The Center for Economic and Social Rights’ work in the Ecuadorian Amazon (the “Oriente”) serves to highlight many of the obstacles and advantages to ESCR advocacy and offers some concrete strategies. By way of background, CESR got its start nine years ago during the Gulf War. It grew out of a pair of missions organized by U.S. graduate students to Iraq in the war’s aftermath that documented the devastating impacts to Iraqi society caused by the bombing of civilian infrastructure. The missions were a harbinger of future ESCR work: 1. They required enormous amounts of social science research and expertise; 2. They were controversial – 90% of the U.S. public supported the war and many human rights figures were still lauding the widely heralded “clean weapons” and adherence to Geneva Conventions, 3. Their impact depended almost entirely on the ability to sensationalize the data and downplay politically unpopular positions (thus the mainstream press headlines: “170,000 civilian deaths” rather than “U.S. violates international law”), 4. They targeted international actors (the U.S. and UN) and were at odds with all the major political and economic forces; 5. They struggled to find practical, clean-cut solutions; 6. They were funded under the guise of international peace and security, rather than ESCR.
CESR was established with the initial strategy of finding and addressing high profile ESCR violations in order to raise awareness about ESCR and to develop concrete advocacy models. One of CESR’s first projects confronted the petroleum-related contamination of the Oriente, perhaps the most biologically diverse and fragile environment on earth and home to a number of threatened indigenous groups. When CESR first investigated the issue, multinational petroleum corporations alongside the State company had been operating for 25 years in the area with virtually no governmental oversight. They had dumped billions of gallons of toxic wastes into the environment, poisoning the land and waterways and causing serious health and nutritional problems to surrounding communities. Indigenous groups had been driven off traditional lands and some were on the edge of extinction. Local environmentalists and indigenous federations had managed to draw attention to the problems, but their campaigns lacked both scientific and legal clout.
CESR’s first step as an international “outsider” was to meet with all of the most active groups working on the issue. The struggle against oil involves two primary social sectors, indigenous groups fighting to protect their cultures, territory, wildlife and environment, and campesinos or “colonos” (who make up 70% of the Oriente population) struggling with contaminated farmlands and drinking water and the loss of livestock. Since many of the colonos arrived alongside the oil companies, indigenous groups often blame them for the deforestation and loss of land and wildlife. A number of NGOs and institutions also play a role in the Amazon, including environmental groups (both national and international), local human rights groups, health promoters, development groups, the Catholic Church missions, the petroleum workers union and the local radio station.
In its first trip to Ecuador, CESR spent a week interviewing these organizations in Quito and the Amazon. The campaign against oil had begun a few years before, but it was still relatively fresh. Groups were struggling with all of the obstacles listed above and were not well united. Based on its discussions with these organizations, CESR sought to collaborate with the principal activist sectors -- indigenous groups, environmentalists and a nascent campesino coalition – and decided that its most useful contribution would come from providing three things: scientific proof of the harms caused by oil, raising awareness about the rights violations implicated, and strengthening local campaigns. Its strategy involved four discrete steps:
CESR’s first step was in line with traditional human rights fact-finding. However, documenting violations of the rights to health and a healthy environment (RHHE) required more than legal investigation and interviews. CESR found a number of experts affiliated with the Harvard School of Public Health and a private environmental consultant to volunteer their time to the project. With a team comprised of a doctor, two lawyers, an Ecuadorian biologist, a toxicologist, and a public health expert, CESR spent two weeks in the Amazon collecting samples from local water supplies and interviewing and examining local residents. In subsequent trips, CESR interviewed local activists, indigenous leaders, lawyers, government officials, and representatives from the State and private oil companies.
A U.S. laboratory found high levels of toxic wastes linked to oil production in the water samples and the doctor’s examinations found signs of exposure to these contaminants. The Quito interviews uncovered a total absence of effective regulation of the oil industry and an absence of basic legal protections for affected Amazonian residents (not a single successful legal action at the national level). Based on international treaties and the national Constitution, the Ecuadorian government was in clear violation of the RHHE.
However, these rights do not enjoy the same level of legal precision of CPR and there is little legal commentary and few precedents to determine the exact nature of government obligations and corresponding violations. Accordingly, CESR took a minimalist approach and highlighted only the most unambiguous violations:
The RHHE include a number of additional obligations to “promote” and “fulfill” the right, which might include ensuring potable water and access to basic medical services for all Amazon residents, and participation in health programs and development decisions. However, given the existing lack of political and legal support for ESCR, CESR stuck to only the most obvious, least controversial obligations.
CESR also faced a difficult issue relating to private actors. While, Petroecuador was a major player in the Amazon, most of the damage had been wrought by Texaco (a company with four times the annual earnings of Ecuador’s GNP), and a number of other private companies were also active in violations. Additionally, the World Bank was funding development projects in the Amazon linked to petroleum. Local leaders and activists were much more concerned about the private companies, and viewed the exclusive focus on the state as unfair and even counter-productive. Based on these concerns, CESR included a section in its report discussing the role of private actors and the importance of holding them accountable and indigenous and environmental groups contributed introductory pieces about the abuses of Texaco, but the report’s focus was still on the State’s obligations.
After producing the report in Spanish and English, CESR held press conferences in both the U.S. and Ecuador to publicize the findings. The fact that foreign scientists and lawyers linked to Harvard were involved in the study gave it weight with local and international media, but it also risked overshadowing the efforts of local groups to document the damages. Accordingly, CESR did all of its outreach and media work in collaboration with local groups.
Following the press conferences, CESR and local activists organized forums in Quito and the Amazon aimed at NGOs, government leaders, academics and community leaders to discuss the report’s findings. CESR also worked with local partners to produce and disseminate a comic book to make the issues more accessible to a wider audience.
In terms of attracting media and public attention, the following issues were probably most helpful, in order: first, that it was a “Harvard-supported” study; second, that there was an increased risk of cancer; and third that it involved human rights violations. While oil development has impacted local communities in a number of ways, cancer was the one health issue that most attracted the media (e.g. the New York Times headline “Oil linked to risk of Cancer in Ecuador”). It provided a hook to raise a number of other issues, but sometimes eclipsed everything else (e.g. malnutrition and stomach problems linked to oil, which are far more prevalent). Human rights provided a new take on what had been largely viewed through an environmental or indigenous framework and definitely helped attract attention, but not as much as either of the first two issues. Rights were CESR’s primary concern and CESR highlighted them, along with corresponding government and industry obligations, at every chance.
Given the complexity of the issue, CESR and partners took advantage of a number of different political and legal fora to pressure for changes. In Ecuador, the National Congress provided fertile ground. With the support of some progressive Congressional leaders, CESR and allies helped prompt a Congressional investigation of Texaco and Petroecuador that led to a three-day trip to the affected sites in the Amazon with the Minister of Energy and Mines, high ranking industry officials, Congressional members, the mainstream media and a handful of community leaders and NGOs (including CESR). The trip was widely covered in the media and opened a door to the Ministry of Energy and Mines for affected communities.
In the U.S., CESR and other U.S. NGOs helped organize visits of Ecuadorian environmental and indigenous leaders with the U.S. State Department, Congressional representatives, and World Bank officials. These meetings were designed to raise awareness of the conduct of U.S. multinationals in Ecuador and to bring pressure on the companies and Ecuadorian government to make reforms. CESR also helped bring a groundbreaking lawsuit on behalf of Ecuadorian plaintiffs against Texaco in U.S. federal courts, based largely on the scientific study,7 and helped bring Ecuadorian representatives to speak at Texaco shareholder meetings as an additional way of pressuring the company.
Two separate legal actions related to the oil issue were brought before international commissions. In 1990, a U.S. environmental group brought a complaint to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission on behalf of an Ecuadorian indigenous federation protesting the activities of a private oil company. Five years after the complaint was filed, the Commission visited Ecuador and devoted a section of their 1997 Country Report to the problems caused by oil development in the Oriente that touched on both industry activities and government neglect. Another case relating to Texaco and brought before the International Water Tribunal in Europe elicited similar support for the rights of indigenous groups facing oil companies. The Tribunal has no governmental authority, but it helped attract international attention.
Among these various legal initiatives, the most useful (and most resource- and time-consuming) has been the lawsuit. Despite the lack of progress on the case, it has attracted enormous media attention in Ecuador and internationally and has provoked a great deal of Congressional and governmental activity in Ecuador. The suit has reinforced the idea among the Ecuadorian public that “rights” are at stake and that the industry has been acting with irresponsible double standards. Texaco has clearly felt pressure from the lawsuit and has made payments to some of the most prominent Amazonian indigenous leaders to undermine organizing around the case. While the OAS and IWT actions were both successful, they were in large part hollow victories as very little follow-up was done around either case. The decisions have not been the subject of any organizing or media attention and neither Texaco nor the government has responded directly.
CESR was intent on using the report to raise awareness about the rights to health and a healthy environment and to promote long-term oversight and activism around these and other ESCR. Towards that end, CESR worked with local environmentalists and indigenous leaders to organize workshops among Amazon communities focused on oil-related impacts and rights.
These workshops and the lawsuit helped spark the formation of “the Frente de Defensa de la Amazonia” a coalition of primarily colono communities joined to support the Texaco suit and to resist irresponsible oil activities. The Frente leads efforts with other institutions in the Amazon (the Church, development groups, the regional radio station, high schools and NGOs) to monitor and report on oil activities and to educate residents about their rights. While corruption and political campaigns have distracted the Amazon indigenous federation, the Frente has successfully established itself as a unique local voice on oil issues with close relations to congressional and social leaders and the national media.
Rights training has become a central piece of capacity building among a number of NGOs and indigenous groups working in the Amazon. These efforts, along with organizing and consciousness-raising, have had a tremendous impact on the dynamic of oil development in the Amazon. In 1993, when CESR first visited the Oriente, many residents had no idea about the link between oil and health problems and oil activities were simply accepted as part of the normal course of development. Six years later, not only are these communities aware of the impacts, they know that their rights are being violated and they are often active in denouncing violations.
6 According to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, a state violates the rights of its citizens “when the State allows private persons or groups to act freely and with impunity to the detriment of the rights recognized...” Velasquez Rodriguez Case, Inter-Am Ct. H.R. ¶166 (Aug. 31, 1988)
7 The suit was initially dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens (e.g. Ecuador would be the more appropriate site for the case), it was reinstated by the Court of Appeals and is awaiting a decision.