Chapter 8: Hypotheses from Ecuador
Summary:
An environmental movement had begun in Ecuador at the hands of scholars before the first period discussed in the book. The years 1978 to 1987 were characterized by international influence and attention because of the richness of Ecuador’s biodiversity but a weak, indebted domestic state allowed for damaging extractive policies. Conservation organizations worked through NGOs to protect this precious resource and as transnational organizations got involved, NGOs increased in number.
The neoliberal boom from 1987-2000 saw the privatization of environmental work through NGOs and their funders and the shared goal of conservation. Debt-for-nature swaps grew in popularity as foreign influence increased significantly. Ecoresisters, that worked for sustainable development, and ecoentrepreneurs, that aimed to solve local problems, were uninvolved with foreign funding. Though often unacknowledged by the state, they sparked the desire for policy change.
The years 2000-2006, the neoliberal bust, allowed for the rise of ecoresisters and ecoentrepreneurs as foreign funding decreased significantly and brought down NGOs with it. Ecoresisters also found a political niche and grew in power and influence among citizens. The weak state of Ecuador continued to lead to environmental degradation as people were beginning to demand action.
The last period discussed in the book occurred from the years 2006-2015, the citizens’ revolution. During this time, President Correa came into power. Initially, support was found on all sides for Correa as he brought more money to the people and all but eliminated foreign influence from the country. However, at the same time that nature was granted rights by the new constitution and “buen vivir” was the aim for the future, Correa brought an increase in damage to the environment through more extractive measures. Activists opposed him while citizens that were reaping the benefits re-elected him. Money was being brought into the state but at the expense of the environment and this brought into question the fate of the country.
Lewis highlights that transnational funding allowed the environmental movement to progress, gain traction, and follow specific goals. She also emphasizes that ecodependent groups and their goals were at the hands of transnational funders. Without these organizations, ecoresisters rose to more impactful roles and focused on humanitarian issues. Finally, she explained that when the state of Ecuador was weak, foreign influence was impactful and the environmental movement at the hands of NGOs and their funders gained traction. However, when the state grew strong and foreign presence was pushed out of the country, ecoresisters and local indigenous groups rose in place. Thus, the condition of the state and whether it is controlled by transnational funding or its own government without foreign presence is critical in assessing the trajectory of both the environmental movement and the groups that dominate the scene. Furthermore, how the country progresses both economically and environmentally depends on the limitations and allowances imposed by the government. Additionally, neoliberalism made Ecuador weak and susceptible to the dominance of transnational influence. Both local and large-scale opposition to the extractive, profit-hungry system seen globally can reduce the impact on the environment and help achieve more balanced, sustainable lifestyles. Production and resource use are fueled by the economic dependence of countries on one another.
Reflection:
Overall, I felt this book was an insightful, stimulating, and oftentimes opinionated discussion about Ecuador’s environmental history and future. There were times throughout the book where I felt that some information was redundant or even contradictory. For example, Lewis referred to foreign influence as an “invasive alien species” (Lewis, p. 114) but later in her conclusion relayed that it assisted in the environmental movement greatly and helped form an understanding of how Ecuador should try to operate in the future. This sometimes made it difficult to gauge what negatively or positively impacted Ecuador. The book focused heavily on the role of transnational influence, however I felt this was an important aspect that needed to be discussed. Lewis touched on the effects that the workings of the environmental movement and state had on the citizens but at times I found myself curious to know more. More perspectives from those that were not involved in any organizations and simply discussed their living conditions and what they desired to see change would have been interesting.
In this last chapter, Lewis listed a number of hypotheses concerning the roles of transnational funders, as well as more powerful socialist states in Ecuador. Several of these hypotheses stood out to me in importance. The first was: “The dominant goals of the environmental movement will vary with transnational funding; when transnational funding is high, the goals of ecoimperialists will dominate, and when transnational funding is low, the goals of ecoresisters will dominate” (Lewis, p. 202). This is an important topic as it shows just how influential funding can be in a weak state and how easily the goals and momentum of the movement can change. It also helps us to materialize the competition that can occur with and without funding. Understanding this can aid in understanding and help predict how future countries will be affected by similar circumstances. However, the entirety of NGOs influence does not necessarily rely on their donors as explained: “Despite the influence donors have on NGOs, the NGOs' powerful presence and their environmental education programs have consequences beyond donor control” (Meyer, p. 191). Perhaps the influence of NGOs outside the realms of foreign influence was not touched upon in this book.
Another of Lewis’s hypotheses was: “Ecoresisters have the potential to shift the state toward an alternative trajectory, but that possibility depends on the degree to which the state limits or empowers them. Without limits, they have the greatest likelihood of alternatives being express and enacted” (Lewis, p. 203). When discussing how the rights of nature came to formation with no resistance from the state, one source expresses that “it is unlikely that their efforts would have succeeded without two historical developments: first, the presence of environmentalist social movements that had done the groundwork of elevating the environmental agenda at the national level during prior decades, and second, the power of indigenous organizations” (Akchurin, 2015, p. 939). This expresses the importance of local environmental organizations in invoking change in areas they view would benefit both the citizens and the environment as opposed to areas the state or transnational organizations would solely benefit from. I believe ecoresisters play an important role in movements and when suppressed it certainly becomes more difficult to materialize goals though it certainly can fuel their motivations.
The final hypothesis that stood out to me was: “Transnational funders (movement imperialists) are agents of global hegemony and perpetuate the status quo” (Lewis, p.204). This hypothesis contradicted some of Lewis’s arguments about their impact and tends to imply that the role of transnational funders was overall relatively negative and didn’t invoke change. The ability of international influence to grow and modify has been discounted by this statement. According to a study done in 2016, “...according to my informants, the aid industry has evolved and learned from past mistakes. It has in large part moved away from the traditional donor-recipient relationship, and is closer to encompassing real partnerships” (Jensen, 2016). Transnational funding was able to help initiate the movement in Ecuador through NGOs and therefore it was an important component of their history and rather than perpetuate the status quo, it initiated protests and called on the state and its citizens to take action. Furthermore, it has the ability to grow as the country does and to learn from the past.
References:
Akchurin, M. (2015). Constructing the Rights of Nature: Constitutional Reform, Mobilization,
and Environmental Protection in Ecuador. Law & Social Inquiry, 40(4), 937–968.
Jensen, I. U. (2016). Ecuadorian perspectives on international aid cooperation: Experiences and
challenges encountered by the environmental movement. Faculty of Humanities: UNIVERSITETET I OSLO.
Lewis, T. L. (2016). Ecuador's environmental revolutions: Ecoimperialists, ecodependents, and
ecoresisters. MIT Press.
Meyer, C. A. (1993). Environmental NGOs in Ecuador: an economic analysis of institutional
change. Journal Of Developing Areas, 27(2), 191–210.
Summary:
An environmental movement had begun in Ecuador at the hands of scholars before the first period discussed in the book. The years 1978 to 1987 were characterized by international influence and attention because of the richness of Ecuador’s biodiversity but a weak, indebted domestic state allowed for damaging extractive policies. Conservation organizations worked through NGOs to protect this precious resource and as transnational organizations got involved, NGOs increased in number.
The neoliberal boom from 1987-2000 saw the privatization of environmental work through NGOs and their funders and the shared goal of conservation. Debt-for-nature swaps grew in popularity as foreign influence increased significantly. Ecoresisters, that worked for sustainable development, and ecoentrepreneurs, that aimed to solve local problems, were uninvolved with foreign funding. Though often unacknowledged by the state, they sparked the desire for policy change.
The years 2000-2006, the neoliberal bust, allowed for the rise of ecoresisters and ecoentrepreneurs as foreign funding decreased significantly and brought down NGOs with it. Ecoresisters also found a political niche and grew in power and influence among citizens. The weak state of Ecuador continued to lead to environmental degradation as people were beginning to demand action.
The last period discussed in the book occurred from the years 2006-2015, the citizens’ revolution. During this time, President Correa came into power. Initially, support was found on all sides for Correa as he brought more money to the people and all but eliminated foreign influence from the country. However, at the same time that nature was granted rights by the new constitution and “buen vivir” was the aim for the future, Correa brought an increase in damage to the environment through more extractive measures. Activists opposed him while citizens that were reaping the benefits re-elected him. Money was being brought into the state but at the expense of the environment and this brought into question the fate of the country.
Lewis highlights that transnational funding allowed the environmental movement to progress, gain traction, and follow specific goals. She also emphasizes that ecodependent groups and their goals were at the hands of transnational funders. Without these organizations, ecoresisters rose to more impactful roles and focused on humanitarian issues. Finally, she explained that when the state of Ecuador was weak, foreign influence was impactful and the environmental movement at the hands of NGOs and their funders gained traction. However, when the state grew strong and foreign presence was pushed out of the country, ecoresisters and local indigenous groups rose in place. Thus, the condition of the state and whether it is controlled by transnational funding or its own government without foreign presence is critical in assessing the trajectory of both the environmental movement and the groups that dominate the scene. Furthermore, how the country progresses both economically and environmentally depends on the limitations and allowances imposed by the government. Additionally, neoliberalism made Ecuador weak and susceptible to the dominance of transnational influence. Both local and large-scale opposition to the extractive, profit-hungry system seen globally can reduce the impact on the environment and help achieve more balanced, sustainable lifestyles. Production and resource use are fueled by the economic dependence of countries on one another.
Reflection:
Overall, I felt this book was an insightful, stimulating, and oftentimes opinionated discussion about Ecuador’s environmental history and future. There were times throughout the book where I felt that some information was redundant or even contradictory. For example, Lewis referred to foreign influence as an “invasive alien species” (Lewis, p. 114) but later in her conclusion relayed that it assisted in the environmental movement greatly and helped form an understanding of how Ecuador should try to operate in the future. This sometimes made it difficult to gauge what negatively or positively impacted Ecuador. The book focused heavily on the role of transnational influence, however I felt this was an important aspect that needed to be discussed. Lewis touched on the effects that the workings of the environmental movement and state had on the citizens but at times I found myself curious to know more. More perspectives from those that were not involved in any organizations and simply discussed their living conditions and what they desired to see change would have been interesting.
In this last chapter, Lewis listed a number of hypotheses concerning the roles of transnational funders, as well as more powerful socialist states in Ecuador. Several of these hypotheses stood out to me in importance. The first was: “The dominant goals of the environmental movement will vary with transnational funding; when transnational funding is high, the goals of ecoimperialists will dominate, and when transnational funding is low, the goals of ecoresisters will dominate” (Lewis, p. 202). This is an important topic as it shows just how influential funding can be in a weak state and how easily the goals and momentum of the movement can change. It also helps us to materialize the competition that can occur with and without funding. Understanding this can aid in understanding and help predict how future countries will be affected by similar circumstances. However, the entirety of NGOs influence does not necessarily rely on their donors as explained: “Despite the influence donors have on NGOs, the NGOs' powerful presence and their environmental education programs have consequences beyond donor control” (Meyer, p. 191). Perhaps the influence of NGOs outside the realms of foreign influence was not touched upon in this book.
Another of Lewis’s hypotheses was: “Ecoresisters have the potential to shift the state toward an alternative trajectory, but that possibility depends on the degree to which the state limits or empowers them. Without limits, they have the greatest likelihood of alternatives being express and enacted” (Lewis, p. 203). When discussing how the rights of nature came to formation with no resistance from the state, one source expresses that “it is unlikely that their efforts would have succeeded without two historical developments: first, the presence of environmentalist social movements that had done the groundwork of elevating the environmental agenda at the national level during prior decades, and second, the power of indigenous organizations” (Akchurin, 2015, p. 939). This expresses the importance of local environmental organizations in invoking change in areas they view would benefit both the citizens and the environment as opposed to areas the state or transnational organizations would solely benefit from. I believe ecoresisters play an important role in movements and when suppressed it certainly becomes more difficult to materialize goals though it certainly can fuel their motivations.
The final hypothesis that stood out to me was: “Transnational funders (movement imperialists) are agents of global hegemony and perpetuate the status quo” (Lewis, p.204). This hypothesis contradicted some of Lewis’s arguments about their impact and tends to imply that the role of transnational funders was overall relatively negative and didn’t invoke change. The ability of international influence to grow and modify has been discounted by this statement. According to a study done in 2016, “...according to my informants, the aid industry has evolved and learned from past mistakes. It has in large part moved away from the traditional donor-recipient relationship, and is closer to encompassing real partnerships” (Jensen, 2016). Transnational funding was able to help initiate the movement in Ecuador through NGOs and therefore it was an important component of their history and rather than perpetuate the status quo, it initiated protests and called on the state and its citizens to take action. Furthermore, it has the ability to grow as the country does and to learn from the past.
References:
Akchurin, M. (2015). Constructing the Rights of Nature: Constitutional Reform, Mobilization,
and Environmental Protection in Ecuador. Law & Social Inquiry, 40(4), 937–968.
Jensen, I. U. (2016). Ecuadorian perspectives on international aid cooperation: Experiences and
challenges encountered by the environmental movement. Faculty of Humanities: UNIVERSITETET I OSLO.
Lewis, T. L. (2016). Ecuador's environmental revolutions: Ecoimperialists, ecodependents, and
ecoresisters. MIT Press.
Meyer, C. A. (1993). Environmental NGOs in Ecuador: an economic analysis of institutional
change. Journal Of Developing Areas, 27(2), 191–210.