2

THE DIRTY HAND OF CHEVRON: THE WORST ENVIRONMENTAL

CRIME IN ECUADORIAN HISTORY

Movimiento Alianza PAISSecretaría EjecutivaCommunication department2014

CHEVRON AND ITS SYCOPHANTS

Manuel Medina Castro is among the greatest friends I have had in my life; and, maybe, besides his everlasting interpretation of Marxism, the best lesson he passed on to me can be summarized in one rule of ethical conduct: “In your life, never be anybody’s

sycophant”.

Neocolonialism, as many other capitalist defects, gave birth to a subdued and lackey lifestyle, in which capital subordinates everything. Human beings are not beings; instead, they are things that produce or consume other things. Human relations, even love relations, are identified from power and not from passion. Life itself merely consists of passing through social mobility; it is determined by opportunism and individualism. Ancient virtues, such as: generosity, solidarity, and loyalty are a simple shelter for naïve people, since, all people care about is money and its voracious environment; therefore, egoism and greediness have become values. This is when sycophants appear.

If this is put into terms that refer to political relations, between States or Corporations, new features arise: effrontery, shamelessness, sharpness, and vanity. Perhaps these premises can lead us to the reason this publication is made: the dirty hand of Chevron-Texaco –a display of the absolute power of money and of their incestuous relations with the false justice, or rather, with injustice, and, of course, with vassals for whom the Homeland does not exist; it is merely an accidental simulation of birth, and several times, a reason for shame.

The ongoing legal proceedings of free Ecuadorian citizens against the transnational enterprise, Chevron, undoubtedly deserve to have a chapter on those countrymen –never fellow country-men- that serve foreign interests. Devoted to submissiveness, in exchange of a few denarius, they have provided their testimonies; and, even worse, by providing their signatures, they have become accomplices and accessories to the biggest ecological disaster that has taken place in our time.

What makes it possible for a human being to betray its Homeland?

It is said that Judas Iscariot asked: “What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you?” How-ever, is it only money what determines disloyalty? No, in the particular case of Chevron, there are other aspects in between. Submission in exchange of recognition; servility as a display of idolization to the powerful party; voluntary humiliation so as to be rewarded with an invitation to the bazaar of the empire; and, by the way, the gullible pretention of being part of -– like an ancient palace jester - that despot, blond, and arrogant brotherhood.

A few days ago, I was watching the Argentinian film “No sos vos, soy yo”, by Juan Taratuto. The betrayed character, masterfully played, after being victim of betrayal, expresses his self-healing in this way: “After this personal tragedy, in order to live again, I walked a long way that lead me from confusion to anger; from anger to revenge; from revenge to resignation; from resignation to indifference; from indifference to disdain; and from disdain to forgiveness. That is how I managed to heal”.

One may agree with everything but forgiveness, since it becomes impunity, a historical de-fect of our country. On the contrary, we must always keep in our memories those who commit, or have committed, an outrage against our Homeland. From a legal perspective, betrayal is “a crime, by a civilian or military person, who commits an outrage against public patrimony, security, sov-ereignty or honor, and independence of the State”. It is not possible to heal wounds and erase scars while traitors –wizened, invisible, or cynical – parade across the boulevard of broken dreams. At least we have our words to point at them.

It would be possible to be puzzled by some absences in the fight against Chevron, and by the fact that leading them, even if paradoxical, are those who have opted for defending Nature. If it is only a matter of hatred towards the Citizen’s Revolution and Rafael Correa Delgado, or the distance, what causes them disdain, we must say that Zizek was right when cataloging this posture as “an angelic view of the postmodern left”, which is now against the interests of Ecuador. Maybe the most severe issue here is that we can find all the intemperate men reunited with the sycophants – even though the reasons for that unity are antagonistic.

The ALIANZA PAIS movement presents this book of dignity with the certainty that the words patriot and fellow countrymen are valid and a cause for pride, passion, and commitment.

Galo Mora WittSecretario EjecutivoMovimiento Alianza PAIS

Texaco en el Ecuador

Background

11Background

According to earlier chronicles, during the pre - Hispanic period, inhabitants of the Santa Elena peninsula were

familiar with an element sharing oil-charac-teristics, which naturally emerged from the earth’s surface and was used for medicinal purposes. In her book Ancón (2001), Historian Jenny Estrada points out that this resource was named copey, copé and baba del Diablo (the spit of the devil). Spanish monarchy repre-sentatives rudimentarily exploited it during colonial times.

In 1858, in his book “Geography of Ecuador”, Ecuadorian Geographer Manuel Villavicencio identified the presence of asphalt and tar in to-day’s Orellana Province, and in the Hollín River and the East Cucutú Mountain Range, as well.

During the late nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries, flourishing oil activities were mainly carried out by foreign companies, which settled especially in Santa Elena Prov-ince, in the coastal region of the country.

In 1878, Colombian citizen M.G. Mier ob-tained the first land grant of the area. In 1885, Italian citizen Salvador Vigniani also obtained several land grants. Nonetheless, oil exploita-tion did not begin in Ecuador until 1911, with the drilling of the first oil well: Ancón 1.

In 1919, English company Anglo (founded

as “Anglo – Persian Oil Company” in 1908, un-til it changed its name to British Petroleum, in 1951, when it merged with Arco, Amoco, Cas-trol and Aral) created a subsidiary company, which was established in Guayaquil and was named Ecuadorian Oilfields Limited, in order to carry out oil exploration activities in the peninsula. Two years later, a production pro-cess of 3.000 barrels of oil per day (API = 32) was launched at Ancón 4 well.

However, commercialization level was not reached until 1925. Marginal exports initiated in 1928. Until 1971, they did not represent more than 6% of total national exports, ac-cording to the Central Bank. Between 1928 and 1957, 42 million barrels of crude oil were ex-ported: the same number of barrels exported in 1972. It was the beginning of the oil boom.

In 1940, a small refinery called “Libertad” was built. It processed 1.000 barrels of oil per day. The highest point of oil production in the region, during this time, was reached in 1955: 10.000 barrels per day.

12 Background

Around those times, production in the oil fields of the peninsula begun to decline (natu-ral decreasing process of oil production), since they were almost exhausted. Therefore, in

1965, Anglo Ecuadorian Oilfields Limited was granted 491.000 hectares of land for explora-tion in other coastal areas. No positive results were obtained. Thus, in 1967, the company initiated gasoline (64 and 80 octanes) refining and distribution activities. This decision fell upon decreasing exports and internal supply – oriented extraction.

According to the book “Milestones of Oil Industry 1829 – 2005”, published in 2006 by Petroecuador, Ecuador's state-owned oil com-pany, oil extraction focused in the Santa Elena peninsula for approximately 40 years (1928 – 1959). In addition, several foreign companies, such as Shell, Standard Oil, California Oil, Ten-nessee and the Western Geophysical Co were granted more than 5 million hectares of land in the Ecuadorian coast and the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest for exploration purposes.

In his book “Oil in Ecuador”, Byron Galarza highlights land grants awarded to a group of private companies, at the time. Later, some of these companies handed over their market share to the Texaco – Gulf Consortium. This consortium was formed by two companies: Texaco (American oil company created in 1902 as Texas Company, taken over in 2001 by the rising Chevron Corporation) and Gulf Oil (American oil company constituted in 1936 and taken over by Californian Standard Oil, in order to form Chevron Corporation.)

In 1921, the Leonard Exploration Company from New York obtained the first land grant in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest (25.000 km2), for exploration and exploitation activi-ties to be carried out during the next 50 years. However, the operation authorization was cancelled in 1937, since the company refused

During the 60’s, a seven-company group known as Seven Sisters (Seven Dinosaurs, according to Jaime Galarza Zavala) dominated the international oil market:

1. Standard Oil of New Jersey (Esso), merged with Mobil: ExxonMobil, United States

2. Standard Oil of New York , merged with Mobil: ExxonMobil. United States

3. Royal Dutch Shell, Netherlands – United Kingdom

4. Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), later British Petroleum (BP), United Kingdom

5. Gulf Oil Corporation, in 1985, bought by Chevron and BP, United States

6. Standard Oil of California merged with Shell, later merged with Texaco: Chevron-Texaco. Today, Chevron Corporation, United States

7. Texaco, merged with Chevron in 2001: Chevron Corporation, United States

13Background

to pay a 126.000 sucres1 debt to the Ecuado-rian State.

According to Jaime Galarza Zavala, Dictator Federico Páez had granted millions of hectares of Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest to Shell Oil Company, in 1937. After the exploration stage, the company eagerly announced the existence of crude in the region. Oddly, the company later denied its first statement and changed it, although natives in the area were already aware of the positive results drilling activities had showed, relating to oil production. In 1948, Shell Company sealed the oil wells and left the

1 Local currency at the time

country, owing millions of dollars to the Ecua-dorian State and its employees.

Ecuadorian president at the time, Galo Pla-za Lasso, pronounced a nowadays famous and pertinent sentence, on February 23, 1950, once Shell returned its land grants: “The Ecuadorian Amazon Rainforest is a myth. There is no oil. Those lands are not good for agriculture, either. We should approach the coast.”

Galarza Zavala also narrates the arrival of Austrian origin Howard Steven Strouth - also an American citizen - in the late 50’s. Strouth was linked to the oil business and focused on obtaining land grants for exploration. In this way, he obtained a land grant of 4.5 billion hectares of Ecuadorian Amazon Rainforest throughout the company Minas y Petróleos S.A.

Amazon Ecuadorian

rainforest, first oil explotation

fields

14 Background

(which appeared to be owed by multinational World Adventures in the United States). He di-vided and sold it to the best bidders.

Afterwards, Strouth sold part of the Mi-nas y Petróleos S.A. shares to eight companies and he formed fake companies to which he transferred the remaining shares. The Coca concession was negotiated in this bargain sale: 650.000 hectares were sold for 0.002 sucres each to Texaco, without Government awareness or authorization.

Moreover, on March 5, 1964, the Govern-ment Military Junta constituted in 1963 by Ramón Castro Jijón, Luis Cabrera Sevilla, Mar-cos Gándara Enríquez and Guillermo Freile Pozo, signed a 40-year contract with the Tex-aco- Gulf Consortium. The contract awarded the Consortium 1.5 billion hectares of Amazon rainforest, which was inhabited by indigenous communities. The previous 650.000 hectares were included. The contract could be renewed for 10 more years. Nevertheless, Supreme De-cree #364, issued by the Junta on June 30, 1965, diminished the land award by restricting land grants up to 500.000 hectares for exploration and up to 250.000 for exploitation, in oil areas.

In this context, by the end of 1967, Texaco-Gulf had drilled the first commercial wells in

the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest: Lago Agrio 1. Initial production reached 2.640 barrels of oil per day. In his thesis work, “Contracting system in oil activities”, published by IAEN in June 2000, Víctor Guevara narrates: “In 1968, the discovery of oil and gas in the Ecuadorian Amazon Rain-forest region reactivated the interest of foreign companies. The Ecuadorian state granted more than 4 million hectares of land for oil explora-tion and exploitation in the area”.

In this way, until 1971, succeeding Ecuado-rian governments awarded large areas of land to half a dozen foreign companies, without any regulations favoring the country’s interests. Oil activity in Ecuador was confusing: it was car-ried out throughout a mess of irregularities and did not fulfill payment obligations regarding royalties (payment for oil use and exploitation), profit sharing (net revenues after production costs have been covered) or taxes.

After the discovery of new oil reserves and the launching of Ecuadorian oil pipeline SOTE (built by the William Brothers Company to transport crude from the Ecuadorian Ama-zon Rainforest to the Balao port, in Esmeraldas Province), the government of José María Velasco

15Background

Ibarra2 initiated a grant revision policy, which gave birth to the Oil and Gas Law, issued on September 27, 1971. According to this law, oil belongs to the country: “oil wealth is part of the unalienable and imprescriptible heritage of Ec-uadorian State.”

President Velasco Ibarra signed an Execu-tive Decree authorizing the government to regulate and supervise oil activities in general, including those carried out by the Texaco – Gulf Consortium. Future oil exploitation activities in Ecuador should be regulated according to specific percentages. Thus, royalties received by the Ecuadorian State, regarding oil exploita-tion in the Guayaquil Gulf, increased from 6% in 1969 to 16%, in 1972.

According to the new Oil and Gas Law and the Texaco – Gulf contract amendments, the Ecuadorian State could retain 20% of oil production and use it for internal consumption of oil derivatives. On June 23, 1973, under the military dictatorship led by General Guillermo Rodríguez Lara3, established in 1972, Ecuadorian Oil State Corporation (CEPE) was created and Ecuador entered the OPEP, as a full member.

These changes, along with the implemented infrastructure, allowed Ecuador to launch its first big crude export, on August 17, 1972 (308.283 barrels of crude oil corresponding to the royalties of Texaco – Gulf, which were paid in kind to the Ecuadorian government). Each barrel was sold for $2,34.

2 Constitutional President of the Republic of Ecuador: 1934-1935, 1944-1947, 1952-1956, 1960-1961, 1968-1972.

3 “De- Facto” President of the Republic of Ecuador during 1972-1976.

Gulf constantly and repeatedly unfulfilled and disrespected payment obligations stipulated in the contract. Therefore, in 1977, the Ecuadorian State decided to buy the shares (37.5%) Gulf held in the CEPE- Texaco-Gulf Consortium. Consequently, CEPE became the majority shareholder (62.5%) - it already owned 25% of the shares since 1974. Relations with Gulf definitely came to an end, while the operation of oil wells and the Trans Ecuadorian oil pipeline were still in Texaco’s hands.

During approximately 30 years, Texaco ex-tracted 88% of total national oil production, in 399 wells and 22 drilling stations, and it oper-ated the Trans Ecuadorian oil pipeline as well.

An irresponsible operation

19An irresponsible operation

Transnational company Texaco Petro-leum (taken over by Chevron in 2001) was the only operator of the awarded

oil fields and the Ecuadorian oil pipeline. It ex-tracted 1.5 billion barrels of oil during 28 years (1964-1992). It also spilled 19 billion gallons of oil waste and 17 million gallons of crude oil (one barrel = 42 gallons) in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest.

This means, environmentally-irresponsible and human rights-irrespective actions were carried out. Approximately 2 million hectares of land were polluted, due to direct spillage of almost 379.2 billion barrels of formation water (toxic wastewater resulting from oil exploita-tion) on land. Inhabitants of the area were seriously affected.

This harmful and damaging event is still polluting groundwater and the atmosphere. Texaco Petroleum spilled 30 times more oil than the Exxon Valdez platform did in Alaska, in 1989, and 85 times more oil than British Pe-troleum did, in the Mexico Gulf, in 2010.

Aiming to obtain as much profit as pos-sible, the company did not use techniques to avoid the pollution caused by the removal of formation water. It built highly permeable oil pools for crude oil storage. These oil pools had been forbidden in the United States, by

American legislation, since the 30’s. These omissions polluted groundwater,

rivers and estuaries used by humans as water sources for drinking, cooking, personal hy-giene, irrigation and fishing. By using obsolete and inappropriate technology, which would have been penalized by the Oil Pollution Act in the United States, Texaco spared $4 billion.

According to article 12 of the Ecuadorian Sanitary Code, in force in 1971 as a norm of mandatory application for all public or private action within national territory: “Nobody will be authorized to spill into the air, land or water, any solid, liquid or gaseous waste which has not been previously processed, in order to stop being harmful for public health”. According to article 17: “Nobody will be authorized to release, directly or indirectly, harmful or undesirable substances, in such a way they might pollute or affect the sanitary quality of water and hinder supply routes, totally or partially”.

Operations held by Texaco show a racial and neocolonialist pattern: the company was completely aware of the risks incurred, regard-ing US legal framework and non-compliance with Ecuadorian law.

20 An irresponsible operation

This means, the transnational company was fully aware of all dangers. It knew its proceedings entailed a real attack against life. High toxic material concentration in the environment, especially in water, a source of life for indigenous communities settled near oil platforms, cause death after daily human contact.

Some of the effects of Texaco’s action are:

Pollution caused by: » 18 trillion gallons of liquid waste » 916 free air pools of toxic waste in the

Amazon Rainforest » 235 billion cubic feet of burned gas » 16.8 billion gallons of crude oil

Endangered territory: » Polluted waters, gas intoxication, falls into

» 1939: According to regulation implemented by the State of Texas: “nobody will be authorized to store, permanently or temporarily, crude oil, its products or derivatives in open pools or directly in the ground”. Texaco settled drilling fluid and other wasteful material in 1.000 permeable oil pools.

» 1942: According to the Louisiana State Law: “production water is not allowed to flow through natural drainage channels”.

» 1942: Permeable pools that may overflow to superficial waters or leach the ground and groundwater are forbidden in the State of Louisiana. In Ecuador, Texaco used horizontal flares in formation water pools, which produced toxic smoke clouds.

» 1960: The authorization for Texaco’s oil exploitation activities forbids the pollution of ground or surface water caused by oil waste. Only low salinity formation water, presenting both low chloride and boron levels, could be released. Formation water spilled by Texaco in Ecuador exceeded by far these standards.

» 1969: The release of formation waters in dry and running estuaries and rivers is forbidden in the State of Texas. Texaco directly released formation waters

in the rivers of the Ecuadorian Amazon Rainforest. » 1973: According to the California

State Sanitary and Security Code, the oil industry was only allowed to use smokeless flares.

» 1979: The release of formation waters in navigable waters was forbidden by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States.

21An irresponsible operation

crude oil pools, burning of oil products, contact with chemicals, explosions of wells, rupture of pipelines, consumption of poi-soned food and animals. Health issues: » Stomach, liver, intestine, uterus and bone

cancer, leukemia » Gastrointestinal disorders » Skin problems » 147% more abortion cases regarding

women living close to spillage areas » Anemia cases in 1 out of every 3 children

and 2 out of every 3 adults » Breathing, neurological and digestive

problems, fungal infection, headaches, allergic reactions, dermatitis and kidney problems Economy and livelihood: » Death of animals » Affected crops » Affected wild animals

Disappearance of the ancient Te-tetes and Sansahuari peoples

Moreover: high indigenous emigration rates, damages to biodiversity, deforestation, natural reserves extinction and damage to vegetal and animal species. This is why, the Ecuadorian Amazon Rainforest is nowadays known as the Amazon Chernobyl.

In 1966, Texaco promised to remediate the damages caused by the pollution it had generated. This entailed a tacit acknowledgement of the prejudice caused. However, the $40 million - actions carried out for these purposes were inappropriate and not sufficient. Yet, Texaco

demanded to be exempted of any liability regarding its previous activities.

In 1994, a study carried out by the Centre for Economic and Social Rights in Ecuador warned the country about the high level of oil polluters contained in the rivers of the area. A report issued by the Environment Ministry confirmed these effects: the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) concentration in the rivers located nearby one of the studied communities was 500 times stronger than the allowed level for human consumption.

Results of the analysis of 20 rivers located in 9 polluted communities, and 10 rivers located in 10 non- polluted communities, randomly chosen, are presented in the “Yana Curi, Impact of oil activity in rural populations of the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest” Report (2000), written by the Ecuadorian Institute for Epidemiology and Community Health, Manuel Amunarriz, which is located at El Coca (Province of Orellana). On one hand, rivers located in the non- polluted area showed no TPH concentration. On the other hand, 18 out of the 20 rivers located in the polluted area showed some TPH concentration. It oscillated from 0.02 parts per million (ppm), in Manduro River, to 2,883 ppm, in Basura River.

In some rivers, TPH concentration was 100 times higher than the level allowed by the Eu-ropean Union.

At the same time, according to the aforementioned report:

“The effects of intense exposure to crude oil are transitory, unless concentration in compounds is unusually high. Exposure to

22 An irresponsible operation

crude oil or to its steam irritates the skin and causes itchy or irritated eyes. Long or repeated exposure to low concentrations of its volatile compounds can cause nausea, vertigo, headache or dizziness. Breathing mineral oil can cause lipoid pneumonia and death. Exposure to benzene, toluene and xylene is particularly dangerous. High benzene concentrations cause neurotoxic symptoms. Long exposure to toxic levels can harm bone marrow and cause persistent pancytopenia. Benzene is also a known cause for leukemia and other hematologic tumors (…). Various

epidemiologic studies have reported evidence about the carcinogen effects polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) can have in occupationally exposed people. A strong link among these effects and skin, scrotum and bladder cancer has been found. High risk of lung cancer has also been detected, in the case of workers in different industries, exposed to PAH”.

In summary, the analysis of the impact oil exploitation -carried out in the worst imaginable conditions- has on human health shows that exposed populations face

23An irresponsible operation

a serious situation concerning irreversible consequences, which have become a public health issue.

28 years after Texaco's operations

Organization and demand

27Organization and demand

Texaco left the country in 1992, without really remediating the pollution it had caused. In that year, former President

of the Republic of Ecuador Rodrigo Borja asked Canadian company HPT-Agra to conduct an environmental audit on Texaco’s activities. Unfortunately, next Ecuadorian President Sixto Durán Ballén did not disclose the report written by the Canadian company.

Facing this scenario, on November 3, 1993, lawyer Cristóbal Bonifaz (Kohn, Nasta & Graft Law Firm) filed a class action1 against Texaco, at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, in representation of the affected communities. The Aguinda v. Chevron petition was filed on behalf of 88 residents from the Orellana and Sucumbíos provinces, including colonists and Cofanes, Secoyas and Kichwa indigenous people like Maria Aguinda (whose last name actually names the petition), now a 63-year-old grandmother who saw two of her 10 children die and her grandchildren sickened by the pollution. The company was accused of environmental and human pollution in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest. The petition demands

1 A class action is a lawsuit where a person sues a group of peo-ple, a group of people sues another group of people, or a group of people sues a person. In this case, it refers to a lawsuit filed against a company, which has affected a group of people.

the company to accept responsibility for its actions.

American citizen Steve Dozinger, a lawyer for the Amazon Defense Front, joined later. Dotzinger is currently defending himself from a big-money lawsuit filed by the transnational company against him. Chevron accuses him of being the intellectual author of a conspiracy plan created to extort and defraud it.

Supported by the government of Sixto Durán Ballén, through its Ambassador to the United States, Edgar Terán Terán, Texaco tried to convince the Judge to dismiss the case. The Judge denied this request and declared that his Court would accept jurisdiction, if pollution was proved. Unfortunately, this magistrate died and his successor, Jed Rackoff, dismissed the case in 1977, on the ground of inconvenient forum, under Texaco’s request. Plaintiffs appealed this decision. Thus, the file was sent to the Appealing Court, which ratified Rackoff’s decision, in 2002. The Texaco case was transferred to the Ecuadorian Courts.

Meanwhile, the case raised awareness in Ecuador. In May 1994, the Amazon Defense Front (ADF) was created. It is a nonprofit organization, consisting of 20 organizations and communities. Its main goal is the defense of human and environmental rights in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest region.

28 Organization and demand

NEW YORK AND NUEVA LOJA

Legal tricks played by Texaco have permanently delayed the legal process, ever since. However, a radical change took place on August 16, 2002: the Court of Appeals of New York decided it was not competent to hear the case, so it should be referred to Ecuadorian Courts. It should be remarked that the Oil Company pressed the Court to take this decision, intending to bribe the Ecuadorian legal system.

Unanimously, all 30.000 plaintiffs decided to go on with the claim. On May 7, 2003, 5 indigenous Ecuadorian nationalities (Siona, Secoya, Cofán, Huaorani y Kichwa), represented by Humberto Piyaguaje, filed a petition at the Superior Court of Nueva Loja. On October 21, a big demonstration walked towards the building where the hearing was taking place. A historical trial, unique in the

world was beginning: a group of people from a small South American country was bringing a powerful transnational company before court.

During the legal process, the Ecuado-rian part focused on proving its case, as law requires. Therefore, more than 230.000 sup-porting information pages were saved in the corresponding file, more than 40 affected peo-ple testified, 106 reports elaborated by experts were incorporated, more than 80.000 results of chemical tests done on ground, water or sedi-ment samples were obtained, and independent health studies carried out by foreign experts were submitted. Judge Alberto Guerra (later bribed by Chevron with $326.000 to testify against the affected people) directly inspected and verified the damages caused in 54 sites where the Company used to operate.

World citizens protesting against Chevron in New York, United States of America

29Organization and demand

JUDGMENT

According to the judgment from First In-stance issued by Judge Nicolás Zambrano on February 14, 2011, at the Court of Sucumbíos, environmental damages “which are imputa-ble to the land and water activities carried out by the sued company” have serious impact in the ecosystems inhabited by diverse cultural groups “because environmental degradation might threaten the group’s existence”.

Based upon analysis, the ruling establishes the most serious prejudice concerns health, a fundamental right, whose violation entails a crime against life.

The concept, meaning and orientation of this right are widely developed in several in-ternational instruments. In the specific case of the indigenous peoples, it is enshrined in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Addi-tional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These elements led the Presidency of the Court to asseverate: “the right to health is especially linked to the right to human dignity, equality and non discrimi-nation”.

The legal opinion points out that the presented evidence is convincing: it shows “these are constant damages caused by pollution and not random results”. It warns about the necessity of remediating the damage caused to flora and fauna, “in order to restore livelihood and recover traditional food, thus seeking to recoup the caused impact”, noting that it constitutes patrimonial detriment.

After assessing the presented information and evidence, the President of the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos concluded: “the cultural impact on indigenous peoples has been par-tially caused by the activities carried out by the defendant, but they also respond to ex-ternal agents. The activity carried out by the defendant is a very important contributor, due to the nearness and dependence exist-ing between the damaged ecosystem and the habits of the affected peoples”.

30 Organization and demand

The judgment, which contemplates affectation to communities, environmental damage and its remediation, condemns Chevron to pay $9.5 billion compensation for having caused one of the “world’s biggest environmental disasters”, between 1964 and 1990. It provided this amount might double and reach $19 billion, if the company did not publicly apologize to the victims, in the next weeks.

However, company spokesman James Craig stated that “Chevron wouldn’t apolo-gize” and he assured the legal process was corrupt. Thus, he filed a cassation appeal at the National Court of Justice. On Decem-ber 12, 2012, the appeal was referred to the

Court’s Civil and Commercial Division. In addition, the legal process has been filed

with legal instances in 6 countries: Ecuador, United States, the Netherlands, Argentina, Brazil and Canada. Plaintiffs have tried to enforce the ruling, in the last 3 countries. James Craig has questioned the validity of any ruling issued in Canada, claiming that the lawsuit was filed against Chevron-USA and not against Chevron – Canada. In this regard, Pablo Fajardo, a member of the plaintiffs’ le-gal team, declared that the parent company owns the subsidiaries; therefore, the sentence can be enforced.

APPEAL AND RATIFICATION

After the judgment of the Sucumbíos Court, Chevron filed a cassation appeal (judgment revision due to probable misinterpretation or wrong application of law) with the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos. Magistrates referred it to the National Court of Justice, which ratified the judgment on November 11, 2013.

According to the ratification act, the trans-national company caused environmental damage in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainfor-est. Therefore, it must pay $8.6 billion to the affected people, and a 10% remediation addi-tional fee to the Amazon Defense Front.

This means, the total amount to be paid is $8.8 billion, since the National Court eliminated the punitive damage penalty determined by the Provincial Court of

Sucumbíos, in January 2012. This penalty raised the compensation to $19 billion, for not apologizing to the victims. The sentence issued by the National Court of Justice has 222 pages and was signed by Judges Wilson Andino Reinoso, Patricia Aguirre Suárez and Eduardo Bermúdez.

In October 2013, plaintiffs made significant progress: the Ecuador Institute of Intellectual Property – IEPI (Spanish initials) embargoed 50 trademarks held by the company. They were considered non tangible assets. Chevron will no longer be able to make profit out of royalties coming from the following trademarks: Chevron, Ursa, Havoline, Doro, Geotex, Meropa, Motex, Multigear, Regal, Taro, Texatherm, Thuban, etc.

31Organization and demand

The embargo followed a request of the Sucumbíos Court of Justice. IEPI proceeded to seize every trademark held by Chevron-Texaco. Andrés Ycaza Mantilla, Executive Director of

IEPI, confirmed this decision and supported it on a Judicial Decree, which included IEPI as a holder of the embargoed intangible assets.

CITIZENS WOULD PAY

In October 2013, Ecuadorian Foreign Minister, Ricardo Patiño, asserted that a Chevron favoring - ruling would lead the Ecuadorian State to bankruptcy. The General Budget of the State represents more than $30 billion, and the government should pay $9.5 billion to Chevron. Patiño declared the State would have to hand over all export categories, including coffee, oil and bananas, which sum up for nearly 10% of the $80 billion GDP, and 30% of the General Budget of the State.

The governments of Sixto Durán

Ballén and Jamil Mahuad and the Texaco-Chevron

case

JJamil MahuadSixto Durán Ballén

35The governments of Sixto Durán Ballén and Jamil Mahuad and the Texaco-Chevron case

In order to prepare for a friendly meeting, facing the lawsuit filed at New York, first meetings between representatives of the

government of Sixto Durán Ballén and Texaco’s victims were held, in 1994. However, negotiations became cloudy, since the government gradually kept the victims aside of the decision-making process, standing on the transnational’s side.

Consequently, in 1995, still under President Durán Ballén, the Ecuadorian State and Texaco signed an Environmental Remediation and Repair Agreement, which came into effect in the same year. The victims and the Government Account-ability Office questioned the activities performed by the company.

Nonetheless, in 1998, under President Jamil Mahuad, former Energy and Mining Minister, Patricio Ribadeneira; former CEO of Petroecuador, Ramiro Gordillo; former manager of Petroproducción, Luis Albán Granizo; former Vice-president of Texaco, Ricardo Reis Veiga; and the representative of Texaco in Ecuador, Rodrigo Pérez Pallares, signed the “Act of Final Liberation of Claims and Equipment Delivery” (Final Act), in which they recognized that Texaco had fulfilled its obligations pursuant to the 1996 agreement – namely environmental remediation in northern Amazon rainforest- and released it from current and future liability. This act was signed, even

though the Government Accountability Office report and studies carried on the reality expe-rienced by the affected people confirmed the carried out remediation was anti-technical.

The Act permanently liberated, absolved and released Texpet, Texas Petroleum Company, Compañía Texaco de Petróleos del Ecuador S.A., Texaco INC and all of its agents, servants, employees, officers, attorneys, indemnitors, guarantors, heirs, administrators, executors, beneficiaries, successors, predecessors, parent companies and subsidiaries of any lawsuit or claim filed by the Ecuadorian Government, Petroecuador or its subsidiaries”.1

But, even though this document released Chevron and its agents of any liability regarding the Ecuadorian State, it does not release them of individual claims.

1 El Telégrafo Newspaper, 26-09-2013. Available online: http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/noticias/informacion-general/item/chevron-maneja-240-mil-millones-en-capital-bursatil.html

36 The governments of Sixto Durán Ballén and Jamil Mahuad and the Texaco-Chevron case

OTHER ECUADORIANS IN FAVOUR OF TEXACO-CHEVRON

Sebastián Pérez Arteta: Finance Minister during the presidency of Sixto Durán Ballén (1996), defense lawyer for Chevron (Pé-rez-Bustamante and Ponce Law Firm).

Carlos Vera: Information and Tourism Minister during the presidency of Sixto Durán Ballén (1996-97), in charge of the strategy deployed by the government to defend the signing of the BIT (1993).

Emilio Palacio: Again in the public arena since 2012, after a long silence. He defends Chevron as he discredits the actions taken in favor of the Amazon communities. According to him, evidence against Chevron is fake. He holds the government of Rafael Correa responsible for the environmental damage that has killed several people.

Jamil Mahuad: A Release and Settle-ment Agreement signed by him (1998) released Chevron from any responsibility regarding en-vironmental damage.

Vladimiro Álvarez Grau: Chevron’s witness during RICO trial (2011), held against affected communities. Earning $150.000, he testified as a specialist, even though all of his supporting material was taken from press clips.

Inés Manzano: Public servant during the presidency of Lucio Gutiérrez (2001-02) and later running mate of Mauricio Rodas (SUMA) for the 2013 presidential election. She has discredited the Ecuadorian legal system in the media. According to her, the 2011 judg-ment is illegitimate.

Hernán Pérez Loose: Defense lawyer representing OXY, Perenco and Chevron in lawsuits filed against Ecuadorians.

Lucio Gutierrez: During his presiden-cy, an international cooperation agreement between Texaco – Chevron and the Fourth Division of the Amazon Army was signed (2004). It included the building of safe housing in Lago Agrio for Chevron staff. The payment of basic services (water and electricity supply) would be assumed by the military brigade, thus, by Ecuadorian citizens.

Benjamín Ortíz: Minister of Foreign Af-fairs during the presidency of Jamil Mahuad (1999). He owns the company BO Asociados Quantum, in charge of Texaco- Chevron’s Public Relations in Ecuador. BO Asociados Quantum earned more than $300.000 for its services in 2012.

Patricio Ribadeneira: Energy and mines Minister during the presidency of Jamil Mahuad (1998). He signed the final act which released Chevron from its responsabilities.

37The governments of Sixto Durán Ballén and Jamil Mahuad and the Texaco-Chevron case

“As a consequence, many hundreds and now thousands of fellow farmers, and fellow indigenous are dying, but what is hurting us the most in our souls, is that not even governments have supported us. They have not answered to our claims either. We don’t want money; we want two things, dear friends: We want water, because we have no way of getting wa-ter in the area. Water is polluted. No matter how hard local authorities try to provide us water, they just can’t do it. Everything is polluted (…) and we want justice, that’s all, justice, because at this time we can’t even count on our crops. Our hands have hardened because of hard work. Is anything worth it?”

“They ruled the land (Texaco). Authorities did not rule it, not even did the Army, because they (Texaco) made the decisions and often ordered the military to keep us from resisting when they knocked down our coffee plants, our sugar cane and our fruit crops, and even ourselves, we were harassed by the authorities themselves.”

“Our family members are constantly getting sick, and while these immoral practices by Chevron, for-merly Texaco, continue, nothing will be good for us (…). It is clear in our minds, that if they don’t fix it, if they don’t do an adequate environmental remedia-tion, no other remedy will be good enough.”

“Today, as we claim for justice, the Ecuadorian State is held responsible for what has happened. We

are not defending the President, but we feel we are part of the Ecuadorian State. So, now they want us to pay for the injustice committed by Chevron, formerly Texaco. This should not happen, anywhere on earth.”

Victim's testimony(Fragments of the testimony held by José Shingre, a farmer from the Ecuadorian Amazon Region, at a forum attended by several representatives of the Human Rights Council members, which held a side event titled “Human Rights, Environment and Transnational Corporations: The Chevron Case in Ecuador”, during the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York).

José Shingre Farmer from the Ecuadorian Amazon Region

The tantrums thrown by

Chevron at the international

courts of arbitration

41The tantrums thrown by Chevron at the international courts of arbitration

Despite the countless times Chevron tried to hinder the trial at the Court of Nueva Loja, the judgment was finally issued

and ratified. Therefore, the company was ordered to pay the stipulated compensation. However, still trying to escape its monetary obligations, the Corporation’s attorneys filed several petitions at different legal instances. Among these, two petitions should be highlighted:

1) A lawsuit filed at the Courts of New York against the lawyers representing the affected communities. They were accused of supposed fraud regarding the sentence issued by the Court of Sucumbíos.

2) An international arbitration claim filed at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague (Netherlands), aiming to force the Ecua-dorian State to take over liability for the debt.

Moreover, on September 23, 2009, Chevron Corporation filed a notice of arbitration against the Ecuadorian State, under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on Interna-tional Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and under article VI of the Bilateral Investment Treaty signed by the United States and Ecuador in 1993.

The notice of arbitration mainly claims Ecuador has violated its obligations under the United States-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty, investment agreements, and international law, by allowing the 2003 trial to

proceed at the Court of Lago Agrio.1 According to the Government Accountabi-

lity Office, the arbitration claim has been filed aiming to obtain: (1) a statement releasing Chevron from any liability for environmental damage; (2) an order forcing Ecuador to inform Texpet, its parent company, its subsidiaries and its major society of the release of any envi-ronmental damage raising from the activities carried out by the former Consortium; (3) a statement acknowledging that Ecuador will pay compensations to the affected communities, taking over the compensations for all damages for which Chevron could be held responsible; and, 4) a statement recognizing that Ecuador and Petroecuador hold entire responsibility for the decision obtained in the Lago Agrio Trial.

In this respect, the official position of the Ecuadorian State, made public by the State Attorney General, Diego García, and his prede-cessors, is the following: “the Ecuadorian State is not involved in the Lago Agrio Trial, it entails individual claims. Nor the State, neither any of its organisms takes part in this case”.2

1 State Attorney General, “Posición de la República del Ecuador frente a la ofensiva de la Compañía Chevron – Texaco”. Available online: http://www.pge.gob.ec/es/boletines/archivo-2010/febrero-2010/1380-posicion-de-la-republica-del-ecuador-frente-a-la-ofensiva-de-las-compania-chevron-texaco.html

2 Idem

42 The tantrums thrown by Chevron at the international courts of arbitration

THE EXPENDITURES OF CHEVRON

During 15 years, the transnational com-pany destined almost $100 million to pay specialized lobbying firms. Expenditures in-curred in order to pay lawyers for marketing the company, creating false evidence on the Lago Agrio trial and discrediting Ecuador os-cillated between $400 and $600 million.

In the report named “When injustice becomes

business”, Cecilia Olivet states that these ex-ecutives earn $375 - $700 an hour. Courts of International Arbitration act against sued States: Money is deviated from taxpayers to corpora-tions, thanks to the great power these courts have, although they pretend to be neutral.

OFF TO NEW YORK, AGAIN

Under Chevron’s request, on February 1, 2010, United States District Judge for the South-ern District of New York, Lewis Kaplan, initiated a judicial process against Ecuadorian plaintiffs and their lawyers, including Steven Dozinger. The lawsuit alleges fraud has been committed against Chevron Corporation in Ecuador. The Company intends to delegitimize the judgment ordered against it by the Sucumbíos Court, un-der the application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Accor-ding to the American government, the RICO

Act was originally legislated to prosecute the Mafia and others involved in organized crime, but over time, the definition of what con-stitutes racketeering activity has expanded. Consequently, the application of RICO law has broadened to include any act relating to homi-cide, kidnapping, gambling, money laundering, drug – trafficking conspiracy, justice hindering, fire, robbery, bribery, obscene material traffick-ing or negotiation of controlled or chemical substances.

The case has experienced several

CHEVRON’S EXPENSES IN LAWYERS

$ 40’135.971,84

43The tantrums thrown by Chevron at the international courts of arbitration

irregularities. For instance, Ecuadorian Judge Al-berto Guerra (first Judge to hear the case at the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos, later presented by Chevron as a key witness) alleged plaintiffs ghostwrote the judgment against Chevron. Ac-cording to him, the plaintiffs’ lawyers tried to bribe him. Nonetheless, according to El Telégrafo Newspaper, evidence confirms that Chevron had a $326.000 agreement with Alberto Guerra, under which he testified against plaintiffs.

“(…) Plaintiffs claim they did not pay $500.000 to former Judge [Alberto Guerra] to rule in their favor. Therefore, they say, Guerra accepted $326.000 compensation from Chev-ron, in order to testify, at Manhattan Federal Court, that the judgment ordering Chevron to pay $19 billion for environmental remediation was ghostwritten by the plaintiffs and their lawyers. Out of the $ 326.000, $38.000 would have been paid cash to compensate Guerra for

the physical evidence presented to sustain his deposition, including documents and evidence saved in computers, cell phones, hard drives and bank records. Additionally, Guerra would earn $10.000 a month, during 2 years, and he would receive $2.000 a month for renting and health insurance expenses and lawyers ‘fees”.

After being served a new summon, Guerra appeared before Court and accepted his first deposition lacked honesty, which, along with the agreement he held with Chevron, totally discredits his word.

Despite the glaring inconsistencies evidenced during the process, according to a ruling issued by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on March 5, 2014, neither lawyers nor plaintiffs will be able to enforce the 2011 judgment within US territory.

Kaplan justifies this ruling appealing to supposed corruption cases surrounding lawyers and plaintiffs. This ruling offends

New York's southern District Federal Court, United States of America

44 The tantrums thrown by Chevron at the international courts of arbitration

justice, since the testimonies and allegations of the defendants were not taken into account

during the trial, under Chevron’s request.

THE HAGUE

On February 28, 2012, the Oil Company announced that an International Court of Arbi-tration called under the BIT signed by Ecuador and the United States, had jurisdiction to hear its claims against the Republic of Ecuador. The Per-manent Court of Arbitration of The Hague would administer the International Court of Arbitration.

This arbitration appeal had been filed in 2009. The Company then alleged that Ecuador violated the obligations it had assumed under the BIT and international law. However, Chevron did not mention it had already left Ecuadorian territory when the BIT came into force, in 1997. Accor-ding to the company, the government of Ecuador

did not respect the prior Release and Settlement Agreement it had subscribed together with the Texaco Petroleum Company, when the CEPE – Texaco Consortium came to an end (1992). Thus, it holds the Ecuadorian State responsible for the environmental damage occurred in the Ecuadori-an Amazon rainforest. Even if Hague Court ruled that the State couldn’t sue the Oil Company, this does not include private or individual claims.

In September 2013, the Permanent Court of Arbitration of The Hague issued an arbitration award, which appears not to respect impartiality principles. It asks Ecuador to suspend the en-forcement of the judgment issued by the Court of Sucumbíos. Ecuador denied this request, al-leging division of powers and rule of law must be respected.

Additionally, State Attorney General Diego García discredited the Company’s allegations, since this case does not involve the Ecuadorian State. It only implicates the Oil Company and the affected communities (individuals).

In 2013, the Denver Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit allowed Ecuador to use thousands of documents (not covered by the Attorney Work-Product doctrine) the Company intended to keep under reserve. Chevron’s environment expert Bjorn Bjorkman is now keeping the docu-ments, which stand as clear evidence that the Company tried to hide pollution caused in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest.

45The tantrums thrown by Chevron at the international courts of arbitration

CHEVRON III

The international lawsuit filed by Chev-ron, according to which the Ecuadorian State should take over compensations for the envi-ronmental damage caused in the Ecuadorian Amazon Rainforest between 1964 and 1992 is known as Chevron III.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration of The Hague has established three stages in order to process it:

1) The alleged Ecuadorian “unfulfillment of the release agreements” will be discussed on January 31 - April 30, 20142) “Chevron’s allegations regarding Ecuadorian violation of the BIT, especially a denial of justice charge” will be discussed on May 9 – April 20, 20153) No date has yet been set for discussing “damage and compensation issues”.

CANADÁ

On December 16, 2013, the Court of Appeal for Ontario authorized plaintiffs to appear before Canadian Courts and try to seize Chevron’s assets. To this end, this Court invalidated a previous judgment, which overrode the plaintiffs’ pollution lawsuit against the Company.

According to Pablo Fajardo, lead Ecuadorian lawyer for the Union of Communities Affected by Texaco, the fact that jurisdiction and competence to validate and enforce Ecuadorian judgment have been acknowledged represents a legal victory. This is a meaningful step towards the embargo of the company’s assets in Canada, as a means of forcing it to fulfill the Ecuadorian 2011 judgment. Besides, it will allow plaintiffs to file lawsuits in other countries, such as Australia, where the company does also hold important assets. Fajardo says Chevron’s investments in Canada account for more than $ 10 billion.

“The ruling of the Canadian Court allows us to force the company to pay and to enforce the Ecuadorian judgment”.3

The Union of Communities Affected by Texaco filed freezing assets petitions against Chevron in 3 of the 60 countries where the company currently holds assets: Canada, Bra-zil and Argentina.

3 El Telégrafo Newspaper, 17-12-2013. Available online: http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/noticias/informacion-general/item/activos-por-mas-de-10-000-millones-de-chevron-en-canada-podrian-incautarse.html

46 The tantrums thrown by Chevron at the international courts of arbitration

The dirty hand

51The dirty hand

As a consequence of the campaign Chevron has carried out to discredit Ecuador, which includes lawsuits

and slanderous propaganda, the Ecuadorian government decided to take a step forward to defend affected communities and Ecuadorian dignity.

Ecuador’s campaign “The dirty hand of Chevron”, personally launched by President Rafael Correa on September 17, 2013, live from the areas affected by the irresponsible exploi-tation of Texaco – Chevron, adds to citizen initiatives deployed to claim for justice over the last 2 decades.

The worldwide effects this campaign has obtained are huge: it has helped raising aware-ness of the devastating events occurred in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest, which could be replicated by other irresponsible compa-nies somewhere else on earth. In late July 2013, President Correa called regional blocs ALBA and UNASUR to discuss UNCITRAL’s “legal aberration”: the UN commission had or-dered the suspension of the 2011 Sucumbíos Court judgment, under the 1997 BIT, without considering the fact that charges on Chevron were committed before the lawsuit was filed.

“Latin-American union is necessary to avoid the abuse of multinational companies,

which still think of us as their colonies, as they bribe arbitration courts in favor of large cor-porations”, said Rafael Correa. ALBA’s country members expressed their solidarity with Ecua-dor and its defense from Chevron’s aggression.

It is worth mentioning that Ecuadorian Embassies have been in charge of making this case public, throughout the organization of forums and information campaigns. Organiza-tions and individuals, sensitive to life respect and nature, have shown overwhelming res-ponse. For instance, actors Angelina Jolie, Danny Glover, Daryl Hannah and Mia Farrow; songwriter and musician Luis Fernando Aute; activist Antonia Juhasz; French politician and far left candidate for the 2012 presidential election Jean -Luc Mélenchon; environmen-talist Alexandra Costeau and the Mayor of Richmmond, Gayle McLauglin, among others, have visited the area of ecological disaster. Likewise, a lot of citizens, ecologists, youth organizations, students, intellectuals, jour-nalists and communications’ specialists have demonstrated in the streets of Moscow, Paris, Havana, Bucharest, Madrid and New York.

Moreover, international solidarity groups and networks have been built to support the affected Amazon communities, such as the network built by Argentinian activist for

52 The dirty hand

human rights, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, who was awarded the Nobel peace Prize in 1980; those built in Canada, Dominican Republic, Cuba, France, Sweden and Venezuela, and the Euro-pean Solidarity Network.

Young people participating at the XVII World Festival of Youth and Students, held in Quito on December 9-13 2013, brought the case to the “Anti-imperialist Youth Court”. This court condemned the company’s behavior and ordered the remediation of environmental damage caused in Ecuador.

According to Ecuadorian newspaper El Telégrafo, in December 2013 German news-paper Junge Welt published a very important article on the struggles waged by indigenous peoples in the Amazon against Chevron. The article written by journalist André Scheer goes through the legal and political context of the lawsuit. Scheer highlights Chevron’s reluc-tance to pay compensation.

In its December 2013 issue, German Jour-nal Diplomatisches Magazin, informed about the talk on the Environmental Disaster in Ecuador, held in the House of Democracy and Human Rights, in Berlin. It pointed out Chevron’s lack of sensibility, reflected in its reluctance to pay $9.5 billion compensation.

In the same way, on December 10, 2013, a Support Committee for Ecuador was constituted in France; in order to face the campaign Chev-ron pursues to discredit Ecuador worldwide. 16 French associations, representatives of political parties, French senators and repre-sentatives, Ambassadors to ALBA’s countries, filmmakers, journalists, intellectuals and re-presentatives of the Ecuadorian communities attended the event.

According to the Ecuadorian Embassy in Brussels, Vice president and Sustainable Development Minister of the Walloon Go-vernment Jean-Marc Nollet condemned the damage caused by Chevron on a letter he ad-dressed to the American Diplomatic Mission. The letter states: “economic development is detrimental to environment protection, which is regretful”.

An audiovisual campaign was also pre-sented at the University of the Caribbean (Unicaribe), in Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic). It included the distribution of sup-porting material for denounces.

In order to commemorate Human Rights Day, a conference on the campaign carried out by Ecuador against Chevron was held in Havana. Cuban authorities, representatives of the Cuban Communist Party, students and authorities of the Eloy Alfaro Primary School and Ecuadorian residents in Cuba attended the event.1

1 El Telégrafo Newspaper, 13-12-2013. Available online: http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/politica/item/los-jovenes-unen-voz-de-protesta-contra-chevron.html

53The dirty hand

Luis Eduardo AuteSpanish Songwriter

Alexandra Cousteau American Researcher

Mia Farrow Australian-American actress

Danny GloverAmerican actor and director, political activist

Witnesses of disaster

Daryl Christine HannahAmerican Actress

Celebrities all around the world have supported Ecuadorian goverment's campaign "The dirty hand of Chev-ron". including artists, environmental activists and politicians.

Jean Luc MélenchonFrench politician. Left Party founder. Member of the European parliament

54

55

1964 - 1992Former transnational oil company Texa-

co (Chevron) irresponsibly operated oil wells and drilling stations located in approximately 1.5 billion hectares of land in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest. The oil company spilled 30 times more oil than the Exxon Valdez platform did in Alaska, in 1989, and 85 times more oil than British Petroleum did, in the Mexico Gulf, in 2010.

199388 people from the Orellana and Sucumbíos provinces, including colonists and Cofanes, Secoyas and Kichwa indigenous people, de-cided to file a petition with the Court of New York (Aguinda v. Chevron), demanding the oil company to accept responsibility for the envi-ronmental damage caused in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest.

1995On May 5, under President Sixto Durán Ballén,

the Ecuadorian State and Texaco signed an Envi-ronmental Remediation and Repair Agreement, which came into effect in the same year.

1998The “Act of Final Liberation of Claims and

Equipment Delivery” (Final Act) was signed under President Jamil Mahuad. According to it, Texa-co had fulfilled its environmental remediation.

This act was signed, even though the Go-vernment Accountability Office Report and studies carried on the reality experienced by the affected people confirmed the carried out remediation was anti-technical.

2002On August 16, the Court of Appeals of New

York decided the case should be referred to Ecuadorian law, since it was not competent to hear it. The case was transferred to the Supe-rior Court of Nueva Loja.

2003On May 7, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit with the

Superior Court of Nueva Loja, in Lago Agrio (Ec-uador).

2009Chevron filed and arbitration appeal. The

company alleged that Ecuador violated the obligations it had assumed under the BIT signed in 1997. However, the Oil Company had already left Ecuadorian territory when the BIT came into force.

2010Under Chevron’s request, United States

District Judge for the Southern District of New York, Lewis Kaplan, initiated a judicial process against Ecuadorian plaintiffs and their lawyers. The lawsuit alleged fraud had been commit-ted against Chevron Corporation in Ecuador.

MILESTONES

56

The company intended to delegitimize the judgment ordered against it by the Sucumbíos Court, under the application of the Racket-eer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), originally legislated to prosecute the Mafia and others involved in organized crime.

2011On February 14, the Court of Sucumbíos

condemned Chevron to pay $9.5 billion com-pensation for having caused one of the “world’s biggest environmental disasters”, between 1964 and 1990.

2012On February 28, 2012, the Permanent Court

of Arbitration of The Hague, which had been called under the BIT signed by Ecuador and the United States, announced that it had jurisdic-tion to hear its claims against the Republic of Ecuador.

2013On November 11, the National Court of Jus-

tice ratified the judgment issued by the Court of Sucumbíos, which holds Chevron responsi-ble for the environmental damage caused in the Ecuadorian Amazon and rules it has to pay compensation to the affected communities.

On December 16, the Canadian Court of Ap-peal for Ontario acknowledged jurisdiction and competence to validate the Ecuadorian judg-ment and enforce it in Canada.

2014 The Permanent Court of Arbitration of

The Hague determined that hearings on the

Chevron III case would be held in January 2014. They might continue until 2016.

According to a ruling issued by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on March 5, 2014, neither lawyers nor plaintiffs will be able to enforce the 2011 judgment within US territory. This means that Chevron would no longer be held responsible for paying compensation to the affected com-munities.