Monitoring environnemental, Santé, Société et Pétrole en Equateur

Managers : M. Saqalli (GEODE) & S.Becerra (GET)

Persons involved : J. Gardon, E. Cadot (HSM), Ch. Kephaliacos, D. Requier-Desjardins, L.Orozco Noguera, J.P Delcorso (LEREPS)

Objectives : Evaluating and mapping social perceptions of health & environmental hazards and related household strategies to cope with petroleum contamination;

Deliverables : Production of A-level articles; assessment report with recommendations; production of maps and statistical analyses of the oil-related socio-sanitary impacts;

Methods :Perception-based regional mappings, questionnaires, interviews, literature analysis

Risks : Access to communities living far from the road network: Cooperation with local associations and health centres of the two study villages will facilitate the access to families and will support the realization of the questionnaires. The simultaneous presence in the field of sociologists, economists, geographers and environmental researchers and the co-elaboration of guidelines for the interviews and questionnaires will ensure the coherence and feasibility of the data collection.

The overall assumption is that, on each territory, the related populations are not uniformly vulnerable to contamination and there exists a differential in their capacity to mitigate or adapt themselves to its impact (Becerra 2012).

T2.1. Qualitative assessment of social perceptions regarding health and environmental consequences of oil exploitation (GET, GEODE, UASB)

T2.1. Qualitative assessment of social perceptions regarding health and environmental consequences of oil exploitation (GET, GEODE, UASB)

A first hypothesis is that, in the social perceptions of the territory, the importance of short-term economic risk is higher than the health risks associated with environmental contamination. Another hypothesis is that the particular nature of the impact of oil activities on the environment and health modulate the social responses, i.e. collective action and individual strategies. Our first task implies understanding the perceptions and social representations of the risk of contamination and distinguishing it from other risks, including the social and economic. The second point deals with the analysis of the ways in which these risks affect the incentive for self-protection, securitization policies and relationships among the different identified stakeholders. The third task consists in identifying and spatializing social practices and economic activities that contribute to a reduction or an increase in direct and indirect exposure to contaminations: practices regarding use and management of natural resources, mobility, hygiene, health and diet. Such information will provide insight on risk perception and the related bedrock of social issues.

Methods:

 We first adopt a socio-spatial zoning approach using a tool called perception-based regional mapping PBRM (Saqalli et al, 2009): it is a diagnostic tool designed for socio-spatial analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions through interviews via a local map on which will be placed a transparent sheet. Interviewees can then locate territorial specificities related to the chosen theme. This zoning allows: 1/ the prioritization of social, economic, environmental variables that best describe the study area from the stakeholders’ point of view, including the dynamics that affect these variables; 2/ a description of the demarcated areas based on the previously indicated variables, 3/ the collection of factual data on each area. Zoning can here address different themes: sources of contamination, vulnerable natural resources, health risks, basic infrastructure offering protection, and vulnerable communities. We then proceed to a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with people from the areas previously identified as the most vulnerable thanks to the PBRM tool in order to investigate more specific issues. In parallel, the results from PBRM and the interviews will then be commensurately analyzed along with economic activities (subtask 2.4) and land use (Task 3) for all the study sites.

On the other hand, our Ecuadorian partners of the UISA-UASB in Quito, will analyze a set of socioeconomic indicators in relation to the oil activity and the conditions of life from the censuses, released by census sector, using technical of variable analysis (hierarchic analysis of agglomeration, main components and multiple regressions).

T2.2. Community and household level coping strategies (LEREPS, GET, UASB)

Populations are not passive objects at the receiving end of contamination, but actors on a contaminated territory, with practices and strategies dedicated to survival and adaptation. This adaptation is not only about the impact of oil activities but also the economic risks and opportunities generated by the trajectories of territorial development, including petroleum activities. The goal here is to better understand the local capacity for mobilization (resources and limits), through identifying curative and/or preventative actions and strategies assessed at the household level but also at the broader community level.

Méthod:  First, a qualitative approach will be adopted for in-depth interviews with households located in areas previously identified as the most vulnerable by use of the PBRM tool. These interviews should allow: 1/ the identification of the livelihood systems of the concerned households, in order to identify the differing socio-economic strategies for households; 2/ the identification of the diversification of activities and sources of income among households in the concerned territories and their importance as alternatives to direct or indirect oil-related activities. The objective here is to identify the various types of strategy that address the local economic impact of petroleum activities. This approach will be supplemented by literature analysis and direct observation of local practices. Finally, a common questionnaire will be set up for tasks T2.2. and T2.3, not to solicit the people interviewed several times. In Ecuador, the UASB would contribute in both surveys. The UASB through the UISA and the Area of Health will support this task with the accomplishment of a complementary survey on health and socio-economic impacts of the oil activity, on the conditions of life, including the processing and analysis of results.

T2.3. Quantitative evaluation of socio-sanitary impacts (HSM, UASB)

We hypothesize that environmental pollution – easily observed in these communities since the 1970s - has changed the perception of health status as well as attitudes and beliefs related to health. We will conduct quantitative surveys of the adult population of three parishes (the two selected parishes exposed to contamination and one unexposed as control parish). A total of 900 individuals (300 per parish) will be required in order to demonstrate any significant differences between exposed and unexposed individuals. A face-to-face questionnaire will be administered by trained and skilled interviewers; it will include scale tools and measuring instruments validated by literature to estimate various behavioural, social, demographic and health indicators. In this study, the researched variables include three aspects of health and health-related attitudes that may have been modified by the social and environmental context. Firstly, perceived stress will be estimated by a scaled tool with ten items (Cohen, 1983). Perceived health will be estimated by use of the standard WHO question "How is your general health?" which features four response levels (very good, good, bad, very bad). Finally, beliefs and attitudes towards health will be particularly evaluated with regard to water and its management, the main source of contamination in the two exposed parishes. The Health Belief Model (HBM) is a psychosocial model that attempts to predict the behaviour of individuals based on their beliefs and attitudes. Developed in the 1950s to explain participation differences in public health programs, it is widely used today to assess risk behaviours in HIV/AIDS issues. The main dimensions explored by this instrument (Rosenstock et al. 1974) relate to the perceived threat (severity of and susceptibility to illness), the perceived benefits of adopting a preventative behaviour, barriers (potentially negative), self-efficiency (belief in their own ability to adopt behavioural strategies and to reap the benefits). This instrument will be specifically adapted to behaviours related to water and chemical contamination issues, which will also be questioned as explanatory variables. Independent explanatory variables will refer not only to the exposure of individuals by estimated water use (drinking, domestic, etc.) but also by distance to the main source of pollution or residence duration. The perception of petrochemical risk on health will be estimated by a scale of four items validated by the literature (Cutchin et al., 2008). The relation to environment will be estimated by questions on the subjective judgment of individuals regarding their residence area. Finally, we include various social and economic individual determinants classically understood as potential confounders: marital status, family composition, age, gender, education level, tobacco consumption, ethnicity, income and social remittances (scale of Sherbourne & Stewart, 1991). Data processing will in particular assess and compare the association strengths in different subpopulations of individuals (exposed/unexposed). We will assess descriptive and then multivariate analyses by testing the effect of each variable. For each researched variable, we will select dimension-independent variables (socio-economic status, family status, risk perception, etc.) and we will then estimate the final models by analyzing interactions and performance models.

This time-limited study will not fully address the controversy arisen around San Sebastian observations (see § 2.2). It will, however, facilitate the formulation of hypotheses on the relationship between oil emissions exposure and morbidity, thereby enabling further epidemiological studies, such as control-case or prospective cohort studies. Ultimately, our Ecuadorian partners want to establish an observatory on health, including cancer registries and malformations. We believe that the study we propose in MONOIL will provide strong argument for an increased interest in health studies and will encourage the participation of the concerned populations as well as Ecuadorian authorities.

T2.4. Analysis of oil industry economic impact on regional development dynamics (LEREPS)

The purpose of this task is to place the oil industry along the development path of the concerned areas, through the characterization of its integration with the local production system and its impact on the economic vulnerability of concerned groups of people. This integration will be evaluated not only by economic indices such as the creation of local wealth, sector diversity and productive complementarities between sectors, job creation potential (permanent or temporary), but also by the existence and variable strength of oil-related environmental externalities. Our approach will be territorial, as we define territory as a geographical space deeply linked to a population, i.e. lived, produced and thought (Di Meo, 1998) by this population. However available data should probably refer to administrative districts (parroquias or provinces) which will frame the chosen geographic scale.

We shall successively utilize two analytical tools for an economic approach to place or territory:

(1)  At the productive system level of concerned territories (local productive systems):

i/ Identification of the offer of goods and services, the structure of economic activities (other than oil industry) and characterization of the role of oil industry in the (de)stabilization of this productive system (opportunities for some sectors or competition for resources or labour, etc.)

ii/ A specific analysis will be dedicated to agriculture, a sector with generally greater dependence on environmental resources.

(2)  At the level local economic circuit structure:

i/ Identification of the territory’s economic base according to the approach of “base theory” (Archer, 1976 ; Andrews, 1953, Davezies, 2008). We assume that two main components of the productive base exist: the oil industry and agricultural production, be it smallholder agriculture or entrepreneurial agriculture (palm oil). We shall also consider the potential existence of a “residential base” fed by private and public transfers and perhaps also by tourism (notably ecotourism).

ii/ Characterization of the local income generation capacity of the oil industry and the impact of its multiplier effect on the development of “domestic activities” (in the base theory terminology); Evaluation of local “Dutch Disease” effect, through local relative price change hampering the development of other basic activities; characterization of the role of local organizations (professional or human rights) and their achievements (goals and means) in local development processes and resource conservation and valorization.

Methodology

: collection of available data at the territory level; qualitative and semi-structured interviews with key-persons.