Water for life, not for death !
14 March - International Day of Action Against Dams and for Rivers ,Water and Life
为河流、水资源与生命而行动
——国际反水库运动简史
国际反水库日一九九七年三月，来自包括巴西、智利、莱索托、阿根廷、泰国、俄罗斯、法国、瑞士、美国、台湾等二十个国家及地区的代表在巴西东南的省城屈里替巴(Curitiba)集会，举行「第一届受水库危害者国际会议(First International Meeting of People Affected by Dam)」。此会议的宗旨有二，一在于交流并总结各国反水库运动的经验与情势分析，二在于建立与强化受水库危害者之间的全球性网络。会议期间，三月十四日，巴西当地的环保团体针对日益危急的亚马逊河水库滥建问题，组织了「巴西反大型水坝行动日」，以游行、民众剧场、演说及演唱的方式表达巴西各地受水库计划威胁的弱势社群所发出的愤怒之声。会议最后一天，与会者共同发布「屈里替巴宣言(Declaration of Curitiba)」,除了批判国际水库工业的盲点，汇整国际反水库运动的诉求、成就与指导性原则外，并宣布每年三月十四日为国际反水库日(宣言内容如附件)。
The International Day of Action Against Dams For Rivers, Water, and Life was inspired and mandated by the participants of the First International Meeting of People Affected by Dams that took place in March, 1997 in Curitiba, Brazil. ( Curitiba Declaration ).
The co - founders of the mouvment are : MAB, IRN, India's Save the Narmada Movement (NBA), Chile's Biobío Action Group (GABB), and European Rivers Network (ERN).
Water for life, not for death !Summary
Origin
Action and Information 2000 - today (Website IRN) : www.irn.org/dayofaction/
Pressrelease 2002 ERN format pdf (Day of action 2002, fr) : www.rivernet.org/pdf/comern020314.pdf
Actions 1999 : www.rivernet.org/general/movement/14mars99.htm
Actions 1998 : http://www.rivernet.org/general/movement/14mars98.htm
In remembrance of Fulgêncio Manoel da Silva
The International Anti-Dam Movement
Origin
The International Day of Action Against Dams: For Rivers, Water, and Life was inspired
and mandated by the participants of the First International Meeting of People Affected by Dams
that took place in March, 1997 in Curitiba, Brazil. Representatives from twenty countries including
Taiwan, Brazil, Chile, Lesotho, Argentina, Thailand, Russia, France, Switzerland, and the United States
decided that the International Day of Action would fall on 14 March, Brazil's Day of Action Against
Large Dams. One of the goals for the Day of Action is to build and strengthen regional and international networks within the international anti-dam movement. The idea for the First International Meeting of People Affected by Dams originated during an annual meeting of Brazil's Movement of People Affected by Large Dams (MAB).
In September, 1995 a preparatory meeting was held in Brazil and an international organizing committee was formed headed by MAB and including International Rivers Network (IRN),
India's Save the Narmada Movement (NBA), Chile's Biobío Action Group (GABB), and
European Rivers Network (ERN).
The First International Meeting of People Affected by Dams was a successful first step in building and strengthening a global network of the dam-affected. Many of the participants reported an end to their feelings of isolation in their regional fights against governments, lending agencies, and corporations, as well as a renewed strength that they could carry back to their communities. The International Day of Action Against Dams: For Rivers, Water, and Life is the next step in strengthening the international movement. Our aim is to raise our voices in unison against destructive water development projects, reclaim the health of our rivers and watersheds, and demand the equitable and sustainable management of our waterways. By acting together, we will demonstrate that these issues are not merely local, but global in scope.
In remembrance of Fulgêncio Manoel da Silva
(by IRN Internayional Rivers Neywork, San Francisco) Fulgêncio Manoel da Silva was murdered on 16 October, 1997 in Santa Maria da Boa Vista in the backlands of Pernambuco state in northeast Brazil. Da Silva was a farmer, a poet, and a passionate fighter for dam-affected people. He was also the person responsible for the addition of the words "For Rivers, Water and Life" to the International Day of Action Against Dams. In an interview at the First International Meeting of People Affected by Dams, held in Curitiba, Brazil in March 1997, da Silva told IRN : My goal is that the world, not just Brazil, study ways to produce electricity without flooding lands, rivers, the environment; and without affecting the life of the people... We are supporting the proposal for an international day of struggle for the rivers, water, and life because we support life - of people, of animals, and the rivers and water.
Da Silva was one of 40,000 people forced to make way for the Itaparica Dam, built on the São Francisco River on the border of Pernambuco and Bahia states. Not long after he learned his family would lose their land, he met a family of beggars living under a bridge who had been displaced by a dam but were once farmers like him. It was this experience, he said, that moved him to organize the Itaparica families. Da Silva says there were many devastating impacts from the project. It halted agricultural production for seven years, and after that time, the production was not half of what is was before the dam. This has had a great impact on the area and the people. The native vegetation and crop trees such as bananas, coconut, oranges and mangoes were submerged, rotting along with the barrels of agrotoxins that weren't removed before inundation. The cultural effects of the dam have been devastating. According to da Silva, the customs and cultures of the people were drowned with the rivers and waterfalls. "I don't feel any dam has yet provided fair compensation for the affected people," he said. "Just compensation will never take place because the destruction of the environment, the destruction of the history of the people and of their lives, the history of where they were born and lived - there is not enough money in the world to pay for this." It is suspected that the killing of da Silva was ordered by drug traffickers operating in the resettlement communities. The Brazilian Movement of Dam-Affected People (MAB), blames his murder on the deplorable social conditions resulting from inadequate compensation for the dam oustees. "This," said MAB, "generated the conditions which led to this type of criminality, where families plant marijuana as a means of survival. Money from the World Bank never reached the small farmers, but instead was used to irrigate drug plantations." "Political action," said Aurelio Vianna of the Brazil Network on Multilateral Financial Institutions, "was not merely an ideological question for Fulgêncio, but a question of honor." In one of his poems, Fulgêncio wrote "The river is our life-water. What we do with it affects the life of the people, the life of the animals, the life of the river, and the life of the waters. This is true for the world, not just for Brazil." His work has not been in vain. On 14 March, for the International Day of Action Against Dams and FOR RIVERS, WATER, AND LIFE, we hold his spirit and his beliefs in a place of honor in our actions and in our hearts
The International Anti-Dam Movement
Excerpted from Silenced Rivers: The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams by Patrick McCully.
Zed Books, London, 1996.
We Will Not Move: The International Anti-Dam MovementKoi nahi hatega, bandh nahi banega (No one will move, the dam will not be built) Doobenge par hatenge nahin (We will drown but we will not move) Slogans of the Narmada Bachao Andolan
The decade since the mid-1980s has seen the emergence of an international movement against current dam-building practices. The movement is comprised of thousands of environmental, human rights, and social activist groups on all the world's continents except Antarctica. It coalesced from a multitude of local, regional and national anti-dam campaigns and a smaller number of support groups working at an international level. Dam builders recognize and bemoan its effectiveness. ICOLD President Wolfgang Pircher warned the British Dam Society in 1992 that the industry faced 'a serious general counter-movement that has already succeeded in reducing the prestige of dam engineering in the public eye, and it is starting to make work difficult for our profession.' The earliest successful anti-dam campaigns were mostly led by conservationists trying to preserve wilderness areas. Until recently, resistance from those directly impacted by dams was usually defeated.
Since the 1970s, however, directly affected people have gained the power to stop dams, mostly because they have built alliances with sympathetic outsiders - environmentalists, human rights and democracy activists, peasants' and indigenous peoples' organizations, fishers and recreationists. The rise of environmentalism has greatly helped the opponents of dams - and anti-dam campaigns have in many countries played an important role in the growth of national environmental movements. Other factors contributing to the emergence of the international movement have been the overthrow of authoritarian regimes and the spread of modern communication technologies.
Dam opponents are not just 'antis', but are advocates for what they see as more sustainable, equitable and efficient technologies and management practices. Political changes which would best encourage the preservation or adoption of these technologies and practices have been a central demand of many anti-dam campaigns. Struggles that have started with the aim of improving resettlement terms or of stopping an individual dam have matured into movements advocating an entirely different model of political and economic development. That decision making be transparent and democratic is now seen by many dam opponents as being as important as the decisions themselves. The clearest illustration of the wider political importance of anti-dam movements is the crucial role that dam struggles played in the pro-democracy movements of the 1980s in Eastern Europe and South America... Activists working at the local, national and international levels have together managed to seriously tarnish the lure of large dams as icons of progress and plenty.
To many people, large dams have instead become symbols of the destruction of the natural world and of the corruption and arrogance of over-powerful and secretive corporations, bureaucracies and governments. Although hundreds of large dams are still under construction and many more are on the engineers' drawing boards, aid funds and other public sector sources of financing are drying up, and public protests are provoked by just about every large dam that is now proposed in a democratic country. The international dam industry appears to be entering a recession from which it may never escape.
大型水库的政治经济批判大型水库的庞耸规模，其所带来的伟大政经利益，以及它们似乎将顽强善变的自然界驯服于人类意志之下的能力，使得大型水库在人类的想象世界中占有一席尊荣的位置。比起其它的科技，大型水库也许更适于象征人类文明从昧于自然与迷信到科学与理性终能主宰一切的「跃进」。水坝工业崛起近百年来，大型水坝差不多已成为现代化、都市化与工业化的连环扣里，最牢不可破的内容与象征。在第二次世界大战结束后的第三世界独立风潮里，大型水坝更是民族主义与建国意志的伟大表现，印度独立后的第一任总理尼赫鲁就曾说水库是「他所崇拜的印度新庙堂」。
因此，尽管对社会、环境及经济造成的灾难不断，尽管有许多满足能源需求及经营水与土地资源的方法，大型水库仍继续被规划兴建。水库的决策、推动及兴建等过程通常是秘而不宣，同时水库的受害者也鲜少有能力使水库工业集团向大众说明他们的行为并为之负责，因为这些受害者要不是山区的原住民，便是靠河为生的小农与渔民，不管在哪个国家，他们在政治上、经济上与社会上都是弱势者。水库的筑成使得强势的菁英掌握了水的流向，壮大其利益，并藉以剥夺原使用者利用河川资源的部分或全部机会。
在世界各地指导过不少水库计划的加州理工学院史库得教授，见证过许多水库的恶质性影响后，沉重地反省道：愈来愈刺痛人心且清楚的事实是，统治菁英之所以有系统地开发河域，乃藉以将资源移转给他们及他们的支持者，甚至藉以遂其自利的政治目地。付出代价的是河域内的人口，地区性或全国性的弱势族群、教派、以及反对团体。
绝大多数的大型水库由国家机构投资兴建，而水库贫弱的经济表现毫无例外地被巨额的政府补贴所摭掩。全世界每年大约有二百亿美元耗费在水库上，但水库的表现是否真有如政治菁英及科技官僚预先画出的荣景，绝少有诚恳而广泛的评估，因水库工程而付出的环境损失与社会代价通常都在统治集团的强力压制或要求「全民识大体」的呼吁下，或被漠视，或被忽略，或根本不被列入成本的计算中。
世界银行在全球水库工业扮演的关键性作用，自一九四八年成立以来，它提供了逾五百亿美元(九二年币值)的贷款予九十二个国家，兴建了五百座以上的大型水坝，数千万人因而流离失所。世界银行领军半个世纪的世界水库工业不仅造成全球性的生态浩劫，其所贷出的巨额资金、第三世界买办官僚阶级的腐败贪污以及水库兴建过程所导致的「破坏性发展」，更是深化了第三世界的严重外债问题，并激化了内部的政治与社会矛盾。无怪乎愈来愈多的第三世界反水库者痛声疾呼：世界银行等于外债与毁灭。一九九四年六月由国际反水库团体联署的马尼贝里宣言(Manibeli Declaration)就指出，世界银行优先贷款的大型水库供电予跨国工业与都市菁英，供水给出口导向的农业，忽略了乡村穷民与其它弱势社群的迫切需求。
国际反水库运动的崛起反水库运动成功的最早例子大部份是由属于有钱、有闲、有势并嗜好自然美感的贵族或资产阶级荒野保护者所领导；他们是国家公园最早的催生者。一九五〇年代，美国内政部计划在科罗拉多河最大支流绿河(Green River)上游，兴建一座一七五公尺发电用的高坝；高坝位于科罗拉多大峡谷内的回声谷公园(Echo Park)。荒野协会(Wilderness Society)及山岳俱乐部(Sierra Club)的成员担心，这个计划不仅将淹没回声谷公园内的峡谷美景，甚至将诱发出更多的水坝计划，淹没更多的公园保护区。荒野协会与山岳俱乐部结合众多户外休闲与保护团体，对国会发动游说攻势。一九五六年，在西部国会议员的主导下，回声谷公园的高坝计划遭到否决。
尽管这批保护者被美国西部拥护水库利益的政客与报纸形容为「长发庞克」或「令人讨厌的自然爱好者」，他们却不愿意被认为是任何水资源开发计划的激进反对者；他们只是意图把水库赶出公园保护区，至于建在其它的什么地方，他们没意见。就较为全观的环保观点来看，回声谷公园的反水库运动有其局限性。但就美国水库工业史的角度来看，它至少终结了水库兴建者予取予求的年代。
由水库冲击地区的人民所发动的反抗运动通常都难逃失败的宿命，这与他们社会位置与力量的低弱不无关系。受水库冲击人民的宿命一直要到一九七〇年代以后，在环保运动的声浪中，当他们与环保运动者，人权与民主倡议者，农民、渔民及原住民的组织广泛地结盟后，才被破解。在八〇年代的东欧与南美洲，反水库运动在要求权威政府民主化的运动中往往起着关键性的作用。在东欧，最有名的例子发生于匈牙利。一九八八年十一月，四万人走上布达佩斯街头，要求匈牙利政府停止旦奴比河(Danube)上的水库计划。这场运动傕化了更大规模的民主化运动，推翻了匈牙利的极权政府。
巴西是南美洲反水库运动的典范。一九七〇年代末，巴西的反水库运动结合了工会运动、农民运动与原住民自决运动，对当时的巴西军政府构成了强大的威胁。最受世人注目的反水库运动由亚马逊河的原住民发起。一九八九年二月，来自二十个卡雅布(Kayapo)部落的千余名代表全副武器，在酋长帕雅干(Paulinho Paiakan)及芝加哥大学人类学家布赛(Darrel Posey)的组织下，参加辛古河流域水力计划(Xingu River Basin Hydroelectric Project)当局所举办的补偿说明会。卡雅布族人不再相信任何补偿计划，因为辛古河计划部份已完成的水库已使他们濒临灭族：生产各种食物的大片森林遭淹殁；被止住的河水长时间浸泡森林丰富的有机物后变成毒水，死亡的族人不知其数。在会场上卡雅布族人齐声高喊：「你是骗子！我们不需要电力，电力不会给我们食物，我们需要的是河水自由自在地流动！我们不要你的水库！」
虽然自七〇年代末八〇年代初以来，全世界出现了渐成气候的反水库风潮，但国际性的反水库组织一直到八〇年代中才成形。一九八四年哥德史密斯与希尔德亚尔德(Goldsmith and Hildyard)出版「大型水坝的社会与环境效应 (The Social and Environmental Effects of Large Dams)」，分析、批判与总结了大型水坝在各个面向造成的危害，文中并为关怀水资源议题的西方活跃份子提出了行动指引：要说服第三世界政府放弃水资源开发计划……是非常困难的。虽然如此，当地的环境团体必须尽一切努力，必要时可在坝址采取非暴力行动。我们西方人顶多能针对赞助国政府、开发银行及国际机构进行系统性的游说工作，断绝开发计划的国外资金来源。
一九八五年，一群活跃于美国加州水资源论坛的科学家与水利、土木工程师集会讨论世界水资源现况。他们认为，他们在加州所对抗的错误水资源政策正在世界各地被相同的机制如法炮制。虽然世界上有一些团体在对抗荒谬的水资源政策，但却缺乏来自国际的支持。因此，他们成立「国际河流组织(International Rivers Network)，简称IRN」，以国际连结为反水库运动的当务之急。一九八八年，他们邀集二十余位活跃于世界各地反水库运动的人士，讨论各国反水库运动的情况，并确定IRN的三项行动纲领。一，提供各国反水库运动有关水库及水利设施的惨痛教训。二，追踪大型跨国水利计划的资金动向，尤其是世界银行的角色，因为它是世界水库工业的最大资金来源。三，提供实质的支持予特定的运动，项目包括专业知识、宣传及协调。基于对美国帝国主义行径的深刻批判与反省，以美国科学家为骨干的IRN并不想让自己成为国际反水库运动的「总部」，其组织原则强调与个别国家的团体之间的平等合作关系。
九〇年代起，IRN与加拿大的国际探索组织(Probe International)、挪威的国际水资源与森林研究协会(Association for International Water and Forest Studies)、日本的地球之友(Friends of the Earth)、荷兰的兼顾组织(Both Ends)、瑞士的伯恩宣言组织(Berne Declaration)、德国的厄吉华德组织(Urgewald)、澳洲的援助观察组织(AidWatch)、英国的经济学人(The Ecologist)及美国的环境保卫基金(Environmental Defense Fund)协调合作，配合在第一线斗争的反水库组织，针对世界银行所资助的大型水库计划，要者如巴西的辛谷坝、泰国的南琼坝、印尼的肯东欧布坝、尼泊尔的亚农三世坝，进行调查与批判，成功地劝退了许多大型水库的国际资金来源。
国际反水库运动最成功的例子是印度纳玛达河谷计划所激起的拯救纳玛达河(Narmada River)行动。纳玛达河谷计划是人类有史以来最庞大的水利综合开发计划，印度政府向世界银行贷款，计划以二百亿美元在印度西部第一大河纳玛达河流域兴建千座以上的水库及数十座电厂。计划中还包括一条全世界最大的人工运河：七百五十公尺宽，四百五十公里长。这个计划完成后将有超过一千万人口的生计受到结构性的影响，光是它在纳玛达河下游的主坝撒多撒罗瓦坝(Sardar Sarovar Dam)就得使二十万六千人口迁移，因此受到最猛烈的反对，华盛顿邮报形容此坝为「环境、政治及文化劫难的全球性象征」。
一九九一年底，在梅哈帕卡(Medha Patkar)女士的领导下，历经无数次的说明会、游行与誓死的抗议，与国际组织的协力奔走，世界银行终于屈服于强大的国际舆论压力，任命一个独立调查小组，重新评估撒多撒罗瓦坝计划。九二年六月独立小组发布长达三百九十二页的调查报告，严厉批判这项计划「充满缺陷」：受害户的迁移与更生目标不可能实现，预估效益也不切实际。一九九三年三月世界银行宣布取消贷款予印度政府。
在胜利的鼓舞下，一九九四年九月，适逢世界银行五十周年庆，国际反水库组织者在最靠近撒多撒罗瓦坝址的马尼贝里村(Manibeli)集会，发表深具历史意义的马尼贝里宣言(Manibeli Declaration)。这项宣言由IRN与印度反水库组织者起草，并由超过两千个以上的国际组织联署背书，针对世界银行对全球生态与基层社区所造成的浩劫进行批判，并要求世界银行从根改造其资助行为。
台湾的反水库运动虽然战后台湾的国民党政府以极高的速度与密度，在西部内山地带兴建了近三十座大型水库(依国际认定，蓄水量超过一百万立方公尺即可称为大型水库)，台湾第一个有运动与组织意义的反水库行动迟至九〇年代初才出现。一九九二年十二月，在美浓地方人士与镇公所的强烈要求下，经济部水资源统一规划委员会(现已与水利司合并为水资源局)南下出席「美浓水库公听会」。美浓人立刻被水库的巨大规模(一四七公尺高八百公尺宽)及其与主要聚落的超近距离(一点五公里)所惊骇住。在保乡卫土的危机感与使命感的催迫下及客家意识的凝聚下，他们成立了台湾第一个反水库组织「美浓爱乡协进会」。通过有效的动员与国会游说下，立法院在九三及九四连续两年删除了美浓水库的工程预算，仅保留替代方案研究经费。
以八〇年代中期的「自力救济」环保抗争运动为基础，美浓反水库运动的发展有一点值得我们注意：它既有超地域的连结又有社区生根的企图。九三年中之后，美浓的反水库组织者积极串连玛家、瑞峰及茂林等水库计划预定地的受影响居民，并与台南县「滨南工业区(美浓水库的供水对象)」的受影响居民及屏东县北部受美浓水库影响农业用水的农民连结，合力对抗政府为新兴高污染工业区准备的水资源开发计划。因此，以美浓水库的问题出发，这场运动触及南台湾的河川保育问题、水权问题及高污染工业的存续问题，广化了运动的视野。因此，它不只突显了地域的问题，还连结了地区的问题；它不只是一个「被动」的反抗运动，同时还提出更全面而且结构性的问题。这几年，美浓爱乡协进会还致力于社区化，针对美浓客家社会文化的问题，做出主张与行动。
与世界上许多水库不同的是，台湾的水库兴建计划并不从世界银行等国际金融机构取得资金，因此依国际反水库的运动模式，台湾的水库问题并不容易国际化。而这也使得台湾的环保视野少了一个吸收国际环保讯息的窗口。然而，透过国际会议与活动的参与，台湾的反水库组织近年来也开始拓展了意义与行动上视野。
国际水资源保育运动的前景九〇年以后的国际反水库运动模式逐渐由反动化为主动，不管是在地或国际的运动者除了坚持反对破坏性的水资源开发计划，更积极主张较为永续、公平与有效的水资源科技和管理措施。而这种主动、科学与公义的态度往往为运动者与官僚机构之间的对话奠下良性的基础，使得面对反水库攻势的水库工业界与政府的态度也逐渐由反制、反抗转变为反省与改革。一九九二年，总部设于巴黎的「国际大型水库委员会(International Commission on Large Dam)」的主席普切尔(Wolfgang Pircher)以反动的口吻对「英国水库协会(British Dam Society)」提出警告说，水库工业正面临「严厉而全面的反抗，几已成功地削减了水库在公众面前所享有的尊荣，并使我们的专业工作变得困难重重。」
一九九四年五月，在历经数十年的抗议、陈情、社会辩论与国会听证后，水坝工程界的龙头老大--美国垦务局终于承认水库不管在美国或世界其余地方都是「不智之举」，并正式宣布停止美国境内的水库兴建计划，并宣布未来重点是水资源的管理与环境回复的工作。同时间，欧洲的一些国家，如法国及挪威，也相继立法禁止在国内兴建大型水库。可以说，水库的年代在第一世界差不多已是寿终正寝。一九九六年九月在日本长良川举行的「国际水库高峰会议(International Dam Summit)」就以「建坝年代在世界各地正走入尾声」为主题开场，进入后水坝时期水资源经营问题的探讨。
一九九二年起，在美国西部一些经济效益低落同时又严重影响鱼类生态的水坝已在「拆除水坝，复活生态」的舆论中，面临了解体的命运。事实上，早从七〇年代开始，环保人士与当地的渔民就不断地发生抗议的呼声，无奈当时的西部国会议员尽是大工程公司的御用代表，且国内及国际反水库声势也尚未成气候。一般相信，美西的零星水坝拆除行动势将星火燎原，引发更为广泛的运动。有鉴于此，美国土木工程师协会(American Society of Civil Engineers)已开始出版有关水坝拆除工程的技术指南，恐怕不要多久，拆坝工程便会变成专门的技术与学科。
然而，水库工业在第一世界的垂死命运并不意谓第三世界的生态与弱势社群从此就可免除水坝的威胁，这只是说明，第三世界的政府将愈来愈难从第一世界政府或其主导的国际金融机构取得建坝资金，而这对于新兴的第三世界工业国也愈来愈不是问题。印度政府在世界银行撤资后仍有相当的能力继续推动纳玛达河谷计划，且面对国际舆论的指责也不为所动，中国大陆的三峡大坝计划情形也是如此。尤有甚者，许多第一世界国家的大型工程财团在国内赚钱机会消失后，积极地与第三世界的买办官僚接合，推动大型水坝计划，而这与面临环保压力的第一世界跨国财团把污染性工业移往第三世界，以延续资本命脉，道理如出一辙。这正是国际反水库运动目前所面临的最大挑战。
