Chapter 6: Organizational Bust, 2000 to 2006: Opportunities for Ecoresisters and Ecoalternatives
Summary:
This chapter discusses the rise of ecoresister groups which began around 2000 when international funding decreased significantly. This occurred as a result of the adoption of the U.S. dollar, a decrease in funding after the 9/11 events, and the ending of two major projects that supported the country greatly. This caused many ecodependent NGOs to lose funding and have to close down or search for funding. The Oleoducto de Crudos Pesados (OCP) pipeline began around this time in 2001 through various regions of the country and resulted in the disunity of the environmental movement as NGOs appeared unconcerned and citizens protested. The “Ecofund” created as a result of the pipeline was viewed as artificial and passive through its northern conservation agenda. Protected areas were viewed as potential sources of profit.
International funding brings uncertainty as the countries that receive it have no control and priorities of ecoimperialists can change resulting in increases and declines of NGOs at their hands. The agendas of NGOs become those of their funders and result in the changing of goals to receive their support. Competition therefore results as local funding is not available. Other means of survival includes picking up requested proposals of ecoimperialists which further drives a divide between other national organizations and the local goals of the environmental movement. This also calls into question their non-profit nature. As competition increases, organizations are less willing to work together, and money overrides the goals that these organizations stand for. Some NGOs also offered services as a means of supporting themselves often through employment and ecotourist efforts among others.
In terms of an environmental movement, some believe there was one during this time and others believe there was too much disconnect and common stands taken in order to truly have one. Smaller environmental groups, ecoresisters, seemed to have more unity and impact in their local communities and didn’t rely on foreign funding to operate. These groups along with NGOs began to work with local governments which brought more depth and opportunities to strategize with, including ecotourist efforts. However, it created issues with whether power and authority should lie in the hands of NGOs or more local practices. As this issue emerged, grassroots organizations became more prominent in opposing harmful extractive procedures. Mining opposition gave rise to the radical DECOIN which created jobs to make mining jobs less essential to locals and put money toward educational opportunities. This along with protesting resulted in several corporations leaving the country. C-CONDEM was another like-minded group that protested shrimp farming in defense of the mangroves.
Ecuador’s state was growing weaker and more at odds with its citizens. President Gutierrez repealed the Supreme Court in 2005 which resulted in the banding together of a variety of environmental groups in the National Environmental Assembly to address the multitude of issues and goals that needed support. This group denounced the states actions, requested action to be taken, and progressed the environmental movement considerably.
Ecoentrepreneurs, which aimed to gain funding within the country, also arose with the goals of wanting to address local issues while not “resisting development” but rather wanting to improve sustainability locally (Lewis, p. 156). Funding includes local, national, and foreign but these organizations do not work with NGOs or other environmental groups and are not reliant on international funding.
Reflection:
The actions taken by grassroots organizations during this time period were essential due to the weakness of the state and its concession to international intervention and environmental degradation in order to make a profit. Lewis highlights the temperamental nature of NGOs due to the fluctuations of international funding and emphasizes the success of grassroots, ecoresisters, and ecoentrepreneurs that are outside this influence. However, another source notes the significance of NGOs:
In terms of the capacity of NGOs to bring about change and democracy to societies in Latin America, this
case [water governance] suggests that development NGOs and international efforts to support these can
positively contribute to a deepening of democracy through the empowerment of grassroots organizations
and the broader third sector, but that their capacity to bring about changes in public policies very much
hinges on the historical context in which these operate (Hoogesteger, 2016, p. 183).
This viewpoint is in direct opposition to Lewis’s view that with the decreasing of NGOs, ecoresister groups were able to find a niche. It in fact supports the idea that all of these organizations work hand and hand depending on what is occurring in that time period.
Additionally, she discusses how ecoresister groups like DECOIN helped to provide jobs and education to locals about the impact extractivism has on the environment. I believe education and its importance must be highlighted more. Through understanding, people begin to feel comfortable asserting themselves. As stated in an article on Ecuador’s oil extractivism, “Reconciling respondents' personal needs to address vulnerability to environmental changes—which could worsen poverty—with efforts to insert their communities into regional, national, and global debates about resource extraction... may be the attitude-defining debate of the next decade in resource-rich developing states…” (Eisenstadt & West, 2017, p. 247). Support and activism is achieved through education, which incites change on local and national scales. I think this will be a major theme for Ecuador in the future.
The neoliberal era was essential for Ecuador to spur the beginning of change in their government. The necessity is highlighted: “Decentralisation is one of the most important reform movements in Latin America. It addresses the authoritarian and centralised forms of rule that have plagued the region since the colonial period... The reforms in Ecuador are part of a region-wide trend to modernise the state” (Keese & Argudo, 2006, p. 122-123). This “bust” that occurred during this time period allowed for more domestic influence on the inner workings and decision making in Ecuadorian politics. In sharp contrast to the previous chapter of the book, Ecuador has appeared to gain strength on the domestic front when it previously appeared that international presence and funding was greatly influential to the country. This caused a big shift in my thoughts as my question has become: Can Ecuador prosper with considerably less international influence or does a healthy balance between the domestic and international spheres need to be achieved?
References:
Eisenstadt, T., & West, K. (2017). Opinion, Vulnerability, and Living with Extraction on
Ecuador’s Oil Frontier: Where the Debate Between Development and Environmentalism Gets Personal.
Comparative Politics, 49(2), 231-251.
Hoogesteger, J. (2016). NGOs and the Democratization of Ecuadorian Water Governance:
Insights from the Multi-Stakeholder Platform el Foro de los Recursos Hídricos. VOLUNTAS: International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 27(1), 166-186.
Keese, J. R., & Argudo, M. F. (2006). Decentralisation and NGO-Municipal Government
Collaboration in Ecuador. Development in Practice, 16(2), 114-127.
Lewis, T. L. (2016). Ecuador's environmental revolutions: Ecoimperialists, ecodependents, and
ecoresisters. MIT Press.
Summary:
This chapter discusses the rise of ecoresister groups which began around 2000 when international funding decreased significantly. This occurred as a result of the adoption of the U.S. dollar, a decrease in funding after the 9/11 events, and the ending of two major projects that supported the country greatly. This caused many ecodependent NGOs to lose funding and have to close down or search for funding. The Oleoducto de Crudos Pesados (OCP) pipeline began around this time in 2001 through various regions of the country and resulted in the disunity of the environmental movement as NGOs appeared unconcerned and citizens protested. The “Ecofund” created as a result of the pipeline was viewed as artificial and passive through its northern conservation agenda. Protected areas were viewed as potential sources of profit.
International funding brings uncertainty as the countries that receive it have no control and priorities of ecoimperialists can change resulting in increases and declines of NGOs at their hands. The agendas of NGOs become those of their funders and result in the changing of goals to receive their support. Competition therefore results as local funding is not available. Other means of survival includes picking up requested proposals of ecoimperialists which further drives a divide between other national organizations and the local goals of the environmental movement. This also calls into question their non-profit nature. As competition increases, organizations are less willing to work together, and money overrides the goals that these organizations stand for. Some NGOs also offered services as a means of supporting themselves often through employment and ecotourist efforts among others.
In terms of an environmental movement, some believe there was one during this time and others believe there was too much disconnect and common stands taken in order to truly have one. Smaller environmental groups, ecoresisters, seemed to have more unity and impact in their local communities and didn’t rely on foreign funding to operate. These groups along with NGOs began to work with local governments which brought more depth and opportunities to strategize with, including ecotourist efforts. However, it created issues with whether power and authority should lie in the hands of NGOs or more local practices. As this issue emerged, grassroots organizations became more prominent in opposing harmful extractive procedures. Mining opposition gave rise to the radical DECOIN which created jobs to make mining jobs less essential to locals and put money toward educational opportunities. This along with protesting resulted in several corporations leaving the country. C-CONDEM was another like-minded group that protested shrimp farming in defense of the mangroves.
Ecuador’s state was growing weaker and more at odds with its citizens. President Gutierrez repealed the Supreme Court in 2005 which resulted in the banding together of a variety of environmental groups in the National Environmental Assembly to address the multitude of issues and goals that needed support. This group denounced the states actions, requested action to be taken, and progressed the environmental movement considerably.
Ecoentrepreneurs, which aimed to gain funding within the country, also arose with the goals of wanting to address local issues while not “resisting development” but rather wanting to improve sustainability locally (Lewis, p. 156). Funding includes local, national, and foreign but these organizations do not work with NGOs or other environmental groups and are not reliant on international funding.
Reflection:
The actions taken by grassroots organizations during this time period were essential due to the weakness of the state and its concession to international intervention and environmental degradation in order to make a profit. Lewis highlights the temperamental nature of NGOs due to the fluctuations of international funding and emphasizes the success of grassroots, ecoresisters, and ecoentrepreneurs that are outside this influence. However, another source notes the significance of NGOs:
In terms of the capacity of NGOs to bring about change and democracy to societies in Latin America, this
case [water governance] suggests that development NGOs and international efforts to support these can
positively contribute to a deepening of democracy through the empowerment of grassroots organizations
and the broader third sector, but that their capacity to bring about changes in public policies very much
hinges on the historical context in which these operate (Hoogesteger, 2016, p. 183).
This viewpoint is in direct opposition to Lewis’s view that with the decreasing of NGOs, ecoresister groups were able to find a niche. It in fact supports the idea that all of these organizations work hand and hand depending on what is occurring in that time period.
Additionally, she discusses how ecoresister groups like DECOIN helped to provide jobs and education to locals about the impact extractivism has on the environment. I believe education and its importance must be highlighted more. Through understanding, people begin to feel comfortable asserting themselves. As stated in an article on Ecuador’s oil extractivism, “Reconciling respondents' personal needs to address vulnerability to environmental changes—which could worsen poverty—with efforts to insert their communities into regional, national, and global debates about resource extraction... may be the attitude-defining debate of the next decade in resource-rich developing states…” (Eisenstadt & West, 2017, p. 247). Support and activism is achieved through education, which incites change on local and national scales. I think this will be a major theme for Ecuador in the future.
The neoliberal era was essential for Ecuador to spur the beginning of change in their government. The necessity is highlighted: “Decentralisation is one of the most important reform movements in Latin America. It addresses the authoritarian and centralised forms of rule that have plagued the region since the colonial period... The reforms in Ecuador are part of a region-wide trend to modernise the state” (Keese & Argudo, 2006, p. 122-123). This “bust” that occurred during this time period allowed for more domestic influence on the inner workings and decision making in Ecuadorian politics. In sharp contrast to the previous chapter of the book, Ecuador has appeared to gain strength on the domestic front when it previously appeared that international presence and funding was greatly influential to the country. This caused a big shift in my thoughts as my question has become: Can Ecuador prosper with considerably less international influence or does a healthy balance between the domestic and international spheres need to be achieved?
References:
Eisenstadt, T., & West, K. (2017). Opinion, Vulnerability, and Living with Extraction on
Ecuador’s Oil Frontier: Where the Debate Between Development and Environmentalism Gets Personal.
Comparative Politics, 49(2), 231-251.
Hoogesteger, J. (2016). NGOs and the Democratization of Ecuadorian Water Governance:
Insights from the Multi-Stakeholder Platform el Foro de los Recursos Hídricos. VOLUNTAS: International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 27(1), 166-186.
Keese, J. R., & Argudo, M. F. (2006). Decentralisation and NGO-Municipal Government
Collaboration in Ecuador. Development in Practice, 16(2), 114-127.
Lewis, T. L. (2016). Ecuador's environmental revolutions: Ecoimperialists, ecodependents, and
ecoresisters. MIT Press.