‘What we need is to multiply the number of Yasunis around the world'
‘What we need is to multiply the number of Yasunis around the world'
Interview with Ecuador’s former Minister of Energy and Mining Alberto Acosta about recent referendum on Amazon oil
On 20 August, in one of the South American continent’s smaller countries, something globally historic and pioneering took place. In a legally-binding national referendum coinciding with a presidential election, almost 60% of Ecuadorians voted in favour of stopping operations in an oil concession, officially called Block 43, in one of the remotest parts of the Yasuni National Park in the Amazon. Here, Alberto Acosta, a former Minister of Energy and Mining who has played a leading role in trying to keep that Yasuni oil in the ground, talks to me via email about what has been going on:
DH: As both a Minister and then a member of civil society, you have been working towards this outcome for years. As you know, Yasuni is one of the most biodiverse places in the world as well as home to indigenous peoples in “isolation”, and therefore oil companies should never have been permitted to operate anywhere in the park in the first place. How did you personally feel when you heard the result?
AA: The historic triumph of the “Yes” vote for Yasuni, supported by almost 60% of Ecuadorians, filled me with great emotion. I was full of gratitude and humility, and I had tears in my eyes. This result - achieved thanks to the tenacity and perseverance of the Colectivo Yasunidos, together with massive support from broad segments of society - proves that radical transformation can be achieved. Moreover, this decision by the Ecuadorian people - made without any help from abroad and while oil production was already underway, thereby forcing the operators to dismantle their installations - has shaken up the international community. It shows how, from within civil society, we can defend the rights of indigenous peoples and the rights of Nature, in order to move beyond the civilisation of capital. Enough of empty speeches, like those made at the much-touted international climate summits. What we need is to multiply the number of Yasunis around the world.
DH: In the days leading up to the referendum, did you think you were going to win?
AA: I definitely had my doubts. There were numerous reasons. Many years had passed since the possibility of a referendum had first been floated - it was initially taken up with enthusiasm by lots of people - but it was only in May this year that the Constitutional Court approved it. Very quickly and with little resources, the “Yes” campaign had to be organised and an attempt made to recapture the spirit of that time when, overcoming all manner of difficulties, the more than 750,000 signatures required to hold a referendum were collected. Not only that, but production in Block 43 - or ITT [standing for Ishpingo, Tambococha and Tiputuni, the names of the oil fields in the concession] - had already started. Also, the campaign came up against such powerful forces: a real extractivist oligarchy comprised of the government, oil companies, mining firms, business lobby groups, mainstream media, and various neoliberal and progressive political organisations, as well as trade unions. That oligarchy, backed by unlimited amounts of money, unleashed a ferocious strategy across the country trying to convince people to vote “No.” It was a campaign that was full of falsehoods, like Peru could extract the ITT oil if Ecuador didn’t, and it spread all kinds of scare-stories, such as the value of the dollar falling if the oil wasn’t exploited.
DH: What do you think were the most important aspects of the “Yes” campaign? I.e. the aspects of the campaign that convinced so many people to vote in favour?
AA: There are numerous reasons, starting with a growing ecological conscience in the country. It’s important to remember that in Ecuador there is a tradition of fighting for Nature. Indigenous peoples, involved in many of these struggles, view “Mother Earth” as a tangible reality, not just as mere metaphor. Across every region in the country - the Amazon, the Andes, the coast, the Galapagos Islands - there has been some kind of resistance to environmental destruction for a long time now. Certain government action is worth mentioning too, as with Yasuni itself, which was established as a park in 1979 and then declared a Biosphere Reserve 10 years later by UNESCO. Also worth noting is the Constitution which, 15 years ago, recognised Nature as a subject with rights - a milestone worldwide.
DH: It’s clear that, in various ways, Ecuador, as a country, is something of an environmental leader.
AA: Also, every province has places of emblematic ecological significance, many of which are under threat from extractivist operations, such as mining. This meant that the defence of Yasuni resonated more with other, local struggles. Another reason is that the benefits of oil production have never reached the majority of Ecuador’s population. At the same time, the referendum became a rejection of traditional politics - remember that the initiative to protect Yasuni had initially emerged out of Ecuadorian civil society [in the 2000s] fighting every kind of extractivist force, led by Correaism [Rafael Correa being Ecuador’s President 2007-2017].
DH: Any other reasons?
AA: It’s also worth emphasising that it wasn’t a centralised campaign. Quite the contrary. Independent actions from different parts of the country was the norm, although they had the same, clear objective: to protect Nature and human lives, and strengthen participatory democracy. As a result, art and creativity were able to flourish, in all kinds of different ways, and important contributions were made by young people in particular. Efforts in some of the most remote parts of the country were also crucial. Indeed, special mention should be made of the indigenous Waorani who formed a delegation and travelled around the country building support among other indigenous peoples and other sectors of the population. A small number of people from the Catholic Church, particularly in the Amazon, played a key role too, as did a few of the universities which held some interesting debates - although the vast majority refused. Social media was important as well. All this managed to beat the million-dollar “No” campaign run by the extractivist oligarchy.
DH: Who do you think stands to lose the most from not being able to exploit the ITT oil? The companies contracted by Petroecuador [Ecuador’s state oil company] to operate there, or others?
AA: It’s difficult to answer that question. The referendum result means that the indigenous peoples in isolation win, as does Nature, democracy and Life itself. Really, there are no losers. However, if we confine our thinking to the cold world of money, there are some crucial points worth making. In terms of earning less revenue as a result of not exporting the ITT oil, we could expect something like a 1% decrease in the State’s General Budget - that could easily be made up elsewhere. From the perspective of earning less foreign currency, it should be considered that all the equipment, machines and materials [needed to operate in the ITT concession] are imported - a shortfall that wouldn’t be difficult to make up either. Also, the main beneficiaries of these operations, run by Petroecuador, are Chinese companies, together with one other foreign firm. That impacts foreign currency outflows too, since it’s normal for such companies to remit profits or repatriate capital abroad. By the way, most of the contracts are due to expire next year anyway, which undermines the claim that stopping ITT operations could lead to arbitration claims.
DH: Yes, that’s a very important point!
AA: Another issue to consider is investment recovery - many of the initial investments have already been re-paid. Moreover, a lot of the equipment installed in ITT could be used in other oil concessions or even for other operations in the same region - for example, the tubes to construct bridges. The cost of abandoning the area is nothing new or additional: the equipment was going to have to be removed at some point anyway, whether now or later. I would even see all this as an investment in the future because it is going to protect such a marvellous part of the world.
DH: I think many people would agree with you on that.
AA: Also, when the costs of extracting and then transporting the oil are considered, a more complete cost-benefit analysis is required, including things such as social and environmental impacts. It’d be worth incorporating too what should be thought of as “hidden subsidies” - for example, the water used and then contaminated by the oil companies, for which they pay absolutely nothing. When taking all this into account, the real, potential benefits for the country are even fewer. In fact, there are some people who argue that exploiting the ITT oil is bad business anyway because the oil is extra-heavy and therefore the environmental footprint is even greater, and because the deposits aren’t as big as announced when exploitation started. Of course, there are some people who will be affected financially either directly or indirectly, but not as many as has been said - for example, the people working for the oil companies will have other options elsewhere in the Amazon or even in Yasuni itself dismantling the installations. There are also political losers too - those from the extractivist oligarchy. Ultimately, though, the Yasuni referendum result is an historic triumph - one showing the way to building another kind of economy that recognises that the lives of human and non-human beings have no price.
DH: I see that the president, Guillermo Lasso, told some people in the Yasuni region that the result of the referendum is “inapplicable”, and that “it’s not possible” to stop the oil operations in ITT. “We don’t want production in Block 43 to terminate,” he said. Those remarks were recorded, leaked and publicised. What was your reaction to hearing all that?
AA: My indignation, which was considerable, was tempered by the experience I have of politics in this country. The will of the people has been disrespected so many times by so many different powers-that-be that, even though it annoyed me very much, it wasn’t a surprise. We should remember that this open contempt for the result had already been expressed publicly by the Minister of Energy almost the day after the referendum, although subsequently the government, through a public statement, stated that it would comply. Then a few days later the president himself said the ITT oil would continue to be exploited: “the road we’re taking is that the referendum result is inapplicable.”
DH: Shocking, but, as you say, not surprising.
AA: Given this undemocratic attitude, which was even supported by the mainstream media, indignation spread rapidly. The Colectivo Yasunidos filed a formal complaint with the Constitutional Court, since, according to the Constitution, a referendum result must be complied with immediately. Indeed, numerous civil society organisations - those who made the 20 August victory possible - remain vigilant, and a citizen-run watchdog and observatory have been set up to ensure compliance. Stopping the exploitation of ITT oil and removing the facilities built there, while at the same time meeting the demands of communities in the Amazon, is as important as strengthening democracy in the country. Not accepting the referendum result would be yet another blow to our much broken-down political institutions. All this also requires new and more powerful international solidarity. We need to create a kind of emancipatory framework that brings together all the people around the world fighting extractivism, as part of a process encouraging all possible alternatives aimed at building a world in which many different kinds of world can find their place. It seems that the moment to establish a kind of “Ecological International” helping to coordinate all the different struggles on our planet has arrived.
DH: This brings us to my last question. Earlier you said that “what we need is to multiply the number of Yasunis around the world.” What kind of example do you think Ecuadorians have given citizens in other countries?
AA: Ecuador, particularly its youth, is delivering a powerful message: never let your guard down, and continue the struggle with creativity and perseverance, especially when your life is at stake. Ecuador - its population in general - is demonstrating that, from within civil society, above all at the community level, action can be taken by considering all possible options to defend the rights of people and Nature. Ecuador is saying that we can’t stand with our arms crossed hoping that one day the powers-that-be will act responsibly - something they’ll never do if we don’t force them. We need to act urgently in order to “yasunize” the entire planet, remembering that, in the Waorani language, Yasuni means “sacred land.” Transcending narrow and dogmatic visions, we need many other, similar initiatives to flourish around the world. The aim is to create two, three, four, five. . . many, many Yasunis!
DH: Alberto, thank you very much.