Ecuador’s Environmental Revolutions
Hypotheses from Ecuador
The final chapter of Tammy L. Lewis’s, “Ecuador’s Environmental Revolutions: Ecoimperialists, Ecodependents, and Ecoresisters”, is probably the most important chapter in the entire text. A rundown of the four most important eras in Ecuador’s “environmental movement” was reiterated. The Origins, from 1978 to 1987, where there is complete economic synthesis, but hopes for a more sustainable future; the Neoliberal Boom, from 1987 to 2000, where we see a slight shift towards managed scarcity in laws but not deeds; the Neoliberal Bust, from 2000 to 2006, where in practice, the state would shift backwards to an economic synthesis, although in movement, organizations shift toward ecological synthesis; and the Citizens’ Revolution, from 2006 to 2015, where the state begins to practice managed scarcity and calls for ecological synthesis.
Lewis also reintroduces the questions that were asked in the very beginning of the text and is now able to answer these questions based off interviews with a variety of different organizations and people, and case studies presented in this text. First, what role has transnational funding played for Ecuador’s environmental movement? This is a very important question that is highly considered throughout the book. Lewis believes that transnational influence on a country like Ecuador, and similar countries within the Latin American/Caribbean area, is of utmost importance when it comes to starting an environmental movement, or any social movement for that matter. This is greatly in part due to her research, and the notion that transnational funding did have an enormous influence on Ecuador’s environmental movement as funders aided Ecuador’s growth and diversification in many areas, and affected the goals of the movement by helping to create new laws and institutions that would mirror those in the Global North (Lewis, 2016. Pg. 201).
The next question that was considered throughout the text is, how did the movement change over time? This is clear in the four very different eras that Ecuador went through from 1978 to 2015. What really marked the big changes in these eras, was transnational funding. When funding was great, national organizations were strong, and when funding shifted or weakened, so did Ecuador’s nongovernmental organizations, as they were largely dependent on transnational funding, and were left to shift their agendas or dwindle out. In the absence of funding, we see how ecoresisters had gained all the power that ecodepedent organizations in the state had once had, and these groups more closely represented the wants and needs of Ecuadorians (Pg.201).
Lastly, how has the environmental movement’s relationship to transnational funders ultimately affected the state’s environment and development policies? It is important to remember that Ecuador was an extremely weak and indebted state throughout all three movement eras, up until the fourth, with the election of President Rafael Correa. When the state was weak, ecodependent NGO organizations in Ecuador positioned themselves to work with the transnational investors/funders to create laws and institutions. Eventually, the state would strengthen and transnational funding would cease, and in this case ecoresisters and indigenous groups would work together to come up with ideas and implementations that would eventually become apart of the 2008 Constitution, and also be noted in the Yasuni-ITT Initiative later on (Pg.201). People who had worked in ecodependent organizations moved on to work within the state.
A lingering question within my mind as I finish reading Lewis’s book is, will Ecuador ever actually be able to reach a complete level of ecological synthesis, or sustainable development, or buen vivir/sumak kawsay? Will any country on Earth ever truly be able to achieve this? It sounds more like a utopia than a reality. I like the way Lewis puts in, on page 209 of the text, “Indeed it is unlikely that a “win-win-win” for environmental, economic, and social goals is ever possible.” I see it as a tringle effect, with environmental, economic, and social goals each at a vertex on the triangle, and the text at the bottom saying, “you can only pick two.” The treadmill of production may be slowed, but it’s really an endless cycle of slowing down and quickening back up with changes in the global economy, as well as other factors. Regarding the Treadmill of Production theory, I understand why Lewis placed so much emphasis on the effects of transnational funding. “Because the treadmill of production is a global phenomenon, challenges to this system must also operate globally, while building strength at the local level” (Gould, Pellow, & Schnaiberg, 2016). The treadmill of production cannot be defeated in any realistic sense, but it certainly can be slowed to a level that nature would appreciate, as long as transnational and national actors are able to work together for the greater good.
Overall, I enjoyed the layout and structure of the text by Tammy L. Lewis, and felt that it was very easy to read and understand her thought processes and ideas on everything. I feel a greater sense of oneness with Ecuador’s economy, environment, and social aspects most importantly. I feel a sense of security over this as I plan to travel to Ecuador, namely as an “ecotourist” and I am glad to have read this text for that reason. Lewis did a good job going over the different eras of the environmental movement. A lot of ideas were reiterated repeatedly, but they were for good reason. For example, the emphasis on transnational funders. This is one of the most important aspects of the entire book, and with good reason, because without those funders, Ecuador may still be as indebted and weak as they were 50 years ago.
References
Gould, K. A., Pellow, D. N., & Schnaiberg, A. (2016). The treadmill of production: injustice and unsustainability in the global economy. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Lewis, T. L. (2016). Ecuador's Environmental Revolutions: Ecoimperialists, Ecodependents, and Ecoresisters. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hypotheses from Ecuador
The final chapter of Tammy L. Lewis’s, “Ecuador’s Environmental Revolutions: Ecoimperialists, Ecodependents, and Ecoresisters”, is probably the most important chapter in the entire text. A rundown of the four most important eras in Ecuador’s “environmental movement” was reiterated. The Origins, from 1978 to 1987, where there is complete economic synthesis, but hopes for a more sustainable future; the Neoliberal Boom, from 1987 to 2000, where we see a slight shift towards managed scarcity in laws but not deeds; the Neoliberal Bust, from 2000 to 2006, where in practice, the state would shift backwards to an economic synthesis, although in movement, organizations shift toward ecological synthesis; and the Citizens’ Revolution, from 2006 to 2015, where the state begins to practice managed scarcity and calls for ecological synthesis.
Lewis also reintroduces the questions that were asked in the very beginning of the text and is now able to answer these questions based off interviews with a variety of different organizations and people, and case studies presented in this text. First, what role has transnational funding played for Ecuador’s environmental movement? This is a very important question that is highly considered throughout the book. Lewis believes that transnational influence on a country like Ecuador, and similar countries within the Latin American/Caribbean area, is of utmost importance when it comes to starting an environmental movement, or any social movement for that matter. This is greatly in part due to her research, and the notion that transnational funding did have an enormous influence on Ecuador’s environmental movement as funders aided Ecuador’s growth and diversification in many areas, and affected the goals of the movement by helping to create new laws and institutions that would mirror those in the Global North (Lewis, 2016. Pg. 201).
The next question that was considered throughout the text is, how did the movement change over time? This is clear in the four very different eras that Ecuador went through from 1978 to 2015. What really marked the big changes in these eras, was transnational funding. When funding was great, national organizations were strong, and when funding shifted or weakened, so did Ecuador’s nongovernmental organizations, as they were largely dependent on transnational funding, and were left to shift their agendas or dwindle out. In the absence of funding, we see how ecoresisters had gained all the power that ecodepedent organizations in the state had once had, and these groups more closely represented the wants and needs of Ecuadorians (Pg.201).
Lastly, how has the environmental movement’s relationship to transnational funders ultimately affected the state’s environment and development policies? It is important to remember that Ecuador was an extremely weak and indebted state throughout all three movement eras, up until the fourth, with the election of President Rafael Correa. When the state was weak, ecodependent NGO organizations in Ecuador positioned themselves to work with the transnational investors/funders to create laws and institutions. Eventually, the state would strengthen and transnational funding would cease, and in this case ecoresisters and indigenous groups would work together to come up with ideas and implementations that would eventually become apart of the 2008 Constitution, and also be noted in the Yasuni-ITT Initiative later on (Pg.201). People who had worked in ecodependent organizations moved on to work within the state.
A lingering question within my mind as I finish reading Lewis’s book is, will Ecuador ever actually be able to reach a complete level of ecological synthesis, or sustainable development, or buen vivir/sumak kawsay? Will any country on Earth ever truly be able to achieve this? It sounds more like a utopia than a reality. I like the way Lewis puts in, on page 209 of the text, “Indeed it is unlikely that a “win-win-win” for environmental, economic, and social goals is ever possible.” I see it as a tringle effect, with environmental, economic, and social goals each at a vertex on the triangle, and the text at the bottom saying, “you can only pick two.” The treadmill of production may be slowed, but it’s really an endless cycle of slowing down and quickening back up with changes in the global economy, as well as other factors. Regarding the Treadmill of Production theory, I understand why Lewis placed so much emphasis on the effects of transnational funding. “Because the treadmill of production is a global phenomenon, challenges to this system must also operate globally, while building strength at the local level” (Gould, Pellow, & Schnaiberg, 2016). The treadmill of production cannot be defeated in any realistic sense, but it certainly can be slowed to a level that nature would appreciate, as long as transnational and national actors are able to work together for the greater good.
Overall, I enjoyed the layout and structure of the text by Tammy L. Lewis, and felt that it was very easy to read and understand her thought processes and ideas on everything. I feel a greater sense of oneness with Ecuador’s economy, environment, and social aspects most importantly. I feel a sense of security over this as I plan to travel to Ecuador, namely as an “ecotourist” and I am glad to have read this text for that reason. Lewis did a good job going over the different eras of the environmental movement. A lot of ideas were reiterated repeatedly, but they were for good reason. For example, the emphasis on transnational funders. This is one of the most important aspects of the entire book, and with good reason, because without those funders, Ecuador may still be as indebted and weak as they were 50 years ago.
References
Gould, K. A., Pellow, D. N., & Schnaiberg, A. (2016). The treadmill of production: injustice and unsustainability in the global economy. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Lewis, T. L. (2016). Ecuador's Environmental Revolutions: Ecoimperialists, Ecodependents, and Ecoresisters. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.