Ecuador is home to the Galapagos Islands, one of the most iconic regions to study biodiversity. In 1959, Ecuador established its first national park in the Galapagos. However, the first Ecuadorian based environmental organization did not emerge in Ecuador until 1978. The first organization is called Fundacion Natura. When Fundacion Natura was first enacted it was with the mindset of conservation and raising awareness in Ecuador about environmental issues. One of the most unique views that Fundacion Natura expressed from the start is that there is not an inherently problematic relationship between industry and the environment. Fundacion Natura eventually became a larger more established organization after partnering with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
A few years after Fundacion Natura started working with the USAID, the group Accion Ecologica (AE) arose. Unlike Fundacion Natura, AE did not try to cooperate with industries to develop solutions but focused heavily on systematic reform. AE is described as a “radical” environmental group. AE utilized direct action and organized groups. They focused more on human-environmental interactions and utilized more forceful tactics than Fundacion Natura to gain attention.
In the previous chapter of Ecuador's Environmental Revolutions, Lewis discussed the ideal types of environmental organizations. With the emergence of Fundacion Natura and Accion Ecologica, the environmental movement split into two main types of ideologies, ecodependents, and ecoresisters. Lewis classifies Fundacion Natura as an ecodependent organization and AE as an ecoresister organization. These groups founded Ecuador's environmental movement and by 1987 this movement was recognized with a national environmental congress. At this environmental congress, a new environmental group that was meant to be a mediator, the Ecuadorian Committee for the Defense of Nature and the Environment (CENDEMA) was formed.
From the start of the Ecuadorian led environmental movement (and prior), Ecuador was experiencing high debt. Due to very high debt, two competing practices emerged, increased oil extraction and debt for nature swaps. A debt for nature swap is a way for a developing country in debt to reduce the amount they owe if they agree to continue to make small payments into an environmental trust fund. When the debt of a country (or a portion of its debt) is bought typically by an organization from a developed country the country in debt must commit to carrying out environmental projects. Since Ecuador is an area of interest to many transnational funders and environmentalists, the country had four different NGOs willing to purchase a portion of their debt. Four NGOs from the US bought portions of Ecuadors debt and Fundacion Natura was responsible for using the trust funds for conservation purposes. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), identifies many pros to debt for nature swaps but notes the cons and risks. For example, even though these swaps are considered a “long term funding mechanism for conservation” they typically only reduce a very small portion of a country’s debt.
High debt combined with a weak state led to the neglect of funding going towards social issues to help the citizens of Ecuador. However, this enabled social movements to rise and gain power, thus the time period of 1978-1987 was marked as the origins of the Ecuadorian led environmental movement. The Ecuadorian Committee for the Defense of Nature and the Environment (CENDEMA) along with the beginning of debt for nature swaps mark the end of the environmental movement origins period. If I were an Ecuadorian citizen in the environmental movement origins period I would have a hard time choosing which environmental group I would support. AE typically focuses on human-environmental interactions. Sustainability is about finding a balance between humanity and the environment, so I support AE’s goals but not their style. After reading Chapter Three of Ecuador's Environmental Revolutions, and also researching on my own I believe that ecodependents are more effective at producing change than ecoresisters. The cooperative style combined with the funding they have is not only effective but better received by individuals less open to change. While ecoresister groups have the potential to provoke much-needed changes I question how long the changes they make can last if they were made with little cooperation, especially when a state is weak.
Works Cited: “Debt for Nature Swaps.” Financing Solutions for Sustainable Development , United Nations Development Programme, 2016, www.undp.org/content/dam/sdfinance/doc/Debt%20for%20Nature%20Swaps%20_%20UNDP.pdf.
Spangler, Brad, and Heidi Burgess. “Competitive and Cooperative Approaches to Conflict.” Beyond Intractability, July 2003, www.beyondintractability.org/essay/competitive_cooperative_frames.