The ITT project in Ecuador: leaving the oil on land or the path to another development model. Interview with Alberto Acosta.

The ITT project in Ecuador: leaving the oil on land or the path to another development model. Interview with Alberto Acosta.

By Matthieu Le Quang

The ITT project represents an ecological revolution that must lead to an alternative development model based on a post-oil economy for Ecuador and the world. Endless material growth could culminate in collective suicide, as the further warming of the atmosphere or the deterioration of the ozone layer, the loss of fresh water sources, the erosion of agricultural and wild biodiversity, and degradation seems to portend. of soils or the very disappearance of living spaces of local communities.

The ITT project (acronym taken from the name of the three exploration wells drilled in the area: Ishpingo-Tambococha-Tiputini) is one of the initiatives of the Ecuadorian government to fight against global warming. The idea is not to exploit some 850 million barrels of oil located in the Yasuní Park, which constitutes a natural reserve with one of the most important biodiversity in the world. The exploitation of this heavy oil, of 14 degrees API, could mean for the State an income that would fluctuate between 5 000 and 6 000 million dollars (with a price close to 70 dollars a barrel).

Ecuador has an economy based mainly on oil income. Remember that oil represented 22.2% of GDP, 63.1% of exports and 46.6% of the General State Budget, in 2008.

ITT reserves represent about 20% of the total known reserves in the country. So, it is a financial source that a country as poor as Ecuador cannot leave. However, the Ecuadorian government's proposal is not to exploit these reserves, for various reasons, not just environmental.

On the other hand, Ecuador, starting from the principle of joint responsibility for global environmental problems, asks the international community for a contribution close to 50% of the income that could be made available if it exploited that oil. It is a proposal that aims to fight against global warming and against the loss - without the possibility of return - of a very rich biodiversity, to prevent the emission of some 410 million tons of CO2, to stop deforestation and soil contamination, as well as the deterioration of the living conditions of the inhabitants of the region. Furthermore, this is an effective way to prevent the transformation of the Amazon rainforest into a savanna, which would cause a substantial decrease in the amount of water throughout the continent.

Next December, during the Copenhagen world summit, which has to reflect on the scope and limitations of the Kyoto Agreement, aimed at mitigating and even stopping the pernicious effects of climate change, Ecuador hopes that this project will serve as a model. The ITT project represents an ecological revolution that must lead to an alternative development model based on a post-oil economy for Ecuador and the world. However, despite the efforts of the Ecuadorian government and President Rafael Correa, as well as some people in Ecuador and other regions of the planet, the international community is slow to react and support this project. At the moment, only Germany, through its Parliament and its government, has committed to financing this project with about 50 million euros a year, for thirteen years, which is the time that the benefit that the exploitation and export would produce would last. of ITT crude. There are other countries, such as Norway, where this initiative has found a positive initial echo, as well as some organizations, such as the community of Madrid, plus, by the way, several dozen personalities worldwide.

Alberto Acosta is one of the initiators of this project. He is an economist and professor-researcher at FLACSO, Ecuador headquarters. He was president of the Constituent Assembly, from November 2007 to June 2008; and Minister of Energy and Mines, from January to June 2007, a position from which he first publicly proposed this initiative. He is also one of the founders of Movimiento País, the political movement of the President of the Republic Rafael Correa.

How did the idea for the ITT project come about and how were the first steps developed?

This project arises as the result of a collective effort that already has a long history and many processes that were converging at a given point. When I presented this idea publicly for the first time at the beginning of 2007, it had been a long time since work began for the first time on a proposal that sought a moratorium on oil activity in the Ecuadorian Amazon. This emerged in the first place from the resistance struggles of indigenous peoples, particularly in the south-central Amazon, aimed at preventing oil activity from expanding into their territories, as well as from the groups of mestizo settlers in the northern Amazon and from indigenous peoples affected by the activity of the Chevron company before Texaco. That is a first point that must be very clear. There was a process of struggle against this outrage that is reflected in the lawsuit against Texaco in Ecuador and that constitutes a milestone in the resistance of the Amazonian and national society against the predatory practices of the oil companies.

From these social processes, in which other groups intervened, particularly that of Acción Ecológica, the possibility of an oil moratorium is beginning to be discussed. Many years ago, almost 10 years ago, this idea was embodied in a little book called “Ecuador post-oil”. Then there was talk about the possibility of an oil moratorium. Gradually we were concentrating our attention not only on preventing the expansion of the oil frontier but also on reinforcing the proposals for conservation and respect for indigenous territories. It is well known that Ecuador is privileged in terms of biodiversity; In the area where it was intended to promote oil activity linked to ITT, there are two particularly important protection areas: Cuyabeno and Yasuní. These are areas that have enormous biodiversity as a result of not having been affected by the glaciation. They are Pleistocene reserves that make them especially rich in terms of life. When the glaciation occurs, the northern and southern parts of the planet are covered by ice to more than half of Europe, the entire United States. Then, in this central area of ​​the planet, life was concentrated. Life was not affected. It is more from there it repopulated what we currently know as the Amazon. That is why this enormous biodiversity is explained.

But what interests me to remember as an idea is that we formulated a specific strategy for this region. I was only nominated as Minister of Energy and Mines in January 2007. Before positioning myself as Minister, I worked on this initiative, particularly with Esperanza Martínez. She presented me with a memory aid where this possibility was discussed. Later, at the Ministry, we polished this proposal. This is how this idea arises in a first phase.

It should be noted that initially this revolutionary proposal, without any doubt, caused a confrontation within the government of President Correa, who initially had some qualms derived from the economic urgencies faced by an impoverished country like Ecuador. On the one hand, the initiative was led by me as Minister of Energy and Mines. It was a decision little understood, nor understood by traditional logic. It was inconceivable that the minister himself proposed to leave the oil in the ground, not to exploit the oil. On the other hand, the president of the state-owned company Petroecuador, who wanted to get the oil out of the place, put pressure inside and outside the government to accelerate its exploitation. Remember that I was the Chairman of the Board of Petroecuador, the other was the CEO of said company. We had a conflicting position. While I was trying to consolidate the non-extraction of crude oil, the president of the state company accelerated the procedures to deliver this hydrocarbon field to several oil companies. So much so that he, without informing me, negotiated with the state companies of Chile (Enap), China (Sinopec) and Brazil (Petrobras). He was also talking with the Venezuelan state company (PDVSA) to extract the oil. His goal was to sign an agreement to quickly extract the oil.

The situation was tense. So much so that we went to a Petroecuador board of directors, in which we usually met very early in the morning (the sessions began at six in the morning), in which the President of the Republic himself participated. He listened to the arguments of both parties. Then he chose to support the thesis of leaving the oil on the ground, as long as there is international financial compensation, because at that time we were talking about compensation ... If there was no financial compensation, the oil would be exploited, said the president. The financial issue, it must be recognized, was at the center of the debate since then, and it served to lower tensions around the fact that the country would lose a lot if oil was not extracted.

This is how this idea begins to crystallize in the government sphere, which until its approval in mid-2009 went through a complex and very contradictory process of rapprochement and distancing. On several occasions, especially abroad, President Correa decisively supported this initiative, while on other occasions, he objected and backed down, slowing down the project's progress.

Ecuador normally needs this money from this oil. Oil exports represent almost half of the state's resources. What were the arguments to convince Rafael Correa and the others?

Within this process of struggle and learning, in which resistance and the construction of alternatives are combined, we clearly understood, even during the discussions carried out with Rafael Correa before he was a presidential candidate, that oil extraction alone does not it was enough to develop the country.

Ecuador already has a long tradition of oil exploitation in the Amazon, and it has not been developed. We began to export Amazonian oil since 1972; although much earlier, starting in the second decade of the 20th century, in less quantity, we had exported oil from the Santa Elena peninsula.

Since the crude oil flowed for the first time on March 23, 1967, and more specifically since August 1972, when the first oil shipment left for the international market, more than 4,000 million barrels of oil have been extracted. The country has received in nominal terms about 90,000 million dollars. And we have not developed.

So, there arises a question: should it continue to do the same? The answer is no. The extraction of oil in the Amazon, directly and also indirectly, led to deterioration of the environmental and social conditions of the Amazonian population. We have tremendous deforestation, erosion, soil, water and air pollution. The northeast of the Ecuadorian Amazon is totally different from what it was before. I had the opportunity to be in this region in 1969. Then there was jungle, now there is no jungle, there is a lot of environmental and human deterioration. The Amazonian provinces have the highest poverty in all of Ecuador, but the oil provinces are the poorest in that region.

In addition, continued Amazon deforestation causes water losses in the Ecuadorian Sierra and in the rest of the country. Amazonian clouds are less and less compact and this leads to a reduction in the flow of rainwater.

Additionally, we made the president understand the importance of the enormous biodiversity in that region of the Amazon. In a single Yasuní tree, there may be a greater number of native beetle species than in all of Europe. In one hectare of the Yasuní, there are a greater number of native tree species than in all of North America. During the glaciation of the planet, as I pointed out before, life was concentrated there.

In addition, we present you with indisputable ethical reasons. There live uncontacted peoples, free peoples in voluntary isolation: the Tagaeri, the Taromenane and the Oñamenane [who are part of the Waorani nationality]. Therefore we have a huge human challenge. At this point, it is worth mentioning that from the Ministry of Energy and Mines, I worked with the Ministry of the Environment to develop a public policy proposal for peoples in voluntary isolation.

Let us note a fact that cannot be left out: the oil activity of the Chevron-Texaco company, between the sixties and nineties in the twentieth century, caused the disappearance of two entire towns, the Tetetes and the Sansahauris. The voices, the laughter, the comments, the games, the songs, the cries of those villagers we will never hear again. They all disappeared. It was a clash with "Western and Christian culture", which wiped out these peoples. To complete this tragedy, ironically, the names of these two disappeared towns are used to refer to two oil fields in the north of the Ecuadorian Amazon, where these peoples lived ...

Moreover, Texaco also weighs all the economic, social and cultural damages caused to the indigenous Siona, Sequoia, Kofan, Kichwa and Waorani, as well as damage to the white-mestizo settlers. In the psychosocial sphere, the complaints are multiple: sexual violence by company operators against adult women and minors of mixed and indigenous age, spontaneous abortions, discrimination and racism, forced displacement, harmful cultural impact and rupture of social cohesion.

And finally, extracting that oil would not only affect biodiversity and life - which is reason enough not to do so - but would also cause an emission of about 410 tons of CO2. It is a heavy oil, which has a lot of sulfur, which has to be decontaminated. That would cost humanity a lot of money, because that does not cost Ecuador. It is going to cost above all the rich countries, which are the ones that have polluted the most and which are currently concerned with mitigating said pollution.

So all these elements, added to the need to think about a post-oil economy, considering that the oil reserves are running out in the country, were setting up a scenario to demand the non-exploitation of the ITT.

All of the above was complemented with reflections tending to propose a new accumulation modality, aimed at building a post-oil scheme, that is, a post-extraction economy. Ecuador, like almost all the countries that have tried to develop based on the export of oil and also mineral resources, have followed a very complex path. They have consolidated rentier economies, client societies and authoritarian governments. An issue that is still in dispute within the government of President Correa and also in the governments considered progressive in the region.

This project uses the mechanisms created by the Kyoto protocol. But what is interesting is that it goes beyond the objectives of this international agreement because the goal is not only to make those who pollute pay but also to protect biodiversity, in an important part of the Amazon, etc. Can you explain the objectives and mechanisms of this project?

The project goes beyond the vision and mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol, although it arises with a compensation proposal. At least half of the income that would correspond to a bill for a possible exploitation would be outside the Kyoto mechanisms, because among other things, these mechanisms are aimed at absorbing emissions. In this case we are not talking about absorbing emissions, but about avoiding them. Even though there were intentions to fully link the project to the existing carbon market, this claim was unsuccessful.

Furthermore, we believe that protecting life cannot be done through commercial relationships. Putting a monetary value on nature, in other words on life, does not seem to us to be the most appropriate. So the ITT proposal already goes beyond the essence of the carbon market, the essence of the Kyoto Convention. Therefore, this project is framed in a post-Kyoto logic. We believe that this has to be one of the inherent elements, fundamental to advance in the construction of truly effective responses to the demands derived from the climatic changes that affect humanity.

With this proposal to not exploit crude oil, we also wanted to rethink an international agenda on climate change: talk about oil and its excessive consumption as the main agent of these phenomena, promote practical actions where common but differentiated responsibilities are put into play, position in the global international agenda the importance of biodiversity conservation and respect for the rights of indigenous peoples.

So we, I am referring above all to the work we have done this year with Eduardo Gudynas (Uruguayan), Joseph Vogel (North American), Esperanza Martínez and I (Ecuadorians), we have developed a different line. We speak of co-responsibility and State policy. We do not believe that compensation can be sought for compensation. Here there is a shared co-responsibility, above all, for the richest societies that are the ones that have most destroyed the planet. The Ecuadorian government also has to transform this decision into a state policy, regardless of whether or not the funding is sought.

I insist, compensation, in reality, is not compensation but rather a contribution based on the principle of co-responsibility of the countries that have damaged the environment - the United States, Europe, Japan. That is the core idea.

The national government in its proposal has taken up many of these criteria presented by the mentioned group, not all. It still maintains the option of the carbon market for the additional resources that are obtained. Yasuní Guarantee Certificates would be placed and that would generate some revenues. In addition, Ecuador, with these revenues, would finance reforestation projects, projects for the development of renewable alternative energies and other projects. And on account of these projects, it would aspire to obtain resources in the carbon market. In other words, it seeks to obtain the resources to keep the oil on land and not emit CO2, while the revenues that these resources generate would be used to make investments that would allow it to operate in the carbon market, an issue with which we are not totally convinced.

Of what use will the economic fund that Ecuador would have and especially who will decide how it could be used?

The definition of who uses the fund is very clear: it has to be the Ecuadorian State. That is undoubted. And the management of the fund, in what resources are used, decides the Ecuadorian State. How is the fund managed? This is a matter for discussion, which must be carried out by the national government and Ecuadorian society, particularly with the populations affected by oil activities, and the peoples of Yasuní, in such a way as to collectively advance in the construction of an Ecuador. post oil, which was the founding idea of ​​the project.

The administration of the account, that is, of the trust, must be in charge of a United Nations instance. It cannot be a multilateral bank, like the IDB (Inter-American Development Bank), as was intended by the government team in charge of carrying out this project. We want it to be the United Nations because this project can be reproduced, replicated elsewhere.

The destination of the resources - subject under discussion - would be for reforestation; for alternative energy sources; for social projects in education, health; for environmental restoration; above all to improve the living conditions of the Amazonian population. That is the great debate. The official proposal is in the first points and is losing priority downwards. We want these resources to serve as a priority for the restoration of nature in the Amazon, without implying that Chevron-Texaco is exempted from paying for what it destroyed.

A smart investment option for the resources obtained within this initiative could be the recovery and development of alternative technologies, for example in water, agriculture, clean, decentralized and low-impact energy issues. Only by overcoming dependence on the technological pattern, can we really build a different path, the path of good living or Sumak Kawsay. Let us remember that a large part of these proprietary technologies is found in ancestral knowledge or in the exercise of creativity of marginalized communities; to which, instead of rescuing them, they are condemned by putting their territories at risk with large extractive projects.

With this initiative, isn't there a risk that Ecuador will continue to be dependent on the international community to finance its alternative development model?

I do not see that risk if you start from the principle of co-responsibility, and environmental justice. It is not a traditional development aid. It is not a direct foreign investment. In addition, the sovereign management of resources is in the hands of the Ecuadorian State. What we require is a mechanism to make viable the trust of the resources obtained and then their proper and efficient management, controlled by the Ecuadorian and international civil society. This proposal is not an isolated development project.

This ITT initiative carries a very strong message, that we must radically change the ways of relating to nature. Enough of the speeches about the impacts derived from global warming and climate change, the world requires concrete actions. This is an opportunity for Ecuador and the entire world to find creative, bold, revolutionary answers. So, I am not concerned about the supposed financial dependence if we are starting from a co-responsibility basis. We are all co-responsible for the planet. But some countries are much more so because they have caused greater distortions and destruction; And those are the industrialized countries.

If there is a change of government, a change of majority and the new government wants to extract the oil, what are the mechanisms that would prevent this?

There is to begin with a constitutional basis that prevents oil activities in protected areas and in isolated peoples' territories. To do so would require authorization from the National Assembly and eventually a popular consultation. If that were the case, society would have to work to ensure that this does not happen.

One guarantee lies in the Yasuní Guarantee Certificates. Ecuador is expected to sell these Yasuní Guarantee Certificates, which could generate between 5,000 and 6,000 million dollars. If Ecuador begins with activities to extract oil from ITT, it automatically loses this fund and runs out of the income it would generate. That fund would revert to the countries, to the people who gave the money. That is a guarantee.

Furthermore, the government that makes this ill-advised decision must consider that several years pass from the beginning of exploration activities until the first barrel of oil flows. Specifically, in that period, Ecuador would not have the income of said trust, nor those that would be generated by the export of crude.

Another guarantee: if the oil is extracted, that extracted oil should, in my opinion, become the property of the natural and legal persons who contributed to finance the fund. But here are two problems. One: the Ecuadorian government can say “I am not exporting this oil. This oil, I am using it inside, the one I export is from another field, it belongs to private companies ”, for example. It can get to a situation where we no longer export oil, we are oil importers. Then there would be no oil to seize. Furthermore, in Ecuador there is a constitutional problem. We cannot dispose of the reserves because oil is a State asset, an unattachable, unenforceable, inalienable resource.

So, you have to find a mechanism so that this oil stays in the subsoil forever. That is why the commitment of the international community and, by the way, of Ecuadorian society is important.

There must be an additional guarantee. We propose an international oversight so that the money obtained is used properly, in no way for the purchase of weapons or for extractive activities, mining for example, because it would be irrational.

How could this example be extended to the other countries of the South?

In the Kyoto Convention, there is what is called Annex 1: the rich countries that have to lower emissions - Europe, the United States (even if it has not ratified it), Japan. Then in Annex 2 are the other countries that have no obligations. A pending issue is the responsibilities that emerging economies must assume, such as China, Brazil, Russia, and South Korea, which are polluting a lot.

We are proposing the constitution of Annex 0. In other words, countries that carry out enormous efforts to protect the atmosphere, such as Ecuador by leaving the oil on land in the ITT. These countries should have preferential treatment in terms of international trade, international finance.

It would be necessary to see how a multiplication of this type of projects takes place. I think it is a very interesting exercise.

Where are we getting with all this? Sure it can cause some problems. For example, from the logic of a person in the European Union, faced with the possibility of this type of project becoming widespread, one could ask, what do I use to make my car work? What did it burn to make the heating in my house work? Who supports my welfare? Here comes the heart of the ITT initiative. It is not just about leaving the oil on the ground and achieving all the objectives set out above, which are very valid indeed. What is sought is to change the lifestyle of all the inhabitants of the planet. Not so many cars will be needed, more public transport will be required, less polluting. It will require public transport vehicles that run on electricity, which is not generated with oil, carbon or nuclear energy. Where are we getting to? To think of a different world, where respect for life is at the center.

Precisely, in Western countries, we talk about well-being. Here we speak of "Sumak Kawsay" or "Good living", concepts that come mainly from the indigenous movement and are recognized in the Ecuadorian Constitution. Can you explain these concepts and what is the difference between "well-being" and "good living"?

Well-being and good living are different concepts. They are concepts that deserve to be clarified. We, in the Montecristi Constituent Assembly, have been discussing these issues for more than a year and promoting changes by opening the door to debate. The starting point was to recognize the cultural contributions of indigenous peoples and nationalities. In Ecuador, the Kichwas speak of the “Sumak Kawsay”. In Bolivia, the Aymara speak of "Suma Qamaña". They are visions of the world that seek greater harmony between the human being with himself, the human being with his fellow human beings and the human being with nature. That is a vision that emerges from these indigenous proposals.

Having said the above, let us understand that in understanding the meaning that people's lives have and should have, in indigenous societies there is no concept of development. That is, there is no conception of a linear process that establishes an earlier or later state. There is no vision of a state of underdevelopment to be overcome. And neither is a state of development to be reached. There does not exist, as in the western vision, this dichotomy that explains and differentiates a large part of the ongoing processes. For indigenous peoples there is no traditional conception of poverty associated with the lack of material goods or wealth linked to their abundance.

From the indigenous worldview, social improvement - its development? - It is a category in permanent construction and reproduction. In it, life itself is at stake. Continuing with this holistic approach, due to the diversity of elements to which human actions that promote Good Living are conditioned, material goods are not the only determinants. Hay otros valores en juego: el conocimiento, el reconocimiento social y cultural, los comportamientos éticos e incluso espirituales en la relación con la sociedad y la Naturaleza, los valores humanos, la visión de futuro, entre otros. El Buen Vivir aparece como una categoría en la filosofía de vida de las sociedades indígenas ancestrales, que ha perdiendo terreno por efecto de las prácticas y mensajes de la modernidad occidental. Su aporte, sin embargo, sin llegar a una equivocada idealización, nos invita a asumir otros “saberes” y otras prácticas.

Pero la visión andina no es la única fuente de inspiración para impulsar el Buen Vivir. Incluso desde círculos de la cultura occidental se levantan cada vez más voces que podrían estar de alguna manera en sintonía con esta visión indígena y viceversa. En el mundo se comprende, paulatinamente, la inviabilidad global del estilo de desarrollo dominante.

Frente a los devastadores efectos de los cambios climáticos, se plantean transformaciones profundas para que la humanidad pueda escapar con vida de los graves riesgos ecológicos y sociales en ciernes. El crecimiento material sin fin podría culminar en un suicidio colectivo, tal como parece augurar el mayor recalentamiento de la atmósfera o el deterioro de la capa de ozono, la pérdida de fuentes de agua dulce, la erosión de la biodiversidad agrícola y silvestre, la degradación de suelos o la propia desaparición de espacios de vida de las comunidades locales…

Para empezar, el concepto mismo de crecimiento económico debe ser reubicado en una dimensión adecuada. Crecimiento económico no es sinónimo de desarrollo.

Desde esas perspectivas múltiples planteamos la idea del “buen vivir” o “Sumak Kawsay”, como una oportunidad a ser construida. En definitiva no hay una definición rígida del buen vivir. La estamos construyendo en el mundo, no sólo en Ecuador.

Lo que si sabemos es que aquí no nos interesa el bienestar tradicional entendido como la acumulación de bienes materiales. Tampoco buscamos el bienestar dominando a la naturaleza, imponiéndonos a nosotros sobre la naturaleza. Esa lógica del bienestar, para nosotros, no existe. Entonces, aquí, incluso, tendremos que comenzar a elaborar nuevos indicadores para leer como avanzamos en esta idea del buen vivir.

Este proyecto no es la única iniciativa a nivel internacional que tomó el gobierno de Correa sino que es parte de una multitud de medidas para luchar contra la pobreza, el cambio climático y para intentar cambiar el sistema de desarrollo. ¿Cuáles son estas otras medidas?

Ecuador ha asumido un liderazgo internacional en varios temas, muchos de ellos relacionados con la soberanía. Somos, por ejemplo, un territorio de paz, sin bases militares extranjeras. Hemos promovido una agenda de visibilización de las deudas ilegítimas. Desconocimos al CIADI, aquel sistema de arbitraje dependiente del Banco Mundial, como instancia de arbitraje internacional que protege a las inversiones de las transnacionales. Hemos sido importantes promotores de una nueva integración regional. Somos pioneros en el reconocimiento de los derechos de la naturaleza.

Ha habido otras señales muy importantes. Por ejemplo, en la OPEP el presidente Correa planteó la necesidad de introducir un impuesto a cada barril de petróleo que salga del subsuelo. Eso ya lo había propuesto conceptualmente Herman Daly, un economista ecológico que trabajó muchos años en el Banco Mundial. Correa tuvo el mérito de plantearlo políticamente. Lamentablemente, hasta ahora ha quedado como una propuesta interesante y no ha prosperado. Este impuesto permitiría tener un fondo al nivel mundial para financiar el uso de energías alternativas, renovables, para transitar hacia una economía pos-petrolera, indispensable en el planeta. Recordemos que ese es uno de los objetivos del proyecto ITT: caminar hacia una economía post-petrolera, una economía que no dependa tanto del petróleo.

Y luego también, el gobierno del presidente Correa está apoyando la iniciativa del Banco del Sur, está apoyando la iniciativa del fondo de reservas latinoamericano, está apoyando la iniciativa del SUCRE (Sistema Único de Compensación Regional).

Apoyó también la iniciativa del Tribunal Internacional de Arbitraje de Deuda Soberana.

Pero sinteticemos estos esfuerzos son resultado de las luchas de resistencia y de construcción colectiva desde la sociedad ecuatoriana. Se avanza en algunos aspectos. El gobierno, recogiendo esas iniciativas colectivas, abre puertas. Pero, por igual hay que lamentar, que este mismo gobierno es incapaz de abrir el debate sobre el futuro de la economía extractivista, que al parecer se reproduciría si se sostiene la posibilidad para inversiones en el ámbito de la minería metálica a gran escala y a cielo abierto, tal como plantea la ley de minería aprobada a inicios de este año [2009], por este gobierno que alienta la iniciativa ITT.-

Matthieu Le Quang – Candidato al doctorado en ciencia política en el Instituto de Estudios Políticos de Aix-en-Provence. Investigador asociado a la FLACSO sede Ecuador

Video: February 2021 FCWG Learning Exchange Series: Innovative Approaches to Increasing Carbon on Landscape (May 2021).