ECUADOR’S ENVIRONMENTAL REVOLUTIONS by Tammy Lewis

Chapter one summary:

The first chapter of the book Ecuador’s Environmental Revolutions, Ecoimperalists,

Ecodependents, and Ecoresisters by Tammy L. Lewis titled “Key Players and Conflicting Goals in

the Development Trajectory” has a lot of information in it. This chapter covers a very broad look

on the environmental issues of the Ecuadorian government. Because of Ecuador’s lush

biodiversity, over the years it has become a hub for transnational activity, mainly attracted to

the economic value of the nation’s natural resources. Because of this, Ecuador’s economic

system over the past century or so has become incredibly reliant on the sources of the land.

Tammy Lewis starts out by introducing a lot of new terms that are key to understanding

the economic system of Ecuador. If one were to know anything about the economy of Ecuador,

they should know about the treadmill of production (TOP). The original formulation of the TOP

model was formed by Allan Schnaiberg (1980). Schnaiberg explained the TOP to describe the

relationship between production expansion and ecological limits, or as a “socioenvironmental

dialectic” (22). The treadmill included 3 main components: state, citizen-workers, and

corporations. Transnational funders are a part of the treadmill that entered through the citizen-

workers, and National Government Organizations (NGOs) and Social Movement Activists (SMAs)

were both entities of citizen-workers. From Schnaiberg’s perspective, there are three types of

syntheses that can resolve the tension between production expansion and ecological limits. The

first synthesis is economic synthesis. In the economic synthesis there are barely any state

impediments to accessing the environment, creating a system where there is no regulation or

limitation to expanding production despite environmental setbacks. Although this synthesis

seems quite attractive to those who prefer the original model of development that has

dominated traditional extractivist development in the global south, this will subsequently be

incredibly detrimental to the wildlife of Ecuador. With purely the economic synthesis, one can

conduct unrestrained oil drilling as much as they’d like. The second synthesis would be managed

scarcity. Managed scarcity involves the state implementing the necessary regulations to reduce

negative impact on the environment through production. This synthesis would require the most

change to the model of development. In relation to oil production, if managed scarcity would

take place what would result would be the allowing of oil drilling, but with rules limiting where,

how, and how much. The third synthesis is ecological synthesis. This synthesis is when the state

uses scientifically determined biophysical limits of what is environmentally sustainable to limit

access to the land from producers. This synthesis is unique to the other two because it values

the environment for its use value, not its exchange value. A great example of this can be found

through the “keep oil in the soil” approach of the Yasuni-ITT, a project that offered a suspension

of oil extraction in part of the Yasuni National Park. Schnaiberg suggests that the best way to

achieve this last synthesis is in the formation of coalitions between social groups. Tammy Lewis

uses Schnaiberg’s ideology behind the TOP to transition into the importance of SMAs and NGOs.

She states that later work of Schnaiberg and collaborators argue that once the treadmill

becomes global, transnational social movement and transnational social movement

organization can slow or even dismantle the treadmill (24). This ideology supports the theory

that SMAs may be the best hopes we will have in seeing and future of sustainability in Ecuador.

Lewis does a great job describing the treadmill of production into further detail, so there

is no confusion. She begins by describing each key feature of the TOP starting with the state.
The state is described as central to understanding national pursuits toward or away

sustainability, it all depends on the strength of the state. The strength of a state is mainly

dependent on its economic stability as well as its relationships with transnational organizations.

As a weak state, it will be highly susceptible to influence from civil society, and transnational

actors and others’ ideologies. Generally weak states will enable changes to laws and regulations,

but they will typically not be enforced. In contrast, strong states can easily push towards change

and successfully achieve it. To some degree, it’s better for a state to be weak than strong in the

sense that weak states can be easily influenced by civil society and transnational actors. Strong

states, if not working towards programs that favor sustainability and the environmental and civil

health, can cause a lot of environmental harm.

Review:

I believe the most impressive section of this chapter is the mention of the Yasuni-ITT

initiative. As mentioned earlier, the initiative was an attempt to find an alternative to extractive

development all the while enabling social development. It might be fair to consider Tammy

Lewis did not give nearly enough emphasis on the importance of the Yasuni- ITT initiative.

According to Juan Falconi Puig in The World failed Ecuador on its Yasuni initiative (2013) the

Yasuni national park held 20% of the nation’s oil deposits, the oil revenues the Ecuadorian

government would be forgoing was worth $3.6 billion. The compensation Ecuador received

instead of extraction revenues was collected from the donation-based UN administered trust

(Puig, 2013). The compensation the UN provided was big in the enviro-political world. This

created a fair payment solely for an environmental purpose. Unfortunately, the Ecuadorian

government felt strongly about this initiative because only 0.37% of the target was provided by
international donors. With such a lack of international support, it was no surprise when the

proposal was dropped. If I was an Ecuadorian in the early 2000’s hearing about the initial ideas

of the initiative, I would have been completely in support of it. Even though Ecuador ended up

giving up their protected area, I think just being in support of the idea of the initiative and

recognizing its significance it’s just as important as the success of the program. If there was

more will to recognize how big of a step this was into a world that finally agrees on the

importance of taking care of the well-being of our planet over harmful money-making

procedures such as oil extractions, I whole-heartedly believe that the initiative would have been

a success. Unfortunately, we are at a point in time where there are still many high ruling

government officials around the world who don’t see how much the environment’s health is

just as much of a “you problem” as is for economic development, if not more so. With the

cooperation of the world, I do think it’s possible to reach a point where having an ecofriendly

series of the countries is top priority. Jus the fact that the Yasuni-ITT initiative existed is enough

to know that we’re slowly heading into the right direction.

Sources:

Puig, J. F. (September 19, 2013). The wold failed Ecuador on its Yasuni initiative. Global

development. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/sep/19/world-

failed-ecuador-yasuni-initiative