The Amazon Pink Dolphin’s Voice: Oil and Gas Mean Misery and Forced Labor—Not Jobs—in Developing Countries & Chevron in Ecuador – Dirty business

Oil and Gas Mean Misery and Forced Labor—Not Jobs—in Developing Countries

A Shell oil inlet is seen in the Niger Delta swamps of Bodo, a village in the Nigerian oil-producing region Ogoniland, which hosts the Shell Petroleum Development Company. (Pius Utomi Ekpei/AFP/Getty Images)

BOULDER, CO.—As debate around the Keystone Pipeline, offshore drilling, fracking and other manifestations of the oil and gas industry in North America include promises of a plethora of well-paying jobs, on Friday internationally-focused lawyers and professors at a conference at the University of Colorado offered a sobering counterpoint about the socioeconomic effects of oil and gas extraction in developing countries.

Tufts University associate professor Darren Kew described how oil has helped Nigeria become one of the wealthiest, fastest-growing and increasingly wired countries in Africa, but nonetheless has meant rampant corruption, violence and a lack of job opportunities other than paramilitarism for young men right in the richest oil-producing region.

California attorney Anne Richardson described how the Burmese military government systematicallyforced villagers to work without pay building a gas pipeline and infrastructure for the company Unocal, in what the government described as “voluntary labor.”

And City University of New York (CUNY), Queens professor of environmental law and policy Judith Kimerling described how Texaco’s oil exploitation in the Ecuadorian Amazon has forever changed life for local native tribes, who simply wanted to remain “uncontacted” but instead have suffered severe health consequences likely linked to extreme contamination and have been displaced and forced to integrate with mainstream society.

The seminar, The Human Impacts of Energy Exploration and Development, was sponsored by the Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy.

Kew—also director of the Center for Peace, Democracy and Development at the University of Massachusetts, Boston—described the mind-boggling wealth that oil has meant for Nigeria and specifically the Niger Delta region. He said the country’s GDP is growing at 7 percent per year, it is the sixth-largest oil exporter to the U.S., the fastest growing market for cell phones and probably the fastest-growing nation in terms of number of Facebook users.

But that has not meant wealth or a vibrant local economy in the Niger Delta.

Rather, the government’s interest in keeping the oil flowing and keeping the money flowing into its own coffers has meant a dysfunctional highly corrupt political system and the existence of heavily armed, powerful paramilitary forces working largely in the service of the government or other politicians. Kew said that in this situation the multinational oil companies are actually the most vulnerable actors and the “weak link” in the triumvirate of company, government and paramilitaries.

Showing a slide of two sullen-faced young men holding large guns, Kew said paramilitary membership is “the best and only job in town.” “There’s very little development in the region,” he added, so young men are flocking to join militias.

Though in many developing countries transnational companies are accused of taking out valuable resources and sharing little of the profit with the national government, in Nigeria the government actually gets the lion’s share of oil revenue. The government gets 57 percent up front, Kew said, and also heavily taxes the 43 percent revenue that the companies take. But the influx of funds does not mean there is a strong social safety net or thriving diverse economy. Kew explained:

(Oil industries) pump a tremendous amount of money into the governing structures of the country…that allows government actors a large amount of autonomy and breaks the social contract…the government doesn’t need the people…when you bring so much money into weak governing structures (the potential for corruption is huge).

Kew explained that the paramilitary militias originally formed with the patronage of different politicians, and wreaked havoc stealing oil from pipelines, sabotaging pipelines, kidnapping oil company workers and other activities.

Several years ago the government instituted an amnesty program meant to “rehabilitate” militia members and train them for other jobs, but instead he said they have largely continued their same activities but now under the mantle of the government. He described it all as a vicious circle of impunity and abuses that makes daily life grueling and dangerous for regular working people in the Niger Delta:

So much money is flowing, politicians find it tremendously easy to co-opt civil society actors – so NGOs that should be doing this (watchdog) work have to turn to politicians to get the contracts they need to survive. Once you’re on the government payroll, it makes it a lot harder to criticize it.

In a 2011 piece for a Nigerian website, Ifeatu Agbu described youth unemployment in the Niger Delta as a “time bomb”:

The militants in the Niger Delta have relied on the tactic of guerrilla warfare to register their grievances against the Nigerian state. The strategy may change as the army of unemployed youths continues to swell by the day. The country cannot afford to wait to be overrun by these increasingly restive and angry youths “Job-creation is the need of the hour.”

That is the view of experts like Dr. Ismail Radwan, a senior economist with the World Bank. According to him, 50 million youths were underemployed and three million new job seekers join the unemployment queue each year. The World Bank official wondered if there would not be social unrest eventually if the situation was not urgently addressed and canvassed a vibrant industrial sector as a way forward.

Meanwhile, attorney Anne Richardson described the effects of the Unocal pipeline in Burma near the Thai border, home to the ethnic Karen people. She described one woman who was attacked by the military because they had not left the area to make way for the pipeline as instructed, and also because her husband had disobeyed a conscription order into the military.

Soldiers knocked the woman and her small baby into a fire, where she lost consciousness, and then proceeded to beat and threaten other locals. The baby later died. Richardson’s Pasadena firm brought suit under the Alien Tort Claims Act, the 1789 law originally related to piracy now frequently invoked againstinjustices related to multinational corporations’ operations in developing countries – including the lawsuit regarding vicious attacks on unionists at Coca Cola bottling plants in Colombia.

In its 1995 country report, the U.S. State Department noted that forced labor was a common practice in Burma:

The Burmese military forced hundreds of thousands of ordinary Burmese (including women and children) to “contribute” their labor, often under harsh working conditions, to construction projects throughout the country. The forced resettlement of civilians also continued.

As Santa Clara business ethics professor Manuel Velasquez wrote in a 1995 article:

Throughout the period human rights groups—including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International—issued reports claiming that the Burmese army was using forced labor and brutalizing the Karen population to provide “security” for Unocal workers and equipment. Roads, buildings, and other structures, they claimed, were being built with forced labor recruited from local Karen groups by the Burmese military, and hundreds of Karen were forced to clear the way for the pipeline and to provide labor for the project.

After complaints from human rights groups, Unocal investigated and confirmed forced labor and other human rights violations. But in later legal actions the company argued it did not know the atrocities were occurring and should not be held responsible.

Ultimately the case did not progress in federal court, but Richardson’s firm was able to help plaintiffs obtain a settlement in California state court under state laws – a tactic she said could be an inspiration for other lawyers representing people suffering labor and human rights abuses related to multinational companies’ work abroad.

The Ecuadorians Kimerling works with have been mired in high-profile seemingly endless litigation. A case brought by local Ecuadorians under the Alien Tort Claims Act in U.S. federal court was dropped by a judge.

A group called the Amazon Defense Front filed a similar case in Ecuadorian court on behalf of local indigenous people and others, though Kimerling said the group never contacted the Huaorani people she worked with though it named them as plaintiffs; and some questioned who the suit was really for. The Ecuadorian court ordered Chevron – which had taken over Texaco – to pay $18 billion, and upheld the judgment on an appeal. But Chevron has refused to pay and is now suing the plaintiffs, their attorneys and others in New York federal court for a host of serious charges including racketeering and fraud related to the Ecuadorian lawsuit.

Kimerling described how Texaco reportedly conducted business over past decades at its oil facilities in the Amazon, which closed two decades ago though contamination remains:

Under Texaco there was virtually no environmental protection. Workers trained by Texaco were so unaware of the hazards of crude oil, they put it on their heads to prevent balding, they left it on overnight and in the hot sun, then washed their hair with diesel to remove it.

Summing up the legal situation, she said:

After more than 18 years of litigation, the impact of the case remains to be seen…Sadly, the political and legal focus is shifting from allegations about Texaco’s misconduct to allegations against lawyers and activists who pushed the case.

Source:In these Times

Chevron in Ecuador – Dirty business

A long-running legal battle over oil production in the Ecuadorian Amazon has become the emblematic case in the region concerning investment, environmental protection and the role of the state in enforcing contracts and rule of law.

The case involves US oil giant Chevron and indigenous plaintiffs in the country’s northern jungle. It was initially filed in 1993 in New York against Texaco, which was accused of dumping billions of gallons of toxic waste, contaminating water and soil and poisoning residents, when it operated in the country between 1964 and 1990.

The case was dismissed in 2001, with a US Court of Appeals agreeing with the company that Ecuador, and not the US, was the appropriate venue. Chevron acquired Texaco that same year.

The 30,000 indigenous plaintiffs, and environmental and rights groups backing them, refiled the suit in Lago Agrio, Ecuador in 2003. The original sum demanded was $6 billion in compensation for health problems and environmental damage. The amount ballooned to $27.2 billion when closing arguments were presented.

The court found Chevron guilty in February 2011, fining it $9.5 billion. The ruling was upheld this January. The company was also told it had to pay an additional $8.6 billion if it did not apologize. It refused. The full value of the fine is approximately the same sum Ecuador earned last year from oil exports.

Chevron has appealed to the country’s top court, but the battle is far from over, and it has criticized what it calls “the politicization and corruption of Ecuador’s judiciary”.

Environmental groups said it was time for Chevron to admit defeat. “Chevron is guilty and it needs to accept that fact. They have been trying to delay the verdict for years, but this is the end,” says Paul Paz y Miño, managing director of US-based Amazon Watch.

Chevron is also moving ahead with legal action against the plaintiff’s US supporters, with court cases in US District for the Southern District of New York on fraud and racketeering charges. The case stems from outtakes from 600 hours of film footage used for the 2009 documentary Crude, about oil contamination in the Ecuadorian jungle. Legal representatives for the plaintiffs can be heard on the outtakes discussing efforts to pressurize the Ecuadorian court.

Chevron has also turned to the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, filing motions against Ecuador under the US-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). It won an initial victory in February 2011, which was upheld again this year. The ruling ordered Ecuador not to enforce the judgment against Chevron.

The company argues that Ecuador violated the treaty by not guaranteeing a fair and impartial trial, failing to respect contracts signed with Texaco, including the government signing off on Texaco’s $98 million remediation plan in 1998, and colluding with the plaintiffs to undermine Chevron’s case. “Obviously, any investor looking at this scenario has to seriously question whether it is worth investing in Ecuador,” says a Chevron spokesperson.

Environmental groups counter with the criticism that Chevron has played fast and loose with the provisions of the BIT. Ginger Cassady, an action coordinator of the Rainforest Action Network, claims the arbitration “is a grossly unfair process … that violates any notion of due process and flouts the fundamental human rights of thousands of Ecuadorians to seek legal redress for the contamination.”

Source: Emerging

For historical reference: Texaco’s Devastating Search for Amazon Crude

Only recently have oil companies come under scrutiny as possible human rights violators

(AR) QUITO, Ecuador — An Organization of American States delegation to Ecuador’s eastern Amazon rainforest sent to investigate human rights violations has turned up widespread concern about two U.S. oil companies — Texaco and Maxus.

Environmentalist and indigenous groups have protested unregulated development of oil resources, but it is only recently that oil companies have come under scrutiny as possible human rights violators.

The eastern “Oriente” of Ecuador is a 32-million acre natural reserve of tropical rainforest situated at the headwaters of the Amazon river network. The region contains one of the most diverse collections of plant and animal life in the world and includes many endangered species.

It is also home to 95,000 indigenous people in eight different ethnic groups as well as 250,000 recent immigrants, who have followed the oil roads east in search of land and work.

In 1994, the President of Ecuador announced a plan to double the amount of rainforest to be opened up to oil exploration

Oil development in this South American Andean country has followed a pattern that is familiar in most developing countries. The first barrels were extracted in 1972, with the industry dominated by multinational corporations — led by Texaco until it left in 1992.There is negligible government oversight and scant attention paid to non-economic matters. Oil development has taken a predictable toll on the environment and the welfare of the Oriente’s inhabitants but the strength of opposition to it has been less predictable.

Conflicting interests came to a head in 1994 when, in January, president Sixto Duran-Ballen’s government announced a plan to double the amount of rainforest to be opened up to oil exploration. A coalition of environmental and indigenous groups immediately challenged the government’s plan and local protesters took over the offices of the Ministry of Energy and Mines in Quito.

The groups demanded that there be no new oil development until the oil companies remedied past environmental damage, and urged the government to impose stricter controls on the industry.

The protests were joined by international groups led by Rainforest Action Network (RAN) and Oxfam America; and, last March, the New York-based Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) released a report documenting dangerous levels of toxic contamination and related health problems in Ecuador’s Amazon, charging the government in Quito with human rights violations.

In a parallel matter, U.S. Judge Vincent Broderick in New York sided with Ecuadorian plaintiffs who had brought suit against Texaco. Broderick granted access to Texaco’s files to establish the parent company’s responsibility for damages caused by the company’s Ecuadoran operations.

Just a few months ago, Ecuador’s minister of energy Francisco Acosta rejected a Texaco-commissioned environmental audit of the damages caused by the company and argued that it was too narrow. He then threatened to bring his own suit against Texaco if the company refused to negotiate in good faith, but suddenly Acosta’s aggression towards Texaco lost wind.

He was impeached recently by the country’s congress when it was discovered he allegedly had arrived at a secret, personal agreement with Texaco to drop the matter.

“Texaco is viewed as the chief human rights violator”

The OAS investigation and the use of human rights allegations against Texaco and other private companies have challenged traditional human rights dogma with claims that more than civil liberties are being threatened. The government is only one of many essential actors.”When we indigenous peoples talk about the environment, we are not just talking about trees, rivers and butterflies,” Rafael Pandam, vice president of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), said. “We are also talking about human beings, and when we talk of human rights, we’re not just talking about the right to free speech. We’re talking about political, economic, social and cultural rights of all peoples.”

Pandam’s vision of human rights is supported by international and Ecuadoran law. In 1972, the U.N. General Assembly unanimously endorsed the principle that “man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being.”

Ecuador’s constitution provides for the right “to live in an environment free from contamination,” although most commentators here think that’s a joke.

Economic and social rights, like the right to a healthy environment, implicate corporate activities here in Ecuador more directly than traditional civil and political rights would.

“Texaco is viewed as the chief human rights violator,” explains Paulina Garzon of the Quito-based Accion Ecologica. “Texaco has invaded the forests, killed the rivers and animals, created a health disaster and destroyed indigenous groups like the former Tagiere tribe,” he charged.

At least one group has completely disappeared in the wake of Texaco’s activities

Texaco’s involvement in human rights abuses in Ecuador has been documented in “Amazon Crude,” a book written by Judith Kimerling and published by the National Resources Defense Council in 1991. Kimerling estimated that Ecuadoran oil operations discharged 4.3 million gallons of toxic wastes into the Oriente’s environment every day.Until 1990, Texaco controlled 90 percent of oil operations in the area, and a later report confirmed that wastes created a potential health catastrophe, documenting toxic contaminants in drinking water at levels reaching 1,000 times the safety standards recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Local health workers report increased gastrointestinal problems, skin rashes, birth defects and cancers, ailments they believe to be related to the Texaco contamination. But these charges are intertwined with parallel social and cultural assaults on indigenous groups.

A statement published by the Federation of Indigenous Communities of the Ecuadoran Amazon (CONFENAIE) said “more than two decades ago, Texaco entered indigenous territories and exploited petroleum, destroyed the forests, contaminated the rivers, soil and environment, made the fish and animals disappear and then came the colonists and our territory was occupied by foreigners.”

Contact with outsiders and the vital loss of land has broken down many traditional bonds, brought malnutrition and new diseases and pushed the indigenous communities onto the bottom rung of a hostile market economy where alcoholism and prostitution, endemic to the Oriente’s oil towns, are among the most visible signs of the social and cultural deterioration.

The World Bank has described the region’s socio-economic state as “calamitous.”

A 1987 study by the Ecuadoran government warned that oil development led by Texaco had placed the local indigenous groups “at the edge of extinction as a distinct people.”

At least one group, the Tetetes, has completely disappeared in the wake of Texaco’s activities, and the Cofan population has been reduced from 15,000 to about 300.

“Since the 1950s, almost every aspect of the Cofan culture has experienced change. Their houses, tools and weapons, traditional medical practices, the behavior of community members, and their traditional food taboos have been drastically affected,” notes a World Bank Report. “As a result of outside contacts and pressures, the Cofan have suffered a process of social disorganization, rapid acculturation and near cultural extinction.”

A law granted legal title to any person that cleared the rainforest and put it to “productive use”

Texaco rejects the allegations, saying that development of oil resources is essential to Ecuador’s development — oil revenues now account for approximately half of the government’s revenues.Michael Trevino, vice-president of Texaco Petroleum (Texpet), notes that Texaco’s operations brought $24 billion to the Ecuadoran government over the course of the last 18 years. He denies that Texaco’s operations have seriously damaged the Ecuadoran Amazon.

“Texaco did not ravage the Amazon region. We think we made a very significant contribution. We have international standards to which we hold ourselves accountable,” Trevino says, pointing to an environmental audit commissioned by Texaco and the Ecuadoran state oil company that found only “moderate to high” levels of contamination in 60 percent of the former Texaco sites in the Oriente.

That audit recommended a limited program of remediation costing less than $30 million. According to former minister of energy and mines Francisco Acosta, Texaco offered to pay 33 percent of any cleanup costs, based on its ownership share of the consortium.

Strangely, through 1990, Texaco was the consortium’s sole operator, but held only a one-third ownership stake. “Texaco is not interested in dollar amounts; the issue is commencing with the cleanup,” Trevino said.

“To allege that Texaco is responsible for the local population’s subsequent use of the roads for colonization and agricultural development is both dishonest and unrealistic. As a private company, Texaco would have no authority or right to restrict citizens of Ecuador from using these roads or to interfere in Ecuador’s national programs and/or planning for colonization of the region,” Trevino said.

In Texaco’s favor, the government of Ecuador’s government has in fact encouraged settlement along Amazon oil roads to relieve pressure on land elsewhere in the country. And a “Wastelands Law” granted legal title to any person that cleared the rainforest and put it to “productive use.”

Oil roads and lack of government regulation have opened the door to land speculators, agro-industrialists, ranchers and loggers

The resulting deforestation has been exascerbated by the poor quality of Amazon soils and inappropriate farming techniques, encouraging continual clearing of new land. Oil roads and lack of government regulation also have opened the door to land speculators, agro-industrialists, ranchers and loggers, who place even greater pressure on the land.NY demonstration against TexacoAn international boycott of Texaco has been organized by Accion Ecologica and Rainforest Action Network in the United States and Europe, and their political lobbying appears to have had an effect on Texaco’s willingness to negotiate an agreement — the groups estimate proper cleanup costs and fair compensation will run to several billions of dollars, dwarfing the figures that Texaco had previously been considering.

Texaco has also been under pressure from the U.S. Congress and the Clinton administration to find a equitable solution, but the company is facing a major challenge on the legal front in the form of a $1.5 billion lawsuit brought in a New York federal court on behalf of 30,000 Ecuadoran plaintiffs. The case was filed in November 1993 by a team of lawyers headed by Cristobal Bonifaz and Joseph Kohn of Kohn, Naft and Graf of Philadelphia.

“Texaco can’t be brought before international human rights tribunals and there is no chance of finding justice in Ecuador, so we filed a suit in its own backyard,” says Bonifaz. “We don’t care how it’s achieved, but Texaco must be forced to make good on the damage it caused to the people and environment of the Oriente in Ecuador.”

The most crucial question raised by the suit is whether foreign plaintiffs alleging health and environmental damages in their country should be allowed to sue a U.S.-based company in the United States.

When Indian plaintiffs tried to sue Union Carbide for the Bhopal disaster, they were sent back to India under a doctrine, known as forum non conveniens, which gives U.S. judges wide discretion to decide that a case would be more suitably heard in the courts of another country.

An earlier suit filed by attorney Judith Kimerling in Texas was quickly dismissed by a federal judge, who viewed Ecuador as a more appropriate forum.

“The problem has now spread to Peru and has snowballed into an international catastrophe”

But the plaintiffs in the New York case argue that New York is the appropriate site for the case because Texaco made the critical decisions that resulted in the damages to the plaintiffs at its headquarters in White Plains, New York. They also maintain that the Ecuadoran courts are incapable of fairly hearing the case against Texaco because of widespread corruption, racism and incompetence.More importantly, they argue, the Ecuadoran courts have no meaningful authority over Texaco since Texaco operated in Ecuador through its Texpet subsidiary, which now has assets of less than $10 million.

Not bound by the Texas court’s decision, Judge Vincent Broderick has granted plaintiffs the opportunity to depose Texaco’s employees and to review Texaco documents before he decides whether to accept the case. In a 25-page March 1994 memo denying Texaco’s petition to have the case dismissed, Judge Broderick suggested the case will proceed if plaintiffs can show that decisions made in Texaco headquarters directly led to environmental and health problems in Ecuador. His memo also takes seriously the plaintiff’s use of an 18th Century statute allowing foreign plaintiffs to sue U.S.-based defendants for violations of international law.

Were he to grant jurisdiction under the so-called “Alien Tort Statute,” it would mark a major advance in the field of environmental law and would have far-reaching implications for U.S. corporations operating abroad.

This past summer, Judge Broderick granted Texaco a temporary hold on discovery while the company seeks a settlement with the government. On December 22, 1994, Texaco submitted to the court a “Memorandum of Understanding” the company reached with the Ecuadoran government. Texaco’s Trevino says the agreement “establishes a mechanism for the implementation of environmental remedial work.”

He adds that Texaco also proposes to establish schools, fish farms and health clinics. But the agreement does not bind Texaco to any specific amount of compensation and the corporation has only agreed to put up a $5 million bond to settle individual claims in Ecuador. Without consent of the plaintiffs, it is unclear whether the judge would consider the agreement sufficient grounds for dismissal of the suit.

Less than a week after Texaco’s filing, the plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a new suit in front of the same judge on behalf of 25,000 Peruvians who complain of similar damages related to Texaco’s former Ecuador operat- ions.

“The problem has now spread to Peru and has snowballed into an international catastrophe,” says Bonifaz. All of the rivers in which the Center for Economic and Social Rights found oil-related contamination eventually flow through Peruvian territory.

Trevino calls the case “frivolous,” claiming that the plaintiffs live more than 150 miles away from Texaco’s former sites and that Texaco stopped operating the sites almost five years ago.

Judge Broderick has agreed to consolidate the two cases, which should make it more difficult to dismiss the suit on the grounds that Ecuadoran courts are the more suitable forum.

The OAS investigation in Ecuador, undertaken by the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, has at first concentrated on a different U.S. oil company, Maxus Energy.

Diseases, water contamination, breakdown of traditional cultures and loss of land has followed oil development

In 1990, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund filed suit to block the plans of Maxus’s former consortium partner in Ecuador, Conoco, to build a road and begin oil development in the Yasuni National Park. Conoco abandoned the project soon after in the face of heated protest from indigenous and environmental groups, but Maxus went ahead with the road and began oil production in the summer of 1994.The Yasuni National Park is one of the most biodiverse territories in the world, designated by the United Nations as a World Biosphere Reserve. Ecuadoran lawyers initially succeeded in blocking the Conoco-Maxus operation under a constitutional provision giving the right to a contamination-free environment and under laws prohibiting exploitation of protected areas.

One month after, however, the constitutional court in Quito reversed itself, in the face of what one judge later described as intense pressure from the government and the oil industry, and ordered a stop to the Conoco-Maxus plans.

The environmentalists’ suit had said that oil development poses a serious threat to indigenous groups in the area, particularly 1,200 Huaorani Indians. Filed before Maxus had begun to develop the Yasuni, it describes diseases, water contamination, breakdown of traditional cultures and loss of land that has followed oil development in other parts of the country.

“Oil development will have especially severe effects on the Huaorani,” specialist lawyers working on the case contend. “Their population is small, dispersed and isolated from the outside world.”

The complaint is supported by testimony from Dr. William T. Vickers, an anthropologist with 26 years of experience in Latin America. The road into the Yasuni “will be the bridge for a spontaneous invasion of the land…”

“Deforestation will begin immediately,” predicts Vickers. “Many of the Huaorani will contract new diseases and many will die. Many will be disheartened and depressed by these losses. Among the survivors, some will become alcoholics and others will sustain themselves by begging from the whites. It’s wholly possible that the Huaorani culture and language will disappear within two or three generations,” he charged.

Texas attorney Judith Kimerling says “Huaorani lands that have been used by the Petroecuador-Texaco consortium for oil production activities are so degraded by pollution, colonization and deforestation that the Huaorani can no longer live there.”

Maxus carved a 94-mile road, opening up vast stretches of rainforest formerly accessible only by helicopter and boat

While Maxus is not as easy a target for the environmentalist groups as Texaco, it’s taken steps to avoid the same sort of political damage that Texaco suffered in Ecuador. On the environmental front, Maxus has managed to assuage some critics through its program of reforestation and its use of modern drilling practices, including the reinjection of production wastes (as opposed to Texaco’s practice of leaving them in unlined pits and spreading oil residue on roads).The company claims to be spending $60 million on environmental protection, which is a significant figure by Ecuadoran standards. But given the ecological richness and fragility of the territory, many environmentalists object to any sort of development in the area, and are particularly concerned by Maxus’s policy of denying outsiders access to its facilities to independently verify company claims.

Even the best environmental policies provide little defense against the primary threat to this highly-sensitive region. Colonization and deforestation has inevitably followed the oil roads, and Maxus has carved a 94-mile road into the Yasuni, opening up vast stretches of rainforest formerly accessible only by helicopter and boat.

“Maxus and the government have promised to keep the colonists out, but what happens when Maxus leaves and there is no more oil? Who will stop them then?” one Huaorani representative asked.

Amazon Indian’s fears are exemplified by the fact that over the course of eight years of oil development in the northern Oriente, the influx of colonists more than tripled the local population from 74,000 to 260,000.

A 1982 government census showed the Oriente was growing at twice the rate of the rest of the country, and critics say that plans by Maxus and the government in Quito to prevent colonization by establishing army-run roadblocks are unsustainable and unrealistic.

Because of endemic political corruption, monitoring is in the hands of the corporations themselves

There is good news, however. Where Texaco allegedly ignored indigenous inhabitants of the Amazon rainforests, Maxus has actively sought their support, signing an unprecedented “Friendship Agreement” with the Huaorani in 1993.Maxus’s directive to its employees reads “Maxus is a guest in the home of the Huaorani, the rainforest. For this reason we must respect their culture, customs and territory.”

If they do indeed make contact with indigenous people, employees are told to announce “Waponi, amigos Huaorani, boto Maxus,” or, “Greetings Huaorani friends, I am Maxus.”

Maxus has also contracted government health and educational services, and has begun supplying medical and dental care, educational materials, school rooms and health clinics. It’s also employing indigenous men, providing funds for a political organization and plying community leaders with personal gifts.

While it may have temporarily won Maxus the support of the Huaorani Nation of the Ecuadoran Amazon (ONHAE), that group has formally distanced itself from the demands of the Confederation of Indigenous Organizations of Ecuador (CONAIE) for a 15-year moratorium on oil development.

Last April, during a conference of indigenous organizations held in the Amazon, Maxus flew a group of Huaorani leaders to Quito, where they met with government officials and the press to denounce Maxus’s critics.

Maxus’s overwhelming presence in the social and cultural affairs of the community has alarmed outsiders. Given the government’s proven inability or unwillingness to regulate oil companies and the lack of transparency in Maxus’s internal operations, environmentalist critics worry about ceding it such fundamental government functions as health and education.

“It’s no longer clear who’s supposed to do what,” environmentalist attorney Neil Popovic said. “The Ecuadoran government has abdicated its responsibilities to private companies and has made no effort to regulate them.”

Because of endemic political corruption, government agencies remain seriously understaffed and underfunded, leaving monitoring essentially in the hands of the corporations themselves.

Critics say the Huaorani have no effective recourse if Maxus fails to comply with its promises. The “Friendship Agreement” between the Huaorani and Maxus is written in Spanish, a language that few Huaorani either speak or read, and essentially it makes no firm commitments, environmentalists say.

“Maxus is under no obligation,” explains spokesperson Tom Sullivan. “We’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t. If we weren’t providing anything we’d have a whole other group of people condemning us.”

Nevertheless, critics remain skeptical. They view Maxus’s gestures as hollow, and they’re emphasizing the larger political questions of accountability, asking whether corporations such as Maxus or Texaco (whose annual revenues of $42 billion dwarf Ecuador’s $12 billion GNP) should not be treated differently from private citizens; the contention is that they should be held more accountable to the public in the way that public bodies are.”Ecuador’s indigenous and environmental organizations have pushed human rights groups to reexamine their exclusive focus on government actors,” says Roger Normand, an environmentalist policy director. “When multinationals assume the role of government, they must be held more directly responsible for the welfare and human rights of their constituents, the people they effectively govern.”

Source: Albion Monitor

For Fourth Time, Ecuador Appellate Denies Chevron Attempt to Block Enforcement of $18 Billion Judgment, Says Amazon Defense Coalition

LAGO AGRIO, Ecuador, March 30, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — A three-judge appellate panel in Ecuador has denied for the fourth time a Chevron attempt to block enforcement of the $18 billion environmental judgment against the oil giant, according to a decision released this week.

The panel ruled that Chevron was not entitled to use an order from an international investor arbitration to block the rainforest communities from enforcing their judgment, which was affirmed on appeal in January after 18 years of hard-fought litigation.

After the original appellate court decision, Chevron asked the panel on four separate occasions to block enforcement of the judgment based on the arbitration. Each time the Ecuador appellate panel has found that Chevron, by refusing to post a bond, was not entitled under Ecuador law to suspend enforcement of the judgment. See here.

Further, the panel ruled that the rainforest communities — known as “the affected ones” for living for decades in one of the world’s most polluted areas — are not a party to the arbitration and thus not subject to its orders. The arbitration is between Ecuador’s government and Chevron.

“From the beginning, we have ruled that the failure of Chevron to avoid execution of the judgment is the direct and exclusive result of its failure to utilize the legal mechanism available” to post a bond, wrote the panel, whose members are Juan Encarcacion, Luis Zambrano, and Maria Delgado.

The latest decision was a double blow for Chevron in that it comes on the heels of a decision in 2011 by the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York that the Ecuadorian plaintiffs have a right to enforce their judgment “in any country in the world where Chevron has assets.”

“As part of its abusive campaign of never-ending litigation, Chevron continues to bring up the same tired issues with the Ecuador court and suffer the same tired defeats,” said Karen Hinton, the U.S. spokesperson for the Ecuadorian rainforest communities.

In February 2011, after an eight-year trial that produced 220,000 pages of evidence, an Ecuador court found Chevron liable for deliberately dumping more than 16 billion gallons of toxic waste into Amazon waterways when it operated in Ecuador from 1964 to 1992 under the Texaco brand. The dumping decimated indigenous groups and caused an outbreak of cancer and other diseases, according to the evidence.

The court set damages at roughly $18 billion, which the plaintiffs say is a modest amount compared to BP’s liability in the comparatively smaller environmental disaster related to the Deepwater Horizon blowout in 2010. The Ecuador trial court decision was supported by a wide body of scientific evidence, much of it provided by Chevron. See here.

Earlier, members of the appellate panel noted the oil giant’s abuse of the judicial process in Ecuador. In a 16-page decision in January, the panel noted that Chevron had “staged incidents that encumbered the process of the trial” and that it dumped 20,000 pages of largely redundant evidence on the appellate court to delay the case.

The plaintiffs have long accused Chevron of trying to undermine the trial by filing frivolous motions and trying to intimidate judges.

The environmental case was heard in Ecuador at the request of Chevron, which fought for almost a decade to shift the venue away from the U.S. federal court where it was originally filed in 1993.

“This latest decision yet again confirms what we have been saying for years,” said Pablo Fajardo, the lead Ecuadorian lawyer. “Chevron is guilty of extraordinary greed that has created a humanitarian crisis in Ecuador that puts thousands of people at risk.

“Yet it continues to abuse court systems worldwide to avoid its responsibilities,” he added.

Chevron has stripped its assets from Ecuador and should be treated as a “fugitive from justice” like any common criminal fleeing a jurisdiction to avoid a legal sanction, said Hinton.

The plaintiffs are being forced to prepare standard enforcement actions against Chevron assets around the world to satisfy the judgment, said Hinton.

In the meantime, Chevron is pursuing an appeal to Ecuador’s National Court of Justice, which has yet to decide if it will take the case. The voluminous trial record was transferred today from the appellate court in the Amazon town of Lago Agrio to Quito, where the high court is located.

Contact: Karen Hinton at 703-798-3109 or karen@hintoncommunications.com

SOURCE Amazon Defense Coalition

SELVA Vida Sin Fronteras acknowledges Kevin Schafer’s important contribution towards protecting the highly endangered Amazon pink fresh water dolphin. Title photographs of our “The Amazon Pink Dolphin’s Voice” were taken by Mr. Schafer. 

Editorial: Selvavidasinfronteras.org

Selvavidasinfronteras.wordpress.com

Advertisements

~ by FSVSF Admin on 30 March, 2012.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: