Chapter 7
Ecuador’s current president was elected in 2007. Correa’s presidency was the beginning of a calmer state. He is the longest serving president in Ecuador’s history, promising to help the people and help the environment. Ecuador, along with several other Latin American countries, were leaning more towards the left in the political sense. Healthcare and education were becoming available to all the people. Democracy was encouraged. Money from resource extraction wasn’t going to multinational corporations, but towards the state.
Correa worked hard to redistribute the wealth of the country to those who created it, instead of simply allowing the rich to unfairly hold the wealth. This makes him very popular among the people. However, with Correa’s leadership came a change in Ecuador’s relationship to the United States. He did not allow the US Air Force base to remain in Manta, among other things. He was doing good things for the people, but not in the environmentally conscious way he promised during his campaign.
With the increase in resource extraction came less support from transnational funders for conservation purposes. Ecuador was also growing further from the support of the US, which made them less desirable for transnational funders as well. But the state increased funding to the Ministry of Environment. It seemed that the government was much more involved in their actions. They relied so much less on help from other countries. Correa contributed to the demise of the Ecodependent organizations that were once a very important part of Ecuador’s environmental movement. They could no longer be the change-makers they were not that long ago, but instead, were considered “trusted advisors” since they didn’t have the funding to bring to the table anymore.
In 2008, Ecuador’s constitution was rewritten to give nature (or Pacha Mama) rights. It said that nature should be respected and maintained, while also protecting water rights and banning genetically modified organisms. Another very important concept that went into this rewritten constitution was Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay. The “good living” encouraged humans to see themselves as a part of nature, instead of themselves in a bubble and nature separate from them.
When you begin to think this way, it only makes sense to think in terms of environmental ethics. If someone close to you was hurting, you most certainly would do whatever you needed to do to make them feel better or fix the problem. It is in this way that nature should also be cared for, having rights just like the rest of us.
This reminds me of a book written by Christopher D. Stone called Should Trees Have Standing? Stone argues that forests or rivers or oceans or any natural thing should be able to be represented in court for its best interests, since they obviously can’t speak for themselves. But Stone believes these things deserve rights just as much as you and I deserve them. The court recognizes any number of non-human things, so why should nature be excluded from these?
Following the change in Ecuador’s constitution, Correa announced an idea inspired by these changes. Yasuni National Park is home to many unique plants and animals and also several indigenous groups of people. However, it seems that Yasuni National Park sits on top of an oil field. Extraction would certainly destroy the park and all of the biodiversity within it. Correa wanted to stop the oil from being accessed. When Accion Ecologica presented him with a plan to protect it, Correa needed to find support. He took the idea to the UN, explaining the Yasuni-ITT Initiative. The general idea was that outside countries would pay Ecuador half of what the oil field was valued at, and in exchange, the park would be saved from oil extraction. Unfortunately, international support was very low and the initiative ultimately failed. Correa made no alternative suggestions to save Yasuni . So the people got money from their jobs in oil extraction. But Correa will find he’s lost the support of the indigenous people and the environmentalists.
It seems strange to me that Correa could gain the support of so many even when he would promise one thing and then do another. If he promised to make a change to the constitution to better the environment but then gave up on the Yasuni-ITT Initiaive, how could anyone feel he was trustworthy? Perhaps the initiative was more complex than Correa had originally accounted for, but I feel like he should’ve come up with some kind of compromise to hold the trust of the people.
Works Cited:
Stone, C. D. (1972). Should Trees Have Standing? N.p.: Oxford University Press.
Correa worked hard to redistribute the wealth of the country to those who created it, instead of simply allowing the rich to unfairly hold the wealth. This makes him very popular among the people. However, with Correa’s leadership came a change in Ecuador’s relationship to the United States. He did not allow the US Air Force base to remain in Manta, among other things. He was doing good things for the people, but not in the environmentally conscious way he promised during his campaign.
With the increase in resource extraction came less support from transnational funders for conservation purposes. Ecuador was also growing further from the support of the US, which made them less desirable for transnational funders as well. But the state increased funding to the Ministry of Environment. It seemed that the government was much more involved in their actions. They relied so much less on help from other countries. Correa contributed to the demise of the Ecodependent organizations that were once a very important part of Ecuador’s environmental movement. They could no longer be the change-makers they were not that long ago, but instead, were considered “trusted advisors” since they didn’t have the funding to bring to the table anymore.
In 2008, Ecuador’s constitution was rewritten to give nature (or Pacha Mama) rights. It said that nature should be respected and maintained, while also protecting water rights and banning genetically modified organisms. Another very important concept that went into this rewritten constitution was Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay. The “good living” encouraged humans to see themselves as a part of nature, instead of themselves in a bubble and nature separate from them.
When you begin to think this way, it only makes sense to think in terms of environmental ethics. If someone close to you was hurting, you most certainly would do whatever you needed to do to make them feel better or fix the problem. It is in this way that nature should also be cared for, having rights just like the rest of us.
This reminds me of a book written by Christopher D. Stone called Should Trees Have Standing? Stone argues that forests or rivers or oceans or any natural thing should be able to be represented in court for its best interests, since they obviously can’t speak for themselves. But Stone believes these things deserve rights just as much as you and I deserve them. The court recognizes any number of non-human things, so why should nature be excluded from these?
Following the change in Ecuador’s constitution, Correa announced an idea inspired by these changes. Yasuni National Park is home to many unique plants and animals and also several indigenous groups of people. However, it seems that Yasuni National Park sits on top of an oil field. Extraction would certainly destroy the park and all of the biodiversity within it. Correa wanted to stop the oil from being accessed. When Accion Ecologica presented him with a plan to protect it, Correa needed to find support. He took the idea to the UN, explaining the Yasuni-ITT Initiative. The general idea was that outside countries would pay Ecuador half of what the oil field was valued at, and in exchange, the park would be saved from oil extraction. Unfortunately, international support was very low and the initiative ultimately failed. Correa made no alternative suggestions to save Yasuni . So the people got money from their jobs in oil extraction. But Correa will find he’s lost the support of the indigenous people and the environmentalists.
It seems strange to me that Correa could gain the support of so many even when he would promise one thing and then do another. If he promised to make a change to the constitution to better the environment but then gave up on the Yasuni-ITT Initiaive, how could anyone feel he was trustworthy? Perhaps the initiative was more complex than Correa had originally accounted for, but I feel like he should’ve come up with some kind of compromise to hold the trust of the people.
Works Cited:
Stone, C. D. (1972). Should Trees Have Standing? N.p.: Oxford University Press.