1. Apply the echelons analysis proposed by Zwarteveen and Boelens (2014) to the case of gold mining in Ecuador. Can you identify each of the four dimensions of contestations?
| Echelon | Application in case |
| Resources | Water and gold, biodiversity -> contestations about which resources are used and/or protected for whom |
| Rules, norms and laws | New water law: protecting water sources from mining activities — yes or no
Official water prioritization (first for drinking water and essential human needs, mining comes later) but in practice not kept (economic interests more important) |
| Authority and decision-making | Indigenous groups fighting for access to decision-making processes on new water law (consultation seems to be limited and results not taken into account in the later process)
Also: Whose claims count? Whose claims are devalued? (note also how Al Jazeera deemed it necessary to confirm indigenous claims through a US expert, to make story more credible) |
| Discourses | Different discourses about development and the use of natural resources; e.g. Present Correa: „It is immoral to not use the resources, that are so greatly needed for our development, our education, our health“
Discourse about biodiversity conservation and mining activities being compatible —> opponents challenging this Discourses about anti-mining protests: displayed as eco-theist and ideological rather than ‚rational‘ (claims are devalued as „exaggerated“ Contestations about what risk means: e.g. mining engineer saying „every project is a high risk project; but risks are controlled by technical knowledge“ Whose needs is it about? Ecuador’s needs and not indigenous needs? |
2. What alternative “valuation languages” (see ENTITLE video) do mining opponents use to underpin their struggles?
- Indigenous leader explains how Nature is understood as divine and how, accordingly, struggles against mining are not „only to defend our lives but also those of the plants and animals“. Also mentioning that God Arutam is living in the waterfalls and that „machines are killing our God“
- Women saying „we can’t eat gold“ shows how water is not seen valued as a monetary/economic resource but as means for food and livelihood security
3. What different scales are mobilized in discourses and movements in Ecuador? And how can one say that the local phenomena presented in the video are manifestations of supra-local processes and power?
- Indigenous groups organizing on national level to influence water law
- Protests in Quito (capital city) and Cuenca (another important city), other protest activities close to the water itself —> struggle on different scales
- Also different content scales: about a specific local project but also in general about discourses about development (what kind of development model? Whose development? etc.)
- International market dynamics have triggered a rise in mining activities —> local and regional impact of global processes
4. Why is the presented case an excellent case for the Political Ecology field? And how does approaching the case with a PE lens differ from what for example a mining engineer would have seen in the situation?
- Shows how environments are highly contested and how not technical (or legal) criteria determine how Nature is seen and uses or conserved, but power, economic and political considerations -> environmental problems = political
- PE and water justice insights help to understand the multiple conflict dimensions and move beyond simplistic accounts (see first question) -> critical interdisciplinarity