Response to Mr. Cabrera's Affirmations Regarding Alleged Ecosystem Impacts

138 Pages·2009·2.46 MB·Spanish

Response to Mr. Cabrera’s

Affirmations Regarding Alleged

Ecosystem Impacts

Lawsuit 002-2003 Nueva Loja,

Ecuador
Prepared for:
Chevron
Lawsuit 002-2003 Nueva Loja Superior Court, Ecuador

Response to Mr. Cabrera’s

A ffirmations Regarding Alleged

Ecosystem Impacts

Lawsuit 002-2003 Nueva Loja, Ecuador

Field Program Biology Specialists:
Flora: Ing. Nixon Revelo, graduate of the Universidad Técnica del Norte y Dr. Efraín Freire Mayorga,
graduate of the Universidad Central del Ecuador.
Ornithology: Dr. Freddy Condoy, graduate of the Universidad Central del Ecuador.
Mammalogy: Lincoln Segundo Nolivos Duque, graduate of the Universidad Nacional de la Amazonía
Peruana and the Organización para estudios Tropicales (Organization for Tropical Studies).
Herpetology: Dr. Jorge Izquierdo, graduate of the Universidad Central del Ecuador.
Entomology: Dr. Pablo Araujo, graduate of the Universidad Central del Ecuador.
Executive Summary
Principal authors: Bjorn Bjorkman and Claudia Sánchez de Lozada.
Field Program Biology Specialists: Nixon Revelo and Dr. Efrain Freire Mayorga (flora); Dr. Freddy
Condoy (ornithology); Lincoln Segunod Nolivos Duque (mammalogy); Dr. Jorge Izquierdo (herpetology);
and Dr. Pablo Araujo (entomology).
The goal of this study was to evaluate impacts to terrestrial resources (fauna, flora and biological
diversity) in the area of the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession. As part of this study, species
richness, diversity, similarity and sensitivity of five taxonomic groups were evaluated: flora, birds,
mammals, reptiles/amphibians, and two groups of indicator beetles. The primary objective was to
conduct a quantitative evaluation of possible impacts to these groups that could be attributable to
petroleum development, as a specific response to the claims about injury to the ecosystem presented by
Mr. Cabrera in his “Summary Report of the Court’s Expert Evaluation.”
We emphasize that in his report Mr. Cabrera does not present detailed data to support his claims related
to ecosystems, in that he refers to separate reports by Gallo and Martínez which were not included in
the Summary Report. It is impossible to verify the claims of the court’s expert, or whether he complied
with his Work Plan, in which he had stated that biological field studies would be conducted but without
specifying how alleged impacts would be determined.
To allow a quantitative evaluation of impacts to biological resources, this biological evaluation was
conducted on five taxonomic groups in two areas of similar landscape and ecological characteristics,
differing only in one key variable: a history of petroleum development. One control zone was selected
which has never been subjected to petroleum development, and a study zone was selected with a long
history of petroleum exploitation. Comparison of these two otherwise similar areas would allow
distinguishing between impacts related to oil and other impacts (e.g. agricultural land conversion and
use, forestry, urbanization, etc.). The areas were chosen to correspond to areas defined in the regional
ecological-economic zoning map (ECORAE, 2002) as not subject to “environmental conflict of use,” i.e.
that the current land use does not conflict with sustainable land uses for the area, are currently in
intensive agricultural use, and are not identified as areas critical to conservation of biological diversity.
The field investigation was conducted by Ecuadorian experts in the biology of the Amazon ecosystem
within the area of concern, and followed methods generally accepted in Ecuador for this type of study.
The study concluded the following:
1. The study compared the control and study zone with respect to species richness, taxonomy,
and abundance, biological diversity indices, relative abundance of environmentally sensitive
indicator species, and threatened or endangered species. No significant differences were
detected between the zone with, and the zone without, petroleum development. Those
differences that were observed can be attributed primarily to the natural variability inherent in
biological evaluations. It can be concluded that a history of petroleum development, by itself,
does not affect abundance and diversity of biological resources in this area.

2. It is not possible to retrospectively determine the chronology of impacts to biological resources.
When Petroecuador assumed responsibility of the former Petroecuador-Texaco Consortium in
1990 no studies of biological diversity were conducted. Nor did the environmental audits
performed by Fugro-McClelland and HBT-Agra conduct such evaluations. Not until 1995, with
the promulgation of the “Environmental Regulations for Petroleum Activities in Ecuador,” by
Executive Decree 2982 (R.O. 766, 24 August 1995) did the Government of Ecuador start
requiring environmental impact studies for projects. For this reason no baseline of conditions
prior to or during the operations of the former Petroecuador-Texaco Consortium exists.

i September 2008
3. Mr. Cabrera’s report includes references to specific studies he conducted on the same five
taxonomic groups as this study, but as far as we can tell the studies do not differentiate impacts
to biological resources due to petroleum development from impacts due to other causes. One
should note that Mr. Cabrera supposedly evaluated diversity, sensitivity, and richness of six
taxonomic groups (birds, mammals, reptiles/amphibians, insects, fish and benthic
macroinvertebrates), but as already noted he does not include the detailed studies in his report,
nor have the cited studies by Gallo and Martínez (2007) been made publicly available. Mr.
Cabrera’s report does not appear to differentiate impacts related to oil operations during the
period of time when the former Petroecuador-Texaco Consortium operated the lease, from any
other cause. The only reference to this issue was presented in his Work Plan, where Mr.
Cabrera describes his intent of comparing data using indicators of mature versus modified
forests. The existence of a mature (i.e. fully developed) forest has no direct relationship with oil
development, and only is an indication of whether a forest area has suffered modification. The
entire region, including the former lease area, today can be considered as modified due to the
expansion of the agricultural frontier. Therefore, such a comparison is meaningless.

ii September 2008
Table of Contents
1.0 Conclusions and Background...........................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Professional Experience...............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Background...................................................................................................................................1-2
1.4 Report Contents............................................................................................................................1-3
2.0 Claims regarding biological resources and the evaluation methodology....................................2-1
2.1 Claims and affirmations presented in the lawsuit and the activities of the experts.......................2-1
2.2 Evaluation of the impacts to biological resources: biological diversity.........................................2-3
2.2.1 Levels of biological diversity............................................................................................2-3
2.2.2 Diversity indexes.............................................................................................................2-3
2.3 Limitations of the diversity indexes...............................................................................................2-4
2.4 The baseline..................................................................................................................................2-5
3.0 Components of a biological resource impact assessment............................................................3-1
3.1 Ecosystem status indicators.........................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Indicators of ecosystem pressures...............................................................................................3-2
3.3 Indicators of ecosystem use.........................................................................................................3-2
3.4 Comparison of this biological evaluation with Mr. Cabrera’s study...............................................3-2
4.0 Impacts to biological resources within the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession..............4-1
4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Methodology..................................................................................................................................4-2
4.2.1 Ecological evaluation methodology.................................................................................4-2
4.2.2 Baseline definition...........................................................................................................4-3
4.3 General description of the study areas.........................................................................................4-5
4.4 Indicators of the ecosystem status................................................................................................4-7
4.4.1 Species richness.............................................................................................................4-7
4.4.2 Diversity...........................................................................................................................4-9
4.4.3 Ecosystem structure indicators.....................................................................................4-11
4.5 Indicators of ecosystem threats..................................................................................................4-12
4.5.1 Habitat loss....................................................................................................................4-12
4.5.2 Resource utilization.......................................................................................................4-15
4.5.3 Other threats to the biological resources.......................................................................4-15
4.5.4 Ecological valuation.......................................................................................................4-16
5.0 Bibliography.........................................................................................................................................18

i September 2008
Annexes
Annex A Authors' curricula vitae
Annex B Biological Data
Annex C Image Evaluation Methodology
Annex D References

ii September 2008
Tables
Table 1 Comparison between this study and Mr. Cabrera’s evaluation........................................................3-3
Table 2 Scope of the comparative biological evaluation...............................................................................4-1
Table 3 Current land use within the evaluated areas....................................................................................4-4
Table 4 Comparative table: study and control areas.....................................................................................4-6
Table 5 Species richness and abundance data............................................................................................4-7
Table 6 Sensitivity and relative abundance data...........................................................................................4-8
Table 7 Conservation data............................................................................................................................4-9
Table 8 Diversity data..................................................................................................................................4-10
Table 9 Similarity data.................................................................................................................................4-11
Table 10 Percentage of remnant forests in the evaluated areas................................................................4-13
Table 11 Relative changes in forest cover in the evaluated areas..............................................................4-13

Figures
Figure 1 Location of evaluated areas
Figure 2 Study Area Sacha – 53
Figure 3 Control Area
Figure 4 Current land use of the evaluated areas
Figure 5 Chronological summary of the land use within the former Petroecuador-Texaco
Concession
Figure 6A Chronological summary of the land use within the Study Area
Figure 6B Chronological summary of the land use within the Control Area
Figure 7 Ecologic-Economic Zoning of the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession
Figure 8 Land use changes: 1973 - 2007

iii September 2008
1.0 Conclusions and Background
1.1 Professional Experience
The main authors of this report are Bjorn Bjorkman and Claudia Sánchez de Lozada. Mr. Bjorkman is
trained as an ecologist with an M.S. from the University of Minnesota. He works as an environmental
consultant specialized in risk assessment and ecology, with a focus on the oil industry. Mr. Bjorkman
has extensive experience in biological evaluation of Amazon ecosystems in Ecuador and Peru. Since
1995 he has completed dozens of environmental impact studies, environmental management plans,
ecological sensitivity maps, biological evaluations and environmental studies in Peru, Ecuador,
Argentina, Honduras and other countries. Mr. Bjorkman has prepared and evaluated biodiversity action
plans for the oil industry both at the individual facility level and the regional programmatic level.
Ms. Sánchez de Lozada has over 8 years of experience managing and conducting environmental
projects in the United States, Ecuador, Bolivia, Chile, Brazil, Mexico, Panama, and Africa. She has
managed or participated in a wide variety of projects including environmental impact studies, air quality
studies, due diligence assessments, and is experienced in surface and subsurface soil and water
sampling. She has prepared documents for submittal to local and foreign government agencies. She
also has been responsible for the technical editing and/or translation of documents from English to
Spanish. Ms. Sánchez de Lozada is bilingual (Spanish and English) and has extensive experience
working in both language environments.
The authors’ curricula vitae are included in Annex A. The comparative studies of the five terrestrial
taxonomic groups were conducted by the following Ecuadorian biologists, who are experts in the
ecology of the Ecuadorian Oriente. Their curricula vitae, in addition to the data collected during their
comparative evaluations, are included in Annex B.
Flora: Nixon Revelo, Forestry Engineer, graduate of the Universidad Técnica del Norte; and Efraín
Freire Mayorga, Doctor in Biology, graduate of the Universidad Central del Ecuador.
Ornithology: Freddy Condoy, Doctor in Biology, graduate of the Universidad Central del Ecuador.
Mammalogy: Lincoln Segundo Nolivos Duque, Postgraduate Studies in Tropical Ecosystems Ecology,
graduate of the Universidad Nacional de la Amazonía Peruana and the Organización para estudios
Tropicales (Organization for Tropical Studies).
Herpetology: Jorge Izquierdo, Doctor in Biology, graduate of the Universidad Central del Ecuador.
Entomology: Pablo Araujo, Doctor in Biology, graduate of the Universidad Central del Ecuador.

1.2 Conclusions
The specific evaluation conducted in areas with and without a history of petroleum exploitation, the
careful review of academic resources specialized in the Amazon region, and our review of documents
prepared during the judicial inspections conclude:
1. The field evaluation clearly determined species richness, diversity, similarity and sensitivity of
five terrestrial taxonomic groups: flora, birds, mammals, reptiles/amphibians, and insects.
2. In order to differentiate between impacts related to petroleum-related activities and other
impacts, it is necessary to establish an appropriate baseline. For this study, we selected a
study area and a control area with comparable landscape and ecological characteristics, as well
as with similar land use. The only difference between the study area and the control area

1-1 September 2008
(baseline) is that petroleum-related activities have occurred within the study area for over 30
years.
3. The field evaluation conducted in the study and control areas followed methods generally
accepted in Ecuador for this type of study (Sayre et.al., 1992; Gentry, 1986) and were
conducted by Ecuadorian experts in the biology of the Amazon ecosystem (their biological data
and curricula vitae are included in Annex B).
4. No significant differences in the diversity indices were detected between the area with and the
area without petroleum development. The differences that were observed can be attributed
primarily to the natural variability inherent in biological evaluations. The study compared the
control and study zone with respect to species richness, taxonomy, and abundance, biological
diversity indices, relative abundance of environmentally sensitive indicator species, and
threatened or endangered species. It can be concluded that a history of petroleum
development, by itself, does not affect abundance and diversity of biological resources in this
area.
5. It is not possible to retrospectively determine the chronology of impacts to biological resources.
When Petroecuador assumed responsibility of the former Petroecuador-Texaco Consortium in
1990 no studies of biological diversity were conducted. Nor did the environmental audits
performed by Fugro-McClelland and HBT-Agra conduct such evaluations. Not until 1995, with
the promulgation of the “Environmental Regulations for Petroleum Activities in Ecuador,” by the
Executive Decree 2982 (R.O. 766, 24 August 1995) did the Government of Ecuador start
requiring environmental impact studies for projects. For this reason no baseline of conditions
prior to or during the operations of the former Petroecuador-Texaco consortium exists.

6. Mr. Cabrera’s report does not appear to differentiate impacts related to oil operations from any
other impacts to biological resources. Mr. Cabrera’s report only includes generalized
affirmations regarding the loss of biological diversity, when compared to the native forest, and
does not even include information to support this claim. The biological studies conducted by
Gallo (2007) and Martinez (2007), which supposedly support Mr. Cabrera’s affirmations, were
not included in Mr. Cabrera’s report. Therefore, we cannot evaluate these studies. Based on
the limited information that Mr. Cabrera presented on this topic, Mr. Cabrera’s report does not
appear to differentiate impacts to biological resources due to petroleum-related activities during
the operation of the former Petroecuador-Texaco Consortium from impacts due to other causes.
The only reference to this issue was presented in his Work Plan, where Mr. Cabrera describes
his intent of comparing data using indicators of mature versus modified forests, however without
access to the information he used to support this claim, it is impossible to determine exactly
what he did. The existence of a mature (i.e. fully developed) forest has no direct relationship
with oil development, and only is an indication of whether a forest area has suffered
modification. The entire region, including the former lease area, today can be considered as
modified due to the expansion of the agricultural frontier. Therefore, such a comparison is
meaningless.
1.3 Background
This report includes an evaluation of the impacts to the biological resources within the framework of
lawsuit No. 002-2003 initiated by María Aguinda and others against Chevron. It is important to note that
biological impacts are part of the topic of biological diversity, which encompasses a series of topics
related to the ecosystems, including fauna, flora, biological habitats and even the landscape.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), an International treaty to which Ecuador has subscribed,
provides a global definition of biological diversity. The CBD defines biological diversity as “the variability
among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic
ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species,
between species and of ecosystems.”

1-2 September 2008
It should also be noted that the specific concept of biological diversity is not explicitly included in the
legal process. However, the impact to biological resources related to animals and the vegetation are
explicitly considered and these resources are part of the biological diversity. This is the reason why this
report focuses in this topic. The claim also includes restoration, which is the recovery of the native
fauna and flora to previous conditions. This topic will also be addressed in this report.
1.4 Report Contents
This report evaluates the biological resources (fauna, flora and the ecosystem as a whole) within the
area of the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession (Figure 1) in response to claims that allege that
petroleum-related activities have impacted these resources. Collectively, these resources are
considered components of the “biological diversity”. The evaluation considered the following:
1. The definition of the regulations and the necessary considerations to scientifically evaluate if
there are impacts to the biological resources that are directly related to petroleum-related
activities during the operation of the former Consortium, focusing specifically on the need to use
an appropriate baseline.
2. An evaluation of the research methodology used by the court-appointed expert. It must be
determined if the methodology can demonstrate the presence of impacts to biological
resources.
3. A comparative study of the impacts to the biological resources in areas with and without a
history of petroleum-related activities. This study includes the evaluation of changes to the
biological diversity. This evaluation includes a field study and the additional evaluation of
satellite imagery.
The report has three main sections:
1. An analysis of the claims regarding impacts to the biological resources and the appropriate
methodology for identifying impacts. The definitions of biological diversity, and the proper
focus in order to evaluate the changes to the biological resources as a result of environmental
impacts. This section also focuses on the key concept of a baseline.
2. A discussion of the methodology used to evaluate the impacts to the biological resources, as
part of the biological diversity. This section focuses specifically on the necessary components
and data needed to quantify the changes to the biological resources and the extent of the
restoration.
3. A comparative evaluation of the species diversity at representative locations within the former
Petroecuador-Texaco Concession in order to quantitatively evaluate if there is a decrease in
biological diversity in areas with a history of petroleum-related activities. This evaluation uses
commonly accepted methodologies for Rapid Ecological Assessments (REA) and incorporates
a comparison to an appropriate baseline. Therefore, it provides a rigorous and scientific
evaluation of the impacts to the biological resources related to petroleum development within
the area of the former Petroecuador-Texaco Concession.

1-3 September 2008