Executive Summary

The aim of this study is to analyze patterns and trends of syste- matic human rights violations in three hydroelectric projects fi- nanced by Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) in Guatemala: (1) Canbalam in Santa Cruz Barillas (2011), (2) Santa Rita in Corbán (2012), and (3) the Ixquisis hydroelectric complex (2013), which in- cludes the projects of Generadora San Mateo and Generadora San Andrés in the microregion of Ixquisis1 financed by the Internation- al Finance Corporation (IFC), the private lending arm of the World Bank Group and the IDB Invest, the private arm of the Inter-Amer- ican Development Bank, respectively.

The project affected communities of the three hydroelectric projects in Guatemala submitted complaints to the accountabil- ity mechanisms of those Banks (Compliance Advisor Ombudsman -CAO- and the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mech- anism -MICI-) claiming a number of social and environmental harms and impacts, as well as human rights violations that are re- lated to non-compliance with IFC’s Performance Standards (PSs)2 and lack of correct supervision of the implementation of the PSs.

In the three cases, patterns of systematic rights violations of the project-affected people and harm to the environment are evident and repeated:

1. Violations of the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Self-iden- tification as an indigenous people has been denied to the population of the microregion of Ixquisis, granting the proj- ect a lower social and environmental risk category. In the other projects, the specific impacts on Indigenous Peoples were not taken into account, and the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) was not respected.
2. Lack of access to information, meaningful consultations, and FPIC. The affected communities report that in the three cases the right to information and the right of Indigenous Peoples to free, prior, and informed consent and consulta- tion has not been fulfilled.
3. Rupture of the social fabric and increase in social conflict. The projects have eroded the community’s social fabric in the territories. Companies sought acceptance of the projects using patronage practices, offering families certain benefits in exchange for their support without in- forming them about the risks and impacts that the proj- ects may have had. When discussion roundtables organized by government entities were implemented, they served to identify and criminalize opposition leadership to the project.
4. Community Safety: Retaliation Against Communities. In the three cases analyzed, the companies and governments facing community organization and actions in opposition to the projects, responded with attacks (making use of private and public security forces) on the life, integrity, and free- dom of those who opposed the construction of hydroelec- tric plants.
5. Differentiated harm to women. In all of the cases, little or no assessment of gender impacts and risks was performed during the environmental and social impact assessment processes. Nor were complementary studies, such as com- prehensive gender assessments, carried out. Therefore, no differentiated risks and impacts on women were identified to avoid, prevent, or mitigate them. Nor were measures es- tablished to prevent gender violence caused by the influx of outside workers into the construction area.
6. Environmental risks and impacts. The hydroelectric proj- ects were approved with numerous information gaps re- garding the impact on water flows, which makes it difficult to assess their technical feasibility or to know the exact ex- tent of the impact of the work. The deficiencies in the envi- ronmental and social management and monitoring systems make it impossible to avoid or minimize impacts on the envi- ronment or to make sustainable use of resources, in partic- ular water. As a result, there are impacts on biodiversity, as well as, the maintenance of ecosystem services.
7. Fraudulent land purchase. The communities claim fraudu- lent purchase of land. This action produced the closure of the roads that people in the different regions used to access lands and the rivers.
8. Damage and destruction of sacred and ceremonial sites of Maya Indigenous Peoples. During the construction of the project in Ixquisis, part of the archaeological sites were destroyed, and the communities claim that archaeological objects are missing. In Santa Cruz Barillas, the hydroelectric project has posed a threat to the communities since it pro- poses to divert the natural stream of the river, which would affect three natural waterfalls that communities consider to be sacred.