Class Film Outline
The issues surrounding the Camisea project are not unique to Peru. Natural gas and petroleum pipelines have been installed in sensitive areas throughout the world. The result of several of these projects has included reduced quality of life for local peoples and loss of biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International, and the Smithsonian Institution are some of the organizations that have realized the potential consequences of the Camisea pipeline and, without success, have asked its funding sources for an independent evaluation. This documentary will tackle these environmental and social issues within an ecological economic framework. The urgency in studying and evaluating the Camisea project stems from the fact that most of the infrastructure for the project is complete. This sensitive time in the construction of the pipeline allows for opportunities to influence its scope and use. The sources of conflict will also be addressed and opportunities for “opposing” groups to compromise will be investigated.
Our documentary is different because viewers will see the issues surrounding the Camisea project through the eyes of American students. One of the difficulties of highlighting global conflicts is the lack of connection between Americans and the needs of people and the environment in developing countries. The documentary follows a group of students at the University of Vermont sorting through different perspectives on the project. This will allow viewers to identify with the issues in Camisea and see the conflict from different angles.
DESCRIPTION: Part I: The Pipeline and its Environment
The Lower Urubama region is at once a place of magnificent biodiversity and rainforest beauty, and a source of fossil fuel for Peru and international companies seeking to extract the natural gas found under the jungle. The pipeline project threatens the livelihoods of indigenous people in the development area by contaminating their sources of clean water and other natural resources, deforestation and erosion, opening rainforest areas for destructive colonization, and forcing contact between vulnerable populations of isolated peoples and outsiders.
The Camisea project is not unique, with the world’s burgeoning populations and unsustainable development trajectories exacting greater demands for fossil fuels, these industries are searching for new sources, pushing oil and natural gas exploration and extraction into more remote and biologically sensitive areas. Often these projects are opposed by local and international environmental and human rights groups as well as democracy advocates. However, they are usually ultimately approved based on traditional economic assessments that are incomplete. This documentary will expose the unforeseen costs of the Camisea project, particularly the deleterious effects on indigenous people living within the national reserves the gas pipeline runs through, as well as the detrimental impacts on one of the most biologically diverse ‘hotspots’ in the world. It will showcase a unique graduate class at the University of Vermont that utilizes ecosystem services valuation, an alternative economic framework born out of the new discipline of ecological economics, to determine the real costs of such development projects, and demonstrate that an economic paradigm shift is necessary in order establish sustainable development trajectories.
This film will weave the stories of both the people and the land in jeopardy in rich color to capture the verdant beauty of the Amazon rainforest, while exposing that these happenings are not unique, and expressing the relevance of this situation to people throughout the world.
These areas, if left intact, would provide important ecological, economic and social benefits. Yet all too often the services imparted by ecosystems are not factored into critical decisions on land use, and ‘bottom-line’ decisions become the guiding precept. However, Herman Daly (1992) has identified at least 3 broad goals as significant to managing economic systems within the context of the planet’s ecological life-support system 1) ensuring that the scale of human activities within the biosphere is ecologically sustainable; 2) distributing resources and property rights fairly with the current generation of human, between this and future generations, and between humans and other species; and 3) efficiently allocating resources as constrained and defined by 1 and 2, including both market and nonmarket resources, especially ecosystem services.
The valuation of these services is critical to properly determining the best use of the area, taking factors beyond economics into account, demonstrating the need for ‘triple bottom line’ decisions. However, the ensuing conflict does not allow the space for thorough consideration of viable alternatives. Yet these types of disputes, although initially they may be sources of disagreement, do not always have to end in controversy. In fact, the emerging field of environmental conflict resolution explores the causes of conflicts involving environmental concerns, without presuming that environmental disputes are necessarily a cause of conflict, they in fact may be part of the solution of wider regional conflicts. Derived from various disciplines such as political science, economic game theory, systems analysis, sociology and anthropology, as well being rooted in natural science, particularly evolutionary biology and ethology, the study of conflict versus cooperation presents a more holistic, trans-disciplinary approach to resolving environmental conflicts in the 21 st century.
One of the main problems with this project from the outset has been the policies of one of its major funders, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). “Established in 1959 as a multilateral development institution, it is the main source of multilateral financing for economic, social and institutional development projects as well as trade and regional integration programs in Latin America and the Caribbean” (from the IDB website). Yet, unlike other multilateral financial institutions, the IDB has antiquated environmental and social policies that pale in comparison to its peers, such as the United States Export (Ex-Im) Bank and the World Bank. In fact, the IDB’s environmental policy was crafted in 1979 and no revision or addition has been made to the 450-word document in the subsequent years. (Finally, after much protest from civil society groups, the institution is currently in the process of revamping its policy, but the Camisea project falls under the old guidelines.) In fact, the World Bank rejected the project from the outset, due to environmental and social concerns, and in an almost unheard of move, the Ex-Im Bank rejected the project in the last stages of negotiation, citing unresolved environmental concerns. Yet, a month after the Ex-Im’s rejection, in September of 2003, the IDB approved a direct loan of $75 million and a syndicated loan of $60 million to the project, despite significant flaws.
Examination of the IDB’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reveals some of the most salient defects. Standard in all development projects, the EIA is used to determine the potential environmental, social and health effects of a proposed development. One of the customary options in an EIA is that of the ‘no development’, which explicates that one option that should be considered in the planning stages is that no development occurs. Similarly, in these types of project, there routinely is a ‘no-go’ zone, in which one option of the project is that some part of the area is not developed or explored, to preserve its environmental integrity. The EIA developed by the IDB for the Camisea project did not include either the ‘no development’ option or the ‘no-go’ zone, demonstrating the myopic manner in which the project proceeded.
Not surprisingly, construction has wrecked havoc on this extremely fragile area. The lower Urubamba region is considered by scientists to be an area of almost unequaled biological diversity of global ecological importance. Yet the project necessitates the building of a road in this untouched area, fragmenting the forest and exposing it to the possibility of migrants, loggers and developers settling in newly accessible areas. In the original plans of the project, there was reference to destroying the road after initial construction was complete, to restore the environment as much as possible to its previous state. However, more recently, there has been no talk or plans of following through on that plan, and technical experts have recorded irremediable impacts to the area, including damage from massive landslides, soil erosion and the washing of enormous amounts of soil and vegetation into local rivers.
Much of the first phase of the Camisea pipeline project has been completed, and pumping of the liquid natural gas began in late 2004. Unfortunately, as many had forewarned and predicted, there has already been significant consequences to the environment, including one of the most feared ramifications: a leak on the pipeline in the Urubamba Valley. On Dec. 22, 2004, the pipeline broke and leaked gas liquids for almost 10 minutes before it was controlled. The gas liquids polluted a section of the Kemariarto creek and killed fish in that water. The spill left a residue of natural gas liquids 10 centimeters deep over an area of 50 square meters. Although TGP, the gas transportation consortia, claimed that the volume of the Urubamba River was very high at 4,000 meters per second at the time of the spill and therefore did not experience any detectable hydrocarbons, the indigenous people of the area have testified otherwise, maintaining that the quality of the fish and water supply have been compromised since the leak. This leak is a harbinger for the continued degradation the project will bring to the area.
Part II: Social Ramifications
The plot thickens, to reveal perhaps the biggest irony of this story. The IDB contends that this project is important for the development of economic welfare and alleviation of poverty for Peru, yet it is jeopardizing the livelihoods and lives of some of the very people that they are purporting to help: Peru’s indigenous peoples. Many sections of the pipeline fall within national reserves such as the Nahua Kugapakori State Reserve and the Manu National Park, home to indigenous communities such as the Machiguenga peoples, as well as semi-nomadic voluntarily isolated peoples such as the Nahua, Nanti, and Kirineri. The reserve areas were created by the Peruvian government over a decade ago to protect these vulnerable peoples with limited immunity to foreign germs and sicknesses. Thus, construction workers on the project and migrants attracted by the road become vectors of alien germs that threaten the indigenous people’s health and lives. In addition to those momentous health issues, the environmental degradation caused by the project poses a serious threat to their lifestyles. The fish and game populations have been dramatically reduced, and soil erosion contaminates their water supply. Further exploration for more natural gas reserves and exploitation of this fossil fuel practically guarantees the extinction of these peoples.
Furthermore, the original intention to use part of the money to protect indigenous peoples and establish reserves for them has been supplanted. In 2002 FOCAM, the Fund for Camisea’s Sustainable Development, was created to assign specific designations for the use of revenues generated from the pipeline project. One of the main provisions of the law was to use a portion of the revenue to protect the communities affected by the project and set up a reserve for impacted indigenous peoples. However, this hasn’t happened; the Peruvian government has been appropriating this money and channeling it to fund military and other projects.
Currently there is no independent monitoring of the pipeline project, not allowing for transparency in the process. In almost all other infrastructure projects of this type, particularly those funded by the World Bank, there is always an independent monitor that critically and objectively analyzes the projects to ensure all aspects of compliance: economic, social and environmental. These processes are usually transparent as well, in that sources of revenue are revealed and how this money is spent is disclosed. However, on the Camisea project, no baseline environmental sampling has been conducted, nor is there any groundwater monitoring. Moreover, due to the way some of the laws regarding this project have been written, the Peruvian government has not allowed for any such monitoring or transparent governance system. The IDB has not recognized this nor made any provisions to rectify this, which is well within their right as a major funder.
Ecological economics takes into account the just-as-crucial environmental and social components that are currently considered externalities of such projects, and place them into a context that allows an equally weighted dialogue. The use of ecosystem service valuations demonstrates the value that the services the ecosystems, particularly those as biologically diverse as the Amazon, provide when left intact, such as the prevention of soil erosion, add a new dimension to the discourse.
This film will chronical the concurrent themes of environmental damage as well as social injustice and introduce the viewer to the significance of a new development paradigm shaped through an ecological economics lens. Interviews with experts on all sides of the matter, from the IDB to indigenous spokespeople, will frame the issues. By portraying the complete story of the Camisea pipeline project, this film will underscore the importance of the cultivation of a new paradigm; one that incorporates environmental and social factors in its guiding precept to achieve a greater sphere of justice than the standard of ‘economic development.’
| Topic | Subtopics/shots | Sound | Time duration |
| Initial Perceptions | Individual class member (and professor) introductions, vision of the class why we are taking it, what ecological economics means to us | Peruvian indigenous people's music | 7 mins |
| Peru | Rainforest, pipeline, framing the issues, a map showing the area | ||
| Class Methods and Objectives | Ecosystem Valuation and methods to evaluate (the case of ecological economics) | Peruvian indigenous people's music | 13 mins |
| Conflict mediation/dynamics - Web of organizations and issues Dynamic historical Venn diagram Money flows |
|||
| Service learning class | Interview Linn Bond, runs service learning at UVM | ||
| Service learning aspect, video conferencing, contacting and including a variety of stakeholders, future alterier course | |||
| Connection to Vermont | What is the Camisea Pipeline project to Us Vermont and the Global Gas Markets, gas station footage, photos of rising prices, shots of Burlington and surrounding area |
Phish, gas station radio announcments, car sounds | |
| Reflections | Individual reactions at the end of the semester, possibly include recommendations for future in Camisea or elsewhere, should these pipelines be built, if so how do we lessen impact (or should we) | Peruvian rock | 6 mins |
| 52 Minute Case Study Video Script |
| Major Themes |
 Alternative development paradigms and ecological valuation |
| Development under various valuation perspectives |
| Topic | Questions answered or purpose | Video shot | Sound | Time duration | Comments |
| Peru | Cultural Aspects | markets, homes, people, life | Sound of oil drums in protest, local music | 9 Mins | Open with shots of the rainforest, one person talking- maybe local activist |
| Environment | Environmental, Biodiversity | Amazon, mountains, coast, specific wildlife (birds, monkeys, mammals) | show different landuses | ||
| Economy, current status, indigenous | Economist familiar with Peru? | ||||
| History of pipelines in Peru/Camisea | Conflict with Indigenous peoples | ||||
| Environmental issues/accidents | |||||
| Energy Resources | What portion of world energy supply is dependent on Natural Gas? (this number is rising, especially with Kyoto trying to decrease emissions and oil becoming more expensive and less available) | Show all different energy sources | sound of energy resources, sound of IDB meeting, local music | 6 Mins | overview on Natural gas- US's role, Peru's roles |
| Development Banks | World Bank Extractive Industries Review-recommend that World Bank discontinue development investment in oil and coal, but continue in gas | DC? IDB headquarters, Get Dave at Apex to talk about the WB/IDB | |||
| Conflicts | Are all conflicts resource related? | Saleem talking about different resource conflicts | Background on conflict dynamics | ||
| Future | What happens after the resources run out | Renewables, more abandoned cars, buildings, etc.? | |||
| Stakeholders | Environmental and social issues, independent monitoring, etc | NGO Interviews | Sounds of the rainforest, voiceovers with local peoples | 13 Mins | back and forth between pro and con interviews |
| Corruption/Money | Corruption issue?, use of royalities, benefits to Peru, etc. | Government Interviews | |||
| Economic benefits, neoclassical view | Industry Interviews | ||||
| Why funded, future of extractive industry development projects (ask about World Bank extractive industry review on development findings) | IDB and other financial institution interviews | ||||
| Impacts | Environmental | tankers, pipeline (ROW), mudslides | local music, voiceovers of experts | 10 Mins | NR378 students talking about results of our study |
| Health/social | workers, previous footage of isolated peoples? | ||||
| Leaks/spills (note gas is more dangerous than oil) | Gas explosion | ||||
| What do Gas pipelines do to people’s livelihoods? | Dead fish or oil spill footage | ||||
| Economic (what % of pipeline will stay in Peru, what is its context in the larger scale) | Lima thriving, opportunites for growth, employment | ||||
| Ecological Economics | The neoclassical economic view vs. ecological economics perspective, how would it change the potential outcomes of resource conflicts? Market value vs. value in social equity and ecological integrity Explore why the World Bank does not use ecological economics How can valuation help? |
Interview Herman Daly or someone at Gund Institute | Classical | 9 Mins | |
| Possible alternatives | Interview companies that subscribe to true cost accounting | ||||
| Ecovillages Colombia Gaviottes. David Greenberg | |||||
| Looking to the future | What happens at pipeline end of life | Abandoned pipelines (Louisiana, Texas, or Oklahoma?) | Peruvian rock | 6 Mins | Local people, experts |
| Future of pipelines-can they be done better? Alternatives? | |||||