Obstacles and opportunities for moratoria on oil and gas exploration or extraction in Latin America and the Caribbean

This article draws lessons from the existing, successful cases of moratoria or bans on oil and gas exploration or extraction activities in Latin America and the Caribbean, in contrast to the failed attempts for a conditional moratorium in Ecuador, the widely discussed Yasuní-ITT project. It also refers to obstacles and possible opportunities for larger-scale implementation of such instruments to limit fossil fuel supply in the region, indicating the main factors, both at the domestic and international level, that influenced their viability. So far, moratoria have been driven mainly by environmental, economic, and conservation concerns, rather than by climate change considerations. Countries that may be quite proactive in the multilateral climate change negotiations have been unable or unwilling to plan for large-scale domestic restrictions in fossil fuel supply. Moratoria on oil and gas exploration or extraction activities are forceful instruments to bring about these restrictions, but are often perceived ex ante as costly, even unaffordable on economic or political grounds. This article calls for a broad use of conservation motivations to overcome some shortcomings of the current multilateral climate regime, such as the absence in the Paris Agreement of specific provisions on fossil fuel supply. Key policy insights There is increasing interest in ‘supply side’ policy, such as moratoria on fossil fuel exploration and extraction, as a tool for mitigating climate change. Some of the first examples of supply side policy emerged from the Latin American and Caribbean region. Review of these policies shows that protection of biodiversity and ecosystem services – rather than a climate rationale – provided the imperative for moratoria or bans in Belize, Costa Rica, and Mexico. An emphasis on potential benefits to be reaped from bans and moratoria may increase the viability of their adoption.