The idea was launched in 2007 by newly elected President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa. His government proposes to give up economical benefits that would engender the exploitation of vast oil fields situated in the Ecuadorian Amazon. To do so, he hopes northern countries, individuals, foundations or companies would accept to financially compensate Ecuador. Using present day market value, Ecuador’s government estimates that exploiting these fields, situated in the Yasuni National Park, would create 8 billions US in revenues. Correa is asking for about half of this amount, 3.6 billions, to be paid during the next 13 years (funds would be managed by the UNPD as a guaranty). Correa’s team emphasizes the idea of compensation, considering that by giving up this oil, Ecuador is making a huge sacrifice while the entire world will benefit. This region is essentially composed of a vast rainforest, being one of the world’s most bio-diverse places and absorbing great quantity of carbon dioxide. If implemented successfully, this proposition might considerably influence North-South relations, particularly in terms of ecological issues. However, a better understanding of the way ecological issues and natural resources are perceived in South America and Ecuador’s specific political context may help to understand this radical project.
Many southern intellectuals and activists tend to see some international initiatives to fight global warming as a new form of imperialism: “green imperialism”. Their argument is based on the fact that industrial countries have enjoyed low cost energy (coal, oil, nuclear in some cases) to industrialize and for that same reason are more responsible for global warning. The idea that southern countries should share the same burden to fight global warming and limit their economical growth for ecological motivations is simply unjust. Industrial nation should hence pay not only to stop polluting but also should compensate poorer countries for ecological damage they have done.
Furthermore, liberalization reforms of the 80s and 90s, combined to greater demands for natural resources have amplified natural resources exploitation in Latin America: mines, oil, gas, agricultural exports etc. Numerous social movements have emerged in response to negative social, ecological and economic effects provoked by extractive activities, in large part conducted by multinational corporations. Many refer to this situation as plunder, since often little royalties are paid, complacent governments have allowed ecological disasters to occur and more often than not, oppositions have been repressed violently. Ecuador has its share of experiences with Texaco and Chevron presence in the country, which impacted mostly peasants and indigenous communities. In general terms, Latin American governments are facing a growing resistance by social and ecological movements against the plundering of natural resources and a vastly accepted idea that northern countries are using green issues to keep them down instead of bringing just and working solutions.
A particular political context has contributed to amplify those phenomenons in Ecuador. Even though Correa is part of this South American progressive wave (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Venezuela and until last year Chile are all governed by left wing governments), his situation differs for his lack of a strong political organization. As Correa recognized himself, he was elected in 2006 without a strong party apparatus, such as Lula’s PT in Brazil, nor was he part of a wide social movement, as Morales in Bolivia. The vast majority of progressive organizations and movements did support his election (in 2006 and 2009) and many defend his “Citizen Revolution”, attempting to break with corruption and inequalities. In this context, even though Ecuador could use the kind of revenues associated with oil exploitation, Correa needs political support from indigenous, ecologist and left-wing movements. Some indigenous groups have been very critical of Correa’ government and exploiting these Amazon oil fields would certainly mean a radical rupture between the two. It has become extremely difficult for South American government to simply let multinationals exploit natural resources (mind you, they still do), hence Correa’s proposition. If he does get financial contributions from the North, he will of course avoid the destruction/repression/social distress usually associated with oil exploitation in the third world, while consolidating his political position and help Ecuadors finance.
In my humble opinion, two political conclusions can be drawn from this situation. First, it has become clear that Latin American governments attempt to rectify their power relations with the north. Correa is trying to use ecological issues to negotiate financial arrangements serving Ecuador, without following the usual neo-liberal recommendations, as they have done for 20 years. Other examples of such intents include Argentina refusal to follow IMF’s rules in relation to their debt or Brazil’s strategy to enhance its influence in the region. Secondly, Correa’s proposition shows that civil society possesses a growing influence in Latin American politics and plays a crucial role in setting limits to the so called neo-liberal globalization. Behind most of those left wing governments in South America, we can find communities that got organized and pressure national politicians and the international community to listen to them.