Lo Que No Se Dice de los Contratos de Camisea

Nota de Prensa

Lo Que No Se Dice de Los Contratos de Camisea

• No se dice que el contrato de Camisea que se cuestiona hoy, NO es el contrato original que firmó el Ing. Carlos Herrera Descalzi cuando fue Ministro.
• No se dice que ese contrato original, firmado durante el Gobierno de Transición por Herrera Descalzi, SÍ protegía a los peruanos asegurando su demanda interna de gas por 20 años renovables.
• No se dice el contrato original fue cambiado en el régimen posterior, para beneficiar a Hunt Oil, permitiéndole tener la potestad de decidir la exportación de cualquier gas habido o por hallar y quitándole la seguridad energética del mercado interno.
• No se dice que cuando se produjeron esas modificaciones en perjuicio de los peruanos, Hunt Oil no se quejó de que 'le cambiaran las reglas de juego'.
• Tampoco se dice que la modificación del contrato original, que ahora pretende consignarse como 'error', esconde una serie de 'equivocaciones' sistemáticas que no tienen sustento lógico, por lo que DEBE investigarse para dilucidar si existieron 'incentivos' para lograr estas modificaciones perjudiciales a los peruanos.
• Tampoco se dice que, cada vez que un funcionario público sale a anunciar mayores reservas, éstas no tienen un real sustento pues no han sido certificadas.
• El gobierno tiene la obligación de garantizarnos, y nosotros los peruanos el derecho de exigir, QUE SE REGRESE AL CONTRATO ORIGINAL DE CAMISEA, cuyas modificaciones SÍ fueron y son un atentado a la estabilidad jurídica y seguridad energética del Perú.

Lima, 29 de Febrero de 2008

ING. CARLOS HERRERA DESCALZI
Ex Ministro de Energía y Decano del Colegio de Ingenieros del Perú

Listen to the Human Rights Hearing on Isolated Peoples

Here's a link to the audio recording of today's hearing at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. (The vast majority of the audio is in Spanish.)

The hearing was regarding three petitions submitted to the Commission related to the situation of indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation in Peru – Precautionary Measures 102/07 on the Kugpakori Nahua Nanti and others affected by Block 88 (Camisea Project), 262/05 on the Mashco Piro, Yora and Arahuaca in the Madre de Dios Territorial Reserve, and 129/07 on the Tagaeri, Taromenane and others in the proposed Napo-Tigre Territorial Reserve (Blocks 67 and 39).

Presentations in were made by representatives from organizations that submitted the petitions: AIDESEP (Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana) and FENAMAD (Federación Nativa de Madre de Diós). The Peruvian government's position was also presented, primarily by a member of the Ministry of Energy and Mines as well as by the head of the pro-oil indigenous organization, CONAP (Confederación de Nacionalidades Amazónicas del Peru).

Link to Audio:
http://www.cidh.org/audiencias/130/pueblos%20indigenas%20aislamiento%20voluntario.mp3

New Report Finds Camisea Fails IDB and IFC Standards

The September 2007 report, Holding the IDB and IFC to account on Camisea II, is available for download from Amazon Watch. The report, by anthropologist, Tom Griffiths, highlights some of the major environmental and social problems of Camisea I and II and concludes that the Camisea consortium's community engagement in Block 56 has violated international standards on protecting the rights of indigenous peoples and fails to the meet the performance standards of the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB) and the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC), both of which currently considering financing Camisea II.

Among the problems with Camisea II outlined in the report are:
1) A flawed and deficient Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for operations in Block 56.
2) A community consultation process on the Block 56 EIA that threatened confused and dissatisfied communities into signing their approval.
3) Evidence that prior consent and prior consultation rights were not fully respected by the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Perupetro when it sold exploitation rights to Block 56, questioning the legality of the sale.
4) Failure to address potential impacts of Block 56 exploration and development on isolated indigenous peoples.

The report states that the IDB must delay its decision on financing Camisea II until it first addressed project non-compliance issues with respect to its financing of Camisea I and ensure that ascertain that the project fully complies with IDB policies, including protections for indigenous peoples’ established under ILO Convention 169 and the Inter-American human rights system.

It urges the IFC to include the “associated facilities” of Blocks 56 and 88 in its due diligence; conduct its own social and environmental audit as required under its Performance Standards; and ensure public consultation in Peru and internationally before proceeding with the project.

This is a very good document, in particular for understanding how indigenous communities were railroaded into signing off on the Block 56 EIA in early 2005. Good work, Tom.

Defensoria del Pueblo: Perupetro Must Coordinate with INRENA and INDEPA on New Blocks

A March 20, 2007 report by the office of Peru's Public Ombudsperson (Defensoria del Pueblo) analyzes the overlap of Peru's 18 new hydrocarbon exploration concessions with Natural Protected Areas, Protected Area Buffer Zones, Reserve Zones (a transitional protection status), and existing and proposed Territorial Reserves for indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation. The report cites date from civil society organizations that one Block, 131 overlaps with a protected area (El Sira Communal Reserve); six blocks (130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, and 140) overlap buffer zones; four of the blocks (135, 137, 138, and 139) overlap the Sierra del Divisor Reserve Zone; four blocks (132, 133, 138, and 139) overlap Territorial Reserves for indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation; and four blocks (135, 136, 137, and 139) overlap proposed Territorial Reserves.

The report found considerable disagreement between the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM), Perupetro - the state company that promotes hydrocarbon exploration - and Peru's natural resource agency (INRENA) in their interpretation of the law. MEM and Perupetro claim that INRENA only needs to be consulted when the contracting company submits an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for exploration in the protected area, but does not need to be involved in the designation of hydrocarbon exploration blocks. The Defensoria's report concludes that the government must obtain a technical opinion from INRENA before it auctions off blocks in protected areas and that INDEPA should be consulted on blocks that overlap with Territorial Reserves for isolated peoples.

In an interview on "Mesa Central" on Chanel 7, Perupetro President, Daniel Saba (pictured), tried to discredit the Ombudsperson's report, questioning the organization's motives. He claimed that INRENA's only role in the process of hydrocarbon development in protected areas was to review the EIS submitted by the company and then went on to deny the existence of indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation in the Peruvian Amazon. Saba dismissed evidence of the existence of isolated peoples saying that it was invented by an anthropologist who now works at the World Bank. (Ironically, the person in question, Alonso Zarzar, was head of community relations in the 1990's for Shell in Camisea and spent much of his time trying to disprove the existence of isolated peoples in the Nahua-Kugapakori Territorial Reserve in order to justify Shell's drilling there.) Saba then announced that Perupetro would do its own study to show that isolated peoples do not exist.

Link to the interview with Perupetro's Daniel Saba.
Related: Peru's New Petroleum Concession Map Covers Most of Amazon