Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
From the Constitution that came out of Montecristi,
from your perspective, what are to be considered the main advances
regarding environmental issues?
This constitution has some aspects that are revolutionary
it impresses me the richness of the constitution
it impresses me the richness of the constitution
it impresses me the richness of the constitution
because much emphasis is given
in the section dedicated to the rights of nature.
The second component that I think remains unnoticed
in the discussion about Yasuní
is that the second article recognizes environmental restoration
of nature also as a right.
of nature also as a right.
So the constitutional regime is a double one,
on one side, the rights of nature
And this second aspect to restore, recuperate
and recover is also a right.
And this second aspect is basically forgotten.
A third aspect,
that is novel refers to the approach regarding what is nature
that is novel refers to the approach regarding what is nature
because it establishes
a harmony between
the occidental vision
"nature, ecosystem, environment"
and one that characterizes
the indigenous vision introducing
the indigenous vision introducing
the idea of Pachamama.
And the constitution states precisely
that it is focused to preserve life, to preserve life cycles
and the regeneration of life in them.
And the third relevant component
is that the rights of nature are articulated and balanced
with the human rights to a healthy environment, quality of life, and so on.
Therefore the environmental approach presents rights
on two levels,
on two levels,
These are two parallel pathways,
with equal hierarchy: The rights of nature
and rights for a healthy environment for humans.
This is what I was going to ask you,
This is what I was going to ask you,
because now there appears to be a conflict
between the rights of nature and human rights.
That the rights of persons supersede,
in this case, the rights of persons not to be living in misery,
and therefore to be exploiting natural resources for this reason.
- Does this dilemma really exist? - No, this dilemma does not exist. The relation is the inverse.
- Does this dilemma really exist? - No, this dilemma does not exist. The relation is the inverse.
We will be able to enjoy of a good quality life
if we maintain the functioning ecological base of nature.
The controversy about the exploitation of oil in ITT
is very similar to old discussions regarding development and the environment
which began in the seventies.
This is partially sad, as it is going
forty years backwards in the debate.
It was said during these years in the seventies,
It was said during these years in the seventies,
that environmental demands, and the necessity to preserve nature
implies an obstacle for development,
prevents us from progressing, prevents us from overcoming poverty.
Who said this in the seventies?
To refresh the memory of some...
in the seventies, this was said by the military regimes of Latin-America.
This discussion received a lot of modifications,
and the debates have matured,
and in the eighties, and by the beginning of the nineties
there is recognition that we need to maintain the natural foundation
and this natural foundation is the one that allows us to secure quality of life.
For us in Latin America, including Ecuador,
The situation is easy and very difficult at the same time.
Because we take advantage of natural resources above all
for export.
In the last years, all the Latin American economies,
including Ecuador, and even Brazil,
have increased the amount of natural resources in their exportations,
they have deindustrialized.
Therefore we...
have a certain amount of economic success because we export raw materials
to other continents...
These raw materials
are processed in other continents and some of them
come back to our countries and cities
and we buy them as imported products.
And a second issue regarding these problems
is how the states spend their money.
The more inefficient a state is in spending it's money
or the more subsidized is the process of extractivism,
the greater the need for funds,
and the more obliged is the state to make more oil and mineral investments.
The traditional Left in Latin American in its development program always has said
that dependency on raw materials
is a primitive and antiquated way
of maintaining national economies.
So here has been a political and ideological change that is not minor:
So here has been a political and ideological change that is not minor:
The new progressivism has inversed this relation,
and instead of getting out effectively
out of the primary economies based on raw materials,
now consider that they are necessary,
that they have to take advantage of the high price raw materials
and the high levels of investments,
and to take advantage of this to the maximum.
The other change that I have seen, is that
The other change that I have seen, is that
the old idea of social justice and especially the one defended
by the Left,
defended a broad swathe of rights,
defended a broad swathe of rights,
including education, health, etc.
and included the aims of democratisation and an increase civil participation.
But in the majority of progressivist regimes
this has become smaller and smaller and smaller replaced by economic compensation,
this has become smaller and smaller and smaller replaced by economic compensation,
and monthly financial assistance.
I do not doubt this is important and necessary.
But these are above all emergency plans.
Paying a monthly financial assistance (bonos)
is not synonymous with social justice; social justice is much more than this.
So, who is held responsible for this perverse mutually dependent
relationship
between extractivism / export
and monthly social subsidy?
Who is held responsible?
Another dimension is justice.
One of the first to fall by the wayside is environmental justice
One of the first to fall by the wayside is environmental justice
and ecological justice.
How to maintain quality of life
and maintain the rights of nature?
And there are extreme cases of this, for example Venezuela,
where in the last years they have insisted
on what is called the logic of sacrifice:
Small groups affected by oil exploitation
cannot hinder the development of the rest of the nation.
So they have to suffer
the negative impacts.
This is a particular reformulation of democracy
within extractivism progressivism.
It is a form of democracy,
were there is voting
and this is very important,
but what has fallen by the wayside is the agenda
of deepening democracy, maintaining the channels of participation,
to hold consultations,
access to information,
to tolerate minorities, protect minorities.
This has fallen by the wayside because it is supposed that
if I vote,
I give the permission
to the elected ruler
to carry out a plan in all spheres of life,
in all spheres of economy.
The Ecuatorian case, is one of the most complex ones.
If you think about the results of the last elections,
If you think about the results of the last elections,
president Rafael Correa spread in more than one occasion
the message, that the opponents of extractivism
achieved less than 3% of the votes.
Therefore, the idea is presented that
the ones who demand certain
reforms or attention regarding development strategies,
Such as extractivism, agriculture
or other dimensions as quality of life, education, etc...
from this logic they would have to form a political party,
present themselves to elections and if they win few votes,
this theme is not important.
This is a weakening of democracy. You cannot ask,
for instance,
children to create a party of children
to improve the school education
or that the sick
create a party to improve the public health.
And that according to the number of votes they receive,
the president will attend or not attend to these demands!
Correa said in his letter to the Asamblea, he was going to use extractivism to abandon extractivism.
Correa said in his letter to the Asamblea, he was going to use extractivism to abandon extractivism.
Does this make sense from your point of view?
Does this make sense from your point of view?
This does not make sense, because...
the extractivism is not only about exportation of raw materials.
Extractivism has huge impacts
within the countries,
in the areas of environment,
social dynamics
and economy.
And at the same time, extractivism
increases our dependency on the one's who buy from us, and determine the price
of the raw materials.
So extractivism cannot be
approached only as "contributing more copper,
obtaining more money for the national treasury, and financing something else".
This is not what happens. Which are the general effects?
This is not what happens. Which are the general effects?
A first aspect,
are the serious environmental effects that you are observing.
A great amount of the extractivist ventures
are viable
because the economy being done is partial, it is awry, it is a trick.
because the economy being done is partial, it is awry, it is a trick.
Because they do not take into account the social and environmental impacts
of extracting these natural resources.
If the Ecuadorian state says
we will obtain so much money,
eleven, twelve, eighteen million dollars
for the exportation of crude oil,
there is a key account missing there,
Anyone took away...
...the costs of the environmental damage?
What´s the economical costs of accidents,
such as spills?
Who pays the costs of the social dimension that range
from displacement,
changes in regional economies, etc?
These are not taken into account.
Secondly,
the increase of certain distortions in the national economies. This is very obvious
in several countries on the continent
from Uruguay, Peru to Ecuador.
There tends to be an overflow of foreign currencies
In countries with national currencies this income of foreign currencies
makes the dollar very cheap
and there is a flood of imported products.
The flood of imported products generates a secondary effect
that is not minor: the country exports more and more raw materials
but because at the same time it imports increasingly more manufactured goods,
it de-industrializes.
A third element
is that the present extractivisms
are of such scale,
they move such huge volumes of raw materials
and have such strong impacts, especially risk impacts --
which is the case in ITT
as they are technologies of high risk
in vulnerable areas --
so the impacts are so huge
that they are only possible if the environmental evaluations
are bad or fragile
or are only possible if there are different grades
in nonfulfillment regarding the violation
of human rights and the rights of nature.
Why? Because, if the environmental evaluations would be done seriously,
the majority of this extractivist projects from this
last generation
would not be approved.
Therefore, the ones who say
I can exploit oil
in a continental platform or in the Amazonia without any risk, present an
exaggerated technological optimism.
It is enough to look at the accident
of British Petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico to see
what happens if there is an accident someday.
Eduardo, then what should an economy like Ecuador do?
because its not as if tomorrow we can change into India
and suddenly the Ecuadorian orient starts producing chips
or starts industrializing,
but reality says that thousands and millions of persons
are depending of the economic activity.
Which is the way
out of the extractivist economy, what would this path look like?
This is the discussion,
the actual urgent discussion is this: how do we get out of the
extractivist dependency?
Therefore, the first step to get out
is to allow and encourage the discussion and the debate.
Not reacting towards the ones who raise the debate and discussion,
as if they were traitors against national development or regressive expressions
of an antiquated right of a neoliberal type. To the contrary,
this is the actual present discussion
this is the actual present discussion
of the frontier, the debate that we and other countries have to address right now
because
the day these resources end
or the prices drop,
we will remain without anything.
I am not against mining,
nor against agriculture, to the contrary we have to use
nor against agriculture, to the contrary we have to use
rationally
and sensibly our natural resources.
So the third point is,
under what criteria will I use my natural resources, above all for me,
not to finance and maintain the economy
of China, and with it
the consumer levels of the industrialized countries.
One of the most paradoxical issues of progressive extractivism
One of the most paradoxical issues of progressive extractivism
is that the state ends up being the big financer
of the mining,
oil or
monoculture ventures.
In which way is the state a funder?
Because the state gives them tax deductions,
subsidies,
roads, cheap energy,
or assumes the environmental costs
in the phase of abandonment and post-production.
Why should we not use all this money that we use, this hidden subsidy
of extractivism, for the serious
reconversion of the economy towards a post-extractivism?
We have revised the cases
of extractivism in the South American countries
and we have focused especially on what happens with the rights
and what happens with the indigenous peoples.
We have find out
during the last 18 months in whole the South American
during the last 18 months in whole the South American
that there is conflict regarding extractivism,
from the Patagonia
to Guyana and Suriname.
In all the countries.
In all South American countries
In all South American countries
there is violation of rights
regarding extractivism.
This violation of rights is in a broad range of observable forms
from
not following the regulations of the rights to access
information,
to not following national regulations of the rights of civil participation
to more severe forms
of violence practices.
of violence practices.
There is a certain criminalization and state surveillance
regarding civil mobilization. - Did you know that in Ecuador are around 300
prosecuted by terrorism?
you are also making reference to them? - Yes, this is why I want to tell you that
this is a situation on the whole continent,
which has to do with the flood over
this new frontier of resources
and these resources can only be used
if there are violations of rights, the violations
of rights is the precondition for this sort of extractivism.
of rights is the precondition for this sort of extractivism.
Because if the legal frame would be taken seriously
these kinds of projects would not be approved. During the last 18 months in the whole
South American continent
there are cases of rights violation of indigenous peoples related to the extractivism.
there are cases of rights violation of indigenous peoples related to the extractivism.
In all South American countries, except Uruguay, which is the only country
that does not have indigenous peoples.
So, in light of this situation
we thought we have to bring evidence. These are the most
dramatic events of the last year, year and half, in all the continent.
And therefore stands the word EtracHeccion,
with an H in the middle,
Like considering the difference between learning (aprender) and taking (aprehender).
And, extraction comes from Latin
meaning to extract with violence,
when I rip out with violence the natural resources,
without respecting human rights
or the rights of nature.
The extractivism has strong political implications,
on the political life within the countries.
Here again we see the increasing importance
of the discourses that says "I need the extractivism...
to attack poverty, to maintain
the monthly subsidy system, paid with money".
Why? There is a wide evidence that
this has a very important social impact,
because it saves families from poverty,
but it also creates an electoral backing.
So when there is a necessity
the people in the cities, attached by the bonuses,
subsidies and expectations of a welfare system based on material consumption,
it becomes very difficult to resign from it all
in order to care about
rights of areas far away in their country
and where very few people live which have at the same time a very reduced electoral weight
weight because of their very small populations.
weight because of their very small populations.
So this is a democracy that is based on consumption
in the cities,
which forgets
other regions of the country, forgets minorities of the country
and forgets minorities that are geographically far away.
The debate on extractivism, when it is said: what is the alternative?
Part of the answer has to include the following components:
first, that if you are extractivist from the point of view of the state
shows that you are a bit lazy,
because you have had all these years to think about alternatives,
you have the departments, the planning commissions, etc.
It is not the social movements, which have to develop scenarios,
nor the assessments, nor trajectories.
They have been lazy, and they did not take advantage
of the boom of the raw material
to study alternatives.
Secondly,
this extractivism is not an alternative that we want,
we dont want it!
because we know it generates social problems, environmental problems
and dubious economic benefits.
And in third place,
we have to start discussing public spending.
If the state budget is used partly to finance the extractivism itself,
If the state budget is used partly to finance the extractivism itself,
or it is used in measures
that are not related directly to the quality of life of the people
there will always be the need of more money, there will always be the need of more extractivism.
There are series of fronts where the left has serious problems
the social front,
in the decrease of a multidimensional justice
and rights etc., to the reduction in economic redistribution
and the reliance on monetary assistance.
It has serious problems
in taking care of education, public health,
and public safety in most of countries.
It has enormous problems dealing with the environment.
It does not really understand the indigenous peoples,
and therefore it is not truly intercultural.
So this situation
taken to a messianic state of some governments of the Left,
and missing a component in republican governments
seen in problems of participation,
seen in problems of participation,
access to information,
respect towards the opinion of the other, etc.
it has arrived to a point
where democracies are more and more presidential and even hyper- presidential.
where democracies are more and more presidential and even hyper- presidential.
This erodes
the political debate and the political structure to other social ambits,
there are very delegative democracies, almost everything is delegated to the image of the president
and the president can decide
in almost all sectors
Therefore, it is a red Left as in the sixties and seventies?
No it is not a red Left. Why?
Because it turned extractivist and it tied itself to the global markets.
It has not really changed the production matrix.
Therefore, it is not a "red" Left
Is it a green Left? Definitely not.
All the progressist governments are confronted by the environmental movements
movements in all countries. Is it a multicultural Left? No.
So it is a brown Left.
And it is brown because brown is the classical colour used
in the language of environmental management
to manage the industrial garbage, the waste of the cities.
It is not a real Left, but a brown Left.
It is not a real Left, but a brown Left.
This situation in the ITT,
This situation in the ITT,
we cannot expect the conventional economy to make a valuation
because the traditional economy is only going to make an economic valuation
and this economic valuation will reflect only what is useful,
useful at present or potentially useful.
Therefore, to try to evaluate economically
how much is the value of a tree
or a hectare of forest
or an uncontacted indigenous
does not make sense.
It just makes no sense.
What can be evaluated by the conventional economy
is the cost of health, how much I will have to spend
in medicines or a doctor,
if there is hydrocarbon pollution and a population affected by this.
I can calculate how much it would cost me
to decontaminate the water if there are spillages.
These cost calculations to my knowledge have not been done.
And this would have been a basic input to enable the Assembly to evaluate
what to do or not to do.
Furthermore, this is a basic input that the minister of
economy of a progressive government
should have, to decide whether this is good or bad business for the state.
Even if this remains only within the economic logic.
Should we abandon that logic?
This is the second aspect.
I have to get out of this utilitarian logic,
the utilitarian valuation will always
the utilitarian valuation will always
be losing the non-contacted populations
be losing the non-contacted populations
and other indigenous peoples and it
will be always losing nature. Why?
Because the plants and non-contacted populations do not vote,
are not visible politically
and, can even be marginal for the economy.
And that's what the Ecuadorian constitution allows,
it opens the field of the valuation.
it opens the field of the valuation.
I think here there is a huge confusion in the discussion.
It has been nullified/cancelled
the ethics,
because I do not appreciate the intrinsic value of nature,
and of the rights of the non-contacted peoples.
Instead it has been valorising the discussion
in a benevolent morality helping the poor.
in a benevolent morality helping the poor.
And morality and ethics are two different things Sometimes they go hand in hand but
they are different fields.
The ethics is a discussion about the values
and in the actual debate the values that are not economic get annulled
and in the actual debate the values that are not economic get annulled
as cultural, historical, traditional,
as cultural, historical, traditional,
aesthetic ,
ecological values.
The shift has gone to a morality
were
benevolence and compassion is based on the distribution of parts of the forest,
benevolence and compassion is based on the distribution of parts of the forest,
but that's justifiable because compassionately I will help the poorest
with a monthly payment.
This is a strong perversion
of the idea of social, environmental and ecological justice.