Balancing Profit and Environmental Sustainability in Ecuador: Lessons Learned from the Chevron Case

Resumen

Introduction In 2008, the people of Ecuador ratified the first national constitution in the world to enshrine the Rights of Nature. (1) As one of the most biodiverse countries in the world, this was more than a symbolic gesture; it reflected a national consensus that our whole approach to protecting the environment-including ourselves-must change and adapt if we are going to make this planet a place where all can live freely and safely. (2) Ecuador had a vested interested in taking the unprecedented step of providing constitutional rights focused on nature because so much is at stake in our country. The inclusion of these rights of nature in the Constitution is given in four articles (art. 71 to 74) and expresses the deep respect with which we regard our environment. The articles state that Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and realized, is entitled to its existence, maintenance and regeneration of its vital cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes are fully respected. Any person, community, village or nationality may require the public authority to enforce the rights of nature ... The State will encourage natural and legal persons and groups to protect nature, and promote respect for all the elements that form an ecosystem. (3) It clearly reflects the deep commitment by Ecuador that the country has elevated this issue to a constitutional level. Since the enactment of the Constitution, the National Assembly adopted the Law Amending the Law on Mining, Water Management Act, Environmental Law and Development. (4) But we did not arrive at this conclusion easily; the path to get to where we are today was long, litigious, and costly on many levels. For decades, transnational corporations took advantage of our country's institutional weakness as related to the public sector and of lax international standards for business compliance with human rights protections and regulations. Irresponsible extraction of natural resources, inadequate methods of remediation, and lack of financial compensation for victims of corporate irresponsibility harmed not only human life but also the environment. (5) Arguably the most egregious example is that of Texaco-Chevron's almost 25-year operation in Ecuador. During its operations in Ecuador, Texaco-Chevron knew they were using technologies that were sub-par compared to the more advanced environmentally friendly technologies used in the United States. (6) The American Petroleum Institute issued minimum standards for exploitation (7) before Texaco-Chevron commenced its operations in Ecuador, the company chose to ignore those guidelines in order to make greater profits. Beginning in the 1960's, a consortium of companies led by Texaco (which agreed to merge with Chevron in 2001 to become ChevronTexaco Corp. then later Chevron Corp. (8)) extracted and dumped toxic waste in our Amazon rainforest using methods and technology that were obsolete and non-environmentally friendly, contrary to the technologies used by Chevron in other parts of the world. (9) Lack of experience, weak institutions, and the absence of international obligations mandating minimum compliance requirements for business practices that respected human rights in hydrocarbon exploitation made Ecuador deeply dependent on external technological expertise for the design and construction of infrastructure that would facilitate the extraction, transportation, and sale of Ecuadorian on the global market. (10) This provided considerable advantages to transnational companies over the State during what was initially referred to as the oil boom. (11) These legal, technical, operational, and administrative advantages made the country totally dependent on large transnational corporations; Ecuador needed their technical expertise and subsequent transfer of knowledge. Oil companies ostensibly took advantage of this relationship dynamic-the case of Texaco being a major example. …