. Graham, B.M. Mazzara, Social approaches to
energy transition cases in rural Italy, Indonesia and Australia: iterative methodol-
ogies and participatory epistemologies, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 45 (2018) 287–296.
[60] A. Escobar, Territories of Difference: Place, Movements, Life, Redes, Duke
University Press, 2008.
[61] J. Muñoz, Territorio Y Diálogo, Presented at the Universidad Austral de Chile,
Valdivia, Chile, 2017 April 2017.
[62] C. Walsh, Afro and indigenous life-visions in/and politics. (De) colonial perspectives
in Bolivia and Ecuador, Bolivian Stud. J./Revista de Estudios Bolivianos 18 (2011)
49–69.
[63] S. Kelly, J.M. Valdés Negroni, F. Guerra, El Desarrollo de Centrales Hidroeléctricas
en el Territorio de las Comunidades Mapuche-Williche de la Cuenca del Lago Ranco
y Lago Maihue, Puelwillimapu. Climate Assessment of the Southwest, University of
Arizona and Centro de Estudios Ambientales, Universidad Austral de Chile, 2017
Available online: https://www.climas.arizona.edu/publication/report/el-
desarrollo-de-centrales-hidroel%C3%A9ctricas-en-el-territorio-de-las-comunidades.
[64] C. Noy, Sampling knowledge: the hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative
research, Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 11 (4) (2008) 327–344.
[65] R. Moulian, P. Espinoza, Impronta andina entre los Kamaskos del Wenuleufu,
Atenea (Concepción) 512 (2015) 211–230.
[66] P.M. Muñoz-Morandé, A. Muñoz-Pedreros, Patrimonio arqueológico e histórico
asociado a un humedal lacustre, el Lago Ranco, en la Región de los Ríos, sur de
Chile, Gestión Ambiental 26 (2013) 5–30.
[67] R. Moreno, C. Le Quesne, I. Diaz, R. Rodriguez, Vascular flora of Futangue Park,
Region de Los Rios (Chile), Gayana Botanica 70 (1) (2013) 121–135.
[68] Z.M. Neira Ceballos, A. Alarcón, I. Jelves, P. Ovalle, A.M. Conejeros, V. Verdugo,
Espacios ecológico-culturales en un territorio mapuche de la región de la Araucanía
en Chile, Chungará (Arica) 44 (2) (2012) 313–323.
[69] M.E. Grebe, El subsistema de los ngen en la religiosidad mapuche, Revista Chilena
de Antropología (1993) 12.
[70] Futawillimapu, Che Süngun - Curso Básico. Producción Autónomo Cultural
Mapuche, Accessible online: (2018) http://www.futawillimapu.org/pub/2010/
Curso_Basico_de_Che_Sungun_I.pdf.
[71] J. Ñanculef, Tayiñ Mapuche Kimün. Epistemología Mapuche–Sabiduría y
Conocimientos, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, 2016.
[72] MOP (Ministerio de Obras Públicas), Plan regional de infraestructura y gestión del
recurso hídrico. Región de Los Ríos, MOP, Valdivia, Chile, 2012, p. 401.
[73] Ilustre Municipalidad de Lago Ranco, Informe Ambiental. Modificación Plan
Regulador Comunal de Lago Ranco. Lago Ranco, Chile, (2009).
[74] Pares, Ingenierosy Proyectos Alvares, Anexo 10. Línea de Base Medio Humano.
ENRC Las Flores S.A, Accessible online: (2016) http://seia.sea.gob.cl/archivos/
2016/07/15/Anexo_10_Medio_humano.pdf.
[75] Servicio de Evaluación de Impacto, Ambiental, Informe Consolidado de Solicitud de
Aclaraciones, Rectificaciones y/o Ampliaciones Complementario a la Declaración
de Impacto Ambiental del Proyecto "Ampliación Minicentral Hidroeléctrica Las
Flores, Accessible online: (2017) http://infofirma.sea.gob.cl/DocumentosSEA/
MostrarDocumento?docId=a0/16/e63bde8c3c74b0b6b244303f925053613dfe.
[76] S. Csiki, B.L. Rhoads, Hydraulic and geomorphological effects of run-of-river dams,
Prog. Phys. Geogr. 34 (6) (2010) 755–780.
[77] P. Parot, Estudio Hidrológico Río Quimán (Anexo 15. Informe Hidrología:
declaración de Impacto Ambiental). ERNC Las Flores S.A, Accessible online: (2012)
http://seia.sea.gob.cl/archivos/2016/07/15/Anexo_15.-_Estudio_Hidrologico.pdf.
[78] Comisión Nacional de Energía, Capacidad instalada generación. Santiago de Chile,
Accessible online: (2018) https://www.cne.cl/estadisticas/electricidad/.
[79] K.L. O’Brien, R.M. Leichenko, Double exposure: assessing the impacts of climate
change within the context of economic globalization, Glob. Environ. Change 10 (3)
(2000) 221–232.
[80] L. Necefer, G. Wong-Parodi, P. Jaramillo, M.J. Small, Energy development and
Native Americans: values and beliefs about energy from the Navajo nation, Energy
Res. Soc. Sci. 7 (2015) 1–11.
[81] C.J. Bauer, Dams and markets: rivers and electric power in Chile, Nat. Resour. J.
(2009) 583–651.
[82] D. Liverman, Reading climate change and climate governance as political ecologies,
in: T. Perreault, G. Bridge, J. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Political
Ecology, Routledge, 2015Taylor and Francis Inc.
[83] B.K. Sovacool, What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scho-
larship and proposing a social science research agenda, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1
(2014) 1–29.
[84] D. Anderson, H. Moggridge, P. Warren, J. Shucksmith, The impacts of ‘run‐of‐river’
hydropower on the physical and ecological condition of rivers, Water Environ. J. 29
(2) (2015) 268–276.
[90] A. Erlewein, Disappearing rivers—the limits of environmental assessment for hy-
dropower in India, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 43 (2013) 135–143.
[91] J.M. Baker, Small hydropower development in Himachal Pradesh: an analysis of
socioecological effects, Econ. Polit. Weekly 49 (21) (2014) 77–86.
S. Kelly
[92] Comisión Nacional de Energía, Reporte Mensual ENRC CNE. Vol. 24 (2018)
(August). Accessible online: https://www.cne.cl/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/
RMensual_ERNC_v201808.pdf.
[93] E. Chihuailaf, En la reiteración de la memoria azul (un texto incompleto), in:
F. Zerón, M. Garretón, S. Campos, C. Garretón (Eds.), Encuentros con la memoria:
archivos y debates de memoria y futuro, 2004.
[94] T. Abbasi, S.A. Abbasi, Small hydro and the environmental implications of its
235
Energy Research & Social Science 54 (2019) 224–235
extensive utilization, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (4) (2011) 2134–2143.
[95] P. Allston, End of mission statement of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty
and human rights, Philip Allston, on his visit to Chile, United Nations Human Rights
Office of the High Commissioner, (2015) Accessible online: https://www.ohchr.
org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15748&LangID=E.
[96] L.A. Barroso, H. Rudnick, F. Sensfuss, P. Linares, The green effect, IEEE Power
Energy Mag. 8 (5) (2010) 22–35.