Chapter 3: Ideal Types of Environmentalism

Summary:

Tammy Lewis gave a quick review of what was to be expected in chapter 3 in the

previous chapter. She mentioned how this chapter describes main types of environmentalism

that have existed in Ecuador over periods of interest. Throughout this chapter she uses

environmentalism history to accurately portray the effects of global trends. She also elaborates

on how international economic pressure to repay foreign debt can affect the environment

through damaging activities such as resource extraction. In addition, she mentions how

expanding influence of “global” civil society can affect national civil society, and vice versa.

Towards the end of the chapter she compares environmental funding from transnational

groups on a nation’s movements to other types of global aid such as food aid, military

assistance, and humanitarian aid. At the beginning of the chapter she specifically states that the

“goal of this chapter is to present a typology of environmentalism in Ecuador, with a focus on

environmental organizations” (Lewis, 2016, p.53).

Lewis starts off by explaining the four “ideal types” that she will consistently be referring

to throughout the chapter. And ideal type is defined as something that portrays typical features

of a topic that would makes sense to fit together. Actors are grouped together in these types

based on their similar tendencies. Because there are four groups, there may be groups that

don’t fit into one specific type, but they have enough tendencies that are characterized by a

certain ideal type to be fit into it. The four ideal types are ecoimperialists, ecodependents,

ecoresisters, and ecoentrepreneur organizations.

 Ecoimperialists are characterized as being composed of transnational environmental

groups/”transnational funders”. They generally provide funding for biodiversity conservation,

generally supporting sustainable economic development. They are call ecoimperialists because

they are known to establish themselves in Ecuador with their own funds, they do what they’d

like in the land because they do not work under the Ecuadorian government. Some national

leaders hold a negative view of them, occasionally labeling them as “gringos” which is a

derogatory term for North Americans. They are looked down upon because some believe that

they meddle in domestic policies and development agendas that are not their own, which can

be considered a nuisance and can cause potential issues. The nature conservancy, the wildlife

conservation society, and the United States Agency International Development are all classified

under ecoimperialists.

The next type is ecodependent organizations. Tammy Lewis directly defines them as

“national-level organizations that are primarily funded by ecoimperialists organizations and

whose agendas match up with hose transnational funders” (p. 60). More than 50% of their

budget comes from other countries, making them have higher budgets than most

environmental organizations in Ecuador. This means that they can have a full-time staff. The

downside of having funds being provided from foreign countries is that their budget is not

consistent. Even though they generally cooperate with the state to get things done, unlike the

ecoimperialists, they still end up carrying out plenty of goals of ecoimperialists. Ecuadorians

also have a negative view of this type because of their cooperation with ecoimperialists and

their relationship with transnational donors. A main downside of this type is that ecodependent
organizations must compete for funds. This results in working against each other rather than

several organizations working together towards one common goal.

The third type is ecoresisters. Tammy Lewis makes a point to not refer to this type as

organizations. This is because environmental movement activists are sometimes part of a

formal organization, but they also sometimes are not. Unlike ecodependent, this type does not

receive funding from ecoimperialists organizations, nor do they receive a specific amount of

funding from foreign organizations. When they do receive foreign funding, it’s generally to

fulfill a request sent out from them in order to perform a specific project. Generally, their

projects are chosen by them and can be performed locally. Instead of having a full-time staff,

they are made up of a volunteer labor force. Their make-up is more favorable for civilians and

Ecuadorian government officials than the two ideal types mentioned above because funders

have little to no input in their agendas. Instead of focusing on projects they focus on their

process. For example, through workshops they provide, they educate communities on how to

monitor the environment, grab the attention of the media, and apply pressure to the

government. Their main goal is to resist the forces of development that will have directly

negative effects on the environment. An example of an ecoresister organization is Defensa y

Conservacion Ecologica de Intag (DECOIN, Defense and Ecological Conservation of Intag).

The last ideal type is ecoentrepreneur organizations. The agenda of these organizations

is to receive funding from local service fees in order to ensure sustainable funding. For example,

to they will protect the watershed that a water company relies on in exchange for a fee. These

types of organizations are the most recent types organizations that strategize to protect the

environment through “ecosystem services”. The most well-known program that can be
classified as an ecoentrepreneur type program was developed by the UN, Reducing Emissions

from Deforestation and Forest Degredation (REDD). In this program, low income countries

receive financial incentives in exchange for keeping forested land untouched. The goal of this

program is to reduce carbon emissions by paying countries to keep their forests there.

Lewis goes on to explain the importance of typology in environmentalism. In the

following chapters she provides case studies which uncover three main relationships prevalent

in the economic and environmentalist world. The first relationship is defined as how the

environmental sector is affected by outsiders, or transnational funders/ecoimperialists. The

second relationship is how different types of environmental organizations interact with each

other as a result of transnational funding. The third relationship is how the reactions between

the different organizations will result into environment and development policies of the state.

Review:

I love how Lewis so accurately articulates the characteristics of environmental groups

without it seeming overwhelming. The way she separates the organizations into “types”, makes

the material being discussed much more comprehensible. Because of Lewis’s digestible

explanation on the socioeconomic and environmental parts of Ecuador, I am able to take the

information she has given to me and analyze it in my own eyes.

Now that I have a solid comprehension on the different “ideal types” and their

interaction with each other and the world, I do believe that I know to a certain extent what

would work best for the state based on the nuances of the different types. I personally favor

the last two ideal types mentioned, the ecoresisters, and the ecoentrepreneur organizations.
The ecoresisters are favorable over the ecodependents and the ecoimperialists because they

hold no relationship with foreign organizations. Although, I understand that groups under the

ecoresister type may not have as much of a strong impact on the nation as ecodependent

organizations and ecoimperialist organizations can have, the idea that their approach is so

community-based. The best way to make change is to start from the inside, which would be the

civilians. This way, the importance of a piece of land that is being protected is not protected by

the money of a foreign organization, but of local community members. If the ecoresister group

were to not hold up on their project of maintaining the environmental safety of an area, or if

there were interferences from outside groups, there would at least be a strong group of people

to fight back. This not only gives their issues complexity, but it means that their projects do not

have stability in money, but in passion and spirit. Although, I do believe that out of all four of

the ideal types, the best type for the nation would be ecoentrepreneurs. The approach of

organizations that are characterized in ecoentrepreneurs is the most practical, in the sense that

their ways of protecting the environment can be smoothly interjected into the current

economy of the nation. If anything, it would be most beneficial for ecoentrepreneurs to join

forces with ecoresisters. Through the combination of these groups, practical approaches to

protecting the environment while making money while educating the public is incredibly

plausible. Some ecoresister programs have already found a way to make money through their

projects. According to an article labeled Community Based Conservation (2013), the DECOIN has

decided to use eco-tourism lodges in their 41 declared community-run reserves. They also

already have a large number of watersheds that are community run. With the
ecoentrepreneurs interjecting into their projects, this would be a profitable process as well as

educational for the people in the local area.

Source:

(2013). Community Based Conservation. The Intag Project. Retrieved from:

http://blogs.cornell.edu/intag/community-based-conservation/