Chapter 1 Review
Key Players and Conflicting Goals
In 2007, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa introduced his Yasuní-ITT Initiative to the UN; unfortunately, it failed. The plan aimed to protect biodiversity, slow climate change, and help native Amazonian tribes with the use of foreign aid as a replacement for oil-extraction profits. At one point in time, the plan may have worked- but both Ecuador and the world have moved on from “debt-for-nature-swaps”. Ecuador’s economy, like that of many poor developing nations, has had to rely on natural resources such as oil and natural gas for growth. Although there are NGOs, transnational organizations, SMAs, and some government bodies that seek to protect the environment, there are many factors at play that prevent them from doing so. Ecuador is not only poor- it is also deep in debt. Ecuador’s government has to find a balance between growing its economy, providing for its citizens, protecting the environment, and paying its creditors.
It is unclear how sustainable Ecuador’s future policies will be. However, their current direction seems to favor economic growth. One theory which attempts to explain the reasons for moving in this direction is the Treadmill of Production model. The three pieces in this model are state, corporations, and citizen-workers. Corporations obviously favor economic growth over all else, because their goal is profit. However, the role of government is less one-sided. Government needs economic growth so that it can expand the taxes which allow it to exist; but it also needs to protect its people, the citizen-workers. These protections are often social and environmental (i.e. water regulations), and therefore would be made easier by a system favoring environmental protection. Citizen-workers interact with the TOP through nongovernmental organizations (nonprofits) and social-movement actors (grassroots organizations/movements). These three components (economic growth, environmental protection, and social justice) are the pillars of sustainable development. The balance between them has been a source of debate for decades, and can be organized into several categories.
Schnaiberg’s terms for differing levels of economic and environmental favorability (social justice tends to follow environmental) are economic synthesis, managed scarcity, and ecological synthesis. Economic synthesis describes a system in which environmental protection is disregarded in order to create profits, and best fits the policies of 1980s Ecuador. Managed scarcity involves a range of environmental protections while still allowing for resource extraction (Ecuador today), while ecological synthesis describes a system in which environmental protection is central, and human and habitat well-being is considered to be the highest priority (goal of Yasuní-ITT Initiative).
Sumak kawsay/buen vivir, the idea of a culturally and environmentally balanced society, is best achieved through the latter. The Yasuní-ITT Initiative was aiming to be “the articulation of a new economic logic.” By preserving biodiversity, protecting indigenous tribes’ way of life, and helping curb climate change, the initiative would be creating “value” in a nontraditional sense (Rival, 2010, 358). Schnaiberg calls the relationship between production expansion and ecological limits the “socioenvironmental dialectic”, implying the subject is highly opinionated; therefore, I will give my opinion: I would have supported the initiative. It should have been a groundbreaking step towards a more sustainable Ecuador, and it would have given other countries a wonderful example to look up to. Unfortunately, it relied on the funding of foreign countries who did not see the long-term benefits (for themselves) of such a plan. Everyone involved in the TOP, myself included, is constantly making “withdrawals” from the Earth (Palmer, 2013). This initiative would have been a ‘deposit’, helping to ensure that future generations will be able to withdraw as much as we have.
The goal of this book is to explore how and why the TOP interacts the way it does, and hypothesize the direction Ecuador’s development will go in the future. But why study Ecuador? It’s a fraction of the size of nearby Brazil, and it lacks global power and influence. The answer is multifaceted. Ecuador is unique in its incredible biodiversity and range of ecosystems; many transnational ecoimperialist organizations are interested in funding projects in Ecuador for this reason. In addition, environmental activists have secured nature’s rights in the country’s new constitution. These two factors, when paired with Ecuador’s common Global South struggle between economy and environment, make it an excellent place to study environmental issues.
References
Palmer, N. (2013, December 2). Why I’m Okay with Being Eaten by a Bear. Retrieved August 30, 2017, from http://sociologyinfocus.com/2013/12/why-im-okay-with-being-eaten-by-a-bear/
Rival, L. (2010). Ecuador's Yasuní-ITT Initiative: The old and new values of petroleum. Ecological Economics, 70(2), 358-365. Retrieved August 30, 2017, from researchgate.net
In 2007, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa introduced his Yasuní-ITT Initiative to the UN; unfortunately, it failed. The plan aimed to protect biodiversity, slow climate change, and help native Amazonian tribes with the use of foreign aid as a replacement for oil-extraction profits. At one point in time, the plan may have worked- but both Ecuador and the world have moved on from “debt-for-nature-swaps”. Ecuador’s economy, like that of many poor developing nations, has had to rely on natural resources such as oil and natural gas for growth. Although there are NGOs, transnational organizations, SMAs, and some government bodies that seek to protect the environment, there are many factors at play that prevent them from doing so. Ecuador is not only poor- it is also deep in debt. Ecuador’s government has to find a balance between growing its economy, providing for its citizens, protecting the environment, and paying its creditors.
It is unclear how sustainable Ecuador’s future policies will be. However, their current direction seems to favor economic growth. One theory which attempts to explain the reasons for moving in this direction is the Treadmill of Production model. The three pieces in this model are state, corporations, and citizen-workers. Corporations obviously favor economic growth over all else, because their goal is profit. However, the role of government is less one-sided. Government needs economic growth so that it can expand the taxes which allow it to exist; but it also needs to protect its people, the citizen-workers. These protections are often social and environmental (i.e. water regulations), and therefore would be made easier by a system favoring environmental protection. Citizen-workers interact with the TOP through nongovernmental organizations (nonprofits) and social-movement actors (grassroots organizations/movements). These three components (economic growth, environmental protection, and social justice) are the pillars of sustainable development. The balance between them has been a source of debate for decades, and can be organized into several categories.
Schnaiberg’s terms for differing levels of economic and environmental favorability (social justice tends to follow environmental) are economic synthesis, managed scarcity, and ecological synthesis. Economic synthesis describes a system in which environmental protection is disregarded in order to create profits, and best fits the policies of 1980s Ecuador. Managed scarcity involves a range of environmental protections while still allowing for resource extraction (Ecuador today), while ecological synthesis describes a system in which environmental protection is central, and human and habitat well-being is considered to be the highest priority (goal of Yasuní-ITT Initiative).
Sumak kawsay/buen vivir, the idea of a culturally and environmentally balanced society, is best achieved through the latter. The Yasuní-ITT Initiative was aiming to be “the articulation of a new economic logic.” By preserving biodiversity, protecting indigenous tribes’ way of life, and helping curb climate change, the initiative would be creating “value” in a nontraditional sense (Rival, 2010, 358). Schnaiberg calls the relationship between production expansion and ecological limits the “socioenvironmental dialectic”, implying the subject is highly opinionated; therefore, I will give my opinion: I would have supported the initiative. It should have been a groundbreaking step towards a more sustainable Ecuador, and it would have given other countries a wonderful example to look up to. Unfortunately, it relied on the funding of foreign countries who did not see the long-term benefits (for themselves) of such a plan. Everyone involved in the TOP, myself included, is constantly making “withdrawals” from the Earth (Palmer, 2013). This initiative would have been a ‘deposit’, helping to ensure that future generations will be able to withdraw as much as we have.
The goal of this book is to explore how and why the TOP interacts the way it does, and hypothesize the direction Ecuador’s development will go in the future. But why study Ecuador? It’s a fraction of the size of nearby Brazil, and it lacks global power and influence. The answer is multifaceted. Ecuador is unique in its incredible biodiversity and range of ecosystems; many transnational ecoimperialist organizations are interested in funding projects in Ecuador for this reason. In addition, environmental activists have secured nature’s rights in the country’s new constitution. These two factors, when paired with Ecuador’s common Global South struggle between economy and environment, make it an excellent place to study environmental issues.
References
Palmer, N. (2013, December 2). Why I’m Okay with Being Eaten by a Bear. Retrieved August 30, 2017, from http://sociologyinfocus.com/2013/12/why-im-okay-with-being-eaten-by-a-bear/
Rival, L. (2010). Ecuador's Yasuní-ITT Initiative: The old and new values of petroleum. Ecological Economics, 70(2), 358-365. Retrieved August 30, 2017, from researchgate.net