Summary 2: Oil Development: Opportunities or Threats?

Tanya Korovkin (2003), in her article, “In Search of Dialogue: Oil Companies and Indigenous Peoples of the Ecuadorian Amazon,” and Suzanna Sawyer (2004) in her chapter “Crude Chronicles: Indigenous Politics, Multicultural Oil and Neoliberalism in Ecuador,” demonstrates that oil development means something very different for indigenous people than it does for the developers.  The developer’s drive to exploit resources for profit from the lands on which indigenous people reside is seen by the indigenous people as destructive both to the environment and to their traditional lifestyle, beliefs, and customs.  Moreover, the material profits derived rarely benefit the indigenous people in terms of opportunities for employment or social improvements; rather, underdevelopment and unemployment persist in the indigenous communities, threatening their lands and their survival as a people.

 Korovkin (2003) claims that oil development in the Ecuadorian Amazon does not address the need for improvement in indigenous communities. Oil companies have been in the area for decades, but the problems of poverty, disease, and other social issues among the indigenous people still exist.  The only ones who have benefited from development are the oil companies. The indigenous people were coerced into agreements of limited benefits, which in fact caused the mass destruction of their territory. The indigenous communities closer to the urban centers were able to gain more benefits than the more isolated communities in terms of community and economic development. Yet, at the same time, these less remote communities continue to have more conflicts, social problems, and poor health. Although the remoter communities have received fewer economic and social benefits of development, they are more able to maintain their traditional lifestyle and customs, having had less interference from urban centers.

In her article, Korovkin (2003) provides an analysis of the role played by the state, government, and multinational corporations in the development of the oil industry in the Ecuadorian Amazon and of the effect it had on the indigenous people and the environment. The abstract points out that there are no positive results to either the indigenous people or to the environment.  Korovkin (2003) makes clear oil development in Ecuador is influenced by “neoliberal economic thought, with its emphasis on private enterprise" (p.1).

            Private enterprises may include in their agenda a commitment to the principle of environmental and social responsibility; for example, according to Korovkin (2003), “Some companies proclaimed their willingness to put social and environmental issues on their agenda” (p.1). They even argued that indigenous people would benefit from this industry (p. 1). The nature of the government policy and its regulations determines whether the principle of environmental and social responsibility will be respected and how effective it will be. Their record in Ecuador and other parts of the world shows that the oil industry’s commitment to socially and environmentally ethical development, to benefit indigenous people and their lands, is undermined by the overriding objective of maximizing the profit from the land. This profit mentality has weakened the good intentions to respect the land and benefit the people living in the area.

According to Korovkin (2003, “the environmental damage, caused by the oil development between 1962 and 1990s was enormous. . . . Texaco had built a vast system which contributed to the colonization and deforestation of almost 2.5 million acres (p. 6). She also points out that “[o]ver the same time period,” there were “30 major spills, with a total loss of 16.8 million gallons of gas,” and “over 600 open pits with toxic waste” were abondoned (p. 6). “All this led to an increased incidence of gastrointestinal diseases, skin problems, birth defects, and cancer among the indigenous population” (p.6).  The devastating impact of oil development on indigenous communities that Korovkin addresses in her article is consistent with the destruction Suzanna Sawyer (2004) describes in her study; both authors describe how corporations are carrying out their assault on the environment and on indigenous communities under the guise of neoliberalism.

In her chapter, “Crude Chronicles: Indigenous Politics, Multicultural Oil and Neoliberalism in Ecuador,” Saywer (2004) discusses the concept of neoliberalism, showing that advocates of neoliberalism argue that democracy and progress ensure the economy will flourish.  However, this process has led to crisis governance, failing economy, and environmental disaster in Ecuador. The neoliberal focus of the government that favored the multinational corporations did not acknowledge indigenous concerns. This led to the indigenous people protesting for their legal rights to their lands and for control of the development on their lands and a share in the profits. As one protester read from the “manifesto,” “The toma [takeover] is a peaceful action to denounce and to demand changes in [the state’s] petroleum policies” (p. 92). The indigenous people were affirming their ancestral right to the land and their democratic right to voice their opposition to multinational corporations like the oil industry that did not provide for progress or positive change in their communities and despoiled their lands. 

            The Ecuador government wanted to provide a legal framework to modernize the oil industry. The government firmly believed that economic globalization can be addressed by a strong legal framework that will lead to economic development to benefit the country. However, Texaco had proven to be a disaster for the Ecuadorian Amazon environment and indigenous people in 1967, confirming the feeling of the indigenous people that the oil industry was there only for its own profits and that its promises of economic development and benefits to the indigenous people were empty. Texaco is another classic example of a multinational that has made millions from the oil industry only to leave the country in a state of environmental disaster, without benefitting the indigenous people.

            Further, according to Sawyer (2004), the country`s economy needed reviving; the government’s answer was that “intensified oil activity would do the trick; it would ‘create employment, transfer technology, and generate economic resources for national development’” (p. 94). Although Ecuador talked about private sharing of the resources, that never materialized for the indigenous people.  Through their protest, the indigenous people expressed their desire for change to end the paternalistic and unequal relations between the oil industry, government, and indigenous people.

Ultimately, oil development has meant social ruin for the indigenous people in Ecuador. Lago Agrio, an oil town Texaco established as the base of their operations in the late 1960`s, is a good example of this. According to Sawyer (2004),  “Despite being located in an oil rich region, Lago Agrio was (and is) poverty ridden. In 1994, roughly twenty-five years after its inception, Lago Agrio was still marked by potholed, crude-strewn, muddy streets, open sewers, . . . . It symbolized all the ills of oil work – what the CONAIE characterized as ‘poles of disease, contamination, prostitution, and drug trafficking,’ not ‘poles of development and modernization’” (p. 99). Texaco created a “toxic terror” in their push to boost corporate revenues without taking any precautions to protect the environment (p.99).

Oil development in the Ecuador Amazon has clearly been of little or no benefit to indigenous people, according to these two studies by Korovkin (2003) and Sawyer (2004). The indigenous communities closer to urban centers get marginalized benefit from development, more so than isolated communities, but often at a cost to their indigenous lifestyle, while the more remote communities received no benefit but were able to maintain their traditional lifestyle and practices. Clearly, the underlying intent of the oil industries—to exploit the land and maximize their profits—undermines any promises of good will toward either the people or their land, thereby ultimately diminishing opportunities and increasing threats.