Hydropower has been core in the nation-building process of several countries. This includes Sweden in which it currently supplies around 50% of the electricity and particularly Norway where almost all electricity is generated from hydropower. In these countries, as well as many others, the provision of hydroelectricity enabled urban and rural development, industrialization and other core value-added activities. However, it was realized with significant environmental costs, particularly at the local level. Traditionally, there has been a divide in perceptions on hydropower production, in which stakeholders tend to box it either as an environmental hazard or as a socio-economic benefit. During the last century, these diverging perspectives have influenced political and regulatory approaches as well as the perceived role of hydropower at large. Different attempts to bridge this divide have been made. This is not least true in the present day, considering the role of hydropower as a low-carbon solution, and a balancing source to counter increased intermittency from new renewables into the energy system. These features of contributing to the global good of mitigating climate change need to be assessed against the potential negative environmental consequences on biological diversity, outdoor recreation and landscape perceptions at large. These concerns triggered social mobilization and even became instrumental in establishing environmental NGOs with the core focus of fighting hydropower projects. Contrasting and often conflicting opinions are still prevailing, as exemplified with the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). However, there are current signs and new knowledge available suggesting that we are moving into a new era of hydropower governance. A potential reconciliation of contrasting perceptions is pending, but there is strong inertia to change. We argue that the understanding of past political modes and regulatory approaches are essential to develop more sustainable hydropower governance systems fit for future societal and environmental needs. We currently have the benefit of drawing on lessons learned. This provides an opportunity to shape new governance systems that are more balanced in a way not experienced before.
[1]
T. Kajander,et al.
EU Water Framework Directive vs. Integrated Water Resources Management: The Seven Mismatches
,
2004
.
[2]
William J. Cosgrove,et al.
World Water Vision: Making Water Everybody's Business
,
2000
.
[3]
F. Roland,et al.
Carbon emission from hydroelectric reservoirs linked to reservoir age and latitude
,
2011
.
[4]
Gerd Blindheim Jacobsen,et al.
Channelling Norwegian Hydropower Towards Greener Currents: The Challenge of Conflicting Environmental Concerns?
,
2011
.
[5]
Audun Ruud,et al.
Promoting Sustainable Electricity in Europe: Challenging the Path Dependence of Dominant Energy Systems
,
2009
.
[6]
Maarten H. Jacobs,et al.
Understanding stakeholders' attitudes toward water management interventions: Role of place meanings
,
2011
.
[7]
Ø. Moen,et al.
Ambitious goals and ambiguous issues : Integrating water and energy concerns in the Norwegian hydropower sector
,
2016
.
[8]
C. Nilsson,et al.
Fragmentation and Flow Regulation of River Systems in the Northern Third of the World
,
1994,
Science.
[9]
Van De Bund Wouter,et al.
Working Group ECOSTAT report on common understanding of using mitigation measures for reaching Good Ecological Potential for heavily modified water bodies - Part 1: Impacted by water storage
,
2016
.
[10]
J. Olden,et al.
Homogenization of regional river dynamics by dams and global biodiversity implications
,
2007,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[11]
Faisal Hossain,et al.
The influence of large dams on surrounding climate and precipitation patterns
,
2011
.