Ecuador votes to leave oil in the ground

A few months ago I wrote about the small number of countries that have chosen not to exploit their fossil fuel reserves. It’s not a long list. New Zealand and Ireland are the only two countries with proven reserves that they have chosen not to invest in them. Others might have them and have chosen not to explore.

We can now potentially add another entry to the list: Ecuador. Following a referendum, the country will not develop any further oil production in Yasuni National Park, and will wind existing operations down within a year. Or at least, that’s what the referendum promised.

Yasuni already has an interesting place in the history of climate action. Back in 2007, President Rafael Correa made an offer to the international community: Ecuador would leave Yasuni’s oil underground if the country were compensated for it. They needed the development opportunity, but would settle for half the value of the oil. It was a genuine offer, as far as I can tell – nobody wanted to drill in a national park, but how can you turn down the money when people are still living in poverty?

The scheme was ultimately unsuccessful, raising a fraction of the $3.6 billion they were looking for. Drilling began in the park in 2016, but the indigenous communities most directly affected have continued to push for a referendum. They won it with 59% of the vote, meaning that Ecuador’s citizens have over-ruled the government and chosen to leave hundreds of millions of barrels of oil in the ground. Their decision also protects two uncontacted tribes who live in the Yasuni.

Will the government follow through on what was supposed to be a legally binding referendum? That remains to be seen. So far the signs aren’t great, with the government rejecting the outcome. The country is also in the midst of political turmoil, with presidential elections heading into a run-off that has already been marred by violence. At this point it is impossible to say if the referendum will be in any way meaningful.

Still, the idea may be out there now and take on a life of its own. Putting oil extraction to a democratic vote is a world first, as far as I know (tell me about it if you know otherwise!). It won’t be the last. The decision puts pressure on Brazil, where President Lula da Silva wants to drill for oil in the Amazon while also claiming to be protecting it. Activists are already suggesting a similar approach.

Britain has recent history with ill-advised referenda, so don’t expect a blanket recommendation from me. Referenda are a political tool that should be used with care, and I don’t think anyone will be calling for one in the UK anytime soon. I can only imagine the hysterics from the newspapers, the city and the economists if Britain were to call a vote on new oil and gas in the North Sea.

But in some contexts, especially when it involves local people making decisions on their own land, putting it to a public vote might be a good idea. It moves beyond ‘consultation‘ and grants the final decision to those most affected. And once you get past the political drive for economic growth, the vested interests and the lobbying power, who knows how many people would be quite happy to vote for the end of oil?