Ecuador says no to extractive industries.

Ecuador says no to extractive industries.

A perspective on the victory of referendum results

In an election marked by the deterioration of security in Ecuador, the referendums held on the Andean Chocó and Yasuní reflect a commitment by citizens towards non-extractive economic alternatives. On August 20, 68% of voters from the Metropolitan District of Quito voted in favor of maintaining biodiversity in the Andean Chocó and thus putting an end to new mining concessions. Meanwhile 59% of voters nationwide put an end to oil exploitation in the Yasuní National Park, located in the Ecuadorian Amazon. This article covers the background of these environmental referendums, their implications, and the difficulties in implementing them, since despite the yes vote, the Ecuadorian Government refuses to comply with it.

The incessant fight to preserve the Yasuní ITT

The national consultation to decide on oil exploitation in the Yasuní National Park has been a process promoted by activists from Acción Ecológica -Ecological Action-[2] and other groups, especially young environmentalists, for more than 10 years. In 2013, after Rafael Correa’s government abandoned the proposal to leave crude oil from the ITT block (named after the initials of the areas covered in the block: Ishpingo, Tambococha, Tiputini) underground in exchange for economic compensation from several countries, various activists gathered under the Yasunidos[3] collective to maintain momentum based on the initiative from the citizens. However, the work of these groups faced a series of irregularities, including the invalidation of nearly 400,000 petition signatures for a popular consultation in 2014 and the start of oil exploitation in Block 43.

Among the many efforts made by activists, there was an appeal to the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, which, on May 9, 2023, authorized a popular consultation to be held. At the national level, the question was posed: Do you agree with the Ecuadorian Government keeping the crude oil from the ITT, known as block 43, indefinitely underground?

The organizational effort to inform and encourage more than 5 million Ecuadorians to vote in favor of the preservation of one of the most biodiverse places on the planet is no small feat, especially if one considers the weight of the exploitation of raw materials in the economies of the region.

In the book “Más Allá del Desarrollo” -Beyond Development-, the economist Alberto Acosta mentions: “With varying degrees of intensity, all Latin American countries are affected by these practices. This dependence on the metropolis, through the extraction and export of raw materials, remains practically unchanged to this day.” This occurs particularly in Ecuador, a small oil-producing country since the beginning of exploitation in the Amazon, at the end of the 1960s.

While oil resources have been incorporated into the national budget, the communities surrounding oil exploration areas have suffered the environmental and health impact caused by pollution and have not seen significant changes in their lives. In this sense, Acosta emphasizes how extractivist industries  do not signpost a way out of poverty, but rather deepens institutional weaknesses, such as raw material export processes. Thus, it concentrates the wealth of these resources in a few hands and takes these resources to the main cities and even outside the country.

Katy Machoa, human rights defender, and former leader of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (Conaie), echoes Acosta’s words when she points out why oil should stay underground: “We always get the worst [of indigenous communities], we are dealing with the latter and we see that the general budgets are based on oil income.” For her, it is key to maintain a relationship with nature without preying on it, which is why “it is clear that these extractivist industries models have a limit.”

For Alex Samaniego, academic activist from Scientist Rebellion Ecuador, the Government did not think about the future during the oil boom times and created a dependency with no way out. “The problem is that we did not take advantage of that boom. The moments where these energy transitions could have been made were not taken advantage of. Furthermore, in the global market,the countries of theglobal South have always been in this position as suppliers of raw materials. So going beyond being simple suppliers of raw materials requires a significant effort”.

The last three governments were not willing to make this effort, and the current administration of President Guillermo Lasso openly rejected. In the campaign to vote no, where some national media outlets played a central role, the main spokespersons were ministers of State and the state oil company (Petroecuador). The main argument for continuing oil extraction operations in Yasuní was based on economic terms, especially on the loss figure that the government would face if operations ceased, estimated at 1.2 billion dollars per year.

The Petroecuador company presented the 1.2 billion figure  and the income generated as an argument before the Constitutional Court before it ruled in favor of carrying out a popular consultation, according to Ecuadorian news website, GK. However, this figure is debatable: in the same article it is mentioned that after all the costs associated with extraction, marketing, payments, logistics, the net income remaining for the country is around 148 million dollars annually.

For Sofia Torres, spokesperson for Yasunidos, the fallacy of oil as an engine of development was evident in her work during the education process for the consultation. “I had the opportunity to be in an information workshop with the Kayambi people, mostly farmers, and all of these people were clear about the consequences of climate change in their daily work as farmers. For them, it is becoming more complex to have a certain food sovereignty.” For the Kayambi people, with an agricultural tradition, who live in the central mountain range of the Andes, the climate impacts and the relationship with oil extraction are clear and seeking alternatives to extractive industries   was a motivation to go to the polls and decide on exploitation of Yasuní.

The Yasunidos collective published 10 alternatives to oil extraction during its campaign. Biomedicine, Bioindustries, gas processing and Tax Justice are some options to stop exploiting oil.  Community tourism is a possibility that allows profits to be distributed more equitably, something that Alex Samaniego emphasizes: “We are always told about the income created by oil, but very little money is distributed equitably. These alternatives are key to generating income in a more equitable way.”

Sofia Torres emphasizes that the gas that is released during oil production, and that is burned in the open air in flares that affects the communities in the area, could be used as an alternative to generate income. This alternative idea comes from the communities affected by oil exploitation, when several girls sued the Ecuadorian State for the more than 400 gas flares that exist in the Amazon.   “The Court [of Justice of the province of Sucumbíos] ruled in favor of the girls and asked that Petroecuador close the gas flares and that the gas that is part of the emissions that makes people sick, can be bottled instead and used for national consumption.”

Torres mentions that both, the Gas initiative, as well as the Tax Justice initiative, on the collection of tax debts from groups with tax advantages, are alternatives that can be carried out immediately and generate income. Meanwhile, other options only need support because they are already carried out and would generate more income, distributed more equitably than the current extractivist industries model. Although the income generated between 2007 and 2013 from oil extraction in the Yasuní ITT exceeded initial estimates, according to the Yasunidos collective, the country did not emerge from the multidimensional poverty in which millions of Ecuadorians live to this day.

As a result of this consultation, the Government will have one year to abide by the results and dismantle the crude oil extraction operation in the ITT block. However, implementing the result of the consultation is already a challenge. Hugo Echeverría, environmental lawyer, stressed that “the authorities have sent confusing messages about the ruling.” Echeverría refers to the arguments of the central government in for not abiding by the results of the consultation.

The Andean Chocó

Approximately 40 km from the Ecuadorian capital, Quito, is the Chocó Andino, a community made up of six parishes (Nono, Calacalí, Nanegal, Nanegalito, Gualea and Pacto). It is an ecological reserve in which there are minerals such as gold, copper, and platinum. It is an area with protective forests, conservation areas and the presence of species such as the Andean bear, defended for more than 15 years by a sector of its inhabitants, who noticed that the extension of the concessions reached their homes.

Despite being declared by UNESCO as the seventh biosphere reserve in Ecuador, the Government approved mining exploration licenses in the Andean Chocó. At the time of the consultation, there are already eleven approved metal mining concessions and six in process, the latter must be suspended since the consultation does not allow future exploration. The group of activists that promoted the consultation, Quito sin minería -Quito without mining-, establishes that “the development of mining activities in areas as sensitive as the Andean Chocó can generate an irremediable impact, permanently affecting biodiversity and the territory.”

This referendum took place at the local level, and only voters living in the Metropolitan District of Quito responded to four questions that addressed large, medium and small scale mining, as well as artisanal mining. Alex Samaniego, who worked on advocacy for the two referendums with Scientist Rebellion, mentions that, during the preparation for the Andean Chocó referendum, civil society organizations like Scientist Rebellion worked hard around the limited knowledge of the extent of the Andean Chocó territory, which is one of the largest forests in Quito, with about 286,805 hectares.

Being a district referendum and not a national one (like that of Yasuní), the emphasis was on generating knowledge about the importance of the forest and the water it provides to the Ecuadorian capital; water sources that are contaminated when activities such as mining are carried out nearby. The result of the consultation implies that the Government will not be able to grant new mining exploration licenses, but it will not be retroactive, that is, the exploration concessions granted to date are maintained.

What do these consultations represent for democracy?

To carry out political action you do not need a party; a common objective can unite different sectors of society. Popular consultations have been a democratic resource that showed active political participation in Ecuadorian civil society. For Katy Machoa, “in this popular consultation of Yasuní I think we did a great Minga, because there are different actors, social sectors, people who began to lobby for stopping oil extraction in Yasuní.”

Minga, an indigenous word that refers to a meeting of a community, of diverse actors who share their knowledge and tools to work towards a common goal, also resonates a lot for Sofia Torres, spokesperson for Yasunidos. “It was a young campaign, with different actors from feminist groups on the other side of the country who came together to disseminate information regarding the national Yasuní campaign.” She remembers how different groups came together from their provinces to support the popular consultation.

For Alex Samaniego, from Scientist Rebellion, “the campaign showed that it is not true that partisan campaigns are the only valid ones in democracy. You can have your strength in organized civil society and that way we also stayed very clean.” He gives examples of how these referendum campaigns, by being non-partisan, stayed away from the corruption scandals [of politicians] that he considers common, in a country that is going through a political and security crisis, and where trust in public institutions decreases. “Doing democracy from civil society is possible,” he emphasizes.

The campaign activists managed to ensure that, during presidential elections and candidacy for the National Assembly, voters remembered that they had the decision-making power of real alternatives at the environmental level, and this was reflected in the results of the referendum. Although the electoral panorama “seemed to lead people to want more resources for investment in security, in the end it was a very pleasant confirmation to see that the population decided to opt for life and the conservation of that territory,” Torres notes.

Esperanza Martínez, part of Acción Ecológica -Ecological Action-, mentioned days after the elections that the campaign for the consultation was carried out using non- traditional structures. “By not having electoral advisory teams, communicators and pollsters… it was a decentralized campaign, with a local focus,” she said in relation to the groups that work in various areas of Ecuador.

For Samaniego, the reactions in other countries upon seeing the results of the consultation in Ecuador were immediate. “In Europe they were quite happy with the results in Ecuador.” In his article for Open Democracy, Samaniego mentions that activist organizations in Brazil are already mentioning the Ecuador consultations as an example to encourage dialogue on economic alternatives to extractive industries.

Torres, Machoa and Samaniego are aware that the consultation is the first step towards non-extractive alternatives. Organizations such as Ecological Action, Yasunidos, among others that supported the consultation, must continue to exercise civil society monitoring necessary for the effective implementation of these consultations.

Samaniego emphasizes that the victory of the popular consultation will push for a serious approach to energy transition and the democratic mechanisms that Ecuadorian citizens have. “I also think that this is going to force conversations about alternatives, but we will not be surprised if we still have to continue fighting for this result to implement it.” The fight that Samaniego refers to has already been visible after these consultations. The Minister of Energy, Fernando Santos Alvite, declared that the shutdown and closure of extraction at the Yasuní ITT will be the responsibility of the next administration. President Lasso, in a video, described the popular consultation as “unsuitable”, showing a lack of political will to stop oil extraction.

For Andrés Aguirre, lawyer and researcher, the government’s position is worrying. “Legally, the Contentious Electoral Court and the Constitutional Court should already rule; they ought to monitor what the State is doing.” Indeed, the ruling of the Constitutional Court in favor of the consultation states: “The measures to be implemented, in the event of an affirmative statement by the electorate, will be carried out through a progressive and orderly withdrawal of all activities related to oil extraction” in a period not exceeding one year from the notification of the official results.”

In the midst of early elections and the context of the insecurity that exists in Ecuador, this is a new challenge that civil society has to now face.

[1] Independent journalist in Ecuador and Colombia, she covers current affairs, foreign policy, and Human Rights for international media.

[2] Ecological Action is one of the main environmental organizations in Ecuador and the organization that led the initiative to keep crude oil underground in Yasuní National Park.

[3] Yasunidos is a non-partisan, autonomous collective formed in 2013, whose objective is to leave the oil underground in the Yasuní National Park.