On Sunday, January 19, 2025, a debate was held between the 16 candidates vying for the presidency of Ecuador for the 2025 – 2029 term. In the context of the crises that Ecuador is currently experiencing, it is not surprising that three main topics were addressed: security and crime prevention, the efficiency of the State and public services, and economic growth and job creation.
The Ecuadorian Amazon was not considered a relevant topic for public debate by any of the presidential candidates. That should worry us.
For more than 50 years, Ecuador has reaped the benefits of oil exploitation in its northern Amazon region. These devastating years have resulted in water pollution in the territories of Indigenous Peoples and poverty for the populations who live there. Despite the government’s heavy reliance on resources from the Amazon, Ecuadorian politicians don’t seem to be interested in the region.
In their responses, candidates mentioned the Amazon on only two occasions; once to talk about the decentralization of the State and another to point out that the country’s hydroelectric plants depend heavily on water from the Amazon. That’s all. But when it came to talking about oil and mining, things changed; then, they had a lot to say.
When it came to the problem of how to create jobs, the answer was extractivism. “Where to start producing and generating employment? Look at the ground under our feet, at what is down there: oil, energy and mining,” said Francesco Tabacchi, candidate for the Creating Opportunities Movement (CREO). He continued: “We must open the doors to private companies and foreign investment regulated and controlled by the State.” Along the same lines, Henry Cucalón, candidate for the CONSTRUYE party, said “I’ll say ‘Yes’ to legal mining from my first day in government.” In the same breath, these candidates swore to fight illegal mining, despite the fact that the State has demonstrated its inability to control the practice.
The two most popular candidates according to the polls said very little in the debate about the delicate issue of extractivism. Candidate and current president of Ecuador, Daniel Noboa, limited himself to stating that all types of mining will be carried out with the highest environmental standards to “generate employment without scaring away foreign investment, which is what will create massive employment in this country.” During his term, Noboa has promoted the oil and mining industry abroad, including projects where proper consultations were not carried out, such as the “Ronda Petrolera SurOriente.” If he wins the election, he will continue on the same course.
For her part, the other leading candidate, Luisa González, of the Citizen Revolution party, didn’t mention the Amazon nor extractivism in her remarks. However, in her government plan she speaks of “combating illegal mining and recovering institutionalized regulation and control of the mining sector” and of working with Indigenous Peoples to guarantee their rights. It bears noting that the most distinguished figure of her party, former president Rafael Correa, was the most zealous promoter of extractivism in Ecuador, having installed the first large-scale mining project in Ecuador’s Southern Amazon region, and having also initiated oil exploitation in block 43-ITT of Yasuní National Park.
The discourse of legal and responsible mining versus illegal mining has been repeated for many years to support the entry of mining companies into Indigenous and rural communities in Ecuador. Recent investigations by the CONECTAS journalistic platform have pointed out how in the province of Napo, the line between legal and illegal mining is so blurred that it is non-existent. In other mining concessions, legal mining has become the primary apparatus for laundering illegal mining profits for criminal gangs. This demonstrates the State’s inability to control mining, whether legal or illegal. And of more serious concern, the presidential candidates clearly do not propose any strategies to control mining. The question is: Are they keeping quiet about their strategies because they have none, or because nothing will change when they come to power?
When analyzing the candidates’ plans for governance, most of them insist that the implementation of mining initiatives will be done with respect for nature, ignoring the damage all mining does to ecosystems. One example is the Amazonian province of Napo, where illegal mining has resulted in the deforestation of 490 hectares between 2017 and 2020, according to the Andean Amazon Monitoring Project (MAAP). This activity has also polluted rivers with heavy metals, affecting entire communities that depend on river water.
Another issue that the candidates omitted from their plans and their speeches during the debate is the constitutional right of people to be consulted on projects that affect their lives and their territories. In the case of Indigenous Peoples and nations, the term for this is prior, free, and informed consent. In the case of non-indigenous people, it’s called environmental consultation. And with respect to the general population, this right is exercised through referenda voted on by the electorate. Only in five of the sixteen work plans do the candidates speak of guaranteeing prior, free and informed consent and of supporting the passage of a law to protect this right (a law that has been introduced but remains pending).
The intention to move forward with oil and mining projects without due consultation, in addition to violating collective rights, puts the work of human rights and environmental defenders at risk. To cite just one example, residents of the communities of Las Pampas and Palo Quemado in the Ecuadorian highlands were treated like criminals in 2024 for resisting the incursion of mining companies. On the other hand, the Ecuadorian people won a historic victory when they decided not to allow oil exploitation in the Yasuní National Park. In other referenda, the population voted to prohibit metal mining in the areas of Girón, Cuenca, and the Andean Chocó region. The silence on the part of the candidates makes it clear that the will of the people is not being heeded.
During the debate, only one voice expressed a different point of view. The candidate and president of the Indigenous movement of Ecuador, Leonidas Iza, declared “No! to large-scale mining” in order to protect water, life and food. And only two plans (Iza’s plan and candidate Pedro Granja’s plan, both of the left) included moratoriums on mining, and guaranteed the right to prior, free and informed consent.
The future looks bleak. The Amazon is the most important ecosystem in the world, but it is unfairly ignored except when powerful people or groups benefit from it, either for their personal wealth or to enrich conglomerates. Clearly, in the short-sighted view of those who hold power, the Amazon is to be treated as a sacrificial zone from which they can extract resources without consequences. But there are real consequences, and they will be felt not only by Ecuador but by the entire world.
The Amazon is the largest forest on the planet, and it is one of the most important regulators of our shared climate. It is ironic that decision makers claim to be aware of climate change, and despite having recently experienced its consequences in the form of a drought that caused power cuts of up to 14 hours a day in Ecuador, they continue to promote oil and mining extraction as a “solution”.
The most healthy and intact ecosystems in the world have been cared for by Indigenous Peoples. Governments’ lack of interest in the conservation of the Amazon not only threatens the sustainability of the planet, but also puts the ancestral home of Indigenous communities at risk. The presidential debate has raised an alarm by showing that the leading candidates see the exploitation of the forest as a tool to obtain income for international corporations, with devastating impacts on the tropical forest. It was clear in the debate that politicians continue to lie when they claim that oil and mining exploitation will bring development and combat poverty. The ample evidence in Ecuador indicates the opposite.
