Chapter 4 Review
Origins, 1978 to 1987
Fundación Natura (FN) was founded and registered as a nonprofit in Quito by a small group of scientists and nature enthusiasts in 1978. The founding of this organization marked the start of the environmental movement in Ecuador, and many of its original employees would go on to start environmental organizations of their own. Unlike the organizations in Ecuador today, Fundación Natura was willing to work with everyone, in both the private and public sector. They believed that ignorance, not incompatibility between business and environment, is what caused private sector environmental damage. Therefore, one of Natura’s biggest goals was education. One of their first projects was a nature program on Sunday night television, sponsored by Ecuadorian businesses and loved by many. FN was soon discovered by and entered into a contract with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which greatly expanded their operation. From 1980-1987, they received three more educational grants from USAID; much of their success during this time period can be attributed to these grants.
In 1985, another environmental organization, the Sociedad de Defensa de la Naturaleza (SODENA), was founded in Quito. Until this point, FN was the Ecuadorian environmental nonprofit. SODENA became known for its support of a subgroup called Acción Ecológica (AE), which in stark contrast to FN, became Ecuador’s most radical environmental group. Instead of working/cooperating with the state and industry like Natura, AE fought (and continues to fight) private and public-sector resource extraction, focusing on conflicts surrounding mining, oil, mangroves, and forests. They have never been funded by transnational groups like USAID, who consider them too adversarial, and instead rely on ordinary citizens to accomplish their goals. SODENA could be compared to an organization such as Greenpeace, who has recently been sued by the Dakota Access Pipeline owners for allegedly leading and supporting a "network of putative not-for-profits and rogue eco-terrorist groups". These groups, including EarthFirst! and BankTrack, could in turn be compared to AE (Dwyer, 2017). This modern-day, closer to home example provides a basis of comparison for these “radical” groups.
The two groups’ obvious difference in approach created a choice for eco-friendly Ecuadorians: which group should they support? Although it’s difficult to say from studying the situation this far in the future, I believe I would have chosen to support the more conservative Fundación Natura. Although ecoresistant groups such as AE may change the public’s view on environmental issues, it’s up to the more resourceful ecodependents like FN to bring about legally binding, long-term change by working with the state and industry. In some cases, such as the DAPL, radical action does need to be taken. However, during this time in Ecuador’s history, I consider FN’s agenda to be more appropriate.
Many other prominent ecodependent groups were also founded in the late 80s, and like FN, they focused mainly on the environmental pillar of sustainability. However, unlike FN’s general goal of environmental protection, these groups had more specific goals, such as CECIA’s aim to protect birds. In addition, some of these organizations went further than the environmental pillar, and fought oil extraction for both environmental and social reasons (drinking water, protection of indigenous people).
In the end, three events took place in 1987 that mark the end of this “Origins era” of Ecuador’s environmental movement. The first event, a national meeting on the state of the environment, was held in Quito and attended by 350 participants, ranging from government officials to CEOs, educators, and nonprofit leaders. The meeting itself was an accomplishment, but furthermore, an umbrella organization (CEDENMA) was created at the meeting (the second event) to bridge the gap between the two sides of the environmental debate (FN vs AE), among other things (such as ensuring a public discussion over issues which impact the environment). The third event, and perhaps the most important, was the occurrence of the first debt-for-nature swap.
A debt-for-nature swap can be described as when an ecoimperialist organization purchases a portion of an indebted country’s (usually a country in the Global South) debt at a discount on the secondary market, reducing the nation’s debt payments under the condition that other smaller payments be made towards the establishment of a conservation trust fund. This trust fund will then be used carry out environmental projects, typically through an NGO which acts as the beneficiary. Ecuador was a prime choice for these swaps, as it met three important conditions: it was heavily indebted, had many ecosystems with high levels of biodiversity, and its citizens had shown their commitment to the environment through the creation of environmental organizations such as CEDENMA.
These debt-for-nature swaps benefited everyone. Wealthy transnational funders were able to preserve biodiversity and finance environmental protection, and the Ecuadorian government’s national debt was reduced, which was beneficial to all Ecuadorians and the environment. Since 1980, the government had been becoming increasingly indebted, mostly to private US banks. To keep up with debt payments, the government began to deregulate the economy to bring in more money. This led to exploitation of natural resources, such as oil in the Amazon, which created both environmental and social problems. Ecuador was being destroyed by its high levels of debt. Its government was weak, and was under pressure from lenders to speed up the TOP on one side, while conservationists pushed private actors to protect the environment on the other. The pressure from lenders won out, but even with the increase in extraction and mining, the benefits never trickled down to the Ecuadorian people because so much revenue was diverted towards paying off debt. This led to changes in social movements; the state was not holding up its end of the TOP by providing services to its people. The debt-for-nature swaps marked a true shift in a positive direction for Ecuador by helping to reduce its debt, and the problems that came with it. By the end of the Origins era, the state regained its strength, and Ecuador was headed in the direction of a neoliberal boom.
References
Dwyer, Colin. “Dakota Access Pipeline Owner Sues Greenpeace For 'Criminal Activity'.” NPR, NPR, 22 Aug. 2017, www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/22/545310247/dakota-access-pipeline-owner-sues-greenpeace-for-criminal- activity. Accessed 9 Sept. 2017.
Fundación Natura (FN) was founded and registered as a nonprofit in Quito by a small group of scientists and nature enthusiasts in 1978. The founding of this organization marked the start of the environmental movement in Ecuador, and many of its original employees would go on to start environmental organizations of their own. Unlike the organizations in Ecuador today, Fundación Natura was willing to work with everyone, in both the private and public sector. They believed that ignorance, not incompatibility between business and environment, is what caused private sector environmental damage. Therefore, one of Natura’s biggest goals was education. One of their first projects was a nature program on Sunday night television, sponsored by Ecuadorian businesses and loved by many. FN was soon discovered by and entered into a contract with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which greatly expanded their operation. From 1980-1987, they received three more educational grants from USAID; much of their success during this time period can be attributed to these grants.
In 1985, another environmental organization, the Sociedad de Defensa de la Naturaleza (SODENA), was founded in Quito. Until this point, FN was the Ecuadorian environmental nonprofit. SODENA became known for its support of a subgroup called Acción Ecológica (AE), which in stark contrast to FN, became Ecuador’s most radical environmental group. Instead of working/cooperating with the state and industry like Natura, AE fought (and continues to fight) private and public-sector resource extraction, focusing on conflicts surrounding mining, oil, mangroves, and forests. They have never been funded by transnational groups like USAID, who consider them too adversarial, and instead rely on ordinary citizens to accomplish their goals. SODENA could be compared to an organization such as Greenpeace, who has recently been sued by the Dakota Access Pipeline owners for allegedly leading and supporting a "network of putative not-for-profits and rogue eco-terrorist groups". These groups, including EarthFirst! and BankTrack, could in turn be compared to AE (Dwyer, 2017). This modern-day, closer to home example provides a basis of comparison for these “radical” groups.
The two groups’ obvious difference in approach created a choice for eco-friendly Ecuadorians: which group should they support? Although it’s difficult to say from studying the situation this far in the future, I believe I would have chosen to support the more conservative Fundación Natura. Although ecoresistant groups such as AE may change the public’s view on environmental issues, it’s up to the more resourceful ecodependents like FN to bring about legally binding, long-term change by working with the state and industry. In some cases, such as the DAPL, radical action does need to be taken. However, during this time in Ecuador’s history, I consider FN’s agenda to be more appropriate.
Many other prominent ecodependent groups were also founded in the late 80s, and like FN, they focused mainly on the environmental pillar of sustainability. However, unlike FN’s general goal of environmental protection, these groups had more specific goals, such as CECIA’s aim to protect birds. In addition, some of these organizations went further than the environmental pillar, and fought oil extraction for both environmental and social reasons (drinking water, protection of indigenous people).
In the end, three events took place in 1987 that mark the end of this “Origins era” of Ecuador’s environmental movement. The first event, a national meeting on the state of the environment, was held in Quito and attended by 350 participants, ranging from government officials to CEOs, educators, and nonprofit leaders. The meeting itself was an accomplishment, but furthermore, an umbrella organization (CEDENMA) was created at the meeting (the second event) to bridge the gap between the two sides of the environmental debate (FN vs AE), among other things (such as ensuring a public discussion over issues which impact the environment). The third event, and perhaps the most important, was the occurrence of the first debt-for-nature swap.
A debt-for-nature swap can be described as when an ecoimperialist organization purchases a portion of an indebted country’s (usually a country in the Global South) debt at a discount on the secondary market, reducing the nation’s debt payments under the condition that other smaller payments be made towards the establishment of a conservation trust fund. This trust fund will then be used carry out environmental projects, typically through an NGO which acts as the beneficiary. Ecuador was a prime choice for these swaps, as it met three important conditions: it was heavily indebted, had many ecosystems with high levels of biodiversity, and its citizens had shown their commitment to the environment through the creation of environmental organizations such as CEDENMA.
These debt-for-nature swaps benefited everyone. Wealthy transnational funders were able to preserve biodiversity and finance environmental protection, and the Ecuadorian government’s national debt was reduced, which was beneficial to all Ecuadorians and the environment. Since 1980, the government had been becoming increasingly indebted, mostly to private US banks. To keep up with debt payments, the government began to deregulate the economy to bring in more money. This led to exploitation of natural resources, such as oil in the Amazon, which created both environmental and social problems. Ecuador was being destroyed by its high levels of debt. Its government was weak, and was under pressure from lenders to speed up the TOP on one side, while conservationists pushed private actors to protect the environment on the other. The pressure from lenders won out, but even with the increase in extraction and mining, the benefits never trickled down to the Ecuadorian people because so much revenue was diverted towards paying off debt. This led to changes in social movements; the state was not holding up its end of the TOP by providing services to its people. The debt-for-nature swaps marked a true shift in a positive direction for Ecuador by helping to reduce its debt, and the problems that came with it. By the end of the Origins era, the state regained its strength, and Ecuador was headed in the direction of a neoliberal boom.
References
Dwyer, Colin. “Dakota Access Pipeline Owner Sues Greenpeace For 'Criminal Activity'.” NPR, NPR, 22 Aug. 2017, www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/22/545310247/dakota-access-pipeline-owner-sues-greenpeace-for-criminal- activity. Accessed 9 Sept. 2017.