Chapter 5 Review
Neoliberal Boom, 1987 to 2000
In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development promoted the idea of “sustainable development”. Although the idea wasn’t new, their promotion brought attention to it; it was considered a major shift in thinking about solving problems with both development and the environment. At a United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, representatives from 172 countries agreed to promote sustainable development, and signed two binding agreements to protect biodiversity and fight climate change. Ecuador was one of the first to sign the agreements, and leaders from all types of environmental groups (even ecoresistors) were optimistic about environmental issues officially being on the agenda. Unfortunately, the Ecuadorian government’s commitment was much more impressive on paper than in practice. Other countries such as the US and Germany had to pressure Ecuador into action. Leaders of CEDENMA and CECIA, along with many others, viewed outside influence positively. Although the Ecuadorian state was interested in being a member of the international environmental community, it did not devote the resources or have the capacity to do so, and ecoimperialists and ecodependent organizations picked up the slack.
Many transnational organizations who had previously contributed to projects in Ecuador expanded their operations during this time period. USAID, for instance, sponsored one of its largest ever environmental projects in Ecuador in 1991. The Sustainable Uses of Biological Resources (SUBIR) project was extremely ambitious, and sought to establish a system of sustainable development in 3 Ecuadorian parks and their surrounding areas; their focus was on policy analysis, organizational development, natural area management, ecotourism, improved land use, and minority participation. Unfortunately, the project was considered a massive failure. New infrastructure seemed to promote deforestation, and many of the work programs for locals, such as raising alpacas, were jobs that they did not want and couldn’t afford. Despite their failures, USAID is still considered one of the best and most successful aid organizations, and many consider a partnership with USAID to be a key element in successful environmental protection. I believe that this is a perfect example of why locals dislike and distrust ecoimperialist organizations, and on a more general note, why many people around the world dislike the United States as a whole. We have an unfortunate history of sticking our noses in other countries’ affairs, ‘helping’, and then leaving things worse-off while patting ourselves on the back for our supposed good deed. The US exploits situations like Ecuador’s, promoting (in this case) neoliberalism and decentralization, which weakens the state and allows foreign-funded NGOs to control the agenda. Despite the overall good for conservation and humanity they may accomplish in the long-term, Ecuador’s ecoimperialist organizations don’t always benefit the country itself, and in some cases, like SUBIR, they leave it worse than it was when they arrived.
Not all ecoimperialist organizations acted unilaterally, however; in less than ten years, Ecuadorian environmental NGOs rose in number from a few to over a hundred, thanks to the sponsorship of ecoimperialists. One of the goals of the 1987 UN conference was shifting the environmental focus away from traditional conservation and towards sustainability- adding a human component that was previously missing. Many NGOs entered into contracts with foreign donors due to debt-for-nature swaps, and as time went on, organizations began to grow and specialize. Some adopted the idea of sustainable development, and began focusing on people and nature for the first time.
One major problem Ecuadorians had/have with ecoimperialists is their control over the environmental agenda. Transnational funders prefer funding more traditional conservation projects, and ignore issues that directly affect the Ecuadorian people, such as air and water pollution. Many projects of the previously mentioned sustainability-focused organizations were never funded. It’s quite clear to see why transnational funders have been branded as imperialists. By choosing what to fund and what not to fund, they have (although they may not admit it) nearly a complete control over the environmental agenda in Ecuador, and they use their influence to accomplish what they want instead of what’s best for Ecuador. On one hand, it can be frustrating for transnational funders to be criticized by locals who see them only as a blank check, but on the other hand, locals are frustrated because their proposed projects that help both Ecuadorians and the environment aren’t funded by self-serving ecoimperialists. The unfortunate truth is that despite their flaws, ecoimperialists are necessary- without their intervention, the state would likely have bent the knee to foreign resource extraction companies; local grassroots movements alone would not have the resources necessary to accomplish what ecoimperialists have.
As time went on, and more money was being donated by foreign groups to Ecuadorian NGOs, the donors began to demand more accountability from their sponsored groups. This forced these ecodependent organizations to become more professional- they needed to have proper files, prepare reports and analyses, and run financial audits. Eventually, the requirements for grants and contracts grew stricter, and only the most professional and accountable NGOs could survive. They became much more business-like; they had to be efficient, competitive, and effective to receive funding. As this transition occurred, people on both sides (donors and NGOs) became frustrated. Things became unnecessarily bureaucratic, and after money went towards paying business costs and middlemen, there wasn’t nearly as much left for helping the environment as there once was. Time and effort was instead spent on organizational maintenance, and the groups that started out as progressive figureheads transitioned into slow, bureaucratic businesses.
Problems that weren’t solved by ecoimperialists through NGOs were left to ecoresistors. Much of their focus was on intertwined human and environmental issues, such as the struggle between the indigenous people of the Amazon and foreign extraction companies. Most notable was the fight against Texaco in the mid-to-late 1990s. According to a 1994 New York Times article, water pollution from oil extraction caused higher rates of miscarriage, fungal infection, dermatitis, headache, and nausea. Ecuador’s lack of environmental protection laws meant that Texaco didn’t have to reinject wastewater deep underground, and instead it was left in vast open pits, from which it leaked out and contaminated the once-clean water sources of indigenous tribes (Brook, 1994). The Cofán Survival Fund, representing the indigenous Cofán tribe, was founded in Quito in 1999; they helped the Cofán establish the first indigenous-run ecological reserve, with the goal of protecting their ancestral lands for future generations.
Ecoresistant groups like the Cofán Survival Fund were outliers during this time period- the playing field was still dominated by NGOs. However, as competition for funding grew fiercer, organizations stopped working together, grew to distrust one another, and began to face a public image problem. Things began to go downhill in the late 1990s when Ecuador and Peru got into a military conflict over territory in the Amazon; the state couldn’t afford to continue its debt payments during the struggle. This began a crisis during which President Bucaram was thrown out of office, indigenous uprisings helped lead to a new constitution, oil prices fell, El Niño hit, and a run on banks destroyed the banking system. This was the end of the Neoliberal Boom Era. Though much was accomplished in this period, moving forward meant the rise of ecoresistant groups without ties to foreign sponsors. They began to emerge and dominate Ecuador’s environmental movement over the next six years.
References
Brook, J. (1994, March 22). Pollution of Water Tied to Oil in Ecuador. The New York Times. Retrieved September 17, 2017.
In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development promoted the idea of “sustainable development”. Although the idea wasn’t new, their promotion brought attention to it; it was considered a major shift in thinking about solving problems with both development and the environment. At a United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, representatives from 172 countries agreed to promote sustainable development, and signed two binding agreements to protect biodiversity and fight climate change. Ecuador was one of the first to sign the agreements, and leaders from all types of environmental groups (even ecoresistors) were optimistic about environmental issues officially being on the agenda. Unfortunately, the Ecuadorian government’s commitment was much more impressive on paper than in practice. Other countries such as the US and Germany had to pressure Ecuador into action. Leaders of CEDENMA and CECIA, along with many others, viewed outside influence positively. Although the Ecuadorian state was interested in being a member of the international environmental community, it did not devote the resources or have the capacity to do so, and ecoimperialists and ecodependent organizations picked up the slack.
Many transnational organizations who had previously contributed to projects in Ecuador expanded their operations during this time period. USAID, for instance, sponsored one of its largest ever environmental projects in Ecuador in 1991. The Sustainable Uses of Biological Resources (SUBIR) project was extremely ambitious, and sought to establish a system of sustainable development in 3 Ecuadorian parks and their surrounding areas; their focus was on policy analysis, organizational development, natural area management, ecotourism, improved land use, and minority participation. Unfortunately, the project was considered a massive failure. New infrastructure seemed to promote deforestation, and many of the work programs for locals, such as raising alpacas, were jobs that they did not want and couldn’t afford. Despite their failures, USAID is still considered one of the best and most successful aid organizations, and many consider a partnership with USAID to be a key element in successful environmental protection. I believe that this is a perfect example of why locals dislike and distrust ecoimperialist organizations, and on a more general note, why many people around the world dislike the United States as a whole. We have an unfortunate history of sticking our noses in other countries’ affairs, ‘helping’, and then leaving things worse-off while patting ourselves on the back for our supposed good deed. The US exploits situations like Ecuador’s, promoting (in this case) neoliberalism and decentralization, which weakens the state and allows foreign-funded NGOs to control the agenda. Despite the overall good for conservation and humanity they may accomplish in the long-term, Ecuador’s ecoimperialist organizations don’t always benefit the country itself, and in some cases, like SUBIR, they leave it worse than it was when they arrived.
Not all ecoimperialist organizations acted unilaterally, however; in less than ten years, Ecuadorian environmental NGOs rose in number from a few to over a hundred, thanks to the sponsorship of ecoimperialists. One of the goals of the 1987 UN conference was shifting the environmental focus away from traditional conservation and towards sustainability- adding a human component that was previously missing. Many NGOs entered into contracts with foreign donors due to debt-for-nature swaps, and as time went on, organizations began to grow and specialize. Some adopted the idea of sustainable development, and began focusing on people and nature for the first time.
One major problem Ecuadorians had/have with ecoimperialists is their control over the environmental agenda. Transnational funders prefer funding more traditional conservation projects, and ignore issues that directly affect the Ecuadorian people, such as air and water pollution. Many projects of the previously mentioned sustainability-focused organizations were never funded. It’s quite clear to see why transnational funders have been branded as imperialists. By choosing what to fund and what not to fund, they have (although they may not admit it) nearly a complete control over the environmental agenda in Ecuador, and they use their influence to accomplish what they want instead of what’s best for Ecuador. On one hand, it can be frustrating for transnational funders to be criticized by locals who see them only as a blank check, but on the other hand, locals are frustrated because their proposed projects that help both Ecuadorians and the environment aren’t funded by self-serving ecoimperialists. The unfortunate truth is that despite their flaws, ecoimperialists are necessary- without their intervention, the state would likely have bent the knee to foreign resource extraction companies; local grassroots movements alone would not have the resources necessary to accomplish what ecoimperialists have.
As time went on, and more money was being donated by foreign groups to Ecuadorian NGOs, the donors began to demand more accountability from their sponsored groups. This forced these ecodependent organizations to become more professional- they needed to have proper files, prepare reports and analyses, and run financial audits. Eventually, the requirements for grants and contracts grew stricter, and only the most professional and accountable NGOs could survive. They became much more business-like; they had to be efficient, competitive, and effective to receive funding. As this transition occurred, people on both sides (donors and NGOs) became frustrated. Things became unnecessarily bureaucratic, and after money went towards paying business costs and middlemen, there wasn’t nearly as much left for helping the environment as there once was. Time and effort was instead spent on organizational maintenance, and the groups that started out as progressive figureheads transitioned into slow, bureaucratic businesses.
Problems that weren’t solved by ecoimperialists through NGOs were left to ecoresistors. Much of their focus was on intertwined human and environmental issues, such as the struggle between the indigenous people of the Amazon and foreign extraction companies. Most notable was the fight against Texaco in the mid-to-late 1990s. According to a 1994 New York Times article, water pollution from oil extraction caused higher rates of miscarriage, fungal infection, dermatitis, headache, and nausea. Ecuador’s lack of environmental protection laws meant that Texaco didn’t have to reinject wastewater deep underground, and instead it was left in vast open pits, from which it leaked out and contaminated the once-clean water sources of indigenous tribes (Brook, 1994). The Cofán Survival Fund, representing the indigenous Cofán tribe, was founded in Quito in 1999; they helped the Cofán establish the first indigenous-run ecological reserve, with the goal of protecting their ancestral lands for future generations.
Ecoresistant groups like the Cofán Survival Fund were outliers during this time period- the playing field was still dominated by NGOs. However, as competition for funding grew fiercer, organizations stopped working together, grew to distrust one another, and began to face a public image problem. Things began to go downhill in the late 1990s when Ecuador and Peru got into a military conflict over territory in the Amazon; the state couldn’t afford to continue its debt payments during the struggle. This began a crisis during which President Bucaram was thrown out of office, indigenous uprisings helped lead to a new constitution, oil prices fell, El Niño hit, and a run on banks destroyed the banking system. This was the end of the Neoliberal Boom Era. Though much was accomplished in this period, moving forward meant the rise of ecoresistant groups without ties to foreign sponsors. They began to emerge and dominate Ecuador’s environmental movement over the next six years.
References
Brook, J. (1994, March 22). Pollution of Water Tied to Oil in Ecuador. The New York Times. Retrieved September 17, 2017.