Bacongo Case
Belize is a Central American state, wedged between the Caribbean Sea by Guatemala and Mexico, with a population of under 300 000. The Belize government and its formerly arms-length dam building corporation, the Belize Electric Company Limited (BECOL), itself now a subsidiary of the Canadian utility conglomerate Fortis Inc. BECOL plans to build a 49.5 m high dam (known as the Chalillo Dam) to generate hydro-electricity on the Macal River in Belize, flooding a 10 sq km of Belizean rainforest within the Chiquibul National Park and Forest Reserve. The dam would flood ecologically rich riverbed areas harming rare species of plants and animals, flood ancient Mayan archaeological sites and pose future harm to two downstream communities should the dam fail. The potential for dam failure is assessed largely on the basis of the geology of the riverbed.
The construction of the dam was opposed by the Belize Alliance of Conservation Non-Governmental Organizations (BACONGO), an alliance of nine environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) joined by two tourism business owners in Belize who sought judicial review of the construction of the project on several grounds. BACONGO were heard twice before the Privy Council: first, to determine whether an injunction should be granted to prevent construction of the dam (Bacongo #1), and second to hear the two surviving grounds for judicial review (Bacongo #2). Although this comment primarily discusses the findings in Bacongo #2, the significance and result of the case can only be understood in the context of the legislative, political and legal avenues pursued by the opposing parties.
It is also another example of development policy, perhaps even with best intentions, not meetings its own goals, but handily meeting the goals of a foreign multi-national. In this, it is again a Canadian multi-national energy company with experitse in large scale hyro-electric projects building a dam. It is a case of failed regulatory frameworks, of “agency capture”, this time of an entire government, and it is a case which I believe illustrates the risks if not the futility of pusuring broad based claims through formal legal procedures, the so-called “litigation model” of legal activism.
Here is a link to a “quick and dirty” case comment on the final appeal of the case, and the Privy Council decision.
Here is a link to the key case documents provided by the Stop Fortis Campaign.