Chapter 4: Origins, 1978 to 1987: Ambientalistas and Ecologistas Emerge
Summary:
The environmental movement in Ecuador began in Quito in the 1970s and gained prominence in the decades to follow. It began as a small, informal group with the creation of the nonprofit, Fundacion Natura, which maintained the central goal of conservation. Their projects were good natured and aimed at education and cooperation with businesses. Fundacion Natura aimed at working in harmony and unity with industries, government and its people through open communication.
Early on, the organization worked with the United States Agency for International Development to gain an understanding of Ecuador from an environmental perspective and received grants to conduct work through the program EDUNAT, which was very successful. A radical group called Acción Ecológical gained support of the newly formed Society for the Defense of Nature in the mid 1980s. Natura and AE differ in that Natura are “environmentalist”s that focus on conservation through funding and work with corporations while AE are “ecologists” that work more closely with the people and their concerns and bring attention to issues (Lewis, 2016). This resulted in a division of the two groups: those working for the people and those in collusion with large corporations. Natura resembles ecodependents while Ecologica resembles the ecoresisters.
International presence existed in Ecuador before the movement as the Charles Darwin Research Foundation (a Belgian NGO) was stationed in the Galapagos. As more NGOs arose, so too did this international presence. The year 1987 brought a considerable amount of international funding, as well as a national environmental congress and the formation of a group to mediate issues among organizations and ensure the protection of the environment. Debt-for-nature swaps also occurred during this year. An indebted country like Ecuador, with rich biodiversity and desire to protect it made it commonplace for these transactions to occur. In these swaps, the country in debt has a portion of their debt purchased by an economically-developed northern organization. This reduces their debt and allows them to make lower payments to a trust fund for environmental work in their country (Lewis, p.67). NGOs normally receive these funds, for example Natura received several of these swaps which generated millions of dollars in funds. These swaps allowed the country to have easier loan repayment and focus on the needs of the environment and their citizens. Environmental organizations grew in number after these swaps and diversified environmental goals and actions.
Ecuador was moving from a military dictatorship to become a democracy during this time period. The military dictatorship a decade before created a wealth inequality centered around the oil resource which did not benefit the people economically and contributed to debt. Throughout their democratic transition, debt continued to hinder any social development. From the 70s to 80s, Ecuador’s debt increased significantly which affected their currency and spending and resulted in a more oil extraction practices and foreign investment. The United States became heavily involved in Ecuador’s affairs. Ecuador worked to restructure loans while social outrage built in regards to the effects of these new strategies. Additionally, 1987 brought a catastrophic earthquake that damaged a pipeline and eliminate a major source of revenue. These issues brought about the end of this period in 1987.
Reflection:
Ecuador’s debt severely hindered its growth and allowed international influence to take charge of both conservation and profit from resources. The severity of the situation is explained: “Its wealth and future development prospects now depend on wise investment in its biodiversity, ecosystems, and human potential, but requires significant resources to realize. Meanwhile, the government struggles to meet national budget priorities and an onerous external debt financed by the unsustainable extraction of non-renewable resources” (Mecham, Zorrilla, Thomas, & Downes, 2014, p. 6). All of these factors led to the citizens’ movements as the focus of the government was on the extraction of oil, repaying debt, and continued development. Natura and Acción Ecológical were severely contrasting groups in their goals and means of achieving them. With less reliance on international sources and a stronger focus on the will of the people, I feel that I would have supported Acción Ecológical during this time. It was made evident from the book that during this time period, Ecuador’s debt caused the needs of the country’s citizens to be pushed aside. Therefore, a group that fought directly for social change and held lives over profit while fighting to protect the environment would seem to be ideal. The role of these groups can be explained as: “Indigenous and environmental organizations undoubtedly have an important ‘watchdog function’ concerning the rights of nature in political settings, i.e. in order to minimize negative consequences for nature/the environment. Moreover, oppositional social movements might risk losing it all with overly radical approaches, for instance, demanding state policies of zero extractivism” (Lalander, 2014, p. 638). Environmental activism plays a vital role in society and as long as it remains reasonable and does not aim to completely eliminate governmental practices, a balance can be achieved. Exceedingly radical notions and demands will only result in the regression of environmental change and unity between the government and its people and must therefore be used cautiously and strategically.
Debt-for-nature swaps appear to be highly beneficial and viable options to help countries pay for their debt at a price they can handle without neglecting social and environmental needs. However, I’m sure that different circumstances and countries could receive a variety of outcomes from these swaps, and I acknowledge that they may not be suitable in every scenario. For instance, one of several pitfalls of debt-for-nature swaps was described in a US-Indonesian case study as “although the US-Indonesian swap does increase available resources to Indonesia at the country level, it does not generate extra budgetary room for the Indonesian government” (Cassimon, Prowse, & Essers, 2011, p. 93). This study highlighted the idea that these swaps do not offer any spending room and therefore can restrict the amount of growth a country can achieve. Limitations are always present with any subject, but I feel with additional research and analysis on the effects of debt-for-nature swaps, improvements are likely and feasible.
References:
Cassimon, D., Prowse, M., & Essers, D. (2011). The pitfalls and potential of debt-for-nature
swaps: A US-Indonesian case study. Global Environmental Change, 21(1) 93-102.
Lalander, R. (2014). The Ecuadorian Resource Dilemma: Sumak Kawsay or Development?.
Critical Sociology, 42(4-5) 623-642.
Lewis, T. L. (2016). Ecuador's environmental revolutions: Ecoimperialists, ecodependents, and
ecoresisters. MIT Press.
Mecham, J., C. Zorrilla, D.C. Thomas, L. Downes. 2018 v1.1. Ecuador endangered by extreme
extractivism. Nimbin, New South Wales, Australia: Rainforest Information Centre.
Summary:
The environmental movement in Ecuador began in Quito in the 1970s and gained prominence in the decades to follow. It began as a small, informal group with the creation of the nonprofit, Fundacion Natura, which maintained the central goal of conservation. Their projects were good natured and aimed at education and cooperation with businesses. Fundacion Natura aimed at working in harmony and unity with industries, government and its people through open communication.
Early on, the organization worked with the United States Agency for International Development to gain an understanding of Ecuador from an environmental perspective and received grants to conduct work through the program EDUNAT, which was very successful. A radical group called Acción Ecológical gained support of the newly formed Society for the Defense of Nature in the mid 1980s. Natura and AE differ in that Natura are “environmentalist”s that focus on conservation through funding and work with corporations while AE are “ecologists” that work more closely with the people and their concerns and bring attention to issues (Lewis, 2016). This resulted in a division of the two groups: those working for the people and those in collusion with large corporations. Natura resembles ecodependents while Ecologica resembles the ecoresisters.
International presence existed in Ecuador before the movement as the Charles Darwin Research Foundation (a Belgian NGO) was stationed in the Galapagos. As more NGOs arose, so too did this international presence. The year 1987 brought a considerable amount of international funding, as well as a national environmental congress and the formation of a group to mediate issues among organizations and ensure the protection of the environment. Debt-for-nature swaps also occurred during this year. An indebted country like Ecuador, with rich biodiversity and desire to protect it made it commonplace for these transactions to occur. In these swaps, the country in debt has a portion of their debt purchased by an economically-developed northern organization. This reduces their debt and allows them to make lower payments to a trust fund for environmental work in their country (Lewis, p.67). NGOs normally receive these funds, for example Natura received several of these swaps which generated millions of dollars in funds. These swaps allowed the country to have easier loan repayment and focus on the needs of the environment and their citizens. Environmental organizations grew in number after these swaps and diversified environmental goals and actions.
Ecuador was moving from a military dictatorship to become a democracy during this time period. The military dictatorship a decade before created a wealth inequality centered around the oil resource which did not benefit the people economically and contributed to debt. Throughout their democratic transition, debt continued to hinder any social development. From the 70s to 80s, Ecuador’s debt increased significantly which affected their currency and spending and resulted in a more oil extraction practices and foreign investment. The United States became heavily involved in Ecuador’s affairs. Ecuador worked to restructure loans while social outrage built in regards to the effects of these new strategies. Additionally, 1987 brought a catastrophic earthquake that damaged a pipeline and eliminate a major source of revenue. These issues brought about the end of this period in 1987.
Reflection:
Ecuador’s debt severely hindered its growth and allowed international influence to take charge of both conservation and profit from resources. The severity of the situation is explained: “Its wealth and future development prospects now depend on wise investment in its biodiversity, ecosystems, and human potential, but requires significant resources to realize. Meanwhile, the government struggles to meet national budget priorities and an onerous external debt financed by the unsustainable extraction of non-renewable resources” (Mecham, Zorrilla, Thomas, & Downes, 2014, p. 6). All of these factors led to the citizens’ movements as the focus of the government was on the extraction of oil, repaying debt, and continued development. Natura and Acción Ecológical were severely contrasting groups in their goals and means of achieving them. With less reliance on international sources and a stronger focus on the will of the people, I feel that I would have supported Acción Ecológical during this time. It was made evident from the book that during this time period, Ecuador’s debt caused the needs of the country’s citizens to be pushed aside. Therefore, a group that fought directly for social change and held lives over profit while fighting to protect the environment would seem to be ideal. The role of these groups can be explained as: “Indigenous and environmental organizations undoubtedly have an important ‘watchdog function’ concerning the rights of nature in political settings, i.e. in order to minimize negative consequences for nature/the environment. Moreover, oppositional social movements might risk losing it all with overly radical approaches, for instance, demanding state policies of zero extractivism” (Lalander, 2014, p. 638). Environmental activism plays a vital role in society and as long as it remains reasonable and does not aim to completely eliminate governmental practices, a balance can be achieved. Exceedingly radical notions and demands will only result in the regression of environmental change and unity between the government and its people and must therefore be used cautiously and strategically.
Debt-for-nature swaps appear to be highly beneficial and viable options to help countries pay for their debt at a price they can handle without neglecting social and environmental needs. However, I’m sure that different circumstances and countries could receive a variety of outcomes from these swaps, and I acknowledge that they may not be suitable in every scenario. For instance, one of several pitfalls of debt-for-nature swaps was described in a US-Indonesian case study as “although the US-Indonesian swap does increase available resources to Indonesia at the country level, it does not generate extra budgetary room for the Indonesian government” (Cassimon, Prowse, & Essers, 2011, p. 93). This study highlighted the idea that these swaps do not offer any spending room and therefore can restrict the amount of growth a country can achieve. Limitations are always present with any subject, but I feel with additional research and analysis on the effects of debt-for-nature swaps, improvements are likely and feasible.
References:
Cassimon, D., Prowse, M., & Essers, D. (2011). The pitfalls and potential of debt-for-nature
swaps: A US-Indonesian case study. Global Environmental Change, 21(1) 93-102.
Lalander, R. (2014). The Ecuadorian Resource Dilemma: Sumak Kawsay or Development?.
Critical Sociology, 42(4-5) 623-642.
Lewis, T. L. (2016). Ecuador's environmental revolutions: Ecoimperialists, ecodependents, and
ecoresisters. MIT Press.
Mecham, J., C. Zorrilla, D.C. Thomas, L. Downes. 2018 v1.1. Ecuador endangered by extreme
extractivism. Nimbin, New South Wales, Australia: Rainforest Information Centre.