Ask an Advocate Anything: Leila Salazar-López, Amazon Watch
Planning to pump oil out of the planet’s largest rainforest? Then you can count on a friendly visit from this seasoned activist organization.
Activists post decals on BlackRock’s New York headquarters on September 1, 2020. Amazon Watch is one of several organizations pressuring the company to divest from projects they argue fuel Amazon forest fires. Photo by Erik McGregor.
Through our “Ask An Advocate Anything” blog series, we chat with influential activists and campaigners, seeking to better understand their theories of change and explore how NGOs are challenging and collaborating with companies to advance business as a force for good.
The views and statements shared in the following interview are those of the interviewee alone and do not represent the perspective of Future 500. To learn more about how we approach these conversations, check out our Editorial Policy.
Since 1996, Amazon Watch has protected the rainforest and advanced the rights of Indigenous peoples in the world’s largest tropical rainforest. The organization partners with Indigenous and environmental organizations in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability, and the preservation of ecological systems. We spoke with Leila Salazar-López, the organization’s executive director.
What does Amazon Watch want?
We want oil companies, and those that invest in those companies, to end extraction in the Amazon.
Leila Salazar-López, Executive Director, Amazon Watch. Photo courtesy of Amazon Watch.
How could those companies instead be making a positive difference?
Simply put, they should not be investing in companies that are destroying human rights. Most of these [oil] companies have received concessions of land [from the government]. Most of those concessions are on top of Indigenous peoples’ territories. And they have not received the free, prior, and informed consent of those people. Under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, they are required to not only consult and inform, but also get consent of the people. And that is not happening. These investors should not be financing companies that are violating human rights, while aiding and abetting climate chaos.
These investors are in petroleum because it’s still a very profitable industry, and they are obligated to return value to their shareholders. That’s what they do. Where should they be investing?
Oil is just not a good investment. It is historically low. And these [are] companies that claim to be concerned about the environment, or the climate. Instead of investing in extractive industries, we want to see these banks invest in renewable energy, we want to see these banks invest in a new economy.
But again, those companies won’t earn nearly the same profits from renewable energy as they will from fossil fuels, at least today. Does that matter?
The investments in fossil fuels and destruction are only going to last so long. The industries that are continuing to invest in dinosaur models are becoming extinct; the current way we build our economy is not sustainable for people or the planet. These companies and investors have made a false promise. That’s not okay. Industry will have to build our economy in a different way, in a way that is life-affirming and [that does not destroy] our climate and environment.
“Instead of investing in extractive industries, we want to see these banks invest in renewable energy, we want to see these banks invest in a new economy. ”
Is it possible to have a “good” oil company? Could such a thing exist? Could a fossil fuel company in some way earn the social license to operate in the Amazon?
There have been efforts by industry to work with local communities and drill in a more responsible way. But is there a way to do oil drilling that will have no impact? No. There is no way to do oil drilling in the Amazon that will have no adverse impact to the environment, the rivers, streams, and the people. There’s no way to do it 100 per cent sustainably. It is the very last place we should be drilling for oil. From the Indigenous people’s perspective, the community perspective, and the global scientific consensus is that fossil fuels should remain in the ground.
What if an energy company did, somehow, secure free, prior, and informed consent of the Indigenous people of the Amazon?
Indigenous sovereignty needs to be respected. If Indigenous communities are well-informed and they make a decision to allow oil drilling on their territory, that is their self-determination, that is their decision. That said, that is very far from happening, considering the historic impacts on the ground.
Beyond ‘keep it in the ground,’ what is your specific ask right now?
We’re calling for permanent protection of Indigenous territories in the Amazon. We’re calling for respect for human rights. We know that there’s not a climate solution out there that doesn’t involve protecting the forests of the world, including the millions of trees in the Amazon. We want to call for divestment and protecting forests, for keeping fossil fuels in the ground and investing in Indigenous peoples. We are calling for an alternative economy.
“Before we release any report, before we launch any campaign, we always write to the mentioned companies first and offer them an opportunity to comment. In this case, we actually sent the report to the companies we named. ”
Your materials often reference ‘Indigenous-led solutions’ to our biggest challenges, including the climate crisis. What does such a solution look like? Can you give us an example?
An Indigenous-led solution is one that comes directly from Indigenous peoples and communities. For the Amazon, one that really stands out is the Living Forest Proposal of the Kichwa People of Sarayaku. It calls for a new international category of conservation, free from industrial extraction—including oil development. The proposal is based on Indigenous world views and upholds Indigenous self-determination, governance, and forest protection. They have more than 250,000 acres of primary rainforest that they’ve been protecting for thousands of years. In the early 2000s, an Argentine company went into their territory, with military backing, without their consent. The community resisted, and eventually the company and the military retreated and left.
Sarayaku filed a lawsuit at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for violations of their right to free, prior and informed consent and, after 10 years of litigation, won their historic lawsuit for Indigenous rights. They were awarded $1.2 million and they invested that money into their life plan which incorporates Indigenous self-governance, forest management, education, health care, and transportation.
An August 2020 report by Stand.earth and Amazon Watch highlights European investment in Amazon oil trade. Photo courtesy of Amazon Watch.
Your most recent report, that you did with Stand.Earth, addresses European financing of oil exploration in the Amazon. Did you engage with those companies before you published? Do you give them the opportunity to change or respond?
Before we release any report, before we launch any campaign, we always write to the mentioned companies first and offer them an opportunity to comment.
In this case, we actually sent the report to the companies we named. Some did not respond, and some said, ‘Well, we’ve already stopped dealing with oil from the Amazon.’ Others did not respond.
The ones that responded... what did they say?
Two large investment banks—while they have not yet promised to update their policies—indicated they are willing to engage with us further, which we view with cautious optimism.
A large Dutch multinational bank told us it stopped financing trades involving Amazon Sacred Headwaters oil in April 2020—but it has not clearly stated that it will explicitly exclude financing for Amazon oil going forward. So we have no way of knowing if the bank decided to stop or pause because of oil prices, or other factors. Another multinational did not initially respond to us, and dismissed our findings in press reports—but has since come back and requested a meeting.
Did you get a response you would consider a win?
One European company, after reading our report, committed to work with us and other stakeholders to address its current involvement in Amazon oil finance. That’s the kind of leadership that is needed from banks engaging in the financing of such a destructive commodity.
“A year ago, the world awakened to the devastating fires across the Amazon rainforest. That was a global shocker.”
In BlackRock’s Big Problem, a previous report, you called the company’s CEO a hypocrite: ‘Larry Fink wants to be thought of as a socially-responsible corporate leader, but BlackRock refuses to divest from tar sands, coal, Arctic oil, Amazon crude, and rainforest destruction, and it votes against shareholder demands for climate action and transparency.’ Did Mr. Fink respond?
Blackrock has not publicly responded to this report but has stated that it has put some companies on a ‘watch list.’ Blackrock has not been transparent about which companies, nor which standards were in question. This is far from sufficient.
What does responsible business conduct look like in your mind?
Well, not operating in the Amazon would be a start. [BlackRock] must stop financing fossil fuel companies and agribusiness companies like Cargill Dow [now NatureWorks] and JBS, who are some of the biggest companies that are causing destruction of the Amazon rainforest. We want to see the commitment turning to action. And what they have committed to do is to engage with those companies. But we haven’t seen the change that’s really needed.
Amazon Watch delivers petitions to BlackRock’s San Francisco headquarters in 2018 addressing their investment in Amazon oil and gas projects. Photo courtesy of Amazon Watch.
Speaking last November, following what it called “resistance and social and political opposition” Sinopec, a Chinese petroleum and chemicals company, called off its planned Amazon project. What did you learn from taking on a Chinese state oil company?
It was a major victory for the communities who were feeling very threatened—as [Sinopec] had caused division amongst the Indigenous people. But it was also a significant victory for the movement calling for keeping fossil fuels in the ground. The Ecuadorian government has a responsibility here because they encourage international investment. But over the last 20 years, they have been met with significant resistance, so there was already a foundation for resistance. So when Sinopec came in, there was already that foundation and there was international solidarity, and international attention.
In your recent materials, you’ve referenced a sharp increase in capacity, you received a funding boost. Where has that come from?
A year ago, the world awakened to the devastating fires across the Amazon rainforest. That was a global shocker. What really shocked many people was the fact that the fires were of course not accidents, they were intentionally set [as the result of] government policy. That ignited global awareness, and an interest in wanting to support the protection of the forest and defend the Indigenous people. It attracted financial resources to organizations like Amazon Watch.
“COVID-19 is threatening the very people who are protecting the forest. It’s spreading exponentially through the Amazon, in the cities, towns, and even in the very remote villages. ”
What has the windfall allowed you to do?
Our budgets have essentially doubled. When we started receiving additional support, we said it would need to go to responding to both physical and political fires. So that meant direct support on the ground for communities. It also means increased advocacy and communications. So we have added additional team members for international campaigning, and then also team members on the ground in the field.
What has the novel coronavirus pandemic meant for your work?
COVID-19 is threatening the very people who are protecting the forest. It’s spreading exponentially through the Amazon, in the cities, towns, and even in the very remote villages. That’s very, very concerning. We are very grateful for that increased funding and support you mentioned, because we’ve been able to disseminate those funds for emergency humanitarian aid for COVID-19 response. And now the fires have started again. Right now, more than 15,000 fires are raging across the Amazon.
There remains a considerable gulf between what large energy companies say is our ‘necessary reality,’ and what keep-it-in-the-ground campaigners insist needs to happen. How would you respond if a CEO said to you, ‘Look, you are hopelessly out of touch.’
I would say, ‘Do you have children? Do you have any hope for your children to survive? Have you read the scientific reports, or are you just concerned with making more money? Because making more money is not going to sustain or ensure a future for your children and my children.’ That’s not just a personal belief. It is backed by science.
We are in a biodiversity and climate crisis. Now we’re in an economic, health, and political crisis. You know what is really important to sustain the future for humanity? A lot of Western society has been built on a fossil fuel economy, and that economy is not sustainable anymore.
Future 500 is a non-profit consultancy that builds trust between companies, advocates, investors, and philanthropists to advance business as a force for good. Based in San Francisco, we specialize in stakeholder engagement, sustainability strategy, and responsible communication. From stakeholder mapping to materiality assessments, partnership development to activist engagement, target setting to CSR reporting strategy, we empower our partners with the skills and relationships needed to systemically tackle today's most pressing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) challenges.
Want to learn more? Reach out any time.
Blog posts by James:
