This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 16 September 2013, At: 02:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Canadian Journal of DevelopmentStudies/Revue canadienne d'études dudéveloppementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcjd20

Commentary. Rights in the era ofextraction policiesLuis Ángel Saavedra aa La Fundación Regional de Asesoría en Derechos Humanos(Regional Foundation for the Support of Human Rights), Quito,EcuadorPublished online: 14 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Luis Ángel Saavedra (2013) Commentary. Rights in the era of extractionpolicies, Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d'études du développement,34:1, 122-138, DOI: 10.1080/02255189.2013.761131

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2013.761131

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

COMMENTARY

Rights in the era of extraction policies

Luis Angel Saavedra∗

La Fundacion Regional de Asesorıa en Derechos Humanos (Regional Foundation for the Support ofHuman Rights), Quito, Ecuador

ABSTRACT This commentary by the president of a key Ecuadorian human rights organisationtells the story of civil society efforts to make Chevron-Texaco accountable for environmentaldestruction from its operations in that country. The author’s three principal claims – thatextractive industries are morally bankrupt and environmentally unsustainable; they violatehuman rights; and they violate the rights of nature enshrined in Ecuador’s constitution – aresharpened by a critique of the rising “criminalization” of social protest. Broadening thediscussion, he proposes sumak kawsay as an antidote not only to mining, but to adevelopment model that privileges consumption over a life that balances human andenvironmental interests.

RESUME Dans ce commentaire, le president d’une organisation equatorienne evoque lesefforts de la societe civile pour rendre la compagnie Texaco/Chevron responsable de ladestruction environnementale causee par ses activites d’extraction dans ce pays. L’auteurconstate que les industries d’extraction sont moralement corrompues; ne sont soutenabled’un point de vue environnemental; violent les droits humains; et violent les droits de lanature enchasses dans la constitution equatorienne. Ses arguments sont renforces par unecritique de la criminalisation de la contestation sociale. Finalement, l’auteur approfondit ladiscussion en proposant le sumak kawsay comme une solution non seulement a l’extractionminiere, mais aussi au modele du developpement qui place la consommation avant lesinterets humains et environnementaux.

Keywords: mining; human rights; environment and development; Ecuador

Editors’ note: Luis Angel Saavedra is an Ecuadorian journalist and President of the RegionalFoundation for the Support of Human Rights (La Fundacion Regional de Asesorıa en DerechosHumanos, INREDH), in Quito, Ecuador. Founded in 1993, INREDH has advocated for demili-tarisation, has defended social movement leaders and led the resistance to the US base inManta. In this article Saavedra addresses a recent concern of INREDH, “the human rights ofindigenous peoples and the rights of nature”.1 Consciously taking the broad view of a publicintellectual, he makes three principal claims: that extractive industries are morally bankruptand environmentally unsustainable; that they violate human rights; and that they violate therights of nature enshrined in Ecuador’s constitution. He also engages in a critique of the crim-inalisation of social protest in Ecuador, offering a stark vision of one of the exemplars of LatinAmerica’s Left Turn.

The focus in the latter sections of the article shifts from the actions of extractive industries to abroader discussion of indigenous rights, the rights of nature and sumak kawsay as an antidote –not only to mining, but to a development model that privileges increased consumption over a goodlife that balances human and environmental interests. The intent is not to document in detail a

# 2013 Canadian Association for the Study of International Development (CASID)

∗Email: coordinacion@inredh.org

Canadian Journal of Development StudiesRevue canadienne d’etudes du developpement, 2013Vol. 34, No. 1, 122–138, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2013.761131

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

legal argument or analyse all evidence relevant to the social conflict. Rather, by referencingnational and international law and norms, Saavedra conveys the basis for the outrage andsense of wrongdoing that have mobilised indigenous and other groups, as well as a compelling,alternative vision that has nourished these protests. In places the author makes claims aboutissues that remain in dispute. Anticipating concerns from scholarly readers about missingdetail or evenhandedness in this essay, we have added notes which highlight these issues andintroduce other voices – without disrupting the flow of the argument unnecessarily. Saavedra’scontribution to the debate on the future of extractive industries is important not least becauseof its resonance both within and outside academia.

An absurd story

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (2005), directed by Garth Jennings, is a science fiction filmfull of black humor. It tells the story of how the earth is being destroyed to make way for an inter-galactic superhighway. The story begins when large spacecraft appear above the earth and, usingloudspeakers, ask the stunned earthlings why they have not yet left the planet. Several yearsearlier the galaxy’s management had decided to construct the hyperspace bypass and all docu-ments relating to this decision, as well as the eviction order, were available for consultation inthe local planning department. If they wanted to reverse the decision, they should have doneso through the proper channels, but by the time the construction crews arrived, it was simplytoo late.

Other movies, such as Avatar (2009), directed by James Cameron, or Battleship (2012),directed by Peter Berg, discuss what is politely described as the “meeting of two cultures”, butwhich in reality represents the conquest and usurpation of resources belonging to one civilisationby the other, the civilisation considered to be the more advanced of the two.2 In Avatar, the Na’vi,the original inhabitants of an imaginary planet called “Pandora”, manage to drive out an extrac-tion company. This company, supported by military forces, is destroying the planet’s mysticalhabitat to extract a mineral needed for energy production. In Battleship, the Earth’s militariesare under attack from an invading “superior” alien culture. Human survival is put at riskbecause of the aliens’ search for resources needed for their own survival.

Parallels can be found between the themes of these movies and real life situations. Theydescribe the types of activities that occur in the territories of indigenous peoples when theirland is used for the extraction of resources needed for the development of the West. Unlike thefilms, with their typical Hollywood happy endings in which the natives defeat the conquerors,in reality the indigenous peoples rarely win.

Despite seeming absurd, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is reminiscent of the experi-ence of indigenous and land-based peoples around the world. They are faced with arbitrary gov-ernment decisions that allow the onslaught of transnational companies with concessions formining projects or the construction of large efforts such as hydroelectric dams. From their per-spective the true environmental cost is never considered, nor is the cost in terms of communitydestruction and other conflicts. Governments always have good arguments for proceeding withtheir plans. They claim they must exploit these resources, which “will benefit the majority”.3

They cannot delay progress merely because “a few nobodies”4 oppose their projects.In the movies the weak but virtuous win. In reality the opposite tends to happen. To illustrate

this sad truth, this article examines two cases of government action and the role of transnationalcorporations in indigenous and rural territories in Ecuador. The first example is that of the Amer-ican company Texaco, now Chevron, which, starting in 1964, operated for 28 years withouttaking any measures to protect the environment or people’s health. They drilled 339 wells in15 oilfields using obsolete technology. The company departed the site in 1992 leaving 627

Rights in the era of extraction policies 123

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

open pits filled with toxic waste, and after dumping more than 18 billion gallons of toxic waterinto the jungle of the northern region of the Ecuadorian Amazon (see Saavedra 2011a; RainforestRelief 2004).

The second example is that of the mining projects currently being developed in the south ofthe country, in the provinces of Zamora and Azuay, by the Chinese–Canadian company Ecuacor-riente and the Canadian companies IAMGOLD and Kinross. These mining projects have initiateda social protest movement, the size of which neither the companies nor the government predicted.

I believe that the development model these projects embody is not only economically unvi-able, but that it entails environmental risks of a global nature. This article discusses the socialdynamics of the industry’s extraction procedures and reminds us of some proposed alternatives.

Toxic Texaco

The province of Sucumbıos, located in the northern region of the Ecuadorian Amazon, has a longseen its natural resources plundered, starting in the 1940s with the development of the rubber andwood industries. It was the discovery of oil at the beginning of the 1960s, however, that caused themost devastation in this region. Several Ecuadorian governments consented to this process, andthey never promoted regional economic and social development despite the fact that oil came toconstitute 56 per cent of Ecuador’s tax revenue.

This region has been inhabited by indigenous peoples such as the Cofan, the Secoya and theSiona from time immemorial. Other nationalities from the southern region of the Amazon settledthere at the end of the 1950s, including the Amazonian Kichwa and the Shuar. There were alsotwo indigenous groups who are no longer there: the Tetetes and the Sansahuaris. They disap-peared during the 1970s, largely due to the pressure exerted by the oil industry and themestizo colonisation it brought with it. National governments considered the EcuadorianAmazon to be vacant or uncultivated territory, implying that it was without inhabitants, and pro-moted colonisation of the region, particularly during the 1960s.

Accelerated by the extraction of natural resources, the colonisation process produced newtowns populated by mestizo settlers. These include Nueva Loja,5 now known as Lago Agrio,the capital of the province. In the last decade this town has captured the attention of activistsand environmental lawyers as well as managers of the largest transnational oil companies. Itwas in this city that a small courtroom witnessed the beginning of what is considered to be“the environmental trial of the century”. The trial involved the oil giant Chevron-Texaco andaround 30,000 people from the two provinces (the group comprised a collection of indigenousgroups and mestizos, known locally as colonos) who sued the company, asking $27 billion incompensation for the damage caused.

The accusations against Chevron-Texaco

The main accusation made against Chevron was that they engaged in practices that negativelyimpacted the environment, people and species of the region, and that these environmentalchanges caused the displacement of indigenous peoples by making it impossible to subsist in tra-ditional ways such as hunting and fishing. “We lived from hunting and fishing and the environ-ment was healthy. From the year 1970 onward, that changed,” stated Celestino Piaguaje, of theSecoya nationality, who lived on land where the Aguarico Production Station (one of the pet-roleum plants) was installed.6

Texaco drilled holes that filled with oil. These excavations had no coating or material toprevent oil from leaking into adjacent land or rivers. This practice was not permitted or carriedout in any other part of the world. Texaco did it here not out of ignorance, but because the

124 L.A. Saavedra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

company could save money and it assumed that nobody in the Amazon region would complain.At the time, people in the area were told that oil was not leaking out from the wells and poolsmade by the company. It has since been shown that even to this date the pools of toxic wasteleft by Texaco continue to leak into the creeks and rivers. They dug wells only a few metersabove the tributaries of rivers in order to make it easier to get rid of the waste.7 They made somany of these wells that the exact number is still unknown. The court of Sucumbıos suggestedthere were 356 wells, each with its own pools, making a total of 820 pits. Villagers continue tofind more, however, discovering oil leaks from some that had been hidden when they wereback-filled with earth.8

In response to local complaints, Chevron-Texaco promised it would initiate a remediationproject. The company then spent $40 million working on 157 pools, filling them with sticks,earth and even cement. “They emptied dump-trucks of earth and then made a kind of bed ofsticks and then added more earth. That is what they called remediation,” recounts ServoCuripoma, whose home is next to three supposedly remediated pools.9

Rodrigo Perez Pallares, Texaco’s legal representative in Ecuador, admitted publicly that thecompany dumped 15.8 billion gallons of toxic water between 1972 and 1990. In a regionwhere 19 per cent of inhabitants get their water directly from rivers and streams, they poureduntreated waste water into those same rivers (Jochnick, Normand, and Zaidi 2004).

Chevron-Texaco built dozens of poor quality roads to reach the oil wells, covering them in oilto make them more passable. The majority of the indigenous peoples and those living on the landdid not use shoes and as such had direct contact with the oil. “There was no way to remove the oil,Texaco workers gave us a really strong fuel to clean ourselves. Then the skin started to peel, andthere were sores and bleeding,” says Nelson Maldonado, a local resident.10

Cancer rates among those living in the provinces of Orellana and Sucumbıos are three timeshigher than in the rest of the country and six times higher when compared to areas in the same pro-vinces that have not been exposed to oil pollution (Beristain, Rovira, and Fernandez 2008, 83).According to the National Register of Tumors,11 cancer cases are progressively increasing in resi-dents of the provinces of Orellana and Sucumbıos. There are increased occurrences of stomachcancer, cancer of the hematopoietic and the reticulo-endothelial systems, cervical cancer, skincancer and cancer of the lymph system. Incidence of leukemia, which mainly affects childrenfrom zero to four years of age, is three times higher than in the rest of the country (Hurting andSan Sebastian 2004, 245–250). According to Texaco’s lawyer Silvia Garrido, all of these diseasesare caused by the “lack of hygiene” found among the inhabitants of Orellana and Sucumbıos.12

The judicial process

The judicial process began in New York on 3 November 1993, when the Amazon DefenseCoalition (Frente de Defensa de la Amazonıa, FDA) brought plaintiffs together to sue Texaco(acquired by Chevron in 2001) in federal court in the state of New York. Fearing the potentialrepercussions, Texaco responded by signing a contract of environmental remediation with theEcuadorian state and carried out a supposed clean-up operation in one area. The Ecuadorian gov-ernment then released it from all liability. One wonders about the negotiations that resulted in thisagreement, in part because of the close ties in Ecuador between business or financial executivesand government officials. Several Texaco officials were ministers of energy and mines, nowreferred to as ministers of nonrenewable resources.13

This move did not prevent the trial in New York, so Texaco changed strategies and asked thatthe trial be moved to Ecuadorian courts, arguing that a US court was not competent to judgeevents that had occurred in Ecuador. Critics suggest that what they really wanted was to havea weak legal context in which they could exert greater influence. After a nine-year legal battle

Rights in the era of extraction policies 125

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

(during which Texaco was acquired by Chevron), on 16 August 2002 the federal court of the stateof New York ordered that the trial be transferred to the Ecuadorian courts, specifying that it shouldtake place in the courts of Lake Agrio because that is where the damages had occurred. Chevron-Texaco had won its first victory.

Everything seemed to be back at square one, but the plaintiffs were not dissuaded from pursu-ing their case. On 7 May 2003, the same people who had appeared before the judges in New Yorkappeared before the judges of the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbıos, requesting that the oilcompany pay the cost of repairing the environmental damage caused by Chevron-Texaco’s oper-ations. During the nine-year trial in Ecuador, Chevron-Texaco introduced a series of obstacles,including the disqualification of judges and several lawsuits against lawyers and major leadersof the plaintiffs, all with the intention of delaying the process.

Chevron-Texaco did not win this time, however. After years of delays and countersuits, on 14February 2011 the judges of the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbıos determined thatChevron-Texaco was responsible for serious environmental, cultural, social and humandamages caused by its operations in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Judge Nicolas Zambrano issuedthe historic judgment, ordering the oil company to pay $9.5 billion for environmental damagescaused during 28 years of oil exploitation. Although the ruling does not refer to the indigenousgroups who disappeared, it does include a very important clause: Chevron-Texaco had to issuea public apology to inhabitants of Sucumbıos and Orellana for the crimes committed in their ter-ritories. If this was not done within a period of 15 days from the date of the sentencing, thecompany would have to pay double the amount, about $19 billion in total.14 Pablo Fajardo,lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, explains:

In order to establish the cost of the damages, the judges analysed in detail the huge amount of scientificand social evidence summarised in more than 200,000 pages of information that was accumulatedduring the eight years of litigation. Part of that information consists of more than 40 testimonialsfrom people affected by Texaco’s operations. It incorporates 106 expert reports, 60 of which wereordered and paid for by the oil company. More than 80,000 chemical results of samples taken inthe ground, water or sediments were obtained. Several health studies, compiled independently byforeign experts, were given to judges. The judge inspected and confirmed for himself the damagecaused in 54 sites operated by the oil company.15

Fajardo notes that the ruling set an exemplary precedent, as it not only referred to the payment ofdamages, but established that the penalty could be doubled if no apologies were made (CNNExpansion 2012). It also established the affected people’s right to moral reparations. “IfChevron doesn’t apologise, the only thing they will demonstrate is their arrogance. It willshow a deep racism toward indigenous peoples, toward Latin America, because they believethat here we have no rights,” said Fajardo.

The oil company did not make the apologies stipulated in the sentencing.Chevron-Texaco’s only hope was the possibility of going to the Supreme Court of Ecuador to

reverse the sentence, as indeed they did. They asked the court to annul the provincial court’sdecision even as lower courts began a process of freezing the company’s assets in Ecuador. Mean-while, the prosecuting lawyers launched legal actions in Canada, Argentina and Brazil to receivethe payments stipulated in the sentence.

Chevron-Texaco’s defense

Chevron-Texaco asserted its innocence with the following arguments:

. Oil is a harmless product with no negative effects on people’s health.

126 L.A. Saavedra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

. The company used the best technology available at the time.

. At the time of Texaco’s operations, there were no rules or laws protecting the environmentin the country. The company acted according to Ecuador’s existing legal framework.

. The state already released Texaco of all liability.

. Texaco was only partly responsible because they were part of a consortium and, as such,both partners were responsible for the damage caused.

The plaintiffs argued successfully against each one of these claims in the Ecuadorian trial.Chevron-Texaco then chose to increase political pressure on the Ecuadorian state, asking it tointervene on the company’s behalf. The company also intensified its lobbying efforts in theUnited States,16 pressuring members of the US Senate to oppose further trade agreements withEcuador. Similarly, Chevron-Texaco initiated three international arbitrations. The company’sopponents claimed that each arbitration case was completely unfounded.

Simultaneously the Amazon Defense Coalition (FDA) gathered evidence demonstratingChevron-Texaco’s ties to the Ecuadorian state, with the result that government officials backedaway from the oil company and declared that the judges must act independently. Chevron-Texaco then began a campaign to discredit the government and to put direct political pressureon judges. However, as Pablo Fajardo stated:

the oil company has been sentenced to pay more than $18 billion in the judicial system which it chose.Currently it is doing everything possible to avoid paying the penalty, something that is very difficult,since it is extremely vulnerable in different parts of the world where it has considerable assets andthere are judges who will enforce the law as it stands.17

Large-scale mining

We have now seen 50 years of oil drilling, the destruction of a large percentage of the northernregion of the Ecuadorian Amazon and significant unrest because of these catastrophes, but it isnot clear that we have learned anything. The Ecuadorian government has decided to implementlarge-scale mining projects in the southern Amazon region of the country, risking pollutionsimilar to that seen elsewhere. This decision has been made despite the fact that the areas withmining potential are territories defined as untouchable because of their great biological diversity.In addition, they are water sources for several settlements and headwaters of large basins thatmainly flow toward the Peruvian Amazon.

On 5 March 2012, President Rafael Correa signed his first large-scale mining contract. It wassigned with the Chinese-Canadian company Ecuacorriente SA (ECSA). The next day, environ-mental groups staged a series of protests and announced that they would do everything theycould to stop the project. Meanwhile, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecua-dorian Amazon (La Confederacion de Nacionalidades Indıgenas del Ecuador, CONAIE) initiatedthe March for Water, Life and Dignity, which set out from Pangui on a 15-day, 700-kilometerodyssey, during which they received support from most of the major indigenous and leftist organ-isations in the country in demonstrations that numbered in the tens of thousands. Two thousandfive hundred marchers arrived in Quito on 1 March 2012, where they were joined by supportersfrom other opposition groups. So far, however, none of these actions has stopped the advance ofmining projects.

Early in his administration Rafael Correa announced his intention to carry out large-scalemining projects. However these plans were delayed by Constituent Assembly’s decisionchange the licensing process for mines through the so-called Mining Mandate (MandatoMinero)18 when it drafted Ecuador’s new constitution at the end of 2007. The Mining Mandate

Rights in the era of extraction policies 127

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

was the first point of confrontation between the indigenous movement and the government, assome within the movement opposed the mandate (CONAIE would join the anti-mining move-ment in 2009). The Constituent Assembly, led at that time by the economist Alberto Acosta(one of the intellectuals behind the Movimiento PAIS, which brought Rafael Correa to presi-dency), splintered over the issue, leading to Acosta’s resignation. Some members considerednature and a clean environment as inviolable, while others, many of them linked to long-standingeconomic elites, considered nature only as a source of resources. In the end, however, thosepushing a more novel environmental agenda prevailed, enshrining the concept that the environ-ment was a living being, with its own rights, in the 2008 Constitution.

Among other points, the Mining Mandate prohibits licenses in protected areas and nationalparks.19 Correa, however, continued negotiations with ECSA for the Mirador project, which islocated in the El Condor mountain range in the Amazonian province of Zamora, borderingwith Peru. Correa also continued negotiations with the Canadian-owned Kinross Gold Corpor-ation for the Fruta del Norte project, located on the northern slope of the same mountainrange, and with IAMGOLD for the Kinsacocha project in the Azuay province in the southernmountains.

The Condor Mountain Range is a massif in the southeastern foothills of the Andes. It islocated in the Amazonian border region of Ecuador and Peru, with an area of approximately320 km2. According to the Ecuadorian biologist Alfredo Luna, this mountain range fills a keyfunction in the hydrological cycle that connects the Andes to the Amazon. It enables the existenceof a wealth of plants, some still unknown. The region has some 40 varieties of orchids, 26 ofwhich are unique to this area. The flora of this area support numerous animal species that existonly in this region, including 29 species of amphibians and reptiles (of which 27 are endemic),210 species of birds and 45 species of fish.20

Since the Condor Mountain Range borders with Peru, ECSA also tried to obtain a mininglicense on the eastern slope of this mountain range. According to the biologist SegundoSanchez, researcher for the Group for Training and Intervention for Sustainable Development(GRUFIDES) in Peru, the eastern part of the Condor Mountain Range is a region of refuge forspecies that are being displaced from the Amazonian valleys due to an increasing human presencein the area (see Saavedra 2011b).

Questioning the Condor Mountain Range project

We will now analyse21 some of the points of the contract signed between the Ecuadorian govern-ment and ECSA:

. The first stage consists of removing and storing the topsoil. It is unclear how and where thetopsoil will be stored during the 25-year duration of the license.

. A pit will be drilled measuring two kilometers in diameter to a depth of eight hundredmeters. Once the mining is finished, this will be converted into a lake. Once the first pitis drilled, they will continue with similar pits in the area.

. Each day 60,000 tons of material will be processed, which will produce 24,000 tons ofwaste with only small amounts of copper per day. The waste will be put in a dump thesize of 80 football stadiums. Twenty-nine thousand tons of end waste, called “tailings”,will also be produced. There is no procedure for environmental remediation of this waste.

. It has been calculated that there are 4.7 billion pounds of copper in the area to be mined.According to the constitution, the Ecuadorian state must receive more than 50 per centof the revenue generated from the copper. ECSA will be investing $1.4 billion in thefirst five years. The Ecuadorian state will receive 52 per cent of the earnings, which will

128 L.A. Saavedra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

include the 12 per cent value added tax (VAT), tax income, profits and royalties. ECSA willdeliver $100 million as advance royalties.

. Zamora Chinchipe’s member of the Assembly, Klever Jimenez, states that it is not true thatEcuador will receive 52 per cent of returns yielded by the Mirador project. “They talk aboutdelivering 12 per cent of the VAT, but this is a value added tax and the company will notproduce any added value, because everything will be taken in gross,” he affirms (seeSaavedra 2012b). Critics thus contend that the contract with ECSA is unconstitutional.

. Article 405 of the Constitution (Republic of Ecuador 2008), second paragraph, states:“Foreign natural persons or legal entities will not be able to acquire any land deeds or con-cessions in areas of national security or protected areas, in accordance with the law.” Thisarticle raises questions about the constitutionality of the Condor Mirador project, as it islocated on the border with Peru and has been awarded to a foreign company.

Similar conditions affect the IAMGOLD and Kinross mining projects. Their concessions arelocated in the catchment area for the city of Cuenca’s water system, which supplies more than27 community irrigation systems. According to Pablo Sanchez, another member of the GRU-FIDES research team:

for a gold mine to be profitable, it must have a minimum of one gram of gold per ton of soil. In Yana-cocha, 600,000 tons of earth a day are moved, which, as well as drying out the sources of water usedby nearby communities, has completely changed the mountain landscape, because in 20 years of oper-ation, numerous hills have been moved. (see Saavedra 2011b)

It seems likely that this is what is in store for the Condor Mountain Range, if the people ofEcuador and Peru fail to convince their governments to respect the rights of the peoples settledin the area and the rights of nature itself. This is certainly what awaits the inhabitants of theAzuay if they do not demand respect for their rights. Fortunately, they are starting to do sothrough protests like the March for Life, along with roadblocks, boycotts, participation in nationalindigenous organisations such as the CONAIE and appeals to international solidarity groups.

Rights, business and social responsibility

In theory, trade agreements and contracts for the extraction of natural resources should incorporateclauses ensuring that human rights and the environment will be protected. These clauses are evennegotiated in the free trade agreements which industrial powers seek to sign with peripheralcountries or countries in their areas of influence. The United States seeks to expand its extractiveactivities, as does Canada. The European Union has the same objective, and in recent years Chinahas also shown a growing interest in this area. Despite the theory, each process lacks transparencyabout what is negotiated, promoting a deep skepticism about promises made about advantagesoffered by this industry for the poorest and most vulnerable sectors. The fact that they lackaccess to the texts of these contracts adds to fears that these activities will violate their rights.

Many social groups fear that when we open our societies to extractive activities we must alsoeliminate various government controls and embrace financial liberalisation, both of which reducethe ability of states to fulfill their commitments to respect and promote existing human rights. Inthe case of Ecuador, this includes the rights of communities, peoples and nationalities (Article IVof the Constitution) and the rights of nature (Article VII), as established in the 2008 Constitution(Republic of Ecuador 2008).

Similarly, it should be noted that during the World Conference on Human Rights held in1993,22 more than 170 states agreed that the promotion and protection of human rights (civil,

Rights in the era of extraction policies 129

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

political, economic, social and cultural rights) are the primary responsibility of governments.However, since then this same group of states has put a great deal more emphasis on liberalisingtrade and investment, and negotiating processes to facilitate the extraction of natural resources.Even concepts generated within the system, such as corporate social responsibility (CSR),have been left to one side, and the rights of peoples or the rights of nature have received evenless attention.

Humanitarian organisations, large corporations and even the World Bank have devoted a greatdeal of energy to promoting CSR in recent times, linking it with sustainable human development,commitments to mine employees and their families, commitment to the protection of the environ-ment and efforts to improve the quality of life of the local community and society in general.Unfortunately we see little evidence that this reflects an earnest commitment. In fact, it hasbeen suggested that extractive companies coined these phrases only in response to the growingsocial organisation and pressure from local communities.23 “Before, companies came to ourlands and said that it was the President’s order. We had to keep quiet and just watch. Overtime people began to complain and demand compensation,”24 stated Diocles Zambrano, Coordi-nator of the Angel Shingre Network of Community Leaders of Orellana, showing how, little bylittle, companies had to assume certain responsibilities.

The protests of the affected communities led to companies offering compensation for theiroperations in the territories of indigenous and land-based peoples, or offering payment forenvironmental damage, particularly when caused by oil spills. These agreements were generallyverbal and were made between social leaders and company delegates called “communitymediators”. However, they had no decision-making powers, nor the express mandate of the com-panies to make these kinds of offers to the communities. As one might expect, the promises madewere rarely fulfilled. Company officials changed jobs and their employers did not take responsi-bility for the offers that had been made. Meanwhile, because giving their word is of special sig-nificance for indigenous people, they did what had been agreed upon, which usually involvedgiving up various rights (Pol, Varela Torres, and Cordero Heredia 2010, 60).

Following these failures, the networks of organisations of land-based and indigenous peoplesbecame increasingly aware of their constitutional rights and began to demand that the companiessign written documents to ensure they fulfilled their promises. After strong pressure, such asblocking oil wells and general strikes, the companies began to sign agreements with the commu-nities, but even these were not adhered to. The Regional Foundation for Human Rights Assistance(INREDH) investigated the degree of oil companies’ compliance with compensation agreementsin the province of Orellana. The investigation concluded that the compliance level did not reacheven 10 per cent of what had been offered (Pol, Varela Torres and Cordero Heredia 2010, 70). Theoffers themselves sometimes bordered on the absurd.25

The extraction experience in Orellana and Sucumbıos shows us what could be in store for theprovinces of Azuay and Zamora with the onset of copper and gold mining. Even if the discoursehas changed and there are new regulatory frameworks, the business sector continues to focus onprofitability over and above anything else, often ignoring their responsibility to communities andobligations to the fulfillment of rights.

The rights of nature

It is worth undertaking a separate analysis of the rights of nature, which in 2008 were enshrined inEcuadorian law – the first Western constitution to do so. Although indigenous custom in theAndes views nature as something alive, with rights and coexisting with humans, the inclusionof this worldview in Ecuador’s Constitution represents an extraordinary innovation.26

130 L.A. Saavedra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

We will now analyse some of the articles of the Constitution of Ecuador relating to theserights:

Art. 71. – Nature, or Pacha Mama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integralrespect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functionsand evolutionary processes.

All persons, communities, peoples and nationalities can call upon public authorities to enforce therights of nature. To enforce and interpret these rights, the principles set forth in the Constitution shallbe observed, as appropriate.

The State shall give incentives to natural persons and legal entities and to communities to protectnature and to promote respect for all the elements comprising an ecosystem. (Republic of Ecuador2008)

I believe that large-scale mining can in no way guarantee the existence, maintenance and regen-eration of the life cycles of nature, because it breaks nature’s integrity, and in so doing puts its lifecycles at serious risk.

Moreover, this article gives legitimacy to the indigenous movement and environmental groupswho demand, through social mobilisation and protest actions, that the rights of nature berespected.

Art. 72. – Nature has the right to be restored. This restoration shall be independent of the obligation ofthe State and natural persons or legal entities to compensate individuals and communities that dependon affected natural systems.

In those cases of severe or permanent environmental impact, including those caused by the exploi-tation of nonrenewable natural resources, the State shall establish the most effective mechanisms toachieve the restoration and shall adopt adequate measures to eliminate or mitigate harmful environ-mental consequences. (Republic of Ecuador 2008)

The Auditing Department of the Comptroller General for Projects and the Environment made 17observations on the contract with ECSA for the exploitation of the Condor Mountain Range (seeSaavedra 2012a). Several observations concern the absence of procedures to guarantee natureconservation or restoration if the environment were to be affected. The report also makes refer-ence to violations of the Mining Mandate that would occur with the signing of the contractwith ECSA. However, Rafael Correa signed it nonetheless.

Art. 73. – The State shall apply preventive and restrictive measures on activities that might lead to theextinction of species, the destruction of ecosystems and the permanent alteration of natural cycles.

The introduction of organisms and organic and inorganic material that might definitively alter thenation’s genetic assets is forbidden. (Republic of Ecuador 2008)

Lacking access to the information we would need to ensure that Article 73 was followed prior tosigning the contract with ECSA, we cannot know what preventive and restrictive measures wereundertaken. We can, however, question whether extractive activities can be done without “theintroduction of organisms and organic and inorganic material that could definitively altergenetic assets”. The answer is clearly no, because the materials and chemicals used in miningactivities change the genetic makeup of the fauna and flora of the affected areas.

The criminalisation of social protest

In the last 30 years of democracy in Ecuador, with the exception of the repressive presidentialregime of Leon Febres Cordero (1984–1988), civil rights violations have been linked mainly

Rights in the era of extraction policies 131

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

to the conditions and procedures of the prison system and to the prosecution of social protestleaders. Much of the social protest activity involves the defense of rights, primarily environmentalrights and, more recently, the rights of nature.

In March 2008, concerned by the arbitrary use of the justice system by businesses and theactions of some local authorities linked to those businesses, the Constituent Assembly supportedthe growing social rights movement and its defenders by granting amnesty to all cases. Many ofthe people given amnesty participated in demonstrations against mining projects of the foreigncompanies Ascendant Copper Corporation, Aurelian Oil and Gas PLC, ECSA, IAMGOLD orKinross.

The Ecuadorian state’s amnesty process clearly legitimises these social struggles. However,from 2008 onward, the government of Rafael Correa began using the same methods that compa-nies used to instill fear in social leadership and avoid protests. Unlike previous trials, where plain-tiffs were companies or local authorities, since 2008 trials have been initiated against leaders at therequest of government officials, turning the state into an agent for corporate causes.

On 11 December 2011, Ecuador’s National Ombudsman, Fernando Gutierrez, presented thereport Los escenarios de la criminalizacion a defensores de derechos humanos y de la naturalezaen Ecuador: Desafıos para un estado constitucional de derechos (Scenarios Criminalising Defen-ders of Nature and Human Rights in Ecuador: Challenges for a Constitutional State of Rights).27

This was Gutierrez’s last official act at the end of his term. At the same time, the Regional Foun-dation for Human Rights Assistance (INREDH) presented research on the judicial proceedingsestablished against social leaders who had mobilised in defense of their rights, particularlyin defense of water and community territories.28 A new report was also presented jointly byINREDH, the Ecumenical Commission for Human Rights (CEDHU), Ecological Action (AE)and the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CDES).

Published by the Ombudsman’s Office (DPE), the report defines the criminalisation of socialprotest as “a mechanism of social control to intimidate, neutralise, inhibit and harass any type ofbehavior that could put at risk or that questions the prevailing power, whether this comes from thestate or from other private agents” (DPE 2011, 3).

Likewise, this report defines two main forms of the criminalisation of social protest:

Primary criminalisation, which refers to the process by which certain behaviors are selected, inresponse to which the state implements repressive responses. This type of criminalisation is anabstract exercise since it is not known specifically who will carry out these actions. In general,primary criminalisation translates into legislation and in the classification of behavior defined associally reprehensible, and is undertaken by political agencies such as legislative and executiveagencies. (DPE 2011, 5)

At this time the National Assembly is developing the new penal code, which defines crimes suchas sabotage, terrorism, rebellion, obstruction of public spaces (roads), and unlawful association insuch a way that these prohibitions can be used in turn to penalise the principal forms of protest.Secondary criminalisation focuses on:

a specific fact about certain people and is defined by police, judicial and correctional agencies. Sec-ondary criminalisation is conditioned by power. That is, those wielding power identify persons whoshould be subject to criminalisation, using certain stereotypes and situational circumstances. In thisway an image is created in the public eye of the “delinquent”, using class, race, age, gender, nation-ality, etc.

One approach to secondary criminalisation is the discursive: the use of meanings and stereotypesgenerated by those who hold power and the effect of creating “delinquent” persons against whompenal processes are initiated. (DPE 2011, 6)

132 L.A. Saavedra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Government propaganda draws on racist stereotypes to portray the indigenous movement as theenemy of the process being led by Rafael Correa. Indigenous leaders receive constant insults andassaults in the streets.

ESCR and the liberal model of development

The most difficult question to be answered by organisations that defend the rights of nature relatesto economic alternatives to large-scale mining. How can the state be compensated for revenue thatit will no longer receive without large-scale mining? Where can the state obtain resources neededto meet its obligation to realise economic, social and cultural rights? The answer is that there is noalternative.

If we accept that there is no economic alternative to replace revenue provided by large-scalemining, we must also accept that there is no conceptual alternative to the Western model of econ-omic development. However, that is thinking that is rooted within a deeply flawed developmentmodel that has in fact produced both deepening inequality and environmental catastrophes inmany regions. In the last century, the political systems that dominate Western societies havebeen based on a common model of development, understood as a constant attempt to satisfyhuman needs. In the capitalist model this satisfaction implies increased consumption. This isthe world of consumerism, where development is measured by purchasing power. In the socialistworld consumerism was rejected in favor of a model that sought to achieve a “state of wellbeing”in which the entire population had access to certain services and rights more or less equally and,above all, enjoyed economic progress in an egalitarian fashion.

The basic differences in these two models can be summarised by examining the role of thestate and the fate of wealth. Both, however, sought to generate that wealth through the extractionof resources. Both Eastern bloc countries and the capitalist West supported client states in theGlobal South in an effort to ensure their own access to the natural resources of these countries,often supporting opposing parties in civil wars out of a desire to use the national resources ofthese countries to develop their own economies.

Even the noble goals of the Declaration of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ECSR),29

which when ratified by the United Nations in 1976 committed member states to ensure the pro-tection of labour rights, the right to social security, the right to education, the right to an adequatestandard of living and the right to participate in cultural life, among other rights, suffer from asimilar predilection. Adopted largely through the efforts of Eastern bloc countries, the declarationcommitted member states to work on the progressive implementation (a commitment to continu-ally improving the capacity of citizens of member states to enjoy these rights) of these rights, withthe inevitable result that the limited resources upon which the enjoyment of these rights werebased would eventually be exhausted. No party ever considered placing limits on ESCR.

Thus, in case after case, consumer desire or the unlimited satisfaction of ESCR has come intoconflict with other interests that did not fit into the Western development model. This has been theparticularly the case with the Andean peoples, who in past decades have confronted foreign oiland mining companies. While these communities see the appeal of the notion of ECSR, thenotion of economic, cultural and social rights they tend to embrace differs considerably fromthat adopted in the UN in the 1970s. Most importantly, while the UN linked ECSR to Western,consumption-driven values, here people link ECSR to a different set of rights and interests,and particularly to the rights of nature.

The current development model suffers from several fundamental problems. Naturalresources are not renewable and will therefore eventually run out, especially if guided by abusiness philosophy rooted in the goal of achieving the highest returns in the shortest time,which requires exploiting the largest possible amount of resources in the shortest possible

Rights in the era of extraction policies 133

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

time. Moreover, even if we assume that resource extraction profits could be made to benefit every-one, we cannot guarantee everyone access to all the goods we deem necessary for a good life – inpart because our “needs” expand as our economies grow. Consumer needs are thus a sort of trap, aconstantly moving target that will ultimately exhaust the planet.

Another line of questioning concerns the usefulness or the fate of the minerals we extract fromthe ground. What goods or services do we want to produce with materials produced by mining?Are they collective consumer goods or goods to meet private needs? Given that the mining boomis tied to a technological boom, we might also ask for what or for whom is this technologyintended – for the military, businesses, consumers?

Sumak kawsay (“the good life”) as an alternative30

The Andean indigenous world proposes that we think differently. This is not simply an academicexercise contrasting two models of development. Instead, it forces us to confront the ways inwhich we have been taught to approach life. This confrontation can be summed up in twosimple phrases demonstrating the wide gap between Western and indigenous thought: betterliving, the basis of Western development, versus the good life, known as sumak kawsay in thephilosophy of indigenous Andean peoples.

The Western concept of better living explains why we go to universities or why parentssupport the education of their children. Its essence lies in accumulation: better life means pro-gress, and progress means the accumulation of goods. If one replaces an 18-inch plasmascreen with a 32-inch 3-D screen, then progress has been made. Everyone wants a better life.The problem is that the concept of better living is unlimited and that it means different thingsto different social groups. For the poor it could mean the legitimate desire for a better qualityof life. For the elite, however, better living means the ability to accumulate more goods andmore power. The middle class concentrates its efforts on trying to reach the standard of livingenjoyed by the elite. The question, as always, is about the limits of this better life.

In contrast, sumak kawsay suggests a global alternative for survival by calling for people tolive ethically, soberly, taking from nature only what is necessary without violating its rights.Nature is considered a living mother, transcending poetry to become an ontological reality.Harmony between nature’s rights and collective rights satisfies individual rights. By contrast,the fulfillment of individual rights, with their many possible differences, cannot always ensurethe fulfillment of collective rights, or the rights of nature.

Sumak kawsay would seem at first glance to have no place in the Western world. Yet the basicprinciples of Western governance also give primacy to the collective, even if these principlesremain mostly theoretical. Here are some concrete examples in which the collective vision ofthe sumak kawsay could solve problems related to the development of the Western world:

. Prioritise public over private transport. This implies a redefinition of the automotive indus-try, limiting the production of private cars. This act would reduce levels of pollution andsave natural resources. It would also impact the reconfiguration of road plans, and levelthe balance of payments between rich countries and developing countries. Furthermore,it would affect investment in other sectors more aligned with the good life, such ashealth, education and noise reduction, and even increase the quality of leisure time, creatingfriendlier cities.

. Design self-sufficient communities, modeled on the structures that have helped indigenouspeoples survive for more than 500 years, despite pressure from the West. Access to andmanagement of resources such as water, and implementation of community tradesystems, characteristic of indigenous life, could lead to a fairer life for all.

134 L.A. Saavedra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

. Education based on collective good, not competition. Education systems encourage com-petition and the supremacy of some individuals over others using rating systems andrewards for individual pursuit of excellence. Consequently, the notion of obsolescence iscreated: the old is obsolete, including the wisdom of elders. The pursuit of excellenceshould be collective, as the progress of one makes no sense if the group doesn’t advance.

. A more simple diet. The indigenous principle of eating everything and leaving nothing onthe plate takes into account not only a deep respect for the foods that nature provides, butalso the notion that spare food could be used by other families that do not have enough.Health, linked to eating habits, is another benefit of this type of diet.

. Technology designed for humans. Technology should not be designed to accumulate mili-tary or capital power based on the appropriation and seizure of knowledge. Knowledge iscollective and access to it should be free and democratic. The world of patents is alien to theindigenous worldview, as it involves the private appropriation of a group possession.

These and other practical applications call into question the logics of Western societies.Mining and other extractive practices can, in the short term, provide an economic boon tosocieties and a momentary illusion of wellbeing, but they will not overcome the problemscreated by the development model by which we live. According to Alberto Acosta, “the wayout will have to include for a while some extractive activities, but it must aim for their planneddecrease and definitely not their growth” (Acosta and Sacher 2012, 85).

The way out can be found through culture rather than economics. We must rethink ourmethods of survival and return to placing value on the community model as a guiding life prin-ciple. This requires understanding that civil and political rights, as well as economic, social andcultural rights, cannot be realised if they are not in harmony with the rights of indigenous peoplesand other groups, as well as the rights of nature.

Biographical noteLuis Angel Saavedra is a journalist and the president of the Regional Foundation for the Support of HumanRights (La Fundacion Regional de Asesorıa en Derechos Humanos, INREDH), in Quito Ecuador. TheFoundation has actively sought amnesty for social leaders tried by transnational corporations and led theresistance against the US base in Manta, resulting in changes in the Ecuadorian Constitution to prohibitforeign troops to establish bases on Ecuadorian soil and the American military leaving the country in2009. He has published analyses in journals and his essays have been translated into various Europeanand Asian languages.

Notes1. From the INREDH website: http://www.inredh.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=

article&id=19&Itemid=27.2. One of the dialogues in Battleship includes the line: “This will be like when Columbus conquered

America, only now we are the natives.”3. The argument of “general benefit” at the expense of “private rights” is the best argument governments

have for ensuring their projects are supported in big cities. This way they avoid a debate about the needto respect all social groups, even if they are minorities. This argument also enables them to hide theenvironmental cost of extraction projects – which eventually will be harmful to all social groups.

4. President Rafael Correa used the term “cuatro pelagatos” (loosely understood as “four vagrants” or “afew ragamuffins”) to downplay the extent of the indigenous movement opposed to the extractionactivities (see YouTube video available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBEiRgpbUWA). Thelast indigenous march, which started on 8 March 2012 in the Amazonian province of Zamora Chinch-ope and culminated in Quito on 22 March, covered 700 kilometers and mobilised 15,000 indigenouspeople, according to government claims. Indigenous leaders calculated the figure to be closer to

Rights in the era of extraction policies 135

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

40,000. Whatever the correct figure, this march showed that the opposition to extraction activities,mainly found in indigenous territories, is much stronger than the government believes.

5. In the 1960s the province of Loja, in the country’s southern mountains, experienced the worst droughtin its history. The local people decided to emigrate, and, supported by government programs, arrived atthe northern Amazon, where they founded Nueva Loja in 1957.

6. Testimony included in the sentence in the first instance, issued by Judge Nicolas Zambrano, on 14 Feb-ruary 2011; see http://chevrontoxico.com/assets/docs/2011-02-14-Aguinda-v-ChevronTexaco-judgement-English.pdf, p. 149.

7. Complete testimonies can be found on the official website of the Amazon Defense Coalition (http://www.texacotoxico.org) and on the key documents page of the ChevronToxico campaign organis-ation’s website (http://chevrontoxico.com/news-and-multimedia/2011/0406-key-documents-and-court-filings-from-aguinda-legal-team).

8. The existence of the wells was confirmed using aerial photographs and inspections carried out by theInstitute of Military Geography, as specified in the sentence in the first instance, issued by JudgeNicolas Zambrano, on 14 February 2011; See http://chevrontoxico.com/assets/docs/2011-02-14-Aguinda-v-ChevronTexaco-judgement-English.pdf, p. 125.

9. See http://chevrontoxico.com/assets/docs/2011-02-14-Aguinda-v-ChevronTexaco-judgement-English.pdf10. Inhabitant of the province of Orellana and one of the 30,000 plaintiffs challenging Chevron-Texaco. See:

http://www.inredh.org/archivos/boletines/resumen_caso_chevron_texaco_contaminacion_amazonia.pdf

11. The National Register of Tumors is a department of the Society of the Fight Against Cancer (Sociedadde Lucha Contra el Cancer, SOLCA) in Ecuador. It was created through the Ministerial AgreementN.6345, of 20 July 1984. See: http://www.solcaquio.org.ec/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=8&Itemid=45.

12. See Bloomberg News, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aymV5i.4yp.13. The current Minister of Non-Renewable Resources, Wilson Pastor, was the general manager of PET-

ROAMAZONAS, which operated the consortium CEPE-TEXACO in 1990–1992. He was also thefinancial director of Texaco in 1988–1990.

14. See http://chevrontoxico.com/assets/docs/2011-02-14-Aguinda-v-ChevronTexaco-judgement-English.pdf

15. Author’s translation; original quote available in Spanish at http://www.inredh.org/archivos/boletines/resumen_caso_chevron_texaco_contaminacion_amazonia.pdf

16. During the last five years, Chevron-Texaco has paid more than $30,000,000 to lobbyists. See http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000015

17. Author’s translation; original quote available in Spanish at http://www.inredh.org/archivos/boletines/resumen_caso_chevron_texaco_contaminacion_amazonia.pdf.

18. See http://marchaporlavida.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/mandato_minero.pdf19. Mining Mandate, Article 3. After the Mining Mandate, the Constituent Assembly also reinforced the

prohibition of extraction activities through article 407 of the Constitution, which states: “Extraction ofnon-renewable resources is prohibited in protected areas and in zones which have been declared intan-gible, including forestry. Said resources could, as an exception, be extracted at the request of the Pre-sident of the Republic with a prior declaration of national interest on the part of the National Assembly,who, if they deemed it appropriate, could call a referendum” (Republic of Ecuador 2008).

20. See Saavedra (2011b). Additional sources on biodiversity of the region can be found in Chicaiza(2010).

21. Editors’ note: These claims about the new mining concessions are the subject of much debate. PresidentCorrea has stated that this mining will be done using “sustainable” methods, in direct contrast to Chev-ron’s past practices. ECSA makes similarclaims, which are in turn echoed by contemporary advocates of“clean mining”. Ecuador has also passed new environmental and mining laws aimed at addressingthese concerns, and critics point out that copper mining and oil production have different sets of environ-mental impacts. Saavedra does not address these points, focusing instead on the weakness of regulatorypractices and the potential threat posed by pooroversight of companies he views as rapacious. In this, hesituates himself within a Latin American intellectual tradition in which the formal environmental pro-clamations of the state are viewed with deep suspicion by stakeholders who simply do not believethat in practice the state will act as anything but a proxy for powerful (often hidden) interests. He likewisealigns himself with those, like Kirsch (2010), who argue that there is no such thing as “sustainablemining”. Saavedra’s strategy in turn is to nourish forms of “social mobilisation” within regional andglobal networks that can act as counterweights to this power.

136 L.A. Saavedra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

22. The document issued on 25 June 1009 is called the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. SeeUN General Assembly (1993).

23. Editors’ note: Warnaars (2012) in fact argues that CSR has exacerbated conflicts in the region dis-cussed in this paper.

24. Testimonial in the video “Redes de Dignidad” (Networks of Dignity); see INREDH (2010).25. Examples of these offers can be found at http://www.inredh.org/archivos/libros/malos_negocios.pdf.26. For the text of the 2008 Constitution, see http://www.asambleanacional.gov.ec/documentos/constitucion_

de_bolsillo.pdf. English version: http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html27. See http://www.dpe.gob.ec/index.php?option=com_jdownloads&Itemid=82&view=viewcategory

&catid=14.28. See http://www.inredh.org/archivos/pdf/libro_criminalizacion_defensoresddhh.pdf.29. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 2, Number 1: “Each State Party

to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view toachieving progressively the full realisation of the rights recognised in the present Covenant by all appro-priate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures” (UN HCRC 1976).

30. Editors’ note: This Quechua word has been important in efforts to reconstitute the liberal state in bothEcuador and Bolivia in recent years. See, for example, Davalos (2008) and Acosta and Martınez (2009).

ReferencesAcosta, Alberto, and Esperanza Martınez, eds. 2009. El buen vivir: Una via para el desarrollo,

edited by Alberto Acosta and Esperanza Martınez. Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala.Acosta, Alberto, and William Sacher. 2012. La minerıa a gran escala en Ecuador. Quito: Ediciones Abya

Yala.Berg, Peter. 2012. Battleship. Universal City, CA: Universal Pictures.Beristain, Carlos Martın, Dario Paez Rovira, and Itziar Fernandez. 2008. Las palabras de la selva. Bilbao:

Instituto de Estudios Sobre Desarrollo y Cooperacion Internacional.Cameron, James. 2009. Avatar. Santa Monica, CA: Lightstorm Entertainment.Chicaiza, Gloria. 2010. The Mining Enclave of the “Cordillera del Condor”. Case study, March. Barcelona:

(UAB)CEECEC (Civil Society Engagement with ECological EConomics) project, AutonomousUniversity of Barcelona. http://www.ceecec.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/CORDILLERA_CONDOR_ECUADOR_V2.pdf.

CNN Expansion. 2012. “Chevron, disculpa o pago de 18,000 mdd.” CNN Expansion, February 3. http://www.cnnexpansion.com/negocios/2012/02/03/chevron-pagara-doble-multa-por-derrame.

Davalos, Pablo. 2008. Reflexiones sobre el sumak kawsay (el buen vivir) y las teorıas del desarrollo. Quito:ALAI (Agencia Latinoamericana de informacion) http://alainet.org/active/25617&lang=es.

DPE (Defensorıa del Pueblo de Ecuador). 2011. Los escenarios de la criminalizacion a defensores de dere-chos humanos y de la naturaleza en Ecuador: Desafıos para un estado constitucional de derechos.Quito: Direccion Nacional de Promocion de Derechos Humanos y de la Naturaleza.

Hurting, A. K., and M. San Sebastian. 2004. “Incidence of Childhood Leukemia and Oil Exploitation in theAmazon Basin of Ecuador.” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 10 (3):245–250.

INREDH. 2010. Redes de dignidad. Quito: INREDH. http://www.inredh.org/index.phpview=article& catid=81%3Avideos&id=244%3Aredes-de-dignidad&option=com_content&Itemid=30.

Jennings, Garth. 2005. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Burbank/Los Angeles, CA: TouchstonePictures/Spyglass Entertainment.

Jochnick, Chris, Roger Normand, and Sarah Zaidi. 1994. Violaciones de derechos en la AmazonıaEcuatoriana. Las consecuencias humanas del desarrollo petrolero. Quito: Ediciones CERS.

Kirsch, Stuart. 2010. “Sustainable Mining.” Dialectical Anthropology 34 (1): 87–93.Pol, Cristina, Rodrigo Varela Torres, and David Cordero Heredia. 2010. Malos negocios. Analisis de los

convenios de compensacion entre comunidades y empresas petroleras. Serie Investigacion N. 16,September. Quito: Ediciones INREDH.

Rainforest Relief. 2004. “Texaco’s Legacy of Pollution in the Amazon.” http://www.rainforestrelief.org/What_to_Avoid_and_Alternatives/Petroleum/Ecuador/Texaco_Crude/Texaco_s_Mess.html.

Republic of Ecuador. 2008. Constitution of 2008. In Spanish: http://www.asambleanacional.gov.ec/documentos/constitucion_de_bolsillo.pdf. In English: http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html.

Rights in the era of extraction policies 137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Rushe, Dominic. 2012. “Chevron Accused of Racism as it Fights Ecuador Pollution Ruling.” Guardian,January 4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/04/chevron-accused-racism-ecuador-pollution.

Saavedra, Luis Angel. 2011a. “Chevron Strikes Back.” Latinamerica Press, February 24. http://lapress.org/articles.asp?art=6316.

Saavedra, Luis Angel. 2011b. “Mining and Cross-border Conflicts in Ecuador and Peru.” NotiSur – SouthAmerican Political and Economic Affairs, November 11. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Mining+and+cross-border+conflicts+in+Ecuador+and+Peru.-a0272986241.

Saavedra, Luis Angel. 2012a. “Megaminerıa se pone en marcha.” Noticias Aliadas (online), March 15. http://www.comunicacionesaliadas.org/articles.asp?art=6584.

Saavedra, Luis Angel. 2012b. “Mega-mining Takes Off.” Latinamerica Press, March 15. http://www.lapress.org/articles.asp?art=6584.

UN General Assembly. 1993. Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, World Conference on HumanRights. http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/%28symbol%29/a.conf.157.23.en.

UN HCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights). 1976. InternationalCovenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm.

Warnaars, Ximena S. 2012. “Why Be Poor When We Can Be Rich? Constructing Responsible Mining in ElPangui, Ecuador.” Resources Policy 37: 223–232.

Websites

http://www.asambleanacional.gov.echttp://www.dpe.gob.echttp://www.inredh.orghttp://www.marchaporlavida.files.wordpress.comhttp://www.solcaquio.org.echttp://www.texacotoxico.org

138 L.A. Saavedra

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

2:59

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13