Lucia

de Vernai

Read Lucia's bio and previous columns

September 24, 2007

Oil in Ecuador: Pay Up or the Pandas Get It!

The price of crude oil has jumped again courtesy of new political maneuvering. The good news is that this time around, no Texans, phantom weapons of mass destruction or unnecessary deaths are the cause. The bad news is that the present price tag on the contested resource can fuel a different kind of global crisis.

Ecuador has announced that it will not drill the estimated one de Vernaiion barrels of oil that sit under the Yasuni National Park, believed to be one of the most bio-diverse regions on the planet, provided the international community agrees to pay – er – donate $350 million in exchange. Sadly, even the members of the international community that were quick to denounce questionable choices for the sake of oil are taking the offer seriously.

Germany has already announced that it is considering the proposal. Norway is getting ready to send a delegation (of course), and the Italian parliament is scheduled to vote on the issue shortly. Everyone has an interventionist streak in them, the difference is that the Europeans are in it to protect some tree frogs, not kill some Arabs. Still, the outcome may be a rather unpleasant one.

Money comes with strings. Lots of money comes with lots of strings. There is no way for one country to donate all the money, so the Ecuadorian government will have to please different masters to keep the donation increments coming. That is assuming the best-case scenario. There really isn’t a convincing argument for why they should not take the money, use it to whatever ends they wish and drill anyway.

The park is located in a UN biosphere reserve, and paying ransom for it opens the door for bio-cultural blackmail. Participating in Ecuador’s plan may lead to “Pay up or the pandas get it!" or “Get your troops out or marvel at the six wonders of the world!” Extreme? Yes, and that is what makes it so disconcerting. The Taliban will be kicking itself for using force back in 2001 without asking, “Exactly how much do you like those Buddhas?”

That is not to say that the Ecuadorian government does not have good intentions. Paying off national debt is something with which we can – or should – sympathize. Yet it is only logical to ask whether the government’s designated areas of aid will be receiving it two or three decades from now, or even after the next election.

This accounts for the developed world perspective, but what about the Ecuadorians? They certainly need the funds, and trying to get them by not using their oil reserves is a new kind of money-making strategy for natural resources. Even internal commentators predict that the idealistic goal of preserving the Park is unrealistic, mostly because of growing dissatisfaction on the part of the country’s energy producers. Their discomfort may soon lead to political change that favors the extraction of oil, much to the dismay of some very disgruntled Germans, Italians and Norwegian delegates.

The world certainly does not need more international conflict over natural resources, and good plans and intentions do not mitigate its threat.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.