‘It’s possible to extract oil and have a harmonious relationship with nature,’ says Venezuelan Minister of Ecosocialism

Brasil de Fato

Venezuela doesn’t have a Ministry of the Environment. With the Bolivarian revolution underway, the country has changed the ministry’s name and adopted the concept of Ecosocialism as a reference for the relationship between society and nature. The term is not just a theoretical formulation. Minister Llorca Vega says Venezuelans are moving towards a “harmonious relationship between human beings and nature.”

In an exclusive interview with Brasil de Fato, Llorca Vega spoke about the ministry’s work to mitigate the consequences of climate change, the fight against deforestation and the links with other Amazonian countries.

The institutionalization of this new relationship and the government’s actions were consolidated in the country’s Constitution. In an unprecedented approach, the Venezuelan Magna Carta speaks of “environmental rights” and treats it as the duty of every citizen to protect the environment. For the minister, this way of managing environmental issues guides the government’s methods.

“Venezuela’s public policies seek to ensure that each of its actions, policies and processes carried out across all ministries are harmonious, sustainable and intertwined with the environment, with nature,” he said.

One of Venezuela’s main challenges is reconciling oil extraction with environmental protection. The country depends on oil sales to get an inflow of foreign currency credit. According to the minister, Global North countries, which “claim to be morally superior”, are discussing it and pushing the energy transition towards a model that requires technology that only they have.

“We are committed to exercising our free and sovereign right to extract our wealth with increasingly efficient technology. It’s different when you exploit oil for the benefit of human beings, but also for developing different sectors. By exploiting its oil, Venezuela has helped all the countries in the Caribbean, and Africa, helped those affected by Hurricane Katrina in the US and given fuel to people who were freezing to death. So, the important thing is how you use the means and what you use the means for,” he told Brasil de Fato.

The minister first became involved in environmental issues as a child. He grew up in a neighborhood in Los Teques that was very close to a landfill, and he talked to workers who lived in this routine. With this experience, he graduated in Environmental Management and researched how waste management could change a community.

He proposed transferring responsibility for waste management from municipalities to communal councils in communal areas and said that the application of this experience generated “many benefits” in terms of improving garbage collection and making the most of resources. Llorca Vega was appointed Minister of Ecosocialism in April 2021 by President Nicolás Maduro.

He received Brasil de Fato in his office and spoke about these and other issues:

BdF: What is the difference between a Ministry of Ecosocialism and a Ministry of Environment?

Llorca Vega: The concept of ecosocialism in Venezuela began with Hugo Chávez. Our former president started talking about transcending the simple concept of the environment or the Ministry of the Environment, into a more complete and broader sector, based on a harmonious relationship between human beings and nature. We are usually preceded by a poorly translated concept from English to Spanish, which is “environment”.

We took the first step in our Constitution, which is not to talk about the environment. In the Venezuelan Constitution approved by the Bolivarian revolution and by the entire population in the constituent process, there is a special chapter about environmental rights, from Article 127 to Article 129. From then on, we began to conceptualize a different relationship. One that moves away from the idea that human beings are the center and all the [natural] resources around them must be taken advantage of.

In other words, we’ve moved on from the idea that human beings are the owners of absolutely everything and [must] take advantage of everything around them, to look a little further back to our roots. We started to be more aware of Indigenous people and Aborigines, who have a relationship of respect for nature and harmonious development with nature. And that’s what ecosocialism is all about. If I could define it in one sentence, it would be the harmonious relationship between humans and nature. A relationship of mutual respect that allows nature, under resilient conditions, to return to its natural state. We can see this in Indigenous communities when they carry out cultural practices and in the way they move their dwellings and occupy the land. Any human action on the environment has an impact.

And the importance is that the environment be resilient or is not sufficiently affected so that it can return to its natural state or gradually regenerate. Venezuela’s public policies seek to ensure that each of its actions, policies and processes is carried out across all ministries and that its relationship with the environment – and with nature – is harmonious and sustainable.

But in practical terms, what are the changes in the ministry’s work after its name was changed? How are these actions different?

More than changes, it’s about concrete actions. Any action that is likely to damage the environment in Venezuela must be accompanied by a study. Any action, no matter how small. We even see here, in Caracas [Venezuela’s capital], which is a city undergoing a process of urbanization and accelerated demographic growth, that these studies are required to build a house – no matter how small –, to expand a plot of land, to set up an industry… All of this must be accompanied by environmental studies that allow and guarantee sustainability over time, that guarantee that the impacts on the environment are not irreversible.

We’ve just had a tragedy in the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul, and Venezuela has already experienced extreme weather events that left dozens dead, such as the rains of 2010. These climate events tend to become more frequent every year. What is Venezuela doing to mitigate climate change?

We are preparing [to face the consequences of climate change]. Venezuela has a robust risk management system made up of the national entity, administered by the Presidency of the Republic through the sectoral vice-presidency of security and the vice-ministry of Risk Management.

This structure includes the fire department, civil protection and the entire Bolivarian national police. Bolivia’s Armed Forces are also involved. But the main actions are headed by municipalities and state governments: together with communal councils and people’s organizations, we manage to have a pyramid structure for emergency response. This is very important because everything comes with prior training and is linked to plans for prioritizing areas at risk.

Venezuela is a country that has developed in the northern coastal area. More than 60%, 70% of our population lives on the coast, which puts us in a more vulnerable situation considering hydro-meteorological events such as windstorms and large amounts of rain that can cause landslides, as in the case of Vargas and Aragua state, a year and a half ago. We also had a situation two years ago in Mérida, three consecutive events that left more than 20 people dead.

In other words, we are in a very vulnerable area due to our own development model. However, there are mitigation and adaptation measures. One important adaptation measure was the construction of houses in the Great Housing Mission started by Hugo Chávez, which resulted from a situation in which a number of people were affected by living in risk areas.

In 2010, there were heavy rains throughout the city of Caracas, the result of several tropical waves that left thousands of people homeless or living in temporary shelters in the capital. This encouraged Chávez to launch the Great Housing Mission, which delivered 5 million homes over 15 years. These houses are part of an adaptation policy, but also a mitigation policy, as they are located in areas that have no risk whatsoever and where there is a structure set up in case extreme events occur.

We can also talk about mitigation when we are protecting natural areas, water sources and mangroves. The state ministries of Ecosocialism, Planning and State are planning policies to draw up risk maps.

[The planning includes] Community risk maps, local risk maps, and regional risk maps to empower society. Here in Venezuela, we have practiced the theory and the practice that not only is climate change a reality but also something we cannot avoid, since it is the product of a global dynamic. We have a responsibility to empower our community, to empower our people with knowledge so that they know how to act when there is an emergency or incident in particular.

These are the community risk maps: people know where they have to go. The community knows which people are most at risk and those least at risk. In other words, there is the empowerment of an entire group of people against crises. There are warning systems for this.

Deforestation is a chronic problem in countries with large forest reserves. The expansion of areas aimed at agriculture is one of the main factors. What has Venezuela done to combat deforestation?

We have policies for reforestation, monitoring plantations and combating illegal settlements of many kinds. These can be illegal settlements to expand the agricultural frontier, for the extension or construction of buildings or illegal mining, as happens in part of the common frontiers of our Amazon. Borders can be reduced due to losses caused by wildfires, as is often the case. And normally when we have this data it is based on publicly available satellite images. We may be talking about areas that have already been devastated, and areas that have already been burned, which are reflected in losses of primary vegetation.

It’s important to note that in 2024, we had an intense period of wildfires during which we lost 80,000 hectares. We’re talking about 80,000 hectares lost due to fire, but the majority of these hectares were medium and low vegetation.

Like most countries in the world, Venezuela has a characteristic type of vegetation that is lost in wildfires, and which is not the same that burns. Land burns where there is pasture, for example. In Venezuela, there is extensive cattle farming and the habit of burning for later planting, due to the cultural belief that burning will provide nutrients for the soil because the ashes contain nitrogen and other nutrients that fertilize the soil. This generates spontaneous burning, which we’ve also been working on with the integrated risk management system. This year we’ve had significant losses, but there hasn’t been a greater loss of primary vegetation. We talk about primary vegetation when we talk about large forests, evergreen forests, humid jungles. We had minimal loss, about less than 5% of the 80,000 hectares.

However, we have policies to combat the different expansions or losses of vegetation. We have the national reforestation plan, a national plan that has six crucial pillars and seeks to work in different areas. The first pillar is to work with young people, children and students in Venezuela through the approach “one student, one tree”. Each child in this country receives a bag with seeds and substrates to produce at home and then take to deforested areas. We’re talking about more than 8 million plants being produced nationwide every year, as part of the One Student, One Tree program. We have a special program to work with communities near biodiverse areas or national parks, the Family Agroforestry program. We constantly monitor all these communities in rural areas, such as areas close to water or biodiverse zones.

In the government’s Plan 7T, which is the government’s plan for the next six years, there is a specific topic about the environment. Are these issues included in that plan?

All of this is part of the new government plan, which is the 7 Transformations Plan, which was recently built with our people. The 6th T is dedicated exclusively to environmental development. The 6th T is based on something that is very important and has a lot of force.

We are very much focused on guaranteeing services, and essential human rights while conserving ecosystem services. The first ecosystem service is water. Water is vital for us beyond consumption and meeting the Millennium Development Goals and the Human Development Goals. Water in Venezuela means electricity. Over 79.8% of Venezuela’s energy matrix comes from the Guri dam, that is, 80% of Venezuela’s energy matrix is clean.

That’s why water is fundamental. Guaranteeing the protection of river basins and the protection of our rivers in order to strengthen and maintain our energy potential is key. The same applies to the generation of services for a sustainable city. When we talk about a sustainable city, we’re talking about a city that is in harmony with everything around it. With its surrounding environment. So many of the programs and proposals put forward there – which is what people asked for – talk about a sustainable city, new forms of reality, new forms of interconnection between citizens, in addition to greener areas in the cities, which guarantee water for electric energy and also ecosystem services [adopting a] circular economy and recycling to maintain a balanced environment.

The government talks a lot about expanding oil exploration and producing 3 million barrels a day. How can this be reconciled with environmental protection in the coming years?

Look, this is a debate not just for our government, but for the world. We recently had COP 28 [Conference of the Parties] in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. It was the first COP on climate change held in an oil-producing country. The debate has always been about eliminating the use of fossil fuels as the only way to save the planet. It was a heated discussion among “morally superior” countries, such as European countries and developing countries. What are the plans of OPEC [Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries] members? We are committed to exercising our free and sovereign right to extract our wealth with increasingly efficient technology.

We know that the world is not the same either, at least not 15 years ago, when the first Plan de la Patria was drawn up, when Commander Chávez launched it for the first time. The objective of oil exploration, which was written there, was to extract 5 million barrels of oil. The sanctions imposed by the U.S. and the European Union have been increasing day by day and have led us to be almost below 600,000 barrels of oil a day. The president has just announced that we have reached 1 million barrels a day. Venezuela had a production of 3 million barrels a day before the 2003 oil stoppage. After that, we had a production of 2.5 million barrels.

We are committed to not only maintaining, but increasing our oil production as the axis of our country’s development and for the development of our people. It’s different when you exploit oil for the benefit of human beings and for the development of different sectors. In the 13 years of Hugo Chávez’s government, Venezuela managed to achieve most of the millennium goals by exploiting oil and diversifying its investments. By exploiting its oil, Venezuela has helped all the countries in the Caribbean, helped all the countries in Africa, helped the U.S. after Hurricane Katrina and given fuel to people who were freezing to death. Therefore, it’s about how you use the means and what you use the means for.

We talk about forest potential, but also about forest use. PDVSA [Petroleos de Venezuela SA, the country’s state-run oil and gas company] has a permanent representation in the Ministry of Ecosocialism, where all the oil permits granted arrive there first, under the concepts of compliance with environmental commitments and environmental finances. All the processes developed within the PDVSA industry have high environmental reliability parameters. We can say, somewhat self-critically, that one of our greatest debts is gas flaring. But we are working to change that. In the oil wells of the Middle East, gas flaring is transforming. We are working to take advantage of the gas and sell it, but also to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It’s a way of contributing and making oil processes more efficient and environmentally friendly.

One important issue is mining. At the beginning of the year, a mine in La Paragua had a landslide that left 16 people dead. What did the government do after that, not just for the La Paragua mine, but for the mining issue in Venezuela

The mining problem is a problem of transnational crime, that is, groups that are in different countries and move around. It affects Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Peru to a greater or lesser extent. Here in Venezuela, we have a sovereign policy for using our resources, just like any other country. Here, there is only one delimited area for mining, which is the Orinoco Mining Arc, which is well-defined. Within this space, there is a legal mine, which can be exploited under all the quality parameters and all the environmental permits that we authorize by blocks.

There is a zone for gold mining, another for mining other metals, and there are other zones for mining are earth elements. All of this needs environmental permits, through alliances with the national government and the use of mercury is prohibited. And – this is very important to say: within the area of the Orinoco Mining Arc, within the whole of Venezuela, the use of mercury is prohibited. That’s one of the products that most harm the environment. So it’s important to always explain that within the Orinoco Mining Arc, gold extraction works the same way it is in other mines authorized by the Venezuelan government.

The same applies to the La Paragua area, with the La Paragua forest reserve, an area of approximately 2.5 linear kilometers. We are working with the Indigenous communities [that live in La Paragua]. It was an area with an Indigenous community, a community that had no control over anything. Now they’re working with our Bolivarian National Force. They’re being supported, we’ve started building nurseries in the areas where there is no mercury. And we’re working with bioremediation processes, with a type of bacteria to work on extracting the mercury so that we can reforest [devastated areas]. We’ve been working with many scientific research teams for six months since this incident, reviewing the protocols to start the bioremediation process. We’ve made three visits, held meetings with Indigenous communities, and will soon begin bioremediation and reforestation.

But the Orinoco Arc has come under intense criticism for expanding contamination and formalizing exploitation that contaminates the soil. Aren’t there changes that need to be made?

The Orinoco Mining Arc has come to guide and centralize a mining policy that must be regulated and standardized by concrete and direct environmental policies. The Orinoco Mining Arc policy led to the creation of a specific ministry to regulate and monitor this process, which is the Ministry of Ecological Mining. The Ministry of Ecosocialism works hand in hand with this ministry to monitor, follow-up and assess each of these processes.

And just as mines are opened, they are also closed. The environmental processes are rigorously monitored, guaranteeing the stabilization of the soil, the recovery of the substrate plant material and the reforestation of these areas.

It is extremely important to emphasize that this is a sovereign policy of the Venezuelan state, a legal policy, which has limits and does not affect the surrounding environmental heritage. One of the major criticisms is that it is inside the Canaima National Park, a World Heritage Site, or inside the Caira National Park, the largest national park of tropical forests on the planet. These are areas protected by the Venezuelan state, destined to be under special administration. They are national parks and have nothing to do with the sovereign policy of mineral extraction and the exploitation of gold in the Orinoco Mining Arc.

Brazil and Colombia have recently begun to step up the fight against deforestation in the Amazon. Does Venezuela have the equipment to do this job? Has the country strengthened these environmental actions? And how is coordination with Brazil and Colombia

Last year was a very busy year for our Amazon basin, our great world heritage protected by 9 countries. One of the big areas of work that emerged was the joint work of different countries to combat environmental crimes. One of the points of conjunction was regulations. In Venezuela, we banned the use of mercury. The only conditions under which it is allowed are for medicinal use with very strict permits.

But the legislations of Brazil and Colombia are different, so we talked about working on comparative legislation. In Venezuela, anyone can go into a store and buy a chainsaw. In Brazil, the legislation is much tougher for this type of tool. Our lawyers had to sit down to debate because this strengthens us as a biome; it strengthens us and the Amazon.

There’s another issue. President Lula says to President Maduro: “Well, we expel 20,000 illegal miners and they’ll run to Venezuela, cross the border and hide there.” But through the strategic operational command, we did the same: we expelled 14,000 illegal miners and they went to Colombia, but come back later. It’s a cat-and-mouse game.

We keep chasing [illegal miners] until we can strengthen our legislation, no matter how similar, and until we establish combat routes for our air forces, security corps and Armed Forces. I can’t say for sure that this is progressing, but there are already meetings between the defense ministries of Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia and other countries, to work on strategies to combat these scourges and irregular groups that move through and destroy the Amazon.

Areas of work also include reforestation areas and Indigenous areas. More than 50 million people live in the Amazon, most of them in Brazil. In Venezuela there are more than 22 Indigenous peoples associated with the Amazon, a huge number of inhabitants. As an Amazonian myself, I am convinced that the development of the forest needs to happen with Indigenous communities, by recognizing their value and cultural and ancestral wealth, but also their economic potential.

Very interesting proposals have emerged, such as the creation of a joint university, the University of the Amazon, which can work with many scientists from different countries to find common cures for diseases worldwide. And also the development of Amazonian fruits and forest products as an economic potential for our Indigenous communities so that they have other options.

In the political field, an important step was taken when it was decided that ACTO – the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization – would increase its level of interference and decision-making. ACTO was a body of Amazonian countries whose decision-making level was that of chancellors. In other words, the highest representative of each member was the foreign minister. At the summit in Belém, it was decided that the highest level of representation would be presidents, a limit was set on the number of annual meetings between the presidents and transcendental decisions would be made that only a head of state can take to guide the protection or non-protection of a common space that is not just for these 9 countries, but for the entire planet because it is a biome that regulates the global climate.

What issues will Venezuela take to COP 29? And is there any expectation of resuming the discussion with northern countries on greenhouse gas emissions?

The COP usually focuses on two points: the first is the historical responsibility of the countries that have caused the current disaster over the last 200 years, the responsibility of the industrialized countries for large emissions, and the sovereign right of our countries to demand that they pay the correct compensation.

In other words, it has become about resources, but also about dominance. The countries of the North against the countries of the South. But beyond that, it’s everyone’s right. The countries of the North, the industrialized countries say: “Look, you need to stop producing oil, [you must] lower your emissions”. So they try to curtail the right to development. They try to tell us how we should develop.

We say that they have to fulfill their historical responsibility. They have to pay for all the disasters we are experiencing: floods, droughts, wildfires. The big issue at last year’s COP was implementing [measures to deal with] loss and damage. They decided to create a fund. Then you see a parade of presidents saying: “Well, I’m donating US$10 million, US$20 million, US$50 million, US$70 million to such and such a fund”. But then comes the question of how to implement it.

The countries of the North say that the countries of the South can’t manage these funds because they’ll spend the money in the wrong way. It has to be implemented through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. So where are we falling again? In a trap, because we are falling into the same financial organizations of dominance that have historically subjugated us. We are told that this is to ensure that there is transparency, that it will be well invested because we wouldn’t know how to invest it.

So we are facing a new form of dominance, environmental dominance. At the COP, everything looks beautiful and there is the idea that presidents are saving the world. Behind the curtains of the COP at the world level, however, what you see is a new scheme of environmental dominance where the big countries have green technologies and want to impose on you that you have to switch to this matrix – but they are the ones who sell this technology, they are the ones who sell all the maintenance parts, and, in the end, you end up dominated. That’s why the Amazon summit is important.

So this will continue to be Venezuela’s position at the COP…

It is part of Venezuela’s historic position to have common but differentiated responsibilities. That is, everything that has to do with demanding the historic payment that developing countries have to pay for the huge excesses they are producing, and a fair implementation [of these payments] through the correct and sovereign financial mechanisms that allow us to access resources effectively and efficiently, because that’s another thing [to consider].

When you are an affected country, you ask for access to a resource to recover from some damage resulting from climate change and it takes two, three, or four years for the resources to come through. But, then, the affected people or communities have already taken a completely different direction.