How Georgia’s population is fighting back against new hydroelectric power plants

The history of hydropower in Georgia dates back to the Soviet era. The snow- and glacier-covered Caucasus Mountains feed numerous rivers, whose water is ideal for electricity generation. In 2023, there were 119 active hydropower plants in Georgia, accounting for more than 70 percent of the country’s electricity. That is a considerable amount.

According to the government, 218 new hydropower plants are set to be built in the coming years. On the one hand, the government touts “energy independence” (especially from Russia). Yet commentators in Georgia have repeatedly pointed out for over a decade that hydropower generation is highly seasonal. New hydropower plants will not significantly reduce electricity imports in the winter.

On the other hand, Georgia’s government now wants to export electricity to the EU. To this end, it is planning, together with the EU and neighboring Azerbaijan, the construction of the Black Sea Submarine Cable (BSSC). This is intended to run from Azerbaijan through Georgia and the Black Sea to Romania and Hungary.

Some members of the public oppose the expansion of hydropower—and they have valid reasons for doing so. After all, this involves large-scale and profound interventions in the environment. Yet the government does not take their views into account when deciding where to build new hydropower plants. Nevertheless, grassroots movements continue to make their voices heard and fight for a say in the decision-making process.

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from TikTok. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information

Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Local communities feel sidelined by the Georgian government

As hydropower plants transform Georgia’s landscapes, an intriguing question arises for researchers: What role do local communities play in decisions that directly affect their lives and their environment? These communities often depend on the rivers for their livelihoods. They frequently use the water for a range of economic activities (e.g., agriculture and livestock farming) that form the basis of their survival.

The construction of even small hydropower plants can have significant effects, especially when multiple plants are planned along the same river: There is a high risk that at certain times the riverbeds will be empty because the water will primarily flow through pipes. Although the government assesses a power plant’s environmental impact before construction—these environmental impact assessments, at least in the Georgian context, are typically conducted only for individual hydropower plants. The cumulative effects resulting from the interaction of many hydropower plants are overlooked. The impacts of such waterless riverbeds are, in part, complex and have not yet been fully researched. Likewise, local communities depend on the forests and pastures, which are in some cases damaged or rendered inaccessible by hydropower plants.

Local communities are also the primary guardians of the country’s socio-ecological diversity—something that many people in Georgia and abroad deeply value and take pride in. Entire cultural landscapes, as well as cultural and economic practices, can be threatened by the construction of hydroelectric power plants. Especially with larger projects that the government is once again pursuing, there is also a risk of displacement and the flooding of cultural heritage sites (e.g., cemeteries, settlements, etc.).

Nevertheless, community participation in the planning of hydropower plants has consistently been restricted and, in some cases, even actively suppressed. This exclusion is all the more serious given that the legitimacy of the actors driving the expansion of hydropower is increasingly being called into question—both with regard to the state’s actions and with regard to the international financial institutions (IFIs) that finance and design many of these projects and were not elected by the people. These actors have no direct mandate from the affected communities, yet they make decisions that profoundly alter their lives.

Georgia’s population is challenging the privatization of water resources

As a result, there is grassroots resistance in Georgia emerging from communities affected by hydropower development. The “Guardians of the Rioni Valley” movement, founded in 2020 by residents of the Rioni Valley in response to the Namochwani hydropower plant, could be seen as the flagship of these resistance movements.

The movement was able to mobilize tens of thousands of people in the neighboring city of Kutaisi, which could be hit by a massive wave in the event of a dam breach. In 2021, it celebrated its greatest success when the Turkish-Norwegian consortium Enka, responsible for the construction and operation, announced its withdrawal from the project.

Grassroots movements draw attention to the significant social, environmental, and economic costs caused by these projects and politicize the exclusion from decision-making processes. In doing so, the movements also form alliances with critical segments of civil society, establishing solidarity networks in neighboring regions, in the capital, and even abroad. A prominent example is the CEE Bankwatch Network, which has been reporting critically on hydropower development in Georgia for years.

To date, several ongoing projects have been halted due to pressure from protest movements and their alliances. Activists are questioning why more hydroelectric power plants need to be built, even though Georgia already generates 73% of its electricity from renewable hydropower.

Cryptomining is driving Georgia’s expansion of hydropower

The resistance movements raise further important questions, such as: What is the domestic hydropower used for? Crypto mining provides a partial answer. Georgia is a hub for miners of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, in part because profits are barely taxed. However, production is very energy-intensive. Despite rising hydropower production, the crypto hype in Georgia has led to power outages, as in the Svaneti region, which is particularly affected by hydropower projects. This problem certainly strikes a nerve with the population.

Ultimately, however, the resistance is primarily directed at the lack of involvement of affected communities: large segments of the population are dissatisfied because they are not allowed to have a say in whether, how, and where a hydroelectric power plant is built. Decisions about their living environment are made by government, international, and corporate actors without democratic input. Where participation does occur, it amounts to a formality, while the construction of the plants is considered a done deal. Thus, (pseudo-)participation becomes part of the problem rather than the solution.

Researchers are studying the impact of Georgia’s energy policy on democracy

In this regard, coalitions opposing the projects raise a question that also interests us as a research team: What benefits do existing and planned hydropower plants bring to which stakeholder groups? What practices are being lost? And what perspectives do affected communities and local resistance movements offer that make it possible to envision alternative energy and economic policies?

For the Georgian government, cooperation with the EU on “green” energy projects may be profitable, but for the local population, it often brings many problems. In the “GrassTransitions” project, researchers and experts from civil society organizations in Greece, Hungary, and Georgia are examining how green transition policies and projects affect democratic participation among the population in the (southeastern) European EU member states and in the EU’s neighboring countries.

It is not yet certain whether the BSSC will actually be built. The future of Georgia’s energy sector is being decided in part by actors who are far removed from the struggles of grassroots movements. Yet it is imperative to incorporate their opinions and visions in order to decentralize state-centered perspectives. State-centered visions often merely mask the foreign and domestic class rule that shapes the development of hydropower. Thus, it is not “Georgia” as a whole that benefits from hydropower, but at best a few elites at home and abroad, while a large portion of the population is left behind. This is precisely why we in Europe should not automatically and uncritically think of hydropower as a “renewable” energy source: for it can very well destroy the livelihoods of other people. The fact that such stories can reach Germany at all is primarily thanks to the resistance of social movements.

Given the multitude of authoritarian laws that the de facto one-party parliament has recently passed, the future looks bleak for grassroots movements in Georgia—precisely because the legislation was explicitly designed to authoritatively suppress opposition to hydroelectric power plants. For years, the government has spoken of alleged foreign influence as an explanation for the resistance to hydropower. This attempt to delegitimize primarily local resistance actors and alliances is now intensifying. What is new, however, is that the government and the courts dependent on it already possess the means to translate delegitimization strategies into criminalization practices.

Is the EU prepared to advance its own green transition at the expense of local communities in other countries? Will the EU turn a blind eye to Georgia in the same way it has in its policies toward the already authoritarian states of Central Asia and Azerbaijan, where pure energy pragmatism overshadows any values-based foreign policy? These questions are crucial for assessing European responsibility. In the meantime, geographers are well-positioned to document who benefits from Georgia’s hydropower rush and who loses out.