CIVICUS discusses protests in Ecuador caused by the elimination of diesel subsidies and the resulting social unrest with Micaela Estefanía Puente Betancourt. A student at the University of San Francisco in Quito, Micaela is involved in youth participation initiatives.

Starting in mid-September, thousands of Ecuadorians have taken to the streets to protest against the elimination of diesel subsidies. This demand was compounded by growing discontent with a government accused of prioritising economic interests over environmental and social rights. Protesters have faced military repression, excessive force and arbitrary arrests.

What motivated Ecuadorians to take to the streets?

On 12 September, President Daniel Noboa’s government eliminated diesel subsidies by executive decree, increasing the price from US$1.80 to US$2.80 per gallon. According to the government, this would save around US$1.1 billion a year, but it had the immediate effect of making agricultural production and transport more expensive. This particularly affected transport workers and Indigenous and rural communities that depend on agriculture and are the most affected by poverty and unemployment.

In an attempt to contain the unrest, the government announced several compensatory measures. These included the offer of vouchers of up to US$1,000 to transport unions, the provision of tractors to agricultural communities and a pledge to keep toll prices stable. Although these actions seemed to contain the discontent during the first few days, they soon proved insufficient.

Indigenous communities were the first to mobilise. Together with transport workers, they took to the streets on 15 September, blocking roads in different provinces across Ecuador. In response, the government declared a state of emergency, intensifying the protests further. Three days later, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) called a national strike to demand repeal of the decree.

How did protesters’ demands evolve?

Initially, complaints focused on the economic effects of the decree and the government’s lack of transparency. Protesters demanded that measures of this kind be subject to discussion and accompanied by compensation plans.

The government has given a general idea of its planned use of the funds freed up by the elimination of the subsidy, but without offering any details. This has only created more distrust among a public that remembered a value-added tax increase from 12 to 15 per cent implemented 18 months ago to supposedly ‘finance the war on drug trafficking’. This had no results: insecurity has only worsened.

As days passed, more groups joined the protests and demands expanded. Environmentalists, students, transport workers and others came together to denounce corruption, high unemployment, human rights violations, insecurity and the lack of medicines in hospitals. Ultimately, they are all demanding a more transparent state that is accountable to its citizens.

How do these protests differ from previous ones?

This is not the first time the elimination of subsidies has sparked protests. It happened with two previous presidents: in 2019 under Lenín Moreno’s government and in 2022 under Guillermo Lasso. In both cases, protests were massive and forced the executive branch to reverse its measures.

But the main difference lies on the ground. While the protests of 2019 and 2022 were concentrated in the capital, Quito, the current ones are much more decentralised and have focused on the provinces. As Noboa temporarily moved the seat of government to Otavalo, protesters decided to block roads instead of marching to the capital. As a result, the routes connecting Ecuador from north to south have remained closed for weeks.

This decentralisation led many Quito residents to perceive the protests as less serious, when in fact they have been more prolonged and sustained. The government gambled the movement would wear itself out over time and avoided dialogue. But this was not the case: the movement only grew stronger and, after three weeks, protests also reached Quito.

How has the government responded?

The government’s response can be summed up in two words: violence and indifference. Since 18 September, a state of emergency has been in force, allowing the deployment of military and police to suppress the protests. At least three deaths have been reported: Efraín Fuérez and José Alberto Guamán from gunshot wounds and Rosa Elena Paqui from teargas inhalation. There have also been reports of 15 temporary disappearances, 282 people injured and 172 detained, and over 300 complaints of human rights violations. Some organisations have documented cases of arbitrary detention, transfers to unofficial centres, raids on hospitals and universities, intimidation of journalists and cyber and financial attacks.

Noboa has maintained a distant stance and has labelled the protesters terrorists. In this way, he seeks to justify state violence and avoid dialogue. Yet while Ecuador is experiencing a wave of repression, the government is celebrating its election as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

What measures are needed to resolve the crisis?

Dialogue is the only possible solution. Since 15 October, dialogue tables have been set up in Imbabura between the government and Indigenous organisations. Protesters are demanding an investigation into the deaths of Fuérez and Guamán, the release of those detained and the demilitarisation of the province. They are no longer calling for the decree to be repealed, but continue to demand the government set a maximum price for diesel.

Initially, it seemed the dialogue could yield results, but complaints soon arose that the agreements did not represent all groups involved in the protests. The following day, the government remilitarised the area. This only increased distrust in the process. After 31 days of demonstrations, CONAIE decided to lift its national strike without reaching an agreement with the government. But the tensions that led to the protests remain.

The priorities must be reparation, accountability and investigation into human rights violations. While it’s not essential to reverse the elimination of the subsidy, it is essential to guarantee real and transparent compensation. Only with tangible responses and effective management will the government be able to regain public confidence and move towards political stability, a key objective in view of the new constituent assembly it plans to promote.