Read about the latest developments with indigenous peoples' struggles in the Amazon to protect their cultures and environments. This Blog is to be educational, to keep Village Earth's supporters informed of developments in the Peruvian Amazon, and to serve as a vehicle for the promotion of the Shipibo peoples' projects.
Derrame de petróleo el 31 de diciembre de 2007 Foto: FECONACO
La Federación de Comunidades Nativas del río Corrientes (FECONACO) denunció un nuevo derrame de petróleo ocurrido el 31 de diciembre de 2007 el cual contaminó seis kilómetros de la quebrada de Timu Entsu, utilizada por los pobladores para labores de pesca y caza.
La denuncia fue presentada ante la Unidad de Exploración y Explotación del Organismo Supervisor de la Inversión Privada en Energía y Minería (OSINERMING).
La responsable de dicha acción delictiva es la empresa argentina Pluspetrol, responsable de explotar los lotes petroleros 1AB y 8, en la cuenca del río Corrientes, región Loreto.
La denuncia ha sido acompañada de fotos y videos tomados por los monitores ambientales de la mencionada organización indígena responsables desde el 2005 de monitorear y vigilar la calidad ambiental de su territorio.
FECONACO solicita investigar este nuevo derrame de petróleo que afecta no sólo el medio ambiente de los achuar, sino pone en riesgo la salud de los pobladores de las comunidades indígenas próximas a la zona del derrame.
Durante el año 2007 FECONACO denunció a Pluspetrol por los derrames de petróleo ocurridos en las siguientes fechas:
4 y 24 de abril : pozos Shiviyacu 12 y Shiviyacu 16 – 17.
17 de octubre: derrame en poza de seguridad Lote 1AB.
23 de octubre: fuga de petróleo de tubería de diesel.
24 de octubre: derrame de petróleo en el Lote 1AB.
29 de octubre: derrame de petróleo contaminó la quebrada Tseku Entsa.
Para mayor información comunicarse con FECONACO: +511 065-600454 ó +511 065-600455 Jorge Jordán : +511 254-2490 ó +511 952-36701
Thank you to all who supported this important campaign!
National and international allies staged an important protest outside the Houston Petroleum Club, while the vice president of AIDESEP (the Inter-ethnic Development Association of the Peruvian Amazon), Robert Guimaraes, took the opportunity to speak to potential investors and let them know the risks of investing in oil development in the Amazon.
Unfortunately, two of the three Shipibo delegates were not able to make the trip because their visas were denied by the US government. In many respects, this symbolizes the obstacles that indigenous people face in participating in global dialogue that are crucial in exercising the right to determine their own "development" path.
The good news is that Robert Guimaraes was able to deliver a powerful message to potential investors and to Perupetro, Peru's hydrocarbon licensing agency. Quoting Robert Guimaraes, "We request that you exclude those blocks that overlap communal indigenous territories. More that 80% of the population in Corrientes river, mostly children, have cadmium and lead in their blood. Just as for you there are things that cannot be negotiated, for us some things, like indigenous land, cannot be negotiated." The cadmium and lead that Robert refers to is the result of over 30 years of Oxy Petroleum operations in Northern Perú, where the Achuar people have been severely affected.
The Peruvian government's latest efforts to place the Amazon region in the hands of oil developers puts the entire Amazon at risk, especially indigenous people in voluntary isolation, and clearly violates international rights benchmarks such as Free, Prior and Informed Consent, contained in the recently approved UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (of which Peru is a signatory). It is precisely the Peruvian government's rather shameful attempt to manipulate, distort, and even suppress indigenous opposition to oil development that makes it so important to support indigenous leaders efforts to make their voices heard at international venues such as Perúpetro's Houston road-show. Otherwise, potential investors not only get a distorted view of indigenous opinion, but local indigenous people are excluded the global decision-making process that directly affect their lives.
Given that two of the delegates weren't able to come to Houston, we would like to continue with our efforts to support these types of crucial interventions. Perupetro is planning another event in August, again designed to divvy up the Amazon for even more oil development. With your continued support, we would like to help these delegates make their presence at this event as well. And hopefully the impact will be even greater.
Letter from AIDESEP to Peruvian Government Officials
Lima, 08 de Febrero de 2008.
Señores: Alan García Pérez Presidente Constitucional
Juan Valdivia Romero Ministro de Energía y Minas
Daniel Saba de Andrea Presidente PERUPETRO S.A.
Presente.-
Las comunidades indígenas de la amazonia peruana a través de nuestras organizaciones representativas, en múltiples oportunidades hemos manifestado nuestra firme posición de rechazar el ingreso de las compañías petroleras en nuestros territorios comunales, por que no queremos contaminar nuestros recursos naturales tales como bosques, ríos, quebradas, biodiversidad; en ella se desarrolla nuestras vidas, es nuestro espacio cultural y espiritual y de las futuras generaciones, queremos conservarla frente a los graves consecuencias tales como el calentamiento global y sus efectos los cambios climáticos.
Recientemente, el congreso ha aprobado la Ley Nº 28736, Según el artículo 4° deben respetar la vida y salud de los pueblos en situación de aislamiento voluntario por encontrarse en situación de alta vulnerabilidad, motivo por el cual se prohíben actividades de aprovechamiento de recursos, como son las actividades hidrocarburíferas, nada esto se está respetando en estos procesos de licitaciones, mal informando a los inversionistas, negando nuestras existencias. Los pueblos indígenas consideramos que la actividad petrolera no es la única fuente de ingresos para el país, queremos conservar nuestros recursos, comos lo hemos conservado con sabiduría, hoy vemos como se destruyen fácilmente.
Basta ya Señor Alan García, usted no puede calificar a los ciudadanos que los eligieron de “Perros del Hortelano” Somos pueblos con derechos, dignos de ser respetados y escuchados.
Peruvian Amazonian Leaders to Warn Oil Companies: “Don’t Trespass on Our Lands!”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 7, 2008
Peruvian Government Breaks Promises, International Laws with Plans to Sell Oil Concessions Overlapping Indigenous Reserves
See below for photo op. and media briefing details. Interviews, photos and B-Roll footage from Amazon available on request.
Houston – Indigenous leaders from the Peruvian Amazon will this Friday personally deliver a message to oil companies gathered at a concession road-show organized in Houston by Perupetro, Peru’s hydrocarbon licensing agency: “Don’t trespass on our lands!”
Robert Guimaraes, Vice-President of AIDESEP, Peru’s national federation of native Amazonians, will also be demanding an explanation from Perupetro and the Peruvian government why clear promises to avoid indigenous lands have been broken. The Perupetro road-show is part of the 2008 North American Prospect Expo (NAPE).
The concessions include four highly controversial concessions, 132, 133, 136 and 139, which have each failed to win any bidders in the past as the oil industry became aware that local indigenous communities would oppose any operations there.
The concessions would also violate international indigenous rights laws as well as the international human rights benchmark of Free, Prior and Informed Consent, contained in the recently approved UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In particular some of the last communities living in voluntary isolation anywhere in the Amazon, inside dedicated Territorial Reserves declared to protect them from contact with outsiders, are highly vulnerable due to their lack of imde munity to diseases.
Of the Amazonian blocks now being offered by Perupetro:
Four overlap titled indigenous lands;
Three intrude on Territorial Reserves for indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation;
Two overlap proposed Territorial Reserves for indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation;
One overlaps a Natural Protected Area.
Mr. Guimaraes said: “Our message to interested companies and their investors could not be clearer; you are not welcome here. We will do everything we can to stop you drilling on our territories and devastating our lands, communities and health. Please, for the good of your own companies, stay away.”
Perupetro’s roadshow comes as international investors grow increasingly concerned about the risks associated with oil extraction in remote areas of the Amazon.Last year, oil major ConocoPhilips voluntarily gave up part of an oil concession in the northern Peruvian Amazon because of unified opposition from the indigenous Achuar people.
Photo op. and media briefing
Featuring Mr. Guimaraes in traditional attire, outside the Petroleum Club, 800 Bell Street, downtown Houston, from 12.30pm to 1.30pm CST, Friday February 8.
Background
The latest sell-off comes despite assurances from Perupetro and the Peruvian government that it would respect indigenous rights and lands. In February 2007, the Peruvian government formally agreed that Perupetro would redraw its proposed oil concessions to avoid official territorial reserves. In April, according to AIDESEP, Perupetro also agreed to inform bidders that the Peruvian state would create the “necessary mechanisms” to ensure that the winning companies would not intrude onto the proposed reserves, until Peru’s indigenous agency INDEPA had completed an evaluation.
Friday’s roadshow is the latest chapter in the Peruvian government’s scramble to concession off the nation’s highly biodiverse Amazonian rainforests, roughly twice the size of California, to the oil industry. In roughly two years, the proportion of the Peruvian Amazon zoned into hydrocarbon blocks has risen from 13 percent to roughly 70 percent, despite the widespread toxic contamination and negative social impacts left by previous oil companies, such as Occidental Petroleum, Hunt Oil and Pluspetrol in Peru’s rainforests. For background on the campaign to protect the human rights and collective territories of the Peruvian Amazon’s indigenous peoples, visit www.amazonwatch.org.
RISK PROFILE: Oil Concessions in the Peruvian Amazon February 6, 2008 Perupetro
Overview This year the Perupetro will attempt to auction the 6 remaining oil and gas concessions in the Amazon region, all of which they were not able auction last January. All of these blocks in the Amazon overlap indigenous reserves, legally titled indigenous lands, naturally protected areas, or lands that have special status. The Peruvian government has consistently failed to consult indigenous communities prior to establishing concessions, as required by Peruvian and International Law. Indigenous communities throughout Peru are calling for a suspension of the current concessioning round and vow to oppose new oil projects. To demonstrate concern, some have shutdown oil operations, such as the recent two-week shutdown of Pluspetrol’s operations in the northern Peruvian Amazon. Oil majors like Occidental Petroleum recently announced withdrawal from Peru after thirty years – citing indigenous opposition as one reason.
Unstable institutional framework for investment Recent controversies between key state institutions regarding the entire process of defining oil and gas blocks suggest that the institutional and constitutional framework of the entire process is unclear. For example, the National Ombudsman Office issued a report questioning the government’s oil and gas development policy and highlighting the controversy surrounding the legal framework that regulates the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas in naturally protected areas. The report also spells out how investors might be awarded blocks that are located in legally protected areas, complicating operational procedures for years to come.
Financing Risks Many projects have difficulty breaking ground, given a growing number of private and public sector lenders have adopted strong policies (e.g. Equator Principles adopted by Banks making up over 90 percent of the project finance market) to finance controversial concessions. It may be far more difficult for project sponsors to attract co-sponsors or to secure financing for new projects that are opposed by their host communities or that are located in ecologically sensitive regions. Investors and financiers may delay their involvement, require more lucrative terms as mitigation for the additional risk or may simply decline to participate at all. For example, in 2005 Manhattan Minerals was forced to abandon its plans for a mine in Tambogrande, Peru after intense community opposition prevented the company from bringing a major partner to the venture.
Operational Risks Determined, local communities often have the power to slow down projects and, in some cases, even shut them down. Through blockades, protests, work stoppages and litigation, community opposition can raise production costs and impede the projects ability to bring product to market. Similarly, complying with national and international safeguards for operating in ecologically sensitive areas of the Amazon involve a series of logistical and engineering challenges that if not met, can result in a variety of collateral risks. For example, the Camisea gas pipeline had five ruptures in the first 18 months of operation, resulting in negative public opinion.
Community Opposition The case for heeding community opposition is compelling. Gaining community consent for a project involves the internationally-accepted principle of free, prior, informed consent (FPIC). Peruvian law and international conventions mandate that communities be consulted, prior to the creation of oil concessions as well as during the Environmental Impact Assessment process. Yet mere engagement or consultation will not always be sufficient to fully address risks. Consultations that do not resolve a community’s reasons for opposition nor achieve consent will provide little assurance against potentially costly and disruptive conflict. Increasingly, major institutional investors, such as the New York City and New York State pension funs and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, are voicing grave concerns about the financial risks and poor returns from projects that move ahead on indigenous lands without their prior consent.
Recent examples of community opposition include: o In June of 2007, indigenous communities categorically rejected the entrance of the Colombian Oil company Hocol to carryout exploration and exploitation activities in block 116, even offering their lives: “ the Wampis People express our opposition to fight with our lives to defend our territories and natural resources which are mediums of life to present and future generations…..”. It is worth noting that while a contract was signed almost two years ago, operations have yet to proceed. • October 2006 Achuar two-week blockade of Pluspetrol’s installations – resulting in a multi-million dollar agreement and costing $2.4 million/day of lost revenue. • January 2005 Machiguenga protest of the Camisea gas project – resulting in a four-month delay and an 18-month delay in the InterAmerican Development Bank’s loan disbursement to the project.
Before investing in the Amazon, consider these downside risks due to community opposition: • Increased costs and delays in project construction and operation; • Difficulty in securing favorable financing or long term contracts; • Increased costs in mitigating environmental and social impacts.
Civil Society Opposition Opposition to oil development in Peru is not limited to indigenous communities as many civil society organizations have also publicly denounced the Garcia administration’s policies. In January of 2007, for example, 40 civil society organizations signed a public statement that expressed concern over government policy regarding the process of awarding of contracts for oil and gas exploration and exploitation specifically on those blocks that overlap territorial reserves for indigenous people in isolation and naturally protected areas. These organizations will continue to support the campaign to prevent oil development in these areas.
Isolated or “Uncontacted” Indigenous Peoples These impacts include: threat of contact between isolated peoples and oil workers - which could include forced contact (as was the case with Peru's Camisea gas project) or even violent confrontations (as has been the case in Ecuador's Yasuni Park); threat to the life and health of isolated peoples because, for example, they lack the immune defenses to confront illnesses introduced by outsiders - leading to possible death; and impacts to the fragile rainforest environment on which they depend.
Prepared by: Amazon Alliance, Amazon Watch and Save America’s Forests For more information, email investors@amazonwatch.org
