 in his post, Martínez pushed hard for ITT-Yasuní and held discussions with the economist. Later, Acosta took up the idea of ITT-Yasuní with other government officials, a development which provoked a “confrontation” within the Correa regime.
Acosta’s colleagues could not understand why the Minister of Energy and Mines no less would want to keep Amazonian oil in the ground. In particular, Acosta encountered resistance from the state oil company Petroecuador which sought to actually accelerate petroleum development in the rainforest. In addition to serving as minister, Acosta was president of Petroecuador’s board of directors during this time. However, little did Acosta know that behind his back the company’s executive president was seeking to seal deals with the Brazilian and Venezuelan state energy companies amongst others in an effort to move forward with controversial oil exploration.
Oil and gas blocks in the western Amazon. Solid yellow indicates blocks already leased out to companies. Hashed yellow indicates proposed blocks or blocks still in the negotiation phase. Protected areas shown are those considered strictly protected by the IUCN (categories I to III).
Image courtesy of PLoS ONE
At one tense Petroecuador board meeting, Correa himself showed up and heard the arguments both for and against oil exploration in the Amazon. At long last, the president agreed to leave the oil in the ground as long as Ecuador could acquire some sort of international financial compensation. Today in Copenhagen Ecuador is proud of its ITT-Yasuní plan but according to Acosta the president has been a reluctant environmentalist, at times raising objections to the scheme and at others moving to slow down momentum and crucial progress.
More significantly, in early 2009 the Ecuadoran authorities moved to shut down Acción Ecológíca — the very same organization which had proven so crucial in pushing the ITT-Yasuní proposal in the first place. Claiming that the group had “not complied with the aims for which it [the NGO] was created,” the government withdrew Acción Ecológíca’s legal charter. Speaking to the Ecuadoran media, Esperanza Martínez expressed shock and dismay at the move. The Correa government, she declared, was simply trying to silence its environmental critics.
The government vehemently denied the charges but in light of the timing it’s possible the environmentalists were correct in their suspicions. Indeed, the government acted to shut down Acción Ecológica shortly after the NGO called for sanctions against a consortium operating an environmentally problematic oil pipeline.
For a year before that Acción Ecológica had furthermore opposed Correa’s new mining law which in the NGO’s view solely benefited transnational mining companies at the expense of local communities. Though the authorities later moved to reestablish Acción Ecológica’s legal status, the heavy handed government decision came as a shock to some foreign and progressive Ecuadorans who had otherwise been heartened by Correa’s ecologically friendly proposals like ITT-Yasuní.
If the Accíon Ecológica affair was not enough of a big, black blot on Correa’s environmental record consider the president’s retrograde attitude towards natural resources. Though Indians backed Correa’s initial election they later grew leery of the government when authorities pushed for a new law regulating water. The proposed law, they said, would lead to an eventual privatization of water resources. Concerned about mining and water, and apprehensive about oil development proceeding on their lands, Indians recently protested the Correa regime by blocking Amazonian roads.
Condescendingly, Correa called Indians “infantile” for objecting to legislation which would deny them consultation on mining and oil drilling projects. “We do not accept that a government that says it is in favor of marginalized people should not take their views into account when it makes laws,” countered indigenous leader Humberto Cholango. “It’s inconceivable that laws as important as those on mining…should be passed without publ