Chapter 5: Neoliberal Boom, 1987 to 2000: The Rise of Ecodependence
Summary:
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development took place in 1992 in Rio and brought world leaders together to sign agreements that aimed for more sustainable development. This was positively viewed in the eyes of many as the beginning of change. Ecuador became involved and actively supplied reports and updates after the conference and even created the President’s Environmental Advisory Committee. The list of protected areas grew, however there was not enough funding to actually follow through on environmental initiatives. Therefore, NGOs and their ecoimperialist funders took action where the state could not and propelled the environmental movement, increasing the number of more specialized environmental organizations considerably in 1993. Groups formed from larger organizations like Natura. USAID was a prominent figure in Ecuador through its funding of organizations and initiation of programs and working with the organization was regarded with high esteem. Consequently, the United States became heavily involved in Ecuador’s economics.
Neoliberalism, which aims for a free market with less government spending and privatization, arose during the 90s with local support as the weak state of Ecuador remained inefficient. Local governments or decentralization arose as well as a relationship between NGOs and the government. The country grew more open to foreign investment and NGOs were further supported and became more active in local affairs.
NGOs, gaining international funding and prominence, were required to maintain goals and keep up with their growth. More professional organizations prospered, while those who failed to meet their needs ended as their funding did. Some felt this business-like attitude increased efficiency while others felt as though this was asking too much of them. Ecoimperialist groups were also restricted in their interactions with indigenous groups and limited those who could manage them. Additional outside costs also resulted as professionalism increased. By the end of this boom, this caused less success in the coordination of environmental groups and increased competition as funding and influence were battled for. This damaged the unity of the environmental movement and the support of the public. NGOs could not stop the extraction of resources from Ecuador and anger grew over foreign intervention and the destruction caused by “sustainable development.”
The second congress in 1995 along with CEDENMA’s involvement brought more focus to humanitarian and quality of life issues in NGOs and their funders. Prior to this, international focus discluded citizen’s issues and focused solely on conservation. Ecoimperialist organizations then had to include projects that benefitted locals and had to limit what they funded thus influencing the priorities of NGOs and creating more of a distrust among their funders. Still, urban and coastal issues were left unaddressed as there was no funding for these. Ecoresisters, consisting of indigenous groups and those that didn't receive funding, were left to take action against local issues and damages caused by extraction that were ignored by large corporations.
Ecodependent organizations also rose in number to address problems like deforestation, pollution, and mangrove destruction that the state ignored. Ecotourism created means to create revenue and work toward sustainable development. INGOs thus began assisting with funding for ecotourism opportunities as NGOs took off in number. However, neoliberalism did not benefit the state but rather assisted foreign intervention. toward the end of the era, a combination of war with Peru, increased spending, a drop in oil prices and el Nino occurred while an indigenous organization landed a place in politics and began a new movement.
Reflection:
Overall, this time period showed the positive and consequently negative impact of foreign involvement in Ecuador. What started out successful and positive for NGOs and funding became a limited ability to protect Ecuador against national environmental degradation and a divide among members of the environmental movement. Too much influence made citizens feel as if they have lost power over their own country, environment, and decisions. Debt continued to show its face as the cause of instability and outside influence in the country. However, environmental issues in Ecuador did become known worldwide and to the country itself.
Lewis views transnational funders as having infected Ecuador for the most part and contributed to the lack of solidarity among national organizations, though contributing to essential funding and putting Ecuador on the conservation map. Another view sees the situation in Ecuador entirely as a domestic issue in which the state must be held responsible for protecting its land and citizen’s and rejects the “standard narrative” of foreign involvement degrading Ecuador’s culture and environment (Reider & Wasserstrom, 2013). Thus, Lewis’s idea that ecoimperialists greatly diminished unity in the state and among NGOs would be seen as an excuse that overrides the real issue of an unhealthy internal infrastructure. Additionally, national organizations should always prioritize the health of their citizens and community over international involvement.
Resolutions to the problems explained in this chapter do not fall in one single area. Just as international support is needed, domestic governmental action needs to take place. However, the essential role that indigenous groups and citizens play is underscored by an article written during this time period: “Human rights can play an essential role in the search for solutions to these problems in the Oriente, by mobilizing public and political pressure, and opening the possibility of legal avenues through which Ecuadorian citizens may take action against the state” (Center for Economic and Social Rights, 1994, p. 96). While this idea sounds perfect when put into words, the implementation of it is harder to achieve and the influence of “ecoimperialists” on grassroot organizations must be questioned. Just how involved are these transnational organizations in the inner workings of Ecuador? Another article describes this relationship:
“By the mid-1990s.... As a result of chronic project failure and frequent NGO concerns over mismanaged
budgets, international donor organizations began shifting their funding strategy to work in indigenous
communities through intermediary domestic NGOs... The face of grassroots development was no longer a
leader or technician from the federation, but was now someone working for an Ecuadorian NGO” (Wilson, 2015, p.334-335).
This source rejects Tammy’s view that ecoresister groups did not receive any funding as working through NGOs made them an employee of ecoimperialists. The extent of foreign influence is demonstrated here and brings about the question: Is Ecuador too reliant on international influence to restore its own country domestically?
References:
Center for Economic and Social Rights. (1994). Rights Violations in the Ecuadorian Amazon:
The Human Consequences of Oil Development. Health and Human Rights, 1(1), 82-100.
Reider, S., Wasserstrom, R. (2013). Undermining democratic capacity: myth-making and oil
development in Amazonian Ecuador. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. 13(1) 39-47.
Wilson, P. (2015). NGOs, Indigenous Political Organizations, And Development In Amazonian
Ecuador, 1970-2000. Urban Anthropology, 44(3-4), 331–367.
Summary:
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development took place in 1992 in Rio and brought world leaders together to sign agreements that aimed for more sustainable development. This was positively viewed in the eyes of many as the beginning of change. Ecuador became involved and actively supplied reports and updates after the conference and even created the President’s Environmental Advisory Committee. The list of protected areas grew, however there was not enough funding to actually follow through on environmental initiatives. Therefore, NGOs and their ecoimperialist funders took action where the state could not and propelled the environmental movement, increasing the number of more specialized environmental organizations considerably in 1993. Groups formed from larger organizations like Natura. USAID was a prominent figure in Ecuador through its funding of organizations and initiation of programs and working with the organization was regarded with high esteem. Consequently, the United States became heavily involved in Ecuador’s economics.
Neoliberalism, which aims for a free market with less government spending and privatization, arose during the 90s with local support as the weak state of Ecuador remained inefficient. Local governments or decentralization arose as well as a relationship between NGOs and the government. The country grew more open to foreign investment and NGOs were further supported and became more active in local affairs.
NGOs, gaining international funding and prominence, were required to maintain goals and keep up with their growth. More professional organizations prospered, while those who failed to meet their needs ended as their funding did. Some felt this business-like attitude increased efficiency while others felt as though this was asking too much of them. Ecoimperialist groups were also restricted in their interactions with indigenous groups and limited those who could manage them. Additional outside costs also resulted as professionalism increased. By the end of this boom, this caused less success in the coordination of environmental groups and increased competition as funding and influence were battled for. This damaged the unity of the environmental movement and the support of the public. NGOs could not stop the extraction of resources from Ecuador and anger grew over foreign intervention and the destruction caused by “sustainable development.”
The second congress in 1995 along with CEDENMA’s involvement brought more focus to humanitarian and quality of life issues in NGOs and their funders. Prior to this, international focus discluded citizen’s issues and focused solely on conservation. Ecoimperialist organizations then had to include projects that benefitted locals and had to limit what they funded thus influencing the priorities of NGOs and creating more of a distrust among their funders. Still, urban and coastal issues were left unaddressed as there was no funding for these. Ecoresisters, consisting of indigenous groups and those that didn't receive funding, were left to take action against local issues and damages caused by extraction that were ignored by large corporations.
Ecodependent organizations also rose in number to address problems like deforestation, pollution, and mangrove destruction that the state ignored. Ecotourism created means to create revenue and work toward sustainable development. INGOs thus began assisting with funding for ecotourism opportunities as NGOs took off in number. However, neoliberalism did not benefit the state but rather assisted foreign intervention. toward the end of the era, a combination of war with Peru, increased spending, a drop in oil prices and el Nino occurred while an indigenous organization landed a place in politics and began a new movement.
Reflection:
Overall, this time period showed the positive and consequently negative impact of foreign involvement in Ecuador. What started out successful and positive for NGOs and funding became a limited ability to protect Ecuador against national environmental degradation and a divide among members of the environmental movement. Too much influence made citizens feel as if they have lost power over their own country, environment, and decisions. Debt continued to show its face as the cause of instability and outside influence in the country. However, environmental issues in Ecuador did become known worldwide and to the country itself.
Lewis views transnational funders as having infected Ecuador for the most part and contributed to the lack of solidarity among national organizations, though contributing to essential funding and putting Ecuador on the conservation map. Another view sees the situation in Ecuador entirely as a domestic issue in which the state must be held responsible for protecting its land and citizen’s and rejects the “standard narrative” of foreign involvement degrading Ecuador’s culture and environment (Reider & Wasserstrom, 2013). Thus, Lewis’s idea that ecoimperialists greatly diminished unity in the state and among NGOs would be seen as an excuse that overrides the real issue of an unhealthy internal infrastructure. Additionally, national organizations should always prioritize the health of their citizens and community over international involvement.
Resolutions to the problems explained in this chapter do not fall in one single area. Just as international support is needed, domestic governmental action needs to take place. However, the essential role that indigenous groups and citizens play is underscored by an article written during this time period: “Human rights can play an essential role in the search for solutions to these problems in the Oriente, by mobilizing public and political pressure, and opening the possibility of legal avenues through which Ecuadorian citizens may take action against the state” (Center for Economic and Social Rights, 1994, p. 96). While this idea sounds perfect when put into words, the implementation of it is harder to achieve and the influence of “ecoimperialists” on grassroot organizations must be questioned. Just how involved are these transnational organizations in the inner workings of Ecuador? Another article describes this relationship:
“By the mid-1990s.... As a result of chronic project failure and frequent NGO concerns over mismanaged
budgets, international donor organizations began shifting their funding strategy to work in indigenous
communities through intermediary domestic NGOs... The face of grassroots development was no longer a
leader or technician from the federation, but was now someone working for an Ecuadorian NGO” (Wilson, 2015, p.334-335).
This source rejects Tammy’s view that ecoresister groups did not receive any funding as working through NGOs made them an employee of ecoimperialists. The extent of foreign influence is demonstrated here and brings about the question: Is Ecuador too reliant on international influence to restore its own country domestically?
References:
Center for Economic and Social Rights. (1994). Rights Violations in the Ecuadorian Amazon:
The Human Consequences of Oil Development. Health and Human Rights, 1(1), 82-100.
Reider, S., Wasserstrom, R. (2013). Undermining democratic capacity: myth-making and oil
development in Amazonian Ecuador. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. 13(1) 39-47.
Wilson, P. (2015). NGOs, Indigenous Political Organizations, And Development In Amazonian
Ecuador, 1970-2000. Urban Anthropology, 44(3-4), 331–367.