Environmental Management (2021) 67:682–696

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01418-x

The Downstream Impacts of Hydropower Dams and Indigenous and

Local Knowledge: Examples from the Peace–Athabasca, Mekong,
and Amazon
Ian G. Baird 1 Renato A. M. Silvano2 Brenda Parlee3 Mark Poesch3 Bruce Maclean4 Art Napoleon5
● ● ● ● ● ●

Melody Lepine6 Gustavo Hallwass7

●

Received: 28 October 2020 / Accepted: 22 December 2020 / Published online: 18 January 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature 2021, corrected publication 2021

Abstract
There has been much written about the negative social and environmental impacts of large hydropower dams, particularly
the impacts on people and the environment caused by flooding linked to the creation of large reservoirs. There has also
long been recognition of the importance of Indigenous and local knowledge for understanding ecological processes and
1234567890();,:
1234567890();,:

environmental impacts. In this paper, however, we focus on a topic that has received insufficient consideration: the
downstream impacts of dams, and the role of Indigenous and local knowledge in assessing and addressing these impacts.
Using examples from three river basins in different parts of the world: the Peace–Athabasca in Canada, the Mekong in
mainland Southeast Asia, and the Amazon in Brazil, we demonstrate that the downstream impacts of hydropower dams
are often neglected due to the frequently long distances between dams and impacted areas, jurisdictional boundaries, and
the less obvious nature of downstream impacts. We contend that Indigenous or local knowledge, if applied consistently
and appropriately, has important roles to play in understanding and addressing these impacts, with the goal of avoiding,
reducing, and appropriately compensating for the types of environmental injustices that are frequently associated with the
downstream impacts of dams.
Keywords Hydropower dams Rivers Impacts, Indigenous Local Knowledge
● ● ● ●

Introduction

Over recent decades, much has been written about the

negative social and environmental impacts of large
hydropower dams (Winemiller et al. 2016; Fearnside
* Ian G. Baird
2016; Hirsch 2010; WCD 2000; McCully 1996; Gold-
ibaird@wisc.edu smith and Hilyard 1984). Indeed, these impacts are now
much better recognized than they were just a few decades
1
Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin—Madison, ago. However, some types of impacts are more recognized
Madison, WI, USA
and have been better addressed than others. In particular,
2
Departamento de Ecologia e Programa de Pós-Graduação em there has been considerable attention given to the negative
Ecologia—IB, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
impacts to human populations and the environment,
(UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
3
including involuntary resettlement from the reservoir areas
University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
of large dams (Cernea 1993, 1999; Cernea and McDowell
4
Maclean Environmental Consulting, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada 2000), and the impacts of the creation of large reservoirs
5
Saulteau First Nations, Treaty 8 Territories, Moberly Lake, BC, on wildlife (Pearce 2001; Vie 1999).
Canada However, one of the most neglected and unevenly
6
Mikisew Cree First Nation Government and Industry Relations, considered impacts of large hydropower dam development
Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada in various parts of the world are downstream impacts, or
7
Universidade Federal do Oeste do Pará, Oriximiná, Brazil impacts that occur below the dams and outside of reservoir
Environmental Management (2021) 67:682–696
areas (Richter et al. 2010; Hallwass and Lopes 2013; Doria
et al. 2018; Runde et al. 2020). The severity of these
impacts varies significantly, depending on a wide range of
factors, and in particular, those related to hydrology and
water quality. However, they have been unevenly studied
and are frequently underestimated, undermitigated, and
undercompensated, often due to the long distances that
impacts occur downstream, jurisdictional boundaries
associated with areas impacted, and the difficulty of
recognizing the signs of downstream impacts.
In this paper, we argue that downstream impacts have
lagged behind other issues in terms of the attention that
they have received by hydropower dam developers,
governments, the public, and environmental consultants.
In addition, and not surprisingly, there have been insuf-
ficient efforts made to mitigate the downstream impacts
of dams and provide sufficient compensation for the
downstream social and environmental impacts of dams.
Indeed, there are particular structural and geographical
explanations for why this is often the case, which we
consider here through the comparative analysis of the
Peace–Athabasca, Mekong, and Amazon River Basins,
including political borders, distance between dams and
impacts, jurisdictional issues, and the less obvious nature
of impacts. Finally, we assert that Indigenous or local
knowledge (ILK) has an important role to play in con-
sidering and meaningfully addressing the downstream
impacts of dams, especially since many of the impacts
require longitudinal knowledge to recognize the serious
implications of particular impacts, but that it has been
applied inconsistently and unevenly, and thus requires
much more attention.
Indeed, this paper considers not only scientific evidence
about downstream impacts, but also documented sources
of ILK, which we consider to be equivalent to what Berkes
(1993, p 3) refers to as “a cumulative body of knowledge
and beliefs, handed down through generations by cultural
transmission, about the relationship of living beings
(including humans) with one another and with their
environment”. Such knowledge linked with other data
provide a lived experience and understanding of both the
social and ecological dimensions of change in these
important freshwater systems, and thus is invaluable.
To begin with, we briefly review the literature most
relevant to our study. We then introduce the three river
basins—the Peace–Athabasca, Mekong, and Amazon—
and explain some of the specific ways that each of the
basins have been affected or are likely to be affected by
the downstream impacts of large hydropower dams. We
then discuss the broader implications of our findings and
provide some recommendations, before providing some
concluding remarks about the downstream impacts
of dams.
683
Downstream Impacts: Flows and Water
Quality
The downstream impacts of large hydropower dams have
previously been studied to varying degrees, but overall are
insufficiently considered in assessment, planning, construc-
tion, and post-construction monitoring and management.
Where they are identified, downstream impacts are fre-
quently underestimated, and neglected, but we are not the
first to make this point. For example, almost 35 years ago,
Goldsmith and Hilyard (1984) wrote about various under-
appreciated but serious downstream impacts of dams,
including the impacts of dams on river deltas or estuaries.
Years later, Patrick McCully (1996) also paid particular
attention to various kinds of downstream impacts of dams.
The World Bank and IUCN-International Union for Con-
servation of Nature sponsored the monumental World
Commission on Dams (WCD), included people with a range
of backgrounds and opinions regarding dams, and conducted
case study reviews of a wide range of hydropower dam
projects around the world, many of which considered
downstream impacts. Because of the public attention the
final report received, the report shed considerable light on
the various kinds of serious downstream impacts caused by
large hydropower dams (WCD 2000).
The downstream impacts of dams can largely be broken
down to include impacts related to hydrological and water
quality changes, although these broad categories are gen-
erally intertwined, and typically occur simultaneously, albeit
in different ways, depending on an array of factors. It is
crucial to recognize that hydropower dams typically release
water to produce energy during particular seasons, days of
the week, and times of the day, due to various reasons
(McCully 1996; WCD 2000; Baird and Quastel 2015). This
can result in major hydrological changes downstream, and in
turn, unusual water fluctuations that lead to increased ero-
sion and scouring, along with other impacts.
With regard to water quality, dams often impede the
movement of sediment downstream, resulting in a range of
environmental and social impacts. Hydroregulations can
lead to more riverbed scouring and erosion, and lead to
increased sedimentation in rivers downstream. This has
impacts on fish and fish habitat, nutrient growth, human
water consumption, and in temperate environments, ice
formation. Erosion can lead to more debris as hazards for
navigation. More generally, the disruption of sediment
transport downriver by dams can lead to the disintegration
of important riverine deltas and estuaries (Goldsmith and
Hilyard 1984; McCully 1996; WCD 2000).
The quality of the water released from the reservoirs of
large dams is often poor. Sometimes, the water is anaerobic
(without oxygen) when released from deep reservoirs, due
to the lack of flow and oxygenation, something atypical for
684
an undammed free-flowing river. When new reservoirs are
created without vegetation removal, water quality problems
can occur due to eutrophic conditions (Goldsmith and
Hilyard 1984; McCully 1996; WCD 2000). Toxic blue-
green algae is also often produced in reservoirs and released
downriver (Wyatt and Baird 2007), and gas super saturation
another problem that can occur downstream of dams
(Abernethy et al. 2001). One consequence of flooding
landscapes and reservoir creation is methylmercury pro-
duction and bioaccumulation within the food chain,
adversely affecting fish species harvested for food (Bodaly
et al. 2004; Hall et al. 2005). As noted elsewhere, impacts
can be felt well downstream of reservoirs and persist dec-
ades after dam construction (Hall et al. 2005; Wyatt and
Baird 2007). River fragmentation caused by dams can also
block the seasonal reproductive migrations of fish species
(Agostinho et al. 2007; Pelicice and Agostinho 2008),
negatively affecting fish abundance, fishery productivity,
and local livelihoods (Hoeinghaus et al. 2009; Hallwass and
Lopes 2013, Arantes et al. 2019; Santos et al. 2020),
although we do not focus in detail on this issue here.
In this paper, we discuss various ways in which
hydrological and water quality changes caused by hydro-
power dams have negatively affected the environment and
people. One approach for conceptualizing these down-
stream impacts is “environmental flows”. This approach
involves trying to time water releases so that they coincide
with natural riverine cycles (Richter and Thomas 2007), so
as to mimic natural daily and seasonal flows, with the goal
of reducing downstream impacts (Dyson et al. 2003;
Richter et al. 2010). The concept of environmental flows
was already well known in the 1990s, and the WCD
(2000) stated that environmental flows are crucial for
comprehensive strategies that assess all the impacts of
hydrological changes due to the operation of dams or
related forms of infrastructure. While the World Bank
(2004) chose not to officially endorse WCD guidelines, its
own water sector strategy explicitly cited the importance
of flows and argued that, “well conceived water infra-
structure should… develop operating rules that specify
ecological flows for the benefit of downstream riparians”
(p 10). However, adopting an environmental flow regime
frequently cuts into profits, and thus corporate investors try
to avoid it in order to maximize profits (Baird and Quastel
2015), and has also been criticized as being a potentially
overly top–down approach (Vos and Boelens 2020).
Various measures can be taken to improve water quality,
from making smaller and shallower reservoirs with less
potential to include nonflowing water that becomes anaerobic,
to designing projects so that sediments can easily be released,
to clearing reservoir areas of vegetation before a dam is
impounded. These measures can reduce the potential for
eutrophication and a reduction in water quality (WCD 2000).
Environmental Management (2021) 67:682–696
The Peace–Athabasca River and Delta,
Mackenzie River Basin
The Peace River originates in the Rocky Mountains of
northern British Columbia and flows northeast into northern
Alberta. The Peace River joins the Athabasca River in the
Peace–Athabasca Delta (PAD), which then forms the Slave
River, which is a tributary of the Mackenzie River, the
largest river system in Canada and the second largest
drainage basin in North America. The Mackenzie then
flows north to the Beaufort Sea on the Arctic Ocean. While
the Peace River is itself 1923 km long, the total length of
the Mackenzie is 4241 km. The Mackenzie River Basin is
home to First Nations, Métis, and Inuvialuit people whose
cultures, economies, and spiritual belief systems center
around the sustainability of the land, water, and wildlife of
the Mackenzie River system (Abel 2005).
Despite the fact that Canada has a long history of
hydropower development, many of the downstream impacts
of dams in Canada still remain poorly understood and
documented (Rosenberg et al. 1995; Prowse et al. 2002),
and even more poorly mitigated and compensated (WCD
2000). Environmental historians and anthropologists over
the last 40 years have revealed the ways in which the
benefits and costs of hydropower projects are unevenly
distributed, and that environmental impacts are inter-
connected with significant economic, health, and social
impacts (Loo and Stanley 2011; Bielawski and Lutsel
K’e Dene First Nation 1993; Quinn 1991; Loney 1995;
Waldram 1988; Usher et al. 1979). More specifically, there
has been limited recognition and accommodation of the
unique impacts on livelihoods and cultures of Indigenous
peoples (Quinn 1991). As Canada strives to become less
reliant on fossil fuels, a revisit and review of the hidden
costs of hydropower dam development on Indigenous
peoples is needed. Here we consider the downstream
impacts of a series of dams on the Peace River (the W.A.C
Bennett Dam, Peace Canyon (Site B), and Site C Dam), in
the Peace–Athabasca River Basin. We then examine the
uneven inclusion of Elders and their ILK in relation to
downstream impacts, even in modern environmental impact
assessment (EIA) processes, and more importantly, the
insufficient mitigation and compensation related to down-
stream impacts.
The W.A.C Bennett Dam and Hydro
Development on the Peace River
The W.A.C. Bennett Dam is a 2-km long structure on the
Peace River upstream of the PAD. The construction of the
dam began in 1961 and was the largest infrastructure project
of its kind in Western Canada at that time, costing over
Environmental Management (2021) 67:682–696
Fig. 1 The Peace River Watershed, the W.A.C. Bennett and Site C Dams, and Downstream Areas
CAN$750 million. It was one of several mega-projects
initiated under the W.A.C Bennett provincial government
between 1952 and 1972, with the goal of addressing
underdevelopment in northern British Columbia by stimu-
lating growth (Loo and Stanley 2011; Tomblin 1990).
The Williston Reservoir was created by W.A.C. Bennett
Dam, the third largest reservoir in Canada (IUCN Mission
Report 2016) and over 1500 Indigenous people (mainly
Sekani people) were forced to resettle (Baker et al. 2002;
Brody 1981; Loo and Stanley 2011). In 1980, a second dam
was completed 23 km downstream (Peace Canyon Dam), a
so-called run-of-the-river project with a 50-meter high
concrete dam. A further dam, Site C, was approved for
construction in 2018 (Fig. 1).
Downstream Impacts of the W.A.C. Bennett
Dam
The complex downstream impacts of the W.A.C. Bennett
and Peace Canyon Dams continue to be experienced in the
Peace River system as well as in the Athabasca, and Slave
River watersheds (Fig. 1). Parts of the PAD are designated
as a National Park and a UNESCO World Heritage Site,
owing to the uniqueness of the biodiversity of both terres-
trial and aquatic ecosystems. These regions, home to Cree,
685
Dene, and Métis people, are culturally unique, and both
ecosystems and people are under stress from the down-
stream effects of hydropower dams, coupled with the
cumulative effects of oil sand development (Alberta Energy
Regulator 2019) and climate change.
The impacts associated with the W.A.C. Bennet dam
were experienced in the PAD almost immediately after its
construction. The Williston Reservoir itself is 251 km long
and took 5 years to fill, between 1966 and 1971, during
which time there was a significant decrease in downstream
flow in the Peace and Athabasca regions. It was estimated
that 200,000 cu ft. per second of flow was diverted to the
32–50 million acre-feet water reservoir (PADPG 1972,
p 71; BC Hydro 2007, p 2). During this period, water
levels on the Peace River decreased by 10–12 feet
(PADPG 1972, p 69). This drastic change came without
prior consultation with Indigenous people downstream of
the project in British Columbia and Alberta (Loo and
Stanley 2011; Sims 2018).
The PAD is a highly dynamic environment with hydro-
logic characteristics that have sustained Indigenous life for
centuries. Complex interactions between the two large river
systems (Athabasca and Peace River, along with smaller
systems such as the Birch River) result in a host of ecolo-
gical niches sustained by hydrologic recharge and water-
ways that enable access to them, and hydrometric records
686
Fig. 2 Changes in median monthly flows pre-construction
(1915–1966, black hashed line) and post-construction (1967–2017,
gray dotted line) of the W.A.C. Bennett dam. Data are from the stream
gauge station just downstream of Williston Reservoir (gauge
07HA001) using publicly available data from the Water Survey of
Canada (www.wsc.ec.gc.ca)
and naturalized flow conditions for the Lower Peace River
clearly demonstrate alteration of the river’s seasonal flow
regime (or hydrograph) by operation of the W.A.C. Bennett
Dam (Peters and Prowse 2001, cited in Wolfe et al. 2020).
The significance of the seasonal changes in hydrology is
presented in Fig. 2. Winter water levels have increased, and
spring/summer peak floods have decreased, generally eve-
ning out water flow over the year. The entire
Peace–Athabasca–Slave system was influenced by the reg-
ulation of flow (Prowse et al. 2002).
The ecological integrity of the PAD is driven by seasonal
flooding caused by hydraulic damming, flow reversals, and
ice jamming (Carver 2013). Ice jamming in particular is
critical to the recharge of the PAD, especially when ice
blocks the lower Peace River during the dynamic/mechan-
ical breakup of its ice cover in the Delta reach, which
typically occurs in late April and early May. Under favor-
able conditions, ice jams can cause highly elevated flooding
that accesses the highest perched basins within the PAD,
areas that would otherwise receive no recharge from
floodwaters (Carver and Maclean 2016). However, ice jam
flooding frequency after 1968 dam construction has
declined significantly (Beltaos 2018), which has changed
the aquatic ecosystem and local use. Reduced water levels
following the construction of the dam and persistence
between 1976 and 1986 led to severe drying and the colo-
nization of woody species (Timoney and Argus 2006;
Mitsch and Hernandez 2013).
Indigenous Elders and fishers have significant observations
related to ice, fish, and flood conditions, and how they have
changed since 1968. Prior to the construction of the dam,
people would go into the delta at “freeze up” to fish and make
Environmental Management (2021) 67:682–696
dry fish to support themselves through the winter (Stuart
Adams and Associates 1998). Similarly, families would stay
in cabins at the end of winter and return in boats once the
spring melt/flood occurred. On the Peace River in particular,
families would make willow “nests” as platforms to store
their important gear, as the river would regularly flood. While
full widespread floods of high magnitude and duration were
relatively rare, small-to-medium flood events were common
(every 2–3 years). Elders stress that these floods no longer
occur with the same frequency. The consequences for eco-
logical sustainability are multifaceted—access to harvest
areas is more challenging, abundance for some targeted spe-
cies is reduced, and the quality of harvested animals and fish
has declined.
Changes in flood frequency have subsequently changed
the ecology of the Peace River and the downstream PAD,
including the precipitous decline in the abundance of
muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) populations (Straka et al.
2018). An overall drying trend in the PAD was analyzed by
Ward and Gorelick (2018), and showed “~1450 km2 of
temporarily inundated regions that support critical habitat
have diminished by ~10 km2/year over the past 46 years; a
decline of ~32% over the last half century”. All four major
flyways in North America converge on the PAD, and sig-
nificant declines in waterfowl populations once described as
swarming (Russel 1898 in Fuller et al. 1971), have declined
drastically below levels considered healthy and sustainable
for the subsistence livelihoods of local Indigenous com-
munities. Whereas the population of shorebirds and water-
fowl in the PAD was estimated to be roughly 1.5 million
during fall migration in the 1970s, peak numbers have only
been 800,000 during the last two decades (Heenan 1972;
Butterworth et al. 2002). Although weirs installed in the
PAD have restored some aspects of natural flooding,
the PAD is still considered a dying aquatic ecosystem
(Stuart Adams and Associates 1998). These problems of
low water levels have altered aquatic health in complex
ways, including through contaminant loading.
Lower water levels have also altered river channels and
associated movements by both fish and people. For exam-
ple, the collapse of goldeye fish stocks in the PAD is largely
attributed to changes in flow patterns and PAD dynamics,
which have impeded fish spawning (Government of Alberta
2020). Flow alterations have also obstructed food harvest,
including fishing and hunting.
Regulation of the Peace River has altered the usual flow
patterns, creating artificial high freeze-up levels, which lead
to dangerous hanging ice, where the ice is not touching the
water, and is a fall hazard for snowmobile travel. “As
Aboriginal people, we never saw water come up in the
winter [before the dam]” (M72, July 2, 2013 in MCFN
2013). The uncertainty of flows and flooding has, thus,
created significant barriers and risks for travel on the river.
Environmental Management (2021) 67:682–696
These impacts ultimately translate into stress and anxiety for
those living downstream. Testimony and previous research
suggest that downstream communities experience fear in
relation to river travel as well as grief about the losses of
cultural identities and uses of the river and the PAD:
What’s going to happen to us – our future? The lake
Athabasca, the delta, the river. What’s going to
happen to everything downstream?… And further
north into the Great Slave, right, I think. Yeah that’s
going to affect a lot of – many people; a lot of lives…
With health – health-wise. Your food, the water – the
water changes. Just everything. It will be everything.
It’s just going to kill everything (M27 2012 in MCFN
2013).
In the early 1970s, three emergency-regulating weirs
were installed in an attempt to mitigate some of the
downstream impacts of the W.A.C. Bennett dam. These
were constructed on the recommendation of an emergency
intergovernmental panel in Canada, which was established
to better understand the response to concerns identified by
people living in the PAD (Timoney 2002). While these
structures improved PAD water levels, the Quatre Fourches
weir adversely impacted fish passage, especially for gold-
eyes, and was subsequently removed. While some First
Nations communities settled for undisclosed amounts of
compensation for W.A.C. Bennett dam-caused downstream
impacts, others have never been consulted or compensated,
indicating neglect even when impacts are known.
Partially due to the impacts of the W.A.C. Bennett
Dam, there has been sustained opposition to constructing
the Site C Project, which was originally conceived in the
1950s, as a third phase of the provincial governments
power plan. Although originally proposed for develop-
ment in the 1980s, the dam was shelved until the early
2000s when it was subjected to more detailed review.
Despite opposition to the project mounted by downstream
and nearby communities, and evidence of potential
adverse impacts on the PAD, a federal environmental
assessment concluded that “the Project would not have
any measurable effect on the Peace-Athabasca Delta” (JRP
2014). The communities in the PAD dispute this claim, but
were not included in the assessment (as potentially
impacted), a gap that runs contrary to federal legislation on
the “duty to consult” and principles of “free, prior and
informed consent” (FPIC), as detailed in the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(Government of British Columbia 2019). So why have
these downstream areas and impacts been neglected? It is
partially because they are far away and in a different
province. In addition, the extent of downstream impacts is
often subtle and thus easy to deny. Thus, serious social
687
and environmental justice issues have not been sufficiently
addressed, even though Indigenous people hold consider-
able ILK that is relevant for addressing these issues.
In 2015, BC Hydro began construction on Site C after
the provincial government granted permits. The exclusion
of the PAD from the Site C environmental assessment, and
other major cumulative impacts, prompted the Mikisew
Cree to petition UNESCO to list the Wood Buffalo National
Park (a UNESCO world heritage site) as threatened.
Downstream impacts on the PAD have been a major focus
of concern due to the UNESCO petition (Environment
Canada 2019). However, despite the input of downstream
communities, as well as international recognition that the
world heritage site is endangered, construction of the Site C
dam has proceeded with little recognition, reconciliation, or
accommodation of the downstream impacts of past or future
hydropower development.
It is anticipated that the impacts associated with the W.A.C.
Bennett Dam will be compounded with the development of
this Site C expansion, and that those living in the PAD and
elsewhere in the Mackenzie River Basin experience even
greater and largely unmitigated and uncompensated impacts
on their traditional territories and livelihoods.
The Mekong River Basin
The Mekong is one of the largest and most important river
basins in the world, flowing approximately 4909 km from
its source in the mountains of Tibet to the Mekong Delta in
Vietnam, making it the eighth longest river in the world,
and the fifth longest in Asia. Covering a basin area of
795,000 km2, the Mekong supports the largest freshwater
capture fishery in the world, estimated to be over 2 million
tons per year (Hortle 2007). Significantly, the Mekong
River Basin is included in the national territories of six
nation states, China in the headwaters, and Myanmar, Laos,
Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam downriver, and variously
supports the livelihoods of ~60 million people (Mekong
River Commission 2019, 2020). The parts of the basin
within Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam are subject
to the Mekong River Agreement (1995), while China and
Myanmar are considered to just be “dialogue partners”
(Mekong River Commission 2018) (Fig. 3).
The downstream impacts of hydropower dams have
largely been neglected with regard to official EIAs, plan-
ning, mitigation, and compensation. However, local people
have extensive ILK about these impacts, although they have
only rarely been consulted. To demonstrate how down-
stream impacts have been widely neglected in the Mekong
River Basin, along with the people who depend on them, we
draw upon two case studies about the Yali Falls dam, and
the Nam Theun 2 (NT2) dam in Laos.
688
Fig. 3 Map of hydropower dams
in the Mekong River Basin
discussed in this paper
The Yali Falls Dam and Downstream Impacts
in the Sesan River Basin in Cambodia
In 1993, Electricite du Vietnam, the public electricity
authority in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, started
constructing the US$1 billion, 720-MW capacity Yali Falls
Hydropower Dam on the Krong Poko, a major tributary of
Environmental Management (2021) 67:682–696
the Sesan River in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. The
government-owned project received support from Russia,
the Ukraine, and Sweden. The first turbine started operating
in 2000, and the dam was completed in 2003 (Wyatt and
Baird 2007).
The Swiss government provided over US$1 million
through the Interim Mekong River Committee to the Swiss
Environmental Management (2021) 67:682–696
Fig. 4 Changes in daily
hydrology of Sesan River in
Andong Meas District,
Ratanakiri Province, Cambodia,
downstream of the Yali Falls
dam, in January 2001–2003
(Wyatt and Baird 2007)
consulting company Electrowatt (1993), in order to conduct
a comprehensive social assessment and EIA for the project,
but crucially, the study only considered the impacts 6 km
downstream, as if the water was expected to stop flowing
below after that point. The downstream impacts on the
70-km stretch of the river between the dam and the border
with Cambodia were not considered. Nor were impacts of
the dam on downstream areas in the Sesan River Basin in
Cambodia (Wyatt and Baird 2007).
Within a few years, however, the negative downstream
impacts of the construction of the Yali Falls dam became
evident to Indigenous and local peoples who frequently
use the river, both in Ratanakiri and Stung Treng Pro-
vinces. Fifty-five-thousand people were impacted up to
where the Sekong River flows into the Mekong River near
Stung Treng town. However, despite people living along
the Sesan River clearly understanding the changes that
have occurred, due to their intimate relations and accu-
mulated ILK regarding the river (Fisheries Office Rata-
nakiri Province and NTFP Project 2000; Baird et al. 2002),
the Mekong River Commission (2002) neglected them and
initially underestimated the negative downstream impacts
of the Yali Falls dam. Problematically, the Mekong
Agreement only recognizes the national governments of
Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia (Mekong River
Commission 1995), without having any mandate to con-
sider ILK. However, hydrological data collected during
the time when the dam was being constructed and com-
pleted (see Fig. 4), and local observations indicate that
while dams can change seasonal hydrological patterns (see
Fig. 2), they can also seriously alter hydrology on a daily
basis (see Fig. 4).
The Yali Falls Dam has caused serious downstream
environmental and social impacts related to dramatic
changes in hydrology and water quality. These include at
least 39 Indigenous people being washed away and
drowned due to strong water releases from the dam, and
689
large numbers of livestock dying due to being drowned
by bursts of released water. Many people and livestock
also died due to consuming poor quality water released
from the dam, although this was not reported until 2000
(Fisheries Office Ratanakiri Province and NTFP Project
2000), and it was only confirmed that toxic blue-green
algae were being produced in the Yali reservoir and
released downstream in 2009 (Tiodolf 2009). In addition,
large quantities of fishing gear were washed away, deep-
water pools in the river silted up, wild vegetation that
used to grow in the riverbed was negatively impacted,
and wild capture fisheries of great importance to rural
livelihoods have been negatively impacted. The dam is
also believed to have contributed to increased wet season
flooding due to operational flaws (NGO Forum on
Cambodia 2005; Wyatt and Baird 2007). A lot of
downstream riverbank erosion is occurring in Cambodia
as a result of the Yali Falls dam (Baird and Barney 2017).
Crucially, however, no compensation has been provided
to those impacted downstream, and a change in operating
practices to partially take into account downstream
impacts only emerged after widespread criticisms came
from people in Cambodia (NGO Forum on Cambodia
2005; Wyatt and Baird 2007).
One reason the downstream impacts of the Yali Falls
dam have been neglected is because the dam was built in
Vietnam, but many of its most serious impacts occurred in
Cambodia. This jurisdictional issue has complicated the
situation greatly. Moreover, the dam is over 100 km from
where many serious impacts have occurred, thus indicating
that the distance between dams and impacts is another
serious problem. Finally, people who live near the river and
use it a great deal understand the river and how it has
changed due to dam construction, but they have not been
consulted at all, and their ILK about the environmental
changes that have occurred has not been appropriately
considered (Wyatt and Baird 2007).
690
The Nam Theun 2 Dam and Downstream
Impacts in the Xe Bang Fai River Basin in
Laos
The NT2 Hydropower Project is the second largest dam in
Laos, besides the Xayaburi dam on the mainstream Mekong
River in northern Laos. Built at a cost of US$1.45 billion, the
project is a build–operate-and-transfer project, owned by the
Nam Theun Power Company (NTPC), which has a 25-year
concession agreement, after which time the project will be
handed over to the Lao government. The shareholders in
NTPC are Electricite du France (40%), Electricity Generating
Public Company in Thailand (35%), and the Lao government
(25%). With a capacity of 1070 MW, 995 MW of the energy
produced is exported to Thailand. The financing for the
project was guaranteed by the World Bank, and construction
began in 2005 and was completed in 2010 (Shoemaker and
Robichaud 2018). NT2’s design is particularly problematic in
relation to downstream impacts. That is, the Theun River is
dammed, creating a 450-km2 reservoir. To generate energy,
water is diverted from the reservoir into a tunnel that goes
down a steep mountain to the project’s power station, where
energy is produced. The water then flows into a 27-km canal
that eventually converges with the Xe Bang Fai River, a river
in a different subbasin that previously held half the volume of
water than the Theun River, but now has much more water in
it. Thus, the project reduces the amount of water flowing
down the Theun River due to the diversion (Richter et al.
2010; Baird et al. 2015).
There is twice as much water in the Xe Bang Fai River as
before, leading to dramatic changes in hydrological and water
quality that have negatively impacted over 155,000 people
living downstream in the Xe Bang Fai River Basin (Baird
et al. 2015). Local people living along the Xe Bang Fai River
have considerable ILK about the downstream impacts of
NT2, but the NTPC and the Lao government have not taken
this ILK seriously (Baird et al. 2015; Manorom et al. 2017).
Rural people have observed that water levels in the Xe Bang
Fai River tend to decline on weekends and when the weather
is cool, as dam water releases are linked to energy demand
and particularly air-conditioning use in neighboring Thailand
(Baird and Quastel 2015; Marks and Zhang 2019). When
energy demand declines in Thailand, less water is released
from the NT2’s reservoir into the Xe Bang Fai River, as
water is released when energy in Thailand is required. This
has resulted in the downstream impacts of the dam being
even worse than they could have been if the dam was being
operated following an environmental flow regiment, where
water releases are managed to mimic pre-dam downstream
hydrological conditions (Baird and Quastel 2015). Local
people have a clear understanding of the various types of
downstream impacts, including those related to the rainy
season flooding and damaging of large areas of previously
Environmental Management (2021) 67:682–696
productive lowland rice paddies. Riverine ecology has also
changed dramatically, which has negatively affected aquatic
life in the Xe Bang Fai River, including wild fish stocks
important for local livelihoods. Fishing has also become
more difficult due to sporadic changes in water levels, and
river erosion has dramatically increased since NT2 started
operating (Baird et al. 2015).
Indicative of the ways that downstream hydrological and
water quality impacts have been neglected, initially NTPC
did not allocate any specific budget to compensate those
impacted downstream in the Xe Bang Fai River Basin.
However, Shoemaker et al. (2001) published a report titled
“The People and Their River”, which demonstrated the
importance of aquatic resources in the Xe Bang Fai River
Basin. This resulted in US$16 million being allocated for
compensation in downstream parts of the Xe Bang Fai
River Basin. However, demonstrative of how downstream
issues tend to be underappreciated, NTPC treated conditions
in the dam’s reservoir area quite differently from how they
dealt with downstream issues. In particular, NTPC specified
that compensation would continue to be provided to people
resettled from the dam’s reservoir until certain livelihood
benchmarks are met. Thus, compensation could continue
for years, and could be extended if NTPC programs were
poorly implemented. However, for the Xe Bang Fai River, a
ceiling on spending on compensation was set from the
beginning, regardless of what the negative impacts would
end up being, and without considering how well NTPC
would implement their compensation program (Baird et al.
2015; Shoemaker and Robichaud 2018).1 Overall, the
funding allocated, when divided between such a large
number of impacted people, fell well short of what was
required, especially for the Indigenous Brou people (Baird
et al. 2015; Manorom et al. 2017). In addition, no com-
pensation has been provided to those people impacted
downstream in the Theun River Basin.
Local people have significant ILK about the downstream
impacts of dams, and how changes have occurred due to the
dam, but like in various other parts of the world, their ILK
has often not been taken seriously (Baird et al. 2015;
Manorom et al. 2017).
Two Cases in the Amazon River Basin
The Amazon River is 6400 km long, and the Basin is the
largest in South America, covering 6,300,000 km2 or 35.5%
of the South American subcontinent. The Amazon supports a
remarkable biodiversity with over 2000 fish species (Arantes
et al. 2019), which provide food and income to riverine
1
However, US$2.2 million more was added when money prematurely
ran out (Baird et al. 2015; Manorom et al. 2017).
Environmental Management (2021) 67:682–696
Fig. 5 Map of the Tocantins and Madeira Rivers in the Amazon of Brazil
people (Isaac et al. 2015; Hallwass and Silvano 2016).
However, development projects, such as large hydropower
dams (more than 700 dams built or planned) represent a
major threat to fish biodiversity and rural livelihoods
(Winemiller et al. 2016; Latrubesse et al. 2017). There has
also been an increase in the construction of small hydropower
dams in the Brazil Amazon, which also pose threats to
downstream fish and fisheries (Athayde et al. 2019).
Here, we analyze two cases of downstream impacts from
dams in the Brazilian Amazon, including a dam on the
Tocantins River and two dams recently built on the Madeira
River. The Tocantins is a clear water river, which is oli-
gotrophic, being less productive than sediment-loaded white
water rivers, such as the Amazon and Madeira Rivers (Junk
et al. 2007). The Madeira is considered to be among the
Amazon’s most vulnerable basins to hydropower develop-
ment, due to the large dams recently built there (Latrubesse
et al. 2017) (Fig. 5).
The Tucuruí Dam on the Tocantins River
The 8370-MW Tucuruí dam was built in 1984 on the
Tocantins River, in the Eastern Amazon, and has a massive
2830-km2 reservoir. The 2750-km-long Tocantins River has
suffered several environmental changes in recent decades
691
(Ribeiro et al. 1995; Petrere 1996), with the Tucuruí dam
altering the composition of fish communities (de Mérona
et al. 2001, 2010), causing reduced fishery productivity and
the resulting socioeconomic impacts in downstream areas (de
Mérona 1990; Fearnside 1999). The Tucuruí dam was built
during a period of military dictatorship in Brazil, when EIAs
were not mandatory and decisions regarding large develop-
ment projects were nondemocratic (Fearnside 1999). Thus,
no EIA was conducted on the project, and no effective
mitigation measures have been implemented in relation to
downstream impacts (Fearnside 2001). Nevertheless, the
company in charge of the reservoir recorded fish and fishery
data in the reservoir area and upstream and downstream from
the dam before its impoundment (de Mérona et al. 2010),
thus providing a rare and invaluable dataset for comparing
current (post-dam) circumstances (Hallwass and Lopes
2013). The company in charge of the dam also monitored fish
and fisheries, including downstream from the dam (de Mér-
ona et al. 2010), although this monitoring has been dis-
continued, and the Brazilian government still does not fully
recognize the dam’s downstream impacts.
Fishers’ ILK indicates declines in fisheries for migratory
species and even the possible regional extinction of the
jaraqui (Semaprochilodus spp.), a species that formed large
schools and supported very important fisheries more than
100 km downstream before the dam was built (Hallwass and
692
Lopes 2013). Indeed, such declines in downstream migratory
fish are supported by comparative pre- and post-impoundment
data on fish landings (Hallwass and Lopes 2013). Conversely,
the proportion of sedentary fish has increased in downstream
catches (Hallwass and Lopes 2013), forcing fishing commu-
nities to adjust their fishing strategies (Huntington et al. 2017).
However, those fish better suited to post-dam conditions,
which now dominate the catches in the Lower Tocantins
River, have lower economic value compared to the migratory
species previously exploited. Indeed, in the period from 2006
to 2008 (more than 20 years after the dam’s closure), large
migratory catfish corresponded to only a small fraction of fish
caught in the Tocantins River, where most of the caught fish
are small (Hallwass et al. 2011; Silvano et al. 2017). These
changes in fish communities have affected the food security
of downstream riverine communities, since fishery production
has declined to less than half of what was produced during the
pre-dam period (Hallwass and Lopes 2013).
Another concern is mercury contamination, as reservoirs
tend to produce high amounts of mercury methylation, which
is released downstream, generating consequent biomagnifi-
cation in the trophic web, making some fish unsafe to eat
(Forsberg et al. 2017), a problem also identified in the
Peace–Athabasca Basin. Arrifano et al. (2018) found a high
level of total mercury and methylmercury in the hair of
people living near the reservoir formed by the Tucuruí dam,
but no studies have been done about mercury contamination
in the Tocantins River downstream from the dam, indicating
how downstream water quality issues have been neglected.
The Dams in the Madeira River
Two dams have recently been built on the Madeira River, a
large tributary of the Amazon River: the Santo Antônio
(completed in 2012) and the Jirau (completed in 2013).
Both dams are so-called run-of-the-river dams, with low
water storage, but are still huge projects, with installed
capacities of 3568 and 3750 MW, respectively. These dams
are not affecting the seasonal flood pulse significantly, but
they are causing high day-to-day and within-day flow
variability, which is linked to energy demand (Almeida
et al. 2020; see Baird and Quastel 2015 for more details of
how dam operation responds to energy demand and prices).
Although more pronounced near the dams, these daily flow
changes are known to affect fish spawning, fishing opera-
tions, and the use of riparian zones, including for agriculture
(Richter et al. 2010). For example, these dams have nega-
tively affected the environment and fisheries around the
city of Humaita, which is located ~200 km downstream
(Almeida et al. 2020; Santos et al. 2018, 2020). An analysis
of fish landing statistics over 15 years, including both pre-
and post-dam periods, at the Humaita region, indicates that
Environmental Management (2021) 67:682–696
the dams have caused hydrological changes downstream,
which have led to the alteration of flood patterns, and a
39% decline in annual fish catches (Santos et al. 2018).
Furthermore, ILK held by fishers indicates a decrease in the
size of fish caught, hydrological changes, and fish health
problems (Santos et al. 2020). Fish ladders were added to
the Santo Antônio dam in an attempt to mitigate some of the
impacts of the dam on migratory fish, but fish ladders have
generally not been effective in reducing dam impacts on
migratory fish in Brazilian rivers (Pelicice and Agostinho
2008). Fish monitoring is occurring more than 200 km
downstream of the dam, but this monitoring has not resulted
in the implementation of any mitigation or compensation
measures in relation to downstream impacts.
As observed elsewhere in the Brazilian Amazon, the
dams on the Madeira River were built without proper local
consultations, nor was the ILK of fishing communities
adequately considered, especially far downstream from the
dams (Doria et al. 2018). As with the Tucuruí dam, political
interests prevailed over technical advice, EIA studies, or the
ILK of fishers, as the dams in the Madeira River were
approved even though controversial environmental issues
were unresolved and technical and collected-ILK informa-
tion was insufficient (Fearnside 2013, 2014a, b). Unfortu-
nately, incomplete and inconsistent studies related to
downstream issues have been especially common practice
for Brazilian Amazon dams (Fearnside 2015). For example,
the EIAs done in relation to the Madeira River considered
the affected area to be just 12 km downstream from the
dam, which does not include the region of Humaita, located
about 200 km downstream, where research shows that
fisheries have been affected by the Madeira river dams
(Santos et al. 2018, 2020).
Although EIAs are now required for dams in the Brazi-
lian Amazon, the underlying political system demands that
investors hire the professionals who conduct the EIAs. This
creates a conflict of interest between those who conduct the
EIAs and the companies who want to get projects approved
(Fearnside 2015), a problem also identified in the Mekong
Basin (Baird 2014).
The suspended sediments carried by rivers are positively
correlated with phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations,
which indicate a relation between sediment load and
primary productivity (Forsberg et al. 2017). Considering
that the Madeira River carries ~50% of total sediments to
Amazon river system (Goulding et al. 2003; Latrubesse
et al. 2017), the reduction of 20% in the suspended sedi-
ments released in the Madeira River downstream from the
dams can be expected to significantly reduce primary pro-
ductivity and widely affect fisheries in the Amazon basin
(Latrubesse et al. 2017). A reduced sediment load is also
negatively affecting the traditional floodplain agriculture
done by the local populations downstream, due to their
Environmental Management (2021) 67:682–696
dependence on sediments and nutrients carried by rivers
during the flood pulse (Forsberg et al. 2017).
Using Indigenous and Local Knowledge to
Better Understand and Address the
Downstream Impacts of Dams
ILK needs to be taken seriously with regard to hydropower
dam assessment, planning, decision-making processes, and
post-constructiong monitoring, including when considering
downstream mitigation and compensation issues. That is
because the people who hold this ILK have the type of
intimate and long-term relationships with rivers that make it
possible for them to understand how dams have and are
likely to change downstream environments. Moreover, they
are often the ones who are being the most affected by these
changes. While ILK has been used in some cases to better
understand the environmental impacts of development pro-
jects (WCD 2000), its use has been uneven and inconsistent,
and even when it has been used, it has rarely been given the
importance that it deserves, or considered during all stages of
development, including post-construction exercises.
Therefore, work with ILK holders needs to be closer and
deeper, and it needs to be done in more respectful, con-
sistent, and sustained ways, before, during, and after pro-
jects are constructed. Moreover, dams often affect
communities along long stretches of river, thus necessitat-
ing approaches that meaningfully include all impacted
communities and ILK holders, not just a small number of
people during one stage of development, as has often been
the case in the past. The value of ILK in relation to aquatic
resource management has long been recognized (Haggan
et al. 2007; Johannes 1981), but significant barriers to ele-
vating ILK so that it has a significant impact on develop-
ment outcomes remain, something that we believe needs to
be rectified with regard to the downstream impacts of dams.
Indeed, this is borne out by the findings already presented.
Conclusion
It is evident that the downstream impacts of large hydro-
power dams have been unevenly and generally poorly
documented, and insufficiently considered in decision-
making and mitigation and compensation assessment pro-
cesses around the world, including in the Peace–Athabasca
Basin, the Mekong River Basin, and the Amazon River
Basin. Indeed, much more needs to be done to address the
downstream impacts of dams, especially with regard to
hydrology and water quality changes. It is particularly
important to use ILK to better understand, mitigate, and to
determine appropriate mitigation and compensation for the
693
downstream impacts of dams, as policy makers have long
neglected downstream impacts and ILK about these impacts.
Downstream impacts often occur in subtle ways that require
the type of perspective that can only be achieved through
intimate and long-term observations, the types of observa-
tions that Indigenous and other local peoples typically have
and relate to problems that they have the ability to address.
In all three basins, there are three important structural
reasons why the downstream impacts of large dams are
often underestimated. First, the long distances that impacts
occur downstream often make it easier to deny or under-
estimate the links between dams and impacts, as we have
demonstrated for all three basins. Indeed, developers often
do whatever they can to reduce the recognized impact areas
of dams, so as to reduce the responsibility for impacts and
increase profits (Green and Baird 2020).
Second, political boundaries and jurisdictional issues are
frequently an important reason why the downstream impacts
of dams have received insufficient consideration. For exam-
ple, along the Sesan River in the Mekong River Basin, the
Yali Falls dam is located in Vietnam, but the serious
downstream impacts of the dam are occurring in Cambodia.
The national political boundary between the two countries
has certainly impeded efforts to gain recognition, mitigation,
and compensation for downstream impacts. In addition, the
W.A.C. Bennett dam is located in the province of British
Columbia, but downstream areas of Alberta have been
impacts. Even if the two provinces are in the same country,
provincial jurisdictions have obstructed attempts to gain more
recognition for downstream impacts. In the Brazilian Ama-
zon, although the areas impacted downstream are all located
in the same political jurisdiction (same province and coun-
try), there are still considerable distances between dams and
the communities being impacted (Runde et al. 2020), making
it more difficult for affected communities to raise concerns.
The third obstacle to the recognition of downstream
impacts is that ecologically significant changes in water
flows and quality can sometimes be difficult to observe by
people who do not have intimate knowledge of the river,
and do not have long-term perspectives. While Indigenous
and local peoples often recognize significant changes
between before dams were built and after, newcomers may
not have the abilities to recognize when significant changes
have occurred. For example, First Nations people living
downstream from various dams in the Peace–Athabasca
Basin often have a clearer understanding of the changes that
have occurred compared to others. In the Mekong River
Basin, local people have long been aware of the detailed
and subtle ways that the downstream impacts of dams have
occurred. However, it has been much more difficult to
convince government officials and others who do not have
intricate ILK about the river to recognize significant
downstream changes that have occurred. In the Brazilian
694
Amazon, the ILK held by fishers has provided invaluable
and new information on changes caused by dams on the
environment, fish, and fisheries (Hallwass and Lopes 2013;
Santos et al. 2020), besides indicating fish migratory
movements (Nunes et al. 2019), but this ILK has not
resulted in much mitigation or compensation.
Thus, recognizing and making use of ILK is crucial to
better understanding the downstream impacts of dams, but it
also needs to be put into action to ensure that impacts are
avoided or minimized, and also mitigated and compensated.
Ultimately, we need to use ILK to consider whether dams
are justified, especially considering their underestimated
downstream impacts and the availability of alternative
energy sources (Kahn et al. 2014), such as solar, geother-
mal, and wind power.
Acknowledgements This paper has emerged from a collaboration
associated with the project, Tracking Change: Local and Traditional
Knowledge in Watershed Governance which was funded by the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada in a
grant to Parlee-University of Alberta (SSHRC PG 895-2015-1024
Parlee). R.A.M. Silvano also acknowledges research grants from the
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
(CNPq, grant 303393/2019-0) and from the Coordenação de Aper-
feiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES-PRINT, grant
88887.467553/2019-00).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Abel KM (2005) Drum songs: glimpses of dene history. McGill-
Queen’s Press-MQUP, Montreal
Abernethy CS, Amidan BG, Cada GF (2001) Laboratory Studies of
the Effects of Pressure and Dissolved Gas Supersaturation on
Turbine-Passed Fish, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
PNNL-13470
Agostinho CS, Pereira CR et al. (2007) Movements through a fish
ladder: temporal patterns and motivations to move upstream.
Neotrop Ichthyol 5:161–167
Alberta Energy Regulator (2019) Oil sands mining water use report
summary. Edmonton. https://www.aer.ca/protecting-what-ma
tters/holding-industry-accountable/industry-performance/oil-sa
nds-mining-water-us
Almeida RM, Hamilton SK et al. (2020) Hydropeaking operations of
two run-of-river mega-dams alter downstream hydrology of the
largest Amazon tributary. Front Environ Sci. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fenvs.2020.00120
Arantes CC, Fitzgerald DB et al. (2019) Impacts of hydroelectric dams
on fishes and fisheries in tropical rivers through the lens of
functional traits. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 37:28–40
Arrifano GPF, Martín-Doimeadios RCR et al. (2018) Large-scale
projects in the amazon and human exposure to mercury: the
Environmental Management (2021) 67:682–696
case-study of the Tucuruí Dam. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf
147:299–305
Athayde S, Duarte CG et al. (2019) Improving policies and instru-
ments to address cumulative impacts of small hydropower in the
Amazon. Energy Policy 132:265–271
Baird IG (2014) Principled engagement: obstacles and opportunities in
an increasingly consultancy dominated world. ACME Int J Crit
Geogr 13(4):473–477
Baird IG, Barney K (2017) The political ecology of cross-sectoral
cumulative impacts: modern landscapes, large hydropower dams
and industrial tree plantations in Laos and Cambodia. J Peasant
Stud 44(4):769–795
Baird IG, Quastel N (2015) Re-scaling and reordering nature-society
relations: the Nam Theun 2 Hydropower Dam and Laos-Thailand
electricity networks. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 105(6):1221–1239
Baird IG, Shoemaker BP, Manorom K (2015) The people and their
river, the World Bank and its dam: revisiting the Xe Bang Fai
River in Laos. Dev Change 46(5):1080–1105
Baird IG, Baird M et al. (2002) A community-based study of the
downstream impacts of the Yali Falls Dam along the Se San, Sre
Pok and Sekong Rivers in Stung Treng Province, Northeast
Cambodia. Se San Protection Network Project, Partners For
Development (PFD), Non-Timber Forest Products Project
(NTFP), Se San District Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Office, and Se San District Office, Stung Treng
Baker D, Young J, Arocena JM (2002) Environmental auditing: an
integrated approach to reservoir management: the Williston
Reservoir case study. Environ Manag 25(5):565–578
BC Hydro (2007) Peace project water use plan—revised for acceptance
by the comptroller of water rights. Vancouver. https://ceaa-acee.gc.
ca/050/documents/p63919/97604E.pdf. Accessed 2019
Berkes F (1993) Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. In
JT Inglis (Ed.), Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and
Cases. Canadian Museum of Nature/International Development
Research Centre, International Program on Traditional Ecological
Knowledge International Development Research Centre, pp 1–9
Beltaos S (2018) Frequency of ice-jam flooding of Peace-Athabasca
Delta. Can J Civ Eng 45(1):71–75
Bielawski B, Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation (1993) The desecration of
Nanula Kué: impact of the Talston hydroelectric development on
Dene Soline. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Ottawa
Butterworth E, Leach A, Gendron M, Pollard B, Stewart GR (2002)
Peace-Athabasca Delta waterbird inventory program: 1998–2001,
Final Report. Ducks Unlimited Canada, Edmonton, Alberta
Brody H (1981) Maps and dreams. Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver
Bodaly RA et al. (2004) Experimenting with hydroelectric reservoirs.
Environ Sci Technol 38:347A–352A
Carver M (2013) Impacts of the proposed Site C Dam on the hydro-
logic recharge of the Peace-Athabasca Delta. Submission to the
Site C joint review Panel. Prepared for Athabasca Chipewyan
First Nation Industrial Relations Committee. Aqua Environ-
mental Associates, Fort McMurray. https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/
050/documents_staticpost/63919/96375/4-November_25_2013-
Impacts_of_the_Proposed_Site_C_Dam_on_the_Hydrologic_
Recharge_of_the_Peace-Athabasca_Delta.pdf
Carver M, Maclean B (2016) Community-based water-depth mon-
itoring in the Peace-Athabasca Delta: insights and evaluation.
Mikisew Creek First Nation and Athabasca Chipewyan First
Nation. p 54
Cernea MM (1993) Anthropological and sociological research for
policy development on population and resettlement. In: Cernea
MM, Guggenheim SE (eds) Anthropological approaches to
resettlement: policy, practice, and theory. Westview Press,
Boulder, CO, pp 13–38
Cernea MM (ed) (1999) The economics of involuntary resettlement:
questions and challenges. The World Bank, Washington, DC
Environmental Management (2021) 67:682–696
Cernea MM, McDowell C (eds) (2000) Risks and reconstruction:
experiences of resettlers and refugees. World Bank, Washington,
DC
de Mérona B (1990) Amazon fisheries: general characteristics based
on two case-studies. Interciencia 15:461–468
de Mérona B, Juras AA et al. (2010) Os peixes e a pesca no Baixo
Tocantins: 20 anos depois da UHE Tucuruı. Eletronorte, Brasilia
de Mérona B, Santos GM, Almeida RG (2001) Short term effects of
Tucuruí Dam (Amazonia, Brazil) on the trophic organization of
fish communities. Environ Biol Fishes 60:375–392
Doria C, Athayde S et al. (2018) The invisibility of fisheries in the
process of hydropower development across the Amazon. Ambio
47:453–465
Dyson M, Bergkamp G, Scanlon J (eds) (2003) Flow: the essentials of
environmental flows. IUCN, Gland
Environmental Canada (2019) Wood Buffalo Nation Park World
Heritage Site Action Plan. Parks Canada National Office, Gati-
neau, PQ
Electrowatt (1993) Environmental and financing studies on the Yali
Falls Hydropower Project, vol 1, May. Mekong Secretariat and
Ministry of Energy, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Hanoi
Fearnside PM (1999) Social impacts of Brazil’s Tucuruí Dam. Environ
Manag 24:483–495
Fearnside PM (2001) Environmental Impacts of Brazil’s Tucuruí Dam:
unlearned lessons for hydroelectric development in Amazonia.
Environ Manag 27:377–396
Fearnside PM (2013) Viewpoint—decision making on Amazon dams:
politics trumps uncertainty in the Madeira River sediments con-
troversy. Water Altern 6(2):313–325
Fearnside MP (2014a) Brazil’s Madeira River dams: a setback for
environmental policy in Amazonian development. Water Altern 7
(1):256–269
Fearnside MP (2014b) Impacts of Brazil’s Madeira River Dams:
unlearned lessons for hydroelectric development in Amazonia.
Environ Sci Policy 38:164–172
Fearnside PM (2015) Brazil’s São Luiz do Tapajós dam: the art of
cosmetic environmental impact assessments. Water Altern 8
(3):373–396
Fearnside PM (2016) Tropical dams: to build or not to build? Science
351:456–457
Fisheries Office Ratanakiri Province, NTFP Project (2000) A study of
the downstream impacts of the Yali Falls Dam in the Se San
River Basin in Ratanakiri Province, Northeast Cambodia. NTFP
Project, Ban Lung, Ratanakiri
Forsberg BR, Melack JM et al. (2017) The potential impact of new
Andean dams on Amazon fluvial ecosystems. PLoS ONE 12(8):
e0182254
Fuller WA, George H, Roi L (1971) Historical review of biological
resources of the Peace-Athabasca, Delta. Peace-Athabasca Delta
Project, Edmonton, AB
Goldsmith E, Hilyard N (1984) The social and environmental effects
of large dams. Wadebridge Ecological Centre, Cornwall
Goulding M, Barthem R, Ferreira E (2003) The Smithsonian atlas of
the Amazon. Smithsonian Books, Washington and London
Government of Alberta (2020) Goldeye fish index. Government of
Alberta, Edmonton. https://www.alberta.ca/goldeye-fsi.aspx
Government of British Columbia (2019) BC declaration on the rights
of indigenous peoples Act. Gov. of British Columbia, Victoria.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/indigenous-
people/new-relationship/united-nations-declaration-on-the-rights-
of-indigenous-peoples
Green WN, Baird IG (2020) The contentious politics of hydropower
dam impact assessments in the Mekong River Basin. Political
Geogr. (published online)
Hall BD, Louis VL, Rolfhus KR, Bodaly RA, Beaty KG, Paterson MJ,
Peech Cherewyk KA (2005) Impacts of reservoir creation on the
695
biogeochemical cycling of methyl mercury and total mercury in
boreal upland forests. Ecosystems 8:248–266
Haggan N, Neis B, Baird IG (eds) (2007) Fishers’ knowledge in
fisheries science and management. Coastal management source-
books series, UNESCO, Paris
Hallwass G, Silvano RAM (2016) Patterns of selectiveness in the
Amazonian freshwater fisheries: implications for management. J
Environ Plan Manag 59:1537–1559
Hallwass G, Lopes PF (2013) Fishers’ knowledge identifies environ-
mental changes and fish abundance trends in impounded tropical
rivers. Ecol Appl 23:392–407
Hallwass G, Lopes PFM et al. (2011) Fishing effort and catch com-
position of urban market and rural villages in Brazilian Amazon.
Environ Manag 47:188–200
Heenan E (1972) Status of waterfowl on the Peace Athabasca Delta.
Ecological investigations: volume two. Peace-Athabasca Delta
Project Group, Canada, Alberta, Saskatchewan. Pp. K1-K105 In:
Timoney K (ed) (1996) Vegetation Monitoring Program. Task
E.2 – Vegetation Monitoring. Peace-Athabasca Delta Technical
Studies, Ducks Unlimited (Canada), Winnipeg, MB
Hirsch P (2010) The changing political dynamics of dam building on
the Mekong. Water Altern 3(2):312–323
Hoeinghaus DJ, Agostino AA et al. (2009) Effects of river
impoundment on ecosystem services of large tropical rivers:
embodied energy and market value of artisanal fisheries. Conserv
Biol 23:1222–1231
Hortle KG (2007) Consumption and the yield of fish and other aquatic
animals from the Lower Mekong Basin. MRC Technical Paper
No. 16. Mekong River Commission, Vientiane
Huntington HP, Begossi A et al. (2017) How small communities
respond to environmental change: patterns from tropical to polar
ecosystems. Ecol Soc 22(3):9
Isaac VJ, Almeida MC et al. (2015) Food consumption as an indicator
of the conservation of natural resources in riverine communities
of the Brazilian Amazon. An Acad Bras Cienc 87:2229–2242
IUCN Mission Report (2016) Report of the joint WHC/IUCN Reactive
Monitoring mission to Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada. 25
September - 4 October 2016
JRP (2014) Report of the Joint Review Panel Report: Site C Clean
Energy Project. B.C. Hydro, May 1. British Columbia Environ-
mental Assessment Office, Victoria, BC
Johannes RE (1981) Words of the Lagoon: fishing and marine lore in the
Palau District of Micronesia. University of California Press, Paris
Junk WJ, Soares MGM, Bayley PB (2007) Freshwater fishes of the
Amazon River basin: their biodiversity, fisheries, and habitats.
Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag 10:153–173
Kahn JR, Freitas CE, Petrere M (2014) False shades of green: The case
of Brazilian Amazonian hydropower. Energies 7:6063–6082
Loo T, Stanley M (2011) An environmental history of progress:
damming the peace and Columbia Rivers. Can Hist Rev 92
(3):399–427
Loney M (1995) Social problems, community trauma and hydro
project impacts. Can J Nativ Stud 15(2):231–254
Latrubesse EM, Arima EY et al. (2017) Damming the rivers of the
Amazon basin Nature 546:363–369
Manorom K, Baird IG, Shoemaker B (2017) The World Bank,
hydropower-based poverty alleviation and indigenous peoples:
on-the-ground realities in the Xe Bang Fai River Basin of Laos.
Forum Dev Stud 44(2):275–300
Marks D, Zhang J (2019) Circuits of power: environmental injustice
from Bangkok’s shopping malls to Laos’ hydropower dams. Asia
Pac Viewp 60(3):296–309
McCully P (1996) Silenced rivers: the ecology and politics of large
dams. Zed Books, London
MCFN (2013) MCFN Indigenous knowledge and use report for teck
frontier: appendix. Mikisew Cree First Nation Government and
696
Industry Relations, Fort McMurray. https://aeic-iaac.gc.ca/050/
documents/p65505/114489E.pdf
Mekong River Commission (1995) Agreement on the cooperation for
the sustainable development of the Mekong River Basin, 5 April.
Mekong River Commission, Bangkok
Mekong River Commission (2002) Statement from the Mekong River
Commission on issues relating to Yali Falls Dam and Sesan 3
Hydropower Plant Project, 26 November. Mekong River Com-
mission, Phnom Penh
Mekong River Commission (2018) 3rd MRC international conference.
Mekong River Commission, Siem Reap
Mekong River Commission (2019) MRC state of basin report 2018—
summary version. Mekong River Commission, Vientiane
Mekong River Commission (2020) The Mekong Commission for Sus-
tainable Development. http://www.mrcmekong.org/mekong-basin/
Mitsch WJ, Hernandez ME (2013) Landscape and climate change
threats to wetlands of North and Central America. Aquat Sci 75
(1):133–149
NGO Forum on Cambodia (2005) Down river: the consequences of
Vietnam’s Se San River dams on life in Cambodia and their meaning
in international law. NGO Forum on Cambodia, Phnom Penh
Nunes MUS, Hallwass G, Silvano RAM (2019) Fishers’ local ecolo-
gical knowledge indicate migration patterns of tropical freshwater
fish in an Amazonian river. Hydrobiologia 833:197–215
PADPG (1972) The Peace Athabasca Delta: a report on the low water
levels in Lake Athabasca and their effects on the Peace-Athabasca
Delta. Peace Athabasca Delta Project Group, Government
of Canada, Ottawa. http://parkscanadahistory.com/publications/w
oodbuffalo/pad-sum-rpt-1972.pdf
Pearce F (2001) Concrete jungle—dam set to go ahead despite danger
to wildlife. N Sci 172(2322):4
Pelicice FM, Agostinho AA (2008) Fish-passage facilities as ecolo-
gical traps in large Neotropical Rivers. Conserv Biol 22
(1):180–188
Petrere M (1996) Fisheries in large tropical reservoirs in South
America. Lakes Reserv Res Manag 2:111–133
Prowse TD, Conly FM et al. (2002) A review of hydroecological
results of the Northern River Basins Study, Canada. Part 1. Peace
and Slave Rivers. River Res Appl 18(5):429–446
Quinn F (1991) As long as the rivers run: the impacts of corporate
water development on native communities in Canada. Can J
Nativ Stud 11(1):137–154
Ribeiro MCLB, Petrere M, Juras AA (1995) Ecological integrity of the
Araguaia-Tocantins river basin, Brazil. Regulated Rivers Res
Manag 11:325–350
Richter BD, Postel S et al. (2010) Lost in development’s shadow: the
downstream human consequences of dams. Water Altern 3
(2):14–42
Richter BD, Thomas GA (2007) Restoring environmental flows by
modifying dam operations. Ecol Soc 12:1
Rosenberg DM, Bodaly RA, Usher PJ (1995) Environmental and
social impacts of large scale hydroelectric development: who is
listening? Glob Environ Change 5(2):127–148
Runde A, Hallwass G, Silvano RAM (2020) Fishers’ knowledge
indicates extensive socioecological impacts downstream of pro-
posed dams in a tropical river. One Earth 2:255–268
Santos RE, Pinto-Coelho RM et al. (2018) The decline of fisheries on
the Madeira River, Brazil: the high cost of the hydroelectric dams
in the Amazon Basin. Fish Manag Ecol 25(5):380–391
Santos RE, Pinto-Coelho RM et al. (2020) Damming Amazon Rivers:
environmental impacts of hydroelectric dams on Brazil’s Madeira
Environmental Management (2021) 67:682–696
River according to local fishers’ perception. AMBIO. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13280-020-01316-w
Shoemaker B, Robichaud W (eds) (2018) Dead in the water: global
lessons from the World Bank’s model hydropower project in
Laos. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI
Shoemaker B, Baird IG, Baird M (2001) The people and their river: a
survey of river-based livelihoods in the Xe Bang Fai River Basin
in Central Lao PDR. Lao PDR/Canada Fund for Local Initiatives,
Vientiane
Silvano RAM, Hallwass G et al. (2017) Assessment of efficiency and
impacts of gillnets on fish conservation in a tropical freshwater
fishery. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 27:521–533
Sims D (2018) Dam Bennett: the impacts of the WAC Bennett Dam
and Williston Lake Reservoir on the Tsek’ehne of Northern
British Columbia. Doctoral Thesis. University of Alberta,
Edmonton
Stuart Adams and Associates (1998) Fort Chipewyan way of life
study. A report to Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Metis
Association of Fort Chipewyan, Mikisew Cree First Nation, and
BC Hydro. Stuart Adams and Associates, Vancouver
Straka JR, Antoine A et al. (2018) We used to say rats fell from the sky
after a flood: temporary recovery of Muskrat following ice jams
in the Peace-Athabasca Delta. Arctic 71(2):218–228
Timoney K (2002) A dying delta? A case study of a wetland paradigm.
Wetlands 22(2):282
Timoney KP, Argus G (2006) Willows, water regime, and recent cover
change in the Peace–Athabasca Delta. Ecoscience 13(3):308–317
Tiodolf AM (2009) Strategy and methodology for improved IWRM—
an integrated interdisciplinary assessment in four twinning river
basins. Striver Technical Briefing #12
Tomblin SG (1990) The W.A.C. Bennett and province-building in
British Columbia. BC Stud 85:45–61
Usher PJ, Torrie JE et al. (1979) The economic and social impact of
mercury pollution on the Whitedog and Grassy Narrows Indian
Reserves. A report prepared for the Whitedog and Grassy Nar-
rows Indian Bands. Unpublished, Ottawa
Vie JC (1999) Wildlife rescues—the case of the Petit Saut hydro-
electric dam in French Guiana. Oryx 33(2):115–126
Vos J, Boelens R (2020) Ecological flows are exclusionary, techno-
cratic and top-down practices… (but could be empowering).
Water Alternatives Forum. http://www.water-alternatives.org/
index.php/blog/eflows
Waldram J (1988) Native people and hydroelectric development in
northern Manitoba, 1957–1987: the promise and the reality.
Manit Hist 15:1. http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/15/
hydroelectricdevelopment.shtml
Ward EM, Gorelick SM (2018) Drying drives decline in muskrat
population in the Peace-Athabasca Delta, Canada. Environ Res
Lett 13:124026
WCD (2000) Dams and development: a new framework for decision-
making. World Commission on Dams, Earthscan, London
Winemiller K, McIntyre PB et al. (2016) Hydropower expansion in the
Amazon, Congo and Mekong—a looming threat to global bio-
diversity. Science 351(6269):128–129
Wolfe BB, Hall RI, Wiklund JA, Kay ML (2020) Past variation in
lower peace river ice-jam flood frequency. Environ Rev 999:1–9
World Bank (2004) Water resources sector strategy: strategic direc-
tions for World Bank engagement. World Bank, Washington, DC
Wyatt AB, Baird IG (2007) Transboundary impact assessment in the
Sesan River Basin: the case of the Yali Falls Dam. Int J Water
Resour Dev 23(3):427–442