Today's polarization of society 'for' or 'against' big hydroprojects relates to environmental costs, which are borne particularly by vulnerable ethnic minorities and the poor; such costs include species extinctions and tropical deforestation. This counter-productive polarization can be reconciled by transparency and mutuality of planning, by pluralism involving the local populace and especially all affected people, and by engendering national consensus on the best project that is available and practicable. Detailed criteria for consensus are discussed, and include promotion of energy efficiency and conservation, ranking of alternatives to the next hydroproject, and environmental ranking of potential sites. Environmentally well-designed hydroprojects can be preferable to alternatives (e.g. coal or nuclear), and most environmental costs can be prevented, thus making hydroprojects renewable and sustainable.
