Ecuador

Prior Consultation for hydrocarbon activities in Oil Blocks 20 and 29

City/State/Region: OrellanaNapoPastaza
Begin – End: 2002 – 2002
Name of organization in charge: Gobierno NacionalPetroecuadorUniversidad Politécnica Salesiana
Type of organization in charge: government private stakeholders
Level: regional

Impact

?

Implementation: was the innovation effectively, partially or not put into practice at all?

Fulfillment of Aims: were the goals of the innovation completely, partially or not achieved at all?

Output: has the innovation generated recommendations, initiatives, decisions or policies?

Outcome: if there were a policy output, was it enacted or implemented?

Implementation: partial
Fulfillment of Democratic Innovation’s aim: partial
Output: yes
Policy Outcome: no

The first consultation was carried out after the approval of the Regulation of the prior consultation for hydrocarbon activities in 2002, with the objective of tendering oil blocks 20 and 29 located in the provinces of Orellana, Napo and Pastaza, specifically involving 6 cantons, 16 parishes, 263 Kichwa communities, and 6492 families; this representing 32000 inhabitants. This process was carried out by the Ecuadorian State through Petro Ecuador, with the support of the Salesian Polytechnic University, between August and December 2003. 263 communities voted in this process, of which more than 10% decided to vote against the oil blocks tender (25 communities), less than 1% expressed no opinion (2 communities) and about 90% supported the process (236 communities).The majority support was conditioned by a series of controls. The Ombudsman's Office, in its Report of a prior, free and informed consultation about the process of consultation of blocks 20 and 29, confirmed that the observations of the communities and other stakeholders who participated as observers of the process were hardly received, which detracted from the consultation process.

Institutional design

?

Formalization: is the innovation embedded in the constitution or legislation, in an administrative act, or not formalized at all?

Frequency: how often does the innovation take place: only once, sporadically, or is it permanent or regular?

Mode of Selection of Participants: is the innovation open to all participants, access is restricted to some kind of condition, or both methods apply?

Type of participants: those who participate are individual citizens, civil society organizations, private stakeholders or a combination of those?

Decisiveness: does the innovation takes binding, non-binding or no decision at all?

Co-governance: is there involvement of the government in the process or not?

Formalization: embedded in the constitution/legislation
Frequency: single
Mode of selection of participants: restricted
Type of participants: citizens civil society
Decisiveness: democratic innovation yields a binding decision
Co-Governance: yes

Means

Deliberation
Direct Voting
E-Participation
Citizen Representation

Ends

Accountability
Responsiveness
Rule of Law
Political Inclusion
Social Equality

Policy cycle

Agenda setting

Formulation and decision-making

Implementation

Policy Evaluation