OIL OR CASH: Ecuador is looking to be paid to keep oil underground and preserve the biodiversity-rich Yasuni region.
Image: flickr/joshbousel
Ecuador is eyeing the international Green Climate Fund as a way to help pay for its plan to trade oil for forests, a top government representative said.
Heading the campaign, former Ecuadorean ambassador to the United States Ivonne A-Baki said on a swing through Washington last week that she was frustrated with the U.S. government's indifference to the cause of Yasuní National Park.
She hopes to raise the profile of the lush rainforest in the run-up to this summer's U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, also called Rio+20. The national park is located where the Andes Mountains, the Amazon Basin and the equator meet and is regarded as one of the most biodiverse places on Earth.
Yasuní also happens to be the site of Ecuador's largest untapped oil reserves -- nearly 1 billion barrels. President Rafael Correa has vowed not to drill there, under the condition that the international community chip in for his country's lost revenue. About $3.6 billion, to be precise, about half the estimated value of the reserves.
"It means sacred land, 'protected by God,' according to the communities that live there," A-Baki said, showing off a green cloth bracelet reading Juntos por el Yasuní, or "Together for the Yasuní," jangling alongside Turkish beads and indigenous Amazonian charm bracelets.
"You stay there just one day, and you are rejuvenated like being in a spa for the month. It's so pure, so clean. It feels like the place where life began," she said. Ecuador, A-Baki said, "still needs oil. We are a developing country, and we are not the one that is polluting the world. But we still believe this is a place that needs to be preserved."
Correa's plan has been dubbed everything from ecological blackmail to the world's most unique strategy for protecting the Amazon. But as the debate unfolds, one thing is clear: The money is not flowing fast. Celebrities from Bo Derek to Leonardo DiCaprio have pledged support, but so far, Ecuador has raised though a U.N. fund $116.9 million, the bulk of which comes from Italy in the form of a $50 million debt forgiveness.
Celebrities vs. skeptics
"There's a lot of folks who are skeptical at this point, because they haven't come up with the money and it's taken a long time," said Kevin Koenig, Ecuador program coordinator for Amazon Watch. "At this point, we would have hoped there would be more donations."
Spain has donated $1.4 million, with about another $6.5 million on the way, A-Baki said. The Andean Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank each have put $1 million toward the initiative, and a handful of countries, including Peru, Colombia, Germany, Georgia, Turkey and Australia, have donated between $100,000 and $500,000. Several private individuals, companies and regional government bodies in France and Belgium also are pitching in at growing rates.
Conspicuously absent: the United States.
"I don't even want to meet with the State Department anymore, because we aren't getting anything out of them," A-Baki said, waving her arm dismissively. Speaking in her former office at the Ecuadorean Embassy in Georgetown, she said Washington's disinterest in climate change is to blame. "They don't believe in climate change. ... They don't see it as a priority," she said.
Meeting with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) on Thursday, A-Baki described the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as "very positive" about the Yasuní initiative and regretful of the absence of U.S. funding.
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentWho does Correa think he is? A supervillain? "Pay me 3.6 billion dollars, or I'll destroy the most biologically diverse place on Earth!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm shocked that anyone is sending him any money at all.
Blackmail..where do I send the check?....STUPID.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCanada has national parks that together cover much more territory than all of Equador. No resource development allowed. Equadorans should sends us money in compensation.
"I'm a serial destroyer of habitat, please stop me before I "pump" again". "Just send money"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis sick idea isn't getting much love here I see.
Of course this is high-stakes blackmail, and of a most vile sort, too. When Ecuador does extract the oil (and I think they will) you know they will moan about how horrible it is that the world wouldn't pitch in and save this nearly sacred spot of bio-diversity (get ready, they'll lay it on thick). The regrets about the callousness of the world community will be sung all the way to the bank.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course none of that hyperbole could happen; I'm just exercising my inner Drama Queen.
Keeping that oil in the ground won't keep any CO2 out of the atmosphere, we'll just burn some other oil. Keeping the trees is a good idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is like kidnapping your own child and demanding a ransom. Words fail me to adequately describe people capable of this, which is probably best. My comment would be removed...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow! ...and the right calls treehuggers eco-terrorists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe all know that the oil industry is going to take this oil anyway. Ecuador has already sold off most of it's rain forest to wealthy Europeans and Americans decades ago. Of the 270,000 sq.kilometers it once had in rainforest, only 44,000 remain and they are still cutting 3,000 more this year. Most of that land has turned into a baked clay desert similar to the badlands. Nothing now grows there now, not even grass to raise cattle.
If they want the rest of the forest that is left to look like Nigeria that's their problem. America has their hands full trying to keep the greed mongers from destroying what is left of our own forests, national parks and farmlands.
It is high time these ignorant aristocrats in Ecuador eat their own crows. They can be the next great example to the world of what unchecked development looks like.
Facts of what could have / would happen from the best to the worst scenario :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(1) they protect it themselves full stop.
(2) they ask for money, get it and protect the forest for a time long enough until the petroleum pressure stops or until climate change is not an issues (eg : a stabilized sustainable world population based on green energies).
(3) they drill it without asking anybody.
(4) they ask for money, get it and at next government start to drill it.
(5) as point 4, but they invest most of the money into luxury poluant staff (a standard for most new rich) especially long distance travel if possible into space with private rockets (curious to see the CO2 profile of these).
So now we see that the actual government proposal is the 2nd best on a 5 scale, and if they manage to invest it into eco-friendly project it could event be 1st! So why all these negative comments?
Objective question : how do you avoid point 4 or 5 to happen if they get enough money? Here is the solution :
(a) It should get in slowly.
(b) It should be invested in environmental projects that would by their natures be opposed to the petrol drilling, like contraception &family planing help, wind mills, education & eco-education, etc.
(c) It should have strong & eco-friendly retaliation if they don't keep their promises, like wiping off all their foreign bank accounts and possessions to invest it on green projects somewhere else.
(d) We should come up with more ideas, because it should be secured until the world eco-stabilizes so probably for about 100 years.
There is no real reason not to drill. All they need to do is be careful to minimize impact. Many areas are drilled for oil and suffer no bad impact. Just don't allow fracking. One pipeline and a maintenance road and you should be good to go. Cut the locals in for a share of revenue and most of them will find it to be divinely inspired.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@bucketofsquid : there are plenty of good reason not to drill :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(1) save the forest and the array! I don't believe (*a) in the one road one station = very low impact, because once you have that, you have desacralisation of the full array and everythings becomes good to be taken, like the wood because the array is already spoiled by a drilling complex etc. Even so what do you do wuth a beautiful natural park with driling spot in the middle? Like a beautiful face with a nose cancer ... not a good prospect for the future!
(2) 2nd good reason, keep these resource as long as possible in the ground to avoid pollution
(3) Avoid wasting petrol, may be indispensable and very rare in a few centuries.
(4) Try to keep petriol price as high as possible si it encourage green energies.
etc.............................................................